Watch a journalist irrationally assert -- with lots of attitude -- that an absence of proof is proof of absence -- literally one of the world's most well-known logical fallacies. His audience can't tell the difference. And @RandPaul dismantles him. Fun.https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/1353358885755645953 …
-
-
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @RandPaul
Legally though, the burden of proof is on the accuser. If you can't prove someone is guilty of something, they are not guilty. Continue investigations, reform if its needed, whatever. That still doesn't change this premise of the legal system, innocent until proven guilty.
11 replies 0 retweets 33 likes -
Replying to @FACT_Exeter @RandPaul
In the legal system, yes. But the burden of proof for an election system is to prove it is transparent and fair.
26 replies 17 retweets 117 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @RandPaul
I disagree, legal challenges are available which makes it a legal matter. That's not to say I don't agree with a look at the election system overall, I think it has to be done now. Just that I don't think that fallacy applies in this case.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
We are seeing how one can mislead by pointing out a fact, a court challenge was lost/rejected, and asserting that this fact is evidence of truth. In this case, truth there wasn’t sizable/material fraud. FACT: We don’t and can’t know that. The case didn't disprove the POSSIBILITY.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
But should elected officials been seen to respect the rule of law? I think the answer to that is a pretty clear "yes". Losing a legal battle and continuing to assert your claims were true is not conduct you would expect from someone in public office.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
1/If a law isn’t working as intended and the result is injustice, you can challenge the law. Politically, would I? It could be right but if I can’t make my case in a way understandable to the people, I shouldn’t try. Unfortunately, with a media working against you and a populace
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Mike_Tzu_ @FACT_Exeter and
2/that can’t understand things more complicated that a stained blue dress is an obstacle. Trump, thinking he could rely on merely salesmanship appealing to the public was a mystery to me. Perhaps his role was to buy time through public opinion so others could try cases. Bad plan
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
-
Exactly, I think politically if you have active lawsuits you are on safe ground to say you don't believe things were fair and disputes are ongoing. Politicians shouldn't make claims about these processes if they aren't even trying to prove their claims.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes
Courts are the wrong tool for that, which was proven recently.
-
-
We had foreign interference in our election. That is all that is needed to strike the election. No need in debating anything!
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content
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.