Be careful what you wish for.

[j-mac]

I am pointing out that people are posting things they cannot support.

If that dismisses their argument, that is on them.

Of course.

 

[jc456]

Judges don't have that kind of power. The Constitution gives states the right to conduct their voting anyway they desire and a judge can't change that.

well then when people cheat, they're just allowed to cheat?

 

[jc456]

No, of course we shouldn't...But, the point I am making is that you already knew that the data for that graph, (If from the State) may not be, and most likely wouldn't be available...So, what you are doing is dismissing the argument based on a disingenuous question, IMHO.....

Just sayin'

what they all are saying is too bad a for you and me! You can't prove something if I don't give it to you. What a sham.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

well then when people cheat, they're just allowed to cheat?

Yes unfortunately. Unless there is undisputed evidence they broke their own laws, a judge can't tell them how to conduct their elections.

 

[jc456]

Yes unfortunately. Unless there is undisputed evidence they broke their own laws, a judge can't tell them how to conduct their elections.

who gets to determine undisputed?

 

[j-mac]

what they all are saying is too bad a for you and me! You can't prove something if I don't give it to you. What a sham.

I suspect even if you had the data for the graph, they would tell you that you're misinterpreting it....That's the trouble with statistics, they can be shaped to fit a narrative....

But, isn't it interesting that Gator, who values his position as having no position, is arguing using a tried and true method of liberals?

 

[BlueGin]

Simple. It says that the majority of people are cowards who rather walk over broken glass than challenge their own beliefs.

^^How ironic considering the source.

 

[j-mac]

Yes unfortunately. Unless there is undisputed evidence they broke their own laws, a judge can't tell them how to conduct their elections.

And yet in PA, a judge did exactly that....

 

[forkup]

^^How ironic considering the source.

And you feel qualified to make that judgement about me?

 

[Batcat]

Correction. I read your list, saw several items that were outright wrong, going by the primary sources I had available (meaning I could illustrate it clearly with the available information). I could have more than likely done it with all 51 "lies" in fact there were more I could have pointed out, but that would have been too time consuming. I also don't think it is necessary to do. If I can demonstrate that an article trying to call out "lies", demonstrably lies about "the lying" on multiple points.

I don't think it's a good idea to cite anything that Durham produced. I also don't think it's a good idea the cite an article that just going by its language is so partisan.

spy agency chiefs and their corrupt minions
Soviet-style disinformation campaign
irrelevant questions like, “What do the Russians have on Trump?” (glad the writer doesn't think it relevant wether or not a candidate for president of one of 2 major parties is compromised.)
Various “Deep State” operatives
Obama’s rogue spy chief

That is not how you report news. You avoid loaded language instead of going out of your way to use it.

As for Durham.
The thing this article is alluding to is referring to a lawsuit Durham prosecuted, that he lost within hours of the jury adjourning. A lawsuit that was considered so out of normal prosecutorial conduct that his deputy quit in protest.

So what you are saying is that the liberal news media got everything right and that if you took the time you could most likely show all 51 supposedly fake news stores listed in this article were actually accurate.

Nolte: Top 51 Fake News 'Bombshells' Media Spread About RussiaGate

Here are the top 51 pieces of fake news the establishment media spread about the Russia Collusion Hoax over the past two years.

www.breitbart.com

The reason I doubt that is the Washington Post actually admitted that its reporting on the Steeler Dossier was false.

Liberal media outlets have not followed WaPo’s lead as erroneous Steele dossier reporting remains uncorrected

The Washington Post corrected and removed large chunks of its own reporting on the anti-Trump Steele dossier on Friday, admitting it "could no longer stand by the accuracy" of those elements. But other liberal news organizations including ABC News, MSNBC and CNN haven’t followed the Post’s lead...

www.foxnews.com

And even CNN is admitting the Steele Dossier had problems.

CNN admits Steele dossier has 'significantly diminished' credibility, Trump 'wasn't too far off' about origins

CNN published a lengthy piece Friday admitting the anti-Trump Steele Dossier has been discredited after the liberal network spent years promoting it at every turn.

www.foxnews.com

You don’t like my using partisan articles but instead really like partisan articles by the liberal media.

You say not to use anything from Durham. Here’s Durham’s real problem. The jury is in the Swamp.

Durham's biggest problem in Sussmann trial is the jury: Andy McCarthy

Fox News contributor Andrew McCarthy told “The Brian Kilmeade Show" Tuesday that the jury presents hurdles in John Durham's case against the former Clinton campaign lawyer.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

who gets to determine undisputed?

Yeah well that's where it gets dicey. Again, judges avoid election cases like the plague.

This is why I said the only real solution is to get rid of technology. Hand count all ballots like we did decades ago. If somebody cries foul, they can easily be recounted with opposition party oversight.

I have no idea what's going on inside those machines like you, and given the Democrat party's renown history of cheating, lying and trying to rig the system, nobody can do anything to assure me these ballot counters are on the up and up. I don't trust them and never will for the rest of my life no matter who wins.

 

[forkup]

So what you are saying is that the liberal news media got everything right and that if you took the time you could most likely show all 51 supposedly fake news stores listed in this article were actually accurate.

Nolte: Top 51 Fake News 'Bombshells' Media Spread About RussiaGate

Here are the top 51 pieces of fake news the establishment media spread about the Russia Collusion Hoax over the past two years.

www.breitbart.com

The reason I doubt that is the Washington Post actually admitted that its reporting on the Steeler Dossier was false.

Liberal media outlets have not followed WaPo’s lead as erroneous Steele dossier reporting remains uncorrected

The Washington Post corrected and removed large chunks of its own reporting on the anti-Trump Steele dossier on Friday, admitting it "could no longer stand by the accuracy" of those elements. But other liberal news organizations including ABC News, MSNBC and CNN haven’t followed the Post’s lead...

www.foxnews.com

And even CNN is admitting the Steele Dossier had problems.

CNN admits Steele dossier has 'significantly diminished' credibility, Trump 'wasn't too far off' about origins

CNN published a lengthy piece Friday admitting the anti-Trump Steele Dossier has been discredited after the liberal network spent years promoting it at every turn.

www.foxnews.com

You don’t like my using partisan articles but instead really like partisan articles by the liberal media.

You say not to use anything from Durham. Here’s Durham’s real problem. The jury is in the Swamp.

Durham's biggest problem in Sussmann trial is the jury: Andy McCarthy

Fox News contributor Andrew McCarthy told “The Brian Kilmeade Show" Tuesday that the jury presents hurdles in John Durham's case against the former Clinton campaign lawyer.

www.foxnews.com

In case you haven't noticed I used the ACTUAL Mueller report and the ACTUAL congressional report as sources. Sourcing is important to me. Just so I can avoid people telling me I use partisan sources.

It just shows me that you either aren't paying attention or aren't honest enough to acknowledge a person who is.

For the record I avoid partisan choices like the plague, at least for sourcing. I don't read the Huff Post, the Daily beast, watch Michael Moore, or Rachel Madow, just to name a few. Not because I don't agree with them ideologically speaking, but because I know they are manipulative in how they present their position. For instance, using loaded language. It's basically for the same reason I typically don't trust overly exuberant salespeople. If you can't let your product/opinion stand by itself, I'm going to ask the question why that is.

 

[jc456]

Yeah well that's where it gets dicey. Again, judges avoid election cases like the plague.

This is why I said the only real solution is to get rid of technology. Hand count all ballots like we did decades ago. If somebody cries foul, they can easily be recounted with opposition party oversight.

I have no idea what's going on inside those machines like you, and given the Democrat party's renown history of cheating, lying and trying to rig the system, nobody can do anything to assure me these ballot counters are on the up and up. I don't trust them and never will for the rest of my life no matter who wins.

then it should be litigated in the legislative branch of the state in question. It shouldn't be just a sorry, you can't discuss this because we don't like you!!!!!

 

[jc456]

In case you haven't noticed I used the ACTUAL Mueller report and the ACTUAL congressional report as sources. Sourcing is important to me. Just so I can avoid people telling me I use partisan sources.

It just shows me that you either aren't paying attention or aren't honest enough to acknowledge a person who is.

For the record I avoid partisan choices like the plague, at least for sourcing. I don't read the Huff Post, the Daily beast, watch Michael Moore, or Rachel Madow, just to name a few. Not because I don't agree with them ideologically speaking, but because I know they are manipulative in how they present their position. For instance, using loaded language. It's basically for the same reason I typically don't trust overly exuberant salespeople. If you can't let your product/opinion stand by itself, I'm going to ask the question why that is.

what exactly are you referring to out of the mueller report?