Media Bias

[JimC]

Court?

YOU could test those 'allegations'.

I'm perfectly content that the US legal system, frequently involving courts with Republican appointed judges, have done that job for me, with a lot more authority and legal knowledge than you, I or Crowder the clown...

[Cunt]

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.

Crowder had a go at explaining his thoughts to me. So did you.

[Joe]

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.

Crowder had a go at explaining his thoughts to me. So did you.

So, if I understand correctly, you want Jim to check Crowder out on this database you mentioned, but you didn't. Is that right?

[Cunt]

If you need to doubt the numbers, that would be the way to doubt them.

I don't think it is important, as I don't have serious doubts about what he says, just because he's an asshole.

If you were interested in that aspect of vote fraud though, it would be an easy thing to independently check. If, however, you just wanted to act as cheerleader for the Harris/Biden administration, you can do that, too.

[Sean Hayden]

Sean: Crowder is claiming he can prove massive voter fraud like that claimed by Trump.

Cunt: Source? I think you made that up, considering what he has said about the matter.

One source:



Sean: 1. Crowder has only presented a handful of cases

12 is a mass.

Is it not enough mass? I asked before if it would take 1, 10 or a thousand, before you thought it was important. Remember, with you only having one legal vote to exert, even one bad vote negates your political 'voice'.

So, you're not surprised that Crowder did make the claim? Okay, I guess. I just figured you might be given that you thought I made it up.

As for 12 being a mass: something like 150 million people voted. Complicating matters further those votes are divided across states with very different election systems. A handful of examples of inaccurate addresses can't be taken as a serious effort at exposing fraud in such a system, no matter how badly you want it to. You'd want many more examples just to examine the issue of tracking addresses.

I'd like to also add that you're confusing things again. I already think fraud is important. My skepticism regarding Crowder's claims doesn't touch on the importance of fraud. Instead of asking how many examples I would need before taking fraud seriously, the better question is how many before taking Crowder's claim seriously.

Yes, it is an error, and while you examine his errors closely, you don't seem to have checked for errors in the other direction.

Agenda, or something else?

Can you point me to the research you think most accurately captures the fraud in US elections?








--before firing up google?

He is not allowed, by the social media owners, to show how many he found in the database that are 'undeliverable addresses', but he points out that while he can't make a claim about it, anyone can do the same research to find out.

Of course, if you say so on those tech platforms, you might have a problem, but there is no problem checking yourself.

But that is nonsense. If he has done the research he can publish it. You don't make a claim and then tell others to back it up for you.

If you would rather refute his claims, by my memory of them, come smoke one, and we can have a laugh.

Or be more rigorous than interviewing some sloppy cunt about it.

I know you like sloppy Cunt, but it doesn't mean as much as checking the real details yourself, does it?

I'm sorry, how do you imagine I came to know about his mistakes exactly? You certainly haven't been forthcoming with the facts.

You are quite skeptical of me, and of Crowder.

Why though, not repeat his examination of voter rolls to satisfy yourself with the real data, rather than his or my thoughts on it?

Because that isn't how this works. If his research revealed something important then he should present his findings. What he has presented doesn't hold up beyond providing for some interesting bs'ing. If you had simply said: here is some fun bs, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. But you both want to present it as something more, so get on with showing why it's something more and stop asking me to do your work. I might get it wrong...

[Cunt]

Because that isn't how this works. If his research reveled something important than he should present his findings. What he has presented doesn't hold up beyond providing for some interesting bs'ing. If you had simply said: here is some fun bs, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. But you both want to present it as something more, so get on with showing why it's something more and stop asking me to do your work. I might get it wrong...

It's not my work. I'm watching his.

If you want, you can use the methods he describes to find IN YOUR NEIGHBOURHOOD if there are any sketchy voters on the rolls, of this type.

I have no problem believing his claims, and while he isn't saying how many suspicious addresses the database search found, anyone who was interested could do it from their home, without putting on underwear.

Have you heard the interview with the state official? The official explained as best he could about how the roll was changed, how the information was confirmed, and some other details. You don't have to believe him on that either, you could, if you doubted the interview, call and do your own.

He is encouraging others from Whitmers state to file access to information requests. He has his opinion of her, and her poor behaviour, but I think he knows he is a comic, and not as believable, so encouraging you to file an access to information request would allow you to push him out and get the facts (or silence) from your government.

It strikes me as good strategy for his show, and a fine way for folks to show how wrong he is. If he's wrong about stuff, rather than just opinionated in a way that is unpalatable. If you raised doubts in me, about something he claimed, I would be able to check. Like the addresses he investigates, and the uncomfortable state officials pressed for answers about it, it makes good TV, and could easily be proven baloney.

If it was, I mean.

[Sean Hayden]

The problem Cunt is the claim that these searches reveal fraud.

Jesus, we go from showing massive voter fraud --during a very sensitive time-- to just some Boy Scout helping you understand how your government works.

[Cunt]

'Mass' depends on what you mean by mass.

He did show how you can repeat his search, and showed some addresses he confirmed were bad.

My suspicion is that it would matter more to some folks if Trump had won, so no surprise that most folks here are not interested in studying irregularities in the election they think they won.

[Sean Hayden]

'Mass' depends on what you mean by mass.

He said before falling off the wall.

[Sean Hayden]

My suspicion is that it would matter more to some folks if Trump had won, so no surprise that most folks here are not interested in studying irregularities in the election they think they won.

Yeah, sure, why not? That doesn't explain your refusal to accept the problems with Crowder's claims or why you haven't bothered to provide other sources in the interest of showing voter fraud. It's almost like the issue doesn't really matter to you.

The only thing that matters is what I quoted above, but that's like shooting fish in a barrel --when are you going to get bored?

[Cunt]

My suspicion is that it would matter more to some folks if Trump had won, so no surprise that most folks here are not interested in studying irregularities in the election they think they won.

Yeah, sure, why not? That doesn't explain your refusal to accept the problems with Crowder's claims or why you haven't bothered to provide other sources in the interest of showing voter fraud. It's almost like the issue doesn't really matter to you.

The only thing that matters is what you quoted above, but that's like shooting fish in a barrel --when are you going to get bored?

What is the problem I haven't accepted? Because he said 'mass' and you think a different number means mass?

Ok, he described it in a way that you would not.

Was there something else? Or was all his other info solid?

[Sean Hayden]

I pity this guy. Rather than honestly discuss the issues he struggles to maintain the illusion of superiority, and doing well.

Obviously I've provided much more to the discussion than a disagreement over the term massive.

[Cunt]

You didn't point out anything else I saw that Crowder was wrong about. I think that's why his show is a success.

It IS a show, but the point is, you don't have to believe him. Where you disagree, you can check. Such as his use of 'mass' (which I think was tactical on twitter, where he is currently managing lawsuits - another part of his show)

You might disagree with other points of his, but I missed it. Is he wrong about the use of voter databases crossed with delivery company databases?

He used it as a hint to know where to search for bogus addresses.

Here is a more solid question. If you found a number of shitty addresses, and their votes were mixed between both parties, that would suggest error.

If you did it, and found the suspect votes were all for one side, that would suggest not error.

While unsure how to create a good question around it, it points to a very good one for national analysis. For your own neighbourhood though, you could check your voter rolls, stroll over and see if they look like real houses, and if they don't, alert your government.

You CAN see all the current support for Harris, the most popular president in history.

[Sean Hayden]

Crowder is claiming he can prove massive voter fraud like that claimed by Trump.

1. Crowder has only presented a handful of cases

2. He has been unable to demonstrate fraud rather than error in the cases he does present

3. At least a few of his cases rely on mistakes he made e.g. taking down the wrong address

4. He provides no comparison of his cases to existing fraud research, so we have no context to judge the relevance of his handful of cases

Cunt: anything other than he got the word "massive" wrong?

--//--

Uh, what?

[Sean Hayden]

#2 Is important Cunt, and relevant to your last reply. You've continued to focus on our ability to identify "bogus" addresses without acknowledging the significance of the difference between addresses that turn out to be wrong, and fraud.

Anyone who has worked with databases that hold addresses knows how many errors they contain. I used to clean them up so that they were worth more to advertisers --sorry