This keeps leaving me scratching my head...

[PaceAdvantage]

...it pertains to the recent drumbeat of news concerning Fox News hosts and their texts around the 2020 election...specifically Tucker Carlson:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ed-to-viewers/

Let me focus on the first few paragraphs from this recent article on Business Insider:

In court documents made public in the past month, Fox News hosts are seen saying one thing in private, and another in public.

Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, and Sean Hannity all said in text messages that Sidney Powell's allegations that Dominion Voting Systems manipulated the election results in the 2020 election were absurd.

On air, however, they each raised the possibility that the election was stolen. Asked in a deposition whether hosts including Maria Bartiromo and Lou Dobbs lied, Fox Corporation Chair Rupert Murdoch answered in the affirmative.

Here is a very specific sentence from the above article:

Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, and Sean Hannity all said in text messages that Sidney Powell's allegations that Dominion Voting Systems manipulated the election results in the 2020 election were absurd.

They followed the above very specific sentence concerning Dominion VOTING MACHINES, with the following sentence:

On air, however, they each raised the possibility that the election was stolen.

Putting on the ol' critical thinking cap...please tell me why those two sentences must live in contradiction to each other?

Why can they not both be true?

Taking the words all at face value, the author of the piece and many of you on here stand firm in the belief that if you believe the VOTING MACHINE conspiracy to be false, then you CANNOT also believe the election might have been stolen.

Please explain why that must be?

It's ridiculous to think that, actually. They both CERTAINLY can be TRUE.

And there is no problem or conflict in holding both to be true. Manipulating election results via Dominion Voting Machines certainly is NOT the only way an election can be stolen.

Tell me how I'm wrong.

[Inner Dirt]

What is the clear definition of "stolen election" that is a place to start. With the economy being so important to a sitting president, I think the biggest single factor against Trump was the Democrat governors from states like California, New York, and Michigan shutting down their state's economy. That also lead to a lot of money for nothing the most voters feel they can trust Democrats to do.

[azeri98]

Originally Posted by Inner Dirt

What is the clear definition of "stolen election" that is a place to start. With the economy being so important to a sitting president, I think the biggest single factor against Trump was the Democrat governors from states like California, New York, and Michigan shutting down their state's economy. That also lead to a lot of money for nothing the most voters feel they can trust Democrats to do.

Well Said.

[azeri98]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

...it pertains to the recent drumbeat of news concerning Fox News hosts and their texts around the 2020 election...specifically Tucker Carlson:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ed-to-viewers/

Let me focus on the first few paragraphs from this recent article on Business Insider:



Here is a very specific sentence from the above article:

Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, and Sean Hannity all said in text messages that Sidney Powell's allegations that Dominion Voting Systems manipulated the election results in the 2020 election were absurd.

They followed the above very specific sentence concerning Dominion VOTING MACHINES, with the following sentence:

On air, however, they each raised the possibility that the election was stolen.

Putting on the ol' critical thinking cap...please tell me why those two sentences must live in contradiction to each other?

Why can they not both be true?

Taking the words all at face value, the author of the piece and many of you on here stand firm in the belief that if you believe the VOTING MACHINE conspiracy to be false, then you CANNOT also believe the election might have been stolen.

Please explain why that must be?

It's ridiculous to think that, actually. They both CERTAINLY can be TRUE.

And there is no problem or conflict in holding both to be true. Manipulating election results via Dominion Voting Machines certainly is NOT the only way an election can be stolen.

Tell me how I'm wrong.

You're not wrong. Both can be true. You just have to prove as to why you think it was rigged and what evidence do you have?

[MargieRose]

Originally Posted by Inner Dirt

What is the clear definition of "stolen election" that is a place to start. With the economy being so important to a sitting president, I think the biggest single factor against Trump was the Democrat governors from states like California, New York, and Michigan shutting down their state's economy. That also lead to a lot of money for nothing the most voters feel they can trust Democrats to do.

This leaves me .
.

[MargieRose]

Originally Posted by azeri98

Well Said.

Really?
.

[MargieRose]

Originally Posted by azeri98

You're not wrong. Both can be true. You just have to prove as to why you think it was rigged and what evidence do you have?

Since when do "opinions" require proof or even honesty?

"In my opinion" is actually legal terminology protecting one from libel.

.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by azeri98

You're not wrong. Both can be true. You just have to prove as to why you think it was rigged and what evidence do you have?

No, you don't.

FREE SPEECH means FREE OPINIONS,
No one ever [pove his opinion.
If you wasnt to make the case that my opinion is wrong, YOU need to provide evidence.

As far as the election being rigged, it has been proven to be correct. Sopressubf laptop story did that, as many thousands of voters have said it would have infkuenced their vote,

All other accusations aside, this proves it was rigged.

[OntheRail]

Originally Posted by Tom

No, you don't.

FREE SPEECH means FREE OPINIONS,
No one ever [pove his opinion.
If you wasnt to make the case that my opinion is wrong, YOU need to provide evidence.

As far as the election being rigged, it has been proven to be correct. Sopressubf laptop story did that, as many thousands of voters have said it would have infkuenced their vote,

All other accusations aside, this proves it was rigged.

Then add in the Intel white washers what was it 51 Security Orifices all spewing shit pushing the lie. And even before that the FBI CIA... priming the turds in Socialist Media to flush the storyline well before it hit the net. Rigging at it worst. But the mushrooms don't see it... just the bullshit they thrive on.

2000 Mules also exposed another facet of the big rig.

[TexasDolly]

I interpreted it as saying the Dominion didn't do the damage BUT there was manipulation by someone i.e. hauled in ballots ,bad counting etc
TD

[Ahorsewithnoname]

Any US citizen charged with a felony must be arraigned in federal court, regardless of how important they might be and that includes Trump.

[azeri98]

Originally Posted by MargieRose

Since when do "opinions" require proof or even honesty?

"In my opinion" is actually legal terminology protecting one from libel.

.

They don't but it makes you look dumb when you can't back up an opinion. What do you base it on? If I say in my opinion a 10k claimer was better than Zenyatta. Does my opinion hold water?

https://www.quora.com/Can-an-opinion-be-wrong

[azeri98]

Originally Posted by Tom

No, you don't.

FREE SPEECH means FREE OPINIONS,
No one ever [pove his opinion.
If you wasnt to make the case that my opinion is wrong, YOU need to provide evidence.

As far as the election being rigged, it has been proven to be correct. Sopressubf laptop story did that, as many thousands of voters have said it would have infkuenced their vote,

All other accusations aside, this proves it was rigged.

Who proved the election was rigged? How do you know that thousands of votes were influenced? What was on the labtop? Were thousands of votes influenced by the FBI telling people Hillary was careless with classified information weeks before the election or the questioning of her emails? That's not rigging. That's normal when it comes to politics.

[MargieRose]

Originally Posted by azeri98

They don't but it makes you look dumb when you can't back up an opinion. What do you base it on? If I say in my opinion a 10k claimer was better than Zenyatta. Does my opinion hold water?

https://www.quora.com/Can-an-opinion-be-wrong

How do you think a "con man" succeeds? Maybe he's just believable.

.

[azeri98]

Originally Posted by MargieRose

How do you think a "con man" succeeds? Maybe he's just believable.

.

To the greedy and the dumb. They know which people to pray on. Never the less opinions can be wrong.