[WTF_Seriously]

Here a the new and latest ways Trump actually won the election:

[Tom Bishop]

The Arizona Audit Volunteers recently spoke out about what they saw during the audit - https://rumble.com/vn5215-az-audit-volunteers-reveal-findings-disturbing-elections-irregularities-dis.html

They seem to believe the election was pretty fraudulent and that they saw a bunch of fraudulent things. It is interesting that this Trump election fraud conspiracy was able to get a bunch of Arizonians convinced that they saw fraud. Maybe the Republican Senators planted this evidence?

[Pete Svarrior]

Here a the new and latest ways Trump actually won the election:

I mean, it's common sense.

2016 - Trump gets fewer votes than Hillary, Trump wins.
2020 - Trump gets fewer votes than Biden, Trump loses???

Something doesn't add up here.

[stack]

I know, it's weird. We should probably decertify these as well:

[Rama Set]

The Arizona Audit Volunteers recently spoke out about what they saw during the audit - https://rumble.com/vn5215-az-audit-volunteers-reveal-findings-disturbing-elections-irregularities-dis.html

They seem to believe the election was pretty fraudulent and that they saw a bunch of fraudulent things. It is interesting that this Trump election fraud conspiracy was able to get a bunch of Arizonians convinced that they saw fraud. Maybe the Republican Senators planted this evidence?

Maybe they don't know what they are talking about or are steeped in bias.

[Lord Dave]

The Arizona Audit Volunteers recently spoke out about what they saw during the audit - https://rumble.com/vn5215-az-audit-volunteers-reveal-findings-disturbing-elections-irregularities-dis.html

They seem to believe the election was pretty fraudulent and that they saw a bunch of fraudulent things. It is interesting that this Trump election fraud conspiracy was able to get a bunch of Arizonians convinced that they saw fraud. Maybe the Republican Senators planted this evidence?

Maybe they don't know what they are talking about or are steeped in bias.

If we put Tom in a room full of ballots, he'd find alot of fraud, even if they were all blank.

[honk]

The opinions of the editors are the opinions of the newspaper. It's impossible to put out  an assertion without it being an opinion. Newspapers regularly retract false statements and disparaging things that they later come to regret. If an editor made false claims in the newspaper it is only because the newspaper endorsed their statements. It is not a free forum; anything written is the voice of the newspaper and it is the newspaper's responsibility to keep it in check.

Yes, an editorial, as written by the paper's editor, is generally meant to be taken as the paper's opinion. An op-ed, on the other hand, is not written by the paper's editor, and so it is not meant to be taken as the paper's opinion. Surely you understand the distinction. Rod Liddle is not the editor of The Sunday Times, and what he wrote was not an editorial. It was an op-ed. Again, newspapers allow people to write articles expressing their own opinions. It happens all the time.

[Tom Bishop]

Incorrect. That article did go through editors for endorsement. Can I publish an article about the earth being a dinosaur on that newspaper?

No. I cannot. The newspaper editors vet the articles and publish the ones they see fit to endorse. Any article on there is the voice of the newspaper.

[AATW]

Incorrect.

lol. It genuinely doesn't matter to you how clearly you're shown to be wrong or caught in a lie, does it?

The author is talking about fraud generically

No, he isn't. He's talking quite specifically about the way he believes "the public" were misled by certain information being suppressed.
I don't agree with him for reasons I've outlined, but he's not talking about fraud at all actually - certainly not in the way Trump was talking about it. Trump's claims have been repeatedly shown to be false - or, at least, no evidence has been presented which stood up to any scrutiny.

and doesn't go into AZ specifically

He doesn't  go in to any audits. He doesn't even mention the AZ one. So why are you lying? Your claim was that the
"British media reviewed the Arizona audit results and came to the conclusion that the election was a fraud"

First, it wasn't "the British media", it was one opinion piece by one person who hardly has a reputation for truthfulness.
From his Wiki page:

In 2010 he was the first journalist to have a complaint against a blog post he had written to be upheld by the Press Complaints Commission, over a claim that he could not prove about the African-Caribbean community.

and

A November 2011 article by Liddle in The Spectator about the trial of two men involved in the murder of Stephen Lawrence led to the magazine being prosecuted for breaching reporting restrictions. A court hearing was held in June 2012, in which The Spectator pleaded guilty to contempt of court and accepted a fine of £5,000 plus costs

So you've backed another winner there.

Secondly, he hasn't "reviewed the Arizona audit results". Or, if he has, he doesn't even mention them.
And lastly, he explicitly rules out postal vote fraud in the article. I quoted the part where he does that.

Literally every part of your claim is a lie. Or, let's be generous, it's you being lazy, getting excited by a headline and not bothering to do the most superficial research into your own claim. So lazy or liar, which is it?

it is clear that the recent events prompted the fraud article since it came out the day after the audit news went around.

I suspect the timing is not a coincidence, it's a clickbait article with a clickbait headline and the timing was clearly designed to further boost clicks. A bit embarrassing that you fell for it, really.

The rest of your post is your typical Bishopian attempt to divert distract from your exposed lies or laziness.

[Tom Bishop]

The author claims to be keeping up on the election contestation claims and well read on the matter. He published after the audit results were reported, speaking generically on the fraudulence of the election. Are you claiming that the author didn't hear of the AZ audit, despite that he claims that he is well read and up to date on the matter? And are you also claiming that the article was only accidentally published the day after the audit results was making the news? Ridiculous.

The author says plainly that he is basing his conclusion that the election was rigged on all available evidence. If your farce of an argument was true and author really never heard of the AZ audit news, and the date he published was accidental then I would suggest that you contact the newspaper and inform them of the contradictory AZ audit information you have that they missed the day before so that they can post a retraction and declare the election to be legitimate.

Again, if someone says that everything is suggesting something, they are including the subtopic you are interested in, and so your objection is invalid. We are left with a large British newspaper calling the election illegitimate, with apparent endorsement from the editors.

[AATW]

The author claims to be keeping up on the election contestation claims and well read on the matter. He published after the audit results were reported, speaking generically on the fraudulence of the election. Are you claiming that the author didn't hear of the AZ audit, despite that he claims that he is well read and up to date on the matter? And are you also claiming that the article was only accidentally published the day after the audit results was making the news? Ridiculous.

Of course it wasn't an accident. As I already said, the clickbait article and headline was almost certainly timed to dupe people like you to increase clicks. It obviously worked.

The author says plainly that he is basing his conclusion that the election was rigged on all available evidence.

Yes. And he also plainly says the "fraud" he's talking about is NOT fraudulent postal votes.

So I asked above whether you are lying or lazy.
I have to conclude given your errors have been clearly pointed out and you are simply doubling down that it is the former.
Everything about your claim that "The British media reviewed the Arizona audit results and came to the conclusion that the election was a fraud" is false. You found one article which is clearly a clickbait opinion piece and not only does not review the audit results, it doesn't even mention them and explicitly says it's not talking about fraudulent postal votes.
Although actually, you didn't even find the article, did you? You found a YouTube video which talks about it, got excited and didn't even bother to look up the article in question. Pretty embarrassing.

[Tom Bishop]

Of course it wasn't an accident.

So you concede then that he did read about the audit and the article is about the audit.

Read the title of the article: "So Trump was right: the election was rigged. And our next one will be too"

Obviously the "So" is reacting to something: The recent audit that was being reported on in the news on the previous day. He read about it and found that it confirmed his conclusion of a rigged election.

A quote from the article:

"And, as more and more evidence emerges, it terrifies me that the same thing could happen here."

If the title was about the Arizona audit then this 'more and more' must also be in reference the recent Arizona audit news. Again, you just admitted that it's not an accident that the article was published shortly after the news came out about the audit. You admitted that he is up-to-date on the issue and likely didn't miss the recent news. He doesn't need to go into the audit details for the article to be in reference to the audit.

So, again, I was correct. A large British news source reviewed the recent Arizona audit information and found that it supported the conclusion that the election was rigged.

Everything about your claim that "The British media reviewed the Arizona audit results and came to the conclusion that the election was a fraud" is false.

Incorrect. The article is in reference to the audit, as demonstrated above and admitted by your own self. And I said "British media," not "The British media". Please quote correctly. There is a difference in meaning.

[AATW]

So you concede then that he did read about the audit and the article is about the audit.

lol. It doesn't even mention the audit.
It's a clickbait article with a clickbait title, carefully timed after the audit to fool people like you.
He clearly says he is NOT talking about fraudulent postal votes. He is making a point, just not the one you're claiming.

You have fallen for the clickbait hook, like and sinker.
Which is embarrassing enough.
But when that has been pointed out you, you're just endlessly doubling down rather than admit it, making yourself look sillier and sillier with every post.   

You are a living, breathing Monty Python argument sketch.

[Tom Bishop]

He clearly says he is NOT talking about fraudulent postal votes.

The AZ audit didn't claim to find any fraudulent postal votes. The report is devoid of the word fraud. It claimed that there were extreme inaccuracies, deleted files, abnormal adjudication, and so on. It says the election was unreliable, not fraudulent.

You have admitted as much that the article is about the audit, and if the article is about the audit then it appears to agree that the findings contribute to the shadiness of the election.

[stack]

So, again, I was correct. A large British news source reviewed the recent Arizona audit information and found that it supported the conclusion that the election was rigged.

Everything about your claim that "The British media reviewed the Arizona audit results and came to the conclusion that the election was a fraud" is false.

Incorrect. The article is in reference to the audit, as demonstrated above and admitted by your own self. And I said "British media," not "The British media". Please quote correctly. There is a difference in meaning.

It’s weird that the article came out a few days after the leaked audit report and the author doesn’t mention it at all. He just goes on about how liberal media colluded to silence Trump. Isn’t that strange? He doesn’t mention the audit at all. Weird.

Weirder still you’re saying that “The article is in reference to the audit” when the article makes ZERO mention of the audit. You’re basing an assumption based upon the timing of the article? Sundays only occur one a week. If it was published this Sunday, or next, would you make the same assumption?

Using your logic, apparently the author didn’t find the AZ audit results compelling enough to even mention it to bolster his media fraud argument. Again, no mention of the audit at all. Weird.

[AATW]

It claimed that there were extreme inaccuracies, deleted files, abnormal adjudication, and so on. It says the election was unreliable, not fraudulent.

None of which is mentioned in the Times opinion piece. No mention of the audit, no mention of its findings.
It's clear what he's talking about, it has been explained to you. He's making a point about the way he believes people were manipulated, nothing to do with the audit or anything to do with the way the election itself was carried out.
Although interestingly, the piece itself with its clickbait headline is intended to manipulate.
How embarrassing that you fell for it.
And how dishonest of you to keep doubling down when you have been so clearly exposed.

[Tom Bishop]

None of which is mentioned in the Times opinion piece.

Again, he doesn't need to go into the details of the audit for his general statements to include the audit. You have already conceded that his article is a reaction to the audit.

It's clear what he's talking about, it has been explained to you.

No, it's not clear that he is talking about what you want him to talk about. The first four words in the article title is "So Trump was right". This is clearly an endorsement of the things Trump has been saying about the election.

And read the fraudulent postal votes section further on in the article that you pointed out again:

"Whatever the case, that election one year ago was plainly rigged. Not by fraudulent postal votes. But by an affluent elite conspiring, brutally at times, to ensure that the American public heard only one side of the story."

He's not discounting fraudulent postal votes there. See the sentence immediately before that. He is explaining why the election was plainly rigged. The election wasn't "plainly rigged" by fraudulent postal votes. I agree with that. Fraudulent postal votes are not plainly visible to see, and this sentence doesn't even necessitate that he is discounting that there were fraudulent postal votes.

Really, you just need to brush up on your English skills. You got it blatantly wrong.

[AATW]

The first three words in the article title is "So Trump was right".

Yes. This is how clickbait works. Has an eye-catching headline and starts by enticing people to read on.
It's a bit embarrassing that you fell for it and then made false claims about it without having even read the article.
And how dishonest of you not to admit it.
Keep squirming though, if you must...

[Rama Set]

Tom needs to save some copium for the other struggling “Stop the Steal” Republicans. I have to admit though, his constant refusal to admit the slightest deficiency in his arguements despite the gaping holes, is commendable in a tragic way.

[Tom Bishop]

The first three words in the article title is "So Trump was right".

Yes. This is how clickbait works. Has an eye-catching headline and starts by enticing people to read on.
It's a bit embarrassing that you fell for it and then made false claims about it without having even read the article.
And how dishonest of you not to admit it.
Keep squirming though, if you must...

What? The author said it and you are arguing that we must believe that he doesn't mean it? Your arguments are getting more and more absurd on this.

Recall that The Sunday Times commits itself to the IPSO Rules and Regulations and Editor's Code of Practice:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/static/about-us/



Then, going to the IPSO site:

https://www.ipso.co.uk/editors-code-of-practice/



Inaccurate headlines goes against their regulations. It's not a sensational tabloid. It's the largest newspaper of the British quality press, which we had read was distinguished by its seriousness.

From what I'm reading, the headlines need to be accurate if they want to be a part of this organization. I would suggest you take your complaints to the newspaper or the regulating organization rather than making random and specious accusations of what you think an author "really" means to support your argument.