You mean like, if I was to claim that people sometimes see faces in images that don't really show faces, then I would need to provide some examples?Actually the burden is on you to provide evidence for your claims.
We've already established that I make no such claim. Many times now. Why do you keep insisting that I'm claiming people are liars? Why the need for this repeated straw man of yours?If you claim all these people are lying show me the evidence.
Yes, and unless you have evidence either way, both possibilities remain open.Either a person is lying or they aren't.
Wrong. The default state is "Well, they could be lying." That is equivalent, by the way, to the state "Well, they could be telling the truth."There is no actual state of "well they could be lying."
Unfortunately, lots of people don't keep an open mind when people like Trump say those kinds of things. It is, of course, possible that she "messed around". If Trump actually accused her of "messing around", without evidence, then he was making up a story and acting unethically. But let's suppose that he did actually just say she "could have". Then merely raising the possibility should not, in an ideal world, prejudice anybody against Mrs Cruz. Unfortunately, this is not an ideal world. In our real world, merely raising the possibility that somebody did something wrong can be enough for some people to conclude that it is likely or probable that the person is guilty as charged. It's not fair that people make those kinds of snap judgments and it shouldn't happen, but it is common.You're like Donald Trump: "Well I never said Mrs Cruz messed around. I just said she COULD have."
All I can say is that I have higher standards of decency than Donald Trump apparently has. I am not trying to smear anybody's character if I say it is possible that they lied about something. In such cases, it remains, for me, an open possibility that the person was telling the gospel truth as they understood it.