Leftist Olympics 2020

You have to read what he means, not just what he says. He's acknowledging that he will only consider the election valid if Trump is elected. So technically, in a roundabout way, that's a fact.

 

Funny, but not accurate.

I will consider the election valid if we dont see a bunch of bullshit shenanigans from boards as we have seen, things ballots found in car trunks, multiple recounts until the Dem wins, poor ballot custody, questionable machines, etc. Basically, if it goes like it should, which is smooth, quiet, and timely, then I will more than accept the winner.

Anybody who can look at 2016 and NOT see the clear cheating that went on (by a Republican or two as well) is either willfully ignorant or blindingly partisan.

We have an election credibility problem here and it must be addressed and corrected.

 

Kinda like the Mueller Report, it was factual until we learned what isn't in it.

 

Wait. So it was factual and now is not? Or it was not factual and now is?

WTF. My avatar is becoming more accurate by the minute.

 

I have no idea what that means, but I as I recall, quite a few guys in here apparently read it long before it was released.

 

That's not what Al Gore and the Global Kill Cult say.

 

Hell, a lot of folks thought they knew what was in it before it was written.

 

It's really not rocket science. A (small) group of investigative journalists have worked very hard at exposing the truth about the "investigation" since it's rocky conception. Those journalists have reported facts for two years and have not been wrong once. Sorry, no one here read the report, but several here followed the reporting of the people that have been exposing the corruption and therefore gained a (so far) greater knowledge of what is really going on. But you do you.

 

True dat. Gateway Pundit had this thing right from the get go and continues to be accurate.

 

What it means is there were a lot of folks that accepted as fact that Mueller was going to indict Trump and perp walk him to jail. It was fact...until it wasn't.

 

Forecasts and predictions involve uncertainty (yes, the sun rising tomorrow has a small uncertainty).
The issue here is epistemological: inverting the process by which inference is developed.
This results in a whole suite of conditional outcomes with patched in/comfy explanations. The entire world has been figured out. Amazing really.

 

It's funny how journalists are only to be believed when they report stuff that you believe in, and how everything you claim always comes with the mention "fact." How they haven't been wrong once in two years on the content of a report that no one has seen yet can only make sense inside your head. But then again, you say that are correct on what, 99% of everything, right? Keep doing you, it's entertaining.

 

Weird, you are trying to quote me but "content of a report" was not mentioned in my post. So try reading again and it might make sense inside your head too!

 

Well, since you quoted something I said and responded to it, perhaps it's on you to show how your post was relevant to my assertion that some people in here pretended to know what was in the report. Don't start trying to walk it back now.

 

Post #348 speaks for itself.

 

So, nothing? Figures.

 

Looks like the Biden take down is starting.

https://www.redstate.com/sister-tol...inee-accuses-joe-biden-inappropriate-touching

 

No they never showed proof of collusion. However there were plenty of other investigations if you paid any attention that showed text messages and emails of collusion between doj fbi and Obama White House that made you think twice. All news networks had a chance to report those other findings they never did. Not only didn’t they do it but they peddled obvious lies at the time. So how are we supposed to treat a news organization that refuses to tell the truth on a subject. You stop watching them and call them fake news. Sitting back looking at it. Who had the better judgement in here? The people who believed in collusion, or the people who didn’t believe there was collusion? That’s the difference you think everyone just picked sides. If I saw anything that really looked like Russia did anything I would go with the evidence. People like you that try and shed a bad light on us act like we can’t read or make our own decisions we just picked a side. We didn’t just like working on a car or bike it has a problem it doesn’t just yell at you number 2 ignition coil is bad. You can wait to hook up obd2 scanner to it (mueller report) you can also trouble shoot and find the problem without it you just have to do a little more work. So we did our work and we get called Trumpsters and whatever. But really the only people in here that took it that way was the left they sucked up anything that said Trump bad that’s not our fault you guys don’t want to trouble shoot the problem and just regurgitate what you hear on the news. Fox cnn msnbc are not the only places to get news.

 

Case number 1 we could see this attitude from the get go but hey they are fair networks we are just picking and choosing sorry guys we aren’t the ones picking and choosing.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ms...g-to-intimidate-reporter-on-behalf-of-the-dnc