The most secure election ever and other lies.

[IBDaMann]

I'm just asking why he believes it wasn't fixed in 2024.

He can't show something that doesn't exist.

I can provide a source for my belief.

... but you cannot support that assertion. You cannot show that it was fixed; you can only point to others who also reside in your echo chamber and make the same baseless claims.

How this needs to work is:
1. You acknowledge the general problem of Democrat cheating. Check
2. You acknowledge the specific NJ problem of Democrat cheating. Check
3. You assert that the specific NJ problem has been fixed. Check
4. You support that assertion with iron-clad, verifiable support. Ooooops, you haven't done that yet.
5. When Into the Night correctly notices that you haven't properly supported your assertion, and that you can't possibly support your assertion because the NJ problem of Democrat cheating was never fixed, then you thank him and you get to work advocating for the NJ problem to be fixed so that no political party can cheat hereafter.
6. Well, we haven't gotten this far yet.

 

[ZenMode]

Nope. You didn't direct any attention to that. You simply declared that he somehow confessed that you had won, i.e. you pulled a Cypress.

Yes, when someone repeatedly declines to answer questions, and that person finds time to post over 100k times on this forum, the most explanation is that they conceding.

 

[IBDaMann]

There was video of voter fraud that wasn't prosecuted? Link?

It wasn't voter fraud. It was election fraud. Why are you asking for a link now, years after you and I discussed the specific video at length in threads here on JPP? You made all sorts of lame excuses for election officials who were unaware that they were on camera, whipping out crates of ballots after polls were closed and all observers were sent home.

Why would a repeat of that discussion yield any honesty from you this time?

Nothing to do with omniscience.

You pretend omniscience in practically every post.

Like I said,

You were lying then. You haven't been honest in a single post.

people swore they saw a man wheeling a wagon full of ballots into TCF Center.

I have no idea about what you are talking. You are obviously pivoting to something that is nothing that I am addressing.

You treat eye witness testimony like it's gold and it's not.

Eyewitness testimony is the gold standard in the US, and you dismiss eyewitness testimony simply on the basis that it runs against what your echo chamber has ordered you to believe.

You simply dismiss sworn eyewitness testimony for political reasons. You cannot be honest on any such political topic.

People make mistakes.

... except for you, because you're omniscient after all.

People think they see things that they don't actually see.

That would be you, being the delusional person that you are.

Have you seen the Melissa Carone testimony in Michigan? She signed an affidavits swearing to all kinds of things. She was wrong.

People's exhibit A. ZenMode simply declares someone wrong. Great.

Again, ...

This and "Like I said ..." are all you have. You pivot away from the difficult issues and towards some fiction for which you repeat "Again ..." and "Like I said ...".

 

[ZenMode]

He can't show something that doesn't exist.


... but you cannot support that assertion. You cannot show that it was fixed; you can only point to others who also reside in your echo chamber and make the same baseless claims.

How this needs to work is:
1. You acknowledge the general problem of Democrat cheating. Check
2. You acknowledge the specific NJ problem of Democrat cheating. Check
3. You assert that the specific NJ problem has been fixed. Check
4. You support that assertion with iron-clad, verifiable support. Ooooops, you haven't done that yet.
5. When Into the Night correctly notices that you haven't properly supported your assertion, and that you can't possibly support your assertion because the NJ problem of Democrat cheating was never fixed, then you thank him and you get to work advocating for the NJ problem to be fixed so that no political party can cheat hereafter.
6. Well, we haven't gotten this far yet.

We form opinions everyday based on things that we do not have first hand knowledge of. I didn't land on the moon but, for a variety of reasons, I am confident that American astronauts have landed on the moon.

This current situation is not complicated. There are a variety of reasons to believe, and sources to confirm, that the issue was fixed in 2024. That doesn't mean I was around to witness it first hand.

I'm just asking for his sources and reasons for his view.

 

[ZenMode]

It wasn't voter fraud. It was election fraud. Why are you asking for a link now, years after you and I discussed the specific video at length in threads here on JPP? You made all sorts of lame excuses for election officials who were unaware that they were on camera, whipping out crates of ballots after polls were closed and all observers were sent home.

Why would a repeat of that discussion yield any honesty from you this time?


You pretend omniscience in practically every post.


You were lying then. You haven't been honest in a single post.


I have no idea about what you are talking. You are obviously pivoting to something that is nothing that I am addressing.


Eyewitness testimony is the gold standard in the US, and you dismiss eyewitness testimony simply on the basis that it runs against what your echo chamber has ordered you to believe.

You simply dismiss sworn eyewitness testimony for political reasons. You cannot be honest on any such political topic.


... except for you, because you're omniscient after all.


That would be you, being the delusional person that you are.


People's exhibit A. ZenMode simply declares someone wrong. Great.


This and "Like I said ..." are all you have. You pivot away from the difficult issues and towards some fiction for which you repeat "Again ..." and "Like I said ...".

Right.... again.....

People believe they see things all the time. What launched the election fraud claims in 2020 was a camera man wheeling his equipment into TCF Center and people THINKING they saw a man wheeling ballots into TCF Center.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/11/05/video-claiming-detroit-ballot-fraud-debunked/

So, when there have been no meaningful number of fraudulent ballots found in any state and multiple eye witness testimonies have been publicly debunked, why are you putting all of your eggs in that basket?

 

[Into the Night]

Sworn affidavits are what people think they saw. Thinking you saw a guy pulling a wagon full of ballpts doesn't turn camera equipment into ballots.

You just conflicted your story again. Which is it, dude?

 

[Into the Night]

There was video of voter fraud that wasn't prosecuted? Link?

RQAA

Nothing to do with omniscience. Like I said, people swore they saw a man wheeling a wagon full of ballots into TCF Center. That's what sparked the chaos there. You treat eye witness testimony like it's gold and it's not. People make mistakes. People think they see things that they don't actually see.

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

Have you seen the Melissa Carone testimony in Michigan? She signed an affidavits swearing to all kinds of things. She was wrong.

Irrelevance fallacy.

Again, people think they see a lot of things. People thought they saw suitcases of Biden ballots in Georgia. What they actually saw was the standards storage bins used to store ballots.

Trivial fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

We form opinions everyday based on things that we do not have first hand knowledge of. I didn't land on the moon but, for a variety of reasons, I am confident that American astronauts have landed on the moon.

This current situation is not complicated. There are a variety of reasons to believe, and sources to confirm, that the issue was fixed in 2024. That doesn't mean I was around to witness it first hand.

I'm just asking for his sources and reasons for his view.

Argument of the Stone fallacy.
RQAA

 

[ZenMode]

You just conflicted your story again. Which is it, dude?

Believing you see something doesn't magically make that something into the thing you think you saw.

 

[ZenMode]

RQAA

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

Irrelevance fallacy.

Trivial fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacy.

Dans la nuit rides again!

 

[ZenMode]

Argument of the Stone fallacy.
RQAA

Liar liar.

No problem. As usual, you've got nothing. I wouldn't expect anything more than nothing from you.

Continue on Dans....

 

[Into the Night]

Right.... again.....

People believe they see things all the time. What launched the election fraud claims in 2020 was a camera man wheeling his equipment into TCF Center and people THINKING they saw a man wheeling ballots into TCF Center.

You can't make any evidence just disappear, Void.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/11/05/video-claiming-detroit-ballot-fraud-debunked/

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

So, when there have been no meaningful number of fraudulent ballots found in any state and multiple eye witness testimonies have been publicly debunked, why are you putting all of your eggs in that basket?

Trivial fallacy.
Argument of the Stone fallacy.
Assumption of victory fallacy.

You cannot make any evidence just disappear, Void.
You are making conflicting statements again.

 

[Into the Night]

Dans la nuit rides again!

Argument of the Stone fallacy.
Bulverism fallacy.
You are making conflicting statements.

 

[Into the Night]

Liar liar.

YARP

No problem. As usual, you've got nothing. I wouldn't expect anything more than nothing from you.

Continue on Dans....

Bulverism fallacy.
Argument of the Stone fallacy.
RQAA.
You are making conflicting statements. Which is it, Void?

 

[ZenMode]

You can't make any evidence just disappear, Void.

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

Trivial fallacy.
Argument of the Stone fallacy.
Assumption of victory fallacy.

You cannot make any evidence just disappear, Void.
You are making conflicting statements again.

Multiple chances.... probably too many.

You've exceeded your daily limit of lying and trolling.

We'll try again tomorrow, Dans.

 

[Into the Night]

Believing you see something doesn't magically make that something into the thing you think you saw.

Argument of the Stone fallacy.
You are conflicting your own argument yet again.

 

[Into the Night]

Multiple chances.... probably too many.

You've exceeded your daily limit of lying and trolling.

We'll try again tomorrow, Dans.

'Chances' means nothing, Void. Cliche fallacy.
You cannot issue a limit, Void.
Inversion fallacy. You cannot blame your lies and conflicting arguments on me.
Omniscience fallacy.

 

[IBDaMann]

There are a variety of reasons to believe, and sources to confirm, that the issue was fixed in 2024.

There are apparently no reasons to believe that the problem was fixed. You just confirmed that you haven't verified for yourself, and the only ones claiming that it has been fixed were in on the cheat in the first place. There's no credible reason to believe them.

The only credible reason to believe such a claim is to verify for oneself.

That doesn't mean I was around to witness it first hand.

You don't need to have any basis for feigning omniscience.

I'm just asking for his sources and reasons for his view.

You don't get to demand proof of something that doesn't exist or that didn't happen. If you are affirmatively claiming that the problem was fixed, then the full burden of support rests on your shoulders.

 

[IBDaMann]

Right.... again..... People believe they see things all the time.

The reason your dishonesty is immediately dismissed is that you aren't addressing any of the eyewitness testimony. You pivot to allusions of fictional testimony that was never given of fictional events that never happened.

 

[ZenMode]

There are apparently no reasons to believe that the problem was fixed. You just confirmed that you haven't verified for yourself, and the only ones claiming that it has been fixed were in on the cheat in the first place. There's no credible reason to believe them.

Great. From now on, the ONLY beliefs you are permitted to express are those that you've experienced first hand. Deal?