I don’t believe there’s anything to support that he’s overseeing the audit.
1 Like
Observer of audit. You got me on semantics. Anyway, he too is lamenting the bias coverage in the news as he doesn’t see anything that raises red flags about this audit.
Which was where we started this back and forth, the media is pushing a narrative which is not exactly true. But I understand why they are doing it, they want to discredit the audit even before any results are known. Just in case.
You’re using words in a way that’s very different than what they mean. Trying to understand what you actually mean, yeah, it’s technically semantics, but it’s not an argument based on semantics as the term is typically used.
You can’t just use words in ways waaaay different than the actual meaning and then be like, semantics (I mean, you can, but then people either think you have no idea what you’re talking about or think you’re being deliberately deceptive (or both)) - we ain’t quibbling over little things here - you’re talking things which are kinda pretty different. You brought this guy up, apparently to claim legitimacy to the audit rather than it being some partisan hack operation, first by claiming a Bernie supporter was running it, then he was overseeing it, and now he’s reduced to an observer.
Some media is, some isn’t. But you certainly have been.
2 Likes
Have been what? You were the one that claimed only QAnon types were involved in the audit, I proved you wrong.
I showed the receipts, admit you were wrong and move on. I gave this guy more prominence than I should have, I accept his role as an observer, you should accept your claim only QAnon types are involved was wrong.
Really? Read what I quoted, literally one line up. (Ah, fuck it, let’s just be explicit - you’ve pushed a false narrative (Audit run by, then overseen by Bernie supporter to start)).
There’s another false narrative you’re pushing. 
2 Likes
I said he was a part of the process, he is. You were the one claiming no such non partisans existed or were part of the process.
Anyway, the result will be if the audit finds nothing the Democrats and their partisan mouthpieces in the media won’t have a problem. If there is some issue they will dismiss the audit as run by partisan hacks and should be ignored.
That’s the narrative.
As we’ve shown, you said more than that.
I see you didn’t bother trying to support your nonsense claim of me saying only qanon types were involved - will you try to support this new nonsense narrative? Or will you make up another claim up out of thin air?
2 Likes
I corrected that, he was an observer but a part of the process. I am not interested in “winning” some internet back and forth, let the facts fall where they may.
I would think everybody would want free and fair elections which are easily verifiable and can have easy participation by all and ensure only eligible participants can take part.
Those are my principles. I think they are good ones and am happy sticking with them.
Yes, but then after correcting it, you keep claiming “i said…” only a subset of what you said, ignoring the silly narrative you pushed previously pushed. I’m glad you have an understanding of his role now, but you can’t now say you only claimed he was an observer.
And I’m glad you didn’t try to support your new nonsense claim about what I said, nor triple down with yet another one.
3 Likes
I think overall you are just being silly, the idea people can audit an election should be fairly incontrovertible.
I don’t even know the extent of his input or observer status, nor think in the grand scheme of things it matters much.
The media is claiming all sort of malfeasance going on and this guy would I think point it out if that were the case and he is not doing any of that.
That is the mismatch I pointed out in the beginning and think it still stands.
Welcome to the one ring circus courtesy of the Trump wing of the GOP.
The lack of professionalism and competence is stunning but not surprising. Even some supporters are distancing themselves from the joke.
After a week marked by mounting accusations of partisan skulduggery, mismanagement and even potential illegality, at least one Republican supporter of the new count said it could not end soon enough.
“It makes us look like idiots,” State Senator Paul Boyer, a Republican from suburban Phoenix who supported the audit, said on Friday. “Looking back, I didn’t think it would be this ridiculous. It’s embarrassing to be a state senator at this point.”
For a group constantly whining about bias, now they don’t seem to care.
But doubts about the true purpose blossomed when Karen Fann, the Republican president of the State Senate, hired a Florida firm, Cyber Ninjas, to conduct the review. Its chief executive had promoted on Twitter a conspiracy theory that Mr. Trump’s loss in Arizona was the result of rigged voting machines.
Journalists, election experts and representatives of the secretary of state, whose office is responsible for elections in Arizona, have struggled with getting permission to observe the review, while the far-right One America News cable outlet has raised money to finance it and has been given broad access to the proceedings.
Claims of partisanship ballooned after it was revealed that one man who was hired to recount ballots, former State Representative Anthony Kern of Arizona, was a leader of the local “stop the steal” movement and had been photographed on the steps of the U.S. Capitol during the riot on Jan. 6 in Washington. Mr. Kern had been on the Maricopa ballot, both as a Republican candidate for state representative and as a pro-Trump presidential elector.
1 Like
The question is and it is a serious one for many, not just in the USA but other countries is are they rigging the elections.
Now if you don’t care about that, perhaps this is not the right topic for you, if you do, at some point we can actually have a discussion on that. For Newt Grinicg the answer is clear despite the media not being allowed to express this opinion or big tech allowing this opinion on their platforms.
Newt Gingrich: In My Mind “There Was No Question” all of the Close Battleground States Were Stolen in 2020 Election
1 Like
The only thing they care about is being full fugazi and spreading FUD, it’s like their bible.
Which makes sense considering the fanatical devotion.
Lol @Newt Gingrich. You surely have a penchant for looking up to, and spreading the ideas of, the slimiest politicians produced by the US in the past 50 years.
If ignorance is ruled out here, surely at least a tinge of cognitive dissonance occasionally I hope?
2 Likes
All politicians are slimy by their nature, Newt Gingrich being the slimiest of the slimy? I don’t know about that, there are many vying for that position, I am reading your article though, 10 paragraphs in and still talking about the zoo.
Edit/ That was a pretty good write up. The author is not a fan but I can see he would be a contender for slimiest of the slime for some. I would counter we might need an entire thread to discuss the nature and makeup of current Washington though. I think of the article not even Newt Gingrich would complain about the factual accuracy and it isn’t overly biased save one or two places.
1 Like
It is not possible to have a discussion (serious or otherwise) based on the premise of a conspiracy fiction but if, as a Mod, you don’t think I should be posting in this thread, let me know.
Not saying that at all, just pointing out that the topic is (alleged) fraud. I can see why some might take umbrage at Cyber Ninjas. But recounting ballots isn’t exactly brain surgery, the most important step being chain of custody and from what I see they are doing that.
I think for anyone doing an audit, the most important part is integrity not their left or right allegiance. Transparency as well, from what I see they have cameras everywhere and are documenting everything they do.
Given there is no way to inject fraud into the ballots if there is nothing there, they will find nothing, or very little worth a mention. Certainly a little strange the extent the media is going out of their way to delegitimize the audit seems strange. To me anyway.
The media seems to be reporting on legitimate concerns. It looks exactly like a wild fishing exercise to turn up something, anything by God, and not a legitimate audit. Why don’t they just get some serious people (unlike the “Cyber Ninjas”–you couldn’t make it up) to check the signatures and do normal stuff like that? It’s a joke. If any Republicans were seriously concerned about voting integrity it would have behooved them not to make such an obvious farce of it. But, this is the Republicans now.
4 Likes
That’s actually a good question. I read up on the hand recount in Georgia over the weekend by The Carter Center. Certainly a group that has observed elections in 30 countries. You can read their write up here.
Now the last thing I would do is call these organizations dim or inexperienced, but reading though that I am undecided if the goal is accountability or an explanation on defining the rules of what can or can’t be looked at in a recount and amounts to a partial explaination on how to pull off something like a 3 card Monte.
One thing of note in their report.
October 30 Georgia Secretary of State and The Carter Center sign memorandum of
understanding regarding independent observation of risk-limiting audit.
The hand count, should there be one, the rules of how it would be done were signed several days before the election.
Cyber Ninjas seem to be looking at stuff that if you were running a 3 card Monte type of game seem to be getting some people nervous. But it may be nothing too.
Uh, of course there is - you could, for example, spoil ballots with blue pens.
1 Like