• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Allegations of Fraud in 2020 US Election

Status
Not open for further replies.
shuttlt said:
Yes. That is my hope. One way or another there will be some level of clarity.
Click to expand...

No, there never will be any clarity for you.

As quick as one ******** claim gets knocked down, you just move on the the next one.

The fact that the trump administration is 0 for 16 in cases should have already provided all the clarity any rational person needed.
 
Last edited:
johnny karate said:
You didn’t answer my question. Do you deny the accuracy of the quotes cited?
Click to expand...
They look like they may have come from the interview. I'm not going to listen to 2 hours of material again to verify them. Their overall claims about the interview are so misleading that they are effectively lying.
 
shuttlt said:
They look like they may have come from the interview. I'm not going to listen to 2 hours of material again to verify them. Their overall claims about the interview are so misleading that they are effectively lying.
Click to expand...

Your general impressions do not interest me.

Unless you have a specific issue with a specific claim and can back it up with evidence, you have nothing.
 
Armitage72 said:
Plus, when multiple parties are offering cash rewards for information on voter fraud, the volume of claims becomes vastly less significant than the quality of the claims, which has been negligible to date.
Click to expand...

This is an exceptionally good point.
 
johnny karate said:
Your general impressions do not interest me.

Unless you have a specific issue with a specific claim and can back it up with evidence, you have nothing.
Click to expand...
I gave the timestamps to the video upthread. If you want to wear blinkers and stick your fingers in your ears and refuse to look at the actual evidence, go ahead. You are unlikely to ever find anything to contradict you in WaPo and NYT.
 
shuttlt said:
They are all biased. That's why primary sources are important. If you let politically motivated people tell you what the evidence shows without checking up on it at least once in a while, then you've outsourced your brain to one or other party.
Click to expand...

Right. So when CNN says water is wet but Breitbart or OANN or RussianTroll.org says it is dry and you listen to CNN, you're just a sheep who doesn't think for themself.

*Jerk off motion*
 
JoeMorgue said:
Right. So when CNN says water is wet but Breitbart or OANN or RussianTroll.org says it is dry and you listen to CNN, you're just a sheep who doesn't think for themself.

*Jerk off motion*
Click to expand...
Like I said, they are all biased. I don't unquestioningly take any of their word for things. You are projecting your partisan way of handling evidence onto me.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Post Fact World Rule #1. All sources are biased, so there is no place to go to get actual information.
Click to expand...
Except Project Veritas, that totally non-partisan bastion of truth and honesty that would never deceptively edit a video or promote debunked conspiracy theories. And it's founder James O'Keefe is definitely not barred from fundraising in Florida and other states due to his criminal record.
 
shuttlt said:
Like I said, they are all biased.
Click to expand...

Shuttlt: Hey RockySmith76, before you get banned can I copy your "Both sides suck" excuse for not ever having intellectual standards or providing evidence for anything I say?
RockySmith76: Sure, just change it a little so it's not obvious.
 
Last edited:
shuttlt said:
They look like they may have come from the interview. I'm not going to listen to 2 hours of material again to verify them. Their overall claims about the interview are so misleading that they are effectively lying.
Click to expand...

ignore the man behind the curtain *nebulous hand waving*
 
shuttlt said:
Like I said, they are all biased. I don't unquestioningly take any of their word for things. You are projecting your partisan way of handling evidence onto me.
Click to expand...
That's ok, I don't take your word for anything either. In fact I automatically assume it is not worth anything - because your bias is so obvious.
 
shuttlt said:
Like I said, they are all biased. I don't unquestioningly take any of their word for things. You are projecting your partisan way of handling evidence onto me.
Click to expand...

Just yesterday, you uncritically and without question accepted that a post about a case of election fraud was from this year, when in fact it was from 2012.

Tell me more about your rigorous standards of skepticism.
 
johnny karate said:
Just yesterday, you uncritically and without question accepted that a post about a case of election fraud was from this year, when in fact it was from 2012.

Tell me more about your rigorous standards of skepticism.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Only Allah is perfect. To err is human; to forgive, divine. I sometimes get lulled by newspaper articles too. It happens.
 
johnny karate said:
Just yesterday, you uncritically and without question accepted that a post about a case of election fraud was from this year, when in fact it was from 2012.

Tell me more about your rigorous standards of skepticism.
Click to expand...

I will add that not only did he uncritically accept it, he used it as an excuse to criticize the NYT.

So let's just say that his "I don't trust any of them" means very little, when this is the level of critical thought that is applied.
 
shuttlt said:
Indeed. Only Allah is perfect. To err is human; to forgive, divine. I sometimes get lulled by newspaper articles too. It happens.
Click to expand...

Now that you’ve acknowledged your bias and gullibility, is there a reason anyone should consider you to be of good judgment?
 
pgwenthold said:
I will add that not only did he uncritically accept it, he used it as an excuse to criticize the NYT.

So let's just say that his "I don't trust any of them" means very little, when this is the level of critical thought that is applied.
Click to expand...

"I don't trust any of them" is frankly intellectual cowardice. Its basically a minimum effort tactic to try and make all mountains and hills the same height. Its using a sharpie on a US map to change where the hurricane will be hitting. Not all sources are the same, and while none are perfect and certainly some have bias to call them all equally untrustworthy is an unwillingness to do the work to check their overall credibility.
 
pgwenthold said:
I will add that not only did he uncritically accept it, he used it as an excuse to criticize the NYT.

So let's just say that his "I don't trust any of them" means very little, when this is the level of critical thought that is applied.
Click to expand...

And that unfounded criticism has yet to be retracted.

So poor judgment and a lack of integrity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom