Cont: Trump et al continued “2020 election” conspiracy theories

Status
Not open for further replies.
SezMe said:
Over at Townhall, the ultra conservative web site, over the past several months many of the commenters, when discussing election fraud, would say something like, "Just you wait till the Durham report comes out?" Like the Dems with the Mueller report, they pinned their hopes on the fact that a Republican doing an investigation was bound to find all sorts of hanky-panky. And, like the Dems, they got zip. Boo-Hoo.
Click to expand...




Here is how wrong you are.


Durham got a minor player convicted for altering a document. His investigation is ongoing.
 
Bubba said:
I know better that to trust a search engine known for restricting access to information, for one thing.

It sounds like you havent learned that. Its probably not your fault.
Click to expand...

To take stock here... You made a claim (one that didn't even properly address what had been said before, at that) and tried to produce evidence. The evidence did not support the claim you made. I pointed that out. Your next step is to try to attack me.

:rolleyes:

If that's where it's taken you, it's pretty safe to say that that's not a good place to be taken to.
 
SezMe said:
Over at Townhall, the ultra conservative web site, over the past several months many of the commenters, when discussing election fraud, would say something like, "Just you wait till the Durham report comes out?" Like the Dems with the Mueller report, they pinned their hopes on the fact that a Republican doing an investigation was bound to find all sorts of hanky-panky. And, like the Dems, they got zip. Boo-Hoo.
Click to expand...

How many convictions did Mueller's investigation get again? Last I remember it was a couple dozen? Zip, huh?
 
Bubba said:
Durham got a minor player convicted for altering a document. His investigation is ongoing.
Click to expand...

Maybe Biden will pardon that guy the way Trump pardoned the Mueller felons, and war criminals.

But I'd bet he doesn't because he isn't pure scum like Trump.

ETA: But even if he did, he wouldn't be pure scum like Trump.
 
Last edited:
Bubba said:
Regarding a possible election fraud related motive for a hypothetical false flag bombing in Nashville, about which some FB nobody implied that voting machines were involved.





Please take this in a good way, as an example of perhaps being not fully cognizant of a slice of a topic.....not to say that you are clueless, of course, but just maybe to consider that you may have a blind spot or two.








Please see above.







Well, the difference in the search results are rather "noteworthy".

Google is already known for (proven) restricting info for political motives

False Flag Attacks are the epitome of "political motive".

Googles search results for "List false flag attacks" does not include the attacks which DuckDuckGo lists, although some there are unproven assertions.

Its fair to say google downplays the existence of false flag attacks. That is political.

A sample of a more balanced view, with dozens of instances:
Click to expand...

The key to a false flag act is that someone has to wave a false flag. It can be a figurative flag, of course.


I wrote some more, but no one really cares, so I deleted it.
 
Bubba said:
What do you have against looking into possibilities?
Click to expand...

I have something against spending time on "possibilities" easily made up by some rando. If you find something with actual evidence you may gain my interest. Just flinging here whatever you find that sounds bad? Forget it.
 
Bubba said:
I dont know. I am watching the FB source, and looking elsewhere.

To me, their remark "Are bells going off yet?" says they are implying a possible false flag attack.
Click to expand...

I appreciate that you only post solid, primary sourced materiel here at ISF.
 
Bubba said:
You'll go far with that. Running to mediabiascheck or snopes etc isnt exactly doing your own research on FFA. Did you even read the list of (claimed) FFA?
Click to expand...

Ahh, since you edited this and I didn't see the edit until now...

I think the better question to ask to this is... what, exactly, are you trying to prove?

That False Flag attacks have happened in the first place is not actually in serious dispute. Period.

Given that, of what value is there in your attempt to push a list of (claimed) FFA? None, really. You've also tried to mix in the separate claim that Google IS engaging in restricting information about False flag attacks. The evidence you presented showed much the opposite.

As for the Media Bias Fact Check links, they're not about false flags and have little to no relevance to that specific subject. That you keep sourcing your claims from extremely right-wing biased websites that have a poor record of acknowledging reality is telling in a different way, though. Another thing that's quite telling is how remarkably defensive you are being on the subject of false flag attacks. You've been "triggered," by the look of it.
 
Last edited:
Bubba said:
Here's something "noteworthy"

Compare search results from Google and DuckDuckGo...
(google is the one caught hiding stuff from people in some parts of the world)

Search term: List false flag attacks

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=List+false+flag+attacks&atb=v253-3


https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=List+false+flag+attacks
Click to expand...

It is not possible to do a comparison because different people will get different results because Google keeps track of you and feeds you stuff that it knows you are interested in based on your browsing history. I don't know how duckduckgo handles the ordering of their results.

I use an anonymous search engine for that very reason.
 
SezMe said:
You first said it was from Facebook. Now you're saying it was in an email.

C'mon, Bubba, get your **** together.
Click to expand...

To poke back at this... he didn't say it was in an email. He was basically saying that the source doesn't matter, just the claim.

To be fair to that, of course, it's half true. The claim itself is what matters. It's just that completely unsubstantiated claims and claims from untrustworthy sources should not be trusted without separate reliable evidence in the first place.
 
Bubba said:
Just something to chew on. The At&T building that was involved in bombing yesterday, happens to be the where the voting machines were taken to conduct a audit of machines. So a raggy RV is pulled in then police recieve a call about shots fired. They arrive to find a count down tht sounds very official an allows for everyone to be evacuated. Are bells going off yet?
- seen on FB
Click to expand...



Yeah. The bells that announce medicine call and the last mail run on the unit.
 
Bubba said:
Georgia had over 16,000 more absentee ballots than they counted on election night. Just enough extra votes to put Biden in the lead by about 12,000 votes.


The Georgia Senate Committee released its report on the election irregularities and quite possibly fraudulent activity when it came to counting the votes.

They had listened to witnesses telling what they saw and other evidence that shakes people’s ability to trust the election report. They voted to rescind their certification.


https://ussanews.com/News1/2020/12/...ntrustworthyrecommends-decertifying-electors/
Click to expand...

Didn't the Retrumplicans do everything in their power to *not* let absentee ballots get counted? Because they suspected they would be disproportionately pro-Biden? You'd think he'd be relieved those votes weren't counted. Otherwise Biden's margin might have been even larger.
 
SezMe said:
From that link:


I have every confidence that Bubba did just that. I just know Bubba vetted it with great care before posting here.

Right, Bubba?
Click to expand...



So adorable, with the biased bias checkers.


Always with the attacks on messengers.
 
Bubba said:
Here is how wrong you are.


Durham got a minor player convicted for altering a document. His investigation is ongoing.
Click to expand...

Yes, a minor player for changing an email. To put that in context:

Beyond that one case, however, it has never been clear what exactly the Durham investigation is looking at. Many of the key figures in the Russia probe have never even been contacted. And the exhaustive inspector general’s report on the Crossfire Hurricane probe does not give rise, beyond Clinesmith’s case, to implications of criminal conduct. Durham has, in other words, spent 18 months rooting around in an unspecified combination of criminal and noncriminal matters: second-guessing intelligence and law enforcement conduct, following up criminally on referrals from the inspector general, running down Barr’s suspicions about how the Russia investigation really began, and exciting expectations on the right that the Russia scandal is about to finally be unveiled as a hoax.
Click to expand...
Linky.

IOW, Durham is nothing more than a fishing expedition run amuck.
 
wareyin said:
How many convictions did Mueller's investigation get again? Last I remember it was a couple dozen? Zip, huh?
Click to expand...

Yes, that investigation nailed some wrongdoing. But let's not kid ourselves - the Dems were hoping for evidence sufficient to warrant an impeachment investigation but they didn't get that. So it was the political outcome I was referring to, not the legal one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom