https://pjmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/couldnt-find-voter-fraud-because-768x566-1.jpg
Meanwhile some typical citizens have managed to find their way in
front of the supremes and they will decide if they will hear the case
or not...again.
https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/scotus-reconsider-hearing-2020-election-case-against-biden-harris-pence
Mildly interesting case that would be a lot more interesting if
SCOTUS decides to hear it. Doesn't allege 2020 was fraudulent, just
that Congress was derelict in refusing to see if there was fraud. I
agree with the premise. Most courts impede investigations that can't
be completed before certification is required and they sure as hell
won't touch a certified election result. So it's the perfect crime.
On 2/15/23 6:40 PM, ScottW wrote:
https://pjmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/couldnt-find-voter-fraud-because-768x566-1.jpg
Meanwhile some typical citizens have managed to find their way inMeanwhile? Changing the subject before you're even identified the first one?
front of the supremes and they will decide if they will hear the case
or not...again.
https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/scotus-reconsider-hearing-2020-election-case-against-biden-harris-pence
Mildly interesting case that would be a lot more interesting ifThat's nuts and a reasonable SCOTUS would have nothing to do with it.
SCOTUS decides to hear it. Doesn't allege 2020 was fraudulent, just
that Congress was derelict in refusing to see if there was fraud. I
agree with the premise. Most courts impede investigations that can't
be completed before certification is required and they sure as hell
won't touch a certified election result. So it's the perfect crime.
That's nuts and a reasonable SCOTUS would have nothing to do with
it.
I would bet they won't touch it, but it just goes to the point that
there is no means to correct a fraudulent election.
Therefore, no fraud or even the possibility of fraud can be tolerated.
On 2/16/23 11:25 AM, ScottW wrote:
That's nuts and a reasonable SCOTUS would have nothing to do with
it.
I would bet they won't touch it, but it just goes to the point thatImpeachment. Expulsion.
there is no means to correct a fraudulent election.
Therefore, no fraud or even the possibility of fraud can be tolerated.
The "possibility of fraud" is an impossible standard.
https://pjmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/couldnt-find-voter-fraud-because-768x566-1.jpg
Meanwhile some typical citizens have managed to find their way in front of the supremes and they will decide if they will hear the case or not...again.
https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/scotus-reconsider-hearing-2020-election-case-against-biden-harris-pence
Mildly interesting case that would be a lot more interesting if SCOTUS decides to hear it. Doesn't allege 2020 was fraudulent, just that Congress was derelict in refusing to see if there was fraud.
I agree with the premise. Most courts impede investigations that can't be completed before certification is required and they sure as hell won't touch a certified election result. So it's the perfect crime.
ScottW
On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 7:40:40 PM UTC-5, ScottW wrote:
https://pjmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/couldnt-find-voter-fraud-because-768x566-1.jpg
Meanwhile some typical citizens have managed to find their way in front of the supremes and they will decide if they will hear the case or not...again.
https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/scotus-reconsider-hearing-2020-election-case-against-biden-harris-pence
Mildly interesting case that would be a lot more interesting if SCOTUS decides to hear it. Doesn't allege 2020 was fraudulent, just that Congress was derelict in refusing to see if there was fraud.
I agree with the premise. Most courts impede investigations that can't be completed before certification is required and they sure as hell won't touch a certified election result. So it's the perfect crime.
ScottWCan we turn that into a Zen Diagram? Steve loves Zen diagrams
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 9:44:12 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/16/23 11:25 AM, ScottW wrote:
Impeachment. Expulsion.That's nuts and a reasonable SCOTUS would have nothing to do
with it.
I would bet they won't touch it, but it just goes to the point
that there is no means to correct a fraudulent election.
LoL.... You are truly delusional.
Therefore, no fraud or even the possibility of fraud can be
tolerated.
The "possibility of fraud" is an impossible standard.
It's a goal we have to strive for.
You sit on your ass and keep saying no evidence of fraud. You stand
in front of a breech in the dikes and say no flood yet.
On 2/16/23 12:51 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 9:44:12 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/16/23 11:25 AM, ScottW wrote:
Impeachment. Expulsion.That's nuts and a reasonable SCOTUS would have nothing to do
with it.
I would bet they won't touch it, but it just goes to the point
that there is no means to correct a fraudulent election.
LoL.... You are truly delusional.Gaslighting again. Those methods are available should an election be
proven bad.
Therefore, no fraud or even the possibility of fraud can be
tolerated.
The "possibility of fraud" is an impossible standard.
It's a goal we have to strive for.No, it isn't. Isolated, statistically absent and without consequence is
fine.
You sit on your ass and keep saying no evidence of fraud. You standBecause there's no evidence of fraud on any meaningful level, you want
in front of a breech in the dikes and say no flood yet.
to lower the bar to include meaningless fraud.
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 2:07:57 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/16/23 12:51 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 9:44:12 AM UTC-8, mINE109Gaslighting again. Those methods are available should an election
wrote:
On 2/16/23 11:25 AM, ScottW wrote:
Impeachment. Expulsion.That's nuts and a reasonable SCOTUS would have nothing to
do with it.
I would bet they won't touch it, but it just goes to the
point that there is no means to correct a fraudulent
election.
LoL.... You are truly delusional.
be proven bad.
Yet we already see from the local boards responsible all they way up
to the victor.....that is not going to be allowed to happen.
Admitting a major election outcome was fraudulent would too harmful
to too many to ever be allowed proven. They (and you) have already
taken to declaring anyone who even raises the question, an "election
denier".
No, it isn't. Isolated, statistically absent and withoutTherefore, no fraud or even the possibility of fraud can be
tolerated.
The "possibility of fraud" is an impossible standard.
It's a goal we have to strive for.
consequence is fine.
And all fraud will always be found to be that way. No matter the
truth of it.
For the good of the country we need to maintain confidence in our
elections. No matter what.
That's Stephen's lie of the century. I immortalize you with it.
You sit on your ass and keep saying no evidence of fraud. YouBecause there's no evidence of fraud on any meaningful level, you
stand in front of a breech in the dikes and say no flood yet.
want to lower the bar to include meaningless fraud.
Damn right. I want the means to detect and eliminate any amount of
election fraud eliminated before it becomes "meaningful".
You're the guy they wrote the diagram for.
On 2/16/23 4:20 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 2:07:57 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/16/23 12:51 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 9:44:12 AM UTC-8, mINE109Gaslighting again. Those methods are available should an election
wrote:
On 2/16/23 11:25 AM, ScottW wrote:
Impeachment. Expulsion.That's nuts and a reasonable SCOTUS would have nothing to
do with it.
I would bet they won't touch it, but it just goes to the
point that there is no means to correct a fraudulent
election.
LoL.... You are truly delusional.
be proven bad.
Yet we already see from the local boards responsible all they way upThat's what happens when "election deniers" are given free rein to cry wolf.
to the victor.....that is not going to be allowed to happen.
Admitting a major election outcome was fraudulent would too harmful
to too many to ever be allowed proven. They (and you) have already
taken to declaring anyone who even raises the question, an "election denier".
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 1:34:20 PM UTC-8, Art Sackman wrote:
On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 7:40:40 PM UTC-5, ScottW wrote:
https://pjmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/couldnt-find-voter-fraud-because-768x566-1.jpg
Meanwhile some typical citizens have managed to find their way in front of the supremes and they will decide if they will hear the case or not...again.
https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/scotus-reconsider-hearing-2020-election-case-against-biden-harris-pence
Mildly interesting case that would be a lot more interesting if SCOTUS decides to hear it. Doesn't allege 2020 was fraudulent, just that Congress was derelict in refusing to see if there was fraud.
I agree with the premise. Most courts impede investigations that can't be completed before certification is required and they sure as hell won't touch a certified election result. So it's the perfect crime.
I found a Zen of all Venn diagrams. Closest I can get.ScottWCan we turn that into a Zen Diagram? Steve loves Zen diagrams
ScottW
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 2:48:59 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/16/23 4:20 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 2:07:57 PM UTC-8, mINE109That's what happens when "election deniers" are given free rein to
wrote:
On 2/16/23 12:51 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 9:44:12 AM UTC-8, mINE109Gaslighting again. Those methods are available should an
wrote:
On 2/16/23 11:25 AM, ScottW wrote:
Impeachment. Expulsion.That's nuts and a reasonable SCOTUS would have nothing
to do with it.
I would bet they won't touch it, but it just goes to the
point that there is no means to correct a fraudulent
election.
LoL.... You are truly delusional.
election be proven bad.
Yet we already see from the local boards responsible all they way
up to the victor.....that is not going to be allowed to happen.
Admitting a major election outcome was fraudulent would too
harmful to too many to ever be allowed proven. They (and you)
have already taken to declaring anyone who even raises the
question, an "election denier".
cry wolf.
No, that's what happens when election deniers aren't proven wrong by
thorough and rigorous investigations. That's what happens when gaping
holes in election security systems are found but not fixed.
That's what happens when the only defense you have is it "wasn't
election altering" without proof.
That's what happens when the only defense you have is it "wasn'tNot the only defense: it was not only not election altering, it was predominantly non-existent.
election altering" without proof.
mINE109 wrote:
That's what happens when the only defense you have is it "wasn'tNot the only defense: it was not only not election altering, it was predominantly non-existent.
election altering" without proof.
Also "forgotten" by Shmoodom is the documented fact that 97%
of all ACTUAL election fraud was committed by republigoons.
Also "forgotten" by Shmoodom is the documented fact that 97%For all of your relentless postings here, you have never documented one fact.
of all ACTUAL election fraud was committed by republigoons.
You very rarely post links, and then, only to cartoons
The Artless Sack of Crap blithered:
Also "forgotten" by Shmoodom is the documented fact that 97%For all of your relentless postings here, you have never documented one fact.
of all ACTUAL election fraud was committed by republigoons.
uh... You didn't know that what I just said was factual? Or are you
only pretending not to know for the sake of what your tribe
calls "debate"?
You very rarely post links, and then, only to cartoonsYes, let's revisit the issue of hypocrisy. Well splatted, Sack.
On 2/17/23 11:18 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 2:48:59 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/16/23 4:20 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 2:07:57 PM UTC-8, mINE109That's what happens when "election deniers" are given free rein to
wrote:
On 2/16/23 12:51 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 9:44:12 AM UTC-8, mINE109Gaslighting again. Those methods are available should an
wrote:
On 2/16/23 11:25 AM, ScottW wrote:
Impeachment. Expulsion.That's nuts and a reasonable SCOTUS would have nothing
to do with it.
I would bet they won't touch it, but it just goes to the
point that there is no means to correct a fraudulent
election.
LoL.... You are truly delusional.
election be proven bad.
Yet we already see from the local boards responsible all they way
up to the victor.....that is not going to be allowed to happen.
Admitting a major election outcome was fraudulent would too
harmful to too many to ever be allowed proven. They (and you)
have already taken to declaring anyone who even raises the
question, an "election denier".
cry wolf.
No, that's what happens when election deniers aren't proven wrong by thorough and rigorous investigations. That's what happens when gapingAs the Arizona judge put it, "untethered assertions of uncertainty," you mean.
holes in election security systems are found but not fixed.
That's what happens when the only defense you have is it "wasn'tNot the only defense: it was not only not election altering, it was predominantly non-existent.
election altering" without proof.
On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 12:01:06 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/17/23 11:18 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 2:48:59 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:As the Arizona judge put it, "untethered assertions of uncertainty," you
On 2/16/23 4:20 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 2:07:57 PM UTC-8, mINE109That's what happens when "election deniers" are given free rein to
wrote:
On 2/16/23 12:51 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 9:44:12 AM UTC-8, mINE109Gaslighting again. Those methods are available should an
wrote:
On 2/16/23 11:25 AM, ScottW wrote:
Impeachment. Expulsion.That's nuts and a reasonable SCOTUS would have nothing
to do with it.
I would bet they won't touch it, but it just goes to the
point that there is no means to correct a fraudulent
election.
LoL.... You are truly delusional.
election be proven bad.
Yet we already see from the local boards responsible all they way
up to the victor.....that is not going to be allowed to happen.
Admitting a major election outcome was fraudulent would too
harmful to too many to ever be allowed proven. They (and you)
have already taken to declaring anyone who even raises the
question, an "election denier".
cry wolf.
No, that's what happens when election deniers aren't proven wrong by
thorough and rigorous investigations. That's what happens when gaping
holes in election security systems are found but not fixed.
mean.
My uncertainty is untethered because they've never fully explained exactly what
happened to the printers. And why select areas were more affected than others.
That's what happens when the only defense you have is it "wasn'tNot the only defense: it was not only not election altering, it was
election altering" without proof.
predominantly non-existent.
and I refer you to back to the diagram.
On 2/18/23 10:11 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 12:01:06 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/17/23 11:18 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 2:48:59 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:As the Arizona judge put it, "untethered assertions of uncertainty," you >> mean.
On 2/16/23 4:20 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 2:07:57 PM UTC-8, mINE109That's what happens when "election deniers" are given free rein to
wrote:
On 2/16/23 12:51 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 9:44:12 AM UTC-8, mINE109Gaslighting again. Those methods are available should an
wrote:
On 2/16/23 11:25 AM, ScottW wrote:
Impeachment. Expulsion.That's nuts and a reasonable SCOTUS would have nothing
to do with it.
I would bet they won't touch it, but it just goes to the
point that there is no means to correct a fraudulent
election.
LoL.... You are truly delusional.
election be proven bad.
Yet we already see from the local boards responsible all they way
up to the victor.....that is not going to be allowed to happen.
Admitting a major election outcome was fraudulent would too
harmful to too many to ever be allowed proven. They (and you)
have already taken to declaring anyone who even raises the
question, an "election denier".
cry wolf.
No, that's what happens when election deniers aren't proven wrong by
thorough and rigorous investigations. That's what happens when gaping
holes in election security systems are found but not fixed.
My uncertainty is untethered because they've never fully explained exactly whatThe printers were misconfigured, then reconfigured and mistakes don't
happened to the printers. And why select areas were more affected than others.
happen uniformly. More mistakes where there was more voting?
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 8:59:43 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/18/23 10:11 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 12:01:06 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/17/23 11:18 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 2:48:59 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/16/23 4:20 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 2:07:57 PM UTC-8, mINE109
wrote:
On 2/16/23 12:51 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 9:44:12 AM UTC-8, mINE109
wrote:
On 2/16/23 11:25 AM, ScottW wrote:
The printers were misconfigured, then reconfigured and mistakes don'tNo, that's what happens when election deniers aren't proven wrong by >>>>> thorough and rigorous investigations. That's what happens when gaping >>>>> holes in election security systems are found but not fixed.As the Arizona judge put it, "untethered assertions of uncertainty," you >>>> mean.
My uncertainty is untethered because they've never fully explained exactly what
happened to the printers. And why select areas were more affected than others.
happen uniformly. More mistakes where there was more voting?
Oh...that's explains everything.
On 2/18/23 12:09 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 8:59:43 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/18/23 10:11 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 12:01:06 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/17/23 11:18 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 2:48:59 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>> On 2/16/23 4:20 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 2:07:57 PM UTC-8, mINE109
wrote:
On 2/16/23 12:51 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 9:44:12 AM UTC-8, mINE109 >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/16/23 11:25 AM, ScottW wrote:
The printers were misconfigured, then reconfigured and mistakes don'tNo, that's what happens when election deniers aren't proven wrong by >>>>> thorough and rigorous investigations. That's what happens when gaping >>>>> holes in election security systems are found but not fixed.As the Arizona judge put it, "untethered assertions of uncertainty," you >>>> mean.
My uncertainty is untethered because they've never fully explained exactly what
happened to the printers. And why select areas were more affected than others.
happen uniformly. More mistakes where there was more voting?
Oh...that's explains everything.You invited speculation about the distribution of the errors. We know
how you dislike anything fanciful.
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 1:43:09 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/18/23 12:09 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 8:59:43 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:You invited speculation about the distribution of the errors. We know
On 2/18/23 10:11 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 12:01:06 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/17/23 11:18 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 2:48:59 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2/16/23 4:20 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 2:07:57 PM UTC-8, mINE109
wrote:
On 2/16/23 12:51 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 9:44:12 AM UTC-8, mINE109 >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/16/23 11:25 AM, ScottW wrote:
The printers were misconfigured, then reconfigured and mistakes don'tNo, that's what happens when election deniers aren't proven wrong by >>>>>>> thorough and rigorous investigations. That's what happens when gaping >>>>>>> holes in election security systems are found but not fixed.As the Arizona judge put it, "untethered assertions of uncertainty," you >>>>>> mean.
My uncertainty is untethered because they've never fully explained exactly what
happened to the printers. And why select areas were more affected than others.
happen uniformly. More mistakes where there was more voting?
Oh...that's explains everything.
how you dislike anything fanciful.
I'm laughing at your explanation of misconfigured and reconfigured as valid.
This for a process that was supposed to be validated by testing and not changed on the fly.
Maybe we need a chain of custody for the printers now too.
On 2/19/23 7:27 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 1:43:09 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/18/23 12:09 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, February 18, 2023 at 8:59:43 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:You invited speculation about the distribution of the errors. We know
On 2/18/23 10:11 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 12:01:06 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>> On 2/17/23 11:18 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 2:48:59 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2/16/23 4:20 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 2:07:57 PM UTC-8, mINE109 >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/16/23 12:51 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 9:44:12 AM UTC-8, mINE109 >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/16/23 11:25 AM, ScottW wrote:
The printers were misconfigured, then reconfigured and mistakes don't >>>> happen uniformly. More mistakes where there was more voting?No, that's what happens when election deniers aren't proven wrong by >>>>>>> thorough and rigorous investigations. That's what happens when gapingAs the Arizona judge put it, "untethered assertions of uncertainty," you
holes in election security systems are found but not fixed.
mean.
My uncertainty is untethered because they've never fully explained exactly what
happened to the printers. And why select areas were more affected than others.
Oh...that's explains everything.
how you dislike anything fanciful.
I'm laughing at your explanation of misconfigured and reconfigured as valid.Mistakes happen.
This for a process that was supposed to be validated by testing and not changed on the fly.A three-judge panel unanimously rejected the concerns you presumably
Maybe we need a chain of custody for the printers now too.
share with Kari Lake:
OPINION
Chief Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz and Judge Peter B. Swann1 joined.
Kari Lake appeals the Maricopa County Superior Court’s ruling rejecting her request to set aside Katie Hobbs’s 17,117 vote win in Arizona’s 2022 gubernatorial election. Lake’s arguments highlight election- day difficulties, but her request for relief fails because the evidence presented to the superior court ultimately supports the court’s
conclusion that voters were able to cast their ballots, that votes were counted correctly, and that no other basis justifies setting aside the election results. Accordingly, we affirm.
On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 8:09:32 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:The Georgia stuff was worse: electronic voting machines without a
A three-judge panel unanimously rejected the concerns you presumably
share with Kari Lake:
OPINION
Chief Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the opinion of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz and Judge Peter B. Swann1 joined.
Kari Lake appeals the Maricopa County Superior Court’s ruling rejecting
her request to set aside Katie Hobbs’s 17,117 vote win in Arizona’s 2022 >> gubernatorial election. Lake’s arguments highlight election- day
difficulties, but her request for relief fails because the evidence
presented to the superior court ultimately supports the court’s
conclusion that voters were able to cast their ballots, that votes were
counted correctly, and that no other basis justifies setting aside the
election results. Accordingly, we affirm.
I wonder what you and Stacey would be saying if this shit happened in Atlanta?
Never mind. I know the answer.
On 2/20/23 6:30 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 8:09:32 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
A three-judge panel unanimously rejected the concerns you presumably
share with Kari Lake:
OPINION
Chief Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the opinion of the Court, in which >> Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz and Judge Peter B. Swann1 joined.
Kari Lake appeals the Maricopa County Superior Court’s ruling rejecting >> her request to set aside Katie Hobbs’s 17,117 vote win in Arizona’s 2022
gubernatorial election. Lake’s arguments highlight election- day
difficulties, but her request for relief fails because the evidence
presented to the superior court ultimately supports the court’s
conclusion that voters were able to cast their ballots, that votes were >> counted correctly, and that no other basis justifies setting aside the
election results. Accordingly, we affirm.
I wonder what you and Stacey would be saying if this shit happened in Atlanta?The Georgia stuff was worse: electronic voting machines without a
Never mind. I know the answer.
paper trail; voter registration purges; Kemp's conflict of interest.
On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 7:46:51 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/20/23 6:30 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 8:09:32 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:The Georgia stuff was worse: electronic voting machines without a
A three-judge panel unanimously rejected the concerns you presumably
share with Kari Lake:
OPINION
Chief Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the opinion of the Court, in which >>>> Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz and Judge Peter B. Swann1 joined.
Kari Lake appeals the Maricopa County Superior Court’s ruling rejecting >>>> her request to set aside Katie Hobbs’s 17,117 vote win in Arizona’s 2022
gubernatorial election. Lake’s arguments highlight election- day
difficulties, but her request for relief fails because the evidence
presented to the superior court ultimately supports the court’s
conclusion that voters were able to cast their ballots, that votes were >>>> counted correctly, and that no other basis justifies setting aside the >>>> election results. Accordingly, we affirm.
I wonder what you and Stacey would be saying if this shit happened in Atlanta?
Never mind. I know the answer.
paper trail; voter registration purges; Kemp's conflict of interest.
Does a voter who left a poll due to long lines and delays leave a paper trail?
And what about Hobbs conflict of interest?
On 2/21/23 11:29 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 7:46:51 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/20/23 6:30 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 8:09:32 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:The Georgia stuff was worse: electronic voting machines without a
A three-judge panel unanimously rejected the concerns you presumably >>>> share with Kari Lake:
OPINION
Chief Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the opinion of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz and Judge Peter B. Swann1 joined.
Kari Lake appeals the Maricopa County Superior Court’s ruling rejecting
her request to set aside Katie Hobbs’s 17,117 vote win in Arizona’s 2022
gubernatorial election. Lake’s arguments highlight election- day
difficulties, but her request for relief fails because the evidence >>>> presented to the superior court ultimately supports the court’s
conclusion that voters were able to cast their ballots, that votes were >>>> counted correctly, and that no other basis justifies setting aside the >>>> election results. Accordingly, we affirm.
I wonder what you and Stacey would be saying if this shit happened in Atlanta?
Never mind. I know the answer.
paper trail; voter registration purges; Kemp's conflict of interest.
Does a voter who left a poll due to long lines and delays leave a paper trail?There can be anecdotal evidence. The Arizona case had good stats showing turned away voters voted elsewhere.
And what about Hobbs conflict of interest?I'm open to reforms so Secretaries of State don't preside over their own elections. However, Arizona's elections are conducted on the local
level, so the conflict is less apparent. And Hobbs did no purging of
voter roles comparable to that done by Kemp.
On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 11:10:29 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/21/23 11:29 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 7:46:51 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:There can be anecdotal evidence. The Arizona case had good stats showing
On 2/20/23 6:30 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 8:09:32 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:The Georgia stuff was worse: electronic voting machines without a
A three-judge panel unanimously rejected the concerns you presumably >>>>>> share with Kari Lake:
OPINION
Chief Judge Kent E. Cattani delivered the opinion of the Court, in which >>>>>> Presiding Judge Maria Elena Cruz and Judge Peter B. Swann1 joined. >>>>>>
Kari Lake appeals the Maricopa County Superior Court’s ruling rejecting
her request to set aside Katie Hobbs’s 17,117 vote win in Arizona’s 2022
gubernatorial election. Lake’s arguments highlight election- day >>>>>> difficulties, but her request for relief fails because the evidence >>>>>> presented to the superior court ultimately supports the court’s
conclusion that voters were able to cast their ballots, that votes were >>>>>> counted correctly, and that no other basis justifies setting aside the >>>>>> election results. Accordingly, we affirm.
I wonder what you and Stacey would be saying if this shit happened in Atlanta?
Never mind. I know the answer.
paper trail; voter registration purges; Kemp's conflict of interest.
Does a voter who left a poll due to long lines and delays leave a paper trail?
turned away voters voted elsewhere.
That's BS. A bunch of assumptions with no supporting data.
And what about Hobbs conflict of interest?I'm open to reforms so Secretaries of State don't preside over their own
elections. However, Arizona's elections are conducted on the local
level, so the conflict is less apparent. And Hobbs did no purging of
voter roles comparable to that done by Kemp.
Yet Georgia voters expressed record high levels of satisfaction
with the conduct of their election.
https://nypost.com/2023/01/24/black-voters-in-georgia-overwhelmingly-reported-positive-voting-experience-under-controversial-law/
On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 11:10:29 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:Just so this doesn't go unmentioned:
On 2/21/23 11:29 AM, ScottW wrote:
Does a voter who left a poll due to long lines and delays leave a paper trail?There can be anecdotal evidence. The Arizona case had good stats showing
turned away voters voted elsewhere.
That's BS. A bunch of assumptions with no supporting data.
On 2/21/23 9:19 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 11:10:29 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/21/23 11:29 AM, ScottW wrote:
Does a voter who left a poll due to long lines and delays leave a paper trail?There can be anecdotal evidence. The Arizona case had good stats showing >> turned away voters voted elsewhere.
That's BS. A bunch of assumptions with no supporting data.Just so this doesn't go unmentioned:
https://news.yahoo.com/former-arizona-ag-never-released-111410305.html
AP: "The Arizona Attorney General's Office concluded months ago there
was no widespread fraud in the 2020 election results in Maricopa County
On Saturday, February 25, 2023 at 7:23:35 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 2/21/23 9:19 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 11:10:29 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:Just so this doesn't go unmentioned:
On 2/21/23 11:29 AM, ScottW wrote:
Does a voter who left a poll due to long lines and delays leave a paper trail?There can be anecdotal evidence. The Arizona case had good stats showing >>>> turned away voters voted elsewhere.
That's BS. A bunch of assumptions with no supporting data.
https://news.yahoo.com/former-arizona-ag-never-released-111410305.html
AP: "The Arizona Attorney General's Office concluded months ago there
was no widespread fraud in the 2020 election results in Maricopa County
Does turned away voters not voting = fraud?
Reality is....they can't even know who turned away.
And the court declared they can't do anything about that implying it isn't fraud
even if it was election altering.
You're claiming all is well in Az. while screaming Jim Crowe on steroids in Ga.
Your hypocrisy is obvious.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 151:57:53 |
| Calls: | 10,383 |
| Files: | 14,054 |
| Messages: | 6,417,815 |
