2000 Mules

[Deluge]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

Like I said, ^DELUSIONAL LIES 24/7

RoboMarx just wants to lie about science in peace. 

[BeaverFever]

On 6/4/2024 at 1:16 AM, CdnFox said:

But he does.  All the cites you gave state very clearly he does. 

*sigh* are you seriously that dense? Do you not know what the word evidence means?  If Democrat said they had video footage of Trump turning into a bat and sucking people’s blood and on top of that nobody is allowed to see the video….would you consider that he has “evidence” that Trump is a vampire?  You only would if it was Biden, right? If I told people you’re a pedophile and I have video evidence but nobody is allowed to see it so they’ll just take my word for it, would you consider that “evidence” too?

So to recap for you dense skill for the hundredth time  

CLAIMING to have damning videos, names and addresses that you refuse to let anyone else see or verify is NOT EVIDENCE 

CLAIMING to have proven your accusations through secret methods that you refuse to even describe to anyone is NOT EVIDENCE 

CLAIMING that technology works in ways that everyone with knowledge of the technology says it doesn’t is NOT EVIDENCE 

The accusations in 2000 mules are made up and the supposed “evidence” he CLAIMS to exist but doesn’t let anyone examine is also made up and defies basic logic.

 If 2000 mules was word-for-word the exact same movie but alleging Republican ballot stuffing instead you people would not believe a word of it and you would be saying the exact thing I am saying now. That just goes to show how your rabid partisanship has hijacked your brain  

 

On 6/4/2024 at 1:16 AM, CdnFox said:

Which means it is up to you to challenge the validity or quality of that evidence. A number of the sources you cited attempted to do that. But what you have done is insisted that there isn't any. Every single thing you posted said there was.

False. I already pointed out the words “no evidence” and “debunked” appear in the titles. Nome of the articles say there was evidence to support his claims they debunk what he claimed to be evidence as not being evidence.   This has been pointed put to you many times now, you are purposely being obtuse and have resorted to simply repeating yourself. 
 

On 6/4/2024 at 1:16 AM, CdnFox said:

You harp on the fact that he's a convict, that's clearly not relevant and therefore a ad hominem attack.

Of course it’s relevant his crime directly relates to the subject of his so-called movie and his motives. Again your hijacked brain doesn’t allow you to see obvious facts and conclusions. 
 

On 6/4/2024 at 1:16 AM, CdnFox said:

And as I have demonstrated using your own evidence every time you say something is absolutely false it is in fact true.

OMG you sound like Westcanman. I say it’s absolutely false because it is. You have chosen to live in an alternate reality where things are true simply because you want them to be convenient to your political ideology and you can’t be dissuaded by facts or reason. 
 

On 6/4/2024 at 1:16 AM, CdnFox said:

So here's what an honest person sees reading your cites:

No, that’s what YOU see because you’re a slave to your political ideology. No rational person sees that

 

On 6/4/2024 at 1:16 AM, CdnFox said:

None of them out and out show evidence disproving the data or make the claim that there is no valid data.

OMFG. HOW F-ING THICK ARE YOU?  HE HAS NOT SHOWN ANY DATA!  HE ONLY CLAIMS TO HAVE DATA WHAT DO NOT UNDERSTAND????

The entire 2000 mules is just a web of unproven claims. Claiming that the proof for your accusations is secret and nobody is allowed to see it is just another unproven claim, can you seriously not understand that???  Simply saying you have evidence doesn’t mean there actually IS evidence  

The whole film and all the supposed “evidence” is just one big collection of “just take my word for it”

 

On 6/4/2024 at 1:16 AM, CdnFox said:

So I have to ask, if it is so obviously true that his claims are not accurate, why do you feel the need to be dishonest or lie or exaggerate or use ad hominem attacks to try and present your case? Wouldn't the truth be enough under those circumstances?

I've said it a million times but it is such an important life lesson to learn: If you have to lie to make your point you don't have a good enough point. And if you don't have to lie to make your point then don't! You call your opinion into question when you can't make your point honestly.

I have not lied or exaggerated about anything, the only ad-hominem is you calling me a liar.
 

You have completely misrepresented what the links I provided say and you admit you are absolutely ignorant on the details of the subject. I don’t think you’re a liar I think you believe every word you say but you’re so consumed with your identity politics you will honestly believe a grain of sand is a mountain and a mountain is a grain of sand and that a bullet wound is a scratch and a scratch is bullet wound when doing so fits your political narrative.  
 

You see things that aren’t there and you make claims without evidence   In this whole argument you haven’t presented a single piece of evidence of your own….for example you’ve falsely claimed repeatedly that my sources say he presented evidence but you can’t provide one quote from my sources that  back that up.  You haven’t even listed what you think the actual evidence is. Your insistence that having been convicted of committing election fraud for Republicans is irrelevant to a video attempting to challenge the election results in favour of Republicans is also absurd. No reasonable person would agree with you.  You also absurdly claim “there any many reasons” why he wouldn’t allow anyone to see his evidence even 2 years later but when asked to provide even one you refused to because there aren’t any. 

[BeaverFever]

On 6/4/2024 at 6:01 AM, Nationalist said:

You seem to be pretty interested in this stuff. Tell me...what sort of conviction did Rosie O'Donnell get for her donation fraud?

She didn’t conspire to donate tens of thousands under other people’s names like D’Souza did. And the total amount of excess over-contributions in her case was just $5.400 to five different candidates COMBINED ….out of the 50 candidates to whom she donated. 

Big difference. 

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, Deluge said:

RoboMarx just wants to lie about science in peace. 

There is NO lying about science by me ever. IF you understood the science you could post proof of that, but you DO NOT.

You NEVER have any EVIDENCE for your absurd MAGA CULT claims and you keep proving that by pretending weather is climate which everyone should know is JUST TROLLING. LMAO

[robosmith]

35 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

*sigh* are you seriously that dense? Do you not know what the word evidence means?  If Democrat said they had video footage of Trump turning into a bat and sucking people’s blood and on top of that nobody is allowed to see the video….would you consider that he has “evidence” that Trump is a vampire?  You only would if it was Biden, right? If I told people you’re a pedophile and I have video evidence but nobody is allowed to see it so they’ll just take my word for it, would you consider that “evidence” too?

So to recap for you dense skill for the hundredth time  

CLAIMING to have damning videos, names and addresses that you refuse to let anyone else see or verify is NOT EVIDENCE 

CLAIMING to have proven your accusations through secret methods that you refuse to even describe to anyone is NOT EVIDENCE 

CLAIMING that technology works in ways that everyone with knowledge of the technology says it doesn’t is NOT EVIDENCE 

The accusations in 2000 mules are made up and the supposed “evidence” he CLAIMS to exist but doesn’t let anyone examine is also made up and defies basic logic.

 If 2000 mules was word-for-word the exact same movie but alleging Republican ballot stuffing instead you people would not believe a word of it and you would be saying the exact thing I am saying now. That just goes to show how your rabid partisanship has hijacked your brain  

 

False. I already pointed out the words “no evidence” and “debunked” appear in the titles. Nome of the articles say there was evidence to support his claims they debunk what he claimed to be evidence as not being evidence.   This has been pointed put to you many times now, you are purposely being obtuse and have resorted to simply repeating yourself. 
 

Of course it’s relevant his crime directly relates to the subject of his so-called movie and his motives. Again your hijacked brain doesn’t allow you to see obvious facts and conclusions. 
 

OMG you sound like Westcanman. I say it’s absolutely false because it is. You have chosen to live in an alternate reality where things are true simply because you want them to be convenient to your political ideology and you can’t be dissuaded by facts or reason. 
 

No, that’s what YOU see because you’re a slave to your political ideology. No rational person sees that

 

OMFG. HOW F-ING THICK ARE YOU?  HE HAS NOT SHOWN ANY DATA!  HE ONLY CLAIMS TO HAVE DATA WHAT DO NOT UNDERSTAND????

The entire 2000 mules is just a web of unproven claims. Claiming that the proof for your accusations is secret and nobody is allowed to see it is just another unproven claim, can you seriously not understand that???  Simply saying you have evidence doesn’t mean there actually IS evidence  

The whole film and all the supposed “evidence” is just one big collection of “just take my word for it”

 

I have not lied or exaggerated about anything, the only ad-hominem is you calling me a liar.
 

You have completely misrepresented what the links I provided say and you admit you are absolutely ignorant on the details of the subject. I don’t think you’re a liar I think you believe every word you say but you’re so consumed with your identity politics you will honestly believe a grain of sand is a mountain and a mountain is a grain of sand and that a bullet wound is a scratch and a scratch is bullet wound when doing so fits your political narrative.  
 

You see things that aren’t there and you make claims without evidence   In this whole argument you haven’t presented a single piece of evidence of your own….for example you’ve falsely claimed repeatedly that my sources say he presented evidence but you can’t provide one quote from my sources that  back that up.  You haven’t even listed what you think the actual evidence is. Your insistence that having been convicted of committing election fraud for Republicans is irrelevant to a video attempting to challenge the election results in favour of Republicans is also absurd. No reasonable person would agree with you.  You also absurdly claim “there any many reasons” why he wouldn’t allow anyone to see his evidence even 2 years later but when asked to provide even one you refused to because there aren’t any. 

Congrats on your tenacity, but arguing with CdnLIAR is a fool's errand, cause he will never prove you wrong and just continue LYING about the issue.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

*sigh* are you seriously that dense? Do you not know what the word evidence means?

I absolutely do and is very clear from your response that you absolutely don't.

I also know what dishonesty means. As in your being extremely dishonest when you claim that you didn't say that he had no evidence. You absolutely did say that.

Further he absolutely did show data and that is evidence. If you Knew what evidence was you would understand that someone's saying I have seen or done this thing is in fact evidence. Did you honestly believe that testimony is not evidence? What do you think they keep hauling people on to this witness stands for at trials?

He has provided his methodology and what he says is his findings. That is in fact evidence by the actual definition of it. You can refute it, you can say that that evidence is not compelling or not compelling enough to find guilt or proof but you cannot say that there is no evidence.

So all your whining about how stupid other people are just makes you look like an ignorant buffoon.

You have the intellectual capacity of a 7-year-old and the legal understanding of a 2 year old.

Absolutely provided evidence. While some of the sources you provided question the quality and validity of the evidence, none of them actually Out and out said that the evidence is false.

And all you've proven is that you haven't got the capacity to understand the case, and that democrat supporters should not be trusted when they make the kind of allegations or claims that you did. Which leads an independent Observer to wonder if perhaps there's not some truths to the allegations considering that you feel the need to lie. If the truth won't make your case for you then why not?

[Nationalist]

9 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

She didn’t conspire to donate tens of thousands under other people’s names like D’Souza did. And the total amount of excess over-contributions in her case was just $5.400 to five different candidates COMBINED ….out of the 50 candidates to whom she donated. 

Big difference. 

Not so big.

[Deluge]

11 hours ago, robosmith said:

There is NO lying about science by me ever. IF you understood the science you could post proof of that, but you DO NOT.

You NEVER have any EVIDENCE for your absurd MAGA CULT claims and you keep proving that by pretending weather is climate which everyone should know is JUST TROLLING. LMAO

Sure there is. You perverts are always conflating science with your political views.

For example: If I speak out against the homosexual agenda, one of you cultists will accuse me of hating science. lol

There isn't one f*cking thing you post about science that doesn't have some kind of left-wing spin on it. 

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, Deluge said:

Sure there is. You perverts are always conflating science with your political views.

For example: If I speak out against the homosexual agenda, one of you cultists will accuse me of hating science. lol

There isn't one f*cking thing you post about science that doesn't have some kind of left-wing spin on it. 

You have NO CREDIBILITY cause you KNOW NOTHING ABOUT SCIENCE.

[Deluge]

9 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You have NO CREDIBILITY cause you KNOW NOTHING ABOUT SCIENCE.

You're a woke cultist; nothing more.