[RedStateRocker]

Not saying 'the negative is correct'. The "negative" is the claim "just because there is no hard evidence of doesn't mean it doesn't exist" which is a fallacy that I thing should always be called out, regardless of subject. Maybe something without proof exists, but that is the realm of 'faith'. Just observing that, and it's a personal annoyance with conspiracy claims in general, that a claim of fraud needs to be proven. I personally think it important as a conservative, to avoid logical fallacies or claims that make our side look stupid or paranoid. I'm not saying you made any specific claim, just a point of order.

[RedStateRocker]

Actually, to clarify, the ‘claim’ is that there was fraud’, and the argument I’m attacking is “just because there is no proof doesn’t mean it didn’t happen”.

Way to often conspiracy theories and the like rely on this exact sort of reasoning: ‘of course we don’t have proof, the did a good job covering it up’. So I tend to fall back on what got beat into me in HS- the entirety of the burden is on the person making the claim as far as proof.

And I just don’t like conspiracy theories in general; people are dumb and gullible, and that explains most bad things more easily than highly competent criminals and cabals.

[SecAmndmt]

The term “conspiracy theory” was a construct of the deep state following the JFK assassination. Anyone who has a problem with conspiracy claims should take that up with our elected representatives, so they can remove criminal and civil statutes related to conspiracy from the books.

Don’t forget, the government has unlimited resources to promote or prove a conspiracy claim that they support, and unlimited resources to debunk or smear non-belief in official narrative. There is enough evidence of evil and conspiracy in our history to not ever accept official narratives, especially ones followed by improbably organized efforts at legislation and control.

Official narratives are almost always at least partly BS. Time and truth go hand-in-hand.