Democrats are employing some excellent brainwashing technique to defend the election as fair. Here are some of their tricks. 1. "Refuses to concede" is making you think past the sale that Trump's legal challenges will fail. This is their main persuasion trick. continued...
-
Show this thread
-
2. "Audit" is being used to make a simple recount of (alleged) fraudulent ballots seem as if that could potentially find all types of fraud, which a recount is not designed to do. When none is found (because they are not looking), they will declare it proof there was no fraud.
99 replies 1,268 retweets 7,646 likesShow this thread -
3. "No evidence" is being used to reframe "plenty of evidence but not yet proven in court."
166 replies 1,280 retweets 7,813 likesShow this thread -
4. "No WIDESPREAD fraud" is the defense against the allegation of TARGETED fraud in specific swing state cities. This is misdirection aimed at low-information voters, which is most of the public.
153 replies 1,485 retweets 8,171 likesShow this thread -
5. Massive fraud would be "obvious" if it happened, so therefore it didn't happen. This ignores the entire nature of the allegation -- that it is totally obvious to about half of the country. No one believes Biden got far more votes than Obama.
328 replies 1,260 retweets 7,614 likesShow this thread -
6. Trump lawsuits are being tossed out of court. The fake news does not tell you the strongest evidence of fraud has not yet been presented to the courts. The first lawsuits were probably just to keep the fraud argument alive while lawyers dug for the good stuff.
875 replies 1,123 retweets 7,310 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays
So you're admitting there's no evidence of fraud (which Trump's lawyers, including Giuliani explicitly attest to in court) and that they're just flailing trying to find something. Got it.
41 replies 1 retweet 197 likes -
Replying to @TheyCallMeTarz
Are hundreds of sworn statements from eye witnesses nothing?
66 replies 6 retweets 223 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @TheyCallMeTarz
Have you read them? Some of these sworn statements are that they were asked to follow the rules.pic.twitter.com/D4bUkCA9WE
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Who was arguing that they are all valid? Find someone who disagrees.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.