Be careful what you wish for.

Again, how the lawsuit does in court is irrelevant to whether or not a reasonable person should trust Fox. They admitted they are willing to lie for ratings. You don't care I get that. Something that just proves a point I've made in this OP. That you WANT to be lied to, as long as the lie is conforming to your own bias.

The link shows the latter. (Although it ended up Trump doing exactly what Hillary said he would do.) I didn't see her recant her previous concession though. Can you show me where she recanted? Not saying it didn't happen, but the link doesn't provide what you said it would.



Nope, neither is it a knife, a tank, or a bazooka. One can still be armed with other things than a gun.

Lol and here you go again moving the goalposts. You claimed all fox opinion shows always have a Democrat scheduled. ratings do nothing for you in order to prove that statement. It is called a red herring. You can't defend your position, so you change the subject.

Anyway Kyzr. I hope you have a nice day. I think I'm done talking to you about this considering you now are just spewing fallacies in order to avoid having to argue substance.
When,Who and How did Fox " admit they are willing to lie. "
I musta missed dat one.But then you are obviously incapable
or being Truthful.Because You don't value ... Truth.
It's in the DNA of most all Leftists.It's what they do.
Its part of being a Weenie.As in a sing along.
" I'm right there wit'cha,standing weenie to weenie ".
 
1. Yeah, okay, whatever, like C4 said, we'll see how the lawsuit does in court.

2. Just an FYI, Hillary later recanted her concession and said that Biden should NEVER concede.

3. Bear spray isn't a firearm, is it? No it is not. As soon as armed police showed up the riot was over. So why wasn't the DC police, or the National Guard there as requested? That would have prevented the J6 "riot". Apparently someone (the FBI) wanted that J6 riot to happen, huh?

4. The ratings show which programs are better. FNC typically wins the ratings war. QED. Hint: no one wants to hear DNC talking points 24/7.
Hillary said Biden should not concede early, under any circumstance, let all the votes be counted and Biden will surely win.

She was SPOT ON! And this was in august before the election!! Trump called election fraud with absentee ballots months before the election, he tried to stop the count of citizen's vote, he made fake claims of fraud, he got his follows to believe his lie
 
Hillary said Biden should not concede early, under any circumstance, let all the votes be counted and Biden will surely win.

She was SPOT ON! And this was in august before the election!! Trump called election fraud with absentee ballots months before the election, he tried to stop the count of citizen's vote, he made fake claims of fraud, he got his follows to believe his lie
What was he (Trump) seeing, do you think, that prompted him to claim that, and that early stage?
 
What was he (Trump) seeing, do you think, that prompted him to claim that, and that early stage?
What prompted him, is he saw the results in the primary, where many more democrats voted absentee, just like him.

So he devised a plan, to brainwash his followers in to thinking absentee ballot voting was fraudulent....

So he could claim he won on election day, and could try to shut down counting all the absentee votes from being counted.

HE DID EXACTLY THAT, come election day, but thankfully his attempt to STEAL the election FAILED.

IF he saw something that was fraudulent months before the election with absentee ballots, he and lawyers had plenty of time before the election to bring it to court to stop the alleged fraud....

He lost his court cases before the election on any concerns and courts ruled against him....even Trump appointed judges.
 
What data specifically are you looking for?

It tells you right at the top of the graph what is shown....What's the problem?

The problem it is it just a pretty picture without the actual data.

I could reproduce that exact graph in excel in about 10 minutes.
 
What prompted him, is he saw the results in the primary, where many more democrats voted absentee, just like him.

So he devised a plan, to brainwash his followers in to thinking absentee ballot voting was fraudulent....

So he could claim he won on election day, and could try to shut down counting all the absentee votes from being counted.

HE DID EXACTLY THAT, come election day, but thankfully his attempt to STEAL the election FAILED.

IF he saw something that was fraudulent months before the election with absentee ballots, he and lawyers had plenty of time before the election to bring it to court to stop the alleged fraud....

He lost his court cases before the election on any concerns and courts ruled against him....even Trump appointed judges.
If absentee was the only thing there you'd be spot on, but we both know it wasn't....

Drop boxes, being stuffed by ballot harvesters.

Certain battleground states illegally changing their voting procedures without following their constitutions...

Certain states certifying voting machines that didn't pass testing in their states...

etc....

These are all valid concerns working up to election day...

Now why did certain courts deny a POTUS in an election standing to bring cases and hear evidence? You'd have to ask the Judges, even the Trump appointed ones...My guess is that those with liberal leaning views were obvious in thwarting his filings, those judges whom Trump appointed either lied in their confirmation about their leanings, or as newly appointed judges they wanted to be seen by the larger legal community as not carrying water for Trump, which meant that they rightly or wrongly didn't want to be involved, or lastly, they were just cowards.

You tell me?
 
That is my opinion, yes.

And until someone can provide the data the graph is based on, I will likely not change my view
Ok, while these graphs are generally posted by both right and left to argue one side or another, often without data, or context, I guess you have a point.

But, is your questioning of it based on that, or just the fact that the graph shows something to you that’s troubling?
 
Hillary said Biden should not concede early, under any circumstance, let all the votes be counted and Biden will surely win.

She was SPOT ON! And this was in august before the election!! Trump called election fraud with absentee ballots months before the election, he tried to stop the count of citizen's vote, he made fake claims of fraud, he got his follows to believe his lie
Trump stated exactly what happened
 
Ok, while these graphs are generally posted by both right and left to argue one side or another, often without data, or context, I guess you have a point.

But, is your questioning of it based on that, or just the fact that the graph shows something to you that’s troubling?

The graph is not troubling to me at all. Even if it is accurate we do not know it is is abnormal. For all we know this happens every election.

During the early stages of the stolen election claims I watched a lot of the hearings held by state legislatures. I watched the one Ga held and they had a data analyst that claimed that specific precincts going more than 75% for one candidate was "rare" but that any going more than 90% going was a sure sign of fraud. This sounded reasonable so I did some of my own research. I looked at results from Atlanta and Salt Lake City for 2016 and 2012. Turns out that it is common for precincts to go more than 75% for one candidate and that even going 90% was not rare. They went that way for both parties.

So, if the graph is legit, which I question, then we would need to see if if happens on a normal basis across the country, and I would be that it does.
 

Forum List

Back
Top