2000 Mules
- Thread starter NCHawk5
- Start date
LOL
2000 MULES
2000 MULES is a shocking, disturbing exposé of a major fraudulent way that the Democrat Party and its supporters managed to get...www.movieguide.org
"D’Souza then asks five conservative pundits, who supported President Trump’s re-election, what they think about the Trump’s charges of vote fraud. Almost to a man, they agree that, though the vote counting seemed rather irregular in the swing states, they’re still waiting for more proof that the Democrats engaged in actual or illegal vote shenanigans that affected the outcome. The five conservatives in this part of the movie are authors Sebastian Gorka, Dennis Prager, Larry Elder, Erik Metaxas, and Charlie Kirk, who also leads the conservative group Turning Point, which engages with young people, especially college students."
Banned for trolling but totally not a troll.
Look, if you don’t want to discuss the contents of the film, and just want to discredit/nitpick everything, that’s fine. But quit calling me a troll.
I’m not an intellectual but a pragmatist, and the latest company I cofounded earned $20M in revenue in year five, has been profitable for four of the five, has created 35 jobs, and our products prevent almost 200 tons of CO2 and other pollutants from entering the atmosphere every day. I’m sorry you consider that a failure.
Your fearless orange “president” only seems to be able to screw people over, avoid taxes, and drive companies into bankruptcy though. And he wins his way all the way to the White House and leave only destruction in his wake.
Trumpism is a cult. The Big Lie is an embarrassment and a seditious national tragedy and just might spell the end of this democracy. Stick to the point. And stop the baseless ad hominem attacks.
Sure. Let's discuss the contents of a film neither of us has seen.
Banned for trolling but totally not a troll.
I’m not a trumper, maybe stop pontificating when it’s clear that you’re completely FOS.
You'd THINK that all of the Republicans running for offices concerned about "Election Fraud" wouldn't be engaging in......
.....Election Fraud....
Last edited:
This isn’t on topic. Please don’t spam the thread with politics.
I think I've said this before, but the GOP has always claimed government didn't work, and when they get in office they do their best to prove it. Now they claim their is lots of voter fraud, and in order to prove it, they commit lots of voter fraud.
Why are you so entirely incorrect each and every post? Did you even read what that case was about that you said you picked "at random"? No, you didn't. There was no evidence of fraud discussed in that case. The case was based on the below: GET IT RIGHT for once would you?!
"Plaintiff, Donald Trump, alleges that defendants, local government officials in Wisconsin, undermined the election. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendants ignored limits on the availability of mail-in balloting, created ballot dropboxes, did not provide adequate access to poll observers, "eliminated state laws requiring that voters provide information on the mail-in ballot envelope," and permitted election workers to alter ballots. Plaintiff claims that the alleged conduct violates both the Elections and Electors Clauses. As remedy, plaintiff requests that the result of the Wisconsin election be remanded to the Wisconsin state legislature."
From John Lott's report:
Courts frequently have rejected Republican challenges to the 2020 presidential vote, citing the lack of evidence of enough fraud to alter the outcome in a particular state. Republicans sometimes argued that since their observers couldn’t watch the vote counts, they couldn’t provide such evidence without investigations backed by subpoena power. Still, while some courts agreed that irregularities had occurred in 2020, they weren’t willing to grant discovery unless Republicans first presented enough evidence of fraud that could overturn the election. Republicans thus faced a kind of Catch 22.
Simple tests for the extent of vote fraud with absentee and provisional ballots in the 2020 US presidential election
This study reports three tests measuring vote fraud in the 2020 US presidential election, although they provide inconsistent evidence. To isolate the impact of
deliverypdf.ssrn.com
You are maddening to talk to because you are so ridiculous with your arguments and you get it wrong ALL the time. The information is clear as day, evidence of fraud has NOT been heard in the courts regarding the 2020 election. The link I provided listing the cases and their outcomes is 100% correct.
It’s pretty clear for anyone that the government at the federal level is completely oversized and inefficient. Now you’re proposing some crazy conspiracy where they’re governing in a way to make it appear this way. Look at the admin in DC. They must be in on it as well.
You're kind of dumb and lacking in reading comprehension aren't you? Wow.You are so full of shit.
PolitiFact - Trump did not win two-thirds of election lawsuits ‘where merits considered’
Donald Trump and his allies filed dozens of lawsuits in state and federal courts seeking to challenge the results of thewww.politifact.com
I already provided the information in this thread. Stop waiting and do more reading.
No. You haven't.
LIST the accepted claims of fraud that were presented in court cases and NOT thrown out.
The bullshit that judges wouldn't allow, because it was not based in facts does not count.
Already gave you links to the site that did this. Go see for yourself. This nonsense claim that evidence of fraud was heard by the courts is total garbage. Once again since you're not bright enough to read:
Courts frequently have rejected Republican challenges to the 2020 presidential vote, citing the lack of evidence of enough fraud to alter the outcome in a particular state. Republicans sometimes argued that since their observers couldn’t watch the vote counts, they couldn’t provide such evidence without investigations backed by subpoena power. Still, while some courts agreed that irregularities had occurred in 2020, they weren’t willing to grant discovery unless Republicans first presented enough evidence of fraud that could overturn the election. Republicans thus faced a kind of Catch 22.
Not. One. Word. Of. What. You. Just. Posted. Is. Remotely. On. Point.Why are you so entirely incorrect each and every post? Did you even read what that case was about that you said you picked "at random"? No, you didn't. There was no evidence of fraud discussed in that case. The case was based on the below: GET IT RIGHT for once would you?!
"Plaintiff, Donald Trump, alleges that defendants, local government officials in Wisconsin, undermined the election. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendants ignored limits on the availability of mail-in balloting, created ballot dropboxes, did not provide adequate access to poll observers, "eliminated state laws requiring that voters provide information on the mail-in ballot envelope," and permitted election workers to alter ballots. Plaintiff claims that the alleged conduct violates both the Elections and Electors Clauses. As remedy, plaintiff requests that the result of the Wisconsin election be remanded to the Wisconsin state legislature."
From John Lott's report:
Courts frequently have rejected Republican challenges to the 2020 presidential vote, citing the lack of evidence of enough fraud to alter the outcome in a particular state. Republicans sometimes argued that since their observers couldn’t watch the vote counts, they couldn’t provide such evidence without investigations backed by subpoena power. Still, while some courts agreed that irregularities had occurred in 2020, they weren’t willing to grant discovery unless Republicans first presented enough evidence of fraud that could overturn the election. Republicans thus faced a kind of Catch 22.
Simple tests for the extent of vote fraud with absentee and provisional ballots in the 2020 US presidential election
This study reports three tests measuring vote fraud in the 2020 US presidential election, although they provide inconsistent evidence. To isolate the impact ofdeliverypdf.ssrn.com
You are maddening to talk to because you are so ridiculous with your arguments and you get it wrong ALL the time. The information is clear as day, evidence of fraud has NOT been heard in the courts regarding the 2020 election. The link I provided listing the cases and their outcomes is 100% correct.
You presented that list as comprehensive. You presented their total numbers as fact. I quite literally pick one case and looked at the decision.
Your "list" presented the fiction that there was NO evidence presented in THAT case. That it was decided as a Non-Merit case. Period. End of story. The ruling presents the exact opposite reality. Your list-makers lied about THAT case. Period. End of story. It's like bumping a haystack and three needles pop out. The logical assumption would be that the haystack is full of needles. Explain how they got THAT case 100% wrong. Respond on point this time.
As for your claim that the case doesn't involve allegations of fraud...Specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendants ignored limits on the availability of mail-in balloting, created ballot dropboxes, did not provide adequate access to poll observers, "eliminated state laws requiring that voters provide information on the mail-in ballot envelope," and permitted election workers to alter ballots. Plaintiff claims that the alleged conduct violates both the Elections and Electors Clauses..
That certainly quacks like a fraud duck.
LOL...look at you sticking up for yourself. 'His" job is to address MY point. "He" has yet to do so. Troll
Just trying to keep it civil and on topic. You continue to drive the conversation away from the evidence and into personal territory.
It’s where you take a conversation when you’re afraid of truth coming out. Particularly if it gives credence to anything trump has said. TDS
Is TDS the derangement syndrome where people believe everything the former president says (like the Big Lie), even when there isn't any evidence?
That's such a stupid and tired argument and completely unsurprising coming from you.
There is no truth to come out of this film D'Souza has presented himself as the same type of shallow troll that you have here. He puts in no effort and wants millions to pay and believe.
Once again spaghetti against the wall. The guy talks a ton of shit. Just because there might be a kernel of truth here or there doesn't mean he owns a silo of facts. Things must be put in perspective. 160 million votes done across 50 different locations with there own set of controls, rules, procedures, etc. And more than likely errors that amounted to rounding. This isn't any different than any other system accounting for 100's of millions of transactions. Unless elections went nationalized and fully automated the error rate probably couldn't come much closer to perfection. That purist want.
Alabama now in hurricane zone
. Truth isn't truth.
Clearly. Liberal vs. conservative documentaries. I suppose gore and Moore are impartial spreading truths and this film isn’t in your eyes? A film, mind you, that you haven’t seen. I have provided reviews, including an unbiased one from a website.
Again, I’m not alleging a full blown conspiracy that actually determined a winner here. Just that whatever was being pushed after the election is not completely made up. 🤷♂️ guess we can’t interpret for ourselves.
Most reasonable people would look at the filmmakers, the topics being covered, and conclude that both pieces are biased and full of partisan talking points. For some reason you feel compelled to present this movie as truth, and blame everyone who doesn't agree with it as grand conspirators trying to silence it.
I never said that. However, you have spent 8 pages suggesting that D’Souza is impartially spreading truths in a "groundbreaking" film you haven't seen yet.
Banned for trolling but totally not a troll.
Link to me presenting this movie as truth? Just gotta love the traveling troupe of bobble heads putting words in my mouth all day.
I have not insisted any of those things. I have linked others’ opinions on the matter and asked a series of questions. Hell, I’ve said probably 10 times ITT that I don’t believe a widespread conspiracy occurred.
Dems have points as well. Voter roll purges. Not enough voting precincts for larger urban areas. Misleading ads about what is or isn't voter fraud.
This stuff was studied by a former Republican and Democrat joint commission. Shocking they delivered a report that called for changes. Republicans rejected changes that would hurt them. Dems did the same about changes that felt damaged their voters. Bottomline what we have is fair and the losing side always cries foul about the system. Difference is never had a cult leader willing to ignore all norms before and put himself above the system.
Similar threads
