|
It's a no-win argument for either side, because those who question the validity of the election/investigation into it don't trust the sources debunking them and those who aren't questioning it don't recognise the sources that are maintaining foul play occured. There will be people who will forever believe that fraud occured based on their sources and those who will forever believe it didn't based on theirs, and never the twain shall meet. This is a new (and I imagine ongoing) problem for any kind of political debate in that a large section of society has no trust anymore in mainstream/establishment sources of information and turned instead to a kind of 'alt' media, much of it undoubtedly conspiratorial, which won't be recognised by the other side. So both sides seem to be living in parallel universes both of which are probably more or less false, but where one clearly has far greater influence than the other.
In other words, it isn't about who's telling the truth but who's lying the loudest.
|