Could have used some of that logic from the conservative side while their leader spewed the election fraud lies that caused the insurrection...
The rules for faith apply to politics just as much in religion. This statement is universally true always: We only ever believe what we want to be true. Evidence is not the driver, more like a backseat driver. If you dont want it to be true, there will never be enough evidence. Nor will you look for any. Heck, you might even suppress some evidence. Conversely, if you want it to be true, almost anything resembling evidence will suffice. You will seek it till you find it. And you might even make some up if its too hard to find. Few people are honest detectives. But to be honest, I think one needs to be aware of these tendencies of the human mind, which is not naturally attuned to the truth. This is why Trump voters are well nigh overwhelmed with sufficient evidence to cooperate with any forthcoming FORCE, emanating out of lawful channels. In that case, force would be used to un-obsruct evidence that Trump haters are suppressing, or otherwise ignoring, and not even hearing about. The purpose of the force is to bring the evidence into the light of day, where all sides must finally face it. At this moment there is enough evidence to warrant forced forensic audits in as many as nine states, overseen by either military or state militia. And if they have destroyed enough of the paper trail that ballots cannot be honestly counted any more, i would fully support re-run elections in six to nine states. Even though it would be forced, doesnt mean it cant be fair. There ARE fair ways to run elections, watched closely by both sides and even third parties. This is necessary to preserve the peace in this nation. And while this is happening, i would fully cooperate with a media blackout, or temporary moderation of all major legacy media outlets to bring the boiling pot of propaganda down to a simmer or lower for the ten days or so it takes to force a transparent audit or run off. Finally, if this requires delaying a revelation past Jan. 20 i would fully back that because an honest election is more important than that date. My understanding is the Insurrection Act and a couple other Orders would accomplish all this. I dont see why anyone should have a problem with this. Its so simple that yes, i think it would be treason not to do it.
Yeah, sorry, I wasn't invited on stage. But I have been saying it for quite some time now. As for what started the insurrection, I'm not so sure you have it right.
Ah, faith. So I should take on faith the words of politicians now? I would think if there is a class of citizens to not take on faith, politicians would be that class.
You honestly believe that if Trump had just accepted his defeat like every other president in history. If he told his supporters we lost fair and square, not tweeted any of the BS, and not had a rally down the street that day, that the outcome would have been the same? Surely you jest.
Im saying you will only take on faith what you want to be true. So, if a politician said it, and you wanted it to be true, you would believe it. Yould believe it even if a politician had shown themselves untrustworthy. Likewise you would take evidence on faith that you wanted to be true...even if the evidence is shown to be untrustworthy. If the evidence were trustworthy, but you didnt want it to be true, you would not believe it. Which brings us to this: What do you call "concrete" evidence?