CNN Mistakenly Filmed Woman Stuffing A Ballot Box With Multiple Ballots – The Reporter’s Reaction Says It All (Video)

[robosmith]

5 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Nooo...I think Trump will fire their asses.

Why would he do that if he's not guilty?

A: cause he's guilty as sin and can't stand the heat.

Thanks for confirming that you KNOW the guy you continually defend has ZERO ethics. Just like you.

 

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Why would he do that if he's not guilty?

 

 

Because he thinks they're lying sack o' crap who went after him unfairly?

Good think he's never met you,  we'd have to let you stay on our couches till you got back on your feet  

And no - it wouldn't be because he was 'guitly'.   Guilty or innocent he'll find a way to 'pardon himself' and that would be the end of that.

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 11/4/2023 at 7:46 AM, CdnFox said:

The people who say there's "no" voter fraud are as delusional and dishonest as they claim the trump 'stolen election' people are.

I don’t know how anybody could be sure there is no voter fraud whatsoever. However, there does not appear to be evidence of significant voter fraud in US elections. 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

I don’t know how anybody could be sure there is no voter fraud whatsoever. However, there does not appear to be evidence of significant voter fraud in US elections. 

well there's plenty of evidence to suggest there could be.  And that's a problem. Whether there is or isn't is not really germane for the most part.

it's critical that people know and have faith that their democratic institutions are solid.

So when democrats say "there was no voter fraud" and yet we see that there may well have been much voter fraud, that's a severe problem. It breathes life into all the conspiracy theories out there about who "realty" won, and that's true the other way around as well. Caveat's like "well they didn't catch anyone" aren't really helpful.

This issue is going to plague america for years no matter who wins

[Nationalist]

33 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Why would he do that if he's not guilty?

A: cause he's guilty as sin and can't stand the heat.

Thanks for confirming that you KNOW the guy you continually defend has ZERO ethics. Just like you.

 

Lol...12 months.

[SpankyMcFarland]

24 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

well there's plenty of evidence to suggest there could be.  And that's a problem. Whether there is or isn't is not really germane for the most part.

it's critical that people know and have faith that their democratic institutions are solid.

So when democrats say "there was no voter fraud" and yet we see that there may well have been much voter fraud, that's a severe problem. It breathes life into all the conspiracy theories out there about who "realty" won, and that's true the other way around as well. Caveat's like "well they didn't catch anyone" aren't really helpful.

This issue is going to plague america for years no matter who wins

I think this is a semantic problem, firstly. Does “no voter fraud” really mean not one fraudulent vote in common parlance? I don’t think it does. You’d have to look at the quotes in detail and find out what people meant by them. Is there an example where a senior Democratic politician said there was no voter fraud and said he meant it absolutely literally when asked about it? Anybody who maintains that is being unreasonable. 

Given Biden’s winning margin, fraud on a large and systematic scale involving many people in a conspiracy would have been required and there is no evidence of that. This seems to have become a bigger issue since Republicans gave up trying to win the national vote and decided to try and change the voters rather than their policies. 
 

 

Edited November 21, 2023 by SpankyMcFarland

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

I think this is a semantic problem, firstly. Does “no voter fraud” really mean not one fraudulent vote in common parlance? I don’t think it does.

If there's ambiguity please see my comments about ambiguity

Nobody is looking at the quotes in detail.  If it's not clear then there's a problem.

And the problem is either way it's largely wrong.  If they mean it to mean NONE- which is how they sound most of the time to me - then they're wrong because there's always some.  If they meant to say 'no Significant" fraud" then they're still wrong because as we've seen there may very well be -  we can't tell.

 

Quote

Given Biden’s winning margin, fraud on a large and systematic scale involving many people in a conspiracy would have been required and there is no evidence of that. 

No, it wouldn't have taken all that much to flip the story.  It's not like here where each riding has to be won. That's why trump was calling around to see if there were a few thousand votes that were unaccounted for.

And therein lies the problem. Most elections are RELATIVELY close.  It's easy to convince yourself that voter fraud in one state or another tippled the scales.

And this whole mess shows why. That lady in the vid may have been committing election fraud.  She may have NOT been. She may have come back an hour later with 100 ballots.  we don't know. And that's all it takes to ruin a democracy

[BeaverFever]

18 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Yeah none of that is true.  Show me where it was 'debunked'.  they moved the page and tonnes of other sources reported on it as well.

The 3-year old claim is debunked and no they didn’t “move the page” they took it down entirely. 
 

18 hours ago, CdnFox said:

and all they can say is we can't be SURE she's doing something illlegal.  Which means we can't be sure she's not.  Which was my whole point.

“Guilty until proven  innocent” eh?  For a self-proclaimed champion of freedom you sure have some authoritarian tendencies.   The 2020 election was the most audited in history thanks to Republicans’ baseless lies. If this bogus story, which has been circulated on social media and Republican propaganda sites for 3 years, had any basis in fact it would have come to light by now. They know the date time and location of when those ballots were delivered and if fraudulent ballots were present it could have easily been verified. 
 

 

18 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I get it - you lefties think that if you tell lies fast enough and often enough they'll become true

Hilariously, that exactly describes the Republicans’ baseless and fabricated election lies which came fast and furious after TRUMP LEGITIMATELY LOST, which have all been debunked one after another. And the Republicans involved are now facing professional discipline for gross misconduct, massive fines and possibly serious jail time.   

 

Edited November 21, 2023 by BeaverFever

[Hodad]

12 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

The 3-year old claim is debunked and no they didn’t “move the page” they took it down entirely. 
 

“Guilty until proven  innocent” eh?  For a self-proclaimed champion of freedom you sure have some authoritarian tendencies.   The 2020 election was the most audited in history thanks to Republicans’ baseless lies. If this bogus story, which has been circulated on social media and Republican propaganda sites for 3 years, had any basis in fact it would have come to light by now. They know the date time and location of when those ballots were delivered and if fraudulent ballots were present it could have easily been verified. 
 

 

Hilariously that exactly describes the Republicans’ baseless and fabricated election lies which came fast and furious after TRUMP LEGITIMATELY LOST that have all he debunked one after another. And now the republicans involved are facing professional discipline for gross misconduct, massive fines and possibly serious jail time.   

 

We can't KNOW the lizard people aren't real without blood testing everyone, so we should just assume they are real and pass laws accordingly. ?

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

The 3-year old claim is debunked and no they didn’t “move the page” they took it down entirely.

Just saying it's debunked isn't actually showing how or where it was debunked even the posted 'fact check' admits she may well have been breaking the law... or not.  Soooo

Quote

“Guilty until proven  innocent” eh? 

Ahhhhh  -  back to lying when you can't make an argument i see   Where did i say she was guilty?

Quote

Hilariously, that exactly describes the Republicans’ baseless and fabricated election lies which came fast and furious after TRUMP LEGITIMATELY LOST, which have all been debunked one after another. And the Republicans involved are now facing professional discipline for gross misconduct, massive fines and possibly serious jail time.   

Or the democrat claims that he won due to RUSSIAN COLLUUUUUUUSION and all the other crap they pulled which was completely debunked. 

The difference between you and me is i'm a rational thinking person and i can look at both and say 'well that's wrong'.  Whereas you're tribal and can't get your head out of your own echo chamber and think one is wrong but the other is peachy great 

 

Setting aside your rampant stupidity for a moment, this brings us back to the point. It fuels and fosters the whole "unfair election' thing when democrats pretend something isn't a potential source of voter fraud when it very clearly is and when the system leaves doubts as to the integrity of the process, as this obviously did.

[eyeball]

19 hours ago, CdnFox said:

If they meant to say 'no Significant" fraud" then they're still wrong because as we've seen there may very well be -  we can't tell.

Why are you not reading from the same page of insignificance you apply to corruption?  Given how low voter turnouts often are it stands to reason the significance of fraud in an election is as equally moot and very likely for the very same reason.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Why are you not reading from the same page of insignificance you apply to corruption?

I am.  I've said clearly both are bad and the system needs to discourage both things from happening. The difference is that in the case of corruption it is the voters who need to take action to erradicate it, which they haven't in either country,  and in the case of voter fraud it's the election officials who need to take action.

You already get confused when we're talking about ONE topic, maybe don't introduce another one till you've got your head around the first  

Quote

  Given how low voter turnouts often are it stands to reason the significance of fraud in an election is as equally moot and very likely for the very same reason.

No, that makes no sense in the slightest.

First off - election participation in the states is actually on the rise and the last election had a strong turn out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_United_States_presidential_elections

Second - that's part of the problem. Participation jumped up about 6 percent last election - right when mail in ballots was a thing.

And - biden's percent of vote based on mail in ballots was over 50 percent

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/11/20/the-voting-experience-in-2020/

So - if the mail in ballot system is open to fraud - it's impossible to say if biden won the election fairly or not.  THe best you can do is say there wasn't any evidence FOUND for fraud - but there's no actual proof there wasn't any.

And the numbers do look fishy indeed. even if they're legit.

So - with the voter percentages they have it's CRITICAL that people have faith in the voting system.  And they can't possibly right now.  That election could easily have been fraudulently won.  I don't think it was but i can't prove it wasn't at all, we can't even prove it PROBABLY wasn't.

 

[BeaverFever]

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Or the democrat claims that he won due to RUSSIAN COLLUUUUUUUSION and all the other crap they pulled which was completely debunked. 

False. “The democrat” conceded on election night and never alleged the election results were fraudulent. We know the Trump team had secret communications with the Russians to obtain the stolen emails they hacked from her and we know they lied about it, that’s a matter of record.  The only question is whether what they did met the definition of any crime. The official finding of the investigation was that the investigation was obstructed by the Trump White House, the allegations were not “debunked”. 
 

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Just saying it's debunked isn't actually showing how or where it was debunked even the posted 'fact check' admits she may well have been breaking the law... or not.  Soooo

It was debunked, period. Unlike in the collusion case nobody was caught lying or sneaking around or doing anything unusual. No evidence of any crime was presented, unlike Russian hacking of Hillary’s emails which is a crime regardless of whether Trump was involved or not. 
 

And no the posted fact check doesn’t say she may have breaking the law it says there’s no reason to believe she was breaking the law.  

 

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Ahhhhh  -  back to lying when you can't make an argument i see   Where did i say she was guilty?

Duhhh. When you said:

CNN’s news cameras caught a masked woman in Ohio stuffing a ballot box on live TV during the 2020 Presidential Election, which CNN and other corporate media outlets claim was “safe and secure” and not riddled with unprecedented levels of fraud from both government officials and paid political hacks.

CNN’s cameras were set up beside “the only ballot drop box in Cuyahoga County, Ohio” during early voting in the 2020 election, and captured a lone woman dumping a heaping handful of ballots that obviously belonged to a large group of people. There’s at least one massive problem with this entire situation, considering that ballot harvesting is ILLEGAL 

And then said:

all they can say is we can't be SURE she's doing something illlegal.  Which means we can't be sure she's not. 

So you’ve stated that you believe she’s guilty and then stated that she can’t be presumed innocent without evidence 

 

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The difference between you and me is i'm a rational thinking person and i can look at both and say 'well that's wrong'.  Whereas you're tribal and can't get your head out of your own echo chamber and think one is wrong but the other is peachy great 

That is a hilarious statement!  You are not a rational thinker you are a temperamental emotional thinker like all people who succumb to conspiracies. You are the one who gets your news from partisan propaganda websites like the one in this OP… the epitome of tribal echo chambers. I criticize Trudeau, liberals and Biden all the time while you and the rest of the righties are absolutely incapable of ever disagreeing with or criticizing republican or conservative parties. Its absolutely absurd that you would criticize me for the thing that absolutely defines you. …all because I didn’t fall for your obviously bogus 3yr old fake claim that’s already been taken down.  Seriously dude take a real look in the mirror. 
 

 

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

False. “The democrat” conceded on election night and never alleged the election results were fraudulent
 

She is still to this very day saying it was fraudulent.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trump-is-an-illegitimate-president/2019/09/26/29195d5a-e099-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html

Hillary Clinton: Trump is an ‘illegitimate president’

Ya done looking stupid yet?

 

Quote

It was debunked, period.

Oh - not quite finished i see    So you can't say where it was debunked, or who debunked it, or what about it was debunked, and the fact checkers support my story,  But it was debunked!!!!! 

In the words of Montoyo -  "i do not think this word means what you think it does."

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Duhhh. When you said:

CNN’s news cameras caught a masked woman in Ohio stuffing a ballot box on live TV during the 2020 Presidential Election, which CNN and other corporate media outlets claim was “safe and secure” and not riddled with unprecedented levels of fraud from both government officials and paid political hacks.

Ummm - i never said that   That's from the article

So.  What you're saying is that i never said what you claimed i said.  Yeah - as i DID say - you couldn't argue the facts so you're just lying again, but thanks for confirming

Quote

 

all they can say is we can't be SURE she's doing something illlegal.  Which means we can't be sure she's not. 

So you’ve stated that you believe she’s guilty and then stated that she can’t be presumed innocent without evidence 

 

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   So saying we can't be sure she's doing something illegal is saying she's guilty  

Do you even hear yourself? It's literally the opposite of saying she's guilty It's specifically saying we don't know that she's committed a crime  

That's some shovel you got there kiddo - you're digging yourself deeper at a pretty amazing rate

 

See kid? This is the difference between me who IS a rational thinker and you, who is driven by "Muh feels" and your echo chamber.

Voters need to have faith the voting mechanism is secure - this video proves it isn't. She might be committing a voter fraud crime.  She might not. She could be doing fraud 20 times a day.  There's no way to know and they got it on film. So - it's not possible to have faith and that leads to the accusations of 'stolen elections'.

[eyeball]

14 hours ago, CdnFox said:

See kid? This is the difference between me who IS a rational thinker and you, who is driven by "Muh feels" and your echo chamber

Pure unabashed projection. Such an unmitigated display of it to simply avoid/deny the onus on the positive claimant is kind of phenomenal actually.

 

[BeaverFever]

On 11/22/2023 at 12:50 AM, CdnFox said:

She is still to this very day saying it was fraudulent.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trump-is-an-illegitimate-president/2019/09/26/29195d5a-e099-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html

Hillary Clinton: Trump is an ‘illegitimate president’

Hey genius: she said Trump partnered with Russia to influence her the American voters, not that there was massive election fraud and then launch into baseless lunacy like the Right did. 
 

On 11/22/2023 at 12:50 AM, CdnFox said:

Oh - not quite finished i see    So you can't say where it was debunked, or who debunked it, or what about it was debunked, and the fact checkers support my story,  But it was debunked!!!!! 

Dude are you dense??? It was debunked by the fact that no evidence of criminal activity was found AFTER THREE YEARS OF THIS ACCUSATION circulating on right wing lunatic circles. and a reasonable accusation exists.   People are legally allowed to submit ballots foe their immediate family members and a woman submits 3 ballots. You are hallucinating if you think that “proves” anything.   Like a true totalitarian you demand proof of innocence even though there’s no proof of crime. 
 

On 11/22/2023 at 12:50 AM, CdnFox said:

Ummm - i never said that   That's from the article

So.  What you're saying is that i never said what you claimed i said.  Yeah - as i DID say - you couldn't argue the facts so you're just lying again, but thanks for confirming

You copied and pasted it in your own post, the original post on this thread. therefore you saiw it. Are you really trying to make us believe you created this thread with a copy-paste article you don’t even believe?

 

On 11/22/2023 at 12:50 AM, CdnFox said:

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   So saying we can't be sure she's doing something illegal is saying she's guilty  

Do you even hear yourself? It's literally the opposite of saying she's guilty It's specifically saying we don't know that she's committed a crime  

That's some shovel you got there kiddo - you're digging yourself deeper at a pretty amazing rate

Seriously you have no concept of what living in a democracy means. THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE is a cornerstone of democracy. It’s completely unsurprising that you have no concept of it.  The absolute absence of any evidence of wrongdoing 3 YEARS AFTER THE FACT DESPITE ALL INVESTIGATIONS AND AUDITS means that by all definitions she is innocent. 
 

BTW contrary to your assertion, the opposite of saying someone is guilty is saying they are innocent, not your “we can never be sure”

[robosmith]

7 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Hey genius: she said Trump partnered with Russia to influence her the American voters, not that there was massive election fraud and then launch into baseless lunacy like the Right did. 
 

Dude are you dense??? It was debunked by the fact that no evidence of criminal activity was found AFTER THREE YEARS OF THIS ACCUSATION circulating on right wing lunatic circles. and a reasonable accusation exists.   People are legally allowed to submit ballots foe their immediate family members and a woman submits 3 ballots. You are hallucinating if you think that “proves” anything.   Like a true totalitarian you demand proof of innocence even though there’s no proof of crime. 
 

You copied and pasted it in your own post, the original post on this thread. therefore you saiw it. Are you really trying to make us believe you created this thread with a copy-paste article you don’t even believe?

 

Seriously you have no concept of what living in a democracy means. THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE is a cornerstone of democracy. It’s completely unsurprising that you have no concept of it.  The absolute absence of any evidence of wrongdoing 3 YEARS AFTER THE FACT DESPITE ALL INVESTIGATIONS AND AUDITS means that by all definitions she is innocent. 
 

BTW contrary to your assertion, the opposite of saying someone is guilty is saying they are innocent, not your “we can never be sure”

CdnLIAR doesn't understand that in America that IN COURT you are innocent UNTIL proven guilty.

"If you have NO EVIDENCE of fraud, ALL YOU HAVE is the CERTIFIED VOTE COUNT." Duh

 

[CdnFox]

24 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Hey genius: she said Trump partnered with Russia to influence her the American voters, not that there was massive election fraud and then launch into baseless lunacy like the Right did. 
 

Hey genius - she alleged election interference which is election fraud and said trump was elected illegitimately.

How stupid do you have to be not to realize you were dead wrong.  But instead of moving on you double down on being stupid.

It's not enough for you to be wrong in the first place - you've got to roll around in your own shit like a dog

26 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

It was debunked by the fact that no evidence of criminal activity was found AFTER THREE YEARS OF THIS ACCUSATION circulating on right wing lunatic circles.

Ahhh no, that tells us nothing about this incident. This specific article was never debunked in the slightest.  She could very well have been committing fraud - they can't tell one way or another.

And not finding evidence doesn't even remotely speak to how secure the election is in the slightest.  If she was cheating there would be no evidence. Your statement is as stupid as saying "because there's no evidence that means they didnt' catch her so she must have done it".   It's dumb.

And not satisfied with rolling in your own crap, you have to eat it too apperently

29 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE is a cornerstone of democracy.

No, it is not. If it was then nobody would ever be arrested because they're presumed to be innocent.

Presumption of innocence is not part of democracy, it's part of ensuring that the judicial system does not punish people unjustly.  That does NOT  mean we assume all people are innocent.

Man - you don't understand any of this do you.  How stupid can one person look in one post for god's sake.  it hurts my head just trying to think down to your level to explain this to you.