Dear God, it has a lot of entries, but it doesn't prove anything, except you can find problems in every election. I can't say I perused ALL those entries, but the three I looked at proved nothing, and provided no actual proof of voting fraud or tampering. How in hell could "historical context" be concrete evidence of anything that happened in this particular election?Originally Posted by BillSWPA
The whole site is pretty obviously NOT what it claims to be : "a crowdsourced resource for journalists".. a decent Google search would be more valuable for a journalist than this bunch of poorly organized links. I can see it getting linked as "proof" by the usual suspects. Because of the volume of junk. Designed to "raise questions" while proving nothing.
But what pushes it into the realm of "possible foreign-contolled disinformation site" is the complete lack of information on who is running this thing. The "we" who try to give a vague impression of impartiality by saying they are "concerned about massive irregularities"when we all know that means "Trump got screwed!"
Again, I'm not saying it is 100% for sure a Russian disinformation site, but it fits right in with sites and social media accounts that have been revealed as Russian projects. "Your democracy is a joke, comrade!"
But if you're into FUD (Fear Uncertainty Doubt ) sites of unknown origin, I'm sure it's compelling.
Where did you find this enigma?
ETA: if any of this was compelling evidence, why aren't Trump's lawyers using it in court?
Shit, they're "Deep State" too! We're through the Looking Glass, people!
ETA#2: site doesn't even show up on Google search. I guess you are a real vanguard. Seriously, where did you find this thing?
ETA#3: You realize most of the submitted stuff is Twitters and Fox News bits, and the like, right?
Reply With Quote
