Republicans: continued

[Cunt]

Our member from Yellowstone does not regard consilience with facts as a criterion for honesty. Honesty is proportional to agreement with his bias.

Oh look, ignoring the facts to attack me again. I would tell you I've missed your deep and thoughtful contributions, but that would be a damned lie, and I won't put you through that.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Yeah man. People fail to understand that seeming 'honest and assholeish' is a high criterion for credibility. How many mainstream news sources meet that criterion, eh?

[Cunt]

Yeah man. People fail to understand that seeming 'honest and assholeish' is a high criterion for credibility. How many mainstream news sources meet that criterion, eh?

If a journalist is telling a story that someone doesn't want told, of course he would be painted as an asshole.

You haven't addressed any of his stories though. We already knew he was an asshole.

As to 'credibility', you just added to his, since the best you can do to discredit his claims is a feeble attack like that.

[L'Emmerdeur]

I gave a link to a fact-checking site that showed his dishonesty. Despite your claims to the contrary his reputation is not for scrupulous honesty, but for disingenuous partisan attack jobs presented dishonestly. You would know that if you weren't so far down the right wing conspiracy fruit loop bunny hole that all you can see is confirmation of your perspective.

[Cunt]

I gave a link to a fact-checking site that showed his dishonesty. Despite your claims to the contrary his reputation is not for scrupulous honesty, but for disingenuous partisan attack jobs presented dishonestly. You would know that if you weren't so far down the right wing conspiracy fruit loop bunny hole that all you can see is confirmation of your perspective.

It didn't show his dishonesty. Once I scrolled through the 'fund us' ad, I saw a few old stories marked 'mostly false', and I've seen those sorts before.

The stories I have 'believed' of his, mostly involve hidden camera work. The Sanders staffer (Kyle Jurik?) and the like.

You go ahead and attack him though. How DARE he suggest that voter fraud wasn't as rare as the Dems currently claim it is.

I mean, the NERVE.

[Cunt]

I gave a link to a fact-checking site that showed his dishonesty. Despite your claims to the contrary his reputation is not for scrupulous honesty, but for disingenuous partisan attack jobs presented dishonestly. You would know that if you weren't so far down the right wing conspiracy fruit loop bunny hole that all you can see is confirmation of your perspective.

Wow, their first 'fact-check' makes them look really dishonest.

They refute what they say is his claim that 100,000 DACA applicants have arrest on their record for murder etc., by showing that most are not murder.

Trouble is, his claim wasn't that they all had those charges - they were not presented that way by my reading.

So yeah, check one of his stories out...one with video, and pick one that pisses you off. Maybe you'll learn something.

[Tero]

[Hermit]

Our member from Yellowstone does not regard consilience with facts as a criterion for honesty. Honesty is proportional to agreement with his bias.

Oh look, ignoring the facts to attack me again.

You're the one who keeps proffering "information" devoid of substantiation. I refuse to apologise for pointing it out.

Let's have a look at your latest submission in this thread. Over 3.5 million suspicious/fraudulent registered voters in the 2016 presidential election, huh? Amazing numbers. It turns out Trump started a Commission on Voter Fraud about that. In January 2018 the Commission was about to make its report, stating it basically came up empty-handed. That was not what Trump wanted to hear, so he pulled the plug on it. Fast forward to May 2020. You come up with a graphic citing unsubstantiated numbers that were discredited over two years ago.

I know you won't read this because it's not one of Tim Pool's Youtube videos, some totally anonymous entity going by the name of Q, or one of your other preferred ranters and ravers, but if you really wanted to find out about voter fraud allegations you could do worse than to delve into this analysis.

[Cunt]

I know you won't read this

Oh good, saves us both some time!

They fact-checked Trumps voter fraud claim by citing CNN.

It's all equally serious.

[Hermit]

They fact-checked Trumps voter fraud claim by citing CNN.

It's all equally serious.

Wrong. Some claims need to be taken more seriously than others. For instance, we should take Trump's own Commission on Voter Fraud's finding more seriously than that of Judicial Watch. Conveniently, neither cite CNN.

[Cunt]

Wrong. I would always take Trumps claims more seriously than yours, for instance.

[pErvinalia]

That says an awful lot about you...

[Hermit]

That says an awful lot about you...

Especially since he managed to contradict himself from one post to the next.

[JimC]

That says an awful lot about you...

Especially since he managed to contradict himself from one post to the next.

He is only following the Trump playbook faithfully...

[Animavore]