Arizona Election Audit

Hes a reporter with OAN who is frequently reposted on VN. When you say "little guys" I assume you mean less-established networks like OAN.

Whoever OAN is. I'm old; I remember a few older outlets that made headlines in the old days - generally UP and API just spread the news to wherever. These days anybody with a computer and internet access can apparently be a journalist - most likely a shill. The new ones just jumble together. People learned a long time ago that I navigate by what's on a street and never remember street names.
 
The Cyber Ninja report was delayed by the Cyber Covid.

BTW, a few years ago I saw an article about how some colors are selected by marketing types as the "hot new color"; and sure enough, if you paid attention, the same shade of green or purple or whatever popped up on labels all over stores. I'm guessing there are code words now. I saw a billboard yesterday advertising "Basement Ninjas" and "Crawlspace Ninjas".
 
  • Like
Reactions: clarksvol00
BTW, a few years ago I saw an article about how some colors are selected by marketing types as the "hot new color"; and sure enough, if you paid attention, the same shade of green or purple or whatever popped up on labels all over stores. I'm guessing there are code words now. I saw a billboard yesterday advertising "Basement Ninjas" and "Crawlspace Ninjas".
I have seen crawlspace ninja billboards that don't even have a phone number or a website.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
On the flip side of that, do you think a guy who has already unequivocally stated there was fraud should be doing the auditing?

Here's another thought for you. A lot of voting districts are highly biased - virtually every city will have a significantly blue vote tally on election night. GA, for example, had districts that ran into the 80 and 90 percent for one party or another. Should residents from highly biased districts (either way) be allowed to run the polls, the election commissions, to count votes, or to conduct audits? It's highly likely those workers are biased to match the district. Many of those people will be just as obviously biased as a proponent of an audit - people don't call for audits because their guy won.
 
The Gateway Pundit exists because there are a whole lot of dummies out there that don't want the truth. They want something that verifies their unsupported crackpot opinions.
The best thing which can be said about The Gateway Pundit is that most of their "reporting" is so off-the-wall ridiculous in nature, that the average adult with common sense would not think to take it seriously. From that perspective, they can be viewed as relatively harmless.

However, that doesn't make what they do acceptable. About 5 years ago, The Gateway Pundit was circulating a video of the father of a Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting victim being interviewed. They falsely claimed that the father in the video was an actor paid by an anti-gun legislation lobby to appear in the video. Alex Jones of InfoWars shared the same video. That wasn't bad journalism, as much as it was mean-spirited.
 
Here's another thought for you. A lot of voting districts are highly biased - virtually every city will have a significantly blue vote tally on election night. GA, for example, had districts that ran into the 80 and 90 percent for one party or another. Should residents from highly biased districts (either way) be allowed to run the polls, the election commissions, to count votes, or to conduct audits? It's highly likely those workers are biased to match the district. Many of those people will be just as obviously biased as a proponent of an audit - people don't call for audits because their guy won.

Maybe election commissioners shouldn't be partisan and there should be an independent panel. With gerrymandering districts that's difficult to do, so there may not be a way tonstop that, but when you hire an "independent" auditor don't hire someone who is going in with an agenda.
 
On the flip side of that, do you think a guy who has already unequivocally stated there was fraud should be doing the auditing?

I think the current optics would be a lot better if someone who hasn't spouted off their preconceived notions was performing the audit. Certainly more people would take it seriously.

In the grand scheme of things, though, I don't think the current optics are very relevant going along with what Slice said. The evidence and methodology in the final report will decide if this is something to be looked at more or if it was mostly just a ploy to keep the Trump base fired up (which is kind of what I've suspected).
 
I think the current optics would be a lot better if someone who hasn't spouted off their preconceived notions was performing the audit. Certainly more people would take it seriously.

In the grand scheme of things, though, I don't think the current optics are very relevant going along with what Slice said. The evidence and methodology in the final report will decide if this is something to be looked at more or if it was mostly just a ploy to keep the Trump base fired up (which is kind of what I've suspected).

I can kind of get on board with Slice's position, but I'm also kind of a "if you're gonna do it, do it right," guy and the AZ senate hiring these guys to perform an independent audit is not "doing it right." Of course I also understand the point of this is entirely political and no matter what the audit says or what flaws it may have, few minds will change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13
There is nothing wrong with criticizing CNN. I can think of a plethora of critiques which would have even more merit than the items you have mentioned here.

Including this one:

CNN should have fired liberal political commentator, Donna Brazile, for sharing debate questions with Hillary Clinton in 2016. They not only didn't fire her, they never even mentioned that story. It was just swept under the rug until Donna Brazile's contract expired and she was let go... and then turned up at Fox News, strangely enough.

It is when you say that they are "much worse" than The Gateway Pundit, that you are being ridiculous. You should be able to express criticisms of, and disapproval with CNN, without engaging in over-the-top hyperbole.
It's not over the top hyperbole. CNN also claims they are not biased in their coverage. They are completely biased. They also claim they are "real" journalism. They are not.
 
On whatever I want to give my opinion.

So go ahead and give your opinion on CNN. So we all know where you stand.
I already did. Its crazy to me that you're the one that brought up CNN, attributed an opinion about CNN to me, asked me what I thought about CNN, I answered you, you refuse to acknowledge my answer, and you still can't say what you think about Gateway Pundit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BowlBrother85
It's not over the top hyperbole. CNN also claims they are not biased in their coverage. They are completely biased. They also claim they are "real" journalism. They are not.
This isn't just about CNN, even though they are the only one of the two outlets you seem to want to discuss here... You are saying that CNN is "much worse than The Gateway Pundit".

So, let's talk about "The Gateway Pundit" for a minute, if we may.

Name one thing that CNN has done that is worse than any of the following items:

1) A writer for The Gateway Pundit named Jacob Wohl (along with Jack Burkman), offered money to a woman named Lorraine Parsons in 2018 to fabricate an allegation that Robert Mueller had raped her in the 1970's. Wohl was later fired.

2) The Gateway Pundit falsely accused the father of a Sandy Hook Elementary shooting victim, who had been interviewed on MSNBC, of being a paid actor... He wasn't a paid actor, and he did indeed have a son who was killed in that mass shooting from 2012.

3) The Gateway Pundit alleged that Hillary Clinton and John Podesta had kidnapped and imprisoned children in the basement of Comet Ping Pong in Washington D.C. in order to molest them and use them for Satanic sacrifices.
 
I already did. Its crazy to me that you're the one that brought up CNN, attributed an opinion about CNN to me, asked me what I thought about CNN, I answered you, you refuse to acknowledge my answer, and you still can't say what you think about Gateway Pundit.
I was not the one who brought up CNN. Other people did. Simply gave my opinion and thoughts on the matter.

CNN is complete garbage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst
I was not the one who brought up CNN. Other people did. Simply gave my opinion and thoughts on the matter.

CNN is complete garbage.
The opinion which you gave didn't just concern CNN, however. You have said multiple times now, that CNN is much, much worse than The Gateway Pundit. Okay, let's have your opinion on The Gateway Pundit then ....
 
The opinion which you gave didn't just concern CNN, however. You have said multiple times now, that CNN is much, much worse than The Gateway Pundit. Okay, let's have your opinion on The Gateway Pundit then ....

Gotta say..at least they are more truthful in being biased than CNN claiming they are unbiased. From a macro standpoint, CNN is the biggest lair of them all.
How many lies to count just in the Russian agent narrative, so for sheer deceit, CNN takes the cake.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DonjoVol and AM64
I was not the one who brought up CNN. Other people did. Simply gave my opinion and thoughts on the matter.

CNN is complete garbage.
Ok. You jumped on somebody's CNN response to questioning of the Gateway Pundit... same thing. Now... do you have the giblets to point out where 1) quote a post where I acted as a proponent of CNN rather than asked about Gateway Pundit; 2) state your opinion on Gateway Pundit?
 
The opinion which you gave didn't just concern CNN, however. You have said multiple times now, that CNN is much, much worse than The Gateway Pundit. Okay, let's have your opinion on The Gateway Pundit then ....

At least he has enough intellectually honesty not to answer instead of flat out lie.

Edit: wait he flat-out lied that I defended CNN.
 
Gotta say..at least they are more truthful in being biased than CNN claiming they are unbiased. From a macro standpoint, CNN is the biggest lair of them all.
How many lies to count just in the Russian agent narrative, so for sheer deceit, CNN takes the cake.
Wow. The Gateway Pundit falsely accused the father of a Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting murder victim of being a paid actor, hired by an anti-gun lobby, to tell lies in cable news interviews, so this lobby could help Democrats take away the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans. This father was still receiving death threats over that false allegation more than a year later.

But CNN is worse? LOL!
 
Wow. The Gateway Pundit falsely accused the father of a Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victim of being a paid actor, hired by an anti-gun lobby, to tell lies in cable news interviews, so this lobby could take away your 2nd Amendment rights. This father was still receiving death threats over that false allegation a year later.

But CNN is worse? LOL!

Propaganda arm of the Progressives. Russian agent LMAO, and you bit the worm so hard you cannot get the hook out of your mouth.
Just whataboutism in your face..Mr Whataboutism
 
Propaganda arm of the Progressives. Russian agent LMAO, and you bit the worm so hard you cannot get the hook out of your mouth.
Just whataboutism in your face..Mr Whataboutism
This isn't "what-about-ism".

The whole point of this discussion was :

"Who is worse CNN or The Gateway Pundit ?"

So, let's have that opinion on The Gateway Pundit then ....
 
Wow. The Gateway Pundit falsely accused the father of a Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting murder victim of being a paid actor, hired by an anti-gun lobby, to tell lies in cable news interviews, so this lobby could help Democrats take away the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans. This father was still receiving death threats over that false allegation more than a year later.

But CNN is worse? LOL!
080E179A-5DEF-4BF8-A7C8-374D7169FB18.gif
 

VN Store



Back
Top