Sen. Rand Paul Has Fiery Debate With George Stephanopoulos: “You say we’re all liars. You just simply say we’re all liars.”...“In Wisconsin, tens of thousands of absentee votes had only the name on them and no address. Historically those were thrown out, this time they weren’t."

submitted by Orangutan from youtube.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]official_disclaimer 13 insightful - 2 fun13 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 2 fun -  (23 children)

A true journalist should not push an agenda but should ask questions.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (22 children)

A true journalist questions disinformation and misinformation, as has happened here. There aren't two sides to the facts. There are two sides of arguments about the election process, which is not ideal.

[–]Feldheld 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

Spreading misinformation isnt "questioning disinformation". Hardly anything of what this "journalist" said was true. There is plenty of evidence for election fraud, and the most important proof that the election was indeed stolen is the total unwillingness in all the affected swing-states to expose the ballots and the voting machines to a non-partisan audit.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (19 children)

If it was "stolen" then why won't R. Paul say so? Because it wasn't technically "stolen". This is a fact.

And as we and Stephanopoulos know, elections are problematic. Do you think all of the votes for Trump were appropriate votes?

Note that Trump also didn't get the popular vote in 2016. The Electoral College "stole" the election for him in 2016.

Yes, we need election reform, and have needed since the time of electronic voting machines. This is not what R. Paul was asked about.

[–]chadwickofwv 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

That would be because the gulag is currently being prepared for anyone who is willing to state that they believe the election was stolen, and Rand Paul is fully aware of that fact.

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Lol

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

FFS

[–]Feldheld 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

Trump did not get the electoral college in 2016 for the same reason he lost 2020 due to election fraud. In the densely populated Democrat strongholds the whole voting infrastructure is strictly in Democrat hands and GOP or independent observers are too few to begin with and even those few are routinely prevented from doing their job. This allows fraud on a massive scale since nobody has the power to stop it, and no judge has the balls to expose himself to the media / social media mob. Biden didnt even get 60 million legal votes. Legally, Trump would have won by a landslide.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Corporate shill news companies that have repeated this lie on a regular basis should be required to put OPINION in red letters over the faces of the crooks telling you this nonsense. The reason Trump's lawyers lost every case is because they had NO FUCKING EVIDENCE. If you sent that asshat money, he's keeping it. His lawyers are complaining that they've not been paid.

[–]TheJamesRocket 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

The reason Trump's lawyers lost every case is because they had NO FUCKING EVIDENCE.

How about no? There have been 63 lawsuits filed over the Elections, which made allegations of vote fraud.

Of the 63 lawsuits dismissed, NONE has been granted discovery.

Of the 63 lawsuits dismissed, NONE has had a review of the fraud at hand.

Of the 63 lawsuits dismissed, they were dismissed on: no injury (there is no injury yet), no standing (you're not a party to the injury), or mootness (should have filed earlier).

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

And to your last point - NO MERIT.

Eg. "A federal appeals court in Pennsylvania has delivered a strongly worded repudiation of Donald Trump’s latest attempt to overturn his presidential election defeat, dismissing his challenge to the state’s results as without merit."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/27/trump-voter-fraud-lawsuit-rejected-pennsylvania-court

[–]TheJamesRocket 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

So you don't dispute the point in question? Good.

The Judges were uniformly acting in an extremely partial manner by dismissing all of the lawsuits out of hand, without even bothering to examine whether they had any merit.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

FFS. Trump & lawyers are committing fraud by raising money for frivolous lawsuits that don't have the merit (NO FUCKING EVIDENCE) to be heard in court.

Some of those judges are GOP appointees.

[–]Feldheld 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Thats a blunt lie.

None of these judged even dared looking at the evidence. All these cases were thrown out by some "standing" argument which is a judges way of saying "Im too cowardly to take the responsibility for something as big this".

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yes - they did - and found that the lawsuit had NO MERIT. The lawauits were reviewed. They were deemed unworthy of a court hearing, because they NEVER INCLUDED APPROPRIATE EVIDENCE.

[–]Feldheld 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Well, what else could you do other than keep lying and doubling down. Lies are what your whole world is built upon.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No need to be infantile. How it is lie? To repeat a comment elsewhere in this thread:

Are you a lawyer? Do you know a lawyer? Are you repeating what R. Paul said? Could R. Paul be misleading you?

Discovery is not necessary in the preparatory stage of a civil procedure. There are several steps before discovery is necessary.

Most of those lawsuits were obviously not ready for discovery because they contained no reasonable evidence. This is commonly known.

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

No election has been legitimate since the DNC and GOP have been selecting candidates under private corporate status. Although, the electoral college is there for the farming community and so a majority doesn't vote in a potato.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oh, we had a potato a few years ago. Trump's activities have now made him look like an OK guy (though I don't agree).

[–]slushpilot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think "was it stolen" is an unfair and propagandistic question, obviously trying to paint Mr. Paul into the same corner as those who chanted "stop the steal" while tearing through the capitol.

Actually, it's fine to ask it from that standpoint as a set-up, but then allow the guest answer in his own words to expand the conversation from that narrow position. Personally I'd rather have the "news" stay above the divisive sloganeering like calling it a "steal". Turning every issue into us vs. them only serves to narrow the discourse. ("You're lying" / "no you are" ... wow, thanks for your insight.)

Sen. Paul basically said that he voted for confirmation, but there are questions that remain, and must be answered for the sake of future elections. Because if people don't believe in the elections, then what's the point... I think that discussion is actually far more important than whether 10,000 votes in some state would have been enough: that's not really the point.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, I agree these are important points. I've been following the approaches of R. Paul and Stephanopoulos for years, and I see this interview as an important moment between them. Stephanopoulos is known for questioning the validity of a politician's points, but he rarely continues after the first attempt. He - like many others in the MSM - give politicians platforms to say whatever they want without questioning them in a persistent manner. That changed with R. Paul because R. Paul is now trying to puch the partly strategy to shift the conversation toward GOP as the victims of evil Dems (which is utter bullshit). Paul is a gaslighting master, and should be questioned properly, as has happened.

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Correct socks!