you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Did you just use a "Fact Check" as a source?

Yes.

You have got to be fucking kidding me.

What is your specific objection?

[–]Questionable 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

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

I'm not following. Your specific objection to Reuters fact-check on the Arizona audit is that the owners of Reuters have an interest in Pfizer.

I assume that you realize that Pfizer aren't doing the audit.

They have the same finding in this case as PolitiFact, Snopes, Daily Advent, and International Business times as well as common sense.

On the other hand you've got a tweet by they guy who reckons he invented a "kinematic artifact detection process for detecting fraudulent ballots", which is noted for having no evidence that it works.

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

"I'm not following. Your specific objection to Reuters fact-check

Of course you are not. As you specifically leave out the mention of the World Economic Forum, and then go on to mention a list of known paid and compromised fact checkers. You don't follow anyone who isn't paid for their opinions to be pushed through the main stream media. Because you only trust the establishment.

Ĥ̅͛ǝ̮̺͕̲̰llo ʍoɹlp' I,m Qnǝsʇᴉouɐqlǝ.̬̘̟ͅ

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

As you specifically leave out the mention of the World Economic Forum,

Oh, please!

You respond with a link and no comment. It's much more respect that you deserve for me to follow the link and try to work out what the fuck your point might be at all.

If you're not claiming that Pfizer are doing the audit, and you are claiming that the world economic forum are doing the audit, say so. Both points make no sense.

and then go on to mention a list of known paid and compromised fact checkers.

That's not known to me. Why don't you link to the best evidence you have showing that they're compromised, so that I can avoid them in the future.

Because you only trust the establishment.

Who is a non-compromised fact-checker?

And in the meantime, with respect to the matter, what's your best evidence that there were ballots in the fire?