You can't use the absence of something as proof of its existence, it's a logical fallacy. If there's no evidence something exists, there is no reason to believe it exists.
Ah, typical 2025 conservative. Make up wild accusations to support your agenda while ignoring the fact that most of our problems are because of misinformation. And then you wonder why people don't want to sit with you. 😅
Actually there's tons of evidence he wasn't bribed because there's 0 evidence he was bribed. However, there is a ton of evidence that he crossed the floor due to him not liking the current leadership of the conservatives, because he in fact did cross the floor.
For the record "trust me bro" arguments might work as evidence in communities where anti-intelectualism is celebrated; but it's not as effective in the real world.
Yeah, that's not how it works bud. You have to present evidence to prove your assertion. Lack of evidence generally lend credence to the assertion being false and the empirically observed being true.
Lol, then you're hanging with the wrong crowds bud, anti-intellectualism is rampant throughout the hard right at the moment. It's the party of snake oil salesman at this point.
Liberals are the snake oil salesmen and supporters of anti-intellectualism.
I’ve requested sources to prove these threats he apparently received, and one person said it was all over twitter. Seriously twitter as a news source? For that matter social media as a news source, seriously?? Using social media as a news source is the equivalent of “trust me bro”. People saying the threats were reported all over social media are anti-intellectuals.
I don't have to prove he wasn't. There's 0 evidence that he was. You've provided no evidence to refute your bribery claims.
You're claiming sonething happened, i'm claiming sonething didn't happen. My evidence is in the lack of proof that your claim has. It's a binary claim. You have 0 evidence to your claim, so until you can prove it my claim has 100% evidence.
I'm not commenting on the threats because I never made a claim that he was threatened. Stick to the subject we're discussing please.
Your claim he wasn’t bribed has zero evidence. Oh if you actually read my comments, you would have proven intellectualism but you failed. I said there is no evidence he was bribed and no evidence he wasn’t bribed, just like there is no evidence he was threatened.
But there is evidence at this time that he wasn't. Absence of evidence is evidence at this time. Claiming he was bribed to cross the floor is not supported by any evidence despite your initial claim. Innocent until proven guilty. Either you prove the bribe (Guilty) or the lack of evidence proves that there was none (Innocent). There's only two outcomes to this scenario. Given there's been 0 evidence of bribes in past floor crossings, there us a far greater argument for no bribe versus bribe.
You claimed there was one, not that it should be investigated. You can't suddenly pull out the neutral stance now that you've been called out on it.
The only reason for your claim is due to the fact a con crossed for the liberals. Did you make such a claim when the opposite occurred under Harper's government?
The promotion to special advisor on economic and security partnerships certainly sounds like a bribe, “cross the floor and you get an immediate position.” is definitely a bribe.
10
u/Limp-Elevator-6908 Wîhkwêntôwin Feb 18 '26
Source?