Ah, so it's photoshopped now - okay - but still, photographic evidence of their support is not sufficient for you on one hand.
but....
Why? It's not some right-wing rag, it's a Centre-Left publication. It gives the clear and concise facts.
I think what you don't give a shit about, is that the publication proves that the level of evidence you'll accept against Trump is the lower than the level of evidence you accuse me of accepting for my claims.
We don't know if he attended it.
Remember, the Rally was held where he lived - all we definitively know was that he was arrested and then released without charge.
That, my Dear Sugi, is less evidence than a photograph.
It's especially less when you say the Photograph was 'probably photoshopped'
I read the whole article, it was tedious - but one thing jumped out at me - there was no conviction. There was also no explicit tie that this policy came at the behest of either Fred or Donald.
Now, If you want to imply a degree of guilt based on a probability that such a policy came from the top (and not the more likely artifact of life in the late 60s/early 70s) - sure, okay - I'll let that slide....
On one condition though...
That you accept the same standard of evidence of Probability when it comes to Greta.
And considering in the 93 years of Fred Trump's life you only have 2 incidents, one in the 1920s and one in the 70s, whereas with Greta, I can point to multiple incidents in her short life, I don't think the balance of probability is going to be in your favor.
Bookmarks