While no fan of Trump I do find it rather glaring that the whole "Russia rigged the election!" movement went on unfiltered for years. This is Twitter, though, they have never shied from their biases.
I don't think I've heard people say Russia "rigged" the election. There was a charge of Russian interference with the 2016 election. The two are not the same.
The charge of Russian interference is well documented, among other places in the Senate Report. [slashdot.org] There really isn't controversy there. (The controversy is to what extent the Trump campaign colluded, or tried to collude, with the Russians. The Mueller report answered that only by saying "collusion is not a legal term, and so I did not investigate wheth
The two are not the same. The charge of Russian interference is well documented
Distinction without difference to the point being made.
For over two years Trump had to endure baseless accusations of "collusion" with Russia — with government officials, elected lawmakers, journalists and lawyers falling out of every TV-set talking about it. The talk, though subsided after Mueller's report obliterated the allegations [theintercept.com],
you can't provide any evedience of vote rigging you don't actually have it.
That's what I refer to as absence of evidence — there may have been vote-rigging, but we cannot prove it.
To pretend, that this is also evidence of absence — that there was no rigging — is a fallacy. If "Mueller didn't exonerate Trump", then your judges certainly didn't exonerate Democrats either.
So, why are you allowed to claim, Trump "colluded" with Russia, but Trump is not allowed to say, you rigged the vote? Not
As the trials of life continue to take their toll, remember that there
is always a future in Computer Maintenance.
-- National Lampoon, "Deteriorata"
Inadvertently... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:4, Informative)
The charge of Russian interference is well documented, among other places in the Senate Report. [slashdot.org] There really isn't controversy there. (The controversy is to what extent the Trump campaign colluded, or tried to collude, with the Russians. The Mueller report answered that only by saying "collusion is not a legal term, and so I did not investigate wheth
Re: (Score:5, Interesting)
Selective memories [google.com], huh?
Distinction without difference to the point being made.
For over two years Trump had to endure baseless accusations of "collusion" with Russia — with government officials, elected lawmakers, journalists and lawyers falling out of every TV-set talking about it. The talk, though subsided after Mueller's report obliterated the allegations [theintercept.com],
Re: Inadvertently... (Score:2)
When you get laughed out of court because you can't provide any evedience of vote rigging you don't actually have it.
Sort of like the hunter biden laptop that was mysteriously lost in the mail.
Did it even exist is a question.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's what I refer to as absence of evidence — there may have been vote-rigging, but we cannot prove it.
To pretend, that this is also evidence of absence — that there was no rigging — is a fallacy. If "Mueller didn't exonerate Trump", then your judges certainly didn't exonerate Democrats either.
So, why are you allowed to claim, Trump "colluded" with Russia, but Trump is not allowed to say, you rigged the vote? Not