I watched #2000Mules last night. It makes a persuasive case for major election fraud in 2020.
Most documentaries are persuasive. So are most lawyers. That's why I never trust either one. I recommend you do the same.
That said, the alleged "debunk" of the film is nothing but handwaving. What should we think about a claim with no credible pushback and is massively censored by the alleged guilty team?
A reasonable assumption under these circumstances is that the movie's claims are valid.
To be clear, no court has ruled the 2020 election had substantial fraud. But lacking FULL election transparency, a responsible citizen can assume fraud because all the signals are there.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Civilization has entered a weird phase in which we understand everything we are told is fake and/or subjective but we have no idea what to do about it.
There are no pure truth-tellers, and worse — never can be. All news is fake or out of context, and always will be. All experts are biased, and that can’t change. Our systems and our human nature guarantee those outcomes.
The thing that changed recently is our growing understanding that we’ve all been duped by “experts” multiple times on multiple topics. It isn’t a “one side is bad” problem.
Explain how a 40-mile long military convoy can enter Ukraine without much trouble if Russia doesn't already have air superiority.
They probably have air superiority, end of story.
The other possibility is Zelensky is planning an indirect decapitation strike on Putin.
The way that works is baiting the Russian military into stretching its supply lines and clustering around Kyiv as easy targets for the right kinds of weapons.
Ukraine probably never owned the "right kind of weapons" to get that done, but Ukraine's friends have them. And its friends are feeling generous. (I don't mean nukes.) Ukraine could have such weapons by today.
Remember that story about the Durham filing suggesting the Clinton campaign paid for "spying" on Trump communications before and after the presidency?
CNN and its co-conspirators morphed that into fake news. Here's how....
First, they debunk the claim the Clinton campaign paid for the data. The data was free. They don't mention that Clinton paid lawyers to go get the data to frame Trump (per Durham). That seems important.
Then CNN claims the data all came from before the Trump era. They don't tell you their "debunk" is irrelevant to the story because no one involved in framing Trump (allegedly) cared if the data was accurate. They only cared if it got the job done.
The "I told you so" crowd acts as if we aren't dealing with a far-less-killy-more-spready variant (possibly engineered) in the context of lots more data, vaccines preventing almost all hospital deaths, and dramatically better treatment options.
We're seeing Dunning-Kruger on steroids as the people who were never trained in risk-management got one right-- as they often do -- with the simple rule "Everything experts/politicians do makes things worse."
But that group is only "right" because they are pairing their predictions made under situation A with outcomes happening under situation B. And no, they didn't predict situation B, except in the most obvious ways.