2000 Mules
-
I've got lots of company, so I don't think I'm in a cult at all. Rather, it's a massive collection of people, tens of millions, with thoughts ranging from outright election theft to ensuring outcomes through more subtle means.
Everybody but the Kool-Aid drinkers of the Left know it, whether they supported Trump or not.
You know it, but your person id is too involved in TDS and hatred for the January 6 folks.
-
@jon-nyc said in 2000 Mules:
Trump lost, you’re in a cult.
Without addressing any of Jolly’s credible allegations regarding media manipulation and information suppression, to jump to the ad hom is a losing strategy if you’re interested in maintaining reputational credibility.
But you already know that.
-
I think "substantive" is a pertinent term. Many of the cases brought to court, lacked standing in one way or another and weren't even heard. It is true that some cases couldn't be proven...That is the refuge of a scoundrel in one sense, since the best fraud is very hard to prove...Biden's hockey stick win (so-called because of the timing of the votes) is somewhat unprecedented and a definite, unexplainable phenomenon.
But in the case of 2000 Mules, which is what started this thread, I think the producer at the very basic level introduces problems with ballot harvesting and voter ID problems with mail-in ballots.
Many, especially on the Dem side, continually squall about democracy and denying people the right to vote. I agree, people should have the right to vote. But not illegals. Not the Alzheimer's patient lying in stupor in a nursing home. Not the person voting in the wrong state.
I contend the sanctity of the ballot is paramount, actually trumping the "every man, every vote" mantra. And if you look back at out founding, you'll find that aspect of voting was considered extremely important from the beginning. The reason is that dictatorships and banana republics have faux voting, where elections are rigged with predetermined outcomes, which means the people have no trust in who they are electing and no trust in the institutions of the government.
Without a certain level of trust in government and the process, a republic cannot function. As citizens, we have a duty to our elected government and the government has its duties and responsibilities to the citizen. We can certainly talk about the dimwit we elected - after all, bitching about politics is an art form in much of America - but we need to know we can vote the bums out in the next election...If that election is tainted, then the whole process is.
So far, I've written about outright fraud, but I think that there are other types of fraud more insidious and maybe even more effective. Much of it revolves around the press/media and their role in our society. The Founders wanted Freedom of the Press, because they wanted an unfettered flow of information to the people. They were hoping for an unbiased, truthful press, but they understood the nature of man, just as we do. As long as the press didn't lurch into defamation or malice, they figured having multiple viewpoints on an issue meant that a war of ideas would ensue on the public square, trusting in the people to eventually arrive at the right choice by means of debate and persuasion. Before the press became monolithic and concentrated in a few media hubs, this worked pretty well. Today, it does not and is election fraud carried on in front of our faces.
The ratio of Democrats to GOP registrations among White House press conference reporters run 12:1. Which might not be too bad, except personal politics now drives national reporting and as evidenced by the ratio, is pretty one-sided. You can see this in which stories receive prominence, which stories are covered or not covered, and the biased buzzwords used throughout the writing of many modern news pieces.
This does sway elections. Look at the recent Russia! Russia! Russia! hoax, a news story which was highly featured in national media for years, long after it was known to be false...A story driven by preconceived bias and ratings. Contrast that to the Hunter Biden Laptop story, which broke a few weeks before the election. The story was buried as long as possible and once meagerly reported, was buttressed by "expert" claims of Russian disinformation...A story we now know to be true and evidence which clearly shows Joe Biden lied about not having knowledge of Hunter's business dealings.
On one hand we have a known lie and on the other we have suppression of knowledge that a potential POTUS had a son who was selling access to his father.
Do you think such stories might sway elections? Does biased and untruthful reporting constitute insidious election fraud? I do think any fair-minded person would agree.
@Jolly said in 2000 Mules:
I think "substantive" is a pertinent term. Many of the cases brought to court, lacked standing in one way or another and weren't even heard. It is true that some cases couldn't be proven...That is the refuge of a scoundrel in one sense, since the best fraud is very hard to prove...Biden's hockey stick win (so-called because of the timing of the votes) is somewhat unprecedented and a definite, unexplainable phenomenon.
Prior to the 2016 election, pretty much every poll said that Hillary Clinton would win, President Trump had no chance. Well, he won. Fraudulent victory? I dont think so.
Prior to 2020 election, polls were pretty close. Could go either way. President Biden won? Fraudulent victory. I dont think so.
It is human nature to try and give some outside reason when something does not go the way a person wants it to.
You dropped the fly baseball? "Yes, the sun was in my eyes, the wind blew dust in my face, etc" rather than "I misjudged it and dropped it."
Why did you run into the back of my car? "There was ice on the road. The sun glared off the window" rather than "I was texting and not paying attention."
Why did you get an F on the test? "The teacher hates me. The test covered things we didn't talk about in class." rather than "I didn't pay attention in class and did not study."
Why did you lose the election? "There was fraud. It was stolen." rather than "More people liked the other candidate and voted for him."
As Mik said in a unrelated thread (but I liked the quote).
Maybe there is just no there, there.
Sometimes the correct answer is the most obvious. President Trump lost because more people thought President Biden would do a better job and therefore President Biden got more votes. End of story.
-
@Jolly said in 2000 Mules:
I think "substantive" is a pertinent term. Many of the cases brought to court, lacked standing in one way or another and weren't even heard. It is true that some cases couldn't be proven...That is the refuge of a scoundrel in one sense, since the best fraud is very hard to prove...Biden's hockey stick win (so-called because of the timing of the votes) is somewhat unprecedented and a definite, unexplainable phenomenon.
Prior to the 2016 election, pretty much every poll said that Hillary Clinton would win, President Trump had no chance. Well, he won. Fraudulent victory? I dont think so.
Prior to 2020 election, polls were pretty close. Could go either way. President Biden won? Fraudulent victory. I dont think so.
It is human nature to try and give some outside reason when something does not go the way a person wants it to.
You dropped the fly baseball? "Yes, the sun was in my eyes, the wind blew dust in my face, etc" rather than "I misjudged it and dropped it."
Why did you run into the back of my car? "There was ice on the road. The sun glared off the window" rather than "I was texting and not paying attention."
Why did you get an F on the test? "The teacher hates me. The test covered things we didn't talk about in class." rather than "I didn't pay attention in class and did not study."
Why did you lose the election? "There was fraud. It was stolen." rather than "More people liked the other candidate and voted for him."
As Mik said in a unrelated thread (but I liked the quote).
Maybe there is just no there, there.
Sometimes the correct answer is the most obvious. President Trump lost because more people thought President Biden would do a better job and therefore President Biden got more votes. End of story.
@taiwan_girl said in 2000 Mules:
Prior to the 2016 election, pretty much every poll said that Hillary Clinton would win, President Trump had no chance. Well, he won. Fraudulent victory?
The Dems thought they had it in the bag. They didn't try as hard to cheat and were caught by surprise. No way they were going to let that happen in 2020.
-
@jon-nyc said in 2000 Mules:
Trump lost, you’re in a cult.
Without addressing any of Jolly’s credible allegations regarding media manipulation and information suppression, to jump to the ad hom is a losing strategy if you’re interested in maintaining reputational credibility.
But you already know that.
@Ivorythumper said in 2000 Mules:
@jon-nyc said in 2000 Mules:
Trump lost, you’re in a cult.
Without addressing any of Jolly’s credible allegations regarding media manipulation and information suppression, to jump to the ad hom is a losing strategy if you’re interested in maintaining reputational credibility.
But you already know that.
TDS is an emotional truth that doesn’t need to be substantiated. In fact one of the defining features of TDS is the assumption that it doesn’t need to be justified. The most perfect expression of this was when I heard a comedian absolutely destroy with a joke about how the worst part of Donald Trump is that he’s Donald Trump. Donald Fucking Trump. The audience could barely breath through their belly laughs after the 10th repetition.
-
‘2,000 Mules’ Producer Apologizes to Man Depicted Committing Election Fraud
Salem Media Group, which co-produced the 2022 film, issued the apology to a Georgia man who was falsely depicted as stuffing a ballot box near Atlanta.The film features surveillance video of the man from Georgia, Mark Andrews, as he places ballots into a drop box near Atlanta, along with voice-over commentary by Mr. D’Souza calling the action “a crime” and adding, “These are fraudulent votes.”
Mr. Andrews sued Mr. D’Souza, along with Salem and two individuals associated with the right-wing election-monitoring group True the Vote, for defamation in October 2022. State investigators in Georgia have since found that Mr. Andrews committed no crime and that he had legally deposited the ballots for himself and several members of his family.
-
Dinesh D’Souza Says Sorry for ‘2000 Mules’
That video of alleged illegal ballot harvesting? Nothing of the sort.
The Editorial BoardDec. 4, 2024 at 6:02 pm
“I now understand that the surveillance videos used in the film were characterized on the basis of inaccurate information provided to me and my team,” Mr. D’Souza says on his website. “If I had known then that the videos were not linked to geolocation data, I would have clarified this and produced and edited the film differently.”
The thesis of “2000 Mules” was that an analysis of cellphone location data showed suspicious patterns near ballot drop boxes in several states. Much of the movie consists of surveillance footage of voters putting ballots into drop boxes, as scary music plays in the background. “What you are seeing,” Mr. D’Souza intones, “is a crime.” In reality, what viewers were seeing might have been a libel.
“We recently learned,” Mr. D’Souza’s apology says, “that surveillance videos used in the film may not have actually been correlated with the geolocation data.” So the movie purported to prove illegality using cellphone data . . . but then it showed videos of innocent people dropping off ballots, while presenting them as criminals?
One voter featured by the movie, a Georgia man named Mark Andrews, was cleared of wrongdoing by state investigators more than two years ago, before “2000 Mules” hit movie theaters. He has sued for defamation, and motions for summary judgment are due shortly. “I owe this individual, Mark Andrews, an apology,” Mr. D’Souza now says.
He might soon owe more than that. Six months ago the movie’s distributor, Salem Media, settled its liability “for a significant [confidential] amount,” court filings say. Mr. D’Souza claims he relied on information from True the Vote, the activist outfit he depicted as heroic. In a reply, True the Vote says it “had no editorial control over the ‘2000 Mules’ movie.” Also, Mr. Andrews “was not part of the geospatial study,” a fact that “was communicated to Mr. D’Souza’s team.”
True the Vote and Mr. D’Souza are both still standing by the “premise” of “2000 Mules.” But the shame is that so many people believed their false tale for political reasons.
-
Why am I not surprised
-
D'Souza's a right bloody cock.
