|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Arizona /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1671723842 Message started by WebsterMark on 12/22/22 at 07:44:02 |
|
Title: Arizona Post by WebsterMark on 12/22/22 at 07:44:02 I happened to see a like to the trial in Arizona about the Governor election and from the 15 minutes or so I saw, in which both sides had an opportunity to question witnesses, I think Kari Lake has a point. That election was messed up. It wouldn’t surprise me if they ordered a new one. |
|
Title: Re: Arizona Post by Serowbot on 12/22/22 at 09:25:06 It would surprise the hell out of Arizona |
|
Title: Re: Arizona Post by WebsterMark on 12/22/22 at 14:42:10 It would surprise 50% of Arizona. |
|
Title: Re: Arizona Post by Serowbot on 12/22/22 at 15:20:19 You know she lost, right? She's just ridin' the TDS tRump train ...as for tRump... he lost too. In Testimony, Hannity and Other Fox Employees Said They Doubted Trump's Fraud Claims Did Hannity believe any of this? “I did not believe it for one second.” That was the answer Hannity gave, under oath, in a deposition in Dominion’s $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News, according to information disclosed in a court hearing Wednesday. |
|
Title: Re: Arizona Post by MnSpring on 12/22/22 at 18:58:53 392F38253D28253E4A0 wrote:
Why ? Their is NO REQUIREMENT, to be a USA Citizen to vote in AZ ! So anybody, that is ANYBODY, including Illegal's, get to vote for a party, that will give them everything they want for FREE ! "... A registrant who attests to being a citizen but fails to provide proof of citizenship and whose citizenship is not otherwise verified will be eligible to vote only in federal elections (known as being a "federal only" voter). In April 2022, the legislature passed a law requiring proof of citizenship to be eligible to vote in presidential elections (2492); however, this law has not yet gone into effect ..." "... A law taking effect in 2023 requires voters to share proof of citizenship to cast ballots by mail or vote in presidential elections. It is being challenged in court ..." "... A law taking effect in 2023 requires voters to share proof of citizenship to cast ballots by mail…” "... It is being challenged in court ..." |
|
Title: Re: Arizona Post by WebsterMark on 12/23/22 at 04:08:21 7066716C74616C77030 wrote:
You know every single thing doesn’t have to relate back to Donald Trump, you know that right? |
|
Title: Re: Arizona Post by Serowbot on 12/23/22 at 07:11:47 003235242332251A36253C570 wrote:
You don't think claiming election fraud relates to tRump? You don't want it to,... but that don't change reality. |
|
Title: Re: Arizona Post by pg on 12/23/22 at 15:16:58 The topic of the election has little to nothing to do with WM's concern. You incessantly post about Trump, it never ends. You are a 1st 'A' grade example of someone who demonstrates TDS at every opportunity. He lives rent free................... Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Arizona Post by WebsterMark on 12/24/22 at 06:39:54 6274637E66737E65110 wrote:
You don't think claiming election fraud relates to tRump? You don't want it to,... but that don't change reality.[/quote] When Hilary claimed election fraud in 2016, the corporate media and entertainment culture repeated it as fact. When Stacy Abrams lost, she repeated the claim, it to was accepted as fact. Only Trumpand Lake’s claims are treated as fabrications. The small section I watched revealed some interesting situations occurred that are hard to ignore. |
|
Title: Re: Arizona Post by Serowbot on 12/24/22 at 07:59:24 TDS is the rent I pay to live in your head ;D |
|
Title: Re: Arizona Post by WebsterMark on 12/24/22 at 14:14:17 No-go for Kari Lake. “The Court cannot accept speculation or conjecture in place of clear and convincing evidence," Thompson said. In the ruling, the judge acknowledged the "anger and frustration" of voters who were inconvenienced in the election but noted that setting aside the results of an election "has never been done in the history of the United States." That’s the key. That’s a big hurdle to get over. But from what I saw during the trial, it was either incompetence or deliberate on the part of those who organized and conducted the election. So, either incompetence or deliberate actions likely changed the outcome of a very close election since Lake’s voters were more likely to cast ballots on Election Day. And before you call BS Sew, remember how your panties bunch up when talking how the tiny, almost zero, number of people who don’t have a government issued ID ( who choose to not get one) affect elections. So, did the Democrats steal another election? I’d say the odds are yes. |
|
Title: Re: Arizona Post by Eegore on 12/24/22 at 14:24:43 "The Court cannot accept speculation or conjecture in place of clear and convincing evidence" Imagine that. You can't just say things, and refuse to directly answer questions and have people consider it fact? Weird. If I wanted to vote, and the voting location informed me there was an issue, I would have gone to one of the many alternatives available. |
|
Title: Re: Arizona Post by WebsterMark on 12/25/22 at 04:57:14 From my boy Elon this morning: We should think of various explanations for any given event in terms of probabilities, not certainties. Those who don’t allow any questioning of the narrative at all are full of [ch128169]. More tomorrow, it’s Christmas today. No one’s awake but me so I’m going to shake my presents under the tree and maybe pull off a piece of tape or two so I can see what I’m getting later. |
|
Title: Re: Arizona Post by och on 12/25/22 at 07:21:41 This is akin getting pulled over for speeding and getting away with it because the officer cant prove you were speeding intentionally. |
|
Title: Re: Arizona Post by Eegore on 12/25/22 at 13:12:27 This is akin getting pulled over for speeding and getting away with it because the officer cant prove you were speeding intentionally. Or its akin to people that don't like you saying you were speeding and the court saying that humans claiming you did something, is not equal to evidence that you actually did it. |
|
Title: Re: Arizona Post by och on 12/25/22 at 17:05:28 6B4B49415C4B2E0 wrote:
The "speeding" part was proven and the judge didn't doubt it, he threw the case out only because there was no way to prove it was intentional. |
|
Title: Re: Arizona Post by Eegore on 12/25/22 at 21:11:05 "The "speeding" part was proven and the judge didn't doubt it, he threw the case out only because there was no way to prove it was intentional." And the evidence that you were intentionally speeding is other humans saying it was intentional based off their opinion of you. Should they make you drive the road again to see if you speed? If it was intentional, the people charging this need more evidence to prove it. |
|
Title: Re: Arizona Post by WebsterMark on 12/26/22 at 06:41:52 Election are by their very nature political. One side always, always see events different than the other side. The part of the trial I happen to watch perfectly sums up the judge’s decision. Lake’s team showed conclusively at a minimum, 30% of the precincts had a undesirable election. They showed conclusively the major the voters in that county on Election Day we’re likely her voters. They showed problems at the polls caused repeated errors and long lines. The implication was this caused many voters to not vote that day and in such a close election, likely could have been the difference. The judge said two things. All of that may be true but there’s no way to demonstrate that since you can’t duplicate those circumstances and observe and question voters who left. The other thing is just as important which is when he essentially said “I’m not going to be the first judge to over turn a major election which would basically fire up the whole 2020 Trump/Biden debacle of an election.” So he took the easy way out. Now, as to evidence, I live 20 minutes from Michael Brown and the infamous Ferguson situation. In the aftermath, tons of laws were passed which have been challenged, but withstood scrutiny. Entire municipalities were declared racist based upon the assumption that because X percent of people pulled over by police were black, the explanation was it was due to race. There was no evidence presented of that each of those situations were race based encounters, it was agreed it was racist. Existing laws were overturned and new ones passed based on an assumption which was as technically as unproven as Republican voters disenfranchised in Maricopa County. The Arizona election would have been easily overturned had Kari Lake been black and her supporters show to have been more likely to vote in person on Election Day but we’re faced with poorly run polling locations. The poll workers would have been declared racist and a new election ordered. That’s an absolute certainty. |
|
Title: Re: Arizona Post by WebsterMark on 12/26/22 at 06:42:47 4D414A220 wrote:
The "speeding" part was proven and the judge didn't doubt it, he threw the case out only because there was no way to prove it was intentional. [/quote] Exactly och. |
|
Title: Re: Arizona Post by Eegore on 12/26/22 at 07:01:23 To me at least 50% of this falls on the voter. If I want someone to be elected, I would have gone to the multiple other locations, and assisted others in doing so. If a polling location has an issue, and I say screw it I will just go home, I shouldn't have an opinion on who wins. I certainly shouldn't expect a judge to make an unprecedented judgement in my favor based off opinions of what they think I maybe might have done. |
|
Title: Re: Arizona Post by och on 12/26/22 at 07:47:48 624240485542270 wrote:
Thats not how it works. Once you are caught speeding, you get to paid the fine, it doesn't matter whether you were speeding intentionally or not. If you're trying to plead a lesser fine, it's up to you to prove you weren't speeding intentionally, not the other way. |
|
Title: Re: Arizona Post by Eegore on 12/26/22 at 08:04:40 "Thats not how it works. Once you are caught speeding, you get to paid the fine, it doesn't matter whether you were speeding intentionally or not. If you're trying to plead a lesser fine, it's up to you to prove you weren't speeding intentionally, not the other way." I see your point. So how is it akin to what happened in AZ? The judge ruled that conjecture is not equal to evidence, which is absolutely correct. Guessing that people didn't vote elsewhere is not equal to having evidence of that. Guessing that it might have been intentional is not equal to showing evidence that it was intentional. People "probably" responded in a specific way. Maybe this is more like claiming that your speeding likely caused someone else to wreck somewhere. We know you were speeding but we are assuming it was intentional, and that the impact of your speeding was negative. Would it be appropriate to charge you with anything other than speeding even if traffic experts testified you most likely caused someone else harm? |
|
Title: Re: Arizona Post by och on 12/26/22 at 08:13:18 Except the wreck isn't elsewhere, you're directly involved in the wreck, and your speeding is what caused it. You had the ability and the incentive to speed, yet it's up to the victim to prove you were speeding intentionally. The system is a complete joke at this point. |
|
Title: Re: Arizona Post by WebsterMark on 12/26/22 at 10:21:09 1D3D3F372A3D580 wrote:
I’m not disagreeing with you but we live in a time where one major political party pretends black people are too stupid to get an ID. |
|
Title: Re: Arizona Post by pg on 12/26/22 at 14:41:12 I’m not disagreeing with you but we live in a time where one major political party pretends black people are too stupid to get an ID. And they want the other large demographic who aren't citizens to be able to vote............ Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Arizona Post by pg on 12/26/22 at 14:45:06 Yeah, this is on the up & up............ Judge Peter Thompson ruled that when 60% of election centers have broken machines and hundreds of thousands of ballots are counted without chain of custody, this constitutes a free and fair election. Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Arizona Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/26/22 at 15:30:27 Yeah, well, you Thought Twitter was crooked,too,and look how wrong you were there. The elections are totally rigged. And get your Jabs! Pay no attention to the Suddenly Dead. |
|
Title: Re: Arizona Post by buster6315 on 12/26/22 at 19:17:51 'One of the many alternatives available' Like mail-in voting, or early voting? After Trump won, the liberals set about ensuring it wouldn't happen again. How dare they elect an outsider! The ruling class is so corrupt, aoc may be partially right about the demise of this republic, much less the world. They can't control the price of gasoline, yet they believe they can control the climate? Arrogance! |
|
Title: Re: Arizona Post by Eegore on 12/26/22 at 19:35:38 The elections are totally rigged. And get your Jabs! Pay no attention to the Suddenly Dead. Also pay no attention to the number vaxxed with no negative outcome. Only look at the negative, ignore with prejudice anything that is not negative. But if its global warming, do not do this, use verifiable math and facts. For vaccines do not use logic, use lies. Hundreds of living humans can be claimed as D.E.A.D., but weather data must be true, you can not lie about weather, but you can lie about dead humans. |
|
Title: Re: Arizona Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/26/22 at 20:31:33 If the jabs were peanut butter the government would have taken them off the shelf. |
|
Title: Re: Arizona Post by WebsterMark on 12/27/22 at 04:45:17 Without going any further off the topic of this thread, we’ve all seen those commercials for different drugs on TV and at the end they’re mandated to list all the possible side effects. Now we also probably seen those government paid commercials about getting the vaccine. What if they also listed all the possible side effects at the end of those commercials? Back at on topic… Our elections are getting ridiculous. We need: One day vote. Specific excused absentee voting only. Yes, you must have a government issued ID and be on the voter roll where you live. Enough of this early voting, mailing ballots to household, etc.. it’s ripe for fraud. Maybe it’s worked in the past, but some nefarious people have picked up on the fact that these methods are easy to manipulate enough in close elections to make a difference. If we went back to same day voting, ID, voter rolls, etc.., like most other countries that aren’t third world (which is what the Democratic Party is) election can function with little problem. I have no idea if Lake would have won with a normal election. Maybe she would’ve, maybe she wouldn’t have. But from what I’ve seen during this trial, in my opinion, with as close as the outcome was, there’s a legitimate question |
|
Title: Re: Arizona Post by Serowbot on 12/27/22 at 07:47:09 Why am I not surprised that all of your solutions to the imaginary problems with voting lean Right? Az has been using mail-in voting without problems for decades. A. it's convenient B. it's more economical... ( no need for mailing sample ballots) C. it leaves a paper trail D. it avoids weather problems, long lines, traffic, transportation, health, volunteers shortages. Yeah,... let's stop that |
|
Title: Re: Arizona Post by WebsterMark on 12/27/22 at 12:50:31 Much like before Rush Limbaugh, everyone thought the media was unbiased, so just keep thinking everything was running smoothly with your elections before…. |
|
Title: Re: Arizona Post by Eegore on 12/27/22 at 13:14:48 "Without going any further off the topic of this thread, we’ve all seen those commercials for different drugs on TV and at the end they’re mandated to list all the possible side effects. Now we also probably seen those government paid commercials about getting the vaccine. What if they also listed all the possible side effects at the end of those commercials?" Those are not commercials. PSA do not require side-effects be listed and the side effects would have been a lot of conjecture. Of course saying it was safe and stopped the spread also was. |
|
Title: Re: Arizona Post by MnSpring on 12/28/22 at 06:42:54 4F594E534B5E53483C0 wrote:
You FORGOT, to tell all, what the ''REQUIREMENTS' are to prove one is a Citizen of the USA, in AZ. Before you, 'mail in that vote'. (Which is UN TRACEABLE) |
|
Title: Re: Arizona Post by Serowbot on 12/28/22 at 07:30:38 Not untraceable Your name, signature, and a contact phone number are on the envelope |
|
Title: Re: Arizona Post by MnSpring on 12/28/22 at 08:32:17 6076617C64717C67130 wrote:
I see. So a 'name', a 'scrawl' and 10 numerical items, are now PROOF of USA Citizenship. Got it ! |
|
Title: Re: Arizona Post by Serowbot on 12/28/22 at 08:47:58 They can verify that your signature matches your registered voter ID. How does in-person voting expand on that? Do they see your color? |
|
Title: Re: Arizona Post by WebsterMark on 12/28/22 at 11:18:34 2D3B2C31293C312A5E0 wrote:
They can but do they? |
|
Title: Re: Arizona Post by pg on 12/28/22 at 14:03:40 7563746971646972060 wrote:
Strengthen the integrity of chain of custody procedures.............. Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Arizona Post by WebsterMark on 12/30/22 at 05:34:08 “Absolute power corrupts, absolutely” Organizations that handle a lot of cash gradually develop systems and procedures that make theft harder, not easier. Vote by mail, loosened voter registration rolls, lengthening voting days, online, increasing drop boxes, etc. all make fraud easier, not harder. People in elected office have power and the quest for power knows no bounds. Elections need more protection, not less. |
|
Title: Re: Arizona Post by pg on 12/30/22 at 08:56:54 0B393E2F28392E113D2E375C0 wrote:
Nearly every means to degrade the integrity of the voting process has been achieved. Best regards, |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |