Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Notice how many disclaimers Hannity places during that segment? It’s because he and Fox News know it’s misinformation and they are attempting to shed liability.
1) It’s been verified that worker was a ‘third party’ collecting ballots for Jamal Osman, a Minneapolis city council candidate.
2) Per Minnesota law, third parties can collect (I.e., “harvest”) ballots to ensure they reach their intended polling station. You might not like it, but there’s nothing fraudulent per MN law.
Caught again, regurgitating #fakenews in this sub.
I do not believe the intent of having ballots "harvested" should be for them to be collected for a single candidate.
People in the same family do not always vote the same. Will a "harvester" collect ballots for one candidate and destroy those for another? That is my concern.
No one should be paid for voting for a particular candidate, either.
An investigation does not equal guilt. Is this what you were saying for the first three years of this Administration?
Have you actually read my post history or are you simply casting me as a ‘hysterical anti-Trumper’ due to a single thread? Let’s not debate our personal biases and, instead, question the validity of ‘Project Veritas’. Or ask how many members of this current admin has been criminally charged and sentence (or cut a plea) ... you know, after having been investigated.
Last edited by Shrewsburried; 09-30-2020 at 10:16 PM..
Have you actually read my post history or are you simply casting me as a ‘hysterical anti-Trumper’
Both, actually.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrewsburried
Let’s not debate our personal biases
I'm not debating biases, everybody has them. The only countermeasure is to have some sense of what they are and figuring that into somewhat logical and hopefully principled decisions or opinions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrewsburried
and, instead, question the validity of ‘Project Veritas
I'm all about questioning. There is a difference between questioning and concluding. It also helps if you're just as committed to this principle toward people and organizations that support your political agenda. Are you questioning the mass media that support your own beliefs, or just this one and those who don't?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrewsburried
Or ask how many members of this current admin has been criminally charged and sentence (or cut a plea) ... you know, after having been investigated.
Logically, this means very little without a close examination of the circumstances of each situation.
An investigation does not equal guilt. Seems they’re going off purely off a lead from Veritas, which doesn’t exactly have a blemish free record. In fact, it has a terrible record full of bias and intentionally misleading editing.
an investigation does not equal guilt but if you read that Minnesota supreme court law has ruled one person can only pick up 3 absentee ballots where in this case it seems it was a lot more. there are also rumors that these people got paid for voting a certain way.
there is enough there for an investigation.look at this quote.....
"According to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, the state's Supreme Court recently upheld a rule limiting to three the number of absentee ballots any individual could collect. At the same time, it ruled that a similar cap, assisting three people for in casting their ballots in-person, will remain unenforceable."
I'm all about questioning. There is a difference between questioning and concluding. It also helps if you're just as committed to this principle toward people and organizations that support your political agenda. Are you questioning the mass media that support your own beliefs, or just this one and those who don't?
Logically, this means very little without a close examination of the circumstances of each situation.
Your trope as the rational moderate is not particularly believable.
My issue with this ‘news’ is, according to MN PD, the investigation was initiated entirely off of the Project Veritas vid, and they stated they are seeking to first confirm the validity.
I’m sorry, but Project Veritas has no respectable standing amongst the main stream ... including the mainstream right. O’Keefe is a political operative, funded partially by the Trump campaign, with a history of peddling intentionally misleading stories during election cycles. He’s been sued multiple times for dishonest editing and illegal methods of access (see ACORN).
This group should not be confused with legitimate right leaning thinktanks and research groups like Heritage. They are hacks who have no regard for truth-finding. If Minneapolis PD dredges up legitimate evidence, I’ll happily accept it as truth. Given O’Keefe’s record, I’m not terribly convinced they will ... he already got his internet traffic.
Your trope as the rational moderate is not particularly believable.
I really don't care what you believe. You're so inconsistent with your own principles that your arguments are almost meaningless. A few posts ago you were complaining that my position was not clear and hardline enough for you. Now I'm irrational and immoderate. That's too funny, but not really that surprising.
I really don't care what you believe. You're so inconsistent with your own principles that your arguments are almost meaningless. A few posts ago you were complaining that my position was not clear and hardline enough for you. Now I'm irrational and immoderate. That's too funny, but not really that surprising.
Incorrect. I suggested you were intentionally obfuscating core arguments; i.e., trying to discredit seemingly valid critiques of a bill and a county Sheriff’s department behavior by playing the part of an unbiased law “expert” and driving discussion to nuanced talking points on COs and polling. I wouldn’t have a problem with this if you were truly transparent with your position or addressed the core discussion with similar nuance. Instead, regarding “left” view points and actions you transition to low effort name calling and dismissal. Dems are being “fantastical” or acting in “lunacy” ... the latter makes the former look like something other than helpful law insight.
Incorrect. I suggested you were intentionally obfuscating core arguments; i.e., trying to discredit seemingly valid critiques of a bill and a county Sheriff’s department behavior by playing the part of an unbiased law “expert” and driving discussion to nuanced talking points on COs and polling. I wouldn’t have a problem with this if you were truly transparent with your position or addressed the core discussion with similar nuance. Instead, regarding “left” view points and actions you transition to low effort name calling and dismissal. Dems are being “fantastical” or acting in “lunacy” ... the latter makes the former look like something other than helpful law insight.
More fantasy on your part. If the underlying facts supporting your position are not accurate that's germane to the thread. You demand either 100 percent agreement with your positions, or nothing. You don't like nuance you need someone with similarly strong, but opposite opinions, so you can declare them the enemy and not worry about the details of your extremely uninformed arguments.
Last edited by bostongymjunkie; 10-01-2020 at 06:51 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
