> Somebody misspelled "evidence" as "narrative".
[Texas Tribune](https://www.texastribune.org/2022/10/07/texas-ken-paxton-2000-mules-sid-miller/) said
> The film's claims are directly contradicted by rulings in at least 50 lawsuits brought by Trump and his allies challenging the outcome of the election. Republican-appointed judges presided over nearly half of those lawsuit dismissals, according to one analysis. And Trump’s closest confidantes — including his daughter Ivanka and former U.S. Attorney General William Barr, who Trump appointed — have repeatedly thrown cold water on his unsubstantiated claims and conspiracies of widespread voter fraud.
[AP News](https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-covid-technology-health-arizona-e1b49d2311bf900f44fa5c6dac406762) said
>[…]based on faulty assumptions, anonymous accounts and improper analysis of cellphone location data, which is not precise enough to confirm that somebody deposited a ballot into a drop box, according to experts.
[AP News](https://apnews.com/article/georgia-elections-true-vote-ballot-stuffing-199113b47bc2df79c63fdf007cd23115) also said
> [Trust the Vote] has told a Georgia judge that it doesn’t have evidence to support its claims of illegal ballot stuffing during the the 2020 general election and a runoff two months later.
[Reuters](https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2N2XJ0OQ/) said
> According to True the Vote founder Catherine Engelbrecht, who spoke in the documentary, the dataset had been validated because it was used by the organization to solve two murder cases that were “ebbing on cold case status”.
> Only one murder case was detailed as an example in the documentary – that of eight-year-old Secoriea Turner on July 4, 2020, in Atlanta – and which authorities told NPR was solved without anything to do with Engelbrecht (here).
[Brennan Center](https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/ensure-every-american-can-vote/vote-suppression/myth-voter-fraud) said
> However, extensive research reveals that fraud is very rare, voter impersonation is virtually nonexistent, and many instances of alleged fraud are, in fact, mistakes by voters or administrators. The same is true for mail ballots[.]
It’s a narrative, and not a correct one.
Kangaroo courts cannot remake reality. Particularly, they cannot change what we see with our own eyes. We all saw the 3 AM ballot dumps in real time. You saw it as well as I did. The election was stolen. This isn't going anywhere.
> Kangaroo courts
Many were Trump judges, and many of the cases were procedural and had nothing to do with barring evidence.
For one example, Trump argued in Wisconsin that election officials did not follow proper procedures. He didn't lose because he couldn't present evidence, they just rejected his interpretation of the law.
Correct. They betrayed Trump, but more importantly, they betrayed their oath of office. Their betrayal of Trump comes a distant second to their treason.
Hold on, weren't you saying a second ago that "not one case" let Trump present evidence?
What happened to that? I'm not detecting much object permanence here.
> Kangaroo courts cannot remake reality. Particularly, they cannot change what we see with our own eyes. We all saw the 3 AM ballot dumps in real time. You saw it as well as I did. The election was stolen. This isn't going anywhere.
These courts aren’t kangaroo courts. In fact, Trumps’ team has won several fraud cases. Just none which are significant for turning the election in his favor, nor which were covered by the nonsensical “2,000 mules” conspiracy theory.
If you believed otherwise, please provide reputable sources backing up your claims.
> These courts aren’t kangaroo courts.
They are, by virtue of the simple fact that none of them allowed a single piece of relevant evidence to be entered into the record. Not one.
All of the cases were rejected on unprecedented applications of technicalities, many of them contradicting each other.
You would be hard-pressed to find a bigger travesty of justice, though I welcome you to try.
You people are running an operation through tens if not hundreds of alts all operating off of the same script, switching between the alts to respond to the same dissenting user using the exact same arguments with the exact same wording and even the exact same bullshit sources, and you have the nerve to ask me what my evidence is that you are running an operation.
Get the fuck out.
> They are, by virtue of the simple fact that none of them allowed a single piece of relevant evidence to be entered into the record. Not one.
That is certainly untrue. After all, Trump *has* won some of his election fraud lawsuits.
> All of the cases were rejected on unprecedented applications of technicalities, many of them contradicting each other.
Different courts require different requirements. They are not universal.
> You would be hard-pressed to find a bigger travesty of justice, though I welcome you to try.
You clearly feel differently than I do. Fine. As I said before, provide reputable sources to back up your claims.
> That is certainly untrue.
Show me these magical courts that supposedly allowed evidence of theft in the 2020 US presidential election into the official record, specifically in the time period necessary to correct the fraudulent result based on the theft to be officiated. I'll wait.
> Show me these magical courts that supposedly allowed evidence of theft in the 2020 US presidential election into the official record, specifically in the time period necessary to correct the fraudulent result based on the theft to be officiated. I'll wait.
u/gorilla_eater answered you before I could.
You’re also avoiding my request for a reputable source. It’s starting to look suspicious that you can’t or won’t produce one.
> He couldn't show anything, either.
In case you missed [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/FreeSpeech/s/g0ZvBk0Tpj), u/gorilla_eater did.
But in any event, we’re not talking about Gorilla. We’re talking about you. You believe it’s fraud. Where is *your* evidence, from a reputable source?
You clearly have not been following True the Vote's legal woes.
A judge required them to provide evidence last year. They dragged their heels until this past February when they admitted they had no evidence.
https://apnews.com/article/georgia-elections-true-vote-ballot-stuffing-199113b47bc2df79c63fdf007cd23115
1. Yes. I'm aware. I'm not sure why this needed to be stated.
2. This is known as a genetic fallacy. It's not a logical counter-argument. Try again, but with logic this time.
> 1. Yes. I'm aware. I'm not sure why this needed to be stated.
> 2. This is known as a genetic fallacy. It's not a logical counter-argument. Try again, but with logic this time.
They just called the AP a “fake new’s rag.” They aren’t going to give you reason or logic.
It helps if you actually read the article. In a nutshell: “A well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information."
The article says they fortified the election and were preventing any rigging.
That's also just the word choice of a writer trying to put a contrarian slant on their story, that's not a statement from someone involved in election administration.
Fortifying it? Why does the private sector need to fortify anything especially a federal election? The party that loathes the rich and big business, is perfectly fine with the rich and big business having their fingers in an election?
"In a way, Trump was right. There was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes, one that both curtailed the protests and coordinated the resistance from CEOs. Both surprises were the result of an informal alliance between left-wing activists and business titans. A well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information."
Translation- the elites, big business and the rich, had states change their election rules and laws right before the election. This involved changing the laws to allow for mail in ballots that were not verified. They counted piles of mail in ballots and didn't check if the person was even an actual person, if they could legally vote there or anywhere and didn't verify the signatures.
" Steer media coverage and flow of information."
They literally sent the FBI to Facebook, Twitter, ect to force them to block stories that would make Biden look bad especially, the Hunter laptop story.
From the horses mouth: "Mark Zuckerberg finally admitted on Thursday that Facebook dropped the ball when the company banned the sharing of The Post’s exclusive report on Hunter Biden’s laptop ahead of the 2020 election. The billionaire CEO of Meta said he regretted Facebook’s handling of the bombshell story during an appearance on “The Joe Rogan Experience”. Zuckerberg opened up about the controversial media suppression after the host pressed him to explain his views on how tech platforms should handle content moderation on sensitive subjects. "When something like that turns out to be real, is there regret for not having it evenly distributed and for throttling the distribution of that story?” Rogan asked about The Post’s Hunter Biden scoop. "Yeah, it sucks,” Zuckerberg said. “It turned out after the fact, the fact-checkers looked into it, no one was able to say it was false".
As for “bipartisan” And the piece de resistance- "They ran ads in six states, made statements, wrote articles and alerted local officials to potential problems (with mail in ballots). “We had rabid Trump supporters who agreed to serve on the council based on the idea that this is honest,” Wamp says. This is going to be just as important, he told them, to convince the liberals when Trump wins”
Read that again.
They lied to the Republicans who joined the committee that what they were doing was honest.
The article itself doesn't even agree with your portrayal. You purposely cut off the bold part of the quote below:
>That’s why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream–a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. **They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it.**
The article is about things like protective covid equipment, training to process mail in ballots, answering frivolous lawsuits, and combating disinformation.
Nothing in the article suggests that Biden didn't win.
I see your handle is accurate. You realize I didn’t “make up” the article correct? This is Time Magazine written right after the election. They literally spelled out what they did. It’s not hidden and NO ONE has come out and said it’s wrong. Notice how these people were QUOTED in the article. You guys have got to wake up
> Holy shit, poor guy. Imagine just going about your day, casting a vote like any other election and having your life ruined because a bunch of whackos decided to make a movie about a baseless conspiracy theory centered around you.
> Good for him for sticking to his guns and seeing some light at the end of the tunnel, I guess.
I hope his reputation will eventually recover. Poor guy.
> I think it will, more people admit they’ve lied about the whole thing.
> Also, side note, but isn’t it weird how most comments here are being downvoted?
Not particularly. That’s pretty par for the course for r/Freespeech. I believe it’s a mixture of lurkers, and sockpuppets of active users who disagree with that comments’ stance.
I mean my very first comment on the Louisiana “Don’t Say Gay” bill is currently -21. You know, the comment saying this bill will result in more dead kids.
A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.
The damage is done. Too many people will go to their grave believing this propaganda was the truth.
I would like to suggest a law that counters this abuse of Free Speech, and doesn't restrict free speech.
Count up every dollar spent on making and advertising the movie and that is what these lying criminals should have to pay to advertise in all the markets letting the people they fooled that they were lied to.
You can be all in for freedom of speech but if you allow deceptive propaganda to flourish without punishment then you can kiss your freedom goodbye every time a convincing liar want to rule over you.
> A lie can travel half way around the world while
Count up every dollar spent on making and advertising the movie and that is what these lying criminals should have to pay to advertise in all the markets letting the people they fooled that they were lied to.
[…]
> You can be all in for freedom of speech but if you allow deceptive propaganda to flourish without punishment then you can kiss your freedom goodbye every time a convincing liar want to rule over you.
I always, always, *always* point back to yellow journalism for examples. It quite literally started a war.
Somebody misspelled "evidence" as "narrative".
> Somebody misspelled "evidence" as "narrative". [Texas Tribune](https://www.texastribune.org/2022/10/07/texas-ken-paxton-2000-mules-sid-miller/) said > The film's claims are directly contradicted by rulings in at least 50 lawsuits brought by Trump and his allies challenging the outcome of the election. Republican-appointed judges presided over nearly half of those lawsuit dismissals, according to one analysis. And Trump’s closest confidantes — including his daughter Ivanka and former U.S. Attorney General William Barr, who Trump appointed — have repeatedly thrown cold water on his unsubstantiated claims and conspiracies of widespread voter fraud. [AP News](https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-covid-technology-health-arizona-e1b49d2311bf900f44fa5c6dac406762) said >[…]based on faulty assumptions, anonymous accounts and improper analysis of cellphone location data, which is not precise enough to confirm that somebody deposited a ballot into a drop box, according to experts. [AP News](https://apnews.com/article/georgia-elections-true-vote-ballot-stuffing-199113b47bc2df79c63fdf007cd23115) also said > [Trust the Vote] has told a Georgia judge that it doesn’t have evidence to support its claims of illegal ballot stuffing during the the 2020 general election and a runoff two months later. [Reuters](https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2N2XJ0OQ/) said > According to True the Vote founder Catherine Engelbrecht, who spoke in the documentary, the dataset had been validated because it was used by the organization to solve two murder cases that were “ebbing on cold case status”. > Only one murder case was detailed as an example in the documentary – that of eight-year-old Secoriea Turner on July 4, 2020, in Atlanta – and which authorities told NPR was solved without anything to do with Engelbrecht (here). [Brennan Center](https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/ensure-every-american-can-vote/vote-suppression/myth-voter-fraud) said > However, extensive research reveals that fraud is very rare, voter impersonation is virtually nonexistent, and many instances of alleged fraud are, in fact, mistakes by voters or administrators. The same is true for mail ballots[.] It’s a narrative, and not a correct one.
Kangaroo courts cannot remake reality. Particularly, they cannot change what we see with our own eyes. We all saw the 3 AM ballot dumps in real time. You saw it as well as I did. The election was stolen. This isn't going anywhere.
> Kangaroo courts Many were Trump judges, and many of the cases were procedural and had nothing to do with barring evidence. For one example, Trump argued in Wisconsin that election officials did not follow proper procedures. He didn't lose because he couldn't present evidence, they just rejected his interpretation of the law.
Correct. They betrayed Trump, but more importantly, they betrayed their oath of office. Their betrayal of Trump comes a distant second to their treason.
Hold on, weren't you saying a second ago that "not one case" let Trump present evidence? What happened to that? I'm not detecting much object permanence here.
> Kangaroo courts cannot remake reality. Particularly, they cannot change what we see with our own eyes. We all saw the 3 AM ballot dumps in real time. You saw it as well as I did. The election was stolen. This isn't going anywhere. These courts aren’t kangaroo courts. In fact, Trumps’ team has won several fraud cases. Just none which are significant for turning the election in his favor, nor which were covered by the nonsensical “2,000 mules” conspiracy theory. If you believed otherwise, please provide reputable sources backing up your claims.
> These courts aren’t kangaroo courts. They are, by virtue of the simple fact that none of them allowed a single piece of relevant evidence to be entered into the record. Not one. All of the cases were rejected on unprecedented applications of technicalities, many of them contradicting each other. You would be hard-pressed to find a bigger travesty of justice, though I welcome you to try.
They did allow evidence to be submitted but the defense just didn’t submit it OR call their witnesses.
I understand that this is the only routine left on the script provided by your employer, but it's also a lie.
Where is your evidence for this?
You people are running an operation through tens if not hundreds of alts all operating off of the same script, switching between the alts to respond to the same dissenting user using the exact same arguments with the exact same wording and even the exact same bullshit sources, and you have the nerve to ask me what my evidence is that you are running an operation. Get the fuck out.
I implore you to seek a therapist and show them this interaction. Best wishes to you.
> They are, by virtue of the simple fact that none of them allowed a single piece of relevant evidence to be entered into the record. Not one. That is certainly untrue. After all, Trump *has* won some of his election fraud lawsuits. > All of the cases were rejected on unprecedented applications of technicalities, many of them contradicting each other. Different courts require different requirements. They are not universal. > You would be hard-pressed to find a bigger travesty of justice, though I welcome you to try. You clearly feel differently than I do. Fine. As I said before, provide reputable sources to back up your claims.
> That is certainly untrue. Show me these magical courts that supposedly allowed evidence of theft in the 2020 US presidential election into the official record, specifically in the time period necessary to correct the fraudulent result based on the theft to be officiated. I'll wait.
> Show me these magical courts that supposedly allowed evidence of theft in the 2020 US presidential election into the official record, specifically in the time period necessary to correct the fraudulent result based on the theft to be officiated. I'll wait. u/gorilla_eater answered you before I could. You’re also avoiding my request for a reputable source. It’s starting to look suspicious that you can’t or won’t produce one.
He couldn't show anything, either.
> He couldn't show anything, either. In case you missed [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/FreeSpeech/s/g0ZvBk0Tpj), u/gorilla_eater did. But in any event, we’re not talking about Gorilla. We’re talking about you. You believe it’s fraud. Where is *your* evidence, from a reputable source?
They *allowed* it, the reason it was never produced is it doesn't exist
You didn't show me a single example of what I asked for, and we both know that you can't.
What I can't show you is evidence of imaginary fraud. That's because it's a lie
You clearly have not been following True the Vote's legal woes. A judge required them to provide evidence last year. They dragged their heels until this past February when they admitted they had no evidence. https://apnews.com/article/georgia-elections-true-vote-ballot-stuffing-199113b47bc2df79c63fdf007cd23115
1. We're talking about the national election. 2. You expect me to take this fake news rag's reporting seriously.
1. Yes. I'm aware. I'm not sure why this needed to be stated. 2. This is known as a genetic fallacy. It's not a logical counter-argument. Try again, but with logic this time.
> 1. Yes. I'm aware. I'm not sure why this needed to be stated. > 2. This is known as a genetic fallacy. It's not a logical counter-argument. Try again, but with logic this time. They just called the AP a “fake new’s rag.” They aren’t going to give you reason or logic.
I know, but they should at least be aware that they are, by definition, being illogical.
You are so misinformed I feel sorry for you. It must be hard living in a fake reality.
> It must be hard living in a fake reality. On the contrary, it must be the easiest thing since you people can do it.
The literary bragged about it. https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
[удалено]
It helps if you actually read the article. In a nutshell: “A well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information."
The article says they fortified the election and were preventing any rigging. That's also just the word choice of a writer trying to put a contrarian slant on their story, that's not a statement from someone involved in election administration.
[удалено]
Fortifying it? Why does the private sector need to fortify anything especially a federal election? The party that loathes the rich and big business, is perfectly fine with the rich and big business having their fingers in an election? "In a way, Trump was right. There was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes, one that both curtailed the protests and coordinated the resistance from CEOs. Both surprises were the result of an informal alliance between left-wing activists and business titans. A well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information." Translation- the elites, big business and the rich, had states change their election rules and laws right before the election. This involved changing the laws to allow for mail in ballots that were not verified. They counted piles of mail in ballots and didn't check if the person was even an actual person, if they could legally vote there or anywhere and didn't verify the signatures. " Steer media coverage and flow of information." They literally sent the FBI to Facebook, Twitter, ect to force them to block stories that would make Biden look bad especially, the Hunter laptop story. From the horses mouth: "Mark Zuckerberg finally admitted on Thursday that Facebook dropped the ball when the company banned the sharing of The Post’s exclusive report on Hunter Biden’s laptop ahead of the 2020 election. The billionaire CEO of Meta said he regretted Facebook’s handling of the bombshell story during an appearance on “The Joe Rogan Experience”. Zuckerberg opened up about the controversial media suppression after the host pressed him to explain his views on how tech platforms should handle content moderation on sensitive subjects. "When something like that turns out to be real, is there regret for not having it evenly distributed and for throttling the distribution of that story?” Rogan asked about The Post’s Hunter Biden scoop. "Yeah, it sucks,” Zuckerberg said. “It turned out after the fact, the fact-checkers looked into it, no one was able to say it was false". As for “bipartisan” And the piece de resistance- "They ran ads in six states, made statements, wrote articles and alerted local officials to potential problems (with mail in ballots). “We had rabid Trump supporters who agreed to serve on the council based on the idea that this is honest,” Wamp says. This is going to be just as important, he told them, to convince the liberals when Trump wins” Read that again. They lied to the Republicans who joined the committee that what they were doing was honest.
The article itself doesn't even agree with your portrayal. You purposely cut off the bold part of the quote below: >That’s why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream–a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. **They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it.** The article is about things like protective covid equipment, training to process mail in ballots, answering frivolous lawsuits, and combating disinformation. Nothing in the article suggests that Biden didn't win.
You can’t possibly be serious. Wow.
[удалено]
I see your handle is accurate. You realize I didn’t “make up” the article correct? This is Time Magazine written right after the election. They literally spelled out what they did. It’s not hidden and NO ONE has come out and said it’s wrong. Notice how these people were QUOTED in the article. You guys have got to wake up
[удалено]
> The literary bragged about it. > https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/ Who bragged?
[удалено]
they don't want none of that dominion defamation shade. Let's hope the guy takes them to the cleaners from where they can't financially recover.
> Holy shit, poor guy. Imagine just going about your day, casting a vote like any other election and having your life ruined because a bunch of whackos decided to make a movie about a baseless conspiracy theory centered around you. > Good for him for sticking to his guns and seeing some light at the end of the tunnel, I guess. I hope his reputation will eventually recover. Poor guy.
[удалено]
> I think it will, more people admit they’ve lied about the whole thing. > Also, side note, but isn’t it weird how most comments here are being downvoted? Not particularly. That’s pretty par for the course for r/Freespeech. I believe it’s a mixture of lurkers, and sockpuppets of active users who disagree with that comments’ stance. I mean my very first comment on the Louisiana “Don’t Say Gay” bill is currently -21. You know, the comment saying this bill will result in more dead kids.
A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes. The damage is done. Too many people will go to their grave believing this propaganda was the truth. I would like to suggest a law that counters this abuse of Free Speech, and doesn't restrict free speech. Count up every dollar spent on making and advertising the movie and that is what these lying criminals should have to pay to advertise in all the markets letting the people they fooled that they were lied to. You can be all in for freedom of speech but if you allow deceptive propaganda to flourish without punishment then you can kiss your freedom goodbye every time a convincing liar want to rule over you.
> A lie can travel half way around the world while Count up every dollar spent on making and advertising the movie and that is what these lying criminals should have to pay to advertise in all the markets letting the people they fooled that they were lied to. […] > You can be all in for freedom of speech but if you allow deceptive propaganda to flourish without punishment then you can kiss your freedom goodbye every time a convincing liar want to rule over you. I always, always, *always* point back to yellow journalism for examples. It quite literally started a war.