Robert Arvey finds the establishment’s standard of proof this year impossible to meet.
One of my idle hobbies is writing science fiction stories. The first one will be published after I die, at which point I will become rich and famous.
None of them, however, is as strange as the bizarre world in which we now find ourselves. It is as if criminals had broken into your house, while you were home, in broad daylight, and begun loading up your valuable belongings in a rented truck parked in your driveway. You immediately pick up the phone and dial 911.
“911. What is your emergency?”
“I’m being robbed.”
“Really?”
“Yes!”
“Do you have any evidence of that?”
“Yes! I’m looking right at the robbers.”
“Okay. But do you have any video?”
“As a matter of fact, my security cameras are running right now.”
“Good. Put your phone next to the video and let me see.”
“Okay. Here’s the video, and here is live feed of the robbers, directly from my phone.”
“I see. But there are other possible explanations for what is going on.”
“What other possible explanation could there be? You can actually see them robbing my house.”
“Has any court ruled that they are doing that?”
“Court? What the hell are you talking about? You can see them with your own eyes.”
“Let me talk to them.”
“Talk to them? Are you crazy?”
Just then, one of the robbers hears what you said and takes the phone from your hand. “Hello,” he says. Then, “No, we’re not robbing this guy’s house. He’s just a sore loser.” He gives you back the phone.
“This is 911 again. He denies that he is robbing your house.”
“But you can plainly see him.”
“Sir, there are laws against robbing houses. And you have no evidence of widespread house-robbing.”
The police finally show up, and you say, “These guys are robbing my house.”
“Can you prove that?”
“Prove it? Has everyone gone crazy?”
SteveS
Something I keep seeing lately is the phrase “There is no evidence of widespread election fraud”.
It seems a rather lawyerly phrasing, not just plain election fraud, but *widespread* fraud. And a bit curious that the same phrase keeps appearing, as if it was on some journalist Meme of the Day list.
Strictly speaking, it is true. There is no evidence of widespread fraud – it was all confined to a handful of swing states. None of the Red or Blue states had problems counting votes. Another curiosity.
Think of it as magicians patter, a steady stream of talk and motion to distract you from what is really going on.
Boligat
I’ve noticed the same thing with regards to “evidence”. The naysayers are telling everyone that what we have is anecdotal evidence. What I would like to know is what does it take for anecdotal evidence to become just plain ol’ evidence? I’m betting that it has to be admissible in court, but if no court will take it, it will never clear that bar.
Or something like that.
ruralcounsel
No “widespread” evidence of election fraud is immaterial.
If you were in a poker game, and someone only cheated during one hand of the game, but it cleaned everyone else out, it matters. Widespread or not.
They cheated. We know they cheated. They know we know they cheated. This is brazen, it’s open, and it’s in our faces. And they have the gall to ask for unity and a peaceful transition.
Nothing about this past election result for POTUS should be respected at this point. Nothing.
Mike--SMO
So, what’cha going to do about it?
Please Leave a Comment!