Post Your Voter Fraud Evidence Here

[BowlBrother85]

You are so predictable.....did you even watch the video?? That was definitely the same car and the same person delivering ballots 4 times in one night. There is no denying that. How can you even attempt to defend this? I did notice that she changed her pants once but apparently it was cool enough that she kept wearing the same blue sweater every time.

You have done this before. You take the interpretation of the biased source at face-value.

 

[BowlBrother85]

You obviously didn't watch the video

You obviously didn't read the post. It had nothing to do with any video. I'm saying that not all fact-checking sites are the same.

 

[Septic]

Are people still arguing that there was widespread voter fraud?

lol

 

[BowlBrother85]

You obviously didn't watch the video

Gateway Pundit video doesn’t show election fraud in Detroit

^^^^ There was a different video circulated by The Gateway Pundit in February of 2021, which also purported to show fraud during the 2020 election in Detroit. It was swiftly debunked by The Detroit Free Press. Will you ever learn? You shouldn't take the claims of The Gateway Pundit at face value. They lie and misrepresent.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Are people still arguing that there was widespread voter fraud?

lol

They will never let it go, but we are the obsessed ones here, for taking the time to de-bunk them.

 

[VolinWayne]

Some of them are.

It is just as unfair to portray all fact-checking sites as having their own political agenda, as it is to paint all newspapers with the same broad brush.

For example : FactCheck.org is a non-profit site which does not seek or accept funds from unions, partisan organizations or advocacy groups. The Rand Corporation describes their site as one which "aims to fight disinformation by identifying, exploring and correcting false information, giving people a resource for locating fact-based information."

Trying to portray all fact-checking organizations as being one and the same, is lazy and inaccurate. Also, you should be able to see the transparent agenda of The Gateway Pundit for yourself .... unless you are a stupid person.

So I just did a very quick research on factcheck.org.

The two things that immediately jumped out at me are

1. They were awarded funding by Google to combat "covid misinformation". FactCheck.org awarded funding from Google to combat COVID-19 misinformation
Enough said

2. FactCheck.org - Wikipedia

Gates Foundation grants Annenberg Institute $999,260 | Annenberg Institute at Brown University

Factcheck.org is owned by Annenburg Public Policy Center. Bill Gates donating to them is all I need to know

 

[BowlBrother85]

So I just did a very quick research on factcheck.org.

The two things that immediately jumped out at me are

1. They were awarded funding by Google to combat "covid misinformation". FactCheck.org awarded funding from Google to combat COVID-19 misinformation
Enough said

2. FactCheck.org - Wikipedia

Gates Foundation grants Annenberg Institute $999,260 | Annenberg Institute at Brown University

Factcheck.org is owned by Annenburg Public Policy Center. Bill Gates donating to them is all I need to know

.... but The Gateway Pundit passes muster? LOL.

I guess The Detroit Free Press is biased too? They have also de-bunked fraud claims involving Detroit made by The Gateway Pundit.

 

[AshG]

So I just did a very quick research on factcheck.org.

The two things that immediately jumped out at me are

1. They were awarded funding by Google to combat "covid misinformation". FactCheck.org awarded funding from Google to combat COVID-19 misinformation
Enough said

2. FactCheck.org - Wikipedia

Gates Foundation grants Annenberg Institute $999,260 | Annenberg Institute at Brown University

Factcheck.org is owned by Annenburg Public Policy Center. Bill Gates donating to them is all I need to know

I find the rationale interesting. Saying that the tangential association with Bill Gates negates any quality work done by the staff is akin to throwing out a cake because the frosting is from Duncan Hines.

At the same time, we're expected to accept editorialized data analysis or source summaries from sites and services that regularly participate in the unfettered spreading of circumstantial or uncorroborated information built to fit a very specific narrative (and, many times, the authors refer to that practice as a feature of those sites; but I digress).

Skepticism is healthy. Everyone should use multiple sources - not the same primary source rehashed over multiple sites or services - to triangulate and build a network of trust. Outlets worth the bandwidth provide clearly marked primary & secondary sources and separate editorializing from the salient content.

 

[BowlBrother85]

I find the rationale interesting. Saying that the tangential association with Bill Gates negates any quality work done by the staff is akin to throwing out a cake because the frosting is from Duncan Hines.

At the same time, we're expected to accept editorialized data analysis or source summaries from sites and services that regularly participate in the unfettered spreading of circumstantial or uncorroborated information built to fit a very specific narrative (and, many times, the authors refer to that practice as a feature of those sites; but I digress).

Skepticism is healthy. Everyone should use multiple sources - not the same primary source rehashed over multiple sites or services - to triangulate and build a network of trust. Outlets worth the bandwidth provide clearly marked primary & secondary sources and separate editorializing from the salient content.

Exactly. @VolinWayne clearly has a double standard when it comes to scrutinizing sources for bias. The Gateway Pundit has been caught spreading numerous lies concerning the 2020 election, but that is not as important to him, as Bill Gates donating money to the parent company of a fact-checker.

 

[Vol Main]

You are right. It's not proof of anything illicit.

Look at the source. It's from The Gateway Pundit. If you are taking their word for anything, then you are more gullible, than an adult should be.

You're right about that. GP puts out professional propaganda, written for effect. If something from GP happens to be true, it is pure coincidence. It's mostly half-truths and lies.

 

[whodeycin85]

I find the rationale interesting. Saying that the tangential association with Bill Gates negates any quality work done by the staff is akin to throwing out a cake because the frosting is from Duncan Hines.

At the same time, we're expected to accept editorialized data analysis or source summaries from sites and services that regularly participate in the unfettered spreading of circumstantial or uncorroborated information built to fit a very specific narrative (and, many times, the authors refer to that practice as a feature of those sites; but I digress).

Skepticism is healthy. Everyone should use multiple sources - not the same primary source rehashed over multiple sites or services - to triangulate and build a network of trust. Outlets worth the bandwidth provide clearly marked primary & secondary sources and separate editorializing from the salient content.

What about organizations that have board members that donate to 1 party or a site it self that donates 95% to one party. Do you not agree the chances that there is heavy bias. Yes GP is biased no on denies that. But when you combines a video (which has suspecious activity) with thing like the tracking from 2k mules (which lefts don't believe but swore by covid tracking) it raises questions.

What do you think of the video, obviously she is dropping of multiple ballots? Why several time in a few hours to the same ballot box? Why take pictures?

 

[BowlBrother85]

What about organizations that have board members that donate to 1 party or a site it self that donates 95% to one party. Do you not agree the chances that there is heavy bias.

The integrity of any news reporting or fact-checking site, should come down to some basic questions:

Can you prove that this source has ever misrepresented actions taking place in a video, or fabricated information intended to serve a partisan agenda?

It is very easy to prove that The Gateway Pundit has done those things. There are numerous examples. I posted one such example, as identified by The Detroit Free Press, up above in post #1,954. The bias of The Gateway Pundit is not as significant as their unprofessional reporting. Just because you are biased, doesn't necessarily mean that you are a liar too. The Gateway Pundit is both biased and unethical. There is no small shortage of proof.

When it comes to fact-checking sites, @VolinWayne is strongly suggesting that all fact-checking sites are the same. That is wrong. He also wants to apply "guilt-by-association" to avoid having to prove that FactCheck.org has ever been wrong in the past. In his mind, the fact that Bill Gates has donated money, not directly to them, but to their parent company is enough to discredit their work. That is ridiculous

.... and think about his logic here, it's basically along the lines of, "You can't trust fact-checking sites, so I'm just going to go ahead and trust The Gateway Pundit."

SMH.

 

[whodeycin85]

The integrity of any news reporting or fact-checking site, should come down to some basic questions:

Can you prove that this source has ever misrepresented actions taking place in a video, or fabricated information intended to serve a partisan agenda?

It is very easy to prove that The Gateway Pundit has done those things. There are numerous examples. I posted one such example, as identified by The Detroit Free Press, up above in post #1,954. The bias of The Gateway Pundit is not as significant as their unprofessional reporting. Just because you are biased, doesn't necessarily mean that you are a liar too. The Gateway Pundit is both biased and unethical. There is no small shortage of proof.

When it comes to fact-checking sites, @VolinWayne is strongly suggesting that all fact-checking sites are the same. That is wrong. He also wants to apply "guilt-by-association" to avoid having to prove that FactCheck.org has ever been wrong in the past. In his mind, the fact that Bill Gates has donated money, not directly to them, but to their parent company is enough to discredit their work. That is ridiculous

.... and think about his logic here, it's basically along the lines of, "You can't trust fact-checking sites, so I'm just going to go ahead and trust The Gateway Pundit."

SMH.

From fact.org. regarding clinton and russia....

So, claims like this one — “Hillary Clinton was behind the entire Russian collusion hoax all along” — made by Republican Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, along with a call to “#LockHerUp,” are unfounded.


Nope not partian at all...
Point is fact checking is an opinion. What is your explanation for the video? Does this lady have 100s of family members who were incapabale of voting in person?

 

[BowlBrother85]

So, claims like this one — “Hillary Clinton was behind the entire Russian collusion hoax all along” — made by Republican Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, along with a call to “#LockHerUp,” are unfounded.

You would need to post a link to what was actually said, for me to comment on it. I have read enough of their material to know that they never just say that something is inaccurate or "unfounded" without providing reasons for their conclusions. They explain their findings with detail.

Point is fact checking is an opinion.

This was a profoundly ignorant thing for you to say.

By definition, something which is "factual" does not involve opinion. A fact is a statement presented by a speaker or writer whose accuracy is verifiable. Therefore, the process of fact-checking has nothing to do with anyone's opinion. Standards concerning reasonable certainty or uncertainty will differ, but that still has nothing to do with one's opinion.

 

[whodeycin85]

You would need to post a link to what was actually said, for me to comment on it. I have read enough of their material to know that they never just say that something is inaccurate or "unfounded" without providing reasons for their conclusions. They explain their findings with detail.


This was a profoundly ignorant thing for you to say.

By definition, something which is "factual" does not involve opinion. A fact is a statement presented by a speaker or writer whose accuracy is verifiable. Therefore, the process of fact-checking has nothing to do with anyone's opinion. Standards concerning reasonable certainty or uncertainty will differ, but that still has nothing to do with one's opinion.

Going off the statement that I provided from factcheck.org. there fact showed it ws unfounded by using thier sources...sussman trial today shows that in fact it was true..there fore fact checking relies in only the "sources" the opinion writer chooses...making it a biased opinion...if i say the sky can be multipe colors...but your fact checking source only sees and verifies its blue...that doesnt make it a fact...

 

[whodeycin85]

In Court, Facebook Admits ‘Fact Checks’ Are Pure Opinion

 

[BowlBrother85]

Going off the statement that I provided from factcheck.org. there fact showed it ws unfounded by using thier sources...sussman trial today shows that in fact it was true..there fore fact checking relies in only the "sources" the opinion writer chooses...making it a biased opinion...if i say the sky can be multipe colors...but your fact checking source only sees and verifies its blue...that doesnt make it a fact...

Once again, post a link to what you're talking about. They never just refer to something as being "unfounded" without explaining how they arrived at such a determination.

And again, by definition, a fact is a statement which has been presented either in spoken or written form, which is verifiable. It has nothing to do with one's opinion.... although standards concerning reasonable certainty or uncertainty will differ.

 

[BowlBrother85]

In Court, Facebook Admits ‘Fact Checks’ Are Pure Opinion

That's Facebook ... not FactCheck.org.

 

[whodeycin85]

Once again, post a link to what you're talking about. They never just refer to something as being "unfounded" without explaining how they arrived at such a determination.

And again, by definition, a fact is a statement which has been presented either in spoken or written form, which is verifiable. It has nothing to do with one's opinion.... although standards concerning reasonable certainty or uncertainty will differ.

Partisan Claims of 'Russia Hoax' Revived Ahead of 2020 Election - FactCheck.org

They took partisan sources and made the claim... which is now proven false.

 

[whodeycin85]

That's Facebook ... not FactCheck.org.

Birds of a feather...

 

[hUTch2002]

You have done this before. You take the interpretation of the biased source at face-value.

Wow pot, meet kettle.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Birds of a feather...

No, they're not.

 

[hUTch2002]

They will never let it go, but we are the obsessed ones here, for taking the time to de-bunk them.

There is no we. Just you. Non-stop.

 

[hUTch2002]

I find the rationale interesting. Saying that the tangential association with Bill Gates negates any quality work done by the staff is akin to throwing out a cake because the frosting is from Duncan Hines.

At the same time, we're expected to accept editorialized data analysis or source summaries from sites and services that regularly participate in the unfettered spreading of circumstantial or uncorroborated information built to fit a very specific narrative (and, many times, the authors refer to that practice as a feature of those sites; but I digress).

Skepticism is healthy. Everyone should use multiple sources - not the same primary source rehashed over multiple sites or services - to triangulate and build a network of trust. Outlets worth the bandwidth provide clearly marked primary & secondary sources and separate editorializing from the salient content.

In today’s environment a person would be making a mistake to not try and find direct sources. Transcripts, videos, anything that is straight from the source. There is no such thing as an unbiased media outlet. Luther will love this. There are degrees of bias (continuum Luther?) with some having little and others a lot in one direction or another but all media is bias.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Partisan Claims of 'Russia Hoax' Revived Ahead of 2020 Election - FactCheck.org

They took partisan sources and made the claim... which is now proven false.

No, you have totally misrepresented both what they were claiming and what has been proven. That fact-check provides much more context than what you have described. The Hillary Clinton campaign was critical of Trump for asking Russia to "find" her e-mails ... which Trump actually did! That wasn't a false accusation! Trump is on video doing it, at one of his rallies. The Clinton campaign also alleged that Russia was trying to help the Trump campaign and they were!. The June 9, 2016 meeting at Trump Tower between Russian agents and members of the Trump campaign did occur. E-mails between Trump Jr and Rob Goldstone prove this.

Not everything involving Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign was a "hoax".