Eric presented the facts that directly refute and discredit 2000 Mules. If you believe D'souza and not Al Gore and Michael Moore you do so because you like the person and person's message, not because the message is factual.
Eric presented the facts that directly refute and discredit 2000 Mules. If you believe D'souza and not Al Gore and Michael Moore you do so because you like the person and person's message, not because the message is factual.
Eric’s “facts” did not directly refute 2000Mules- they offered an alternate explanation. The GBI said the evidence was circumstantial. Circumstantial evidence offers neither a refutation, nor a confirmation. Eric mentioned on two occasions that the weather was cold during the time is a credible explanation for the wearing of gloves. Latex gloves?? Who wears latex gloves in cold weather? The jury is still out on this issue.
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact.
It therefore can be refuted with circumstantial evidence that points to different facts. Or in Eric's case showing the "evidence" presented is a lie.
Fact: An increase in ice cream sales and an increase in the murder rate happen at the same time.
I question the motivation of anyone who wants to continue to litigate the 2020 election. I think D'souza's motivation is money and name recognition. I think a person can be legitimately concerned about election integrity. I think chasing the 2020 stolen election narrative as evidence "I care about election integrity" is not only harmful to our culture, it is born out of a cult following for Donald Trump.
If so about the wearing of latex gloves, then why did Eric even mention the cold weather excuse twice?
I’m not chasing any narrative. I don’t want the results overturned, but if there was fraud I want it aggressively perused and eradicated before the next election cycle.
Eric has skin in this game also. He said within weeks of the end of the election that there was no significant fraud. He could now be motivated to dismiss any new claim that crops up so as not to be proven wrong. You say that you think a person can be legitimately concerned about election integrity. I am. Eric is not.
Eric saw the movie, and read a couple of the initial debunking articles and made a call. I do not believe he presented the issues raised back to Dinesh to get a response. I also believe he did no investigation on his own because his article was immediate.
Opinions are like some other body parts, we all have one and you are welcome to yours. I don't reject the premise of the film, I haven't even seen it, but if true... then punishment is due. if not true then nothing will come of it.
Oh, you are opining about the "narrative" which has been thoroughly discredited and supposing 2000 Mules, a film you haven't seen, some how brings facts that have not been revealed to date.
Facts are not opinions. D'souza presents a narrative, not facts; a narrative that is in fact false.
Look, so many of the stolen election claims were false, and there is no point arguing about them. My point is not to "opine" about anything, but just to say that if there is any truth to them, I hope it is handled correctly. I try never to make definitive claims about narratives, only what I am sure of. Erick has stated his view of the claims, and I accept that. I don't have a view of them since I have not seen them, and I don't accept the narrative as true. Don't make assumptions about what I believe or accept as facts. I do believe the whole situation with drop boxes and ballot harvesting invites corruption, but that is my opinion and may have wonderfully simple explanations. Cell phone tracking and camera do present information, but may not be relevant, as you suggest as debunked theory.
Eric presented the facts that directly refute and discredit 2000 Mules. If you believe D'souza and not Al Gore and Michael Moore you do so because you like the person and person's message, not because the message is factual.
https://ewerickson.substack.com/p/democrats-claim-evidence-the-gop?r=4uy3m&s=r&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=direct
Eric’s “facts” did not directly refute 2000Mules- they offered an alternate explanation. The GBI said the evidence was circumstantial. Circumstantial evidence offers neither a refutation, nor a confirmation. Eric mentioned on two occasions that the weather was cold during the time is a credible explanation for the wearing of gloves. Latex gloves?? Who wears latex gloves in cold weather? The jury is still out on this issue.
The latex gloves were to protect against COVID.
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact.
It therefore can be refuted with circumstantial evidence that points to different facts. Or in Eric's case showing the "evidence" presented is a lie.
Fact: An increase in ice cream sales and an increase in the murder rate happen at the same time.
I question the motivation of anyone who wants to continue to litigate the 2020 election. I think D'souza's motivation is money and name recognition. I think a person can be legitimately concerned about election integrity. I think chasing the 2020 stolen election narrative as evidence "I care about election integrity" is not only harmful to our culture, it is born out of a cult following for Donald Trump.
If so about the wearing of latex gloves, then why did Eric even mention the cold weather excuse twice?
I’m not chasing any narrative. I don’t want the results overturned, but if there was fraud I want it aggressively perused and eradicated before the next election cycle.
Eric has skin in this game also. He said within weeks of the end of the election that there was no significant fraud. He could now be motivated to dismiss any new claim that crops up so as not to be proven wrong. You say that you think a person can be legitimately concerned about election integrity. I am. Eric is not.
Eric saw the movie, and read a couple of the initial debunking articles and made a call. I do not believe he presented the issues raised back to Dinesh to get a response. I also believe he did no investigation on his own because his article was immediate.
Opinions are like some other body parts, we all have one and you are welcome to yours. I don't reject the premise of the film, I haven't even seen it, but if true... then punishment is due. if not true then nothing will come of it.
Oh, you are opining about the "narrative" which has been thoroughly discredited and supposing 2000 Mules, a film you haven't seen, some how brings facts that have not been revealed to date.
Facts are not opinions. D'souza presents a narrative, not facts; a narrative that is in fact false.
Look, so many of the stolen election claims were false, and there is no point arguing about them. My point is not to "opine" about anything, but just to say that if there is any truth to them, I hope it is handled correctly. I try never to make definitive claims about narratives, only what I am sure of. Erick has stated his view of the claims, and I accept that. I don't have a view of them since I have not seen them, and I don't accept the narrative as true. Don't make assumptions about what I believe or accept as facts. I do believe the whole situation with drop boxes and ballot harvesting invites corruption, but that is my opinion and may have wonderfully simple explanations. Cell phone tracking and camera do present information, but may not be relevant, as you suggest as debunked theory.