Mr Gilliland, I’m going to make a proposal to you, and this is the final editorial I’m going to submit concerning your beliefs, because it’s obvious that no amount of factual evidence will ever suffice to change your position on any of the conspiracy theories to which you subscribe. By the way, your refusal to consider that you may have gotten information that is not credible is the classic definition of “cognitive dissonance,” which you accused me of, among other tactics such as “inductive reasoning.”
In my career in education, I have studied extensively the subject of educational psychology, and am very familiar with all of the terms we have accused each other of using incorrectly and I’m confident in my assertions. It’s also ironic that you accuse me of “projection,” because your entire set of arguments against me are also classic cases of projection.
Since it’s obvious we are not going to ever come to any agreements here, I believe that the only way to truly come to a decision on the validity of your beliefs in the conspiracy theories surrounding the 2020 presidential election and the foreign interference in the 2016 election is to look at what has been litigated in our judicial system. To read something that someone has printed that claims proof of crimes committed does not prove that crimes have been committed. The only way to prove the veracity of alleged criminal activity is to take the cases to court and let the evidence be judged. You should look forward to this happening, since Trump confirmed many conservative judges to positions on federal court benches around the country, up to and including the Supreme Court. It would seem to me that if it were credible that the crimes you claim had occurred, it would be strange that pertinent cases have not been brought to courts.
My proposal to you is that, if it is judged in the courts of our land that there is evidence of significant fraud of any kind in the recent presidential election and if Trump is reinstated as president and serves out what remains of the current four-year term, and if Hillary Clinton and/or the DNC are also taken to court over the Russian interference in the 2016 election and convicted, and if Hillary Clinton or any individual members of the DNC are sentenced to prison terms for it, I will publicly admit in this forum that I was wrong about both of these conspiracy theories, and make no excuses.
My question to you is; will you do the same and not use any excuses relating to “Deep State” or “Cabals,” or such, if these two scenarios I just laid out do not take place?
Election fraud conclusions are opinion, nothing more
In response to Iri Gilliland of Henderson.
You talk about deductive reasoning and the scientific method without understanding that these do not apply to politics. Whether you read right wing leaning or left wing leading articles, you miss the point that they are all opinionated. Yes there can and will be even some facts regarding the content of the article, most writers cannot help but put their personal spin on them.
If you want to get into the “scientific method” of elections, then study how the process works, from the voting machine end through to the canvassing and recounting process. Develop your own hypothesis, (i.e.; paper ballots are being double counted in Democratic counties) and then try to prove your hypothesis by trying to find that hole where this could in fact occur.
Until then, your “research and conclusions” are and will forever be nothing more than opinion, and your continual rebuttals published in this newspaper only further the conspiracy theory that the election was stolen when in fact it was certified by all 50 state secretaries, some after multiple HAND recounts of their paper ballots.
Pensacola, Fla. (former Aurora resident)