What's new
By:
Filters

Dammit Trump, why are saying stupid shit/smdh/

Outahand said:
They got a pretty good defense. Lots of Epstein's Island visitors on their team......
Click to expand...
To be clear- I'm not saying cheating didn't happen, I'm saying this film is worthless entertainment theater unless they can back up the claims they made with data. It's been a long time since it came out, and they've have some issues with proving claims they made in court. As a result, I'm hesitant to recommend something like this to anyone I want to convince that there may have been any wrongdoing because it's got about as many verifiable facts in it as a sasquatch documentary and it will damage the credibility of the whole idea.
 
Sandy Johnson said:
I'm pretty sure if they could actually prove the person was a crook and avoid a huge payout as well as a mandate to pull every copy of what they published, thereby losing a huge pile of money, the publisher would have chosen to go that route instead.
Click to expand...
Let me say it again, perhaps you'll actually read it this time:


Our "Justice" system does not care about the truth. It only cares about processing as many cases as possible, as quickly as possible, truth be damned.


The publisher would lose in court, and they know it; for the same reason that very little (if any) evidence of election fraud for 2020 ever saw the courtroom: The powers that be Do Not Want it to go to trial. It has nothing to do with the evidence, or the truth, it is only about what the Puppet Masters will allow, since They control political puppets in key places in the (so-called) Justice system and anything to do with election fraud gets buried in red tape, "standing" and other B.S. long before it could ever show up on a judge's docket somewhere.


Here's one way of how it could go down. "The Publisher" (defense) would want to bring in the evidence they have, "The Ballot Mules" (plaintiff) would argue that the evidence shouldn't be allowed without prior conviction (or tie it in some other way to a supposed criminal indictment) and file a motion to wait for the prosecution's case to conclude. "Prosecution" then declines to indict citing lack of evidence. With the criminal case dismissed, that dismissal is admitted into the civil trial, but the evidence is not. Defense loses and the truth never comes out.

Our "Justice" system does not care about the truth. It only cares about processing as many cases as possible, as quickly as possible, truth be damned.
 
MChat said:
Let me say it again, perhaps you'll actually read it this time:


Our "Justice" system does not care about the truth. It only cares about processing as many cases as possible, as quickly as possible, truth be damned.
Click to expand...
I read it the first time. This whole post is something you're telling yourself to propagate a delusion. Money makes the world go round, including in court. A big publisher just lost lots of money. If they had the evidence, they wouldn't have rolled over and agreed to pull the books and film as well as paid out to the family.
 
No. I have personal experience along with multiple friends with personal experience with the so-called justice system and I know for a fact, personally, that it is corrupt and not interested in the truth.

It doesn't matter how deep the publisher's pockets are, the corrupt system does not want any 2020 election fraud evidence to ever be admitted as evidence in ANY court case, therefor it won't. Truth be damned.
 
MChat said:
No. I have personal experience along with multiple friends with personal experience with the so-called justice system and I know for a fact, personally, that it is corrupt and not interested in the truth.

It doesn't matter how deep the publisher's pockets are, the corrupt system does not want any 2020 election fraud evidence to ever be admitted as evidence in ANY court case, therefor it won't. Truth be damned.
Click to expand...
You're not the only one who has dealt with the justice system. Your first claim doesn't validate your second claim. You and others can believe all you want, but nothing will change unless there is evidence to back it up. There is a large subset of the population that will not be convinced until that proof comes to light, and even then, some will remain in denial. Showing people a film that failed to deliver on its promises of hard data to back up their claims isn't going to win anyone over to our side and in fact will just make the notion that election fraud happened seem even more looney than it did before.
 
dntsdad said:
True question. Why?

If they didn't release the data to back up their claims like they said they would, why believe it?
Click to expand...

what are you or anyone else in the public laymen going to do with the raw data?

im not claiming they are infallable, but i think they forked over a few million for the raw data from the cell companies.


Sandy Johnson said:
I'm pretty sure if they could actually prove the person was a crook and avoid a huge payout as well as a mandate to pull every copy of what they published, thereby losing a huge pile of money, the publisher would have chosen to go that route instead.
Click to expand...

who proves someone is a crook? for that to happen, someone like a DA would have to go investigate those people and prosecute them, which what MCHAT is saying that no one is interested in. and its true, they arent. because all the DAs in these areas where cheating is going on have been bought and paid for by Soros and Open Society Foundation, which in turn is who is also funding these ballot harvesting schemes.

i love your idealism, that some shit is going to happen in a civil court case with a publisher, like they uncover some crime and then its get investigated and so on. No, that doesnt happen. Publisher gets sued..... "these ballot harvesters have not been arrested or charged with a crime and so they are innocent" and thats how it goes. Inactivity does not mean innocence, example, back to Epstein and Maxwell trafficed hundreds of kids to no one.


also, if you paid any attention over the last 30 years, someone being found guilty or not guilty has NOTHING to do with if they actually did it. NOTHING.

yall need to remember this isnt some Norman Rockwell fairytale america anymore. you are living in a Banana Republic whether you want to admit it or not.
 
Texas97 said:
who proves someone is a crook? for that to happen, someone like a DA would have to go investigate those people and prosecute them
Click to expand...
Per the article I posted earlier, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation performed the investigation and found he was dropping ballots off for his family:
The Georgia Bureau of Investigation cleared Andrews of wrongdoing, and found he was legally dropping off ballots for members of his family
Click to expand...
 
Sandy Johnson said:
Per the article I posted earlier, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation performed the investigation and found he was dropping ballots off for his family:
Click to expand...

is that the same GBI that visited the recent school shooter and did nothing?

or the GBI who investigated the voter fraud happening when they cried "water main break" and stopped counting.

or is that just Georgia where the Secretary of State claimed Trump called him, threatened him and asked him commit fraud and create ballots for him, deleted the recorded conversation with Trump, and then that recorded conversation was found and completely contradicted what he claimed?
 
Sandy Johnson said:
Per the article I posted earlier, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation performed the investigation and found he was dropping ballots off for his family:
Click to expand...
Again. One guy.

The movie shows a lot of compelling evidence.

It sounds like you won't watch it because of that one guy's case. That is what they want. My liberal brother won't watch it because it was "debunked"

I suggest you watch it and see for yourself if it seems credible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DMG
Outahand said:
Again. One guy.

The movie shows a lot of compelling evidence.

It sounds like you won't watch it because of that one guy's case. That is what they want. My liberal brother won't watch it because it was "debunked"

I suggest you watch it and see for yourself if it seems credible.
Click to expand...
You do know that Will Smith and Randy Quaid didn’t save us from aliens on July 4th, right?

Movies don’t equate to truth without data to back it up.
 
Texas97 said:
what are you or anyone else in the public laymen going to do with the raw data?

im not claiming they are infallable, but i think they forked over a few million for the raw data from the cell companies.




who proves someone is a crook? for that to happen, someone like a DA would have to go investigate those people and prosecute them, which what MCHAT is saying that no one is interested in. and its true, they arent. because all the DAs in these areas where cheating is going on have been bought and paid for by Soros and Open Society Foundation, which in turn is who is also funding these ballot harvesting schemes.

i love your idealism, that some shit is going to happen in a civil court case with a publisher, like they uncover some crime and then its get investigated and so on. No, that doesnt happen. Publisher gets sued..... "these ballot harvesters have not been arrested or charged with a crime and so they are innocent" and thats how it goes. Inactivity does not mean innocence, example, back to Epstein and Maxwell trafficed hundreds of kids to no one.


also, if you paid any attention over the last 30 years, someone being found guilty or not guilty has NOTHING to do with if they actually did it. NOTHING.

yall need to remember this isnt some Norman Rockwell fairytale america anymore. you are living in a Banana Republic whether you want to admit it or not.
Click to expand...
This is the issue.

Hey, there's data the proves our movie. We will release it in 30 days.

Years later, no data.

Me: Why would I watch a documentary when the makers relied on data to make it but show anyone that data?

Trump Cock Gobblers: What would you even do with the data? Just believe the movie man!!

Maybe I would do something with it and maybe I wouldn't. Perhaps I quit my job and spend 18 hours a day learning how to decipher it. Probably not.
BUT, perhaps some media companies do? Glen Beck, Shaprio, etc. or even more independent guys like Glen Greenwald.

That is a shitty play to say it's not a big deal to not release because I couldn't do anything with it.

Weak sauce x 11billionty.
 
ApeEater said:
You do know that Will Smith and Randy Quaid didn’t save us from aliens on July 4th, right?

Movies don’t equate to truth without data to back it up.
Click to expand...
vacuum-implosion.gif
 
dntsdad said:
This is the issue.

Hey, there's data the proves our movie. We will release it in 30 days.

Years later, no data.

Me: Why would I watch a documentary when the makers relied on data to make it but show anyone that data?

Trump Cock Gobblers: What would you even do with the data? Just believe the movie man!!

Maybe I would do something with it and maybe I wouldn't. Perhaps I quit my job and spend 18 hours a day learning how to decipher it. Probably not.
BUT, perhaps some media companies do? Glen Beck, Shaprio, etc. or even more independent guys like Glen Greenwald.

That is a shitty play to say it's not a big deal to not release because I couldn't do anything with it.

Weak sauce x 11billionty.
Click to expand...

i think you're railing against the wrong thing.

there is much more evidence to point to other than the movie. but if you are going to throw the baby out with the bathwater, i guess thats how i would do it.
 
dntsdad said:
This is the issue.

Hey, there's data the proves our movie. We will release it in 30 days.

Years later, no data.

Me: Why would I watch a documentary when the makers relied on data to make it but show anyone that data?

Trump Cock Gobblers: What would you even do with the data? Just believe the movie man!!

Maybe I would do something with it and maybe I wouldn't. Perhaps I quit my job and spend 18 hours a day learning how to decipher it. Probably not.
BUT, perhaps some media companies do? Glen Beck, Shaprio, etc. or even more independent guys like Glen Greenwald.

That is a shitty play to say it's not a big deal to not release because I couldn't do anything with it.

Weak sauce x 11billionty.
Click to expand...
They won't provide the data that would mean nothing to you anyway so you won't watch the movie.....

Sound logic there......
 
Texas97 said:
i think you're railing against the wrong thing.

there is much more evidence to point to other than the movie. but if you are going to throw the baby out with the bathwater, i guess thats how i would do it.
Click to expand...
I agree with you that there is compelling information out there which leads me to believe there was election fraud. I was excited for this movie because I thought there would be a nicely packaged documentary that I could point people who were skeptical to that would perhaps change their minds. I can't do that with 2,000 mules because it takes about a 2 second google search to immediately start poking holes in it.
 
Texas97 said:
is that the same GBI that visited the recent school shooter and did nothing?

or the GBI who investigated the voter fraud happening when they cried "water main break" and stopped counting.

or is that just Georgia where the Secretary of State claimed Trump called him, threatened him and asked him commit fraud and create ballots for him, deleted the recorded conversation with Trump, and then that recorded conversation was found and completely contradicted what he claimed?
Click to expand...
As far as I know the GBI is investigating after the fact. It was the FBI who referred local law enforcement to visit the recent school shooter.

It was the Georgia State Election Board that investigated voter fraud and referred cases to attorney general and local district attorneys for prosecution.

As you stated so well, the Georgia Secretary of State did all the bullshit to Trump, and not the GBI.

Perhaps your google is broken, so I'll shoot you this link if you'd like to know more about the GBI.
Georgia Bureau of Investigation
 
Texas97 said:
i think you're railing against the wrong thing.

there is much more evidence to point to other than the movie. but if you are going to throw the baby out with the bathwater, i guess thats how i would do it.
Click to expand...
I agree that there are things that are out there that lead one to BELIEVE there was fraud. However, that is NOT fucking proof. I really can't understand how this is not simple logic.

If your point is that the election was likely stolen, then I am in. 10000000000%
If your point is the election WAS stolen by fraud as in ballot stuffing and fake ballots, then show me proof of that shown over the last 3.5 years.

Then you are changing the goalposts. The movie shows the fraud. It can't be substantiated and has many places where cold water was thrown on the fires. The producers will NOT release the data of this "proof".

However, just trust the proof!! :shaking::shaking:

It's like a 3 Stooges Routine seriously.

Do you have proof or not? It's really that simple. Not irregularities. Not my cousin saw. Not this looks fishy. Fucking proof???

If not, you people sound ridiculous spouting it off as fact and then mocking people that want you to be correct, like me, but don't just assume the guy on the other end of the email really is the Prince of Niger and wants to give me gold, or there really are hot MILFs in my area that want the cawk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh