For Those Who Still Insist That There Was Election Fraud

[Arthur Brain]

Not according to God...

But we know what you think of what He has to say...

This is God's standard:

“One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established. - Deuteronomy 19:15 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy19:15&version=NKJV

The "two or three" part is significant, because it means that you need to weigh the evidence.

Sometimes only two pieces are sufficient, sometimes three are necessary.

You aren't weighing the evidence. Simply setting an arbitrary threshold for the kind of evidence you'll accept, and then dismissing all other evidence because it doesn't meet that standard.

It's called special pleading.

Would God's standard tolerate insubstantial evidence? It's all very well going back to the OT when such matters couldn't be established with more effective measures as we have today so would God be happy with the word of two or three witnesses in the present?

The only kind of evidence that amounts to anything is the substantive sort. If somebody levelled an accusation at you and two or three people backed it up with hearsay or whatnot then would that be sufficient to entertain as proof? Of course it wouldn't, especially if you were innocent.

These days allegations of fraud and the like require more concrete foundations than the words of two of three witnesses. So far, none of that has been forthcoming in relation to the 2020 election, credible and verifiable at least. Even Powell undid her own allegations with the 'no reasonable person would take them seriously' caveat.

No 'special pleading' here.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Proof of voter fraud to an extent such that Trump would have won if said fraud had not occurred.

Seconded. I'm already on record here for saying that if such was uncovered I'd have no problem with results being overturned. No fan of Trump in any way, shape or form but fraudulent election rigging is inexcusable.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Dominion voting machines? You mean the voting machines that are owned by the company that is suing Sidney Powell, who now says as her defense in court that "no reasonable person" would believe her claims of election fraud? You mean that Dominion?

Kraken lawyer Sidney Powell admitted in a filing in federal court that “no reasonable person would conclude that [her] statements were truly statements of fact.” Powell made the filing in response to a defamation suit from Dominion Voting Systems in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The Kraken Cracks Under Pressure Sidney Powell Claims No Reasonable Person Would Conclude That Her Statements Were Truly Statements Of Fact | Elections

Some 'witness' she was eh?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Tell me, @Arthur Brain or @User Name, what you would accept from the AZ audit as real or substantial evidence.

See User Name's response. Mine echoes it.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Would God's standard tolerate insubstantial evidence?

Evidence is evidence, and points to the truth in one way or another.

It's all very well going back to the OT

Yes, going back to the foundation usually allows one to stand firm.

when such matters couldn't be established with more effective measures as we have today

Why do you assume, other than being someone who inherently rejects God's word, that God's standards cannot be applied today?

so would God be happy with the word of two or three witnesses in the present?

Yes, because judges are expected to weigh the evidence.

The only kind of evidence that amounts to anything is the substantive sort.

Because you say so?

If somebody levelled an accusation at you and two or three people backed it up with hearsay or whatnot then would that be sufficient to entertain as proof?

The very next verse after the one I quoted deals with bearing false witness...

“One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established.If a false witness rises against any man to testify against him of wrongdoing,then both men in the controversy shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who serve in those days.And the judges shall make careful inquiry, and indeed, if the witness is a false witness, who has testified falsely against his brother,then you shall do to him as he thought to have done to his brother; so you shall put away the evil from among you.And those who remain shall hear and fear, and hereafter they shall not again commit such evil among you.Your eye shall not pity: life shall be for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. - Deuteronomy 19:15-21 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy19:15-21&version=NKJV

Of course it wouldn't, especially if you were innocent.

That's why the judge is to make a careful inquiry into the charges, and not simply dismiss them because they just so happen to not meet Arthur Brain's standard of evidence.

These days allegations of fraud and the like require more concrete foundations than the words of two of three witnesses.

That's because our (and I mean humanity's in general) systems are so broken.

So far, none of that has been forthcoming in relation to the 2020 election, credible and verifiable at least.

There has been plenty of evidence, just none that meets Arthur Brain's own arbitrary standard.

Even Powell undid her own allegations with the 'no reasonable person would take them seriously' caveat.

Who?

No 'special pleading' here.

Then you clearly don't know what special pleading is.

Here's a refresher:

Special pleading - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Derf]

Proof of voter fraud to an extent such that Trump would have won if said fraud had not occurred.

What kind of proof? Let's say it shows that somebody tampered with the machines, and the ballots recount different to, say 1/2 of the total Trump lost by, and mail ballots from unallowed or non-resident locations totaled the other half, and there were up to a hundred of other types, like dead people voting and double voting (I'm not sure if these can be substantiated at this time, but let's say they can).

Would that be enough to persuade you?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Evidence is evidence, and points to the truth in one way or another.



Yes, going back to the foundation usually allows one to stand firm.



Why do you assume, other than being someone who inherently rejects God's word, that God's standards cannot be applied today?



Yes, because judges are expected to weigh the evidence.



Because you say so?



The very next verse after the one I quoted deals with bearing false witness...

“One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established.If a false witness rises against any man to testify against him of wrongdoing,then both men in the controversy shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who serve in those days.And the judges shall make careful inquiry, and indeed, if the witness is a false witness, who has testified falsely against his brother,then you shall do to him as he thought to have done to his brother; so you shall put away the evil from among you.And those who remain shall hear and fear, and hereafter they shall not again commit such evil among you.Your eye shall not pity: life shall be for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. - Deuteronomy 19:15-21 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy19:15-21&version=NKJV



That's why the judge is to make a careful inquiry into the charges, and not simply dismiss them because they just so happen to not meet Arthur Brain's standard of evidence.



That's because our (and I mean humanity's in general) systems are so broken.



There has been plenty of evidence, just none that meets Arthur Brain's own arbitrary standard.



Who?



Then you clearly don't know what special pleading is.

Here's a refresher:

Special pleading - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The only evidence of any worth is the substantive sort, else it's worth what exactly?

I don't reject God's word as much as you like to keep flinging that out in regards to me because I don't agree with you as to what God's standards are. Frankly, if you're going to go down that route repeatedly, then explain to me just how it's 'God's standard' to hold children as young as five accountable for crimes as an adult, even to the point of executing them. What Biblical support do you have for that?

Who's going to determine who's a false witness exactly? Back then even careful enquiry wouldn't root out all of that by any stretch. That's why, with societal progression and scientific advancement, we have a higher standard of what constitutes evidence than merely the words of two or three witnesses.

It's not 'my standard' of evidence. It's the laws. Allegations need to be backed up, it's as simple as that. You ain't going to get away with accusing folk of fraud without a strong case to bolster it and that involves more than two or three witnesses claiming such.

Don't need a 'refresher' thanks. Your claim was erroneous.

 

[User Name]

What kind of proof?

What kind of proof is there? We can dream up all sorts of hypotheticals, but let's see your real world proof of voter fraud.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You mean the votes stole through dominion voting machines ? Biden hid out during the run up to the vote because they knew the stolen dominion votes would be a win for their shoe in pedo Biden.

Yeah, so why has Sidney Powell started claiming that her allegations regarding such weren't to be taken seriously by reasonable people then? A billion dollar lawsuit perhaps?

 

[Derf]

What kind of proof is there? We can dream up all sorts of hypotheticals, but let's see your real world proof of voter fraud.

so you’re willing to assess the data from the audit to find out what kind of proof? That’s what we’re asking for as well. I just get the feeling you’ll reject it as you have other oddities that have been presented.

 

[Leatherneck]

Yeah, so why has Sidney Powell started claiming that her allegations regarding such weren't to be taken seriously by reasonable people then? A billion dollar lawsuit perhaps?

Sidney isn’t the only one that found proof that the demon rats cheated. Wake up sleeper.

 

[Leatherneck]

Dominion voting machines? You mean the voting machines that are owned by the company that is suing Sidney Powell, who now says as her defense in court that "no reasonable person" would believe her claims of election fraud? You mean that Dominion?

Kraken lawyer Sidney Powell admitted in a filing in federal court that “no reasonable person would conclude that [her] statements were truly statements of fact.” Powell made the filing in response to a defamation suit from Dominion Voting Systems in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The Kraken Cracks Under Pressure Sidney Powell Claims No Reasonable Person Would Conclude That Her Statements Were Truly Statements Of Fact | Elections

You can never convince communist leaning folks to open their eyes after they have drank the libtard kool aide.

 

[User Name]

so you’re willing to assess the data from the audit to find out what kind of proof? That’s what we’re asking for as well. I just get the feeling you’ll reject it as you have other oddities that have been presented.

Let's see the data so we can assess it.

 

[User Name]

You can never convince communist leaning folks to open their eyes after they have drank the libtard kool aide.

You're right, I always suspected that Sidney Powell was a closet commie libtard. Now we know.

 

[way 2 go]

even in Guatemala they know biden cheated




Guatemala’s prez blames Biden for border crisis
as protesters tell Kamala Harris ‘Trump won’

 

[Derf]

Let's see the data so we can assess it.

Yes! That’s exactly what the Az Senate said! Wow, it’s wonderful when we can agree on so much! I’m glad you are beginning to understand the purpose of the audits now.
I bet you are now looking forward to audits in PA and GA, too.

 

[chair]

Not according to God...

But we know what you think of what He has to say...

This is God's standard:

“One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established. - Deuteronomy 19:15 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy19:15&version=NKJV

I would be very careful when speaking for God. Very.

As far as the verse goes, it's referring to human witnesses. Not "evidence".

 

[Arthur Brain]

Sidney isn’t the only one that found proof that the demon rats cheated. Wake up sleeper.

If she found 'proof' then why is she backing away from the allegations and her lawyers citing the following:

"No reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact"

Pro-Trump lawyer says ‘no reasonable person’ would believe her election lies

Lawyers for Sidney Powell argued conspiracies she laid out constituted legally protected first amendment speech

www.theguardian.com

 

[User Name]

Yes! That’s exactly what the Az Senate said! Wow, it’s wonderful when we can agree on so much! I’m glad you are beginning to understand the purpose of the audits now.
I bet you are now looking forward to audits in PA and GA, too.

Audits have been going on for quite a while now, so where is the evidence of massive voter fraud? Remember, Trump lost the popular vote by 7 million, and he also claims that he won the popular vote by a landslide. So that's 7 million fraudulent votes plus millions more legitimate votes that didn't get counted. Such a large amount of voter fraud should be easy to prove. Why is this proof so long in coming?

How did Mike Lindell, a pillow salesman who used to be addicted to crack and who is now addicted to Trump, become a legal expert on the 2020 election? How is it that he can see things that federal judges and legal experts across the board cannot see? If I didn't know any better, I'd think Lindell was high.

And then we have Lindell's fellow travelers--people like Sidney Powell, Mike Flynn, Lin Wood, etc.--who are also QAnon grifters. And we know from no less an authority than TOL's own Pastor Bob Enyart that the QAnon crowd are all mentally ill. So the people who are foremost in promoting the claim that the election was stolen from Trump are actually insane, according to Enyart.

And then we have Trump's official legal team. What have they actually been saying in court, in front of the judges? Not what they've been saying to people like you. Why? Because they don't have the evidence needed to back up their claims:

In Court, Trump's Lawyers Aren't Claiming 'Massive' Fraud

While the President and his lawyers make histrionic claims in public, the campaign's legal filings are narrow in scope

time.com

 

[Leatherneck]

If she found 'proof' then why is she backing away from the allegations and her lawyers citing the following:

"No reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact"

Pro-Trump lawyer says ‘no reasonable person’ would believe her election lies

Lawyers for Sidney Powell argued conspiracies she laid out constituted legally protected first amendment speech

www.theguardian.com

Stacked deck against anyone that tells the truth.