Well, the AP isn’t the one making the claim, so I’d say the burden of providing that proof would be on the documentary. If they want their numbers to be credible, then they need to be the ones closing in these gaps in the data. It’s not up to me or the AP to validate their claims for them.
I too am interested in the range that this data was collected. I’ll see if I can track down a written report on which this documentary was based.
Not saying it's AP's responsibility to prove the case, but their own assertions should pass reasonable doubt as well. It's an absurd assertion that these mules just happened to be within meters of multiple dropboxes only during the week of an election -- but not on any other dates -- yet they had no involvement with the election.
'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.'
Makes perfect sense!
After watching the movie, ask yourself: Is stealing an election impossible? If not, what evidence would be necessary to prove it? How granular in detail should we demand the data be? If many liberals continue to refuse evidence at any level of detail -- including video of the crime -- then one must conclude that many liberals believe stealing elections is impossible... Except when Republicans win like in 2016 when many liberals asserted cheating based on zero evidence.
After watching the movie, ask yourself: Is stealing an election impossible? If not, what evidence would be necessary to prove it? How granular in detail should we demand the data be?
Excellent question.
Considering the outcome that is demanded by Trump's supporters... very high.
Look, what standard of proof would you require to believe that Q was a LARP and you were tricked by a nobody?
No one was a bigger critic of Q than I was. I used to walk away from people who brought it up. Then I made some discoveries and admitted I was wrong. So yes, my standard of proof about Q is high.
I don't mean this personally, but I don't think you understand Trump supporters enough to know what their demands were. Most, like me, would have graciously accepted a loss like all previous election losses. The difference is the leftists and RINO's who ran the counting centers in swing states flagrantly and arrogantly violated election laws out in the open, some Constitutional, then laughed off the evidence of the fraud.
What you may not understand is those crimes and irregularities would still matter to us even if Trump won. The integrity of the election process is more important than Trump. The election theft took the decision-making power over our government away from you as much as it did from us. This crime is much bigger than who won, and I hope you keep that in mind when you watch the movie.
Shouldn’t he be found and arrested for terrorism (as the apparently leader of so called violent Charles Manson-esque murder suicide cult should be) or at least identified for the world to see?
What did Q say that was illegal? What did he say that was violent?
Describing a world that requires extreme action and telling people it’s true isn’t illegal.
Lying to people isn’t illegal. Q didn’t direct people to do any of the things that has Q supporters under a microscope. He never told people to go to the Jan 6 rally or to enter the Capitol.
Q really isn’t a criminal, based on what we can see.
Just like you can’t hold Chuck Palahniuk responsible for people who start real life fight clubs. Just like you can’t hold Salinger responsible because some people decided to be murderers after reading it.
Besides, what good would it do anyone to haul Ron Watkins or some equally impressive nobody into court?
If this nobody had a full confession and connecting evidence that he was Q, who around here would believe it?
So the cops spend all this time tracking someone down and charging them with “being a troll” and “lying on the internet”, and that’s it? The Q movement is over?
Q people often make the mistake that to the outside world, Q is important. The outside world cares about Q because they’re worried you’re right.
The outside world doesn’t care about Q. It cares about Q supporters. It cares about the actions of real people. It cares what you believe, and what you’re willing to do with those beliefs, and what happens if those beliefs fail you.
Pursuing whoever wrote the Q posts isn’t really a priority. There’s nothing illegal in them, and arresting “the real Q” would have no real effect on this movement. I wouldn’t use “Q hasn’t been arrested” as a measure of his credibility.
Well, the AP isn’t the one making the claim, so I’d say the burden of providing that proof would be on the documentary. If they want their numbers to be credible, then they need to be the ones closing in these gaps in the data. It’s not up to me or the AP to validate their claims for them.
I too am interested in the range that this data was collected. I’ll see if I can track down a written report on which this documentary was based.
Not saying it's AP's responsibility to prove the case, but their own assertions should pass reasonable doubt as well. It's an absurd assertion that these mules just happened to be within meters of multiple dropboxes only during the week of an election -- but not on any other dates -- yet they had no involvement with the election.
Makes perfect sense!
After watching the movie, ask yourself: Is stealing an election impossible? If not, what evidence would be necessary to prove it? How granular in detail should we demand the data be? If many liberals continue to refuse evidence at any level of detail -- including video of the crime -- then one must conclude that many liberals believe stealing elections is impossible... Except when Republicans win like in 2016 when many liberals asserted cheating based on zero evidence.
Excellent question.
Considering the outcome that is demanded by Trump's supporters... very high.
Look, what standard of proof would you require to believe that Q was a LARP and you were tricked by a nobody?
Also... very high. Right?
Considering the outcome?
No one was a bigger critic of Q than I was. I used to walk away from people who brought it up. Then I made some discoveries and admitted I was wrong. So yes, my standard of proof about Q is high.
I don't mean this personally, but I don't think you understand Trump supporters enough to know what their demands were. Most, like me, would have graciously accepted a loss like all previous election losses. The difference is the leftists and RINO's who ran the counting centers in swing states flagrantly and arrogantly violated election laws out in the open, some Constitutional, then laughed off the evidence of the fraud.
What you may not understand is those crimes and irregularities would still matter to us even if Trump won. The integrity of the election process is more important than Trump. The election theft took the decision-making power over our government away from you as much as it did from us. This crime is much bigger than who won, and I hope you keep that in mind when you watch the movie.
Where is the guy who made the Q LARP then?
Shouldn’t he be found and arrested for terrorism (as the apparently leader of so called violent Charles Manson-esque murder suicide cult should be) or at least identified for the world to see?
What did Q say that was illegal? What did he say that was violent?
Describing a world that requires extreme action and telling people it’s true isn’t illegal.
Lying to people isn’t illegal. Q didn’t direct people to do any of the things that has Q supporters under a microscope. He never told people to go to the Jan 6 rally or to enter the Capitol.
Q really isn’t a criminal, based on what we can see.
Just like you can’t hold Chuck Palahniuk responsible for people who start real life fight clubs. Just like you can’t hold Salinger responsible because some people decided to be murderers after reading it.
Besides, what good would it do anyone to haul Ron Watkins or some equally impressive nobody into court?
If this nobody had a full confession and connecting evidence that he was Q, who around here would believe it?
So the cops spend all this time tracking someone down and charging them with “being a troll” and “lying on the internet”, and that’s it? The Q movement is over?
Q people often make the mistake that to the outside world, Q is important. The outside world cares about Q because they’re worried you’re right.
The outside world doesn’t care about Q. It cares about Q supporters. It cares about the actions of real people. It cares what you believe, and what you’re willing to do with those beliefs, and what happens if those beliefs fail you.
Pursuing whoever wrote the Q posts isn’t really a priority. There’s nothing illegal in them, and arresting “the real Q” would have no real effect on this movement. I wouldn’t use “Q hasn’t been arrested” as a measure of his credibility.