Comments by "Matthew Loutner" (@Matthew_Loutner) on "CNN" channel.

  1. Seeing as you are in Norway and only know the limited information that reaches you . . . How would you know whether President Trump is lying or not? 😎 🇺🇸
    1
  2.  @chaserofthelight1737  So you are lying when your lips are moving?
    1
  3.  @geirsivertsen4225  Media sources in the United State are allowed to lie if they choose to do that. It is protected speech and they can say whatever they choose to say. So you have to verify through more than one source to make sure they are not putting "spin" on the story and fooling you. When you hear the same story from a conservative news source and a liberal news source it will tell a completely different story depending on what facts they include and what facts they leave out. A liberal news writer will tell you that something the president said is a lie. But then when you read a conservative writer, he will say the president was telling the truth. The main way the media fools people is not by lying outright. But by only quoting a part of a statement or only telling a part of the story. They will tell us something, but not give the background or context. That changes the whole meaning of the story. Also, they will "editorialize" within the story. For example, they may quote something the president said accurately, but then say the president is lying. A lot of gullible people will believe that he is lying just because the writer said it when maybe it is the writer who is actually lying and the president telling the truth. Living in the United States is fantastic. But politically, it is like living in a courtroom. You have the prosecution telling you one story and then you have the defense telling you a whole different story. The general public is the jury caught in the middle. It is their job to listen to both sides of the story and then figure out what really happened. You have to watch out for editorializing in a story. The writer could be the one lying. If you want to know what the real facts are, you have to cover all of the bases. You cannot just assume that the media is telling the WHOLE truth. We call that "fake news." The most important thing is to ask yourself, "What are they NOT telling me?" Then go find out. ******************** You have 10 people in a room. Your media source reports that the president just made a public statement. 5 people say he is lying. 5 people say he is telling the truth. How do you know whether the president is lying or telling the truth?
    1
  4.  @growyouronlinebusiness2036  Auditing an election count does not destroy democracy -- it safeguards democracy. Auditing an election count restores the public's faith in the electoral process because citizens can have confidence that there was no cheating and their vote counts. Auditing an election actually makes an election more safe and secure. It moves the overall security of the election up about 10 notches and you can trust the results of an audited election. Auditing an election is the best thing for democracy and our nation. We should already be auditing EVERY election to guard against fraud and cheating. So if someone is oppossed to a fair and open election audit . . . What are they trying to hide? (We are going to find out.) 😎👍 🇺🇸
    1
  5.  @krisenger4410  Somebody has been lying to you my friend. The Arizona election has NEVER been audited. Maybe you are the gullible fool?? 🙆‍♂️
    1
  6.  @krisenger4410  Okay. So you say there are "numerous sources" saying that there have been "multiple audits." And you are right. There are numerous sources saying there have been multiple audits. Guess what ? They are all lying to you (as I said in my previous comment). Well to be specific, they are not all lying. Most of them are quoting from one of the others and the original lie is getting spread around by dupes. So I do not say those people are deliberately lying. But they are unknowingly passing on a lie. You see, there is no such thing as "numerous sources." The person who originally told the lie is the "primary source." And the reporters who were present at the press conference are "secondary sources." But behind that, there are no other sources. All of the media who copy from those sources are not sources. They are just copying the information from the original reporters. That is easy to do with modern technology. But the ones who copy and recast the story are not sources -- because they were not present to hear the original statement. Now the facts are: There has NEVER been an audit of the Arizona election. So let us do a little fact-checking. So this is what you do: Give me the dates of each supposed audit and the results of each supposed audit. When you try to find this information, you will discover that there have not been any previous audits and you will know that you have been duped. This exercise will help you guard yourself from being duped in the future. This is what we call "critical thinking." Let me know when you find those "audits." 😎👍 🇺🇸
    1
  7.  @krisenger4410  You want a valid reason to trust an audit coming from a an auditor who is obviously biased? It is very simple -- we don't. When they have completed the audit, they will have to make a report and present evidence that supports their findings. There is no way for them to fake that evidence. For example: If they say they found 15,000 ballots that were not filled in by hand . . But those ballots were printed on a printing press, they will have to hand us those ballots so we can check their work. So it is not really a matter of us trusting them. At the end of the audit, we either have a stack of fake ballots or we don't. It is as simple as that. We do not just blindly trust anyone -- we double-check those guys. Their job is to find the fake ballots (if there are any). And our job is to review the fake ballots that they find to see if they are really fake ballots or not. We do NOT trust them. That would be the case with any auditors, whether we know they are biased or not. We do not trust any of them. We check their work. ****************** In addition to that, there are checks and balances: 1. If they pull any shenanigans, they could go to jail and they know that. 2. If they get caught cheating in any way, no one will ever hire them again and it will destroy their company. 3. There are 9 security cameras in that room watching everything from every angle 24 hours a day. 4. There are both democrats and republicans working for that company and working in that room. Also, you have to remember that EVERYBODY is biased in some way. That is just a fact of life. So we have checks and balances.
    1
  8.  @krisenger4410  I do not owe you an explanation for anything and it is not my job to convince you of anything. So do not give me a smart-ass answer like try again. So what if you do not think my answer is convincing?? Who cares? Did you think I would change my answer? My answer is right and I am not changing it because you do not think it is convincing. Who are you? Some kind of an answer judge? If you do not think my answer is convincing, that is YOUR problem. How do you know checks and balances is not working in Arizona when you have not given it time to work yet? Your comment is just plain stupid. Give it some time to see how it all works out first -- then decide whether it worked or not. Arizona is doing an audit whether you like it or not or think it is equitable. And they could really care less what you think about it. If you do not like it . . . Tough cookies. When the people vote you to be in charge of Arizona, you can do it your way.
    1
  9.  @krisenger4410  I am okay with them checking for anything. That is what the audit is for. If they find bamboo fibers fine -- if they do not find bamboo fibers fine. Either way they have done their job. The reason they are checking for bamboo fibers is there is a printing house in China that claims they were paid to print a bunch of fake ballots. So that lead has to be checked out. If you have a credible lead on something under-handed from Italy, submit your evidence and they will check it out.
    1
  10.  @krisenger4410  I learned about the printing house in China in a uTube video several months ago and I watch something like 20 videos a day. So I am not going try to find it out of my hundreds of thousands of previously watched videos. It does not matter to you who it was anyway -- you are not the one doing the audit.
    1
  11.  @krisenger4410  Sure. The State of Arizona is paying the first $150,000 and if it runs over that, the rest is being covered by donations.
    1
  12.  @krisenger4410  Well let us look at this logically . . . Democrats (supposedly) won the election, right? So they would not want to pay for an audit for 2 reasons: 1. If they believe they legitimately won and the audit will not change the results, then they would think that paying for an audit would just be a waste of money . . . Right? 2. There is a chance that the vote tally really is wrong . . . Right? Which presents a problem for democrats. If there is an audit and it (for some reason) actually flips the election over to President Trump, democrats would not want that to happen . . . Right? So there is absolutely no way any democrat anywhere is going to support an audit in any way shape or form. And there is absolutely no way any democrat would donate even a penney . . . Right? They cannot take that chance . . . They have too much to lose to risk it. They are (supposedly) the winners and they are not going to take a chance on messing that up. Democrats are NOT the donors. So that leaves . . .
    1
  13. You do realize that you just said "women hate women?"
    1
  14. No one would come. 😎 🇺🇸
    1
  15. It will end. God is watching and He has a plan.
    1
  16. So you are one of the commies who wants to put people into reeducation camps . . .
    1
  17. Appreciate your concern, but the GOP did not cause this.
    1
  18. First amendment.
    1
  19.  @lantrick  You should read the original comment again. It says, "Why isn't misinformation regulated?" It does not say, "Why doesn't uTube delete this stuff?" The GOVERNMENT regulates things. So that would be a First Amendment question. (By the way, telling somebody, "You should read the First Amendment" is just being the smart-ass that you are.)
    1
  20.  @lantrick  Actually, utube cannot do whatever they want. None of us can do whatever we want because we are all subject to laws. In the case of uTube, they operate under a federal law known as section 230. Section 230 was written for broadcasters -- it was not written for platform companies. Under section 230, utube cannot do certain things. One thing they cannot do is take sides in a political debate. The law requires them to give everyone a fair voice. If the platform companies continue to take sides and abuse their power by deleting videos and users they disagree with, Congress has the option of removing them from section 230 and writing a law that specifically controls what platform companies can do. They are not free to do whatever they want.
    1
  21. Sledgehammers and ropes are not weapons -- they are tools.
    1
  22. Sorry . . Can't answer. Ask again.
    1
  23. Not exactly. If you will remember, there was a last minute change to move that polling center and most people were not aware of the security cameras in the lobby.
    1
  24. I think it will be forgotten. 30 years from now will anybody really care that the Capitol police escorted a tour of 400 people through the Capitol Building?
    1
  25.  @towbar8655  You are the one with water in your ears. Let us think about this logically (if you can keep up). A. The democrats stole the election. B. President Trump said the democrats stole the election. Therefore . . . C. President Trump is telling the truth. Simple logic . . . .see? And no I cannot name any other president who claimed the democrats stole the election because this is the FIRST TIME THEY DID IT. Simple logic . . . See? (If you can keep up.) Now after it gets PROVED that the democrats stole the election, President Trump's statements will be vindicated and he will go down favorably in history.
    1
  26.  @towbar8655  President Trump was not in charge of the election activities. They do not allow the candidates to be in charge of the election activities. That would be a conflict of interest and it would be too easy to cheat. Now Biden had nothing to do with the election fraud. He is the stooge and they are "using" him. It was the one-percenters who want to establish a one-world-government who stole the election. They wanted President Trump out because the trade tariffs with China are soaking them for millions and millions of dollars. They are hoping to get citizen Joe Biden to lower the trade tariffs so they can get some relief. So they used their vast resources to get him elected. *************** I am not a duntz. I am very, very sharp and well-versed on world affairs. (Try to keep up.) ******************** Now you do some thinking: Do really believe that a quiet senile elderly gentleman who did not even do any campaigning could really get 81 MILLION votes??? THINK!
    1
  27.  @towbar8655  Rockefeller, Rothschild, Morgan. Soros.
    1
  28. He is a Phillydelphia lawyer.
    1
  29. If I told you . You would not like the answer.
    1
  30. CNN and Anderson Cooper: Because of the deceptive and hateful way that Anderson has presented this clip, I am 100% certain that I will NEVER watch CNN in the future for any reason. We do not need this kind of hate and vitriol in American society. The president says that he wants us all to stop with all of this divisiveness and start cooperating with one another and working together. But you are only adding fuel to the fire. 🔥 We do not need your agitating.
    1
  31. If you think the "broader electorate despises Trump," you do not have your finger on the pulse of the conservatives in this nation.
    1