"Ventriloquist's dummies", kind of like Charlie McCarthy and Murphy Brown, eh?
Posted on 12/06/2020 10:53:56 AM PST by libstripper
Btw, where is our command and control center. Serious question. Freerepublic.com cannot be it.
To those who ignored the evidence and try to push the other narrative,
we’re not stupid and won’t be placated by poor excuses.
And to those people who supported the other narrative in any role,
we are observing and your credibility is gone.
And when does someone finally tell Mr Biden that ill intended people advanced him in the Democrat primary over his opponents, and then more bad people joined in rigging the Presidential election? And unless you want to become the face of their election fraud to the nation and the world, you’re best bet is to concede as even more fraud details are uncovered everyday.
Since when does _news_ add “unsupported claims” and such propaganda to titles, regarding what President or even a candidate says?
Answer: since USA became a communist country.
Non-fake, real news, provides news, news titles, not opinions.
The “media” nitwits are shameless losers. NEVER trust anything these leftist morons say about anything. One would better off consulting a “Magic Eight Ball” or a “Ouiji Board”.
CartoonNewsNetwork
The WSJ is just another media lap dog of the New World Order.
Nothing more and nothing less.
If this is an editorial, I guess it is fine. But if it is supposed to be ‘news’ I take issue with the word ‘unsupported’. There has been a lot of evidence put forward that, if true, supports President Trump’s claim that the election is stolen. Is the evidence disputed, yes it is. But had they used the word ‘disputed’ that would have implied that there are two sides to this story. By using ‘unsupported’ they are saying there is only one side, so shut up!
They are not saying it to just President Trump, they are saying SHUT UP! to all of us. Don’t know if we’re going to, though.
Ministry of Truth.
Narrative terms are decreed.
Unsupported.
Unfounded.
Groundless.
Baseless.
"Ventriloquist's dummies", kind of like Charlie McCarthy and Murphy Brown, eh?
So where is The Wall Street Journal’s evidence that the voter fraud claims are “unsupported”?
If it comes to arms, their stations are on the list.
They are lower than snell slime.
I like the name, though. :-)
“Unsupported claims”? They have stacks of notarized affidavits, and numerous eyewitnesses have been testifying in open hearings in several states, not to mention expert testimony regarding statistical anomalies. How is that “unsupported”? It’s a lot more solid than anything in the Russia collusion claim.
The worst part is the Republican office holders who are parroting the propaganda.
Even worse than the press saying that the claims are “unsupported” is that judges are saying the same thing, despite the stacks of affidavits that have been presented, as well as testimony in open hearings from numerous eyewitnesses.
Yes— FRAUD does negate everything— including the Electoral timeline.
This is the point Scott Adams makes in a short video. No need to focus on ‘this or that many ballots defrauded— the prevention of the witness, which was a coordinated action taken against Republicans in more than 6 states— that alone negates the results.
Nope, nope. Hillary told him not to concede no matter what.
There's evidence all over the place, lately: signed affidavits, video, forensic tests - maybe they fear if they say "without evidence" it opens them up to liability? Maybe "Unsupported Claims" is less specific, not enough to get sued over...
I remember hearing a pastor talk about some people who won't believe the truth, no matter how much evidence you provide. I think we're there about now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.