How did Warnock win?

MountaineerWV

All-American
Sep 18, 2007
21,211
6,463
658
For the hundredth time. It's not illegal in several places. Republicans must learn to play the game or DeSantis or any other Republican is not getting elected President. It doesn't matter how popular they are in their home State.

Now about DeSantis. Wait until the Intelligence agencies start leaking stuff on him to the media. Then they start bringing up GITMO and other stuff that you all don't know about.

It's going to make Trump look like a choir boy and it won't matter if it's true or not and the context.

So if you can't stand up to what they did to Trump. Then what they will attempt to do to DeSantis will be a much harder task.
It's hard to "play the game" if the leader of your party and others supporting him keep saying "stolen election". Silence that, and maybe you will get your wish.
 

atlkvb

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Jul 9, 2004
68,581
35,099
688
Atlanta, GA
Fake ballots? They are mailing ballots out. They have a grassroots organization out there collecting them and persuading people to vote for them. Running ads isn't working. Do what they are doing or continue to lose elections.
Well OK... I was under the impression that the alleged "ballot harvesting" they engage in....as depicted in the film 2000 mules, is what some are suggesting we also need to do? If it's just requesting and then sending back absentee ballots...I'm OK with that as long as there are chain of custody and voter I.D. verification procedures strictly followed.
 

atlkvb

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Jul 9, 2004
68,581
35,099
688
Atlanta, GA
It's hard to "play the game" if the leader of your party and others supporting him keep saying "stolen election". Silence that, and maybe you will get your wish.
As much as the Left insists the election wasn't stolen, they still cannot explain what those mules were up to as recorded in that film 2000 mules. No one can explain it, and no one even bothers to try by investigating it.

Why not?
(and don't say it's all been debunked because it has not been)

 
  • Like
Reactions: ThePunish-EER

Gunny46

All-American
Gold Member
Jul 3, 2018
25,538
14,636
548
It's hard to "play the game" if the leader of your party and others supporting him keep saying "stolen election". Silence that, and maybe you will get your wish.

Definitely some shady stuff going on in Elections. He needs to move on though. Can't change anything unless you win.
 

Gunny46

All-American
Gold Member
Jul 3, 2018
25,538
14,636
548
It's hard to "play the game" if the leader of your party and others supporting him keep saying "stolen election". Silence that, and maybe you will get your wish.
Definitely some shady stuff going on in Elections. He needs to move on though. Can't change anything unless you win.

There's also numerous post on this board of Democrats crying about elections saying the same things as Trump. So let's no pretend it really matters that he calls it out too.
 

Gunny46

All-American
Gold Member
Jul 3, 2018
25,538
14,636
548
There's also numerous post on this board of Democrats crying about elections saying the same things as Trump. So let's no pretend it really matters that he calls it out too.



 

Gunny46

All-American
Gold Member
Jul 3, 2018
25,538
14,636
548

2000 Presidential Election

  • Joe Biden, 2013:Al Gore “was elected president of the United States of America.”
    • Joe Biden, 2016: “I think [Gore] won.”
  • Hillary Clinton, 2016: The Supreme Court “took away a presidency.”
  • Barack Obama, 2005: “Not every vote” was counted.
  • Bill Clinton, 2001: “The only way they could win the election was to stop the voting in Florida.”
  • Jimmy Carter, 2005: “There’s no doubt in my mind that Al Gore was elected president.”
  • Al Gore, 2017: “Actually I think I carried Florida.”
  • Jamie Raskin, 2003: George W. Bush was the “first court-appointed president.”
  • Terry McAuliffe, 2004: “We won that election!”
  • Debbie Wasserman Schultz, 2016: “The Supreme Court elected the president. Al Gore won the state of Florida in 2000.”

2004 Presidential Election

  • Hillary Clinton, 2005: “It’s fair to say that there are many legitimate questions about” the “accuracy” and “integrity” of America’s election system, “and they’re not confined to the state of Ohio.”
  • Howard Dean, 2006: “I’m not confident” the election “was fairly decided” because “the machines were not reliable.”
  • Jerry Nadler, 2005: “The right to vote has been stolen from qualified voters.”
  • Sheila Jackson Lee, 2004: “We cannot declare that the election of November 2, 2004 was free and clear and transparent and real.”
  • Maxine Waters, 2005: “Problems in the Ohio election” could have been “outcome determinative.”

2016 Presidential Election

  • Joe Biden, 2019: “I absolutely” agree that Trump is an “illegitimate president.”
  • Hillary Clinton, 2019: The election was “stolen.”
  • Jimmy Carter, 2019: “Trump didn’t actually win the election in 2016. He lost the election and was put into office because the Russians interference on his behalf.”
  • Kamala Harris, 2019: “Absolutely right” that Trump “didn’t really win.”
  • Karine Jean-Pierre, 2016: It was a “stolen election.”
  • Jerry Nadler, 2017: It was a “tainted” and “illegitimate” election.

2018 Gubernatorial Elections

  • Stacey Abrams, 2019: “We won!”
  • Cory Booker, 2018: “Stacey Abrams’ election is being stolen from her.”
  • Sherrod Brown, 2018: “They stole it. It’s clear.”
  • Hillary Clinton, 2018: “If she had a fair election, she already would have won.”
  • Kamala Harris, 2019: “Without voter suppression, Stacey Abrams would be the governor of Georgia; Andrew Gillum is the governor of Florida.”
  • Karine Jean-Pierre, 2020: “Brian Kemp stole the gubernatorial election.”
  • Terry McAuliffe, 2021: Abrams would have been governor “had the governor of Georgia not disenfranchised 1.4 million Georgia voters.”
 

Gunny46

All-American
Gold Member
Jul 3, 2018
25,538
14,636
548
Definitely some shady stuff going on in Elections. He needs to move on though. Can't change anything unless you win.

To clarify my recommendation would be for him to move on. However the rest of us can keep pointing out the hypocrites.


 

NYC_Eer

All-Conference
Gold Member
Aug 22, 2010
9,524
4,509
628
New York
As much as the Left insists the election wasn't stolen, they still cannot explain what those mules were up to as recorded in that film 2000 mules. No one can explain it, and no one even bothers to try by investigating it.

Why not?
(and don't say it's all been debunked because it has not been)

Outside of Trumpistan it has.



 

Gunny46

All-American
Gold Member
Jul 3, 2018
25,538
14,636
548

2000 Presidential Election

  • Joe Biden, 2013:Al Gore “was elected president of the United States of America.”
    • Joe Biden, 2016: “I think [Gore] won.”
  • Hillary Clinton, 2016: The Supreme Court “took away a presidency.”
  • Barack Obama, 2005: “Not every vote” was counted.
  • Bill Clinton, 2001: “The only way they could win the election was to stop the voting in Florida.”
  • Jimmy Carter, 2005: “There’s no doubt in my mind that Al Gore was elected president.”
  • Al Gore, 2017: “Actually I think I carried Florida.”
  • Jamie Raskin, 2003: George W. Bush was the “first court-appointed president.”
  • Terry McAuliffe, 2004: “We won that election!”
  • Debbie Wasserman Schultz, 2016: “The Supreme Court elected the president. Al Gore won the state of Florida in 2000.”

2004 Presidential Election

  • Hillary Clinton, 2005: “It’s fair to say that there are many legitimate questions about” the “accuracy” and “integrity” of America’s election system, “and they’re not confined to the state of Ohio.”
  • Howard Dean, 2006: “I’m not confident” the election “was fairly decided” because “the machines were not reliable.”
  • Jerry Nadler, 2005: “The right to vote has been stolen from qualified voters.”
  • Sheila Jackson Lee, 2004: “We cannot declare that the election of November 2, 2004 was free and clear and transparent and real.”
  • Maxine Waters, 2005: “Problems in the Ohio election” could have been “outcome determinative.”

2016 Presidential Election

  • Joe Biden, 2019: “I absolutely” agree that Trump is an “illegitimate president.”
  • Hillary Clinton, 2019: The election was “stolen.”
  • Jimmy Carter, 2019: “Trump didn’t actually win the election in 2016. He lost the election and was put into office because the Russians interference on his behalf.”
  • Kamala Harris, 2019: “Absolutely right” that Trump “didn’t really win.”
  • Karine Jean-Pierre, 2016: It was a “stolen election.”
  • Jerry Nadler, 2017: It was a “tainted” and “illegitimate” election.

2018 Gubernatorial Elections

  • Stacey Abrams, 2019: “We won!”
  • Cory Booker, 2018: “Stacey Abrams’ election is being stolen from her.”
  • Sherrod Brown, 2018: “They stole it. It’s clear.”
  • Hillary Clinton, 2018: “If she had a fair election, she already would have won.”
  • Kamala Harris, 2019: “Without voter suppression, Stacey Abrams would be the governor of Georgia; Andrew Gillum is the governor of Florida.”
  • Karine Jean-Pierre, 2020: “Brian Kemp stole the gubernatorial election.”
  • Terry McAuliffe, 2021: Abrams would have been governor “had the governor of Georgia not disenfranchised 1.4 million Georgia voters.”
To clarify my recommendation would be for him to move on. However the rest of us can keep pointing out the hypocrites.



Were these three post really that hard for you to comprehend?


Outside of Trumpistan it has.





Just push play.

 

dave

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
161,375
39,411
718
Morgantown, WV
There's the system that Republicans want then there is the system they got. Going to have to win before they can change it. Complaining with no action gets more of the New Democrat Party elected. That includes Rinos too.
Elections are run by states. Republicans have most of the states. They just have to want to make changes.

If every state did what Ohio and WV have done to voter rolls it might start to appear legit.
 

atlkvb

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Jul 9, 2004
68,581
35,099
688
Atlanta, GA
Not my point. My point was that 2000 Mules has been debunked.
While I read what you offered "debunking" what was documented in the film, I'm curious if you have any logical explanation for exactly what we did see? (the articles you offered merely made an attempt to discredit the evidence presented, yet did not explain what we actually saw?)

What's your best guess? Also, did you watch the film? If you did you'd know the attempts those articles made to discredit the methodology used to identify the mules and their activity was not only grossly inaccurate, but an outright lie! (the film's authors went into quite some detail how their methodology was organized) However if you didn't watch it you are unaware of that. So my next question to you is why do you assume the Reuters and/or FACTcheck.org explanations or what they described as "flaws" in the methodology definitively prove the film's producers and their evidence was inauthentic? What do you base that on?

I'll later offer both factual rebuttals, and logical explanations irrefutably decimating the articles you offered as "debunking" the film, but if what we saw has indeed been "debunked" can you tell the board what we were watching that was perfectly legal and how your articles proved it? Seems to me after I read them they offered nothing but general speculation over what the video evidence "could have been", not conclusive exculpatory explanations of what it actually was we saw? Which is why the entire episode cries out for further investigation!

Ironically, that speculation is the exact the same argument those authors accused the film's producers of in their attempts merely to raise questions about what was presented, not "debunk" the hard evidence presented in the film. Their objective was only to question what we were viewing, not explain exactly what we were seeing if it was legal? That's how something is "debunked"...it's proven beyond any reasonable doubt the evidence is NOT what was presented. Your articles DID NOT do that! They accused the filmmakers of what they in fact did! My point is, no one has bothered to find out what those mules were up to if it wasn't illegal?

But isn't that typical of you folks on the Left accusing others of what you in fact do? @NYC_Eer ...as he speaks smugly..."I'm not on the Left atl...I'm independent"....Yeah, that's why you glommed onto Left wing media like Reuters and FactCheck.org trying to prove the authors of 2000 mules were full of it?
giphy.gif
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 30CAT

dave

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
161,375
39,411
718
Morgantown, WV
Outside of Trumpistan it has.




Intellectually weak even for your stupid ass. Good grief.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 30CAT and atlkvb

Gunny46

All-American
Gold Member
Jul 3, 2018
25,538
14,636
548
Elections are run by states. Republicans have most of the states. They just have to want to make changes.

If every state did what Ohio and WV have done to voter rolls it might start to appear legit.

I agree voter roles need cleaned up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: atlkvb

atlkvb

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Jul 9, 2004
68,581
35,099
688
Atlanta, GA
Intellectually weak even for your stupid ass. Good grief.
He didn't even watch the film so how could he know those articles were accurately reflecting what the film attempted to document? I'll shred them later (very busy at work now) but the point is what he claims was "debunked" offered merely speculation over what we may have been watching? Further logical extrapolations of evidence vs how it was gathered easily lead one to entirely different speculation. Again, it was never investigated so how do we know what those mules were up to? Whatever it was, it hasn't been accurately explained which is my point!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 30CAT

dave

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
161,375
39,411
718
Morgantown, WV
He didn't even watch the film so how could he know those articles were accurately reflecting what the film attempted to document? I'll shred them later (very busy at work now) but the point is what he claims was "debunked" offered merely speculation over what we may have been watching? Further logical extrapolations of evidence vs how it was gathered easily lead one to entirely different speculation. Again, it was never investigated so how do we know what those mules were up to? Whatever it was, it hasn't been accurately explained which is my point!
Because Google and links are the new lazy way to convince yourself you are smart.

I doubt he even read the articles he linked because if he did he would realize they didn't even debunk the film.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 30CAT and atlkvb

atlkvb

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Jul 9, 2004
68,581
35,099
688
Atlanta, GA
Because Google and links are the new lazy way to convince yourself you are smart.

I doubt he even read the articles he linked because if he did he would realize they didn't even debunk the film.
Exactly! I have to go to a dinner engagement tonight when I leave here, but when I get home tonight I'll take some time to refute what those articles offered (I did read them...curious how they "debunked" the film) and I'll "debunk" the debunkers!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 30CAT

ThePunish-EER

All-American
Aug 19, 2005
10,325
2,221
478
To clarify my recommendation would be for him to move on. However the rest of us can keep pointing out the hypocrites.


As much as I agree with Trump, the election was stolen. I also agree with you, it’s time to move on. It will not be changed or fixed. How do we move on and fix the system? Currently, I’m not sure. I do firmly believe the machines are being hacked. No question in my mind. That said, I don’t see anyone of influence willing to stand up to it and have the ability to force it to be fixed. We obviously disagree on the current state of Republicans vs Democrats. I won’t stop voting that’s for sure, but I’m certain these 2 parties are hand in hand to assure the current agenda is met. What’s the solution? Better representatives. The people have to wake up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 30CAT

Gunny46

All-American
Gold Member
Jul 3, 2018
25,538
14,636
548
As much as I agree with Trump, the election was stolen. I also agree with you, it’s time to move on. It will not be changed or fixed. How do we move on and fix the system? Currently, I’m not sure. I do firmly believe the machines are being hacked. No question in my mind. That said, I don’t see anyone of influence willing to stand up to it and have the ability to force it to be fixed. We obviously disagree on the current state of Republicans vs Democrats. I won’t stop voting that’s for sure, but I’m certain these 2 parties are hand in hand to assure the current agenda is met. What’s the solution? Better representatives. The people have to wake up.

Keep trying to win hearts and minds until they start firing at you. Then you return fire.
 

WVU82

Hall of Famer
May 29, 2001
162,563
46,935
718

It’s All Rigged Like Pro Wrestling: If You Think Kari Lake, Dr. Oz and Herschel Walker Lost without a Rigged Election, You’re an Idiot​


 

ThePunish-EER

All-American
Aug 19, 2005
10,325
2,221
478
Keep trying to win hearts and minds until they start firing at you. Then you return fire.
We need Americans to wake up. Turn the msm off. They need to use their brains. Treat the msm like your house from intruders and lock them out. It’s foolish believing anything they say. We need a grassroots initiative nationwide. It’s gonna take a couple decades. The ship cannot be fixed overnight.
 

Gunny46

All-American
Gold Member
Jul 3, 2018
25,538
14,636
548
We need Americans to wake up. Turn the msm off. They need to use their brains. Treat the msm like your house from intruders and lock them out. It’s foolish believing anything they say. We need a grassroots initiative nationwide. It’s gonna take a couple decades. The ship cannot be fixed overnight.

Until we decouple from the CCP nothing really gets fixed.

The days of debating Bill Maher types are long gone.


 
Last edited:

NYC_Eer

All-Conference
Gold Member
Aug 22, 2010
9,524
4,509
628
New York
Because Google and links are the new lazy way to convince yourself you are smart.

I doubt he even read the articles he linked because if he did he would realize they didn't even debunk the film.
Yes they did fattie.
 

atlkvb

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Jul 9, 2004
68,581
35,099
688
Atlanta, GA
Yes they did fattie.

I got in very late last night and didn't get a chance to offer my factual rebuttals to your arguments. Instead of name calling can you try to intelligently engage us with what you learned reading that information which you insist "debunked" the evidence presented in the film?

I promise I will address the articles, however why can't you answer first a few simple questions about what you offered as "debunking" the film?

1) Did you watch the film?

2) What did the information you presented demonstrate those mules were LEGALLY doing if it wasn't illegal ballot trafficking?

3) Who were the individuals identified by Geo tracking (again if you had watched the film this was thoroughly explained) dropping multiple ballots off for? Family? Friends? Who?

4) What is the liklihood/probability those people (making multiple visits to multiple drop boxes on multiple days with multiple ballots) were NOT working for someone else?

5) Why was it necessary for the mules targeted by the tracking data to make repeated visits to the non profit centers prior to going directly to the drop boxes? (This was the pattern clearly demonstrated in the film) How did your articles address that?

Finally, how many of those mules identified in the film were actually interviewed and asked what they were up to? Geo Tracking data clearly identified who these folks were. Why were none of them interviewed by the fact checkers?

There are of course many more questions to ask, and facts to point out particularly how the authors of your "debunking" flat out lied about the careful methodology used to filter the mule activity recorded. (you'd know this if you watched the film) Again, I'll later point out all of those flaws in their misguided "debunking". However it would be informative to readers you are interested in pursuading to be able to intelligently defend what you are presenting. You cannot do that by refusing to engage or answer logical fact based questions about the evidence used to "debunk" the film which you insist has been done! That's fine, so it should be easy for you to start answering questions how that's been done! Otherwise why present the evidence or refuse to discuss it?

More later.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 30CAT

30CAT

All-American
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
48,854
10,079
708
Williamstown, WV
I got in very late last night and didn't get a chance to offer my factual rebuttals to your arguments. Instead of name calling can you try to intelligently engage us with what you learned reading that information which you insist "debunked" the evidence presented in the film?

I promise I will address the articles, however why can't you answer first a few simple questions about what you offered as "debunking" the film?

1) Did you watch the film?

2) What did the information you presented demonstrate those mules were LEGALLY doing if it wasn't illegal ballot trafficking?

3) Who were the individuals identified by Geo tracking (again if you had watched the film this was thoroughly explained) dropping multiple ballots off for? Family? Friends? Who?

4) What is the likelihood/probability those people (making multiple visits to multiple drop boxes on multiple days with multiple ballots) were NOT working for someone else?

5) Why was it necessary for the mules targeted by the tracking data to make repeated visits to the non profit centers prior to going directly to the drop boxes? (This was the pattern clearly demonstrated in the film) How did your articles address that?

Finally, how many of those mules identified in the film were actually interviewed and asked what they were up to? Geo Tracking data clearly identified who these folks were. Why were none of them interviewed by the fact checkers?

There are of course many more questions to ask, and facts to point out particularly how the authors of your "debunking" flat out lied about the careful methodology used to filter the mule activity recorded. (you'd know this if you watched the film) Again, I'll later point out all of those flaws in their misguided "debunking". However it would be informative to readers you are interested in persuading to be able to intelligently defend what you are presenting. You cannot do that by refusing to engage or answer logical fact based questions about the evidence used to "debunk" the film which you insist has been done! That's fine, so it should be easy for you to start answering questions how that's been done! Otherwise why present the evidence or refuse to discuss it?

More later.

Now that we know conservatives and conservative views have been silenced all throughout the MSM and social media, how could anyone, including bleaters, trust a word the left-wing media says? Bleaters have been hand fed what their messiahs want them to see and hear and their herders have blocked ANY other facts or points of views that refute or disagree with their agenda.

Leftists have pulled the wool over their bleaters' eyes and even with their eyes wide open, they either fail or REFUSE to acknowledge the truth. What conservatives have been saying all along is true. We are being silenced. Our First Amendment rights are and have been under attack. Bleaters just laaaaaughed it off. Now we have 100% proof and they still bleat in denial. That's how divided The People are. We are so divided, socialists are ripping our country apart and we the People are so angry with each other, it's going unnoticed.

We are losing our country. Several Republicans have been exposed. Socialists took out the Democrat party and now the Republican party is under attack. When push comes to shove, it's all about power and control, regardless of party affiliation. Socialists openly said that this is what they would do...and it's WORKING!! Freaking how are we letting them get away with it??!!

No way in hell, anyone can stop, take their rose-colored glasses off, take a good look at America today and honestly say: "This is great!"

May God help us!
 

atlkvb

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Jul 9, 2004
68,581
35,099
688
Atlanta, GA
Now that we know conservatives and conservative views have been silenced all throughout the MSM and social media, how could anyone, including bleaters, trust a word the left-wing media says? Bleaters have been hand fed what their messiahs want them to see and hear and their herders have blocked ANY other facts or points of views that refute or disagree with their agenda.

Leftists have pulled the wool over their bleaters' eyes and even with their eyes wide open, they either fail or REFUSE to acknowledge the truth. What conservatives have been saying all along is true. We are being silenced. Our First Amendment rights are and have been under attack. Bleaters just laaaaaughed it off. Now we have 100% proof and they still bleat in denial. That's how divided The People are. We are so divided, socialists are ripping our country apart and we the People are so angry with each other, it's going unnoticed.

We are losing our country. Several Republicans have been exposed. Socialists took out the Democrat party and now the Republican party is under attack. When push comes to shove, it's all about power and control, regardless of party affiliation. Socialists openly said that this is what they would do...and it's WORKING!! Freaking how are we letting them get away with it??!!

No way in hell, anyone can stop, take their rose-colored glasses off, take a good look at America today and honestly say: "This is great!"

May God help us!
Very well stated my friend. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I know this predicament we find ourselves sin as a nation won't last. something has to give, and soon. Excellent post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 30CAT

atlkvb

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Jul 9, 2004
68,581
35,099
688
Atlanta, GA
To @NYC_Eer ...I'm not sure what your point was in posting those articles ITT claiming to "debunk" the 2000 mules movie, however it's clear to me you're not interested in discussing or defending what was in them. Nor are you capable of detailing how they accomplished what you claim? My guess is you think just posting those articles proves your point, and you don't have to say anything else? That's fine. However as I promised, I'm going to refute them WITH FACTS, and you can either ignore them or continue to incorrectly insist the film as been "debunked".
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 30CAT

atlkvb

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Jul 9, 2004
68,581
35,099
688
Atlanta, GA
My point was that 2000 Mules has been debunked.
Given ample opportunity to respond what makes this statement true, you failed to respond. The evidence you provided ITT did the job its authors intended, merely raising questions about the validity of the information presented in the movie 2000 mules. Raising questions however is NOT "debunking" the serious questions the film itself raised. My purpose here is to point out what you failed to respond to.

I started by asking a simple question, based only in logic, that if the film was not showing alleged illegal activity (ie; multiple individuals making deposits of multiple ballots across multiple locations on multiple days) then what was it showing? That I insist has never been accurately answered, and you've proven it by refusing to even offer logical speculation on what they could have been doing if it wasn't illegal?

The articles you offered suggesting nothing illegal occurred also did not answer that question, which in and of itself proves the allegations in the film were NOT debunked. If it cannot be logically explained what those so called mules were doing that wasn't illegal, then why can't you or anyone else who claims the film has been "debunked" explain it?

Debunk definition, to expose or excoriate (a claim, assertion, sentiment, etc.) as being pretentious, false, or exaggerated.

In the next few postings, I'm going to "debunk" what you claim discredits the movie 2000 mules. I apologize for how late I am getting this in, but late tonight after watching the basketball game and the Heisman ceremony, is where I have plenty of time to thoroughly review and dissect what you offered as proof that the movie 2000 mules has been "debunked". I don't expect everyone to read all I'll post here, I don't even think most folks are interested to tell you the Truth, but I promised I'd shoot down those articles you claim proves all that activity was bogus. So while this is mostly for @NYC_Eer ...anyone can feel free to read what I'm providing here by way of factual rebuttals to the information he offered.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 30CAT

atlkvb

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Jul 9, 2004
68,581
35,099
688
Atlanta, GA
Rebuttal #1 THE FACT CHECKERS GOT THEIR FACTS WRONG

Rather than attack the sources of the information you provided who were all well known for being on the Left, I'll stick to attacking their facts. In fact the whole thesis of their argument rests on their attempts to discredit the accuracy or methodology used to identify the so called "mules" in the movie. Ironically their refusal to factually report how those mules were targeted, identified, and tracked is the primary reason their "debunking" is easily "debunked"!

  • they failed to accurately report how the mules were located and tracked
  • they failed to understand the limits of and purpose for utilizing the geo-tracking data
  • they overlooked obvious "red flags" the geo tracking data raised
  • they did NOT refute what the data clearly showed
  • they rejected or simply ignored all of the assumptions made
Dinesh D'Souza in the movie carefully explained how the mules were identified and tracked.

How the Mules were located:
According to Gregg Phillips, True the Vote analyzed more than a petabyte (1,000 terabytes) of data from smartphones in Phoenix, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Detroit, Milwaukee, and Las Vegas, covering the time period from October 1 through Election Day (and through January 6 in Georgia to cover the Senate runoff). In Atlanta, the group says that by using that data they identified 242 “mules” who met their criteria (visited 10 different ballot drop boxes and at least five different nonprofit organizations identified as “stash houses”) during that time frame.
(source: https://republicandaily.com/2022/05...-checkers-debunking-aps-2000-mules-hit-piece/)

This is important, because the methodology was specifically targeted to eliminate the casual ballot drop box voter. The data trackers were looking for patterns of repeated behavior, and they were working off a tip by an admitted anonymous "mule"! The articles offered as "debunking" never mentioned how most people tracked were also eliminated as possible mules:

(from article "The documentary alleges that by tracking phone locations to the addresses of five alleged “stash house” nonprofits and 10 or more drop boxes, the “mules” were identified.")

That is simply NOT TRUE! In fact, literally millions of "pings" to the cell phones examined were eliminated, and only those fitting patterns of repeated visits to the drop boxes were further targeted. The articles appeared to suggest that simply random folks were innocently caught in a massive cyberspace dragnet, when in fact they were specifically targeted for their unusual activity.


Limits on the tracking data used:
The authors of the articles suggested the geo tracking ping data was unreliable because it's impossible to locate or separate an individual in close proximity to a drop box with accuracy, again suggesting these were simply random subjects falsely accused of normal activity. Or folks who had legal business at or near the drop boxes!
(from article: “The entirety of the claim rests on cell phone location data, which doesn’t remotely show that people were actually using the drop boxes (it doesn’t have the granularity to show that, as opposed to just walking or even driving by),”

Again this is a lie! Because the data was limited to specific individuals who fit unusual yet repeated patterns of movement and behavior, so there can be no doubt what or who was tracked was in fact accurate!

(source: https://republicandaily.com/2022/05...-checkers-debunking-aps-2000-mules-hit-piece/)
True the Vote has said it filtered out people whose “pattern of life” before the election season included frequenting nonprofit and drop box locations. But that strategy wouldn’t filter out election workers who spend more time at drop boxes during the election season, cab drivers whose daily paths don’t follow a pattern, or people whose routines recently changed.
It wouldn’t filter them out if the group didn’t also have other information, such as mobile advertising identifiers. But True the Vote has even more than that. For example, the group has chain of custody logs for the ballot drop boxes in question, so they know when election workers visited the drop boxes to collect ballots and can eliminate cell phones at that location at that time from being included in the “mule” category.

Dsouza himself further explained how those trying to discredit the data collected failed to understand what it was and was not showing!

Numerous "red flags" were overlooked....(cont later)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 30CAT

atlkvb

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Jul 9, 2004
68,581
35,099
688
Atlanta, GA
...more of Rebuttal #1 (red flags overlooked from the Geo tracking data)

The significance of the geo tracking data was to eliminate the possibility of errors in the subjects tracked. This was done by reducing the cell phone pings to only certain numbers that fit an established and discernable pattern...visiting multiple drop boxes, multiple times, on multiple days. While it is true the data could not definitely indicate if a specific visit to a specific drop box was for dropping off multiple ballots, the data does provide evidence of multiple visits of the same numbers pinged to multiple drop boxes and furthermore those visits typically proceeded visits to nearby non profits. There was no mistake in that pattern.

Simple logic would have (should have) raised huge "red flags" for either vote fraud investigators or reporters. The patterns themselves were highly unusual, yet consistent. It was clear these mules identified were not making multiple visits to different drop boxes for members of family in as many different areas as they were tracked, so the obvious question is why were they making all of these drops, for whom and why was it necessary to visit non profits prior to doing so?

The "debunkers" simply brushed off this obvious red flag question by suggesting these visits could have been done by anyone at any time for any reason!

(from article https://www.reuters.com/article/fac...-2020-u-s-presidential-election-idUSL2N2XJ0OQ)
It was unclear whether the same test was applied anywhere other than the swing states in question (to prove a unique phenomenon had happened), along with data validity, accuracy, and discussion about other possibilities that could explain the findings.

This of course flies in the face of what the geo tracking specifically proved by way of a "unique phenomenon" ...ie: an established pattern virtually eliminating any potential for error. The same tracking criterion was used to identify only those mules who made more than 5 visits a piece to the so called "stash houses" and subsequently followed those specific visits with more than 10 visits to the various drop boxes! That pattern was clear, otherwise the cell phone numbers weren't even tracked! The debunkers tried to make it appear as if any one of these persons could have easily visited any one of these non profits, then gone to any drop box which is of course true but NOT MORE THAN 10 TIMES!!!! This fact alone should have been a huge reason to further investigate the claims of the film. A giant red flag so to speak. Yet, no one even bothered to ask who these individuals fingered by the geo tracking data were making all these various visits/drops for?

Another lie about the data from the same posted article above:
"True the Vote said in the documentary it had ruled out people where it believed their “pattern of life” outside the election period involved travelling to nonprofits and drop box locations. They did not offer information on how they did this or who these people were"


Yes they did! They specifically ruled out anyone who didn't fit the above described pattern within the time frame described! Moreover, since the data clearly identified the same individuals who fit the exact same patterns, it should have been easy to see by this "red flag" that we were not talking about random visits by random individuals. None of the fact checkers bothered to ask or answer this rather obvious "red flag" question.

The Geo tracking data was never factually refuted

Fact check "debunkers" in their zeal to discredit the data and how it was gathered, never factually refuted what the geo tracking clearly revealed. An established pattern of a specific group of individuals who made numerous visits to non profit ballot collection points and then subsequent visits to specified drop boxes near those centers on various days. That evidence was clear, unmistakable, unarguable, unchallenged, and legally provable by the data itself. Not one "fact checker" disputed those findings, despite the fact that type of electioneering is in fact illegal in all States.

They rejected all logical assumptions

The "fact checkers" also did something very unusual in their efforts to "debunk" the film. They suspended belief in normal appearances, traditional "fact checking" cross referencing, and even simple logic to dismiss the film's primary accusation....evidence of illegal ballot harvesting. As pointed out above, the simple pattern the geo tracking data revealed should have been enough of a red flag for investigators to ask "what's going on here"? The fact checkers offered all sorts of off the wall possibilities about what we could have been watching in the film, but none of them ever approached the idea of the film's primary accusation...it was an illegal criminal conspiracy to stuff ballot boxes.

Here's some of the wild speculation offered by the fact checkers:

“Some of the individuals tracked might even have been election workers checking on or emptying the drop boxes, so it would be a sign of vigilance by election officials rather than nefarious behavior.”

Aaron Striegel, a professor of computer science and engineering at the University of Notre Dame who has analyzed data from smartphones, told us the geotracking data used by True the Vote are just not accurate enough to reach the kind of definitive conclusions it did.

“Could it have happened? Yeah, it could have happened,” Striegel said. “But is it likely to have happened? Not really. The data could tell you it’s possible, but that’s all it’s telling you with any reasonable certainty.”

Cooper Quintin, a senior staff technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which describes itself as “the leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital world,” told us the accuracy of geolocation data can vary widely based on numerous factors that include signal strength, the type of cellphone being used, and atmospheric conditions like whether the cellphone is in a dense urban area or not.

Atmospheric conditions? So, we're supposed to believe a mule tracked to a stash house more than 5 different times, and then that same mule tracked to a ballot drop box more than 10 different times could have been mistakenly pinged because it was raining outside? They think we're stupid!

Here's more:

"Delivery drivers, poll workers, election officials — all might have reason to be in the vicinity of numerous drop boxes, he said. Certainly, he said, it doesn’t provide enough evidence to uphold the group’s claims about 2,000 mules, he said. And, he noted, “they have the burden of proof.” Stuffing fraudulent ballots is not the only reason to be in the vicinity of a drop box. For example, Pennsylvania state Sen. Sharif Street told the AP that he was probably counted as a so-called mule because he attended numerous drop box rallies and stopped by nonprofit offices. And, he said, he likely accounted for several of the signals, as he carries a cellphone, a watch with a cellular connection, a tablet with a cellular connection and a mobile hotspot, and he has a staffer who typically travels with him and carries two devices."

Absolute hogwash! The geo tracking data by way of its highly detailed filters ruled out all of these possibilities and even more! They did not identify anyone who didn't fit the clearly definable pattern. FIVE OR MORE VISITS TO NON PROFITS FOLLOWED BY 10 OR MORE VISITS TO DROP BOXES. That pattern was clear, unbroken, established, and critical in filtering out all of the other wild possibilities offered by the fact checkers. None of them for all of their wild ideas about what else we could have been watching, ever offered the speculation of an illegal organized ballot trafficking operation. Wonder why not?

The one logical conclusion the gathered data almost inevitably leads one to suspect (a sophisticated, well coordinated ballot harvesting operation) the so called "fact checkers" easily overlooked in favor of all the other wild & unsubstantiated scenarios the data didn't even suggest!

Here's how reliable that geo tracking data should be considered:

"The threshold of 10 or more visits per mule is very high and is meant to eliminate any possibility the visits could have been happenstance. To further guard against accidentally picking up people who happened to pass by drop box locations regularly, True the Vote bought cellphone data from September, October and November, showing before, during and after election season. Only those whose cellphones placed them at drop boxes when voting was occurring were included in True the Vote’s data, the group said. The mules followed a pattern of repeatedly going to drop box locations and back to the offices of non-governmental organizations, where ballots were allegedly collected. The movie called these locations “stash houses.”
“Pings don’t lie,” True the Vote president Catherine Engelbrecht told Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk in a recent interview.
(Source: https://www.westernjournal.com/dsou...s-paying-deliver-ballots-illegal-every-state/)

next: Rebuttal #2....these were NOT random voters doing favors for Family members.
 
Last edited:

dave

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
161,375
39,411
718
Morgantown, WV
Were those links to TV shows dumbass. It’s been debunked everywhere outside Trumpworld
Those articles didn't debink anything you stupid Mantwat. Did you even read them. You are pretty fuking stupid if you think they debunked anything.
 

atlkvb

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Jul 9, 2004
68,581
35,099
688
Atlanta, GA
Rebuttal #2 THESE WERE NOT RANDOM VOTERS DOING FAVORS FOR FAMILY MEMBERS
It was clear these mules identified were not making multiple visits to different drop boxes for members of family in as many different areas as they were tracked, so the obvious question is why were they making all of these drops, for whom and why was it necessary to visit non profits prior to doing so?
The so called "fact checkers" offered this flimsy excuse as a way to smear the data revealed in the movie 2000 mules. While it is true in some States this type of so called "ballot harvesting" is allowed and is in fact legal, nothing approaching the patterns revealed in the film is ever allowed or is ever legal. In fact, ballot trafficking is illegal in ALL States.

Here's a little of what the so called "fact checkers" offered as an excuse to what the data revealed:

(Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/fac...-2020-u-s-presidential-election-idUSL2N2XJ0OQ)

"Ballot harvesting, the posting of completed ballots on behalf of a third party, is legal in several states, including Georgia (here). Some of the so-called “mules” might have been legitimate family members putting in ballots in Georgia,” said Theodore Allen, Associate Professor at Ohio State University, specializing in the administering of elections."

On the face of it, that is a true statement. However you'd have to be a complete fool to believe this after what I pointed out the data clearly showed in post #114. Ask yourself if anyone you know, or even if YOU @NYC_Eer have so many Family members incapable of dropping off their own ballots that you'd have to visit them several times on different several days delivering their ballots to several different drop boxes but only AFTER you had visited a non profit ballot collection point?

So the anti 2000 mules argument goes like this:
your Family member asks you to deliver a ballot for them (perfectly legal) they send that ballot in or it's located in a non profit center which collects ballots, you go there to pick up the ballot for them, then you take it to a drop box. Again that's all legal. But how many family members do you have who'd ask you to do that more than once...or in fact more than 5 times, and how many different ballot drop boxes would you have to visit in order to drop off one stinkin' ballot? More than 10? You must have a really large family!

Here's how the film makers deal with that lunacy

(Source: https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/commentary/the-fraud-dare-not-speak-its-name)

"Who were these individuals, the so-called “mules,” and what were they doing? Where did they get these ballots? Why were they repeatedly going to absentee-ballot drop-box locations? Were the ballots legitimately obtained, or were they fraudulent or stolen from voters, or were voters intimidated, pressured, or coerced to hand over their ballots? Who was paying them to engage in this behavior, particularly in states like Arizona where vote trafficking—having third parties pickup and deliver absentee ballots—is against the law?"

Did you catch that? While it's true some States do allow individual Family members to drop off ballots for others, it is ILLEGAL in other States where the data was collected and most certainly under the conditions the geo tracking data revealed! In some States, even that courtesy is restricted! So the next logical question is what were these mules up to if it wasn't doing favors for members of their own Families?

excerpt from same article:
"The only way to answer that question would be to do what only law enforcement, and not a filmmaker, can do: identify the mules using the video footage and geo-tracking data, pull them in before a grand jury or call them in for questioning, and get answers—under oath—to all of the questions this analysis raises. The same goes for the nonprofit organizations that were apparently organizing this conduct".

Did the so called "fact checkers" trying to debunk the film do that? Did any of the election officials skeptical of the film's claims as revealed by the data seek to determine who if anyone these identified mules were dropping off all of these ballots for? Did anyone from the FBI or the DOJ even bother to look into any aspect of the serious questions the data collected obviously revealed? No! They (fact checkers) simply attacked the data itself and how it was gathered claiming the questions they raised about that debunked the facts the data clearly revealed.

So if we knew by identifiable geo tracking cell phone pings who these mules were, and we knew the places they visited, why would we NOT seek to investigate who they were working for if they were working for someone or for some organization? The fact checkers didn't bother to ask that obvious question or "fact check" for an answer. Again why not? Surely that investigation would have once and for all "debunked" the allegations made in the film would it not?


Rebuttal #3 THE VIDEO USED IN THE FILM WAS UNRELIABLE AND INCOMPLETE

(more on that later)
 
Last edited:

atlkvb

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Jul 9, 2004
68,581
35,099
688
Atlanta, GA
Just another lazy brainless libtard lapping up groupthink.

Just suspend reality and hope the mob doesn't find out you are a groomer.
Dave, I'm taking some time to go over all he submitted as "debunking" the film, then I'll dare him to come back on here and insist the film has been thoroughly "debunked". If he still insists it has been, he won't be able to factually back that up once I'm finished.
 

NYC_Eer

All-Conference
Gold Member
Aug 22, 2010
9,524
4,509
628
New York
Dave, I'm taking some time to go over all he submitted as "debunking" the film, then I'll dare him to come back on here and insist the film has been thoroughly "debunked". If he still insists it has been, he won't be able to factually back that up once I'm finished.
LOL
 

atlkvb

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Jul 9, 2004
68,581
35,099
688
Atlanta, GA
I'm not finished yet. Care to "debunk" anything I've already pointed out that was not "debunked" by your posted Left wing propaganda?

Let me guess?
giphy.gif


@NYC_Eer
you go ahead and amuse yourself atl, I'm too bored and besides I've got to get back to my golf game!
giphy.gif


Yeah, sure looks like you do!
@NYC_Eer showing off his classic swing...:joy:
giphy.gif
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: 30CAT