Comments by "milcoll73" (@thurin84) on "Absentee vs. Mail-In Voting" video.

i think we know why anyone would support a method of voting that makes elections far less secure. because they intend to commit voter fraud on a massive scale.
1
@Logan-Eastman how much evidence and how many times do we need to tell you massive voter fraud exists?
1
@Logan-Eastman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9trRkNWXK9I&t=1s id call 20% pretty massive
1
@Logan-Eastman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKPLDFpNnQQ
1
@Logan-Eastman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXZLhxEVJic
1
@Logan-Eastman gee, how did i know youd come up with some way to impugn my source lol. i must be psychic. 20% IS MASSIVE. and project veritas has numerous videos of dems (and a few republicans) talking about and carrying out widespread voter fraud. but youll just claim theyre "doctored" or "out of context" because they dont fit your narrative. styx hexxenhammer also talks about the same incidents. theres no way of knowing either way if they were intended for voter fraud which is why tim didnt claim as such. but, it does strike one as odd this close to an election. which is why i didnt include them. though theres nothing realling wrong with fox as long as you correct for their omissions based on bias. at least they dont make shit up like cnn or msnbc lol. dont know much about blaze as i dont follow them. theyre not the source. tim is. tim cross checks stories before he reports them. he does old school journalism unlike the lamestream media presstitites. not if one side relies on it to win elections. now the other side would complain. but they dont have a complicate media to cover for them. yeah, but they dont acknowledge any of the incidents tim, or veritas, or the myriad of local news stories of dead people voting. i dod posy several comments with a credible source detailing massive (ie 20%) fraud. you dismiss it out of hand without giving any other reason then "its a youtube channel" lol without explaining why impugns it. gee, i wonder why?
1
@Logan-Eastman im not claiming the video is the source. im claiming tim pools journalism and fact checking department and the the fact checking departments of his sources are the source. ive checked into the veracity of tims claims a number of times to verify for myself that his reporting id legit. did you even bother? (rhetorical, i know full well you did not). there is no such thing as a "center" news source. every source has its bias. you have to inform yourself, correct for it, and cross check news from a number of sources. you should try it. yes, exactly as democrats want to do universally with the upcoming election. oh, and they also want to remove voter id and signature verification laws. curious dont you think? as i have provided and you continually try to unfoundedly impugn because it does not fit your narrative.
1
@Logan-Eastman actually yes i did. just because you reject because it doesnt fit your narrative doesnt invalidate my source. erge my presenting the video is presenting its sources. come on man, this isnt that difficult. i said when i 1st started watching his channel i looked into his references to satisfy myself that they were legitimate. is english not your 1st language? why does it have to be an article as opposed to an online source? i mean, we are online after all. i have provided you sources demonstrating MASSIVE voter fraud (ie 20%).
1
@Logan-Eastman boy thats a lot of mental gymnastics to avoid the most obvious conclusion. especially when taken with the totality of evidence from other sources such as veritas, styx, crowder, razorfist, the numerous local news reports of dead people voting. is it all conclusive? mostly no, but it establishes and oft repeated pattern that only a series of unlikely mental gymnastics such as your own can explain away that, taken as a whole, is ridicules on the face of it. you do not see the plain evidence placed in front of you as pearls before the swine because you actively do not want to. desperately. the question is why. given the sources youve touteds political leanings, i suspect because you support the side thats benefiting the most from the voter fraud and that wishes the create beneficial condition for voter fraud by pushing universal mail in voting even though it appears quite problematic as well as forcing the removal verification requirements to prevent such fraud. so enjoy your desperate confirmation bias and run along to your safe space and enjoy your cup of koolaid before you stick your head back in the sand.
1
@Logan-Eastman if you go to the soures he refers to youll see the proof ergo why he included them. plus you could hop on over to veritas and see plenty of hidden camera videos of plenty of voter fraud occurring or being discussed by democratic operatives. "Literally one credible source of evidence. Literally one credible source that confirms massive voter fraud exists. Hell, even one slightly dubious source. " i dont see the word "primary" in there. i checked twice. nice goalpost move when your original requirements were fulfilled. perhaps you should get a job with NFL field maintenance, then you could move the goalposts for a living. the whole point of a journalist is to collate primary sources so you dont have to. newsflash: im not a journalist. actually establishing a pattern of behavior is an excellent and much legally used as evidence of a crime. i never said you said mail in voter fraud didnt exist. stop trying to muddy the issue to hide the fact your position is weak. i would call 20% and the election called for to be redone pretty convincing, especially when you add it to all the other evidence of mail in voter fraud across the country. and i gave it to you. 20% is massive. i did. you impugn and ignore it because it destroys your narrative. i am indeed making assumptions based on the evidence of your commentary and sources you claim to find credible and not credible. and id wager im correct, call it a hunch. and so i did. and the gyrations of your mental gymnastics to disallow it in any way you can is highly entertaining. highly. i doubt it. i did. stop avoiding that it proves you wrong. better yet dont. i enjoy the salt lol. well, somebodys "truth" lol
1
@Logan-Eastman ie youre sorry you got caught moving the goalposts. theres a very big difference between sources and primary sources. i have no doubt as to which you originally meant as we both know. and i provided you with a source. ie a presentor of multiple sources which tend to be more credible for sampling a range of sources. i dont need to google it. i have sources at hand one of which i provided you when challenged to do so. one of which you have yet to provide a reason as to its lack of veracity other then "its a youtube vidoe" as if thats any sort of general disqualifier. as if any of this was in any way unpredictable lol. what? no love for yandex, ccsearch, swissocs, gibiru, onesearch, boardreader,givewater,ekoru,ecosia,info.com,searx???? perhaps you dont know those. oh well. a journalist IS a source. right, but not specifically because 20% of the mail in votes were potentially fraudulent. and 20% is MASSIVE! IT.MOST.CERTAINLY.MASSIVE.EVIDENCE.OF.VOTER.FRAUD.IN.US.ELECTIONS. AS.WELL.AS.BEING.SHADES.OF.THINGS.TO.COME.WITH.EXPANDED.MAIL.IN.VOTING. as if theres been time for an investigation into it lol. see? there you go moving those darn goalposts again. and now youre moving them to something that is unattainable in regards to the source i provided. im sure thats just a coincidence though. totally. I.ALREADY.DID. thats your job. ive satisfied myself as to the veracity of tims reporting via due diligence. its not my job to do YOUR due diligence. that, and you cant lead a biased horse to facts and make them drink of them. so youre saying that those are the only cases of voter fraud ever? in any cases 1000 is 1000 to many in this day and age.
1
@Logan-Eastman those goalposts gettin heavy yet?
1
@Logan-Eastman nope. you asked for a source. i gave you a credible source.
1
@Logan-Eastman as i explained ealier moron, his sources are the source. hes a reporter that collates the sources. why is this such a difficult concept for you? oh thats right! because it doesnt fit you narrative! got it!
1
@Logan-Eastman i dont need to. presenting him is presenting his sources, and his fact checking department to boot. i dont care. im not making a report. im providing you the source you asked for. and youre desperately trying to impugn it as it doesnt fit your narrative lol. i wasnt providing him for his rant as he does tend to prattle on a bit. i presented him because hes a reputable source for news. well you could fool me as youre hitting all the denier talking points lol. though i will grant you your particular brand of mental gymnastics are more unique then normal lol. keep it up!!!
1