quote:
TRAP SET: Dept of Homeland Security controlled “official ballots” production. Dems print extras, not knowing about non-radioactive isotope watermarks on “official ballots”.

Not a creditable source.

The article about the 130,000 ballots was based on a poll worker's affidavit that 130,000 ballots showed up at 4 in the morning and that ALL 130,000 ballots were for Biden. The source for the article is listed as The Gateway Pundit.

The question is: Why didn't these 130,000 votes show up in the risk limiting audit that was performed in Michigan after the election? LINK

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by VoxDawg

Glory, Glory

Member since Sep 2012

61863 posts

Posted on 3/26/22 at 8:23 pm to texridder

Are we preserving evidence and election records again? I thought we didn't have to do that if folks had the sniffles.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by NC_Tigah

Carolinas

Member since Sep 2003

124712 posts

Posted on 3/27/22 at 4:33 am to texridder

quote:
Not a creditable source.

You have got to be kidding. Credible source? What ... like Brian Stelter? Perhaps Chris Cuomo?

In fact, you have no clue as to what a credible source is. Do you?
Here, I'll explain it to you. Let's start with this: A credible source is one that quotes an eyewitness directly, word-for-word. It doesn't selectively edit or deliberately misquote. A credible source does not deny an eyewitness said what she actually said.

In this case the eyewitness statement was, “We have poll challengers that have been barred from being able to go into this room to challenge ballots. We’ve had GOP members removed from the room.” Those statements are not only accurately quoted by the source, the assertions themselves are verifiable, accurate, and corroborated. She was also accurately quoted as saying, “As they started counting the ballots, he was astonished that every single ballot, literally 100 percent of 130,000 ballots, were all Biden ballots that hadn’t been delivered to the precinct before the cut off time.”

Let's take this explanation about a "credible source" one step further. Let's help you understand what a "credible source" is not. No "credible source" would EVER publish a video clip of a pathological POS Marxist activist beating an Indian drum in a little 17y/o's face, while selectively editing and/or running it in a way so as to imply the little kid is somehow the guilty party. No "credible source" would then stick with the lie, and continue false implications, long after the full clip and story was produced, and the truth clearly evident. No "credible source" would do that. It was not a mistake. It was not an oversight. It was a flat out lie targeting a kid, no less. No credible news organization would EVER do that.

It is a virtual guarantee that any source you would cite in this matter is not credible by that measure.
GOT IT?