• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

So you wanted evidence of widespread voter fraud? Here it is.

Booted said:
Multiple booster shots.
Click to expand...


You get the most votes in the history of the entire country while never campaigning. You get censorship. You get Hunters laptop being kept under wraps by the FBI.

You get a guy who's braindead and corrupted to the core after 50 years of deep swamp donkey diving.
 
Troglodyte said:
NOT
AN
OPINION
ARTICLE
Click to expand...

Flogtard, you moron.

Firstly, the article is a survey of an article from the Washington Post and it supposes to "find" that some corporate entity was hired by Trump's team to find out about election irregularities. Proof of nothing, except journalists re-writing the same story for messaging reasons.

Secondly, most contracts around such things would necessarily include confidentiality clauses about the work, so it either breaking confidentiality or hearsay. Neither of those is "proof" of anything, except strained relationships.

Thirdly, because of the above, the lack of attribution to real source, on the record, squares this a political opinion piece masquerading as informative. Zona summarized this well, and you got all caps and "Huffy" about.

Did you clutch your pearls while pounding out those ALL CAPS?
 
Confluence said:
Flogtard, you moron.

Firstly, the article is a survey of an article from the Washington Post and it supposes to "find" that some corporate entity was hired by Trump's team to find out about election irregularities. Proof of nothing, except journalists re-writing the same story for messaging reasons.

Secondly, most contracts around such things would necessarily include confidentiality clauses about the work, so it either breaking confidentiality or hearsay. Neither of those is "proof" of anything, except strained relationships.

Thirdly, because of the above, the lack of attribution to real source, on the record, squares this a political opinion piece masquerading as informative. Zona summarized this well, and you got all caps and "Huffy" about.

Did you clutch your pearls while pounding out those ALL CAPS?
Click to expand...
f7FdEdG.jpg
Hence, Huffpost :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
 
Confluence said:
Flogtard, you moron.

Firstly, the article is a survey of an article from the Washington Post and it supposes to "find" that some corporate entity was hired by Trump's team to find out about election irregularities. Proof of nothing, except journalists re-writing the same story for messaging reasons.

Secondly, most contracts around such things would necessarily include confidentiality clauses about the work, so it either breaking confidentiality or hearsay. Neither of those is "proof" of anything, except strained relationships.

Thirdly, because of the above, the lack of attribution to real source, on the record, squares this a political opinion piece masquerading as informative. Zona summarized this well, and you got all caps and "Huffy" about.

Did you clutch your pearls while pounding out those ALL CAPS?
Click to expand...
Right. If they had found voter fraud, there was a clause to keep that confidential. That’s what Trump wanted. 👍🏼
 
Something that is quite interesting is that they call the use of cellphone tracking data to trace the Idaho Coed Killer "Brilliant detective work" but when it was used to track the ballot harvesters by 2000 Mules it was derided.
 
DBS1970 said:
Something that is quite interesting is that they call the use of cellphone tracking data to trace the Idaho Coed Killer "Brilliant detective work" but when it was used to track the ballot harvesters by 2000 Mules it was derided.
Click to expand...
You aren't supposed to notice that.
 
Confluence said:
Flogtard, you moron.

Did you clutch your pearls while pounding out those ALL CAPS?
Click to expand...

200w.webp
 
Iron95 said:
The joke is that any of this is in a "court filing". You do know that Fox is owned by the same people as all the others. Right? Its just that we are smart enough to take it all with a grain of salt. Plus I still havent forgiven Fox for canceling Fire Fly.😊
Click to expand...
A court filing including text messages and deposition statements.

Grain of salt? So you’re admitting the election fraud claims were bullshit?
 
Troglodyte said:
A court filing including text messages and deposition statements.

Grain of salt? So you’re admitting the election fraud claims were bullshit?
Click to expand...
Are you dyslexic? Why do you get everything backwards?
 
DBS1970 said:
Flogmanbun you ignorant slut....

Fox lawyers have already released a statement denouncing the statements that were "cherry picked from larger context".
Click to expand...
Now thats funny
 
DBS1970 said:
Flogmanbun you ignorant slut....

Fox lawyers have already released a statement denouncing the statements that were "cherry picked from larger context".
Click to expand...
Oh, well if that’s what the Fox lawyers say…

“Larger context”? You mean like Powell’s “whole narrative” that Hannity said he didn’t believe?

Some damn fine cherries they picked! Can’t feed them to the sheep though. Carry on.
 
Troglodyte said:
Oh, well if that’s what the Fox lawyers say…

“Larger context”? You mean like Powell’s “whole narrative” that Hannity said he didn’t believe?

Some damn fine cherries they picked! Can’t feed them to the sheep though. Carry on.
Click to expand...

So your argument is that since Sydney Powell is a loon and believed the 2020 election was rife with fraud, the fraud allegations must not be true.

You do get that's not how logic works, right? If I go to the nuthouse and find a loon who believes the jab works, does that prove the jab DOESN'T work? If I ask one of the nuthouse contingent if the moon landing is real and he says "yes," that DOESN'T prove the moon landing is fake.

Your line of argument is the logical fallacy known as "guilt by association."

Guilt by Association Fallacy​

A guilt by association fallacy occurs when someone connects an opponent to a demonized group of people or to a bad person in order to discredit his or her argument. The idea is that the person is “guilty” by simply being similar to this “bad” group and, therefore, should not be listened to about anything.
Click to expand...


Get it? If not, have a 3rd 2nd 1st grader explain it to you.
 
Steeltime said:
So your argument is that since Sydney Powell is a loon and believed the 2020 election was rife with fraud, the fraud allegations must not be true.

You do get that's not how logic works, right? If I go to the nuthouse and find a loon who believes the jab works, does that prove the jab DOESN'T work? If I ask one of the nuthouse contingent if the moon landing is real and he says "yes," that DOESN'T prove the moon landing is fake.

Your line of argument is the logical fallacy known as "guilt by association."




Get it? If not, have a 3rd 2nd 1st grader explain it to you.
Click to expand...
😂 nice try! As if Powell was alone. As if she was being called out publicly by Trump supporters.

I believe the fraud allegations aren’t true because they’re baseless as evidenced by over 50 dismissed lawsuits.

No way you were a lawyer, no way.
 
Troglodyte said:
😂 nice try! As if Powell was alone. As if she was being called out publicly by Trump supporters.

I believe the fraud allegations aren’t true because they’re baseless as evidenced by over 50 dismissed lawsuits.

No way you were a lawyer, no way.
Click to expand...

No, you imbecile, I accurately stated your argument. "Powell is nuts, look what Fox said, so the election fraud claims are nuts as well." Guilt by Assocation fallacy.

Why don't you go through those supposed "50 dismissed lawsuits" and explain how and why each was dismissed. You are not just stupid, you are criminally dumb, repeating some bullshit from Media Matters without examining if what you claim is true (it's not).

Don't be angry I embarrassed you yet again, you blithering dimwit. You should be used to it by now.
 
Steeltime said:
No, you imbecile, I accurately stated your argument. "Powell is nuts, look what Fox said, so the election fraud claims are nuts as well." Guilt by Assocation fallacy.

Why don't you go through those supposed "50 dismissed lawsuits" and explain how and why each was dismissed. You are not just stupid, you are criminally dumb, repeating some bullshit from Media Matters without examining if what you claim is true (it's not).

Don't be angry I embarrassed you yet again, you blithering dimwit. You should be used to it by now.
Click to expand...
Temper tantrum!

You don’t make me angry, you amuse me.

The lawsuits were dismissed for the same reason Raffensperger dismissed Trumps request to come up with 11,780 votes. They were baseless.
 
Troglodyte said:
Temper tantrum!

You don’t make me angry, you amuse me.

The lawsuits were dismissed for the same reason Raffensperger dismissed Trumps request to come up with 11,780 votes. They were baseless.
Click to expand...

Go ahead and link to the court rulings on those "50 lawsuits dismissed." See how many were resolved based on actual evidence (hint - extraordinarily few). How many evidentiary hearings lacked evidence of actual, demonstrable fraud? (Hint - none. The rare cases where the judges took evidence showed demonstrable fraud.) How many did hearings where the judge took evidence did the judge punt by ruling, "Okay, fraud but not enough to overturn the outcome?" (Hint - all of the matters where the judge took evidence.)

Floggy Manbun Booster Shortbus - here for entertainment purposes only. Please don't try this at home. Floggy Manbun is a professional abuse recipient.
 
Steeltime said:
Go ahead and link to the court rulings on those "50 lawsuits dismissed." See how many were resolved based on actual evidence (hint - extraordinarily few). How many evidentiary hearings lacked evidence of actual, demonstrable fraud? (Hint - none. The rare cases where the judges took evidence showed demonstrable fraud.) How many did hearings where the judge took evidence did the judge punt by ruling, "Okay, fraud but not enough to overturn the outcome?" (Hint - all of the matters where the judge took evidence.)

Floggy Manbun Booster Shortbus - here for entertainment purposes only. Please don't try this at home. Floggy Manbun is a professional abuse recipient.
Click to expand...
So you didn’t care about widespread voter fraud and overturning an election, you wanted people like this arrested? 👍🏼



 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Steeltime
Oh, look what we "just" found out right after midterms are done!
Replies
12
Views
320
wig
W
Steeltime
Supreme Court's Presidential immunity ruling
Replies
17
Views
667
SojournerSteel
S
Steeltime
Election interference and election fraud - Part 1
Replies
0
Views
120
Steeltime
Steeltime
Badcat
Could this SCOTUS case push America toward one-party rule?
Replies
15
Views
268
Ron Burgundy
Ron Burgundy
Steeltime
Direct, proven, verified evidence of widespread voter fraud in Georgia
Replies
19
Views
416
wig
W
Top