UK Channel 4 programme The Trump Heist

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: UKTruth

Thing is, all those law suits alleging massive election fraud, the Kraken (who was a no-show) etc which failed due to a lack of any evidence.

I'll choose to go with evidence rather than opinions.

Have you actually seen any evidence and studied it?
There are some good threads here.

We will never know whether there were enough fraudulent votes to swing the election and it is certainly hard to prove beyond doubt in a court of law, but that is all rather irrelevant.
If a few days after the election - BEFORE an investigation - Trump believed there was fraud, he has a right and duty to ask for fraudulent votes to be found and excluded from the counts.

The propaganda you consume to excite your senses won't give you anything other than the sweeties you are seeking.

a reply to: UKTruth

Actually, yes I did follow those suits, mostly out of morbid curiosity.

Propaganda?

Like Raffensberger's actual testimony?

Yes, I agree with Trump's rights and duty.

Unfortunately, years later, he cannot just admit defeat.

He's just a sore loser.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: UKTruth

Actually, yes I did follow those suits, mostly out of morbid curiosity.

Propaganda?

Like Raffensberger's actual testimony?

Yes, I agree with Trump's rights and duty.

Unfortunately, years later, he cannot just admit defeat.

He's just a sore loser.

I do not disagree with Trump being a sore loser.
His ego seems to be his master.

Propaganda includes providing partial information to paint a desired narrative and excluding key information that does not support the narrative. That is what you fall foul of when you get so invested in really poor sources of information, like that #ty C4 series.

a reply to: UKTruth

Poor sources?

Like actual testimony and interviews with Republicans, former Trump White House staffers, etc.

I thought it was a good series, hearing stuff from the horse's mouth.

But you do you.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: UKTruth

Poor sources?

Like actual testimony and interviews with Republicans, former Trump White House staffers, etc.

I thought it was a good series, hearing stuff from the horse's mouth.

But you do you.

Have you read the testimony of the people who said there was fraud?
If your sources like Channel 4 are not giving you all the information then you are simply being fed what to believe.

Have you read the full transcript of the call Trump - and others - had with the Georgia Sec of State?
Did C4 cover the whole thing? I already know the answer to that one.

Me doing me means i am fully aware on all sides of the story/issue in question and can make an informed judgment on what position to take on it. That is what I will continue to do.

If you are over exciting yourself about the '11,000' votes nonsense, it shows you are not thinking for yourself.

a reply to: UKTruth

I posted the call and Raffensberger's testimony which wasn't from the program.

If you'd actually watched it you'd know. Raffensberger had a lengthy interview.

Channel 4 is not my sole source.

I have read the "evidence" in the law suits.

"Me doing me means i am fully aware on all sides of the story/issue in question and can make an informed judgment on what position to take on it. That is what I will continue to do."

Me too.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: UKTruth

I posted the call and Raffensberger's testimony which wasn't from the program.

If you'd actually watched it you'd know. Raffensberger had a lengthy interview.

Channel 4 is not my sole source.

I have read the "evidence" in the law suits.

"Me doing me means i am fully aware on all sides of the story/issue in question and can make an informed judgment on what position to take on it. That is what I will continue to do."

Me too.

I watched it at the time.
I am fully aware of all sources and that includes reading the full transcript of the call.

There can be zero doubt at all in any objective mind that Trump was discussing finding fraudulent votes on the call.

You only have to do the work to read through the full transcript to know that for certain - it's a hard read because of the word salads from Trump, but unless you are willing to inform yourself as opposed to having people who hate Trump , like Schiff questions of the Georgia SEC, shape your mind, then you are not really doing anything other than feeding your own emotional feelings on Trump

a reply to: UKTruth

You assume a lot, incorrectly, as it happens.

What's wrong with having emotions? It's what makes us human.

It's my job to weigh up evidence. Which is what I do.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: UKTruth

You assume a lot, incorrectly, as it happens.

What's wrong with having emotions? It's what makes us human.

It's my job to weigh up evidence. Which is what I do.

Have you read the full transcript of the call? Listened to the full call?

If so, you will know that Trump discusses the means of fraud he believes has happened. The entire call is about fraudulent votes, not adding more votes for him to win.
Indeed he says several times that he believes the fraudulent votes run into the several hundred thousands and outlines all the areas where he and his team believe fraud happened. His team on the call have already done some an analysis and provided it in the call, whilst also admitting that they do not have access to the more detailed information the State has.

The ENTIRE premise of the call was about finding fraudulent votes - nothing else.

To characterise that call as him simply asking the SEC to 'find 11,780' votes through any nefarious means so he can win is pure propaganda.

If your job is to weigh up evidence then God help whoever your victims are on the receiving end.

a reply to: UKTruth

"If your job is to weigh up evidence then God help whoever your victims are on the receiving end."

With that I will simply wish "good day" to you.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: UKTruth

"If your job is to weigh up evidence then God help whoever your victims are on the receiving end."

With that I will simply wish "good day" to you.

Good day.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: UKTruth

"If your job is to weigh up evidence then God help whoever your victims are on the receiving end."

With that I will simply wish "good day" to you.

Imagine that.

A lawyer weighing evidence.

What is the world coming to? 😳

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: UKTruth

"If your job is to weigh up evidence then God help whoever your victims are on the receiving end."

With that I will simply wish "good day" to you.

Imagine that.

A lawyer weighing evidence.

What is the world coming to? 😳

What evidence is there?
Seems some are ignoring the facts.
Any conversations Trump had as president are immune and not admissible.
Those are fruits from the poisonous tree.
Also, a president’s intent cannot be questioned, inferred or suggested.
If he wants to tell you what they are, he can, or not.
Knowing all the facts, what evidence is there?

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: UKTruth

"If your job is to weigh up evidence then God help whoever your victims are on the receiving end."

With that I will simply wish "good day" to you.

Imagine that.

A lawyer weighing evidence.

What is the world coming to? 😳

What evidence is there?
Seems some are ignoring the facts.
Any conversations Trump had as president are immune and not admissible.
Those are fruits from the poisonous tree.
Also, a president’s intent cannot be questioned, inferred or suggested.
If he wants to tell you what they are, he can, or not.
Knowing all the facts, what evidence is there?

Seems some have no idea what a fact is.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: xuenchen

Why assume that without watching it?

It's got Trump insiders talking.

I was right. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: xuenchen

Why assume that without watching it?

It's got Trump insiders talking.

I was right. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

You were indeed.
I think Channel4 got AdamSchiffted

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Justoneman

"OR you are IN ON IT!"😉

Ah! You got me. Yes, I did it.

It was me on the Grassy Knoll in '63, too.

Obviously.

Obviously being silly over such a thing, when I am being serious.

You stay in a near catatonic state of TDS,, then you get this type of fact back in your face.

You just hate the man and are over here on an American board showing us how much you are willing to ignore facts to accept their narrative.

The truth is not their narrative. You have to be smart enough to see all this, but here we are many months of you repeating lies as if they are the truth because you guys have been conditioned to hate him if you watched Western media.

They lie, and are untrustworthy of any with the brains we think you possess. I think you have brains but yours have been turned sour with lies, and you need red pilled even more than you have been red pilled here.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: UKTruth

"If your job is to weigh up evidence then God help whoever your victims are on the receiving end."

With that I will simply wish "good day" to you.

Imagine that.

A lawyer weighing evidence.

What is the world coming to? 😳

What evidence is there?
Seems some are ignoring the facts.
Any conversations Trump had as president are immune and not admissible.
Those are fruits from the poisonous tree.
Also, a president’s intent cannot be questioned, inferred or suggested.
If he wants to tell you what they are, he can, or not.
Knowing all the facts, what evidence is there?

Seems some have no idea what a fact is.

That is not the facts and you know it. You too are too TDS to deal with actual facts. "Narrative repeaters" is what you propaganda experts use 100% to say "squirrel over there" so the distraction can be used.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: xuenchen

Why assume that without watching it?

It's got Trump insiders talking.

I was right. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

You were indeed.
I think Channel4 got AdamSchiffted

I am concerned we are all stupider for watching any of this drivel the left puts out now. They just can't tell the truth or "their democracy" will end and our Republic will continue.

a reply to: Justoneman

Wow.

Excuse me for expressing an opinion.

Carry on.

Cancel me.

I OBEY..

TDS


ZZZZ.