Election 2020 Election Fraud: Let's face it, this year will be a shitshow

Ron Desantis, Kim Reynolds, Mitch McConnell, Greg Abbot, Dan Crenshaw, Nancy Mace, Burgess Owens, Glenn Youngkin, Marco Rubio, Peter Mejier, Tom Cotton, Brian Kemp, Thom Tillis, and Susan Collins to name a few (Not because of Susan Collins’s actual politics as much as her being the greatest lib owner alive.

Robo-Rubio. Brian "Conspires with China, commits treason" Kemp, Dan "I get an erection every time a white kid gets blown up in some shithole" Crenshaw, Mitch "My wife is one of the biggest drug runners on the planet and I am Xi Jinpings Fuckboi" McConnell, Thom "Undermine everyone, manage decline of America smugly" Tillis and Susan "Democrat groupie" Collins..

Thank god people like you aren't the future of the Right wing in America. Otherwise the US would be a third world country and State Mandated Sexual Reassignment surgery and pedophilia would be the norm.

Let’s GOOOOO!

Dominion is being accused of siding with terrorists and subverting elections all over the world now 300767289228263424.png
 
th
 

So, a tweet from a newsmax reporter claiming that someone else told her something, and later a picture of an open door. And all this from the company who stated for the record that they've already lied about voter fraud, admitted they have no evidence of fraud, and apologised to and paid the people they defamed by claiming fraud.

So, weak ass unverified hearsay on Twitter, from a source known to lie about the subject, followed by some spectacular textbook examples of confirmation bias. :rolleyes:
 
So, a tweet from a newsmax reporter claiming that someone else told her something, and later a picture of an open door. And all this from the company who stated for the record that they've already lied about voter fraud, admitted they have no evidence of fraud, and apologised to and paid the people they defamed by claiming fraud.

So, weak ass unverified hearsay on Twitter, from a source known to lie about the subject, followed by some spectacular textbook examples of confirmation bias. :rolleyes:

By that logic, we can never listen to any news organization about any topic ever, because they've all lied egregiously about something in the recent past and been caught doing so.

That's not to say that tweet is automatically trustworthy, but you need better evidence than "its from Newsmax, QED it is lies".
 
By that logic, we can never listen to any news organization about any topic ever, because they've all lied egregiously about something in the recent past and been caught doing so.

That's not to say that tweet is automatically trustworthy, but you need better evidence than "its from Newsmax, QED it is lies".
I reiterate my previous request that we make it against the rules to Genetic fallacy things and attack a source instead of the argument.
 
By that logic, we can never listen to any news organization about any topic ever, because they've all lied egregiously about something in the recent past and been caught doing so.

That's not to say that tweet is automatically trustworthy, but you need better evidence than "its from Newsmax, QED it is lies".
Well, first I didn't say it is a lie. I think it probably is, but I don't have proof so I wouldn't claim it. Rather my point was that the people accepting it as gospel truth were showing poor critical thinking. Second, there's a big difference between "Never trust anyone about anything if they've ever lied about something." and "I have doubts about this specific thing, which fits the demonstrated bias this group has lied to support very recently."

I reiterate my previous request that we make it against the rules to Genetic fallacy things and attack a source instead of the argument.
Genetic fallacy is about ignoring context, it's not meant for the idea that the source is never relevant when judging information because of course it's relevant and suggesting otherwise would be silly. In this case, it doesn't apply. Their past demonstration of bias and willingness to lie to support that bias on the subject of fraud is probative when considering the veracity of some new information they'reclaiming, related to that same issue of fraud, that also supports their bias and which doesn't have any evidence to support it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top