Dinesh D’Souza’s Vile Big Lie Documentary 2000 Mules Is Too Stupid Even for Fox

[Joe Capitalist]

So you can't find a quote when D'Sousa says geo location is inaccurate. So why did you lie? are you so desperate that you just spew lies?

I can't wait until next month when your moronic 2000 Mules conspiracy theory is in the trash bin and we are all laughing at you.
You're a loser, ExcessLies. A FUCKING LOSER!!! Just like the fat guy you so passionately follow.

I rest my case.

[ExpressLane]

I can't wait until next month when your moronic 2000 Mules conspiracy theory is in the trash bin and we are all laughing at you.
You're a loser, ExcessLies. A FUCKING LOSER!!! Just like the fat guy you so passionately follow.

I rest my case.

And you still have not found a quote from D'Sousa saying geo tracking is inaccurate. You can admit you lied now.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

https://apple.news/AbkWk7kD9QnGSUTROuDGpFw

Dinesh D’Souza’s Vile Big Lie Documentary Is Too Stupid Even for Fox
I watched this crap so you don’t have to—and, trust me, you don’t want to.

There are a lot of reasons that Donald Trump’s Big Lie about voter fraud in the 2020 election is among the most despicable political acts in U.S. history.
It’s poisoned the minds of millions of Americans—very likely permanently—into believing our elections can’t be trusted (unless Republicans win). It was the impetus for the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol. It was the excuse to break the previously sacrosanct American tradition of a peaceful transfer of power.
It’s tragic that this democracy-threatening hoax was perpetrated by a known compulsive liar—a corrupt businessman from a privileged upbringing, infamous for stiffing his working-class contractors. Trump had already falsely claimed a conspiracy of voter fraud in 2016 (the election he actually won), and then again for the entire 2020 presidential cycle when he blathered about unnamed forces conspiring to steal the election from him.
Both times he sent the implicit message to his supporters: No election result is valid unless I win. And they believed this incoherent charlatan.
The new documentary 2000 Mules (a Dinesh D’Souza Joint), is barely more credible than your average random conspiracy theory video on YouTube, but its production values attach to it a superficial seriousness. The film’s intended audience will see a rational “just asking questions” kinda guy (D’Souza) talking with some ideological allies (like Charlie Kirk, Dennis Prager, Sebastian Gorka, and Larry Elder) who are merely concerned about voter integrity in the America they love.
But the bulk of the film consists of D’Souza’s highly dramatized explainer sessions with a couple of technological “experts” (also credited as executive producers) whose claims that they’ve used geotracking data to uncover thousands of vote-harvesting mules fall apart under the barest of scrutiny.
Surveillance footage of people taking selfies after dropping their votes in dropboxes is presented as “A-ha!” evidence—while ignoring the fact that people taking voter selfies was a mundanely common thing to do in 2020 (and for quite a few years prior).
Video clips of people dropping off a few ballots are presented as unimpeachable evidence of voter fraud, even though dropping ballots for family members was also common. And despite the repeated claims by the “experts” that they’ve tracked literally thousands of vote-dropping “mules”—not a single one of these supposed professional voter fraud foot soldiers is shown on screen making more than one drop.
These are all things that even D’Souza later admitted don’t actually don’t prove anything.
In a withering interview with The Washington Post’s Philip Bump, who told D’Souza his entire indictment of the election is based on speculation and that he’s “not making a persuasive case,” D’Souza replied, “I’m making a case that is completely persuasive to an independent observer who is not clouded, who is not trying to play defense attorney as you are for the Biden administration.”
And that gives away the whole game. Anyone who isn’t convinced by his evidence-bereft narrative that the election was stolen is either a “Biden defense attorney” or a cowardly Republican. (Early in the film, Dennis Prager is literally called a “coward” by one of his fellow right-wing panelists for saying he’s “agnostic” about voter fraud in the 2020 election.)
D’Souza complains throughout the film about Republicans who just want to “move on”—which includes all the Republican election officials who investigated voter fraud claims in critical swing states… and found absolutely nothing of note. He also whines about the Supreme Court (with a 6-3 majority and three Trump appointees) refusing to hear already-debunked claims of voter fraud.
But after making his case, through relentless repetition of innuendo and almost no verifiable facts, the MAGA brain trust (Prager, Kirk, et al) reappears near the end of the film. All of them are aghast (especially Prager), breathing heavily after absorbing all of D’Souza’s supposedly unimpeachable evidence of a vast, multi-state conspiracy carried out on a granular level by thousands of paid agents—none of whom have leaked their involvement to anyone, at all.
D’Souza’s whining extends beyond the film itself, and into coverage of the film. Or in the case of Fox News and Newsmax, the lack of coverage around 2000 Mules—likely because both networks have already been sued for pushing potentially slanderous Big Lie accusations against voting technology companies. (D’Souza’s white knight, Donald Trump, came to the film’s defense when he slammed Fox for ignoring “the greatest & most impactful documentary of our time.”)
But even a Trump-supporting right-wing firebreather like Ben Shapiro can’t bring himself to say D’Souza made a persuasive case with 2000 Mules, because the film’s central thesis simply isn’t backed by any supporting evidence—much less an overwhelming amount of verifiable, unimpeachable data.
There’s no reason to watch 2000 Mules, unless you really are looking to be well-equipped to argue with your MAGA relatives at Thanksgiving. The film isn’t meant to persuade anyone, it’s meant to reinforce the already passionate certainty in people who believe in something that simply does not exist.
It is a vile piece of agit-prop, pushing a falsehood that could very well tear our country apart. It’s also a very stupid movie, packaged as smart, fearless muckraking. In a sense, it’s a 90-minute safe space for MAGA snowflakes who can’t accept the fact that their hero is a loser.

nah.

trumps right.

that election was fake as fuck.

you cant make everyone agree with you.

you're gonna have to get over it.

what do the relevant generals think?

[Into the Night]

You realize that the police has to get a warrant, right? And that we have the right to our privacy? That is why apps always ask you for your permission to know your location.

You are really bad at this.

No, the police do not need a warrant.

[Into the Night]

Yes you have to give them your permission to know your location. If you want to talk about the companies sharing your information with others, we can talk about that. Otherwise, they will need your permission. If the police wants to investigate you, they have to get a warrant to look on your phone.

No, they do not need a warrant.

[ExpressLane]

Which they have to get permission or warrant for. If those data are used as statistics or aggregation research, that's a different story. Usually companies like Microsoft or Mozilla ask you if you are willing to give them permission to analyze your Internet and OS usage for statistics and research.

Nope its available for any member of the public to buy. True the Vote paid over 1 million dollars to buy over ten trillion pings in 5 swing states in specific areas where they thought fraud was likely to occur.

[Joe Capitalist]

And you still have not found a quote from D'Sousa saying geo tracking is inaccurate. You can admit you lied now.

[Into the Night]

Who is "they"?

RQAA

Besides, it's a violation of their privacy if they do not give them their permission.

No. You gave your permission.

Of course they would allow companies like Uber to know their location or else how would they find them?

You aren't good at this.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself again.

[Into the Night]

Then those people can sue Dishito for a violation of their privacy if their information is revealed.

You can sue if you don't like the shape of someone's nose. Big hairy deal.

[Into the Night]

The data is anonymous but you could very easily track the phone back to the owner's home. If you don't have location turned off you have no expectation of privacy. (legal term) They can sue if they want to but they won't win. Are you a geo tracking denier?

He denies geo tracking capability and the Constitution of the United States. He is attempting to apply the Constitution to private companies.

[Into the Night]

Yes we have expectation of privacy. If they want to know your location, either you give them your permission or they get a warrant. I.e. nobody can find your address by your IP alone unless they obtain a warrant.

WRONG. Your IP address is registered to a publicly known record (or the internet wouldn't work). Your phone is continuously sending geo location information. It not only uses relative cell tower strength, but also known wifi nets it can hear, and even known Bluetooth nets. Your phone also contains a GPS chip in it. Your phone only works because the system knows where it is at all times.

That data is sold to anyone that wants to buy it. No warrant needed.

[ExpressLane]

He denies geo tracking capability and the Constitution of the United States. He is attempting to apply the Constitution to private companies.

He isn't very smart.

[ExpressLane]

WRONG. Your IP address is registered to a publicly known record (or the internet wouldn't work). Your phone is continuously sending geo location information. It not only uses relative cell tower strength, but also known wifi nets it can hear, and even known Bluetooth nets. Your phone also contains a GPS chip in it. Your phone only works because the system knows where it is at all times.

That data is sold to anyone that wants to buy it. No warrant needed.

EXACTLY!

[Into the Night]

When the majority of people just agree to the terms and don't turn off the location feature the are giving up their 'expectation of privacy' legally. (again in the legal sense)

People never read the terms. They see the wad of words and just click "OK' out of habit, it happens so often.
As long as the phone is turned on, it's location is tracked just to handle cell tower switching. More precise geo location occurs by your phone tracking known wifi networks and by using it's built in GPS receiver.

Google and Apple both have convoluted agreements that you agreed to when you bought the phone. Among them is sharing of geo location information.

[Into the Night]

For the companies to know your location, yes. You expect companies like Uber to respect your privacy and not to share your information to others, especially when they're selling them.

You don't get to speak for anyone else but you. It is YOU that expects companies like Uber to respect your privacy. Guess what? They don't.