Domino voting systems has a lawsuit against,  I forget who,  for $4M.

Did they destroy all the evidence or a chance to show how rigged the election was

Domino voting systems has a lawsuit against,  I forget who,  for $4M.

Did they destroy all the evidence or a chance to show how rigged the election was

Dominion Voting Systems is suing Mike Lindell, the My Pillow guy, for $1.3 BILLION!!

They are also suing Rudy Giuliani for the same amount.

That's $2.6 BILLION for defamation. 

I wonder if they have any computers capable of adding that large of a number without dropping or flipping digits?   

Great way to show the evidence that the other courts refused to see.

Snopes is straight up left wing propaganda. Cherry picking left wing propaganda sources does not change reality.

And OAN isn't just right wing propaganda?

And OAN isn't just right wing propaganda?

This topic is not about media bias.  There are actual threads for that -- instead of dragging this one off the rails every week.


 

And OAN isn't just right wing propaganda?

I would say more populist, but yeah there is definitely a slant there as well. Poop stinks no matter what ideological anus is squeezing it out. Folks who know better usually try to get out of the way.

I would say more populist, but yeah there is definitely a slant there as well. Poop stinks no matter what ideological anus is squeezing it out. Folks who know better usually try to get out of the way.

I just aim for consistency. I see too many people who only point out bias when it can be used as an argument for them but not against them.  Not saying you do that or anything, I just point that out to people on the left and right.

I just aim for consistency. I see too many people who only point out bias when it can be used as an argument for them but not against them.  Not saying you do that or anything, I just point that out to people on the left and right.

The problem is you point out a general opinion you hold regarding a certain news source without taking a single minute to explain whether you think the article itself contains biased information.

Discrediting the source even when the information is accurate is not an objective method of "pointing it out to people".  Try pointing to the FACTS, not exclusively to the name of the source.

Texas AG: No Election Fraud Myth Driven by Lack of Investigations

https://rumble.com/vedje5-texas-ag-no-election-fraud-myth-driven-by-lack-of-investigations.html

Texas AG: No Election Fraud Myth Driven by Lack of Investigations

https://rumble.com/vedje5-texas-ag-no-election-fraud-myth-driven-by-lack-of-investigations.html

You can't have evidence if NOBODY IN AUTHORITY AND WITH ACCESS TO THE INFORMATION is looking for it.

Half the problem is the STATES ran their elections.  There appears to be no oversight into those "anomalies" at the Federal level.

And no state's elected officials want to have their own elections called into question.  The problems existed long before 2020.  Those in power benefitted.  Are they really expected to run a fair and exhaustive investigation into the election system for their state?

"We investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong."

Without an insider producing watermarked audio and video of people admitting they are cheating while in the process of cheating, no state AG is going to lift a finger to fix the problem.

The problem is you point out a general opinion you hold regarding a certain news source without taking a single minute to explain whether you think the article itself contains biased information.

Discrediting the source even when the information is accurate is not an objective method of "pointing it out to people".  Try pointing to the FACTS, not exclusively to the name of the source.

If only you managed to maintain your own standard... oh well, can only lead a horse to water.

Texas AG: No Election Fraud Myth Driven by Lack of Investigations

https://rumble.com/vedje5-texas-ag-no-election-fraud-myth-driven-by-lack-of-investigations.html

Possible, but we can't assume the evidence is there just by the fact it hasn't been found.

Possible, but we can't assume the evidence is there just by the fact it hasn't been found.

We can assume the evidence exists because nobody wants to examine it in court.  If the courts wanted to see the existence and weigh its meaning, all they had to do was agree to hear the cases.  Simple solution.  To refuse to hold a hearing doesn't prove the evidence was false or doesn't exist.

Just like a jury is free to assume a person would have been negatively affected by evidence they destroyed.  Few people destroy evidence that is under subpoena or part of a search warrant if it helps their case.  Judges issue these instructions in cases where evidence has been proven to have been tampered with or eliminated.

We may not be able to prove the evidence points to any conclusions in court, but believing it exists stands up to the "reasonable man" standard.  A reasonable man can look at all the anomalies presented and agree that there are questions that have never been honestly or satisfactorily answered.

Possible, but we can't assume the evidence is there just by the fact it hasn't been found.

Let me correct your all inclusive statement. Only you can’t assume. Do not include everyone else in your all inclusive statement because it makes you wrong. And truly you are not telling the truth. Do not tell me what I can and cannot do. You control you, you don’t control me. Your “We” statement is inappropriate and controlling. It is an attempt to try and shut me down. Please do not do this again. This is exactly why I put you on ignore previously. If you want to try and open up my mind to another reality, don’t try and control what you want me to think.

Yes I can assume the evidence is there. I have seen some of it with my own eyes. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that points to something. Have you not read the page after page after page of evidence posted just in this thread? Most of it is real evidence. The fact that political hacks on one side don’t want to investigate with all the evidence that all points to something because they have the power to NOT investigate it does not mean nothing happened. But for them not to investigate because if the outcome goes against their party and their candidates and themselves does not mean the fraud did not happen. It just means someone is covering something up. I demand to know what that something is. Even if it is meaningless. It is my right to decide if it is meaningless or not. Not them. And certainly not you. It is your assumption that “We can’t assume .....” that is the problem here. Bring everything out into the open. Nothing wrong with that, right? But they are not. And there is a reason for it and I have a right to know what that reason is.

The fact that you agree that it is possible to me says that it should be investigated just to prove it either way. That’s their job to do. It would end all the speculation if they investigate and found not true. But the fact that they refuse to investigate possibly the biggest fraud in the history of our country makes the possibility of wrongdoing even more obvious and that fraud, if true would go against them/their party shows deception on their part. There is something there. I just want it investigated in order to find out what is and what is not there. The truth is not too much to ask for unless the truth goes against them. JMHO

We can assume the evidence exists because nobody wants to examine it in court.  If the courts wanted to see the existence and weigh its meaning, all they had to do was agree to hear the cases.  Simple solution.  To refuse to hold a hearing doesn't prove the evidence was false or doesn't exist.

Just like a jury is free to assume a person would have been negatively affected by evidence they destroyed.  Few people destroy evidence that is under subpoena or part of a search warrant if it helps their case.  Judges issue these instructions in cases where evidence has been proven to have been tampered with or eliminated.

We may not be able to prove the evidence points to any conclusions in court, but believing it exists stands up to the "reasonable man" standard.  A reasonable man can look at all the anomalies presented and agree that there are questions that have never been honestly or satisfactorily answered.

Not necessarily. A judge can weigh evidence and decide not to allow it. Just because the evidence isn't heard in a trial doesn't mean it wasn't weighed. Like for example the police may investigate something and find insufficient evidence to take to the prosecutors, or the prosecutors don't find enough evidence to take it to trial. Doesn't mean their investigation was bad or that no one heard the evidence.

Note that I am not making the claim there is no evidence or that all claims were fully and properly investigated, I don't know whether that is true or not.

.

Let me correct your all inclusive statement. Only you can’t assume. Do not include everyone else in your all inclusive statement because it makes you wrong. And truly you are not telling the truth. Do not tell me what I can and cannot do. You control you, you don’t control me. Your “We” statement is inappropriate and controlling. It is an attempt to try and shut me down. Please do not do this again. This is exactly why I put you on ignore previously. If you want to try and open up my mind to another reality, don’t try and control what you want me to think.

Yes I can assume the evidence is there. I have seen some of it with my own eyes. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that points to something. Have you not read the page after page after page of evidence posted just in this thread? Most of it is real evidence. The fact that political hacks on one side don’t want to investigate with all the evidence that all points to something because they have the power to NOT investigate it does not mean nothing happened. But for them not to investigate because if the outcome goes against their party and their candidates and themselves does not mean the fraud did not happen. It just means someone is covering something up. I demand to know what that something is. Even if it is meaningless. It is my right to decide if it is meaningless or not. Not them. And certainly not you. It is your assumption that “We can’t assume .....” that is the problem here. Bring everything out into the open. Nothing wrong with that, right? But they are not. And there is a reason for it and I have a right to know what that reason is.

The fact that you agree that it is possible to me says that it should be investigated just to prove it either way. That’s their job to do. It would end all the speculation if they investigate and found not true. But the fact that they refuse to investigate possibly the biggest fraud in the history of our country makes the possibility of wrongdoing even more obvious and that fraud, if true would go against them/their party shows deception on their part. There is something there. I just want it investigated in order to find out what is and what is not there. The truth is not too much to ask for unless the truth goes against them. JMHO

Ok, correct away. You can assume whatever you want. A more accurate statement on my part would have been that we cannot logically conclude..... Bascially a non-sequitur, my mistake.

I don't know about every single allegation but I do know that a number of the allegations have been investigated and they didn't find evidence/sufficient evidence of any widespread fraud.

Not necessarily. A judge can weigh evidence and decide not to allow it. Just because the evidence isn't heard in a trial doesn't mean it wasn't weighed. Like for example the police may investigate something and find insufficient evidence to take to the prosecutors, or the prosecutors don't find enough evidence to take it to trial. Doesn't mean their investigation was bad or that no one heard the evidence.

Note that I am not making the claim there is no evidence or that all claims were fully and properly investigated, I don't know whether that is true or not.

Name one case in this post-election cover-up where any judge listened to the evidence. 

It's one thing to blather about hypothetical "Not necessarily" garbage.  It's another to stick to the facts.

Since the judges in these actual cases refused to even consider the evidence being offered, your little lecture is one again off base.

Ok, correct away. You can assume whatever you want. A more accurate statement on my part would have been that we cannot logically conclude..... Bascially a non-sequitur, my mistake.

I don't know about every single allegation but I do know that a number of the allegations have been investigated and they didn't find evidence/sufficient evidence of any widespread fraud.

Who the hell is "we?"  You referring to yourself as the "royal we"?  Or do you include the idiotic voices in your head?

You don't speak for me, so maybe just stick to voicing your own opinions. Leave the rest of "us" out of your opinions and beliefs.  As Inspector plainly said, you using "we" is an attempt to claim your opinion is the one held by some group.  Unless you represent that group, try being honest -- use "I'.

Ok, correct away. You can assume whatever you want. A more accurate statement on my part would have been that we cannot logically conclude..... Bascially a non-sequitur, my mistake.

I don't know about every single allegation but I do know that a number of the allegations have been investigated and they didn't find evidence/sufficient evidence of any widespread fraud.

Guess you really don’t learn from your admitted mistakes. You DO NOT speak for me. And you do not speak for everyone else here either. Once again, your all inclusive statement that “WE cannot logically conclude...” is once again wrong and NOT TRUE. Only YOU cannot logically conclude. Not me, not anyone else here. Once again you are trying to shut down a perfectly good and legitimate conversation by not telling the truth. This is the last time I will make an attempt to discuss something with you. Either say how YOU feel and not include the imaginary “WE” or you go back on ignore. I took you off ignore and saw some really intelligent good conversations with other people and thought I would like to see what else you have to say. But if you are going to continue to try and pull this shit I will put you right back. Seriously EEF. Just stop it. You are intelligent enough to know you are doing this. Especially considering the fact that you did it again immediately after admitting you just did it in your previous statement. To try and win a discussion at any expense (by including the made up WE) is exactly why a lot of people here get frustrated with you when they try and have a conversation with you.

You are correct that a few minor allegations that don’t have national implications that can change election results have been investigated. And some were found to be true and people have been prosecuted. Some were found to be false. What you are not saying is that all of the major allegations that have the implication of sufficient evidence to change election results have not been investigated. So once again, until the major allegations are investigated not only can I logically conclude, but there are a whole lot more in this country that I believe feel the same way.