That’s literally mentioned in the first post of yours I quoted.
There was a lot of claim and counter claim about this story, admittedly. As I said at the time when I said it was hard to get to the bottom of - also quoted above.The aim of the fake news from the fake news mainstream media was the ongoing effort to smear and discredit by any means, including outright lies, any and all reports of election fraud or irregularities. The fake news headline claimed the individual had recanted. This was a lie subsequently denied by the individual in question.
I do wonder where you get the idea that my posts have some “purpose”.The purpose of Letters repeating the fake news was not to examine the news piece in any way, which he has subsequently done in order to distract from his initial act, but instead (much like the fake news mainstream media) to run a night and day campaign here on this web site to deter all suggestion of election fraud.
Or, even sillier, that I’m running some campaign! Dear me.
And I didn’t look into it to “distract” from anything. You pointed me in the direction of the audio which did give some insight into the truth of the matter and I found pretty much all your claims about it were untrue. It’s not my fault they were untrue. And it’s not my opinion they were untrue, I’ve posted the verbatim quotes which demonstrate that.
There is no “reason” simply because there is no “campaign”.For some reason which only he knows for sure.
I simply don’t believe there was any widespread fraud which changed the election result.
You might say that I believe that because I only look at the MSM. I guess that would be fair comment. But I’ve asked you lots of times to show evidence of your views and haven’t seen anything credible. You did post some website but that was pretty much a conspiracy theory box set, there wasn’t much I found credible.
Ultimately, every court case challenging the result failed, every recount and audit reaffirmed the original result and Biden is sitting in the White House. I don’t think many people think he’s a good candidate but he was the alternative to Trump so here we are.
Again, I’ve given the context of the “fake news” article which started the exchange.Now he tries to pretend the subsequent conversations were the key and only issue.
But your untrue claims about what went on in the case are hardly irrelevant here. You paint yourself as knowing better than us poor “low information” saps. And to be fair you did point me in the direction of the recording which I didn’t know about. But when I looked into it I found that your claims about it just weren’t true. How is that my fault?
That only works if your previous assertions are correct - that I tried to hide the context of our conversation when literally the first post I quoted of yours gives the context and I provided the link to the page so people can look for themselves if they want.That's how fundamentally deceitful he is and how determined he is to conceal that deceit when called on it.
And the claims that my posts have some “purpose” or I’m running some “campaign” are just silly.
I’m just posting stuff. Sometimes for fun, sometimes stuff I find interesting or backs up a point I’m trying to make. How silly to think I have any ulterior motive here other than to make the working day go quicker.
When you do post sources I’ve looked at them. Maybe not every single one but certainly most of them. I’m more than willing to look at different sides of an argument.
The fact that you don’t answer my straight questions or provide the data which you’re basing your views on isn’t my fault.
And actually on Covid our positions aren’t that far apart. I have consistently agreed with you that the government’s response has been shambolic and out of proportion to the situation. But I do think it’s a response to a situation and the data I’m looking at indicates there is a situation to respond to. If you have a different source of data then great, I’ll have a look. Or if my analysis of the data is wrong then explain why.
I don’t know why you think I’m the enemy.