OAN says “no widespread voter fraud” after settling defamation suit.

brassplyer said:
However much of the movie you watched you absorbed none of it and you're relying on others to do your thinking for you and nurture your confirmation bias.

I read the article WaPo article when you posted it - you just don't like that I recognize that it's crap from a leftist publication that did its bit to echo the "Muh Russia" hoax along with the rest of the DemLeftist TDS-fueled narrative.

They use fallacious arguments to "debunk" the meat of what the movie said such as the geo-tracking of cell phones. The issue is the *pattern* of movement - which they can't refute. Sure is oddly coincidental that so many of these people just happened to go in a circuit right by drop boxes *and* these DemLeftist non-profits.

Sure - they make some statements in the movie that go beyond what their data shows - which is one of my main critiques of it - because I actually *am* objective, but the core of what they say is solid. It's not definitive in of itself but it sure as hell outlines a clear basis for investigation by authorities.

I'm sure you take the claim that the guy in Ga was "investigated" as bulletproof. What the so-called investigation consisted of was taking his word for it. That sure clears that up, yessiree.

"No officer, I swear I didn't rob that bank - honest injun!"

(y)

Like I said - a *real* journalist would recognize that the election stunk to high heaven and want to get to the bottom of it.
Click to expand...
The geo tracking of cellphones is what the article focused on the whole freaking way come on. It was bogus. They asked an expert—a real expert—on why it is inherently flawed from the get go.

But sure, WP is leftist.

You’re about as objective as a fish saying it can live out of water.
 
CrowsofFritz said:
The geo tracking of cellphones is what the article focused on the whole freaking way come on. It was bogus. They asked an expert—a real expert—on why it is inherently flawed from the get go.

But sure, WP is leftist.

You’re about as objective as a fish saying it can live out of water.
Click to expand...
At least you're consistent - you comprehended nothing either from the movie or from the leftist WaPo article.

The fact that you don't recognize that the WaPo is leftist is snicker-inducing. :LOL:
 
Last edited:
brassplyer said:
A real journalist's first instinct wouldn't be to say:
Click to expand...
When the movie is made by a tin foiler and peddled by one, all I have to do is read what other investigative journalists say about it.

Which is that it’s bullshit.

Covering this movie would never make it on air at my station and if I pitched it to the newsroom I’d get laughed at. It’s that bad.
 
CrowsofFritz said:
When the movie is made by a tin foiler and peddled by one, all I have to do is read what other investigative journalists say about it.

Which is that it’s bullshit.
Click to expand...
Tell us again about Putin's puppet according to democrats.
It really impresses people.
 
CrowsofFritz said:
Laidback, you always like to use “whatabouts” when arguing.

This has nothing to do with Trump. In fact, you keep asking why Dave brings him up and here you are doing the same thing.
Click to expand...
It has everything to do with the democrats and what they tell us to believe.
Besides, we acquired a taste after hearing it for so long.
Wasn't it fun while it lasted, though?
anybody that didn't believe was a tin-foil hatter, right?
that is sounding so familiar to something you just said.
Y'all need some new talking points.
 
WWLaidback said:
It has everything to do with the democrats and what they tell us to believe.
Besides, we acquired a taste after hearing it for so long.
Wasn't it fun while it lasted, though?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure I understand your point. We’re talking about the veracity of voter fraud. Saying “what about THIS?!” doesn’t undermine my argument.
 
CrowsofFritz said:
I’m not sure I understand your point. We’re talking about the veracity of voter fraud. Saying “what about THIS?!” doesn’t undermine my argument.
Click to expand...
take voter fraud out, and plug russia collusion in.
how familiar it becomes.
Trump was a liar.
Intel agencies say so.
Anybody that believes Trump's version is a tin-foil hatter.
same ol same ol.
 
WWLaidback said:
take voter fraud out, and plug russia collusion in.
how familiar it becomes.
Trump was a liar.
Intel agencies say so.
Anybody that believes Trump's version is a tin-foil hatter.
same ol same ol.
Click to expand...
Except there still hasn’t been any evidence accepted in the court of widespread election fraud that would change the outcome of the election.

I find it interesting that you all accept the justice department to not pursue a case on one thing and then don’t accept it when they don’t pursue another. It’s a good thing the department doesn’t base their decision off of what 30% of the population thinks it should do.

And a few cases of voter fraud (in which the system caught them) is NOT the same as widespread election fraud. Not even close.
 
CrowsofFritz said:
Except there still hasn’t been any evidence accepted in the court of widespread election fraud that would change the outcome of the election.
Click to expand...

Where has anyone ever taken election fraud directly to a courtroom and succeeded to get a court case started?
It wasn't for lack of evidence, because there were thousands of sworn affidavits.
Some of them from democrat poll-workers that were honest enough to admit it.

CrowsofFritz said:
And a few cases of voter fraud (in which the system caught them)
Click to expand...

Obviously a courtroom didn't work for those either, unless there were criminal charges to go with it.
So where does one take election fraud if affidavits don't cut it?
 
Last edited:
CrowsofFritz said:
Except there still hasn’t been any evidence accepted in the court of widespread election fraud that would change the outcome of the election.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that is democrat speak.
No court gave that as a reason for declining all the cases from John Q public.
At least none that I can recall.
Perhaps you can show me otherwise.
 
So here we have thousands of sworn affidavits that say there was election fraud.
If they were lying then why aren't they prosecuted and jailed?
Isn't it funny that nobody goes to jail?
Nobody goes to jail for election fraud, and nobody goes to jail for lying about it.
Maybe you can understand now -- why people feel our justice system doesn't work instead of telling them they are crazy.
 
WWLaidback said:
So here we have thousands of sworn affidavits that say there was election fraud.
If they were lying then why aren't they prosecuted and jailed?
Isn't it funny that nobody goes to jail?
Nobody goes to jail for election fraud, and nobody goes to jail for lying about it.
Maybe you can understand now -- why people feel our justice system doesn't work instead of telling them they are crazy.
Click to expand...
The affidavits couldn’t be proven. There’s a reason why “witnesses” in court are becoming less and less reliable.
 
CrowsofFritz said:
The affidavits couldn’t be proven. There’s a reason why “witnesses” in court are becoming less and less reliable.
Click to expand...

Sworn Eye witness evidence is admissible in a courtroom.
John Q public lacks the standing to go to a courtroom with election fraud.
That's why you don't EVER see John Q's eye witness evidence of election fraud -- decided in a courtroom.
That makes perfect sense (to me anyways).
 
Last edited:
CrowsofFritz said:
When the movie is made by a tin foiler and peddled by one, all I have to do is read what other investigative journalists say about it.

Which is that it’s bullshit.

Covering this movie would never make it on air at my station and if I pitched it to the newsroom I’d get laughed at. It’s that bad.
Click to expand...
We know your station was happy to broadcast coverage of the Mueller shamvestigation and other elements of "Muh Russia".

I'll bet your station reads boilerplate handed down from corporate - of course it does. :ROFLMAO:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top