2000 Mules
-
:woman-facepalming:
-
In the world we live in where people will tell any and all secrets for 5 (or less) minutes of fame, the thought that 1000's of people were involved with something and NOBODY, absolutely NOBODY who was directly involved has mentioned not one word, not even a syllable is not possible. Sorry to punch your balloon.
(Running off to the library to check the melt temperature of ANSI 900 stainless steel) :woman-running:
-
Dinesh D'Souza has really embraced the crazy of late.
-
In the world we live in where people will tell any and all secrets for 5 (or less) minutes of fame, the thought that 1000's of people were involved with something and NOBODY, absolutely NOBODY who was directly involved has mentioned not one word, not even a syllable is not possible. Sorry to punch your balloon.
(Running off to the library to check the melt temperature of ANSI 900 stainless steel) :woman-running:
@taiwan_girl said in 2000 Mules:
In the world we live in where people will tell any and all secrets for 5 (or less) minutes of fame, the thought that 1000's of people were involved with something and NOBODY, absolutely NOBODY who was directly involved has mentioned not one word, not even a syllable is not possible. Sorry to punch your balloon.
(Running off to the library to check the melt temperature of ANSI 900 stainless steel) :woman-running:
Oh, I think ballot harvesting is possible. It happens all the time.
-
I haven't watched D'Souza's movie, so I really have no comment on this link. However, I thought I'd throw it out there.
https://factcheck.thedispatch.com/p/fact-checking-dinesh-dsouzas-2000?s=r
The basic premise of the 90-minute film is that 2,000 “mules” or “paid professional operatives” delivered “fraudulent and illegal votes” to mail-in drop boxes in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Georgia. The film supposedly uncovers an “elaborate network” of “mules” in key states that would have changed the outcome of the 2020 election. The evidence in question comes from conservative Texas-based organization True the Vote, founded by Catherine Engelbrecht. Throughout the movie, D'Souza interviews Engelbrecht as well as Gregg Phillips, a True the Vote board member, who is described as “having a deep background in election intelligence,” and explains the cell phone geolocation data on which True the Vote bases its claims.
The movie, however, is riddled with errors and previously debunked claims of voter fraud, and it’s based on a faulty premise.
The film opens with a once-viral video clip and meme of Biden saying: “We have put together I think the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.” Biden was not announcing his intent to commit voter fraud, as previous fact-checks have noted. Instead, he was describing efforts to prevent voter fraud and voter suppression.
The quote dates to Biden’s October 2020 appearance on the Pod Save America podcast hosted by Jon Lovett and Dan Pfeiffer. At one point during the interview, Pfeiffer asked Biden a two-part question related to voting in the then-upcoming presidential election:
-
I haven't watched D'Souza's movie, so I really have no comment on this link. However, I thought I'd throw it out there.
https://factcheck.thedispatch.com/p/fact-checking-dinesh-dsouzas-2000?s=r
The basic premise of the 90-minute film is that 2,000 “mules” or “paid professional operatives” delivered “fraudulent and illegal votes” to mail-in drop boxes in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Georgia. The film supposedly uncovers an “elaborate network” of “mules” in key states that would have changed the outcome of the 2020 election. The evidence in question comes from conservative Texas-based organization True the Vote, founded by Catherine Engelbrecht. Throughout the movie, D'Souza interviews Engelbrecht as well as Gregg Phillips, a True the Vote board member, who is described as “having a deep background in election intelligence,” and explains the cell phone geolocation data on which True the Vote bases its claims.
The movie, however, is riddled with errors and previously debunked claims of voter fraud, and it’s based on a faulty premise.
The film opens with a once-viral video clip and meme of Biden saying: “We have put together I think the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.” Biden was not announcing his intent to commit voter fraud, as previous fact-checks have noted. Instead, he was describing efforts to prevent voter fraud and voter suppression.
The quote dates to Biden’s October 2020 appearance on the Pod Save America podcast hosted by Jon Lovett and Dan Pfeiffer. At one point during the interview, Pfeiffer asked Biden a two-part question related to voting in the then-upcoming presidential election:
@George-K said in 2000 Mules:
I haven't watched D'Souza's movie, so I really have no comment on this link. However, I thought I'd throw it out there.
https://factcheck.thedispatch.com/p/fact-checking-dinesh-dsouzas-2000?s=r
The basic premise of the 90-minute film is that 2,000 “mules” or “paid professional operatives” delivered “fraudulent and illegal votes” to mail-in drop boxes in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Georgia. The film supposedly uncovers an “elaborate network” of “mules” in key states that would have changed the outcome of the 2020 election. The evidence in question comes from conservative Texas-based organization True the Vote, founded by Catherine Engelbrecht. Throughout the movie, D'Souza interviews Engelbrecht as well as Gregg Phillips, a True the Vote board member, who is described as “having a deep background in election intelligence,” and explains the cell phone geolocation data on which True the Vote bases its claims.
The movie, however, is riddled with errors and previously debunked claims of voter fraud, and it’s based on a faulty premise.
The film opens with a once-viral video clip and meme of Biden saying: “We have put together I think the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.” Biden was not announcing his intent to commit voter fraud, as previous fact-checks have noted. Instead, he was describing efforts to prevent voter fraud and voter suppression.
The quote dates to Biden’s October 2020 appearance on the Pod Save America podcast hosted by Jon Lovett and Dan Pfeiffer. At one point during the interview, Pfeiffer asked Biden a two-part question related to voting in the then-upcoming presidential election:
A lot of that is the rehash from the AP article.
As posted elsewhere, D'Souza may not be right. And even if he's right, it certainly may not have been enough to overturn an election. But for some reason, a lot of people don't even want to look or consider the possibility that he's partially right with his ballot harvesting evidence.
There's a reason for that....
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@George-K said in 2000 Mules:
I haven't watched D'Souza's movie, so I really have no comment on this link. However, I thought I'd throw it out there.
https://factcheck.thedispatch.com/p/fact-checking-dinesh-dsouzas-2000?s=r
The basic premise of the 90-minute film is that 2,000 “mules” or “paid professional operatives” delivered “fraudulent and illegal votes” to mail-in drop boxes in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Georgia. The film supposedly uncovers an “elaborate network” of “mules” in key states that would have changed the outcome of the 2020 election. The evidence in question comes from conservative Texas-based organization True the Vote, founded by Catherine Engelbrecht. Throughout the movie, D'Souza interviews Engelbrecht as well as Gregg Phillips, a True the Vote board member, who is described as “having a deep background in election intelligence,” and explains the cell phone geolocation data on which True the Vote bases its claims.
The movie, however, is riddled with errors and previously debunked claims of voter fraud, and it’s based on a faulty premise.
The film opens with a once-viral video clip and meme of Biden saying: “We have put together I think the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.” Biden was not announcing his intent to commit voter fraud, as previous fact-checks have noted. Instead, he was describing efforts to prevent voter fraud and voter suppression.
The quote dates to Biden’s October 2020 appearance on the Pod Save America podcast hosted by Jon Lovett and Dan Pfeiffer. At one point during the interview, Pfeiffer asked Biden a two-part question related to voting in the then-upcoming presidential election:
A lot of that is the rehash from the AP article.
As posted elsewhere, D'Souza may not be right. And even if he's right, it certainly may not have been enough to overturn an election. But for some reason, a lot of people don't even want to look or consider the possibility that he's partially right with his ballot harvesting evidence.
There's a reason for that....
@Jolly said in 2000 Mules:
But for some reason, a lot of people don't even want to look or consider the possibility that he's partially right with his ballot harvesting evidence.
There's a reason for that....For some reason, a lot of people remain totally convinced that Donald Trump won the election, despite no hard evidence to support the claim.
There's a reason for that, too.
-
@George-K said in 2000 Mules:
I haven't watched D'Souza's movie, so I really have no comment on this link. However, I thought I'd throw it out there.
https://factcheck.thedispatch.com/p/fact-checking-dinesh-dsouzas-2000?s=r
The basic premise of the 90-minute film is that 2,000 “mules” or “paid professional operatives” delivered “fraudulent and illegal votes” to mail-in drop boxes in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Georgia. The film supposedly uncovers an “elaborate network” of “mules” in key states that would have changed the outcome of the 2020 election. The evidence in question comes from conservative Texas-based organization True the Vote, founded by Catherine Engelbrecht. Throughout the movie, D'Souza interviews Engelbrecht as well as Gregg Phillips, a True the Vote board member, who is described as “having a deep background in election intelligence,” and explains the cell phone geolocation data on which True the Vote bases its claims.
The movie, however, is riddled with errors and previously debunked claims of voter fraud, and it’s based on a faulty premise.
The film opens with a once-viral video clip and meme of Biden saying: “We have put together I think the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.” Biden was not announcing his intent to commit voter fraud, as previous fact-checks have noted. Instead, he was describing efforts to prevent voter fraud and voter suppression.
The quote dates to Biden’s October 2020 appearance on the Pod Save America podcast hosted by Jon Lovett and Dan Pfeiffer. At one point during the interview, Pfeiffer asked Biden a two-part question related to voting in the then-upcoming presidential election:
A lot of that is the rehash from the AP article.
As posted elsewhere, D'Souza may not be right. And even if he's right, it certainly may not have been enough to overturn an election. But for some reason, a lot of people don't even want to look or consider the possibility that he's partially right with his ballot harvesting evidence.
There's a reason for that....
@Jolly said in 2000 Mules:
But for some reason, a lot of people don't even want to look or consider the possibility that he's partially right with his ballot harvesting evidence.
There's a reason for that....
It’s tiresome and fruitless to argue with conspiracy theorists. Like 9/11 truthers, election deniers arrived at their position emotionally, not through the examination of evidence. So when you do take the time to debunk their claims, they don’t update their priors, they just slink away quietly and wait for the next handful of spaghetti to hit the wall.
I played this game for a couple months in 2020-2021, but I’m done. If I even catch myself looking up the melting point of reinforced concrete (or its electoral equivalent) I remind myself I have better things to do.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
I don't know if there's any truth to the 2000 mules story or not. I'm not defending it, nor attacking it, one way or the other. There are a few thing is DO know however, that are all easily proven to be true. I know that democrats /The Left has a long history of using certain phrases to demonize anyone or anything that they don't like. Labeling this a "conspiracy theory" is a perfect example of it. Label it with a smear (it's a conspiracy theory) the associate it with other situations that democrats demonized ( like 911 truthers, etc) and every left leaning person out there kicks their brain into neutral and accepts it, believes it, and stands ready to jump all over anyone who speaks out against this insidious tactic.
But you see..,. I don't give a flying fuck.
This "conspiracy theory" comes several years after vote harvesting was proven in Georgia, with at least one person testifying to being paid 10 dollars per ballot to harvest ballots and then deposit them by the dozens in drop boxes. The video cameras pointed at those ballot boxes as required by law? Erased. That is NOT a conspiracy theory, and where there's smoke there's fire. So while I have no opinion on the veracity of 2000 mules, pardon me for not being manipulated by typical democrat/left wing smear tactics.
-
@Jolly said in 2000 Mules:
But for some reason, a lot of people don't even want to look or consider the possibility that he's partially right with his ballot harvesting evidence.
There's a reason for that....
It’s tiresome and fruitless to argue with conspiracy theorists. Like 9/11 truthers, election deniers arrived at their position emotionally, not through the examination of evidence. So when you do take the time to debunk their claims, they don’t update their priors, they just slink away quietly and wait for the next handful of spaghetti to hit the wall.
I played this game for a couple months in 2020-2021, but I’m done. If I even catch myself looking up the melting point of reinforced concrete (or its electoral equivalent) I remind myself I have better things to do.
@jon-nyc said in 2000 Mules:
@Jolly said in 2000 Mules:
If I even catch myself looking up the melting point of reinforced concrete (or its electoral equivalent) ..
I remember when you said that. It is quite funny and true. LOL
-
Report Issued By Conservative Judges/Senators, etc Who Investigated Claims of Election Fraud in the 2020 election
Senator John Danforth
Benjamin Ginsberg
The Honorable Thomas B. Griffith
David Hoppe
The Honorable J. Michael Luttig
The Honorable Michael W. McConnell
The Honorable Theodore B. Olson
Senator Gordon H. Smith"Fraud, irregularities, and procedural deficiencies formed the basis for challenging the results in five of the six highly contested Electoral College battleground states of Arizona (page 7), Georgia (page 27), Michigan (page 36), Nevada (page 47), and Wisconsin (page 64). In Pennsylvania (page 53),
Trump verbally attacked the elections as fraudulent, but his lawyers never filed such charges in court.
For this Report, we examined every count of every case brought in these six battleground states. We include both a narrative for each state and an accompanying Addendum listing each case and its disposition.
We conclude that Donald Trump and his supporters had their day in court and failed to produce substantive evidence to make their case."
-
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.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
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.
