Connecticut judge overturns election results after video showed brazen ballot box stuffing

originally posted by: opethNJ

originally posted by: ColeYounger2

originally posted by: ChiefD
a reply to: Klassified

Always consider the source. After doing a Google seardch on the website in question, this is what came up:

mediabiasfactcheck.com...

They are very biased toward the right. They also failed three fact checks. I do not believe the source you listed is credible or trustworthy. If you're going to list a source, try NPR or BBC.

The so-called fact-checking sites have been hijacked by the left, and are used to disseminate misinformation.
And that's a fact!

Do you feel the same way about The Gateway Pundit or Conservative Treehouse?

I don't automatically believe or disbelieve a story based on the source. I want to know the facts. I have fallen for some fake stories in the past, so I've become much more skeptical.

As far as the lefties hijacking the fact-check "industry", they really did, to large extent. I once read an article (probably around 15 years ago) called "The Story Is Our Weapon". It was written by a far-left pundit who said that he and his cohorts were sending out huge amounts of chain emails that purported to "prove" their narrative. There was no actual proof to their claims. They then started what they claimed was "fact-checking service". It was shocking how people believed the bogus "fact-checks".

a reply to: network dude

I need a ruling here.

Is arguing about sources rather than facts offtopic?

Thread has sure been derailed.

I thought it was about this election meddling.

Can we get back to that?

a reply to: Klassified

WHAT?

No way!

We have the free-ist, fairist, most honest elections since Moses was a pharmacist.

(D)erp.

originally posted by: ChiefD
a reply to: Klassified

Always consider the source. After doing a Google seardch on the website in question, this is what came up:

mediabiasfactcheck.com...

They are very biased toward the right. They also failed three fact checks. I do not believe the source you listed is credible or trustworthy. If you're going to list a source, try NPR or BBC.

If you're going to list a source, try government funded media?

That's going to be a no from me, dog.

originally posted by: MoreCoyoteAngels
a reply to: network dude

I need a ruling here.

Is arguing about sources rather than facts offtopic?

Thread has sure been derailed.

I thought it was about this election meddling.

Can we get back to that?

Someone who is not a DERP would check the facts, and verify if the story was true, or not, long before the source was claimed biased and wrong. The Gateway Pundit posts some real garbage, but they also post some true facts. Same with CNN. I agree, that isn't the topic and shouldn't be discussed, for the reasons already mentioned.

But I don't think you are allowed to talk about election meddling. It's something that "society" frowns upon now. It was totally cool before the big steal.

a reply to: ColeYounger2

Relying on "fact checkers" to do your due diligence for you is the height of laziness - not to mention ignorance.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: MoreCoyoteAngels
a reply to: network dude

I need a ruling here.

Is arguing about sources rather than facts offtopic?

Thread has sure been derailed.

I thought it was about this election meddling.

Can we get back to that?

Someone who is not a DERP would check the facts, and verify if the story was true, or not, long before the source was claimed biased and wrong. The Gateway Pundit posts some real garbage, but they also post some true facts. Same with CNN. I agree, that isn't the topic and shouldn't be discussed, for the reasons already mentioned.

But I don't think you are allowed to talk about election meddling. It's something that "society" frowns upon now. It was totally cool before the big steal.

Unless you have a D next to your name. Then you're just a part of #resist

originally posted by: WingDingLuey
a reply to: ChiefD

was there a dial setting on the signature verification sensors?

Good point. I wonder how many ballots were rejected during the signature verification process and also how the verification process was conducted.

I think that this election is an excellent opportunity to preform a full forensic audit, and because of the relatively small size of the election, such an audit should be fairly easy and inexpensive. Maybe someone can even get a judge to order a full forensic audit, all of which would be an excellent exercise in election integrity efforts.

Connecticut is a blue state. I'm surprised a judge there was this honest.

originally posted by: ChiefD
a reply to: Klassified

Always consider the source. After doing a Google seardch on the website in question, this is what came up:

mediabiasfactcheck.com...

They are very biased toward the right. They also failed three fact checks. I do not believe the source you listed is credible or trustworthy. If you're going to list a source, try NPR or BBC.

Have ha ha ha,the BBC as a source?
Wow,maybe in 1950 but now it's a mis info central.
Your fact checker is another crock.

originally posted by: MoreCoyoteAngels
a reply to: network dude

I need a ruling here.

Is arguing about sources rather than facts offtopic?

Thread has sure been derailed.

I thought it was about this election meddling.

Can we get back to that?

Civil discussions and debate protocols are certainly broken.
When a person presents a topic for discussion and it is well thought out and presented the countering opposition has the responsibility to provide enough due-diligence in order to counter.

To just call you out as a liar without proving it is lazy, disho est and bad form and not following the rules of civil discourse.

It most certainly does warrant an off topic claim and should be warned, penalized or removed.

It became trolling.
Very intellectually lazy

First and foremost the "election meddling" was proven in court, so the primary topic would be whether cheating is right or wrong.

originally posted by: MoreCoyoteAngels
a reply to: network dude

I need a ruling here.

Is arguing about sources rather than facts offtopic?

The facts come from the sources given unless a person is a first-hand witness.

Thread has sure been derailed.

Yes by you.

I thought it was about this election meddling.

Can we get back to that?

Part of the topic includes the accuracy of the source(s). Without facts, there is no topic. Are you saying the source is wrong? Please post your sources unless you are in fact a witness?

ABC
MSN Fox News
WTNH
AP

I think that's more than enough sources which all confirm the accuracy of the event. So that leaves us with whether or not cheating is wrong since the cheating has been proven in court. Yes, whether or not the source is presenting facts is always on topic.

Truth has always been a major part of discussions on a Conspiracy site.

edit on 11/2/2023 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)

a reply to: Blaine91555

Do you think that's part of what happened in 2020?

When evidence of cheating was found, do you think that in some cases it was decided to allow it for whatever reason(s)?

a reply to: Blaine91555

Early on the facts were established by other sources as well as the source in the OP.

So any source challenge should have ended there, and it didn't. It went back and forth for quite a bit after multiple sources confirmed the facts.

To continue to argue about the source derailed the thread. I just pointed out where it went south.

a reply to: IndieA

That's very much on topic. Yes! Thank you!

a reply to: Blaine91555

First and foremost the "election meddling" was proven in court, so the primary topic would be whether cheating is right or wrong.

Really?

I see it mostly as a rhetorical pivot to bring up the 2020 election outcome. Like anyone gives a crap beyond its wider applicability to beliefs about the illegitimate election result.

That's not even close to put to bed. As evidence by this thread. Getting rebooted big time, actually. I think now people are pissed they are stuck with Captain Dementia at the outset of WWIII.

When it takes a concerted effort to sound galvanizing and resolute, you're not the public orator needed. It's like replacing Roosevelt and Churchill with Jerry Lewis and Benny Hill, respectively.

Here's what happened with Joe. Many wanted something different. They wanted the best candidate with the least vitriol, and many of us convinced ourselves Joe would be like Obama. Be somewhat moderate (except for Kaiser Permanente's Obamacare). We were wrong. Biden is not moderate. Not like Obama. His comparative immigration numbers show how unlike Obama Biden is. He sucks. Worst modern Democrat president ever.

And that sucks, because the republican candidate nominated (Trump or last minute fill-in) is going to do a lot of religious things, and depose Joe for a push towards a quasi-theocracy.

There are still moderates elected in Swing states, I swear there are. Ohio has had a couple of great moderate governors in a row. But would their version ever get the nomination EVER again? Not any time soon.

Screw Biden, Screw Trump, I'm voting for Cthulhu until such time moderate candidates are desired again.

a reply to: Degradation33

When it takes a concerted effort to sound galvanizing and resolute, you're not the public orator needed. It's like replacing Roosevelt and Churchill with Jerry Lewis and Benny Hill, respectively.

And that sucks, because the republican candidate nominated (Trump or last minute fill-in) is going to do a lot of religious things, and depose Joe for a push towards a quasi-theocracy.

They won't do any more "religious things" than when Trump was president, neither will there be a "quasi-theocracy". What they will do is play to their constituents and beef up the God rhetoric a little, but a theocracy will not be tolerated in this country by either side, let alone not being constitutional.

At this point, if I have a choice between Christian rhetoric and more Marxist theology, I'll take the former.

When they cheat like this the election should immediately go to their opponent. If caught cheating, automatic win for the other person.

Oh, and the cheater gets publicly caned.