Media Bias

[pErvinalia]

They declined to hear that case.

That wasn't evidence of fraud.

[Cunt]

It's good of you to express such certainty and confidence in the election. I believe - FULLY - that you are convinced of how convinced you are.

Myself, I'm just less certain than facebook/youtube/amazon/alphabet have suggested I should be.

[Joe]

They declined to hear that case.

And I didn't say what I based my belief on, but it's ok for you to say anything about it you want. You are very convincing, just not to me.

I don't worry about convincing you Cunt, but I am interested in this claim you make.

You believe the election was stolen, yes? That there was fraud?

[Cunt]

They declined to hear that case.

And I didn't say what I based my belief on, but it's ok for you to say anything about it you want. You are very convincing, just not to me.

I don't worry about convincing you Cunt, but I am interested in this claim you make.

Which claim? That you aren't convincing me of your side, any more than the amazon/youtube/facebook efforts?

It's because you don't have any opinion (that I know of) which wouldn't be all over those sites, unimpeded.

You believe the election was stolen, yes?

That sounds too confident to be smart. Is that your position? Black or white? Stolen or legit?

That there was fraud?

Of COURSE there was fraud. Do you deny something about the fraud so far unearthed by Crowder? He isn't allowed to make some claims publicly, but he tells you how to investigate them yourself.

He speaks very carefully, having a lawyer (who is currently suing tech companies over speech) and makes his claims and evidence very accessible and plain. You could find it very easily, but it seems, instead, you want to tell everyone you found some sloppy Cunt was incorrect about something, and therefore there was or was not election security...

Um...why on earth would you ignore a source like Crowder, in favour of an anonymous Cunt on the internet, who you openly say you don't trust?

Do you want me to spoonfeed it to you, making what sloppy errors I will, so that you can dismiss it? Or do you want to try to understand it? I can try to explain it, but he does do a better job of speaking for himself...

[Joe]

They declined to hear that case.

And I didn't say what I based my belief on, but it's ok for you to say anything about it you want. You are very convincing, just not to me.

I don't worry about convincing you Cunt, but I am interested in this claim you make.

Which claim? That you aren't convincing me of your side, any more than the amazon/youtube/facebook efforts?

It's because you don't have any opinion (that I know of) which wouldn't be all over those sites, unimpeded.

You believe the election was stolen, yes?

That sounds too confident to be smart. Is that your position? Black or white? Stolen or legit?

That there was fraud?

Of COURSE there was fraud. Do you deny something about the fraud so far unearthed by Crowder? He isn't allowed to make some claims publicly, but he tells you how to investigate them yourself.

He speaks very carefully, having a lawyer (who is currently suing tech companies over speech) and makes his claims and evidence very accessible and plain. You could find it very easily, but it seems, instead, you want to tell everyone you found some sloppy Cunt was incorrect about something, and therefore there was or was not election security...

Um...why on earth would you ignore a source like Crowder, in favour of an anonymous Cunt on the internet, who you openly say you don't trust?

Do you want me to spoonfeed it to you, making what sloppy errors I will, so that you can dismiss it? Or do you want to try to understand it? I can try to explain it, but he does do a better job of speaking for himself...

Yes, I'd rather hear from you than Crowder.

Okay, you say there was fraud. You've also said the courts declined to hear evidence of that fraud. Is that right?

[JimC]

So, someone from Bumfuck Canada knows more about potential legal issues in the US election than the entire US legal system, including a conservative majority Supreme Court...

Yeah, right, and Boris Johnson understands quantum theory...

[Cunt]

Yes, I'd rather hear from you than Crowder.

Curious, but I'll try.
He found the voter registration.
He ran that database against fedex/ups/USPS databases (or some) and found 'undeliverable addresses'.
With those clues, he himself or his staff went to look at them physically, so that they could state that they themselves knew those examples were false.
One of those, was corrected by the state.
The corrected address was checked by Crowder staff. It was bunkum.
Crowder called the state staffers to ask questions. They didn't give much in the way of answers.

I asked when I ran over this before, as Crowder did, how many examples like that does it take to make you think it was fraud?

I guess another way to ask, is how many votes count?

Okay, you say there was fraud. You've also said the courts declined to hear evidence of that fraud. Is that right?

I say courts that dismiss a case on standing, don't have to hear evidence.

As to who has heard evidence of fraud, it sounds like you haven't (you still have my sloppy memory, instead of Crowders legally-cautious public statements...)

Who else hasn't heard them?

[Cunt]

So, someone from Bumfuck Canada knows more about potential legal issues in the US election than the entire US legal system, including a conservative majority Supreme Court...

Yeah, right, and Boris Johnson understands quantum theory...

WOW! Who's views are you misrepresenting here? Your own, projected onto someone else, is my guess.

[pErvinalia]

It's good of you to express such certainty and confidence in the election. I believe - FULLY - that you are convinced of how convinced you are.

Myself, I'm just less certain than facebook/youtube/amazon/alphabet have suggested I should be.

I'm convinced you are convinced you aren't trolling.

[pErvinalia]

They declined to hear that case.

And I didn't say what I based my belief on, but it's ok for you to say anything about it you want. You are very convincing, just not to me.

I don't worry about convincing you Cunt, but I am interested in this claim you make.

Which claim? That you aren't convincing me of your side, any more than the amazon/youtube/facebook efforts?

It's because you don't have any opinion (that I know of) which wouldn't be all over those sites, unimpeded.

You believe the election was stolen, yes?

That sounds too confident to be smart. Is that your position? Black or white? Stolen or legit?

That there was fraud?

Of COURSE there was fraud. Do you deny something about the fraud so far unearthed by Crowder? He isn't allowed to make some claims publicly, but he tells you how to investigate them yourself.

He speaks very carefully, having a lawyer (who is currently suing tech companies over speech) and makes his claims and evidence very accessible and plain. You could find it very easily, but it seems, instead, you want to tell everyone you found some sloppy Cunt was incorrect about something, and therefore there was or was not election security...

Um...why on earth would you ignore a source like Crowder, in favour of an anonymous Cunt on the internet, who you openly say you don't trust?

Do you want me to spoonfeed it to you, making what sloppy errors I will, so that you can dismiss it? Or do you want to try to understand it? I can try to explain it, but he does do a better job of speaking for himself...

He just asked you to explain it. Trolololol

[Joe]

Yes, I'd rather hear from you than Crowder.

Curious, but I'll try.
He found the voter registration.
He ran that database against fedex/ups/USPS databases (or some) and found 'undeliverable addresses'.
With those clues, he himself or his staff went to look at them physically, so that they could state that they themselves knew those examples were false.
One of those, was corrected by the state.
The corrected address was checked by Crowder staff. It was bunkum.
Crowder called the state staffers to ask questions. They didn't give much in the way of answers.

I asked when I ran over this before, as Crowder did, how many examples like that does it take to make you think it was fraud?

I guess another way to ask, is how many votes count?

Okay, you say there was fraud. You've also said the courts declined to hear evidence of that fraud. Is that right?

I say courts that dismiss a case on standing, don't have to hear evidence.

As to who has heard evidence of fraud, it sounds like you haven't (you still have my sloppy memory, instead of Crowders legally-cautious public statements...)

Who else hasn't heard them?

Uh, the court has to allow enough evidence be submitted to let a plaintiff show that they have standing. Standing is the right to sue, and Trump's lawyers would have to show he had suffered an injury that the court could do something about, that the people they were suing were the cause of the injury, and that they had a likely chance of winning a favorable judgement. This is how the courts weed out weak cases.

Here's the legalese.

If you can't establish standing, your case is weak. Were all the cases dismissed for lack of standing?

[Hermit]

And I didn't say what I based my belief on

Yes, you did. Your belief is based on a Youtube video made by someone you call a comedian. This contrasts with your unwillingness to believe that Chauvin killed Floyd "before the court does". You adopt different standards to suit your bias.

[pErvinalia]

And remember, bias is good if it's declared!

[Brian Peacock]

That is really difficult to parse.

I think he's trying to tell us that it's unfair/biased/prejudiced/corrupt for the courts to decide if material presented as evidence is actually admissible or not - that the courts should not have rejected things like the repetition of claims of fraud etc on FOXNEWS or in the right-wing media as evidence in support of those claims. Perhaps the reason he's somewhat sketchy on the details regarding what evidence he's actually talking about is because he's only got a sense or a feeling about the courts doing something wrong rather than access to anything substantive? If so, then we might wonder (because we'll never actually get to find out) where those uncomfortable feelings about the process or that sense of injustice comes from (if not from the exact same sources who promoted the idea of fraud and 'the steal' in the first place that is).

[Brian Peacock]

More people voted for, or against Trump, than voted for or against Biden.

Your vote is only valid is you deliberately vote for someone/something you believe in, rather than voting tactically for the least bad option. One would presume that some sort of ideological test would need to be carried out in order to ensure that only the faithful were voting for their specifically chosen favourite. Those who failed the test would not have their votes counted.