American election.

[Belinda]

Certainly?

Hey, I've seen the testimony -- under oath, by affidavit, and with perjury penalties attached -- and the data charts showing masses of Biden votes suddenly appearing at 4 a.m., long after the polls were supposed to be closed, and the videos of boxes of mysterious stuff being brought in late at night, and the utterly improbably swings in the lead, and the evidence of the problems with the Dominion machines, and the surprising absence of the Dominion officials... and so on.

If I can find all that, why can't you?

It's because he who owns the search engine owns your knowledge. That's how it works now.

It is not impossible there was an enormous conspiracy, however it is more probable the professional judges were correct.

[Immanuel Can]

It is not impossible there was an enormous conspiracy, however it is more probable the professional judges were correct.

There are currently 3 cases pending. The press is selling the line that there are 33, and that they've all failed.

That's the media again, not the judiciary.

[tillingborn]

That's the media again, not the judiciary.

Hey, I've seen the testimony --

Where have you seen that if not in the media?

[Immanuel Can]

That's the media again, not the judiciary.

Hey, I've seen the testimony --

Where have you seen that if not in the media?

Not the mainstream media (MSM)...they won't show it, or will show you so little you won't be likely to find it unless you're actively looking. You'll find it in the alternate media, those few publications and sites that are bucking the media controllers. And you can still take into account the MSM. But then you'll be able to see and decide for yourself, rather than merely accepting that what the MSM is giving you is the truth.

Here's a start: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-7E-71Av0k

[commonsense]

Do you really believe what you think you saw at face value?

I should ask you the same thing.

I do not.

For example, when I read that the data charts show masses of Biden votes suddenly appearing at 4 a.m., I ask myself if there’s another reason for this happening aside from fraud, I ask how massive are the masses, I ask why an objective number wasn’t used, I ask how suddenly is suddenly, does suddenly mean it was startling, why would someone use a term that conveys an unproven emotional reaction like startling, is that indicative of an agenda, if so how credible is this statement or others, what could have transpired between the polling location and the counting location, was a chain of custody maintained throughout the transport of these ballets, and whether there was anything peculiar about the route traveled with the ballots.

And when I hear that this occurred long after the polls were supposed to be closed, I ask myself what might be the time the poll actually closed, I ask why the poll closed when it did, I ask if by saying that it was a supposed time is someone secretly suggesting that the polling was conducted without regard for how it was supposed to be conducted.

And when I am told that there are videos of boxes of mysterious stuff being brought in late at night, I ask what is the intention of calling the stuff mysterious, is it to invoke a feeling of dread or even a fear of the unknown or is it just intended to arouse suspicions, and I ask if the stuff was a thing or things, was the stuff heavy as witnessed by the way it was carried, was a dolly or truck used to unload the boxes from the vehicle that brought them, what kind of vehicle brought them, and was its gas tank full and its tires sufficiently inflated.

Then, if the answers to my questions are sparse, I reserve judgment on what was said, counting it as a non-fact, neither true nor false nor relevant for now.

[Immanuel Can]

Do you really believe what you think you saw at face value?

I should ask you the same thing.

I do not.

For example, when I read that the data charts show masses of Biden votes suddenly appearing at 4 a.m., I ask myself if there’s another reason for this happening aside from fraud, I ask how massive are the masses, I ask why an objective number wasn’t used, I ask how suddenly is suddenly, does suddenly mean it was startling, why would someone use a term that conveys an unproven emotional reaction like startling, is that indicative of an agenda, if so how credible is this statement or others, what could have transpired between the polling location and the counting location, was a chain of custody maintained throughout the transport of these ballets, and whether there was anything peculiar about the route traveled with the ballots.

All questions you should ask yourself. I'm not telling you what happened; I'm telling you that knowing what happened means looking at the data. If there is some "perfectly good reason" confirmed for sending the observers of the other party home, then secretly processing thousands of ballots you've been storing under a table until they left, then I want to hear what it is, just as much as you do.

A full investigation serves every legitimate interest. If Biden is to be president, it should be beyond possibility of contest and beyond reasonable doubt. If something unethical has been done, that should be exposed. Because the country is not served by a lie...whoever wins.

And any American who really believes in the process of election in the first place should be most earnest to see it happens with complete integrity; and that no shadow of doubt that can be called "reasonable" remains.

And we're sure as heck not there yet.

[commonsense]

It is not impossible there was an enormous conspiracy, however it is more probable the professional judges were correct.

There are currently 3 cases pending. The press is selling the line that there are 33, and that they've all failed.

That's the media again, not the judiciary.

And what is the judiciary saying that differs from what the media is saying?

[Immanuel Can]

And what is the judiciary saying that differs from what the media is saying?

We're going to see, I suppose. So far, the Supreme Court hasn't ruled. When it does, we'll know what the American electorate is going to live with, true or not. But I think it should worry Americans that this vote has become such a circus, and that the integrity of the whole process is so manifestly dubious. Whichever side one is on, it's evident that nobody's sure what really happened, even though it happened some time ago now.

Elections really can't be like that -- for both party's sake, but more importantly, for the sake of democracy. So I think some obvious reforms are in order, including, I would suggest, a return to strict voter ID and in-person voting, for a start.

The saying "justice must be seen to be done" applies very well here. The idea, of course, is that it's not enough for the right to triumph...it must triumph publicly, and in such a way that people KNOW justice was done, or justice was not really done. In other words, there's no "secret justice." I would say the same applies to elections: they must be "seen" to be "done." The electorate must understand what the process was, and have confidence it was conducted transparently and with integrity...if not, there was no genuine "election." The will of the people was not made known to all.

[tillingborn]

Here's a start: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-7E-71Av0k

Thank you for sharing. I'm not quite sure what I should conclude from this. Is Sky not mainstream? Do you think SkyAU is bucking Rupert Murdoch by broadcasting it?

[Immanuel Can]

Here's a start: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-7E-71Av0k

Thank you for sharing. I'm not quite sure what I should conclude from this.

Just that there are things out there that the MSM ought to be making public, but which it's clearly suppressing, in favour of repeating, "Nothing to see here, folks; nothing to see..."

[FlashDangerpants]

Here's a start: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-7E-71Av0k

Thank you for sharing. I'm not quite sure what I should conclude from this.

Just that there are things out there that the MSM ought to be making public, but which it's clearly suppressing, in favour of repeating, "Nothing to see here, folks; nothing to see..."

Dude, he was telling you that he had seen this video on Australian TV, specifically SkyAU, which I think may be owned by Disney or Comcast rather than Murdoch these days. MSM has been covering this story in Britain too. And it's already been debunked.

[Gary Childress]

That's the media again, not the judiciary.

Hey, I've seen the testimony --

Where have you seen that if not in the media?

Not the mainstream media (MSM)...they won't show it, or will show you so little you won't be likely to find it unless you're actively looking. You'll find it in the alternate media, those few publications and sites that are bucking the media controllers. And you can still take into account the MSM. But then you'll be able to see and decide for yourself, rather than merely accepting that what the MSM is giving you is the truth.

Here's a start: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-7E-71Av0k

Here's Georgia Public Broadcasting on the videos. Apparently nothing abnormal about it.

https://www.gpb.org/news/2020/12/04/fac ... raud-claim

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Thank you for sharing. I'm not quite sure what I should conclude from this.

Just that there are things out there that the MSM ought to be making public, but which it's clearly suppressing, in favour of repeating, "Nothing to see here, folks; nothing to see..."

Dude, he was telling you that he had seen this video on Australian TV, specifically SkyAU, which I think may be owned by Disney or Comcast rather than Murdoch these days. MSM has been covering this story in Britain too. And it's already been debunked.

I'm pretty sure Murdoch still owns it.

[FlashDangerpants]

Just that there are things out there that the MSM ought to be making public, but which it's clearly suppressing, in favour of repeating, "Nothing to see here, folks; nothing to see..."

Dude, he was telling you that he had seen this video on Australian TV, specifically SkyAU, which I think may be owned by Disney or Comcast rather than Murdoch these days. MSM has been covering this story in Britain too. And it's already been debunked.

I'm pretty sure Murdoch still owns it.

Well that's some shit luck, that dirty old bastard owns practically everything over there. In Britain here only owns the government now.

[Immanuel Can]

And it's already been debunked.

Actually, it hasn't. But no doubt you've been told already that it has, and you've believed it.

Good little soldier.