Posts Made By: Rod Kaufman

You've already posted this nonsense in the past, Rich. It was debunked then and it has no credibility now. It's total BS...

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

It isn't "debunked" DS.

When did you watch the movie?

The trailer for it:   https://2000Mules.com/

Oh obtuse moron, it is debunked:
"A film opening in hundreds of theaters across the United States this week uses a flawed analysis of cellphone location data and ballot drop box surveillance footage to cast doubt on the results of the 2020 presidential election nearly 18 months after it ended."
"Praised by former President Donald Trump as exposing “great election fraud,” the movie, called “2000 Mules,” paints an ominous picture suggesting Democrat-aligned ballot “mules” were supposedly paid to illegally collect and drop off ballots in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin."
"But that’s based on faulty assumptions, anonymous accounts and improper analysis of cellphone location data, which is not precise enough to confirm that somebody deposited a ballot into a drop box, according to experts."
The above and the specifics of the debunking are here:
https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/05/05/fact-checking-2000-mules-the-movie-alleging-ballot-fraud/
See also:
https://www.ocregister.com/2022/05/05/fact-check-gaping-holes-in-election-fraud-claims-of-2000-mules-movie/

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Not debunked at all. 

What is the flawed evidence of cellphone location data?

What is flawed about the surveillance footage at ballot drop boxes?

Be specific.  

Obviously you didn't bother to read the link:
"...experts say cellphone location data, even at its most advanced, can only reliably track a smartphone within a few meters — not close enough to know whether someone actually dropped off a ballot or just walked or drove nearby."
“You could use cellular evidence to say this person was in that area, but to say they were at the ballot box, you’re stretching it a lot,” said Aaron Striegel, a professor of computer science and engineering at the University of Notre Dame. “There’s always a pretty healthy amount of uncertainty that comes with this.”
"What’s more, ballot drop boxes are often intentionally placed in busy areas, such as college campuses, libraries, government buildings and apartment complexes — increasing the likelihood that innocent citizens got caught in the group’s dragnet..."
" True the Vote also highlighted drop box surveillance footage that showed voters depositing multiple ballots into the boxes. However, there was no way to tell whether those voters were the same people as the ones whose cellphones were anonymously tracked."
"A video of a voter dropping off a stack of ballots at a drop box is not itself proof of any wrongdoing, since most states have legal exceptions that let people drop off ballots on behalf of family members and household members."
"The group’s claims of a paid ballot harvesting scheme are supported in the film only by one unidentified whistleblower said to be from San Luis, Arizona, who said she saw people picking up what she “assumed” to be payments for ballot collection. The film contains no evidence of such payments in other states in 2020."
"CLAIM: In Philadelphia alone, True the Vote identified 1,155 “mules” who illegally collected and dropped off ballots for money."
"THE FACTS: No, it didn’t. The group hasn’t offered any evidence of any sort of paid ballot harvesting scheme in Philadelphia. And True the Vote did not get surveillance footage of drop boxes in Philadelphia, so the group based this claim solely on cellphone location data, its researcher Gregg Phillips said in March in testimony to Pennsylvania state senators."
"Pennsylvania state Sen. Sharif Street, who was there for the group’s testimony in March, told the AP he was confident he was counted as several of the group’s 1,155 anonymous “mules,” even though he didn’t deposit anything into a drop box in that time period."
For more read on:
https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/05/05/fact-checking-2000-mules-the-movie-alleging-ballot-fraud/

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

  I did read the link.  And let me reiterate the fact that you were too damned ignorant to notice you put up the SAME article and implied it was 2 different articles.  

From your above, DS in Cal typed this:    However, there was no way to tell whether those voters were the same people as the ones whose cellphones were anonymously tracked."

Yes, they are because they have video evidence and they interview one of the guys who admits it.  

DS from Cal:  "The group’s claims of a paid ballot harvesting scheme are supported in the film only by one unidentified whistleblower said to be from San Luis, Arizona.

Only One whistleblower?  

Your Democrat Party Freaks IMPEACHED a President based upon ONLY ONE UNIDENTIFIED Whistleblower.

So then, apparently is it OK to IMPEACH a President using 1 UNIDENTIFIED Whistleblower but 1 UNIDENTIFIED Whistleblower isn't enough to prove that they were harvesting ballots and paying for it?  

That's classic leftist tool DS from California logic!  

Oh obtuse moron, again with the deflection elsewhere? The whistleblower in the Trump case was a CIA officer at the time:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49848103
Oh and the video evidence from one person?! Are you nuts? What kind of "evidence" is that" They have a bunch of affidavits from people who've alleged election fraud that haven't held up in court after court and you offer up one guy on a video!

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

https://2000mules.com/

A 3 minute trailer at the above.  

As previously noted in a related thread, thw whole idea behind this has been debunked:
https://www.ocregister.com/2022/05/05/fact-check-gaping-holes-in-election-fraud-claims-of-2000-mules-movie/
and
https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/05/05/fact-checking-2000-mules-the-movie-alleging-ballot-fraud/

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Hey fraud, you keep putting up the SAME exact article over and over trying to imply that there are several articles written by reporters out there that indicate it is a debunked assertion.

It is not.

Your 1st linked article was an AP article written by a leftist reporter, Ali Swenson.

Your 2nd linked article is the SAME AP article. 

She will not do interviews with anyone who questions her assertions.

She provides not a scintilla of evidence backing up her assertions that the cell tracking data was fraudulent. 

You then put up the same exact article in your other response in the other posting I made.

Do you have any evidence to back up your assertion that it was debunked?

The movie shows a PAID, ILLEGAL operation by the Democrats who had 2000 mules who were organized and paid to stuff ballot boxes. 

P.S. and btw, permit me to just show how utterly STUPID you are since you put up the same article and then said "this article" AND "this article".

The 2 different links above are to the VERY SAME article, you DS!  

Did you think we wouldn't notice that fact DS??  

Hey obtuse moron, this isn't an opinion piece from some leftist reporter, it's a fact check, and an AP fact check no less, and it's been cited by two conservative news sources which is why I included them in my links. Get it, obtuse moron?

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

OOOH, that obviously means something to a DS like you, but the AP claimed the Hunter Biden laptop was RUSSIAN DISINFORMATION, and they were WRONG, weren't they?

Answer that please DS.

Did the AP say that the Hunter Laptop which has now been verified as Hunter Biden's was Russian Disinformation??

Did they?

Yes they did.  They either LIED Or were WRONG.  

Anything else DS?  

Usual deflection and distraction from an obtuse moron like yourself. 
I don't see a specific claim from AP on whether the information on Hunter Biden's laptop is Russian disinformation or not but I have seen news reports stating that some Russian disinformation may have been added to discussions in the laptop relevant to Ukraine. I do see this reporting from AP:
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-2022-midterm-elections-biden-europe-elise-stefanik-0e782fc6486c2c625194622ae244e4ae
Specific to the laptop story, this article from the Washington Post provides clarity on it :
"Even today, the full story isn’t clear. Is the story straightforward — Mac Isaac obtained a laptop, thought it might be relevant to national politics and then found only one taker, Giuliani, for the material? Was the material reportedly circulating in Ukraine the same stuff? Nonexistent? Obtained from an iCloud hack independently? Did Guo learn about the laptop from Bannon, with mentions of the material in September following from there? It is of course always easy to ask infinite questions when you’re skeptical, but that the answers to this aren’t known now reinforces the reasons for skepticism 18 months ago."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/18/forgotten-and-ignored-context-emergence-hunter-biden-laptop-story/

Originally Posted by Mel Maki

Wait! Shut this discussion down! There is a FACT CHECK in the house. Rich, in the case you forgot, it says FACT right there in the name. Powerful stuff.

Oh no Mel, we ought to just take a post from you and Rich Davis about a movie as gospel!

Originally Posted by Mel Maki

No, in the excitement you forgot. No further discussion is necessary when somebody finds the FACTCHECK!

Lol! Really, is that what you think? You don't think you're going to get a typical boatload of BS from Rich in return no matter what a fact check says? 

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Hey dipshit tell me how it is that when YOU bring YOUR FACT checker into the equation, and I point out your fact checker's past failings, that I'm somehow deflecting?

Please explain how that works dipshit?

Are we not permitted to challenge the validity of the FACT checker's past dismal failing record? 

Explain the deflection you claim that I made.  

After all YOU brought  the FACT checker into the equation here, then you get pissed when I essentially bitch slap you by destroying the credibility of YOUR FACT checker with evidence? 

Lol! What "past failings"? And why is it that TWO conservative news sources believe the fact check and the sources cited within it are credible as opposed to the movie itself? Not to mention the  fact that the originator of the film was convicted of campaign finance fraud himself but that's who RICH DAVIS finds to be credible! Figures...