GOP Plan to End America

HUSKERinLA

College Football Hall of Fame
Gold Member
Nov 25, 2007
21,282
24,935
113
“The scenario then goes like this. The Republicans win back the House and Senate in 2022, in part thanks to voter suppression. The Republican candidate in 2024 loses the popular vote by several million and the electoral vote by the margin of a few states. State legislatures, claiming fraud, alter the electoral count vote. The House and Senate accept that altered count. The losing candidate becomes the president. We no longer have "democratically elected government." And people are angry.

No one is seeking to hide that this is the plan. It is right there out in the open. The prospective Republican candidates for 2024, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Josh Hawley, are all running on a big lie platform. If your platform is that elections do not work, you are saying that you intend to come to power some other way. The big lie is designed not to win an election, but to discredit one. Any candidate who tells it is alienating most Americans, and preparing a minority for a scenario where fraud is claimed. This is just what Trump tried in 2020, and it led to a coup attempt in January 2021. It will be worse in January 2025.”

— Yale History Professor Timothy Snyder

 

Oldschool1964

Offensive Coordinator
Gold Member
Jun 27, 2009
8,467
7,432
113
116
Your mom's house
“The scenario then goes like this. The Republicans win back the House and Senate in 2022, in part thanks to voter suppression. The Republican candidate in 2024 loses the popular vote by several million and the electoral vote by the margin of a few states. State legislatures, claiming fraud, alter the electoral count vote. The House and Senate accept that altered count. The losing candidate becomes the president. We no longer have "democratically elected government." And people are angry.

No one is seeking to hide that this is the plan. It is right there out in the open. The prospective Republican candidates for 2024, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Josh Hawley, are all running on a big lie platform. If your platform is that elections do not work, you are saying that you intend to come to power some other way. The big lie is designed not to win an election, but to discredit one. Any candidate who tells it is alienating most Americans, and preparing a minority for a scenario where fraud is claimed. This is just what Trump tried in 2020, and it led to a coup attempt in January 2021. It will be worse in January 2025.”

— Yale History Professor Timothy Snyder

So what's your idea? The Dems want to control the election at the federal level, and I don't trust either party in Washington to conduct a fair election - too much $$ at stake. Therefore a decentralized election with audits run at the state level is the best way to conduct these things.

And yes, there was fraud, and Trump won. Deal with it, loser.
 

vin5000

Graduate Assistant
Gold Member
Jan 18, 2004
5,079
7,533
113
“The scenario then goes like this. The Republicans win back the House and Senate in 2022, in part thanks to voter suppression. The Republican candidate in 2024 loses the popular vote by several million and the electoral vote by the margin of a few states. State legislatures, claiming fraud, alter the electoral count vote. The House and Senate accept that altered count. The losing candidate becomes the president. We no longer have "democratically elected government." And people are angry.

No one is seeking to hide that this is the plan. It is right there out in the open. The prospective Republican candidates for 2024, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Josh Hawley, are all running on a big lie platform. If your platform is that elections do not work, you are saying that you intend to come to power some other way. The big lie is designed not to win an election, but to discredit one. Any candidate who tells it is alienating most Americans, and preparing a minority for a scenario where fraud is claimed. This is just what Trump tried in 2020, and it led to a coup attempt in January 2021. It will be worse in January 2025.”

— Yale History Professor Timothy Snyder


Did QAnon switch sides or did you get this from somewhere else?
 

steinek11

All-American
Gold Member
Dec 1, 2014
4,120
7,680
113
So what's your idea? The Dems want to control the election at the federal level, and I don't trust either party in Washington to conduct a fair election - too much $$ at stake. Therefore a decentralized election with audits run at the state level is the best way to conduct these things.

And yes, there was fraud, and Trump won. Deal with it, loser.

God damn you’re such a ****ing idiot. All the court saying there was no fraud didn’t sway you? Trumps own Attorney General saying there was no fraud didn’t sway. But those YouTube videos they show the real secrets. ****ing inbred morons
 

rgrachek

Head Coach
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2004
12,970
12,556
113
“The scenario then goes like this. The Republicans win back the House and Senate in 2022, in part thanks to voter suppression. The Republican candidate in 2024 loses the popular vote by several million and the electoral vote by the margin of a few states. State legislatures, claiming fraud, alter the electoral count vote. The House and Senate accept that altered count. The losing candidate becomes the president. We no longer have "democratically elected government." And people are angry.

No one is seeking to hide that this is the plan. It is right there out in the open. The prospective Republican candidates for 2024, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Josh Hawley, are all running on a big lie platform. If your platform is that elections do not work, you are saying that you intend to come to power some other way. The big lie is designed not to win an election, but to discredit one. Any candidate who tells it is alienating most Americans, and preparing a minority for a scenario where fraud is claimed. This is just what Trump tried in 2020, and it led to a coup attempt in January 2021. It will be worse in January 2025.”

— Yale History Professor Timothy Snyder

A professor at Perimeter College in Georgia said that this would happen:

The Republicans win back the House and Senate in 2022, then robots from Russia and China come in and Manchurian Candidate all of the members of the House and Senate, then the Russia and China controlled bots cede all US assets to Russia and China.

After that, the bots disappear and Joy Behar is named leader of the peoples slave state of North America. Then, the aliens come in and kill all of the Russians and Chinese after which giving their loyalty to Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, who then restore the USA with border control.

During this 3 year period, the Huskers go 14-22.
 

rgrachek

Head Coach
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2004
12,970
12,556
113
God damn you’re such a ****ing idiot. All the court saying there was no fraud didn’t sway you? Trumps own Attorney General saying there was no fraud didn’t sway. But those YouTube videos they show the real secrets. ****ing inbred morons
Trying to say something serious in a clearly silly post is dangerous, but here goes.

The courts and the AG didn't do any investigating regarding the election and simply said that they didn't see anything actionable at the present time. THEY DIDN'T SAY THAT THERE WAS NO FRAUD, THEY JUST SAID THAT THEY HAD NOT SEEN "MUCH" EVIDENCE. There were all kinds of traditional metrics that were turned upside down during this last election and a multitude of things that simply didn't make sense.

But yet, there was NO investigation. Everyone who got the outcome that they wanted went on this "no problem with the election" bla bla bla, and ignored the blatant inconsistencies. If something similar had happened in the other direction, there would have been a call for thousands of investigations and the term "voter suppression" would have burned a hole in all of our computers.

God you freaking dipshits!
 

Gonzo3705

Head Coach
Gold Member
Oct 21, 2006
12,554
14,863
113
The Bay or the Sierras
Trying to say something serious in a clearly silly post is dangerous, but here goes.

The courts and the AG didn't do any investigating regarding the election and simply said that they didn't see anything actionable at the present time. THEY DIDN'T SAY THAT THERE WAS NO FRAUD, THEY JUST SAID THAT THEY HAD NOT SEEN "MUCH" EVIDENCE. There were all kinds of traditional metrics that were turned upside down during this last election and a multitude of things that simply didn't make sense.

But yet, there was NO investigation. Everyone who got the outcome that they wanted went on this "no problem with the election" bla bla bla, and ignored the blatant inconsistencies. If something similar had happened in the other direction, there would have been a call for thousands of investigations and the term "voter suppression" would have burned a hole in all of our computers.

God you freaking dipshits!
You're calling people dipshits and you made this statement, which you even made the effort to draw attention to by making it all caps:

THEY DIDN'T SAY THAT THERE WAS NO FRAUD, THEY JUST SAID THAT THEY HAD NOT SEEN "MUCH" EVIDENCE.

Now respond with 10 paragraphs as to why that bolsters your point. TIA.
 

Jhollenbeck41

Graduate Assistant
Gold Member
Nov 29, 2018
5,511
8,650
113
Wild Wild West. Every man for himself. Let's go. Can't argue about democracy and fairness that way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaemekon

Hardlyboy

Offensive Coordinator
Gold Member
Jan 26, 2011
8,472
13,121
113
Trying to say something serious in a clearly silly post is dangerous, but here goes.

The courts and the AG didn't do any investigating regarding the election and simply said that they didn't see anything actionable at the present time. THEY DIDN'T SAY THAT THERE WAS NO FRAUD, THEY JUST SAID THAT THEY HAD NOT SEEN "MUCH" EVIDENCE. There were all kinds of traditional metrics that were turned upside down during this last election and a multitude of things that simply didn't make sense.

But yet, there was NO investigation. Everyone who got the outcome that they wanted went on this "no problem with the election" bla bla bla, and ignored the blatant inconsistencies. If something similar had happened in the other direction, there would have been a call for thousands of investigations and the term "voter suppression" would have burned a hole in all of our computers.

God you freaking dipshits!
Yeah I guess if you ignore all the investigations. Including Texas spending millions $$ to find nothing.

 

steinek11

All-American
Gold Member
Dec 1, 2014
4,120
7,680
113
Trying to say something serious in a clearly silly post is dangerous, but here goes.

The courts and the AG didn't do any investigating regarding the election and simply said that they didn't see anything actionable at the present time. THEY DIDN'T SAY THAT THERE WAS NO FRAUD, THEY JUST SAID THAT THEY HAD NOT SEEN "MUCH" EVIDENCE. There were all kinds of traditional metrics that were turned upside down during this last election and a multitude of things that simply didn't make sense.

But yet, there was NO investigation. Everyone who got the outcome that they wanted went on this "no problem with the election" bla bla bla, and ignored the blatant inconsistencies. If something similar had happened in the other direction, there would have been a call for thousands of investigations and the term "voter suppression" would have burned a hole in all of our computers.

God you freaking dipshits!

Trumps legal team, including his lawyer Rudy Giuliani still in front of the courts and said that they are not arguing against voter fraud.
 

Oldschool1964

Offensive Coordinator
Gold Member
Jun 27, 2009
8,467
7,432
113
116
Your mom's house
God damn you’re such a ****ing idiot. All the court saying there was no fraud didn’t sway you? Trumps own Attorney General saying there was no fraud didn’t sway. But those YouTube videos they show the real secrets. ****ing inbred morons
The audit is happening right now. The same courts that setup the fraud can't be relied upon to overturn the system they created (Unconstitutionally). You prefer the foxes guarding the hen house, so bury your head in the sand for another 3 1/2 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jcal447

zar45

All-American
Gold Member
Jun 13, 2016
4,732
11,798
113
Trying to say something serious in a clearly silly post is dangerous, but here goes.

The courts and the AG didn't do any investigating regarding the election and simply said that they didn't see anything actionable at the present time. THEY DIDN'T SAY THAT THERE WAS NO FRAUD, THEY JUST SAID THAT THEY HAD NOT SEEN "MUCH" EVIDENCE. There were all kinds of traditional metrics that were turned upside down during this last election and a multitude of things that simply didn't make sense.

But yet, there was NO investigation. Everyone who got the outcome that they wanted went on this "no problem with the election" bla bla bla, and ignored the blatant inconsistencies. If something similar had happened in the other direction, there would have been a call for thousands of investigations and the term "voter suppression" would have burned a hole in all of our computers.

God you freaking dipshits!

What inconsistencies?
 

Jaemekon

Graduate Assistant
Gold Member
Apr 23, 2007
5,372
5,122
113
Why did Trump appoint a bunch of fraudulent judges?

Aren't all of them frauds? Trumps, bidens, turtle man, grey lady, interspecies levine, crazy broad, interspecies twin, the supreme court judges, Chucky, pedo monster, the congress, the senate, just all of them.

If they are connected to money, they are not here to help us. So anyone currently in politics, anywhere in the world, can go fvck themselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nelsonj22

Huskermatt23

Graduate Assistant
Gold Member
Jan 11, 2017
5,520
11,347
113
Seattle
Despite Republican efforts to suppress votes, the dems could still hold the house and easily add to their majority in the Senate so then the filibuster will be ended. Then all the Republican efforts will be for not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kimaniismyffriend

stevehammer

Graduate Assistant
Gold Member
Sep 18, 2001
5,728
6,085
113
So what's your idea? The Dems want to control the election at the federal level, and I don't trust either party in Washington to conduct a fair election - too much $$ at stake. Therefore a decentralized election with audits run at the state level is the best way to conduct these things.

And yes, there was fraud, and Trump won. Deal with it, loser.
There is zero evidence of fraud. All of the recounts turned out the same. Show the evidence or shut the fvck up.
Trying to say something serious in a clearly silly post is dangerous, but here goes.

The courts and the AG didn't do any investigating regarding the election and simply said that they didn't see anything actionable at the present time. THEY DIDN'T SAY THAT THERE WAS NO FRAUD, THEY JUST SAID THAT THEY HAD NOT SEEN "MUCH" EVIDENCE. There were all kinds of traditional metrics that were turned upside down during this last election and a multitude of things that simply didn't make sense.

But yet, there was NO investigation. Everyone who got the outcome that they wanted went on this "no problem with the election" bla bla bla, and ignored the blatant inconsistencies. If something similar had happened in the other direction, there would have been a call for thousands of investigations and the term "voter suppression" would have burned a hole in all of our computers.

God you freaking dipshits!
There is zero evidence of fraud. All of the recounts turned out the same. Show the evidence or shut the fvck up.
 

Oldschool1964

Offensive Coordinator
Gold Member
Jun 27, 2009
8,467
7,432
113
116
Your mom's house
There is zero evidence of fraud. All of the recounts turned out the same. Show the evidence or shut the fvck up.

There is zero evidence of fraud. All of the recounts turned out the same. Show the evidence or shut the fvck up.
They didn't recount all the votes. The "audits" took a sample of ballots and cleared those ballots. What's going on right now is a full audit. We'll see where it leads.
 

philosophusker

Athletic Director
Gold Member
Jan 16, 2004
15,142
18,369
113
Jonesboro, Arkansas (York, NE originally)
“The scenario then goes like this. The Republicans win back the House and Senate in 2022, in part thanks to voter suppression. The Republican candidate in 2024 loses the popular vote by several million and the electoral vote by the margin of a few states. State legislatures, claiming fraud, alter the electoral count vote. The House and Senate accept that altered count. The losing candidate becomes the president. We no longer have "democratically elected government." And people are angry.

No one is seeking to hide that this is the plan. It is right there out in the open. The prospective Republican candidates for 2024, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Josh Hawley, are all running on a big lie platform. If your platform is that elections do not work, you are saying that you intend to come to power some other way. The big lie is designed not to win an election, but to discredit one. Any candidate who tells it is alienating most Americans, and preparing a minority for a scenario where fraud is claimed. This is just what Trump tried in 2020, and it led to a coup attempt in January 2021. It will be worse in January 2025.”

— Yale History Professor Timothy Snyder

These "Republicans" are sick and twisted individuals. Not sure why they want to destroy America, they claim they supposedly love it.

Bastards.
 
Last edited:

rgrachek

Head Coach
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2004
12,970
12,556
113
There is zero evidence of fraud. All of the recounts turned out the same. Show the evidence or shut the fvck up.

There is zero evidence of fraud. All of the recounts turned out the same. Show the evidence or shut the fvck up.
"All of the recounts turned out the same".

I'm sorry, but God what a dumb ass you seem to be!

The problem had NOTHING to do with how votes are counted, but rather how they were obtained in a world where tens of millions of absentee ballots were floating around that anyone could have cast.

You don't care about evidence and anything I show you, like for example 90% of the votes in my county above the 2016 total numbers went for Biden when historically the distribution of new votes has stayed close to the final vote split in every other freaking election, you'll just discount with some bullshit excuse.

You're just happy that your side won, and you don't care if they had to stuff the ballot box to do it.
 

rgrachek

Head Coach
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2004
12,970
12,556
113
You're calling people dipshits and you made this statement, which you even made the effort to draw attention to by making it all caps:

THEY DIDN'T SAY THAT THERE WAS NO FRAUD, THEY JUST SAID THAT THEY HAD NOT SEEN "MUCH" EVIDENCE.

Now respond with 10 paragraphs as to why that bolsters your point. TIA.
You can't have evidence without an investigation.

It's like have a person shot dead and the police come upon the body and guy with a gun and blood on him is standing over the body. Then the police say, you're free to go, because no one saw who shot the dead person.
 

zar45

All-American
Gold Member
Jun 13, 2016
4,732
11,798
113
You can't have evidence without an investigation.

It's like have a person shot dead and the police come upon the body and guy with a gun and blood on him is standing over the body. Then the police say, you're free to go, because no one saw who shot the dead person.
In a free society, evidence is prior to an investigation.

In your example, the dead body is evidence of a crime. The bloody gunman is evidence of who committed said crime.
 

mhosek

Sophomore
Gold Member
Dec 11, 2001
1,295
1,033
113
“The scenario then goes like this. The Republicans win back the House and Senate in 2022, in part thanks to voter suppression. The Republican candidate in 2024 loses the popular vote by several million and the electoral vote by the margin of a few states. State legislatures, claiming fraud, alter the electoral count vote. The House and Senate accept that altered count. The losing candidate becomes the president. We no longer have "democratically elected government." And people are angry.

No one is seeking to hide that this is the plan. It is right there out in the open. The prospective Republican candidates for 2024, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Josh Hawley, are all running on a big lie platform. If your platform is that elections do not work, you are saying that you intend to come to power some other way. The big lie is designed not to win an election, but to discredit one. Any candidate who tells it is alienating most Americans, and preparing a minority for a scenario where fraud is claimed. This is just what Trump tried in 2020, and it led to a coup attempt in January 2021. It will be worse in January 2025.”

— Yale History Professor Timothy Snyder

Lost me @ “Yale Professor”. No better source than infoWars...
 

kidofSN

Junior
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
1,783
2,232
113
Georgia recounted three times. "Today is an important day for election integrity in Georgia and across the country," Raffensperger said in a statement. "Georgians can now move forward knowing that their votes, and only their legal votes, were counted accurately, fairly, and reliably."
 

zar45

All-American
Gold Member
Jun 13, 2016
4,732
11,798
113
Lost me @ “Yale Professor”. No better source than infoWars...

mhosek's sources:
nameinstancesnameinst.nameinst.
breitbart
4​
epoch times
1​
postgazette
1​
infowars
4​
foxnews
1​
reuters
1​
nypost
4​
hubpages
1​
reviewjournal
1​
ballotpedia
2​
israelnationalnews
1​
sgtreport
1​
gateway pundit
2​
journalstar
1​
spectator
1​
snopes
2​
kiwiblog
1​
The federalist
1​
westernjournal
2​
marketwatch
1​
thehill
1​
bongino
1​
noqreport
1​
University of Minnesota
1​
Cal-catholic
1​
onenewsnow
1​
usatoday
1​
cbsdenver
1​
pacificresearch
1​
visionnews
1​
challengesweface
1​
palaceintrigueblog
1​
wasthingtontimes
1​
chicago tribune
1​
pewresearch
1​
cnn
1​
pjmedia
1​

Media-Bias-Chart-7.0_January-2021-Unlicensed-Social-Media_Hi_Res-min-1-1.jpg
 

sklarbodds

Administrator
Moderator
Nov 30, 2006
32,689
38,504
113
mhosek's sources:
nameinstancesnameinst.nameinst.
breitbart
4​
epoch times
1​
postgazette
1​
infowars
4​
foxnews
1​
reuters
1​
nypost
4​
hubpages
1​
reviewjournal
1​
ballotpedia
2​
israelnationalnews
1​
sgtreport
1​
gateway pundit
2​
journalstar
1​
spectator
1​
snopes
2​
kiwiblog
1​
The federalist
1​
westernjournal
2​
marketwatch
1​
thehill
1​
bongino
1​
noqreport
1​
University of Minnesota
1​
Cal-catholic
1​
onenewsnow
1​
usatoday
1​
cbsdenver
1​
pacificresearch
1​
visionnews
1​
challengesweface
1​
palaceintrigueblog
1​
wasthingtontimes
1​
chicago tribune
1​
pewresearch
1​
cnn
1​
pjmedia
1​

Media-Bias-Chart-7.0_January-2021-Unlicensed-Social-Media_Hi_Res-min-1-1.jpg
I might pay for a 2nd subscription to like this again
 

mhosek

Sophomore
Gold Member
Dec 11, 2001
1,295
1,033
113
mhosek's sources:
nameinstancesnameinst.nameinst.
breitbart
4​
epoch times
1​
postgazette
1​
infowars
4​
foxnews
1​
reuters
1​
nypost
4​
hubpages
1​
reviewjournal
1​
ballotpedia
2​
israelnationalnews
1​
sgtreport
1​
gateway pundit
2​
journalstar
1​
spectator
1​
snopes
2​
kiwiblog
1​
The federalist
1​
westernjournal
2​
marketwatch
1​
thehill
1​
bongino
1​
noqreport
1​
University of Minnesota
1​
Cal-catholic
1​
onenewsnow
1​
usatoday
1​
cbsdenver
1​
pacificresearch
1​
visionnews
1​
challengesweface
1​
palaceintrigueblog
1​
wasthingtontimes
1​
chicago tribune
1​
pewresearch
1​
cnn
1​
pjmedia
1​

Media-Bias-Chart-7.0_January-2021-Unlicensed-Social-Media_Hi_Res-min-1-1.jpg
Hahahahahahaha.... your little graph I’d argue may be a bit Skewed? CNN is not on the fringe left of that, and everyone on here knows better. They have zero business being anywhere near the middle of that, and you can’t defend otherwise. I link the first thing I’ll find often, and coming off of a Duck search, won’t argue that I’ve posted biased sources, won’t try and defend otherwise, but the purpose is for discussion. Same as everyone here. Sometimes it’s a Troll, because we all know it’s fun :) also won’t argue that a forged Vax certificate is a fringe stance. I need to travel inteenationally. It’s also not like I go around trying to infect ppl with the COVID I had f’ing 9 months ago, and am responsible when I’m out and about. Wearing a mask in an airport as we speak, but the reason for doing so is not the same as yours, it’s to prevent ppl from becoming hysterical. Am also NOT against vaccinations, again I AM vaccinated as well as my kids to certain things, just waiting on this one, some. Would consider it in the future if it’s still an issue. I’ve heard the arguments as to why y’all think that’s irresponsible, and we’ll just have to agree to disagree. There’s a lot of news recently second guessing a lot of decisions, no? ANY university professor, especially Yale, I’d bet my Truck is left of CNN. Ergo, it’s easy to dismiss your source.
 

Jaemekon

Graduate Assistant
Gold Member
Apr 23, 2007
5,372
5,122
113
mhosek's sources:
nameinstancesnameinst.nameinst.
breitbart
4​
epoch times
1​
postgazette
1​
infowars
4​
foxnews
1​
reuters
1​
nypost
4​
hubpages
1​
reviewjournal
1​
ballotpedia
2​
israelnationalnews
1​
sgtreport
1​
gateway pundit
2​
journalstar
1​
spectator
1​
snopes
2​
kiwiblog
1​
The federalist
1​
westernjournal
2​
marketwatch
1​
thehill
1​
bongino
1​
noqreport
1​
University of Minnesota
1​
Cal-catholic
1​
onenewsnow
1​
usatoday
1​
cbsdenver
1​
pacificresearch
1​
visionnews
1​
challengesweface
1​
palaceintrigueblog
1​
wasthingtontimes
1​
chicago tribune
1​
pewresearch
1​
cnn
1​
pjmedia
1​

Media-Bias-Chart-7.0_January-2021-Unlicensed-Social-Media_Hi_Res-min-1-1.jpg

Who determines the lean of a bias? Is that person biased? Or does a robot determine the bias? Was the robot's programmer biased?

The media bias chart is just as biased as each media outlet. I can't trust it.

However, I will give you props for using your time to comb through that guy's posts to build the excel spreadsheet. Very thorough, I don't have the energy for such a thing. I also don't care about any person on here enough to waste that kind of energy.

I didn't really look at the findings, but good research.
 

HUSKERinLA

College Football Hall of Fame
Gold Member
Nov 25, 2007
21,282
24,935
113
mhosek's sources:
nameinstancesnameinst.nameinst.
breitbart
4​
epoch times
1​
postgazette
1​
infowars
4​
foxnews
1​
reuters
1​
nypost
4​
hubpages
1​
reviewjournal
1​
ballotpedia
2​
israelnationalnews
1​
sgtreport
1​
gateway pundit
2​
journalstar
1​
spectator
1​
snopes
2​
kiwiblog
1​
The federalist
1​
westernjournal
2​
marketwatch
1​
thehill
1​
bongino
1​
noqreport
1​
University of Minnesota
1​
Cal-catholic
1​
onenewsnow
1​
usatoday
1​
cbsdenver
1​
pacificresearch
1​
visionnews
1​
challengesweface
1​
palaceintrigueblog
1​
wasthingtontimes
1​
chicago tribune
1​
pewresearch
1​
cnn
1​
pjmedia
1​

Media-Bias-Chart-7.0_January-2021-Unlicensed-Social-Media_Hi_Res-min-1-1.jpg
That is epically awesome work!!!
 

rgrachek

Head Coach
Gold Member
Dec 2, 2004
12,970
12,556
113
In a free society, evidence is prior to an investigation.

In your example, the dead body is evidence of a crime. The bloody gunman is evidence of who committed said crime.
Then having vote distribution numbers that are impossible is evidence too.

BTW, you're confusing evidence with probable cause, which requires no direct evidence.
 

mhosek

Sophomore
Gold Member
Dec 11, 2001
1,295
1,033
113
Hey I did reference CNN, c’mon now...
I’m not defending the sources or considering them Gospel. I question the validity of pretty much everything, because Every media source it seems has an agenda. Jesus ESPN is impossible to watch anymore. But I’ll also give props to the research. Made me giggle. Just do NOT try and defend MSM and social media as anything but inherently biased, Leftwise. Y’all OWN the damned media.
 

zar45

All-American
Gold Member
Jun 13, 2016
4,732
11,798
113
Then having vote distribution numbers that are impossible is evidence too.

BTW, you're confusing evidence with probable cause, which requires no direct evidence.

And what is an impossible vote distribution?
 

Hardlyboy

Offensive Coordinator
Gold Member
Jan 26, 2011
8,472
13,121
113
And what is an impossible vote distribution?
Here let me debunk it before he responds.




 
  • Like
Reactions: stevehammer