The key to the second statement is the term "widespread voter fraud." Was there voter fraud - yes. Was it widespread - "no evidence of that." Well, no evidence if you don't look for it. But I think that was a bait and switch. With widespread voter fraud a stand in for election irregularities, tampering, or interference with the public's ability to fairly assess the candidates. So, let's assume there wasn't WIDESPREAD voter fraud (and where do you draw the line when the election was decided by so few votes). It doesn't mean the election wasn't manipulated - for example - the Hunter Biden laptop IS Russian Disinfo. Even the letter from 51 Democrat operatives. Never Trumpers, and Spies didn't say it was. It said it had all the hallmarks of a Russian INFORMATION campaign. Which as we have learned is not disinfo, but could be true information eiether selectively or not selectively presented. But the letter didn't even say that- it just said it looked like it. The media went straight from it looked like Russian INFORMATION to it IS Russian Disinfo and on that basis the media and social media suppressed it and accused Trump of lying essentially. I would add that Trump's first impeachment, and the Ukraine War have ties to maintaining this farce that Russia stole the election for Trump in 2016 and was trying to steal it in 2020 by foisting the laptop on us.
Second- is ballot stuffing even considered Voter fraud? I guess if voters do it, it is but what if it is NGOs or government officials? What really was going on in the Atlanta video if it wasn't what it looked like? I only say all of this because we never got clear answers. We just got "no evidence of WIDESPREAD voter fraud." As far as the vax goes, I am not sure if I have seen the mountains yet as Alex has (and I am a subscriber of his as well) but there definitely is some and there are more things to look at and I am glad Alex is still on the case.
And PS, Alex has earned my trust- he was right and truthful about a lot of things relating to the vax and COVID. He is also right about a lot of stuff related to pot legalization in my opinion.
You got banned? Because I agree essentially with your point. I think Berenson was being cavalier on the 2020 election (and the reasons I state support that view) but that wasn't his bailiwick either (like COVID and the Vax) so I cut him slack on that. I also think one man's mountain is another man's hill on the issue of the vax. If people are asserting there is no evidence and there actually is evidence and maybe considerable evidence, is it mountains? Anyway, I appreciate your point and reiterate, which I think is the problem with Alex and the election, is you won't find mountains if you do not look for them. They find one guy stuffing ballots and don't look for more and then just say, "It was just one guy."
AB uses the liberal talking points on the election and the conservative talking points on Vaxx concerning the definition of evidence.
For elections he's claims there is no evidence because no evidence has been accepted by the courts. Then when it suits him the conservative definition of obvious scientific evidence also not accepted by courts.
I also like his work on Covid and I used to respect him thinking he was a truthfull
liberal.
But like many so called red pilled he can't let go of his blue suppositories.
But back to Matt's point two completely different views can come from the same evidence.
I'm also banned from Kirsch and Malone. Malone is terribly thin skinned and Kirsch banned me because Malone did.
I agree on that but let it go for the reasons I stated. But to your point, he is wrong on the court stuff too. Most of that was procedural, like lack of standing, not lack of evidence. Like Missouri does not have standing to sue PA over alleged voter irregularities. Or mootness, by the time discovery was completed Biden would be in office so it was pointless to continue the case. I did comment right after January 6 that basically one could steal an election because by the time someone figured it out, Biden would be finishing his second term. I based that on these cases, how long it took for people to realize Russia, Russia, Russia was a hoax (clearly Trump was joking about Russians having Hillary's emails), the belief in the 51 intel guy letter, and a bunch of other things. As Mark Steyn oft pointed out, look at the "Durham Report" and how long that took? As to the two views coming from the same evidence, that is certainly possible but at some point, we're supposed to be able to find enough evidence to put something over the top, not just give up and assert "conspiracy theory!" or "without evidence!" without even looking for evidence. BTW, while I am ranting- I hate that one the most- calling every dissent or disagreement a "conspiracy theory" even when one or both is not even present or when there is evidence of conspiring or concerted action someone how it is wrong or without merit simply by asserting it is a "conspiracy theory."
There is mountain of evidence of Covid Vaxx damage.
There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election.
Both statements are from Alex Berenson
The key to the second statement is the term "widespread voter fraud." Was there voter fraud - yes. Was it widespread - "no evidence of that." Well, no evidence if you don't look for it. But I think that was a bait and switch. With widespread voter fraud a stand in for election irregularities, tampering, or interference with the public's ability to fairly assess the candidates. So, let's assume there wasn't WIDESPREAD voter fraud (and where do you draw the line when the election was decided by so few votes). It doesn't mean the election wasn't manipulated - for example - the Hunter Biden laptop IS Russian Disinfo. Even the letter from 51 Democrat operatives. Never Trumpers, and Spies didn't say it was. It said it had all the hallmarks of a Russian INFORMATION campaign. Which as we have learned is not disinfo, but could be true information eiether selectively or not selectively presented. But the letter didn't even say that- it just said it looked like it. The media went straight from it looked like Russian INFORMATION to it IS Russian Disinfo and on that basis the media and social media suppressed it and accused Trump of lying essentially. I would add that Trump's first impeachment, and the Ukraine War have ties to maintaining this farce that Russia stole the election for Trump in 2016 and was trying to steal it in 2020 by foisting the laptop on us.
Second- is ballot stuffing even considered Voter fraud? I guess if voters do it, it is but what if it is NGOs or government officials? What really was going on in the Atlanta video if it wasn't what it looked like? I only say all of this because we never got clear answers. We just got "no evidence of WIDESPREAD voter fraud." As far as the vax goes, I am not sure if I have seen the mountains yet as Alex has (and I am a subscriber of his as well) but there definitely is some and there are more things to look at and I am glad Alex is still on the case.
And PS, Alex has earned my trust- he was right and truthful about a lot of things relating to the vax and COVID. He is also right about a lot of stuff related to pot legalization in my opinion.
My point being
Two off setting points of view can come from the same "evidence".
Ones definitions of words matter.
Some people will use different definitions of the same word to fit the different narratives they are pushing.
AB is intellectual dishonest.
When I pointed this out I was banned.
You got banned? Because I agree essentially with your point. I think Berenson was being cavalier on the 2020 election (and the reasons I state support that view) but that wasn't his bailiwick either (like COVID and the Vax) so I cut him slack on that. I also think one man's mountain is another man's hill on the issue of the vax. If people are asserting there is no evidence and there actually is evidence and maybe considerable evidence, is it mountains? Anyway, I appreciate your point and reiterate, which I think is the problem with Alex and the election, is you won't find mountains if you do not look for them. They find one guy stuffing ballots and don't look for more and then just say, "It was just one guy."
AB uses the liberal talking points on the election and the conservative talking points on Vaxx concerning the definition of evidence.
For elections he's claims there is no evidence because no evidence has been accepted by the courts. Then when it suits him the conservative definition of obvious scientific evidence also not accepted by courts.
I also like his work on Covid and I used to respect him thinking he was a truthfull
liberal.
But like many so called red pilled he can't let go of his blue suppositories.
But back to Matt's point two completely different views can come from the same evidence.
I'm also banned from Kirsch and Malone. Malone is terribly thin skinned and Kirsch banned me because Malone did.
I agree on that but let it go for the reasons I stated. But to your point, he is wrong on the court stuff too. Most of that was procedural, like lack of standing, not lack of evidence. Like Missouri does not have standing to sue PA over alleged voter irregularities. Or mootness, by the time discovery was completed Biden would be in office so it was pointless to continue the case. I did comment right after January 6 that basically one could steal an election because by the time someone figured it out, Biden would be finishing his second term. I based that on these cases, how long it took for people to realize Russia, Russia, Russia was a hoax (clearly Trump was joking about Russians having Hillary's emails), the belief in the 51 intel guy letter, and a bunch of other things. As Mark Steyn oft pointed out, look at the "Durham Report" and how long that took? As to the two views coming from the same evidence, that is certainly possible but at some point, we're supposed to be able to find enough evidence to put something over the top, not just give up and assert "conspiracy theory!" or "without evidence!" without even looking for evidence. BTW, while I am ranting- I hate that one the most- calling every dissent or disagreement a "conspiracy theory" even when one or both is not even present or when there is evidence of conspiring or concerted action someone how it is wrong or without merit simply by asserting it is a "conspiracy theory."