politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
A promise to produce an "Irrefutable REPORT" is self-breaking as it's likely not possible to produce such a report about any subject, let alone one about the subject matter promised.
EDIT: There's a reason why "not guilty" and "reasonable doubt" exist as concepts in law. It's very difficult to 100% prove that something happened, only that there was a high certainty that that's what occurred, and it's 100% impossible to prove a negative.
Ehhh, just to be that guy, it is quite possible to prove a negative in certain circumstances. One of those is by exhaustive search, another is by proving a positive which is incompatible with the negative claim. I can prove the statement, "Sarah Silverman is not waiting in my bed for me right now," fairly trivially by a quick check under the covers. One could also prove it by showing that she is actually somewhere else. A less-trivial example is the statement, "The election was not stolen by widespread voter fraud in 2020," which has been proved by the efforts of countless election officials who have done both, ruling out the possibility of significant fraud anywhere, and positively proving the vote through multiple, routine election-integrity measures.
If you scope it all the way down to something miniscule then yes, but it's not possible to prove negatives more generally.
Proving non-existence of a divine entity for instance.
I'd say it's 100% impossible to prove a positive as well. It can be close to 100%, assuming our knowledge of reality is correct, but there's always the chance of something crazy, like everything being a simulation or whatever. Now, that concept isn't useful so there's no point considering it beyond that it's possible so it should be ignored. Still, it could be true.