*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10620
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9200 on: September 29, 2021, 06:38:54 PM »
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2021/09/28/doctored-audit-report-2020-maricopa-county-election-contains-false-information-cyber-ninjas-ceo-says/5893164001/

Tom I think you may have been lead astray by some misinformation.

Actually that statement is incredibly broad for a Trump supporter.  Let me be more specific.  The audit report that you've likely read isn't the audit report that's going to be released.

It just says that he didn't authorize the draft report, which is irrelevant to the media reporting honestly on it.

He says the draft report was written by a member of Cyber Ninja:

Quote
Logan told The Republic he doesn't know where the draft report came from but he believes it was written by "someone who was contributing to the report at some point in time."

Whether it was eventually authorized or not is unrelated to the media's dishonest reporting on the matter.

*

Offline crutonius

  • *
  • Posts: 676
  • Just a regular guy. No funny business here.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9201 on: September 29, 2021, 07:31:37 PM »
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2021/09/28/doctored-audit-report-2020-maricopa-county-election-contains-false-information-cyber-ninjas-ceo-says/5893164001/

Tom I think you may have been lead astray by some misinformation.

Actually that statement is incredibly broad for a Trump supporter.  Let me be more specific.  The audit report that you've likely read isn't the audit report that's going to be released.

It just says that he didn't authorize the draft report, which is irrelevant to the media reporting honestly on it.

He says the draft report was written by a member of Cyber Ninja:

Quote
Logan told The Republic he doesn't know where the draft report came from but he believes it was written by "someone who was contributing to the report at some point in time."

Whether it was eventually authorized or not is unrelated to the media's dishonest reporting on the matter.

I'm afraid it's a bit deeper than that.

Quote
The edited version claims that "57,734 ballots with serious issues were identified in the audit" and, therefore, "the election should not be certified, and the reported results are not reliable."

The real results of Logan's review did not claim an issue with that number of ballots, and did not show evidence of fraud. The hand count of ballots affirmed President Joe Biden's win in the county.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9202 on: September 29, 2021, 07:39:20 PM »
Whether it was eventually authorized or not is unrelated to the media's dishonest reporting on the matter.

It's interesting that you're all bunched up in a knot about how the media reported on the draft report and not at all concerned with the content of the report. If I remember correctly, when the final report was being presented, Maricopa County live tweeted rebuttals to each issue raised in the report. For instance, the one "critical" mention in the report:

Maricopa County
@maricopacounty
·
Sep 24
CLAIM: 23,344 mail-in ballots voted from a prior address.

BOTTOM LINE: Cyber Ninjas still don’t understand this is legal under federal election law. To label it a “critical” concern is either intentionally misleading or staggeringly ignorant. AZ senators

EXPLANATION:
1) Military and overseas voters can cast a “federal only ballot” despite living outside the U.S. The address tied to their ballot would be their prior address in AZ.
2) People are allowed to move from one house to another (or even one state to another) in October and November of an election year (yes, shocking!). If the driver’s license address matches the voter registration address, they are still allowed to vote.
3) For the November General Election Maricopa County had 20,933 one-time temporary address requests. In addition, snowbirds and college students tend to have forwarding addresses when they are out of the county.
4) Mail-in ballots are not forwarded to another address.

It seems the cyber ninjas lacked key knowledge around how elections/balloting is handled. Kinda bizarre considering they were election/balloting auditors.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10620
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9203 on: September 29, 2021, 07:46:46 PM »
Again, the draft report is a different report than the final report, and the content of the final report is unrelated to the media reporting honestly on the draft report. Once again, the draft report the media reported on is different than the final report. I guess you have conceded that the media was being dishonest and want to talk about a different report now.

So, you lost that argument. The media was lying about this. Now, as typical, you want to talk about something else.

British media reviewed the Arizona audit results and came to the conclusion that the election was a fraud:

« Last Edit: September 29, 2021, 08:01:17 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9204 on: September 29, 2021, 08:13:25 PM »
Again, the draft report is a different report than the final report, and the content of the final report is unrelated to the media reporting honestly on the draft report. Once again, the draft report the media reported on is different than the final report. I guess you have conceded that the media was being dishonest and want to talk about a different report now.

So, you lost that argument. The media was lying about this. Now, as typical, you want to talk about something else.

Not at all. The media reported on the draft AND final report. Mariscopa County remarked on the final report presentation. Why are you all hung up on the draft report leak and not on the final report?

British media reviewed the Arizona audit results and came to the conclusion that the election was a fraud:

The British media reviewed the Arizona audit results and DID NOT come to the conclusion that the election was a fraud. Your video references one "journalist" in the UK named Rod Liddle. I hardly think one guy represents the entirety of "British Media".
And there's nothing in the video, even from Rod Liddle, regarding the content of the Cyber Ninjas report. It's entirely about how Trump was "silenced" by MSM prior to the election, losing Twitter access, etc. Nothing about the results of the AZ audit report.

If you're going to post something, at least make sure it represents what you are claiming about it.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10620
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9205 on: September 29, 2021, 08:18:37 PM »
Quote from: stack
Not at all. The media reported on the draft AND final report. Mariscopa County remarked on the final report presentation. Why are you all hung up on the draft report leak and not on the final report?

Both the draft report and the final report said there were problems with the election, which went unreported by the media. The draft one is more explicit about it and calls for decertification of the election. The media did not report this when they covered the draft report, and they aren't reporting that the final report is claiming problems with the election either. They did not report honestly.

I am not "hung up" on it, it is simply what we have been talking about.

Quote from: stack
The British media reviewed the Arizona audit results and DID NOT come to the conclusion that the election was a fraud. Your video references one "journalist" in the UK named Rod Liddle. I hardly think one guy represents the entirety of "British Media".

I said "British media", not "the British media". The newspaper calling the election is a fraud is British media, and is part of 'the' British media.

And it's not a coincidence the article came out after the audit was released:

https://www.ivoox.com/ep-665-az-audit-british-media-calls-november-audios-mp3_rf_76090963_1.html

“The point of this article in The Sunday Times is that even completely discounting the Arizona audit results, as far as this journalist is concerned, I mean we didn’t even need the audit to objectively conclude that the election a year ago was in his words ‘plainly rigged’.”

The Sunday Times calls the election a fraud and cites a litany of items. The audit obviously didn't convince them otherwise.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2021, 08:45:08 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Trump
« Reply #9206 on: September 29, 2021, 08:34:50 PM »
He says the draft report was written by a member of Cyber Ninja:

Quote
Logan told The Republic he doesn't know where the draft report came from but he believes it was written by "someone who was contributing to the report at some point in time."

please tell us more about dishonest reporting.

funny how you have no beef with the lying done by the source you provided that is, by the way, still hosting a fake report and pretending it's the final version.

I am not "hung up" on it, it is simply what we have been talking about.

no one here was talking about media honesty until you brought it up. we're talking about the real contents of the real report, not whether or not the media accurately covered your fake one. if you want to start a thread about media dishonesty, go for it, but i doubt you'll find anyone here who disagrees that cnn has a liberal bias or whatever.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9207 on: September 29, 2021, 08:47:50 PM »
Quote from: stack
Not at all. The media reported on the draft AND final report. Mariscopa County remarked on the final report presentation. Why are you all hung up on the draft report leak and not on the final report?

The draft one is more explicit about it and calls for decertification of the election.

I just went through the draft. Where does it call for decertification of the election.

Quote from: stack
The British media reviewed the Arizona audit results and DID NOT come to the conclusion that the election was a fraud. Your video references one "journalist" in the UK named Rod Liddle. I hardly think one guy represents the entirety of "British Media".

I said "British media", not "the British media". The newspaper calling the election is a fraud is British media, and is part of 'the' British media.7

"British media" = 1 article, by one guy, in one newspaper? Hilariously disingenuous.

Rama Set

Re: Trump
« Reply #9208 on: September 29, 2021, 08:55:35 PM »
The Cyber Ninja report also posits that there could very well be plausible explanations for the discrepancies and that the discrepancies didn’t show evidence of fraud and affected the vote split evenly, meaning it wouldn’t have affected the results anyway.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10620
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9209 on: September 29, 2021, 09:01:16 PM »
"British media" = 1 article, by one guy, in one newspaper? Hilariously disingenuous.

You know that when a journalist publishes an article it goes through a number of editors there at the newspaper right? And if they later find that they were inaccurate the newspaper typically publishes a retraction? You know that, right?

If a newspaper is publishing it, they take responsibility for it. The Sunday Times is the largest in its market catagory, which makes it notable that a large British newspaper is calling the election a fraud:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sunday_Times



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_press



Quote from: stack
I just went through the draft. Where does it call for decertification of the election.

Right here:

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Here is what it really said:

https://americaproject.com/ExecutiveSummary_VersionFinal_092421.pdf

« Last Edit: September 29, 2021, 09:17:05 PM by Tom Bishop »

Rama Set

Re: Trump
« Reply #9210 on: September 29, 2021, 09:24:56 PM »
Tom, I know you’re just trying to cope here, but the CEO of Cyber Ninjas said that that was not the real report.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9211 on: September 29, 2021, 09:32:18 PM »
"British media" = 1 article, by one guy, in one newspaper? Hilariously disingenuous.

You know that when a journalist publishes an article it goes through a number of editors there at the newspaper right? And if they later find that they were inaccurate the newspaper typically publishes a retraction? You know that, right?

If a newspaper is publishing it, they take responsibility for it. The Sunday Times is the largest in its market catagory, which makes it notable that a large British newspaper is calling the election a fraud:

Like I said, "British media" = 1 article, by one guy, in one newspaper? Hilariously disingenuous.

Quote from: stack
I just went through the draft. Where does it call for decertification of the election.

Right here:

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Here is what it really said:

https://americaproject.com/ExecutiveSummary_VersionFinal_092421.pdf


That "draft" is dated 9/24. The first reports of a leaked draft came out on 9/23 from a drafts received on 9/22 and 9/23. I'm looking at one now dated 9/20 that has no mention of not certifying the count.

And has already been pointed out, Cyber Ninjas CEO, Logan, who is responsible for the report and oversaw the audit:

"A doctored version of Cyber Ninjas' draft report on the 2020 election contains false information, according to CEO Doug Logan.

Logan, who led the ballot review for Arizona Senate Republicans, says he never recommended that Maricopa County's 2020 election be decertified, which is included in an edited version of Logan's report posted on far-right media outlet The Gateway Pundit.

Logan told The Arizona Republic on Monday that the version of the report posted on the far-right media website "is not one I ever wrote, nor was it ever part of our drafts reviewed with the Senate."

Logan said in a news release on Tuesday that the claim this was his language, but that it was watered down because of supposed threats from the Senate, is "absolutely false."
"

Shouldn't you be concerned with the final report and not all hung up on the various drafts, especially the one that seems to be completely unauthorized by the CEO of the company responsible for the report?
« Last Edit: September 29, 2021, 09:33:52 PM by stack »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10620
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9212 on: September 29, 2021, 11:14:06 PM »
All of the drafts say the results were tainted. It doesn't matter which one. The final report did as well.

Here is another version of the draft from the 24th:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/draft-report-of-gop-commissioned-ballot-review-in-arizona/8659d021-6a68-4d09-9576-8ad4b3f2060c/?itid=lk_interstitial_manual_38





Why wasn't this reported by msn?

The msn article just says that the audit affirmed Biden's win, not that that the audit found the issues to be significant and that it's suggesting a possible investigation from the state Attorney General. That's pretty major. They did not report on the audit accurately, so it's a lie. This document doesn't just say that they merely affirmed the original election results and everything was good, as was reported in the news articles like the msn one we saw:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/arizona-audit-results-reveal-donald-trump-lost-to-joe-biden-by-even-bigger-margin/ar-AAOLCft?li=BBnb7Kz



Cutting out all of the negative stuff and the statements suggesting that the election had significant issues makes it a lie.

The media is dishonest. We find that again and again, no matter which version we use.

Quote
Like I said, "British media" = 1 article, by one guy, in one newspaper? Hilariously disingenuous.

Yes, it's disingenuous to point out that a large newspaper in Britain is calling the US election a fraud. Definitely not notable at all. Keep telling yourself that.  ::)
« Last Edit: September 30, 2021, 12:26:40 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9213 on: September 30, 2021, 12:34:31 AM »
Why wasn't this reported in the msn article?

I take it MSN represents American media. Is that your issue? That specifically MSN didn't mention any of the other stuff in the report aside from the vote count confirming, for the 4th time, that Biden won? There are plenty of other news articles from other outlets that mentioned all that other stuff. Why are you hung up on this one news outlet?

Quote
Like I said, "British media" = 1 article, by one guy, in one newspaper? Hilariously disingenuous.

Yes, it's disingenuous to point out that a large newspaper in Britain is calling the US election a fraud. Definitely not notable at all. Keep telling yourself that.  ::)

Hey take a look, contrary to your assertions British media actually came to the conclusion that the election was indeed legitimate and Biden won, from The Independent (UK):

Arizona governor says state will not decertify 2020 election results and ‘the outcome stands’

Arizona Governor Doug Ducey, who chairs the Republican Governors Association, said ‘the outcome stands’
Mr Ducey added: “The outcome stands and the 2020 election in Arizona is over.”
The Republican governor made the announcement on Friday in a series of tweets following months of unsubstantiated claims by former President Donald Trump and his supporters that the election had been rigged to allow for a Biden win.
[/b]
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-election-2020-doug-ducey-b1926988.html

Pretty bold statement in bold by British media.

Oh, and look, American media reviewed the audit results and came to the conclusion that the election was legitimate and Biden won, from The Wall Street Journal (US):

Trump Loses Arizona—Again
"He still cries ‘fraud’ even after the audit he demanded found none."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-loses-arizona-again-maricopa-county-recount-2020-election-11632604370

Yes, it's disingenuous to point out that a large newspaper in Britain (and America) is calling the US election legitimate and Trump's claims unsubstantiated. Definitely not notable at all.  ::)

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10620
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9214 on: September 30, 2021, 04:54:34 AM »
I take it MSN represents American media. Is that your issue? That specifically MSN didn't mention any of the other stuff in the report aside from the vote count confirming, for the 4th time, that Biden won? There are plenty of other news articles from other outlets that mentioned all that other stuff. Why are you hung up on this one news outlet?

The MSN article was the one originally posted on this that prompted this recent AZ Audit discussion in this thread. Turns out, it was a lie.

Quote from: stack
Hey take a look, contrary to your assertions British media actually came to the conclusion that the election was indeed legitimate and Biden won

Interesting. The Sunday Times says otherwise, however.

Quote from: stack
Arizona governor says state will not decertify 2020 election results and ‘the outcome stands’

It's not up to the Governor. It's up to the Arizona Senators. The Governor has, in fact, been opposing the Senators on this audit every step of the way. It is various AZ Senators pushing the decertification issue, the same ones who successfully got the AZ Senate to audit the election.

'Rally Cry to Decertify Election Grows Louder' - https://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2021/09/27/rally-cry-to-decertify-election-grows-louder/

Quote
Among the loudest voices is Rep. Mark Finchem, R-Oro Valley, who is running for secretary of state.

“We’ve got false numbers,” Finchem told Steve Bannon, a former Trump aide, in a televised interview. And that, he said, allows Arizona to “reclaim” its 11 electors.

“There is no law that allows for decertification,” Karamargin said. “It’s simply not possible.”

Finchem, however, remains unconvinced

“I don’t think that Ducey knows what this document means,” Finchem said, holding up a pocket copy of the U.S. Constitution. And it starts, he said, with the Tenth Amendment which says that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people.

“At the same time, there is a legal doctrine that says a right of action cannot arise out of fraud,” Finchem said. “Well, they signed a fraudulent document based on bad numbers,” he said, meaning the certification of the election signed Nov. 30 by Ducey, Secretary of State Katie Hobbs and Attorney General Mark Brnovich.

Nor is he swayed by the hand count which supports the official count, saying that is irrelevant if there were counterfeit ballots.

“And that’s exactly what happened here,” Finchem said.

He is not alone.

Sen. Sonny Borrelli, R-Lake Havasu City, is echoing the same sentiment.

And Sen. Wendy Rogers, R-Flagstaff, produced a memo from Matt DePerno, a Michigan attorney running for attorney general there, who said that the legislature has the authority to recall state electors or decertify a national election “upon proof of fraud.”

“Importantly, this does not require proof of all of the fraud,” said DePerno, whose candidacy was just endorsed by Trump.

Others, including Senate President Karen Fann, R-Prescott, who hired Cyber Ninjas to review the election results, aren’t buying it.

“There’s really nothing in the Constitution that says we can decertify,” she said, though Fann conceded that won’t stop any legislator from proposing such a resolution.

“I mean, look at the legislation we do sometimes,” she noted.

But, legal issues aside, Fann said this just isn’t going to happen. And it starts with the fact that it would take 31 votes in the House and 16 in the Senate to approve such a measure — the exact bare margin that Republicans have in each chamber.

“And you and I both know we don’t have 31 and 16 votes for anything right now,” she said, with several Republican lawmakers already having disassociated themselves from the whole audit. That includes Sen. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, R-Scottsdale, who chairs the Government Committee, disavowing the whole audit after saying that Fann “botched” it.

Even among GOP lawmakers, Fann said some are likely to balk at such a move until “they are 100% sure that we have information that would have changed the results.” She said the only way that could happen is if Attorney General Mark Brnovich, to whom she has sent the audit report, verifying the audit report.

And even that might not be enough.

“There’s going to have to be a jury that rules or a court that rules,” and comes up with a finding that there were votes cast that affected the outcome of the election.

House Speaker Rusty Bowers, R-Mesa, reached a similar conclusion last year when he denied permission for Finchem to have a special hearing of his Committee on Federal Relations to see if the Republican-controlled House could overrule the public vote and choose its own electors to send to Washington, presumably supporting Trump. He said Arizona law is clear and that the electors are selected by the certified voter count, what occurred Nov. 30.

According to those sources there are a good number of senators in favor of decertification, and the R's hold the majority. Some Senators are holding out and want to see the Attorney General start making arrests and to verify the audit concerns of tampering before lending further support.

And apparently the Arizona Attorney General has reviewed the audit, is now on board, and has directed Maricopa County to preserve all records for an investigation.



Quote
Yes, it's disingenuous to point out that a large newspaper in Britain (and America) is calling the US election legitimate and Trump's claims unsubstantiated. Definitely not notable at all.  ::)

I didn't say it wasn't notable. Notice how I address topics and you just attempt to pathetically dismiss them.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2021, 05:28:48 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3325
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9215 on: September 30, 2021, 04:57:46 AM »
"British media" = 1 article, by one guy, in one newspaper? Hilariously disingenuous.

You know that when a journalist publishes an article it goes through a number of editors there at the newspaper right? And if they later find that they were inaccurate the newspaper typically publishes a retraction? You know that, right?

If a newspaper is publishing it, they take responsibility for it. The Sunday Times is the largest in its market catagory, which makes it notable that a large British newspaper is calling the election a fraud:

The article in question is clearly an opinion piece, and its author has a long history of being more of a reactionary rabble-rouser than any kind of serious journalist. There's a grain of truth in what you're saying in that giving someone a platform is to a degree a show of support, not a neutral act, and the media in general do deserve pushback when they essentially hand a megaphone to grifters, liars, and extremists for no good reason. But that's a question of their cynical business practices, not of their actual beliefs. You can't just take it for granted that the opinions expressed in opinion pieces must therefore reflect the beliefs of the newspaper. That's simply not how it works. Reputable newspapers allow people with wildly different political beliefs to write these kinds of articles all the time. I don't think they necessarily should, like I just said, but they do.

Incidentally, if anyone is interested in actually reading the article without having to pay, it's right here. Wouldn't you know it, the article says nothing about the Arizona audit at all and only mentions the subject of voter fraud to dismiss it. Liddle's actual argument is that the election was "rigged" via the collusion between corporate, political, and media figures to suppress stories damaging to Biden, undermine Trump's presidency, and so on. I still don't agree with him, but there is at least a valid discussion to be had on that subject. And in the defense of those skeptical of the unified resistance to Trump, I will say that the Time article Liddle and others are concerned with is very sensationally written. It plays up the supposed secrecy of the agreements these parties made, repeatedly uses provocative and misleading terms like "cabal" and "conspiracy," and in general reads like a deliberate attempt to rile up Trump supporters. It's really very irresponsible journalism, and I'm surprised Time published it the way it was. In any case, so much for:

British media reviewed the Arizona audit results and came to the conclusion that the election was a fraud:



In the future, you might want to read the article yourself and not just take a YouTube talking head's word for it on what it's about.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

Rama Set

Re: Trump
« Reply #9216 on: September 30, 2021, 10:18:21 AM »
There is no way to “decertify an election” and if the senate for some idiotic reason, after this whole charade, decided to ignore the audit they commissioned, that they said was not about changing the election result, and they decide to “vote to decertify” the election, it would be legally meaningless and a symbolic gesture.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4177
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9217 on: September 30, 2021, 01:56:48 PM »
Tom's just being a good little puppet, that's all. I hate being the guy to defend Tom, but y'all really are asking too much of him. You simply can't expect critical thought from someone whose every thought and action is dictated by others.
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6479
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9218 on: September 30, 2021, 02:31:23 PM »
British media reviewed the Arizona audit results and came to the conclusion that the election was a fraud:
Holy shit! Did you even watch that YouTube video? Did you read the article it references?

Firstly, as honk has pointed out this is just an opinion piece from a bloke with a rather chequered past.
It has a disappointingly click-baity headline - disappointing for The Times which is generally regarded as one of the more serious papers in the UK

But not only does the piece not review the Arizona audit results, it doesn't even mention them.
And the piece quite explicitly says that the election was NOT rigged by fraudulent postal votes:

Quote
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.

So OK, that's his opinion. Although it's one I struggle to take seriously given that Fox News is one of the networks with highest viewing figures in the US. So it's hardly like the pro-Trump voice has been silenced. Either way, the article wasn't talking about the Arizona audit. It's not even mentioned.

So are you lying? Or did you just see a video with a title you thought backed up your point and post it without even bothering to watch it, much less research and read the article it's talking about.
Pretty poor, either way.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2021, 02:42:41 PM by AllAroundTheWorld »
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10620
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #9219 on: September 30, 2021, 03:45:42 PM »
Incorrect. The author is talking about fraud generically, and doesn't go into AZ specifically, but it is clear that the recent events prompted the fraud article since it came out the day after the audit news went around. The author claims to be keeping up on the contested election news and none of the audit news has apparently convinced him otherwise. This is in contrast to your claim that the media said that everything confirmed Joe Biden's legitimacy. A major newspaper does not think so.

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.

The Sunday Times says that they police editorial content right here, that they uphold high standards, and that if you have a problem with the article you should make a complaint:

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

« Last Edit: September 30, 2021, 09:33:50 PM by Tom Bishop »