The Big Lie Has Gripped State Legislatures

[716er]

5 hours ago, 716er said:

How does the cell phone data referenced in the film distinguish between someone who walked by a drop box on the sidewalk and someone who stopped and dropped a ballot/ballots off? 

Bueller?

[BillsFanNC]

3 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

I think it's always helpful to see what people say when there is actually a penalty for lying.

 

As we saw in the election lawsuits, the moment that Trump's lawyers were sworn in at a courtroom, they generally refused to claim there was election fraud, even going so far as to explicitly state that they are not alleging fraud. Why? Because lying under oath is a crime and they could be fined or jailed for it. They will lie outside of court in order to gin up the masses and, crucially, get donations to line their pockets. But when they have to face a penalty for lying, they suddenly hesitate.

 

They know they are lying. They are doing it for money and fame but the minute they personally could face consequences for lying, they shut their mouths.

 

2,000 Mules has been debunked. I will list some of the sources of the debunking, but I doubt it will make any difference for anyone who finds a grifter like D'Souza to be credible as they wouldn't read the articles or change their minds.

 

But the thing I want to ask is, if D'Souza actually believes what he is saying is true, why has he not filed police reports for the individuals he identified in 2,000 Mules? If he has geolocation data, he can tell where they live, if he knows that, he can identify the mules. At the very least, if he cannot name the specific individual, he can give information that one of the people are a particular residence is a mule and the police can take it from there. He can tell the police, they can investigate, the mules will get arrested and this whole thing will be exposed to the public as truly real. Libs will cry. Trump will rejoice. D'Souza will be hailed as a hero.

 

He doesn't do that because there would be a consequence to lying to police. He could get in trouble for filing a false report. If he went to the FBI, he would be facing the same problem Sussman is facing now.

 

Instead, he would much rather have people pay him $20-30 to watch his video because it makes him money he can rub all over his MyPillow pajamas that you can buy with his promo code (so he can get a cut). Which is what this has always been about: money. Why else would someone claim they have definitive proof that an election was stolen but make people pay to see it?

 

There are few people who have more disdain for Republican voters than Republican officials and pundits. People like D'Souza think that Republican voters are rubes that are ripe to hand over their money to a snake oil salesman. They will say everything and anything to get that money and support, unless it will cause them to face consequences personally.

 

Some helpful reading on 2,000 Mules:

WaPo: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/17/discussing-gaps-2000-mules-with-dinesh-dsouza/

Bulwark: https://www.thebulwark.com/dinesh-dsouzas-2000-mules-is-a-hilarious-mockumentary/

 

 

 

Have you personally seen the film?

 

Of course not.

 

But you'll rely on hearsay from known propagandists?

 

I'm no lawyer, but that doesn't sound like the kind of stuff that would hold up in court.

 

Edited May 25, 2022 by DRsGhost

[BillsFanNC]

1. D'Souza made the film. He didn't have anything to do with gathering the data or its analysis.

 

2. True the vote bought the data and analyzed it.

 

3. True the vote has indeed taken this data to authorities and surprise of all surprises they have been stonewalled and ignored at every turn. 

 

4. At the very end of the film it states that they will go public with all of the data including the non-profit info.

 

Anyone who had actually watched the film would of course know all of this already.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[716er]

I've watched the film and am wondering how the cell phone data referenced in the film distinguishes between someone who walked by a drop box on the sidewalk and someone who stopped and dropped a ballot/ballots off.

 

They did not go into detail on this at all. If I am a "mule" and dropped ballots off once at the drop box next to the Starbucks I go to each morning, the data would say I dropped a ballot off each day.

Edited May 25, 2022 by 716er

[BillsFanNC]

1. D'Souza made the film. He didn't have anything to do with gathering the data or its analysis.

 

2. True the vote bought the data and analyzed it.

 

3. True the vote has indeed taken this data to authorities and surprise of all surprises they have been stonewalled and ignored at every turn. 

 

4. At the very end of the film it states that they will go public with all of the data including the non-profit info.

 

Anyone who had actually watched the film would of course know all of this already.

 

@ChiGoose I'm sorry you've made a decent effort, but I'm only left to conclude that you're nothing more than @BillStime sans the hair on fire bombastic trolling.

 

I'll give you props for keeping it civil though. Cheers. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ChiGoose]

I would just as soon give a grifter like D’Souza money to watch his film as I would expect others to give money to Occupy Democrats. 
 

Grifters gonna grift. 

[BillsFanNC]

15 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

I would just as soon give a grifter like D’Souza money to watch his film as I would expect others to give money to Occupy Democrats. 
 

Grifters gonna grift. 

 

Right.

 

But you have no problem parroting what the bulwark tells you to think about a film that you haven't watched? Got it. 

 

 

The Bulwark and WaPo. 

 

Outlets that within hours of the election shouted in unison that it was the most secure election in US history! 

 

You've been had. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[716er]

Another thing I noticed in the film was True the Vote identified drop box “visits” using a radius of 100 feet. 

 

I think a mailbox would be a good comparison for a drop box, size wise. A mailbox is roughly 2.5 by 2.5 feet. Let's be generous and say 5 feet (that's a huge fking mailbox). That leaves 95 extra feet of space.

 

Poor data collection.

[ChiGoose]

44 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

 

Right.

 

But you have no problem parroting what the bulwark tells you to think about a film that you haven't watched? Got it. 

 

 

The Bulwark and WaPo. 

 

Outlets that within hours of the election shouted in unison that it was the most secure election in US history! 

 

You've been had. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My god, if you’re going to quote known grifter Dinesh D’Souza but then judge others on their information sources…

 

I was honestly going to offer to watch 2,000 Miles so long as I could do so for free without any money going to the conman, but I’m growing increasingly convinced that even if I did, you would not believe anything I said if it didn’t support your worldview. 

[BillsFanNC]

8 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

My god, if you’re going to quote known grifter Dinesh D’Souza but then judge others on their information sources…

 

Nothing I've said about the film quotes D'Souza. It quotes data presented by the True the Vote organization put forth in a film made by D'Souza.

 

But again you have no problem repeating the mantra spoon fed to you by known corrupt sources of "no widespread evidence of fraud" and "the most secure election in US history"

 

Even if those statements are provable, they were impossible to say with any confidence whatsoever while the friggin votes were still being counted. Which is exactly what happened. And you bought it.

 

Pregame: Hey look at those Patriots coaches setting up their cameras in the press box. It sure looks like they are pointed at the opponents sideline.

 

4th quarter: There's no evidence of any cheating by the Patriots!

 

Repeat x 1,000

 

 

8 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

 

I was honestly going to offer to watch 2,000 Miles so long as I could do so for free without any money going to the conman, but I’m growing increasingly convinced that even if I did, you would not believe anything I said if it didn’t support your worldview. 

 

My view on the film is that it shows damn strong evidence that some seriously shady ***** likely went down.

 

That's it.

 

It doesn't prove that Trump won, although they do some back of napkin calculations based on their data to show scenarios where that could be the case.

 

They claim to have petabytes of data and over 4 million minutes of surveillance video. All of that data and analysis is impossible to include in any way approaching its entirety in a documentary. 

 

So yeah, IF what they present in the film is an accurate summary of the data they have collected then anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty should at minimum be asking questions about the above often parroted media mantras.

 

Unless of course their worldview has been forever shaped as impenetrable by those very same mantras.

 

[716er]

There are many errors (a couple I have describe that have been ignored) in regards to how the data was collected by True the Vote. It’s safe to say the film is not an accurate summary of the data they collected.

 

Anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty should note these flaws and reevaluate their opinion accordingly.

Edited May 25, 2022 by 716er

[ChiGoose]

11 hours ago, DRsGhost said:

 

Right.

 

But you have no problem parroting what the bulwark tells you to think about a film that you haven't watched? Got it. 

 

 

The Bulwark and WaPo. 

 

Outlets that within hours of the election shouted in unison that it was the most secure election in US history! 

 

You've been had. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Look, D’Souza is a known hack and grifter. He believes that Trump voters are stupid and holds nothing but contempt for them. He went to elite schools and lives the life of a coastal elite in NYC. He holds contempt for people who didn’t go to the Ivy League schools. He thinks everyone who buys the crap he sells are fools. 
 

He put out this movie not because he actually believes it proves what it states but because he believed he could make a lot of money telling people their conspiracies are true; that the only reason that an incredibly unpopular president who had spent a year mishandling a pandemic lost re-election because of a shadowy cabal that executed a wide ranging plot would be impossible to pull off in reality. 
 

If someone came to you and said that Occupy Democrats had a movie that proved that Trump was Putin’s puppet and you could see it for $30, I don’t think it would be reasonable for people to expect you to watch it. 

[Doc]

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

Look, D’Souza is a known hack and grifter. He believes that Trump voters are stupid and holds nothing but contempt for them. He went to elite schools and lives the life of a coastal elite in NYC. He holds contempt for people who didn’t go to the Ivy League schools. He thinks everyone who buys the crap he sells are fools. 
 

He put out this movie not because he actually believes it proves what it states but because he believed he could make a lot of money telling people their conspiracies are true; that the only reason that an incredibly unpopular president who had spent a year mishandling a pandemic lost re-election because of a shadowy cabal that executed a wide ranging plot would be impossible to pull off in reality. 
 

If someone came to you and said that Occupy Democrats had a movie that proved that Trump was Putin’s puppet and you could see it for $30, I don’t think it would be reasonable for people to expect you to watch it. 

 

LOL, considering the unpopularity was mostly from lies created by a not-so-shadowy cabal and a pandemic his successor did no better with, if not worse, despite having weapons to fight it...

Edited May 25, 2022 by Doc

[BillsFanNC]

12 hours ago, 716er said:

I've watched the film and am wondering how the cell phone data referenced in the film distinguishes between someone who walked by a drop box on the sidewalk and someone who stopped and dropped a ballot/ballots off.

 

They did not go into detail on this at all. If I am a "mule" and dropped ballots off once at the drop box next to the Starbucks I go to each morning, the data would say I dropped a ballot off each day.

 

You watched the film? Really? Because I have the film pulled up right in front of me and at the 29:50 mark they go into detail on exactly what you claim here that they did not.

 

They excluded people that walked by drop boxes since this could have very well have been their normal pattern of life.  The signal had to stop at the drop box more than 10 times AND make 5 or more visits to addresses of known democrat non-profits.

 

So even if you had a habit of stopping at a drop box every day to rest your coffee on top and watch life go by for a few moments, you ALSO had to make 5 or more visits to the non-profits or it wouldn't be counted.

 

12 hours ago, 716er said:

Another thing I noticed in the film was True the Vote identified drop box “visits” using a radius of 100 feet. 

 

I think a mailbox would be a good comparison for a drop box, size wise. A mailbox is roughly 2.5 by 2.5 feet. Let's be generous and say 5 feet (that's a huge fking mailbox). That leaves 95 extra feet of space.

 

Poor data collection.

 

They never stated this in the film.  Are you sure that you watched it?  But we do know that cell phone signals are accurate to within 18 inches.  Just ask the NYT and the Supreme Court.

 

I did find this "fact check" from Politifact.  Are you sure you didn't get it from here?

 

https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/may/04/faulty-premise-2000-mules-trailer-about-voting-mai/https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/may/04/faulty-premise-2000-mules-trailer-about-voting-mai/

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, 716er said:

There are many errors (a couple I have describe that have been ignored) in regards to how the data was collected by True the Vote. It’s safe to say the film is not an accurate summary of the data they collected.

 

Anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty should note these flaws and reevaluate their opinion accordingly.

 

 

Keep trying.  But maybe you should actually watch the film first before you do.

[716er]

On 4/15/2022 at 1:32 PM, DRsGhost said:

 

 

Unlike the actual DR, I have zero desire to interact with any of you blithering idiots.

 

Once you prove yourself worthy, and you most definitely have in a few short posts today, I bid you adieu with a one final ***** off and a one way irrevocable ticket to my ignore list.

 

Ready?

 

 

***** off.

Got ‘em

 

 

Imagine being such an intellectual coward that you claim to ignore folks yet read every word they say.

[wnyguy]

2 minutes ago, 716er said:

Got ‘em

 

 

Maybe, but he did refute your claims first.

[BillsFanNC]

10 minutes ago, 716er said:

Got ‘em

 

 

Imagine being such an intellectual coward that you claim to ignore folks yet read every word they say.

 

I bid you adieu with a one final ***** off and a one way irrevocable ticket to my ignore list.

 

Yep that is what I said and you're still on it.   Is that how long you've been trying this game, since mid April? lol.  Sure you "got me"

 

Thanks for confirming that I'm living rent free and partying hard right inside your head.

 

So lets get this straight you've been posting ***** that you know is ***** for over a month in an effort to get me to respond to your ***** posts.  Got it. 

 

So not only have you confirmed that you're a blithering ***** idiot, you also just admitted to the community that you are a troll.  Thanks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[716er]

30 minutes ago, wnyguy said:

Maybe, but he did refute your claims first.

 

30 minutes ago, wnyguy said:

Maybe, but he did refute your claims first.

He did not, sadly. The impersonator of a poster who was banned here for harassment is an intellectual lightweight coward afraid of honest discussion.

[BillsFanNC]

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

Look, D’Souza is a known hack and grifter. He believes that Trump voters are stupid and holds nothing but contempt for them. He went to elite schools and lives the life of a coastal elite in NYC. He holds contempt for people who didn’t go to the Ivy League schools. He thinks everyone who buys the crap he sells are fools. 
 

He put out this movie not because he actually believes it proves what it states but because he believed he could make a lot of money telling people their conspiracies are true; that the only reason that an incredibly unpopular president who had spent a year mishandling a pandemic lost re-election because of a shadowy cabal that executed a wide ranging plot would be impossible to pull off in reality. 
 

 

You keep ignoring that the data was not collected or analyzed by D'Souza.  What do you have to say about the actual data?

 

 

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

If someone came to you and said that Occupy Democrats had a movie that proved that Trump was Putin’s puppet and you could see it for $30, I don’t think it would be reasonable for people to expect you to watch it. 

 

 

We've already had the FBI, CIA and a special counsel give Trump and his orbit an enema for years and....nada.

 

If government institutions gave the 2020 election a complete enema instead of going with "the most secure election in US history" from day 0 and found nothing and THEN D'Souza came out with this film it would be a more accurate analogy.

[BillsFanNC]

1 hour ago, wnyguy said:

Maybe, but he did refute your claims first.

 

I didn't merely refute them.  I destroyed them.

 

And in the process outed him as an unquestionable troll.

 

Imagine holding onto a post from 6 weeks ago, constantly at the ready to pounce, while trying day after day hoping that I will actually read and respond to one of his trolling posts.  Pretty sad indeed.

 

The truth is I've actually read four of his posts since that time.  One when another poster referenced one and  I was curious enough to see if what I claimed was true. it was. And today, as I was naïve enough to believe that he might be trying to add something to the honest debate between @ChiGoose and myself.

 

My bad.  ***** stains gonna be ***** stains.