Media Bias

[JimC]

So, Cunt, you are edging around your previous hints, insinuations and snide remarks as usual, getting closer and closer to admitting that the last election was fair, that there was no evidence of voting fraud that would have any impact whatsoever on the result, that the legal processes have done their job, that Biden won fair and square, and that Trump lost.

I knew we'd get there eventually...

[Cunt]

You have. In fact, I would venture to say that it is exactly where you have been all along.

I've just said it's sketchy. I wonder how carefully you criticized the CLEARLY fair and square election results from 2016. I might go check.

[pErvinalia]

And you'll be wrong as usual.

[Cunt]

Oh, I am aware of you, pErv.

You get out on that beach? Days aren't getting any warmer...

[Joe]

I don't find your concept of fitness interesting.

So are you saying that all 60 some odd cases were dismissed for lack of standing?

No.

I was telling you that you can find that out, if you want to. Just like you could find a large number of examples of fraud, if you wanted to.

I mean if you can navigate around the social media management of the information.

I could, but I don't need to. As you've pointed out, I'm comfortable that the courts did their jobs correctly, and as President Trump's Attorney General said, “to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”

The courts have ruled, law enforcement has investigated, and your claims about widespread fraud

If you'll quote me where I claimed widespread fraud, I'll retract it and think you honest about it.

It could be that I think there is fraud, at least as much as expected, and the denial of it is what is so unusual. So vigorous. Such passion for a MOST secure election.

And I don't know what number qualifies as 'mass' to you, since I don't know where you got that quote. I have seen it used by dishonest 'fact-checkers' to fact-check stuff that wasn't said, but let me be clear - I don't know how much there was.

I don't know how much you think is significant.

But I do see you leaning hard on certainty, as if you think it is the most secure election that could be.

At least I'm glad the Trump admin did a good job making elections more secure. Maybe a bit surprised at how much you trust his fine work, but it is in the pudding.

Your support of Crowder's assertions is sufficient evidence of your contention, and your posting history only solidifies that impression.

As usual, you're trying to make this about me, but I'm not the object of discussion. You have a position. If I've misunderstood it, then clarify it.

Or not. As I've said, I'm satisfied with my understanding, but open to honest persuasion to the contrary.

[JimC]

You have. In fact, I would venture to say that it is exactly where you have been all along.

I've just said it's sketchy. I wonder how carefully you criticized the CLEARLY fair and square election results from 2016. I might go check.

Check by all means, if you want to be a Canadian Hermit...

I thought his election surprising, and that it was a pity that such an arsehole had been elected as President, but I didn't doubt for a moment that it was the legitimate will of the people. I surmised about the reasons (particularly the distrust of Hillary), but made no mention of fraud. Neither, except for a couple of minor examples quickly dismissed, did the Democrats as a whole or the mainstream media. Most of that mainstream media detested Trump, sure, but they accepted that he had been legally elected.

After the 2016 election Obama met him, shook his hand, and was a gracious loser (as virtually all previous losing candidates of all political persuasions have been). Not so Trump recently...

[Cunt]

No, I don't JimC. I just want to highlight that lots of people thought elections were very vulnerable to a few Russian ads, then suddenly they were secure above suspicion. Especially public suspicion on social media.

I support loads of Crowders assertions. If any of you get one of his right, and disprove it, great! But so far, other than difference of opinion, I haven't seen it in the election claims he has made, or the evidence he has brought to light.

And none of those critical of his claims have bothered cross-referencing those public databases either. I don't blame them. It can only lead to disappointment and frustration for anyone who wanted Biden in.

[pErvinalia]

Obama didn't lose. His two terms were up.

[Cunt]

Obama didn't lose. His two terms were up.

He didn't run anything anyway. He was Biden's puppet the whole time.

[pErvinalia]

Harris's puppet!

[Cunt]

No, Biden is Harris' puppet, Obama was Bidens' puppet, Harris is George W's puppet.

He's been the mastermind the whole time

[JimC]

No, I don't JimC. I just want to highlight that lots of people thought elections were very vulnerable to a few Russian ads, then suddenly they were secure above suspicion. Especially public suspicion on social media.

I support loads of Crowders assertions. If any of you get one of his right, and disprove it, great! But so far, other than difference of opinion, I haven't seen it in the election claims he has made, or the evidence he has brought to light.

And none of those critical of his claims have bothered cross-referencing those public databases either. I don't blame them. It can only lead to disappointment and frustration for anyone who wanted Biden in.

The likelihood that very clever Russian actions were influencing voters in the 2016 election is not an example of election fraud. It is a worrying example of how a foreign power with its own agenda can influence the minds of voters in a democratic country, but it is certainly not election fraud.

And, you have again missed the point. Some comedian making allegations is meaningless garbage, unless those allegations are tested in court. A great variety of allegations about election fraud were made since the election, many were brought to the attention of a variety of US courts, none made the grade. End of fucking story.

[Cunt]

Court?

YOU could test those 'allegations'.

What's wrong with you being the 'check' on this? Are you not confident in your database examination?

Oh, that's why I don't.

The thing is though, his allegations are fairly clear, easy to understand and easy to participate in. You might insist all day that the election was the most secure ever, and all the best people checked and agree.

[Brian Peacock]

And we're back to Square One: Cunt is right and it's up to the rest of the world to prove him wrong.

It's the circle of strife.

[Brian Peacock]

Like I said, I just don't feel the need to 'engage' on why you think you're fat and out of shape.

How very courteous of you.

You're welcome.