Reply #34: About the whole idea of proof

[GuvWurld]

I have a long record of arguing that there is no need to engage in the debate over whether there was fraud or theft, or indeed over who won. To do so only validates the potential correctness of either side. Detaching from that polarized debate, the objective conclusion is that current election conditions allow for no proof either way, meaning there may be no amount of evidence sufficient to convince the masses of a stolen election, but similarly there is no evidence to prove the reported results are an accurate reflection of the will of the voters.

I agree with Land Shark that this is a fake debate, and encourage everyone to side-step it by illustrating how we are currently assured inconclusive results by the nature of the election conditions. It is not only no surprise that people can't agree who won, it is completely predictable and will continue this way as long as voting is unverifiable and/or controlled by private corporations.