Conspiracy Theory VOTER FRAUD COMPILATION. CRIME OF THE CENTURY! * Debunked

Remove this Banner Ad

Yes that is a serious point. Democrats are saying that restricting them from giving free food and drink to voters while they wait in line is voter suppression.

Which it is. Its solving a problem that doesn't exist.

Like seriously... people are changing their votes after being bribed with a mars bar and bottle of water? Any reports of this happening, anywhere, ever, in the US? Even in this fantasy scenario, the person bribing them with this irresistible bounty can't go into the voting booth with them to ensure the vote has actually been bought. Its laughable, mate.

The only purpose of the change is to potentially make standing in line to vote for 4 hours a bit more unpalatable - and you're buying it as an election integrity enhancement :drunk:

I don't know anywhere where that is allowed for anyone giving food and drink. No reason why school can't fundraise by selling food and drink if it's such an issue, like they do here in Australia.

Did you actually read my post? You're just repeating statements that I've already explained to you don't apply - again, I don't know of anywhere else where you might need to stand in line for 4 hours to vote, which is the only reason you might need to consider food and water in the first place. And yes there is a reason why the school or whatever can't fundraise and sell food - its prohibited by the legislation, only poll workers can provide food and water.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Do you ever try to reconcile your blanket dismissal of anything reported by an actual organisation with something resembling editorial processes and structures, against your unflinching wide-eyed total acceptance of any old unsourced tidbit obtained from random corners of the internet?

Honest question.


Dishonest question if you think NYT, WaPo and most other MSM print with most of the cable news with their "editorial processes and structures" are feeding you anything other than propaganda and lies.

Many examples already given where this is true. Fauci's emails proving the latest worshiping at the alter of failed "editorial processes and structures" you unquestionably accept.

tears of laughter emoji; tears of laughter emoji; tears of laughter emoji!

Say for a minute thats true - everything put out by the NYT, WaPo or whoever is nothing but propaganda and lies.

You think that isn't the case for GatewayPundit (just as one example)?

Thats the crux of my question and what I mean by 'reconcile'.
 
Say for a minute thats true - everything put out by the NYT, WaPo or whoever is nothing but propaganda and lies.

You think that isn't the case for GatewayPundit (just as one example)?

Thats the crux of my question and what I mean by 'reconcile'.
Every article I read, no matter where from, I "reconcile" and always try to go to the source material to verify. I have said this for a long time.

Initially I believed everything I read or saw on TV about Killary, Trump, Biden, and more recently, COVID.

NYT has had particularly good information about COVID, but they and other media have gone over the edge in being proven propaganda machines and suppressing the truth, in my opinion. Their reporters did not check or verify with other sources information before printing and neither did the TV networks that parroted them.

The current Wuhan lab leak theory and funding by US, was reported in Jan and Feb last year by Zero Hedge, Epoch Times and some other minor publishers with original published research from 2015 validating the possibility, but this was covered up by propaganda from the main media outlets

If this only happened once or twice (and it has to all, including GP and NYP) I'd give them a pass, but it's happened 7 or 8 times in recent memory and all have been to discredit Trump, facts on COVID, protect Biden and his family from crimes and to protect Killary from multiple crimes, including Benghazi and bribery (pay for play) with the Clinton Foundation, just for starters.
 
Their reporters did not check or verify with other sources information before printing and neither did the TV networks that parroted them.

Again - ya reckon GatewayPundit reporters do? They've literally run stories based on nothing more than a random twitter post.

I'm gonna need a slightly bigger sample size than they may have been on the money once re: the Wuhan lab leak before I start trusting them (not that I trust NYT/CNN/WaPo either).

And Benghazi? Just lol, I'm no Hillary fan as I think you know but that was the subject of no less than 10 investigations including an FBI one, and 6 by GOP controlled committees. That effort makes the few into Trump look positively pedestrian.
 
Again - ya reckon GatewayPundit reporters do? They've literally run stories based on nothing more than a random twitter post.

I'm gonna need a slightly bigger sample size than they may have been on the money once re: the Wuhan lab leak before I start trusting them (not that I trust NYT/CNN/WaPo either).

And Benghazi? Just lol, I'm no Hillary fan as I think you know but that was the subject of no less than 10 investigations including an FBI one, and 6 by GOP controlled committees. That effort makes the few into Trump look positively pedestrian.
Already said GP don't pretend to be impartial, like the NYT, WaPo and the reputations they've had over the years.

However when small publishers like GP include original source material, interviews, videos or peer reviewed research. So what was wrong with GP linking twitter accounts that had the FOIA emails or original source material? All CNN, MSNBC and The Hill etc are doing is continuing to run protection for Fauci who keeps lying, even though all the emails are out there.

There is a long list of their lies and you seem to have ignored every one of them, despite them printing retractions.

Yep Benghazi! Take that to the bank as would be obvious to anyone that's listened to the soldiers involved both in Benghazi and Germany or Embassy workers in close contact.
 
Already said GP don't pretend to be impartial, like the NYT, WaPo and the reputations they've had over the years.

However when small publishers like GP include original source material, interviews, videos or peer reviewed research. So what was wrong with GP linking twitter accounts that had the FOIA emails or original source material? All CNN, MSNBC and The Hill etc are doing is continuing to run protection for Fauci who keeps lying, even though all the emails are out there.

There is a long list of their lies and you seem to have ignored every one of them, despite them printing retractions.

Yep Benghazi! Take that to the bank as would be obvious to anyone that's listened to the soldiers involved both in Benghazi and Germany or Embassy workers in close contact.

I'm doing what now? What lies am I ignoring exactly?

Yep, I assume all of those investigations got no input whatsoever from the soldiers involved :tearsofjoy:
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Which it is. Its solving a problem that doesn't exist.

Like seriously... people are changing their votes after being bribed with a mars bar and bottle of water? Any reports of this happening, anywhere, ever, in the US? Even in this fantasy scenario, the person bribing them with this irresistible bounty can't go into the voting booth with them to ensure the vote has actually been bought. Its laughable, mate.

The only purpose of the change is to potentially make standing in line to vote for 4 hours a bit more unpalatable - and you're buying it as an election integrity enhancement :drunk:

Did you actually read my post? You're just repeating statements that I've already explained to you don't apply - again, I don't know of anywhere else where you might need to stand in line for 4 hours to vote, which is the only reason you might need to consider food and water in the first place. And yes there is a reason why the school or whatever can't fundraise and sell food - its prohibited by the legislation, only poll workers can provide food and water.
Unfortunately I did read your original post and the link you put with it flapping on about how new election integrity laws in Texas are "Voter Suppression"!

Are you old enough to vote? Nothing Texas wants to change isn't what we've had in Australia for years. All you want to do is argue for the sake of it.
 
I'm doing what now? What lies am I ignoring exactly?

Yep, I assume all of those investigations got no input whatsoever from the soldiers involved :tearsofjoy:
How can you investigate when Nancy Pants refuses evidence and you have to rely of court orders?

Sicknick lies, there was never any evidence of any fire extinguisher being used at all, let alone causing death, but because NYT reported it, this was included as a fact in Nancy Pant's Impeachment.

Russian bounty lies.

Russian Collusion lies.

Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation lies.

SARS CoV 2 could not have been engineered in a Wuhan lab lies.

COVID Deaths in NY nursing home lies.

"Fine People" lies.

Georgia fraud lies.

Ukrainian "quid pro quo" lies.



 
I'm doing what now? What lies am I ignoring exactly?

Yep, I assume all of those investigations got no input whatsoever from the soldiers involved :tearsofjoy:


When engaging in a discussion where there is a heightened likelihood of partisan division - it is imperative that all contributors make a serious effort to understand all sides. I mean really suspend your own beliefs and temporarily at least convince yourself the other side is right. Only, once all have honestly reached that stage can a meaningful conversation ensue that might reveal something worthwhile.

That task first step is much harder and often impossible for those whose sympathies are with the prevailing cultural certainties.
 
Unfortunately I did read your original post and the link you put with it flapping on about how new election integrity laws in Texas are "Voter Suppression"!

Nope I didn't link that, you've confused me with another poster yet again.

Are you old enough to vote? Nothing Texas wants to change isn't what we've had in Australia for years.

And all you want to do is defend the most patently transparent of horseshit as 'election integrity' ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You can crap on about it not being a thing in Australia all you want, I've told you twice now why thats not a relevant comparison. Show me the problem its fixing in the US. Show me any report, hell show me a random tweet, about anyone's vote being bought or influenced with the provision of food or water while in line. I'll wait.

All you want to do is argue for the sake of it.

Its called a discussion forum. That you desire an echo chamber is not my problem.
 
How can you investigate when Nancy Pants refuses evidence and you have to rely of court orders?

Nancy Pants is shithouse, can't wait to see the back of her.

Fact remains that supporting an investigation into her making a phone call in relation to the 25th amendment directly after Jan 6, while at the same time waving away the events of that day, the previous 2 months and any responsibility whatsoever for Trump regarding these is equal parts hilarious and sad.

Sicknick lies, there was never any evidence of any fire extinguisher being used at all, let alone causing death, but because NYT reported it, this was included as a fact in Nancy Pant's Impeachment.

Yeah yeah, we know mate. The guy dying the next day was completely unrelated to the peaceful tour group/love-in at the Capitol, we get it.

Russian bounty lies.

Russian Collusion lies.

Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation lies.

SARS CoV 2 could not have been engineered in a Wuhan lab lies.

COVID Deaths in NY nursing home lies.

"Fine People" lies.

Georgia fraud lies.

Ukrainian "quid pro quo" lies.




Wah wah wah, its all so unfair and unprecedented isn't it? Is this where I post a list of all the crap Fox, Breitbart and co. wheeled out for Obama?

Pretty sure I've commented extensively over the journey on all of these bar the russian bounties and Wuhan lab origin iirc, so I'm not sure how I'm ignoring them.
 
When engaging in a discussion where there is a heightened likelihood of partisan division - it is imperative that all contributors make a serious effort to understand all sides. I mean really suspend your own beliefs and temporarily at least convince yourself the other side is right. Only, once all have honestly reached that stage can a meaningful conversation ensue that might reveal something worthwhile.

That task first step is much harder and often impossible for those whose sympathies are with the prevailing cultural certainties.

Indeed, and good advice. Unfortunately I don't think BlueE is capable of it.
 
Nope I didn't link that, you've confused me with another poster yet again.

And all you want to do is defend the most patently transparent of horseshit as 'election integrity' ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You can crap on about it not being a thing in Australia all you want, I've told you twice now why thats not a relevant comparison. Show me the problem its fixing in the US. Show me any report, hell show me a random tweet, about anyone's vote being bought or influenced with the provision of food or water while in line. I'll wait.

Its called a discussion forum. That you desire an echo chamber is not my problem.
I don't think I've confused you with another poster.

I said "Democrats are saying that restricting them from giving free food and drink to voters while they wait in line is voter suppression."

You said "Which it is". "It's solving a problem that doesn't exist"

It is a problem that exists and strictly not allowed in Australia.


1623198667384.png

I welcome opposing views if people want to debate or discuss and have supported posters on this board that have them, but not trolling, gas lighting or propaganda that can't be supported with facts.
 
A cheap shot - BluE has no issue with it at all

The guy running the arguments that

- banning provision of food and water in voting lines is about election integrity
- Nance's phone call about the 25th A on Jan 8 is more worthy of investigation than the event itself and the 2 months prior
- 2 separate phone calls to GA officials were actually the same one and the same retraction/correction applies?

Riiiiight, no issue at all :drunk:
 
Last edited:
I don't think I've confused you with another poster.

I said "Democrats are saying that restricting them from giving free food and drink to voters while they wait in line is voter suppression."

You said "Which it is". "It's solving a problem that doesn't exist"

It is a problem that exists and strictly not allowed in Australia.

View attachment 1150464

You said I posted a link to Texas election laws. This is false, another poster provided that and you seem to have confused me with them. Its a mistake you've made fairly regularly here.

I replied to your take on the original link - again, discussion forum.

I welcome opposing views if people want to debate or discuss and have supported posters on this board that have them, but not trolling, gas lighting or propaganda that can't be supported with facts.

You do realise you've posted these platitides about propaganda, gaslighting and facts a few minutes after twice declaring the Raffensperger and Watson phone calls the same thing, yeah?

Legit mind blowing :drunk:
 
The guy running the arguments that

- banning provision of food and water in voting lines is about election integrity
- Nance's phone call about the 25th A on Jan 8 is more worthy of investigation than the event itself and the 2 months prior
- 2 separate phone calls to GA officials were actually the same one and the same retraction/correction applies?

Riiiiight, no issue at all :drunk:
Bye - this is not the topic
 
Last edited:

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top