In my view, there is a political tendency here on the site to be stacked one way right from the very start on certain subjects, even in this case seeking to nit-pick and "pre-debunk" something that doesn't even seem to have been seen yet, as though the very idea of calling into question the practices and changes deployed in the American election is some sort of deluded mindset and an issue that has to be untrue at its very core, like UFO sightings or poltergeists.
Being semi-flippant, I think it may even tread onto the 'confirmation bias' territory that's so often attributable to the conformists of conspiracy theories - but that is just my outsiders observation from what little time I have spent here so far. Are people here merely digging out what confirms their pre-held-beliefs, constructing a case to be satisfied that they are the "good ones" who "really know the truth"? (It is a rhetorical question, just to try and make a point).
The remarks about people's yards sounds to be biased political snobbery, as is a general undercurrent assumption or leaning/feeling here that anyone who might vote for Donald Trump is automatically likely to be wrong, that anything aired from that side of the fence is going to be fake, false, "debunkable" - whilst liberal organisations, liberal activities, liberal objectives and practices (which is pretty much the mainstay of how these things actually are) are somehow always the truth and all is done "above board".
So far, I see much is being made of collections of camera shots and repeat images - there's even a few jokes and a mocking parody about it - but it seems to be grasping at straws a bit.
I only ask - "Does it really matter?" It appears to be a propaganda video. It appears to be a propaganda designed to entertain and to try and shock or highlight seemingly dubious activities. It appears to be sensational by intent and by nature.
It could be argued that CNN does exactly the same thing every single day, by, for example, stripping shelves of produce and declaring footage showing that there's shortages in the pandemic, announcing Hunter Biden's laptop as Russia backed fake-news, and a hundred other things that acts as red-meat propaganda for the liberal-left. We could be here all day "debunking" that kind of thing that sows division and mistrust.
That they may show an exaggeration of security camera shots in the documentary is surely neither here nor there to whether there was chicanery in the election processes or grey-areas that were rife for fraud that could have been abused (but on which we will likely never get to know the truth).
It's surely editing and drama to create an impact, not an attempt to portray different locations with the same CCTV camera? It shows different camera angles? So what? It is probably a motion camera that swings side to side.
What exactly is it that they are claiming with the footage? Do the repeat shots have relevance to the claims? Have they shown a reversed image from Florida and claimed it was Ohio or something? I'm not seeing the point at the moment.
Questions trying to insinuate that some of these characters doing ridiculous sets of drop-off's may not be the same person are also a bit shaky to me so far. If they're the same height, sex, build, have similar clothes (or maybe removed a jacket, or put one on, etc) and are being triangulated to matters of a few hundred feet via mobile technology, it would tend to suggest that they are the same person - or that, even if they were not, they were deployed with the same phone as part of some alleged orchestrated plot to abuse the system.
We all have our biases, but I'd just want to gently remind people that confirmation biases and selective sources of information can work two ways - and that, one of the main problems with "debunking" sites in general (as I have found) is that they tend to be dominated with left-wing vantage points in a world where those who may need debunking the most are an extreme right-wing - and who would only look into places like these as being echo-chambers of liberalism and not necessarily the arbiters of "truth" and as such dismiss what's being said as they see it as hostile territory of people who can't understand an opposing ideology or who mock it.
I realise I am a little biased. I don't exclude myself from having to be mindful of it.
Do I think that massive voter fraud occurred? I don't really know. I'd like to think I'd be able to watch "2000 mules" and be balanced enough to spot obvious lies and untruths.
Do I think that many grey-areas were constructed and exploited that could have subverted or stacked the election a certain way? Yes. At the moment I do. Why?
There were many underhanded things going on, such as the documented case of Mayor Bloomberg donating $16 million of his own money to let almost exclusively Black and Hispanic criminals out of prison early and pay their fines so that they'd be eligible to vote in the election in what I believe to be a key swing seat.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...da787e-fc5a-11ea-8d05-9beaaa91c71f_story.html
External Quote:
Former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg and his team have raised more than $16 million to pay the court fines and fees of nearly 32,000 Black and Hispanic Florida voters with felony convictions, an effort aimed at boosting turnout for Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.
{...}
He saw the donations as a more cost-effective way of adding votes to the Democratic column than investing money to persuade voters who already have the right to vote, a Bloomberg memo said.
"We have identified a significant vote share that requires a nominal investment," the memo read. "The data shows that in Florida,
Black voters are a unique universe unlike any other voting bloc, where the Democratic support rate tends to be 90%-95%."
The memo noted that Biden was polling worse among Cuban American voters than Hillary Clinton, the 2016 nominee, while
winning other Hispanic groups by a margin of 3 to 1.
{...}
A study by the University of Florida found that nearly 775,000 former felons still owed money related to their convictions and would be barred from the voting booth by the law. The vast majority
are too poor to pay their outstanding debts, according to evidence presented in court documents challenging the law.
Several philanthropic groups, including
a nonprofit founded by the professional basketball player LeBron James, have since committed donations to pay the owed money. The Bloomberg effort, which his aides said will be pooled with about $5 million already raised by the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition
, is narrowly focused only on Black and Hispanic voters who are already registered to vote and whose debts are less than $1,500.
Bloomberg's advisers identified that group as both likely to vote for Biden and more likely to vote than other groups of former felons.
"Mike wanted to get this done for two reasons," said a Bloomberg adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations. "One, because it's the right thing to do for the democracy. And two, because it immediately activates tens of thousands of voters who are predisposed to vote for Joe Biden."
{...}
The Bloomberg memo pointed out that the 31,790 targeted voters, including 25,548 who are Black, are nearly equivalent to the margin by which Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) won election in 2018, and about three times as big as the margin that elected Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) that same year.
The same antics can be said for the cover-up over Hunter's laptop, his debauchery and suspect dealings of the Biden family abroad - which was recently shown to have had the potential to give a significant knock on the Biden vote if it had been duly investigated by an impartial media and not banned from two main social media platforms that notoriously have a liberal slant.
With such chicanery going on and such biased desperation from the "liberal left" to ensure they obtain office, not Trump, at almost any cost - it isn't that much of a leap for lots of people to believe that some of the aspects that may be raised in the "2000 mules" propaganda documentary (or the one about Mark Zuckerberg's influence) are going to be true.
Those things which aren't clear cut may well be the grey-areas of an election process that reeks to high heaven but is technically 'legitimate'.
Some people of a certain persuasion may be happy with that and just declare it "debunked", but for many out there in the world it would not be acceptable and see it as a corrupt orchestration that severely undermines democracy and proves that there is a "deep state" and biased "corporatism" that will ride roughshod over the will of a majority.
I hope that anything that is highlighted in this documentary as being dubious or exploitable or remotely true (even if not possibly provable either way to the ultimate effect on the count) will help ensure that such ambiguities (or insinuations by 'conspiracy theorists') cannot occur again.
