But doh! it was a republican!
What if claims of election fraud by Trump and Republicans were just false flags to hide election tampering by Republicans? She sure has some big balls to be claiming democrats were tampering with election results while she was doing just that.

Of course we should keep in mind this doesn't mean no democrats engaged in election fraud, it may very well be that both sides were cheating when they could get away with it.

Republican county clerk indicted by Colorado grand jury over election tampering
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/03/09/republican-county-clerk-tina-peters-indicted-election-charges/9440443002/

Wow, 60+ pages of DNC fraud for 2 years worth and finally 1 possible GOP fraud is found.

Enter Alanzo meme about busting out the big guns (training day, diner scene about a DUI stop).

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

please show me how "indicted by a grand jury" equals "proof"
i think you might have been asleep at a few classes at the academy...

But doh! it was a republican!
What if claims of election fraud by Trump and Republicans were just false flags to hide election tampering by Republicans? She sure has some big balls to be claiming democrats were tampering with election results while she was doing just that.

Of course we should keep in mind this doesn't mean no democrats engaged in election fraud, it may very well be that both sides were cheating when they could get away with it.

Republican county clerk indicted by Colorado grand jury over election tampering
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/03/09/republican-county-clerk-tina-peters-indicted-election-charges/9440443002/

So, you still haven't figured out the number one characteristic between Conservatives and Liberals?

Liberals use "what-about-isms" to rationalize and excuse their bad acts.

Conservatives just want everyone to be held to the same standards and rules.  If two are caught breaking the law, they should both be treated the same under the law no matter which party they belong to.

Democrats appear to have no standards or ethics.  Look at the filibuster.  They call it racist and the last remnant of the Jim Crow Era, yet, when they want to stop a GOP-supported bill, they don't hesitate to make use of it. 

Rules for thee, but not for me.

In summary, if there's election fraud, illegal acts by those handling the ballots, and cover-ups by those in a position to stop it, party is not important. 

If you think we all feel differently and blindly follow bad people because we are affiliated with the same political groups, then you're the one living with blinders on.

please show me how "indicted by a grand jury" equals "proof"
i think you might have been asleep at a few classes at the academy...

What do you think a grand jury looks at? It isn't an opinion poll
Do you think this prosecution is just made up? There is no evidence that this woman committed a crime and that the grand jury just gave an indictment just because?

So often the claims of fraud in the 2020 election have been rather suspect, this is just another example of a claim that is ending up being very questionable.

In summary, if there's election fraud, illegal acts by those handling the ballots, and cover-ups by those in a position to stop it, party is not important. 

Exactly how it should be.

If you think we all feel differently and blindly follow bad people because we are affiliated with the same political groups, then you're the one living with blinders on.

Numerous studies on the subject would beg to differ. Humans are very smart but tribalism is a strong built in trait in human brains.

Exactly how it should be.



Numerous studies on the subject would beg to differ. Humans are very smart but tribalism is a strong built in trait in human brains.

Maybe the problem is blind tribalism on the LEFT is super strong, and followers on the RIGHT recognize how utterly insane the Left's ideas are & refuse to support them?

"Studies" can assign correct or incorrect conclusions based on the same results.

What do you think a grand jury looks at? It isn't an opinion poll
Do you think this prosecution is just made up? There is no evidence that this woman committed a crime and that the grand jury just gave an indictment just because?

So often the claims of fraud in the 2020 election have been rather suspect, this is just another example of a claim that is ending up being very questionable.

please show me where i said the prosecution is made up...

What do you think a grand jury looks at? It isn't an opinion poll
Do you think this prosecution is just made up? There is no evidence that this woman committed a crime and that the grand jury just gave an indictment just because?

So often the claims of fraud in the 2020 election have been rather suspect, this is just another example of a claim that is ending up being very questionable.

a grand jury looks at EVIDENCE
it's conclusion is that there is sufficient EVIDENCE to proceed to a trial, so they issue an indictment
no where does it involve PROOF

please show me where i said it was an opinion poll...

Exactly how it should be.

Well it's obviously important to you

Maybe the problem is blind tribalism on the LEFT is super strong, and followers on the RIGHT recognize how utterly insane the Left's ideas are & refuse to support them?

"Studies" can assign correct or incorrect conclusions based on the same results.

As much as I would like to believe that conservatives are smarter and less susceptible to these human traits, we really aren't. It is easy to see when the other side does it but it is harder to recognize when we do it.

As for the science on the matter there have been quite a number of studies on this subject. If you really want to get into a discussion on the subject I can try to compile a list of studies that have looked at this issue.

I want to add a disclaimer, I have no problems with talking about issues of election fraud and security concerns when democrats are involved but I think we need to talk about it wherever it happens. Our bias (since most here on 2aHawaii are probably conservative) is towards pointing out fraud by democrats but we should also talk about it when republicans do it. Thats part of the reason I posted this story

a grand jury looks at EVIDENCE
it's conclusion is that there is sufficient EVIDENCE to proceed to a trial, so they issue an indictment
no where does it involve PROOF

please show me where i said it was an opinion poll...

You seem to be nitpicking, evidence and proof are often interchangeable. Would you like me to change the headline to be more technically accurate?

You seem to be nitpicking, evidence and proof are often interchangeable. Would you like me to change the headline to be more technically accurate?

You never really studied logic and theorems in school, huh?

Evidence is like facts -- they combine to indicate the probability that a hypothesis is correct or incorrect.

Proof is the conclusion.  When you prove something to be true or not, it's based on the evidence in total.

A fingerprint left at a crime scene is evidence.  It may or may not prove anything.

I'm shocked the King of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" needs to be taught this.

You never really studied logic and theorems in school, huh?

Evidence is like facts -- they combine to indicate the probability that a hypothesis is correct or incorrect.

Proof is the conclusion.  When you prove something to be true or not, it's based on the evidence in total.

A fingerprint left at a crime scene is evidence.  It may or may not prove anything.

I'm shocked the King of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" needs to be taught this.

When my car got broken into, had 1 rookie finger printing inside. Like they was gonna use that or even investigate. Pretty much left black dust inside my car, which I had to clean.  I mean they did catch the guys shortly after, but the prosecution declined to press charges.

You seem to be nitpicking, evidence and proof are often interchangeable. Would you like me to change the headline to be more technically accurate?

lol
the nitpicker saying i am nitpicking
they are not often interchangeable
they are specific legal definitions
you are always extremely careful with your words to avoid being wrong as you are here...

you are always extremely careful with your words to avoid being wrong as you are here...

Can you prove this, or do you have evidence?   

Can you prove this, or do you have evidence?   

That's nitpicking!

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

Step 1. Spread Lies with no evidence

Step 2. Obfuscate when confronted

Step 3. Pile on semantic garbage 

You never really studied logic and theorems in school, huh?

Evidence is like facts -- they combine to indicate the probability that a hypothesis is correct or incorrect.

Proof is the conclusion.  When you prove something to be true or not, it's based on the evidence in total.

A fingerprint left at a crime scene is evidence.  It may or may not prove anything.

I'm shocked the King of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" needs to be taught this.

And the grand jury concluded there was enough to justify the indictment.

Nonetheless, I am talking about colloquial usage of the terms, people often use these words interchangeably in speech. If we are talking about usage in an academic setting then sure, they are not the same. But if your concern in this thread is really the scientific definition of the word then I will change the heading for accuracy.

When my car got broken into, had 1 rookie finger printing inside. Like they was gonna use that or even investigate. Pretty much left black dust inside my car, which I had to clean.  I mean they did catch the guys shortly after, but the prosecution declined to press charges.

A finger print found inside your car is pretty golden, the suspect can't deny being in the car.

Why was the prosecution declined?