Comments by "Dale Crocker" (@dalecrocker3213) on "RNC asking in job interviews if 2020 election was stolen" video.

It's a fair question. The answer can never be definite, but "possibly" or "probably" beat "absolutely not" any day of the week.
1
@tthomas184 Not so. A big question mark hangs over many activities that took place during the polling procedure. Personally I'm a "probably."
1
But what if it isn't a lie, but an honest opinion?
1
@tthomas184 People generally are, are they not?
1
@gphunkera8731 I don't know about "irrefutable". If the election was fixed (and I mean if) then it was done very professionally by people who have been fixing elections all over the world for a number of years. They are as good at handling the cover-up as they are at the deed itself. I watched some very disturbing videos during the election which convinced me that very many votes were improperly cast, and that postal voting was abused and that bulk-buying of votes from poor black neighbourhoods was rife. Unfortunately none of these activities are illegal, or at least very difficult to prove in a court of law.
1
@tthomas184 Well not bamboozled if, like me, you believe the election probably was fixed in various ways. Pretending you think it was fixed when really you don't might make you a snivelling sycophant, but that's not an unusual stance to take in a job interview, is it?
1
@Joe-Dead I have to disagree. In my opinion the election was fixed in various ways and in the very unlikely event of my applying for a job with the RNC I could say so without lying.
1
@elypevets5633 Then you are referring to me, and I don't think I lack critical thinking skills. Bothe the political system and the judicial system in the US are bent to buggery. They feed off each other to present a view of America which is both false and dangerous. There were innumerable instances of malpractice during the election which if the rules had been properly applied would have meant discarding hundreds of thousands of votes, if not millions. Just because none of this could proved, or because - astonishingly - such malpractices, while breaking electoral rules, are not criminal offences, the whole charade continues and will doubtless continue this year too.
1
@tthomas184 I believe the evidence of my eyes and the evidence supplied by logical thinking, not the conclusions of a corrupt judicial system. The cases brought forward to the various state senate subcommittees immediately subsequent to the election provided a series of very disturbing facts - the fact that Republican observers were prevented from observing counts is just one of them. Another is the widespread use of bulk vote buying from poor black communities. The postal voting system is very open to abuse, as are Dominion voting machines. Boxes and boxes of votes disappeared from sight - the list goes on and on. At the very least hundreds of thousands of votes failed to meet the criteria demanded and should have been rejected.
1
@tthomas184 I trust the evidence of my eyes and my thought processes, not the conclusions of a corrupt and inefficient judicial system. Did you watch any of the State sub-committee sessions immediately after the election? I summarised some in a previous post, but of course YouTube deleted it. You've been stitched up like a kipper, and you don't even know it.
1
@tthomas184 I've had five goes at answering you, but YouTube won't let me. Pretty significant, don't you think?
1
@kevinvelasco6167 But I have not ignored the facts. Apparently I know more facts than you do and my assessment of the situation, bearing in mind all the facts at my disposal, leads me to the conclusion that the election was fixed in a variety of ways. This is my opinion. It may be wrong, as indeed may yours, but neither of us is lying. I am just less brainwashed than you are.
1
@michaelmorningstar8645 Not if my opinion is based on observed facts. Which it is. I am saying that there was a great deal of malpractice during the election, and this could have been sufficient to alter the result. This is not a lie. It is a rational statement leading me to a rational opinion.
1
@tthomas184 Should we just accept it ? Does it not show an unacceptable level of censorship?
1
@tthomas184 I have facts at my disposal. YouTube just doesn't seem to want to allow me to share them with you. All I can suggest is that you access the admittedly lengthy but nonetheless fascinating videos of the State Senate sub-committee hearings which took place immediately subsequent to the election. I was in a position at the time to watch many of them as they were produced - it was a revelation. The very valid accusations made now seem to have been swallowed up by .. well, presumably the same sinister forces which swallow up my attempts to paraphrase them for your benefit.
1
@tthomas184 I return to my original point. (Or perhaps it didn't get past the censor?) So, choosing my words with care I simply say that the judicial system is simply not geared to deal with electoral misbehaviour. The facts are as they are, and are as damaging and as worrying as they are. But they do not apparently amount to provable criminal acts. There is no police involvement. There are no precedents. Attempts to utilise existing laws to punish what is clearly electoral malpractice are doomed to failure. But what was done was wrong just the same.
1
@tthomas184 I'm quite happy with my critical thinking skills, thank you very much. After all in this instance it is I who is being critical, whereas you are accepting what you are told, apparently uncritically. I accept that YouTube is a private company and can do what it likes, but it does seem to me that its new algorithm is utterly bonkers. Either the programmers aren't quite with it or, as in the case of Stalinist Russia, the idea is simply to crack down arbitrarily in order to keep us all in a state of mild terror.
1
@tthomas184 You're not doing too great a job yourself, if I may say so. If by critical thinking you are in some way referring to a dialectic process, you are failing miserably. You are all thesis without antithesis. Mere repetition never got no-one nowhere. I take on board what you say, chew it over with what else I know, and come to the conclusion that what you say is incorrect for a variety of reasons - not the least of which is the fact that you are clearly doing little more than reiterating some received wisdom foisted upon you by political hooligans. I, on the other hand, am bringing a priori knowledge and a process of logical assessment to bear on the situation. This is why I reject the official narrative, whereas you swallow it hook, line and sinker.
1
@tthomas184 Darling, your slip is showing.
1
@tthomas184 They tried against the odds. Use yours.
1
@tthomas184 I admit nothing of the kind! Stopping putting words into my mouth! I do say, however, that electoral malpractice seems to be so endemic in the US that it is practically built into the Constitution. It can be proved by a simple process of observation and deduction - the fact that it cannot apparently be proved in a court of law nor even detailed on YouTube is in indication of things being wrong with the judicial process and with Big Tech, not that electoral malpractice does not exist- which it clearly does.
1
@tthomas184 Can you prove the election was fairly conducted?
1
@tthomas184 You make my point exactly. From my point of view there is a presumption that the system is often corrupt and when I point to apparent anomalies it is up to those who defend the system to explain them. But they do not. You do not. You simply repeat and repeat that the system has arrived at such and such a conclusion, and therefore that conclusion must be correct. Yes, this is how the law and courts work, and this is why the world is full of injustice.
1
@tthomas184 It isn't a question of proof, it's a question of having strong doubts based upon evidence. As I have explained, the opportunity to ratify or dismiss these doubts does not exist under the present system. This is, in itself, very revealing. I have come to the conclusion that democracy in the US is something of a sham, and perhaps always has been. They do say, after all, that JFK would never have made President if Mayor Joe Daley had not opened up the graveyards of Chicago.
1
@tthomas184 1.
1
@tthomas184 Yup. It's done and dusted - but you still don't get the issue about proof, do you? It doesn't matter how much proof you've got if the courts won't allow it to be heard. The issue now is whether or not the same thing is going to happen this year - and on such a scale. Make no mistake, elections in the US aren't about whether the government is Democrat or Republican. They are about ensuring that the politicians who gain office do as they're told by the people who really rule the country.
1
@tthomas184 Not much point having proof if the courts won't admit it as evidence.
1
@tthomas184 Not all of it. Have you never heard of inadmissable evidence?
1
@tthomas184 Not so. It has the potential to be proof, but the opportunity is denied by the system.
1
@tthomas184 I ignored nothing. I chose 1 - but bizarrely it seems that was too much for the algorithm! I think most people realise the 2020 election is a lost cause and the big worry now is whether there will be similar chicanery this year.
1
@tthomas184 You still don't get the point, do you? The judicial system is geared to protect the political system. There was no way, really, that the abuses of 2020 could be rectified through a judicial procedure - but it was thought to be worth a try.
1
@tthomas184 That's just silly. I'm sure Trump believes with all heart that the election was stolen from him. As you know, I'm pretty sure of it myself and I'm not lying about that. Why should I? It's a perfectly reasonable belief considering America's past history and its present dangerous state.
1