Fox head honcho Rupert Murdoch admits under oath 2020 election was not stolen - Politics Discussion

[–] Keelai (36157) 2 years ago

Trump's cult needs to hear that.

reply

[–] OKStimpson (197) 2 years ago

You're a cult.

You spend your entire life talking about a man who you say is "finished", "going to jail" and is never coming back.

So you spend all that time life talking about an out-of-the-game nonentity, it's like having your entire life revolve around a teddy bear, or an exhibit on a stand in a museum.

That means you guys are especially a cult,

but obviously the last thing cult members do is acknowledge logic and reality... so hit me with your next barrel of Scientologist-esque nonsense!

reply

[–] Keelai (36157) 2 years ago

You're projecting and gaslighting.

"“I hate him passionately,” Carlson wrote, adding that he “can’t handle much more of this,” according to the recently released court filings. In the message, he said he “truly can’t wait” to be able to stop covering Trump -- and added that he has grown to despise him."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/03/08/fox-news-dominion-carlson-trump-lawsuit-takeaways/11426734002/

reply

[–] OKStimpson (197) 2 years ago

"gaslighting."

How am I doing that when no-one can afford gas cause of all the inflation under Biden?

reply

[–] OKStimpson (197) 2 years ago

So... what exactly does that prove , the fact that you threw some quote from over 2 years ago proves what?

You expect me to be impressed simply because you can put something in quote marks, then post a link?

You're such an incredible, monumental mantoddler that you believe that merely posting an old quote is somehow supposed to wow everybody?

A true pathetic, pitiful mantoddler you are. Just look at yourself.

reply

[–] Keelai (36157) 2 years ago

It proves your fav Fox host Carlson HATES TRUMP! and lied to you and your fellow Trumpists about the election which they always knew Biden won.

reply

[–] xanthas (3215) 2 years ago

He's in the business of simply telling losers what they want to hear....the only way to make a profit.

reply

[–] Yatzo (2175) 2 years ago

So he lied under oath?

reply

[–] xanthas (3215) 2 years ago

No. He lies to his viewers.

reply

[–] OKStimpson (197) 2 years ago

Oaf. You spelt it wrong, he lied under an oaf.

The oaf who's threatening him is Joe Biden, we're all under him at the moment unfortunately.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

Who has been arrested for saying the US election in 2020 was fraudulent?

reply

[–] OKStimpson (197) 2 years ago

The people who invaded Con-gress? (emphasis on con)

Im sure you've got a lot more dumb@~$ questions which you think there are "no answers to"...?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

Do you think maybe they were arrested for trying to invade Congress, as opposed to saying the US election was fraudulent?

reply

[–] OKStimpson (197) 2 years ago

Now you said they only "tried".

Is Second your english language?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

Yes, they tried. And they failed in terms of stopping the election from being certified. People arrested were arrested chiefly for trying to stop Biden from becoming President by force.

So I'll ask again: Who has been arrested for saying the US election in 2020 was fraudulent?

reply

[–] OKStimpson (197) 2 years ago

There's no evidence any of them believed they could force Pike Mince to choose Trump as the winner instead.

It was a revenge attack, they were the people who shouted "it was rigged" the loudest, so yes they were arrested for that. Back to stalking WWE female wrestlers for you now.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

So what was the purpose?

It was a revenge attack, they were the people who shouted "it was rigged" the loudest, so yes they were arrested for that. Back to stalking WWE female wrestlers for you now.

So should it be acceptable, normal, legal for thousands of people to turn up and occupy the US Capitol building?

reply

[–] OKStimpson (197) 2 years ago

While you're spending 5 seconds pretending to be "reasonable", can you tell me a good reason why we shouldnt be allowed to make that claim on mainstream social networks such as Facebook?

Your definition of "DEMO-CRACEEEE" is a 40-year-old smug billionaire in a hoodie telling people what they can and cant say/think.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

While you're spending 5 seconds pretending to be "reasonable", can you tell me a good reason why we shouldnt be allowed to make that claim on mainstream social networks such as Facebook?

You should. I guess it's up to Facebook's policy here.

Your definition of "DEMO-CRACEEEE" is a 40-year-old smug billionaire in a hoodie telling people what they can and cant say/think.

Should the government force private companies to host specific viewpoints?

Should CPAC be forced to let left-wing activists in? Should r/Conservative be forced to let left-wingers interact?

reply

[–] OKStimpson (197) 2 years ago

"C-PAC" and facebook.

You're comparing a once-a-year event to the most mainstream social network which is a part of every day life and dominates people lives.

at this point of your heinous dorkitude, remember all this revolves around you thinking it's really important that a worthless white haired nobody be president.

He's been on the planet 80 years, and his only talent is saying "COME OONNN, MAN". Anyone who spends their life defending him must be an incredi-perma-super astro-magical mega-space virgin beyond the bounds of all previous known virginity. Your incredi-perma-super astro-magical mega-space virginity is so solid and impregnable they could use it to beat black holes into oblivion.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

I am noting the inconsistency here. If Facebook should be forced to host speech, then why shouldn't other companies and events?

You're comparing a once-a-year event to the most mainstream social network which is a part of every day life and dominates people lives.

There are other social networks out there. I guess so much for "let the free market decide".

at this point of your heinous dorkitude, remember all this revolves around you thinking it's really important that a worthless white haired nobody be president.

He literally won the 2020 election.

And when have I specifically defended Biden exactly?

reply

[–] OKStimpson (197) 2 years ago

Now you're spewing "literally" because apparently that's supposed to impress somebody.

it's not accurate to describe him as the one who "won" it since he didn't personally print off the votes of rig the machines himself. You big ass dork.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

it's not accurate to describe him as the one who "won" it since he didn't personally print off the votes of rig the machines himself. You big ass dork.

I await evidence that it was rigged. Every court case ever attempted by the Trump affiliated lawyers failed.

And if they were willing to rig the 2020 election, why didn't they rig it so they won the Senate more effectively? Why didn't the Democrats managed to rig the 2022 House election?

reply

[–] OKStimpson (197) 2 years ago

No you don't "await evidence" at all. You're a stinking liar.

If President Alzheimer came on TV tomorrow with "yes of course we stole it" written on his own face in blood, you'd still sit there snarling "no evidence" in your basement-tastic nasal speaking voice. You pitiful freak.

There was and is evidence. I know you can't bring yourself to watch 2000 Mules with an open mind, because you can't open something that doesn't exist.

If you wish to agree with me that you will die a virgin, please indicate by either:

A) Saying some other lame meaningless word that's meant to impress me like "heh, DEBUNKED", or saying something deriding the creator of 2000 Mules or whatever
B) ignoring me and going away
C) Suddenly changing the subject in a way that only exists to try and subvert this disclaimer/agreement.

Thanks, dork.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

If President Alzheimer came on TV tomorrow with "yes of course we stole it" written on his own face in blood, you'd still sit there snarling "no evidence" in your basement-tastic nasal speaking voice. You pitiful freak.

No, because that would be an admission from Biden.

Again, no actual evidence presented. Just claims.

And if they were willing to rig the 2020 election, why didn't they rig it so they won the Senate more effectively and not have be stuck with Sinema and Manchin blocking everything? Why didn't the Democrats manage to rig the 2022 House election?

reply

[–] OKStimpson (197) 2 years ago

Haha you can't even begin to address 2000 Mules.

I guess you havent watched 2000 Mules and you're such a complete little gimp, you actually expect anybody to be impressed by anyone saying "heh, no, like, heh, evidence (pushes glasses up nose)"

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

Haha you can't even begin to address 2000 Mules.

No, I haven't watched it.

It's a propaganda film with low ratings, and tons of negative reviews everywhere outlining what they lied about.

Now, I'll ask again:

And if they were willing to rig the 2020 election, why didn't they rig it so they won the Senate more effectively and not have be stuck with Sinema and Manchin blocking everything? Why didn't the Democrats manage to rig the 2022 House election?

reply

[–] OKStimpson (197) 2 years ago

You said you await evidence but when asked to examine some, you give a lame excuse not to watch it. So you lied. You await nothing except a guinness world record for being a 32805238902309529302389023489061238905239723 year old virgin.

The IMDB rating is "low" yeah that's cause incredipermavirgin 90-year-old basement dwellers like you all downvoted it for telling the truth.

If you watched the movie yourself, you'd see it's undeniable, you're a pitiful lying dork and your very first post was a lie. DORK.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

If you watched the movie yourself, you'd see it's undeniable, you're a pitiful lying dork and your very first post was a lie. DORK.

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-usa-mules/fact-check-does-2000-mules-provide-evidence-of-voter-fraud-in-the-2020-u-s-presidential-election-idUSL2N2XJ0OQ

https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-covid-technology-health-arizona-e1b49d2311bf900f44fa5c6dac406762

https://www.denverpost.com/2022/05/08/2000-mules-fact-check/

reply

[–] OKStimpson (197) 2 years ago

I'm a 12 year old who's easily bowled over by the word "fact check".

Please stop ignoring my love letters, Alexa Bliss (or whoever).

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

There's a lot more text on those pages than just "fact check".

That documentaries exist on [events] does not make them automatically right.

reply

[–] OKStimpson (197) 2 years ago

"why didn't they rig it so they won the Senate more effectively and not have be stuck with Sinema and Manchin blocking everything? Why didn't the Democrats manage to rig the 2022 House election?"

Because that would have taken more effort, and because their only obsession was with Trump, cause he pwned them by being against ISISlam and all the idiots on the left lost their tiny minds? Cause they got beat by someone they said was a "lunatic"! So their ego was in deep jeopardy and they had to do something(other than admit they were wrong, I mean)

That's why, that explains the massive phenomon of ballots that only had "Biden" ticked on them but absolutely marks at all for any of the "down ballot" congress candidates. yeah, that's just another thing you didnt know about. DORK.

But it's no use explaining anything to people who think that the mere fact that they asked "THEN WHY DID THIS, THEN WHY DID THAT? HUH? HUH?" means they've won the argument..., and not only that but they are headed for a Nobel FREAKING prize. LOL

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

Because that would have taken more effort, and because their only obsession was with Trump, cause he pwned them by being against ISISlam and all the idiots on the left lost their tiny minds? Cause they got beat by someone they said was a "lunatic"! So their ego was in deep jeopardy and they had to do something(other than admit they were wrong, I mean)

How would that take more effort than rigging a Presidential election?

You attach juvenile mentalities to people who apparently want absolute power in governance. Not sure what this has to do with ISIS or Islam.

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-usa-mules/fact-check-does-2000-mules-provide-evidence-of-voter-fraud-in-the-2020-u-s-presidential-election-idUSL2N2XJ0OQ

There's tons of articles like this. Have you yourself bothered to read the objections to the claims in the movie?

reply

[–] OKStimpson (197) 2 years ago

"Not sure what this has to do with ISIS or Islam"

Well great, what colour medal do you want for being not sure about something?

We have bronze and platinum available, all the others are gone, sorry.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

Why hasn't the US government arrested prominent electoral deniers? They're supposedly willing to rig an election, but unwilling to clamp down on dissent?

reply

[–] OKStimpson (197) 2 years ago

Why haven't you watched an 89 minute documentary to prove you're open minded?

Like I said in another post, I'm sure you're willing to spend 89 days responding to me... (y'know.. in order to show how little I mean to you)

Why do you only ask questions but never listen to the answers?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

You're linking a highly criticised and ultimately refuted propaganda movie as evidence. It's as simple as that. There are hundreds of articles about how the movie is a complete fabrication.

And when did I say anything about anyone meaning "little" to anyone?

reply

[–] OKStimpson (197) 2 years ago

"Highly criticised"

Well Joe Biden has been highly criticised as stealing an election.

So there.

All someone has to do is say "highly criticised" and I'm supposed to throw something away/dismiss something forever.

All your pathetic posts are predicated on the idea that I'm as much of an easily impressed stuffed animal toy as you are.

reply

[–] OKStimpson (197) 2 years ago

At some point during this evening, you're going to pass a point where you've spent more than the length of 2000 Mules talking to me.

Are you saying you regard me as a more worthwhile person than Dinesh D'Souza then?

No wait, you've never had anything of interest to say in your spotty BO-filled so-called "life".

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

I mean Dinesh D'Souza is an evangelical christofascist, so I'm instinctively not interested in hearing what someone like that claims.

No wait, you've never had anything of interest to say in your spotty BO-filled so-called "life".

Is there a particular reason you're being personally insulting? This is directly against the websites rules.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

What's more ironic is that Dinesh D'Souza has actually been convicted of campaign finance violations.

reply

[–] OKStimpson (197) 2 years ago

"campaign finance violations"

Yeah, I know. Man, everybody in ALCATRAZ would have been scared of such a thug!!

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

Well Joe Biden has been highly criticised as stealing an election.

Unfortunately, with no evidence. Did the Trump campaign even win a single court case ever about this? If it was so obvious that the election was fraudulent, then why wasn't the result overturned?

The responses actually outline the claims made, and detail how they are unevidenced, speculative or just outright lies.

reply

[–] OKStimpson (197) 2 years ago

You said you await evidence.
Then you dismiss evidence.

With lame-ass excuses

You said you await evidence.
Then you dismiss evidence.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

So are you telling me that a claim should just be uncritically accepted as true? That because this documentary exists, I should therefore automatically accept all its claims unconditionally?

reply

[–] OKStimpson (197) 2 years ago

You know who the dumbest person in the world is? You for keeping going thinking you can impress me with your lame phrases and predictable BS

Incredivirgin.

You refuse to even specifically say who you voted for, as part of an unconvincing attempt to sound "impartial" which you think is somehow supposed to impress me but it doesnt.

you actually think you're somehow smart and special, despite the fact I've argued with a million virgins like you before and heard it all before. Everything you think makes you smart makes you just another. routine. jackass.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

You refuse to even specifically say who you voted for, as part of an unconvincing attempt to sound "impartial" which you think is somehow supposed to impress me but it doesnt.

You never asked. I'm not American.

But if I was, I would've voted Democrat.

When did I say that I was "smart" and "special"?

reply

[–] OKStimpson (197) 2 years ago

Im sure in the amount of time you plan on spending replying to me, you could watch 2000 mules about 100 times.

That's usually you demented Biden-freaks favourite method of like to prove how supposedly "insignificant and stupid" we are. By, uh... spending fornights replying to us. LOL

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

I'm not a "Biden-freak". I never called you anything.

Have you watched videos focused on refuting the claims made in 2000 mules, since you're so interested in intellectual honesty?

reply

[–] OKStimpson (197) 2 years ago

No i havent, because I dont like watching videos presented/narrated by people who actually smell like mules

(cause its that long since they had a shower). How many are there anyway? You're asking me to watch about 10,000 different nasal-voiced internet videos by random Youtubers, I'm asking you to watch one 89 minute film.

You seem alien to the concept of someone having an occupation outside of using the internet to argue,

Since you love questions, how are you any better than me when you refuse to watch something?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

No i havent, because I dont like watching videos presented/narrated by people who actually smell like mules

So much for your own intellectual honesty and curiosity then.

(cause its that long since they had a shower). How many are there anyway? You're asking me to watch about 10,000 different nasal-voiced internet videos by random Youtubers, I'm asking you to watch one 89 minute film.

Or just read the many articles written by journalists.

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-usa-mules/fact-check-does-2000-mules-provide-evidence-of-voter-fraud-in-the-2020-u-s-presidential-election-idUSL2N2XJ0OQ

Since you love questions, how are you any better than me when you refuse to watch something?

When did I say I was better or worse than you, or anyone?

reply

[–] OKStimpson (197) 2 years ago

So now you're saying" I've never claimed to be better than anyone"

So you're not better than Dahmer or Hitler, by your own admission.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

This is a weird train of logic you're going by. I haven't claimed superiority over you. You seem to think I'm here to posture or something.

reply

[–] OKStimpson (197) 2 years ago

This is a weird train of logic you're going by.

One where your words are taken seriously and assessed at face value? Yes, definitely.

That is weird.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

The point is that I am not here, and never came here to specifically posture or claim superiority over you or others.

reply

[–] OKStimpson (197) 2 years ago

Here's a question you wont answer, virgin

How is it that a film can be "lies" but an article calling it lies can't possibly be lies?

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

Because the articles explain how the film is lying, or misrepresenting, or is ill-informed.

reply

[–] OKStimpson (197) 2 years ago

People can give false explanations. Ones that gullible people fall for. Like you.

People do it all the time for where they were when they out screwing their piece of ass on the side or whatever.

Again, I am not a 3 year old who's never heard the word "explanation" before. Or "DEBUNKED". Dork!

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

They also provide sources.

Again, if you've not bothered to double-check the claims in that movie, how do you know you've not been propagandised to?

reply

[–] OKStimpson (197) 2 years ago

You didnt answer my question, you acted like all articles have to be true and accurate just because it's an "article", which shows you to be a pseudointellectual with the mental capacity of a 12 year old.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

Again, you can read the content of the articles yourself and discern whether or not they are accurate.

I'm not watching 90 minutes of an alt-right rambling conspiracy documentary anymore than I'd watch some 9/11 conspiracy documentary. The very presuppositions behind the electoral fraud claims make zero sense.

reply

[–] OKStimpson (197) 2 years ago

"Again!"

Oh no you sternly said "again" as though you were my teacher even though you're as far, far from it as possible.

I'm really impressed now, because as I said befor,e I'm a really easily bowled over 12 year old.

Anyway, this really easily impressed bowled over 12 year old is going to get to bed cause I've got work tomorrow and you've got emailing Alexa Bliss tomorow.

So seeya! (for now!)

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

I have no idea why you take the way I type as I do as some kind of attempt to be condescending, superior or smug.

reply

[–] OKStimpson (197) 2 years ago

How does an article explain somebody driving up to ballot post boxes in the middle of the night and dumping bazillions of pieces of paper in there, and they looked around shiftily to see if the "coast was clear" even though there's nobody around because it's 2am?

There's no "article" that can explain that, WWE watcher. No "article" at all.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

"bazillions"?

Each of the articles I've read go through the video clips referred to in the movie.

reply

[–] OKStimpson (197) 2 years ago

"bazillions"?

"putting one word I said and spamming it back to me dramatically like that's supposed to impress anyone in the entire universe"?

goodnight, dork! Enjoy the taste of your virginity!

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

I mean since you took my comments about "superior" and "inferior" literally, why shouldn't I take your claims about "bazillions" here literally?

Also, why do you get personal?

reply

[–] OKStimpson (197) 2 years ago

No, that's not why, its because you genuinely thought merely putting one word I said in quotes was magical instant undeniable proof that Biden is somehow "legitimate" and actually wanted by the majority of Americans which he is and was not.

What happened here when we were posting 6 hours ago was not an actual contest of ideas, it was a speed posting contest. It was important you to always have a "snappy" comeback but never a meaningful one.

Big. Ass. Dork.

Show me a single video of a person saying "Oh, I loved Trump but now I'm voting for Biden, because... "

Go ahead, Incredivirgin Incredidork 9000.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 2 years ago

No, that's not why, its because you genuinely thought merely putting one word I said in quotes was magical instant undeniable proof that Biden is somehow "legitimate" and actually wanted by the majority of Americans which he is and was not.

Who said anything about "wanted"? He won the US election in 2020. Many Americans would undoubtedly preferred another candidate, but that's a tale as old as time itself.

Show me a single video of a person saying "Oh, I loved Trump but now I'm voting for Biden, because... "

What would this have to do with anything? And why are you calling me a "dork"? Are you Biff Tannen?

reply

[–] yatzo376 (7753) 2 years ago

Mules, Pillows and Ninjas..., there's your evidence

reply

[–] OKStimpson (197) 2 years ago

So I'm guessing you've received more actual attention from girls than you've watched 2000 Mules. LOL

A so-called "man" who's afraid of a movie! Not even a long movie. LO freaking L.

Please tell me you dont call yourself a man...

reply

[–] Yatzo (2175) 2 years ago

Mules

reply

[–] OKStimpson (197) 2 years ago

Say "mules" again if you wish to indicate you've never had sex and you accepted the fact that you would die a virgin, so long ago that it was before you even reached puberty.

reply

[–] OKStimpson (197) 2 years ago

Why are you spending all day of every single day still taunting and crowing about a supposed "normal" and non-suspicious victory?

Biden was sworn in over 2 years ago. There must be some reason you are not getting on with your life. Is it cause talking about Trump is your only life, "Yatzo"?

Does the basement geek called Yatzo got a baby dick? Huh? Is it all Colbert and WWE for you? Is the colbert on your screen your only "human contact", Yatzo?

Is that your widdle problem, Baby Dick Yatzo? And terrible acne too? And a "personality" so repugnant even your pet cats hate you?

reply

[–] Yatzo (2175) 2 years ago

Pillows

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

Obviously a RINO who's secretly a leftist simp or fears the dems because he's weak. LOL.

reply