The fallacy essentially involves using a sophistical tactic to shut off criticism about the conclusion of the argument — namely, that the 2020 election is to be presumed not to have been stolen. The unreasonableness postulate — Premise 1, in the ultimate argument — effectively blocks the demand to find independent evidence. The matter has been decided; to talk of a stolen 2020 election is election denialism. Or so we are supposed to believe, and without any further discussion.
Who’s Dave? Dave’s not here.
Trump is being tried right now for, among other things, interfering with the 2016 election by supposedly falsifying business records linking him to Stormy Daniels.
So on one hand, one can interfere with elections, on the other hand elections are secure and interference is impossible.
Which one is it?
There is another argument to be made that does not require a
syllogistic understanding of logic.
If I have to accept the result of the 2020 election as being
free and fair, what do I have to ignore or deny?
I would have to ignore the fact that Biden campaigned from his basement.
I would have to deny the differential in enthusiasm between Trump and Biden:
Trump attracted 1.25 million to his rallies
Biden attracted 2500
I would have to deny the evidence of my own eyes that revealed
that virtually simultaneously at 3:00AM in Arizona, Georgia,
Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, ballot counting stopped
for two hours with Trump ahead in each of these states. When
it resumed, Biden was comfortably ahead.
And on and on and on ...
They will do and say anything to cover up the big steal.