Author Topic: Election Results  (Read 287184 times)

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1900 on: June 10, 2022, 03:35:59 PM »
Republicans continuing their effective campaign to demonstrate election fraud by committing it....

Living in Michigan, I can tell you that what occurred is another example of Democrat vote-scamming. One of the big tactics for the Dems has been camouflaging themselves as their opposition in order to sabotage upcoming elections. Saul Alinskys biographical film was actually entitled, "Wolf in Sheep's Clothing." Saul Alinsky, the father of community organizing, and the rise of his Cultural Marxism, wrote the "Rules for Radicals", and his coaching encouraged Democrats to outright lie about their credentials to infiltrate campaigns to produce the most catastrophic results. A number of Michigan candidates, some relative newcomers to politics, with the best of intentions had to rely on unvetted volunteers to produce signatures for ballot requirements. A former Police Chief and Auto Executive were sabotaged by these vote-scammers. The descriptions of the obvious improper names generated were obviously not done by volunteers who wanted  to secure the needed signatures for the favored candidate.

I think it was at least five candidates who had enough challenges to affect their getting on the ballot. The only good thing about this was that several candidates had effective public campaigns based on fundraising dollars rather than spectacular issues. This gave a little more room for Tudor Dixon (https://www.tudordixon.com/), who is supported by Trump and others, because of issues and communication skills. The point here is not that getting rid of front runners is better for other candidates - but that Alinsky-inspired Democrats did this to enhance their favored Democrat incumbent, Gretchen Whitmer's chances of winning in November. Little did they realize that getting rid of the early front-runners would enable better candidates better chances.

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1901 on: June 10, 2022, 03:40:54 PM »
Quote
Living in Michigan, I can tell you that what occurred is another example of Democrat vote-scamming.
My father is the Democratic Party secretary of Oscoda County, and I can tell you that what occurred is not an example of Democrat vote-scamming.

Please understand that any time you reference Saul Alinsky as part of a modern Democrat's playbook, you are basically shouting "I'm a foolish crankpot" to the stars.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1902 on: June 10, 2022, 03:44:54 PM »
Republicans continuing their effective campaign to demonstrate election fraud by committing it....

Living in Michigan, I can tell you that what occurred is another example of Democrat vote-scamming. One of the big tactics for the Dems has been camouflaging themselves as their opposition in order to sabotage upcoming elections.
... A number of Michigan candidates, some relative newcomers to politics, with the best of intentions had to rely on unvetted volunteers to produce signatures for ballot requirements. A former Police Chief and Auto Executive were sabotaged by these vote-scammers. The descriptions of the obvious improper names generated were obviously not done by volunteers who wanted  to secure the needed signatures for the favored candidate.
...

The signatures weren't faked by deep cover volunteers but by paid signature gatherers.

Quote
Ahead of that, on May 23, the state Bureau of Elections published a report that claimed that 36 individual paid circulators faked thousands of signatures to take advantage of a payout that reached as high as $20 per signature on average.

"Although it is typical for staff to encounter some signatures of dubious authenticity scattered within nominating petitions, the Bureau is unaware of another election cycle in which this many circulators submitted such a substantial volume of fraudulent petition sheets consisting of invalid signatures," the report stated.

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/02/1102485484/why-several-republican-candidates-for-michigan-governor-were-blocked-from-the-ba

Any evidence that these were deep cover Democrats that Republicans were hiring and paying thousands of dollars for fraudulent signatures?

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1903 on: June 16, 2022, 08:04:16 PM »

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1904 on: June 17, 2022, 11:14:36 AM »
Quote
Newsmax previously apologized for the content it broadcast in the wake of the 2020 election, including claims that a Dominion employee, Eric Coomer, had directed an effort to steal the election.

"On behalf of Newsmax, we would like to apologize for any harm that our reporting of the allegations against Dr. Coomer may have caused to Dr. Coomer and his family," the company said at the time.

But, you know, it's only the libs that are responsible for threats and violence.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1905 on: June 18, 2022, 09:30:33 PM »
...My father is the Democratic Party secretary of Oscoda County, and I can tell you that what occurred is not an example of Democrat vote-scamming.

Please understand that any time you reference Saul Alinsky as part of a modern Democrat's playbook, you are basically shouting "I'm a foolish crankpot" to the stars.

On the contrary. When campaign workers produce evidently invalid signatures - the reason is not to help their ostensible preferred candidate. Since Democrats have a history of vote-scamming they are the obvious culprits.

Also, Alinsky is the Patron Saint of Hillary Clinton, who was personally mentored by him.
Quote
David Brock dubbed Hillary Clinton "Alinsky's daughter." Barbara Olson began each chapter of her 1999 book on Clinton, Hell to Pay, with a quote from Alinsky, and argued that his strategic theories directly influenced her behavior during her husband's presidency. Belief in an untoward connection to Alinsky was supercharged when Clinton asked Wellesley College to seal her thesis for the duration of her husband's presidency [Hillary sponsored Alinsky to be a commencement speaker for her school]

As his candidacy gained strength, and once he had defeated Clinton for the Democratic Party nomination, attention shifted to Obama's ties to Alinsky. Monica Crowley, Bill O'Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh repeatedly drew a connection, with the latter asking, "Has [Obama] ever had an original idea — by that, I mean something not found in The Communist Manifesto? Has he? Has he simply had an idea not found in Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals?

Do not act like there is no perceived connection with the Dems and Alinsky. This is just more debate fallacy (Laughter by Intimidation) that is easily countered by facts (that is provable and everyone does know.)

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1906 on: June 18, 2022, 10:08:50 PM »
William, everything you seem to think "everyone knows" tends to be reliably false.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1907 on: June 19, 2022, 11:19:43 AM »
The Tea Party was also Alinsky-inspired.

Quote
More recently, Alinsky's writing, in particular Rules for Radicals, helped shape the Tea Party movement. Dave Weigel reported that the "town hall strategy" of summer 2009, in which anti-Obamacare activists forced confrontations with legislators over the plan, was influenced by the book. Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey was an open admirer of Alinsky during his time running FreedomWorks, a lobbying group with ties to the Tea Party Movement. "What I think of Alinsky is that he was very good at what he did but what he did was not good," Armey told the Financial Times. In 2009, Adam Brandon, then a press secretary for FreedomWorks, told Politico he was given a copy of Rules for Radicals upon joining the group.

His community organizing tactics have been the playbook for all parts of the political spectrum.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1908 on: June 20, 2022, 02:54:39 PM »
The Tea Party was also Alinsky-inspired.

Quote
More recently, Alinsky's writing, in particular Rules for Radicals, helped shape the Tea Party movement. Dave Weigel reported that the "town hall strategy" of summer 2009, in which anti-Obamacare activists forced confrontations with legislators over the plan, was influenced by the book. Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey was an open admirer of Alinsky during his time running FreedomWorks, a lobbying group with ties to the Tea Party Movement. "What I think of Alinsky is that he was very good at what he did but what he did was not good," Armey told the Financial Times. In 2009, Adam Brandon, then a press secretary for FreedomWorks, told Politico he was given a copy of Rules for Radicals upon joining the group.

His community organizing tactics have been the playbook for all parts of the political spectrum.

You've got that backwards. (A common tactic of Democrat apologists.) Most everyone knew of Hillary's connections to Alinsky, and looked at his "Rules For Radicals" to understand the battlefield. ...Just like most everyone looks at Sun Tzu for his views of the Art of War. The advice of Marx and Engels as well as Cloward and Pivens is bad stuff. You don't embrace it by looking at it. But if you are ignorant of the information, how does one refute disinformation?

The Tea Party was about the Silent Majority and the idea that there are more honest conservatives than dishonest Democrats. It was not about "Rules for Radicals." I advise others to research and look at the real metrics - not to swallow untruths and make them religious doctrine.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1909 on: June 20, 2022, 05:01:18 PM »
So you're alleging that Adam Brandon was not given a copy of Rules for Radicals by FreedomWorks?

Quote
I had heard a great deal about Saul Alinsky's book Rules for Radicals, but had never read them. The Right has demonized Alinsky, linking him to Obama. Curious to know more, I went to Wikipedia and found the Rules themselves.

As I read them, it occurred to me that these Rules are strategic, not ideological. Alinsky was of the Left, but the Rules have no party.

As I look around America in 2010, it occurs to me that the group currently using these Rules most effectively is the Tea Party.

- Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun Times

Quote
Suddenly, the book was being touted as a way to beat the left at its own game by everyone from 69-year-old former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, whose nonprofit group FreedomWorks has emerged as a leading Washington bulwark for the tea party movement, to 25-year-old James O’Keefe, the self-styled activist investigative journalist who last year became a conservative hero for secretly recording employees of the liberal community-organizing group ACORN apparently offering advice on how to set up a brothel, to tea party leaders seeking to disrupt congressional town halls.

Politico

Quote
Horwitt, who participated in a 10-day training session led by Alinsky and remained in touch with him until his death, called Alinsky “a great pragmatist” who “knew that your own little band was never enough to get things done. You had to reach a broader constituency and the New Left was simply turning off people that they needed to win over.”

Horwitt thinks Alinsky would have “sympathy for the kind of working and middle class folks who are at the tea parties, who the economy is hurting a lot and who are angry and kind of confused.”

OOh, look! The Tea Party has Alinsky cooties!

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1910 on: June 21, 2022, 08:13:55 AM »
Kudos WM. You successfully changed the topic from Trump to Alinksy. Much easier to beat up on the old monsters than to defend Trump's words and actions. Or to show how the 2000 mules documentary got people arrested 18 months before it debuted. Or to explain why Bill Barr called all of the fraud claims bull*censored*. Or to explain why Trump included a discredited more votes than voters line in his screed. All that crap is indefensible. So choose a new topic. Let's talk about a political activist who died in the 70's and is still controlling the Democrats from the grave. About as useful as Hugo Chavez stealing the election from Trump.

You like to claim how right you always are and have always been. How did that CIA raid of servers in Germany go? Did it show how the election was stolen? Or did they "kill" all those people (who actually died in a helicopter crash) for nothing?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1911 on: June 28, 2022, 06:30:45 PM »
Dinesh still beefing with Bill Barr.

Quote
Hearsay or not, I can believe Trump threw a burger against the wall. When a guy has an election stolen from him, he’s likely to be a little upset. I’m just waiting for the rest of the story. Did Bill Barr pick it up off the ground and eat it?

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1912 on: June 29, 2022, 07:33:05 AM »
Well more bad news for Trump and his Big Lie supporters.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/election-2022-abortion-central-first-051003953.html

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1913 on: June 29, 2022, 03:33:01 PM »
Try to get some sleep.

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1914 on: June 29, 2022, 04:01:39 PM »
Crunch, do you think the fake concern act you throw at Mark is an effective rhetorical technique? Or is it just something you find personally amusing to do?

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1915 on: June 29, 2022, 04:08:52 PM »
Ever since I got my CPAP I sleep great. Averaging over 8 hours a night.

It is just too easy to find things where Trump is losing.  Just a few minutes each morning.  I spend more time catching up with the web comics I follow than I do looking for stuff where Trump is having a bad day.

So no worries.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1916 on: July 12, 2022, 11:23:13 PM »
Another twist in the election hoaxes was talked about today. It seems MI Gov. Gretchen Whitmer knew about her kidnapping well before it happened and she was never in any jeopardy. She told her family in the Summer they were going to hear about a kidnapping plot. The kidnappers have been in jail for years now, but two were acquitted in April, and she wants to retry them. Evidently FBI went about entrapping these men and bringing them together - when they didn't even know one another. They were arrested just before the election, and Whitmer blamed Trump for inspiring his extremists into trying to kill her. Just one more attack on smearing Trump as a November surprise.

Now her former associate who was appointed to a judicial post and was assigned this case, has recused himself, and FOIA request are being ignored. The recusal should be a public document, but they are stonewalling. Some FBI agents may be in trouble.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1917 on: July 14, 2022, 03:43:02 PM »
A group of conservatives say Trump  lost the election, did not have it stolen.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/high-profile-conservatives-debunk-trumps-182911718.html

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1918 on: July 16, 2022, 09:06:51 AM »
Even Bannon knows Trump lies.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/steve-bannon-said-trump-lie-111739584.html

There is recorded audio of Bannon, just days before the election, telling a room full of people that Trump would just declare victory on election night, even if he was not winning.

All of the "Big Lie" and Jan 6 were the desperate acts of a weak loser trying to maintain power so that he could stay in office. He was willing to burn down Democracy for personal gain.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1919 on: July 18, 2022, 05:49:02 PM »
The totality of Trump's lies is being systematically exposed by the January 6 Committee.  To say that Trump is an Emperor-wannabe who has no clothes becomes more distasteful with every image the committee brings forward.  https://www.clevescene.com/cleveland/photos-naked-donald-trump-statue-before-police-hauled-it-away/Slideshow/38343037

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1920 on: July 19, 2022, 04:29:11 PM »
And Lindsey Graham is going to testify in the GA probe.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/lindsey-graham-agrees-testify-georgia-192840056.html

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1921 on: July 19, 2022, 08:26:31 PM »
The totality of Trump's lies is being systematically exposed by the January 6 Committee.  To say that Trump is an Emperor-wannabe who has no clothes becomes more distasteful with every image the committee brings forward.  https://www.clevescene.com/cleveland/photos-naked-donald-trump-statue-before-police-hauled-it-away/Slideshow/38343037

Actually, Trump's truths are being systematically proved as anyone with any sense listens to the rebuttal of the J6 Unselect Committee's Kangaroo Court "testimony."

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1922 on: July 19, 2022, 09:09:14 PM »
And Lindsey Graham is going to testify in the GA probe.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/lindsey-graham-agrees-testify-georgia-192840056.html

Did you read your article?

Quote
"Graham has not agreed to testify," Bishop said. "Graham will fight the subpoena in federal district court in Georgia."

He agreed to move it to a different court and fight it there.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1923 on: July 21, 2022, 11:46:52 AM »
Many here have posted about Democrat trickery and the concept of "The ends justifies the means!"

Besides Soros pumping millions of dollars into bad candidates with the self-proclaimed reason of destroying America, the lower-echelon Democrat money men are also using their money to influence the election: https://freebeacon.com/elections/election-deniers-primary/

One thing to notice, is that they did it when Trump was running in 2016, thinking a nobody like him would not be able to overturn Hillary's "guaranteed" election. They figured wrong, but are using the same chicanery to donate to Trump-endorsed candidates thinking they will be easier to defeat. They knocked out two front-running candidates in the Michigan Governor's race by counterfeiting their signatures needed to run. It's all a plan. Perhaps they are shooting themselves in the foot? The Red Wave doesn't need their help.

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1924 on: July 21, 2022, 12:41:51 PM »
When you say "many," who specifically do you mean?

---------

As a side note: possibly the only opinion more ridiculous and implausible than believing George Soros is sneakily trying to destroy America is believing that Dems are somehow intentionally duplicating signatures en masse to tank Republican nabobs in their primaries.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2022, 12:45:11 PM by Tom »

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1925 on: July 21, 2022, 12:46:38 PM »
... They [democrats] knocked out two front-running candidates in the Michigan Governor's race by counterfeiting their signatures needed to run. It's all a plan.
...

Again you have no evidence undercover democrats forged signatures and slipped them past those campaigns. All the evidence points to shady for-profit signature gathering operations, not sneaky undercover democratic infiltrators. But I expect you won't defend this claim and make it again in a month or two anyway.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1926 on: July 21, 2022, 01:42:08 PM »
... They [democrats] knocked out two front-running candidates in the Michigan Governor's race by counterfeiting their signatures needed to run. It's all a plan.
...

Again you have no evidence undercover democrats forged signatures and slipped them past those campaigns. All the evidence points to shady for-profit signature gathering operations, not sneaky undercover democratic infiltrators. But I expect you won't defend this claim and make it again in a month or two anyway.

Let me get this straight. You propose anyone acting purely to make money would not be political? Apply logic. Not much is needed. Can't you see that someone wanting to get paid for no work, should make sure the work paid for cannot be easily discovered, ruining the cash-cow that it is. I saw the same thing in Vegas when I was working there. Obama/Allisky style community organizers submitted signatures there that were easily seen to be bogus. It was so transparent that the bogus signatures were uncovered early enough to be compensated for with honest signature-gatherers. These charlatans evidently did not need the scamming to make money. In fact, the effort was so ludicrous they intended to rub their hirers' faces in it. Also, note that these disqualified

In Michigan it was sheer numbers. They had enough to push off the authenticating until it was too late to meet the ballot-inclusion deadline. But once discovered, the scam was easily understood to be fraudulent. There were also enough of these scammers to make a difference. The sheer number tends to look like conspiracy. The disqualified candidates were the front runners. We also have record fundraising from Democrat money sources aimed at GOP second-tier candidates hoping their nominations would allow their Dems' to run against less moderate ones. To their chagrin, the Trump-endorsed candidates are far more popular than the Dem pollsters allowed for.

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1927 on: July 21, 2022, 01:47:33 PM »
Quote
Can't you see that someone wanting to get paid for no work, should make sure the work paid for cannot be easily discovered...
Explain ACORN. Why didn't their contractors take more care to not have their misdeeds discovered, since they wanted to get paid?

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1928 on: July 21, 2022, 02:14:03 PM »
... They [democrats] knocked out two front-running candidates in the Michigan Governor's race by counterfeiting their signatures needed to run. It's all a plan.
...

Again you have no evidence undercover democrats forged signatures and slipped them past those campaigns. All the evidence points to shady for-profit signature gathering operations, not sneaky undercover democratic infiltrators. But I expect you won't defend this claim and make it again in a month or two anyway.

Let me get this straight. You propose anyone acting purely to make money would not be political? Apply logic. Not much is needed. Can't you see that someone wanting to get paid for no work, should make sure the work paid for cannot be easily discovered, ruining the cash-cow that it is.
...

What you're saying is that you have no evidence these people hired by multiple Republican campaigns are secretly democrats?

The most likely is that these were Republicans or independents since they were hired by Republican campaigns. Its rare for campaigns to hire a firm that is partisan for the other side. Then these firms that were hired by multiple campaigns (each person can only sign one form) and realized that they couldn't meet satisfy all their contracts and then tried to cheat to hit their numbers and make some money.  They told themselves what every criminal does, they won't get caught, no one will look that close at the signatures, its easy money, no one is getting hurt by me signing this petition in their name, etc.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1929 on: July 21, 2022, 04:13:28 PM »
So let me get this straight, you guys have been arguing "with a straight face" that ballots that are received and that don't comply with the technical election laws must be counted because "every vote must count" and also "with a straight face" are somehow not concerned by Shenigans that literally disqualify candidates from the election.  Candidates, given their front runner status, that would have no trouble meeting the signature requirements legitimately but who fail to do so solely because of bad actors.

And then, despite that such actions are expressly targeted only at certain candidates, who "coincidentally" are the candidates most likely to be able to defeat the Democrats in a general election, demand extraordinary proof (that you know will not exist) of their specific intentions before you'll believe that the whole thing is a deliberate and targeted strategy? 

Aren't you the same people that claim voter IDs (a policy favored by virtually every demographic) that are available to all citizens are somehow a nefarious plot to discriminate based on race?  Notwithstanding you've never actually found the kind of evidence you seem to be demanding of the same?

Honestly, what would your reaction be if "bad actors" were out there "registering voters for voter IDs" and it was all a scam to cause said voters to miss the actual registration?  You'd flip your lids and demand that the "ineligible" voters be made eligible because it was not their fault they were deliberately mislead.  You could have a signed confession in your hands from the persons that did it that they had some economic motivation and not a political one and NOTHING ON EARTH would actually cause you to believe that there was no political motivation.

This country can not function if partisans insist on such ridiculously one sided views of how things should work and stick their fingers in their ears whenever evidence of something that is clearly wrong is presented to them.  The fact that this was even possible should have every citizen outraged, both the bad actors and the state's insistence on not allowing a cure of the problem, have taken away the voting rights of people in an entire state, and you're quibbling with WM about whether he can produce signed confessions?

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1930 on: July 21, 2022, 04:51:52 PM »
By "shenanigans," you mean election fraud that disqualified two primary candidates? I mean, yeah, I'm concerned by it, and glad they were disqualified as a consequence.

Let's charitably ignore your attempt to draw a false equivalence between actual forgery and technical inconsistency, and instead focus on your assertion that we should be angry at Democrats because some Republicans were caught engaging in shenanigans, which of course they would not have done. I mean, no one's asking for signed confessions, here; they were actually asking William for any evidence at all to suggest that the firms paid by piece to collect signatures did not, for their own benefit or the benefit of their client, generate fake signatures.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2022, 04:55:21 PM by Tom »

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1931 on: July 21, 2022, 05:35:08 PM »
By "shenanigans," you mean election fraud that disqualified two primary candidates? I mean, yeah, I'm concerned by it, and glad they were disqualified as a consequence.

Let's charitably ignore your attempt to draw a false equivalence between actual forgery and technical inconsistency, and instead focus on your assertion that we should be angry at Democrats because some Republicans were caught engaging in shenanigans, which of course they would not have done. I mean, no one's asking for signed confessions, here; they were actually asking William for any evidence at all to suggest that the firms paid by piece to collect signatures did not, for their own benefit or the benefit of their client, generate fake signatures.

I've studied your response, and really wonder why you even wrote it. What are you thinking? Do you think anyone will buy your sham argument at face value? Seriati is correct.

There are two reasons for scamming signatures. Political "Shenanigans" is one issue, but who says such bad actors don't like to be paid for their efforts? Let's look at your question about drawing a false equivalence between actual forgery and technical inconsistency. You are so gleeful that GOP candidates were disqualified because some were caught engaging in shenanigans. But... No GOP candidates did this because they didn't have enough signatures. It wasn't a fraud to get on the ballot. It was a Democrat fraud to keep them off the ballot.

Sheriff James Craig had been the front runner until being disqualified. These Democrat criminals did themselves no favors. Craig was a moderate who was probably going 50-50 with general Democrat issues. Tudor Dixon is a charismatic Trump-endorsed candidate with purely conservative beliefs, and she is a former talk-show host, well-able to communicate effectively. Her participation in last night's Michigan GOP gubernatorial debate proved that. The link I gave you alluded to Democrats who are so anti-Trump, that they think getting his choices on the ballot to run against Democrats favor the Dems. They feared Craig when they should have feared all things Trump.

Talk about delusional! Dems have always been vote-fraudsters. Have been for years. Year after year they have been found out and prosecuted - many serving time. But go and look for the history. Somehow, the liberal server techs scrub that stuff to make the Dems' insistence that "both sides do it", makes sense. Try to look up the son of a Democrat candidate that slashed all the tires around the GOP candidates meeting rooms and offices. Betcha it will be hard to locate. You surely remember it, but won't easily find it. But that's just one thing. I remember in-depth research produced with names and numbers that somehow dissappeared. I've taken to archiving this disgraceful stuff contemporaneously. In law, contemporaneous usually trumps most evidence. Since my archives are with correct chain of evidence, also, it's hard to understand how easily Dem's discount it as "unfounded."

Here's an old legacy-piece from the 2000 election that is hard to find now:
Quote
ELECTION 2000
'How Democrats steal elections'
 Veterans of hand recounts describe techniques used to change outcome

 By Jon Dougherty and David Kupelian from 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

 The manual vote recounts being insisted on by Democratic operatives in Palm Beach County, Fla., have been used for over 20 years to steal elections from Republicans, claim several GOP veterans of hand-recount election-upsets.

 According to Bob Haueter, chief of staff to the California Assembly Republican Caucus, and an expert on manual recounts, a Democrat lawyer intimately involved in "stealing" elections from Republicans through hand recounts admitted to the process and even shared the techniques involved.

 After Tuesday's vote and an automatic recount still left GOP nominee George W. Bush ahead by a slim 288-vote margin, Palm Beach elections officials decided that a manual recount of all 425,000 votes should be undertaken.

 "What's happening in Florida is exactly the game plan laid out to me by an attorney who represented the Democrats in a recount in California where they stole a seat from us," former California Assemblyman Pat Nolan told WorldNetDaily.

 A staunch conservative legislator, Nolan served in the California Assembly from 1978 until 1994, when he was convicted, along with several other lawmakers, in a federal corruption probe. After spending a little over two years in federal prison, he emerged to become president of Justice Fellowship, the public policy arm of Watergate figure Chuck Colson's Prison Fellowship Ministries. For the past four years, Nolan has worked with Colson -- another fallen-but-reformed public figure -- to reform the criminal justice system.

 Regarding the 1980 California Assembly race between Republican Adrian Fondse and Democrat Pat Johnston, Nolan recalled that the Republican won "by about 54 votes or so."

 But after the election, Democrats "brought in their junkyard dog lawyers from around the country," said Nolan, "and basically harassed the local registrar -- got in their faces and demanded to handle ballots" -- which were of the same type now in dispute in Palm Beach.

 The same issue of "hanging chads -- the little squares in the punch cards -- was also an issue in Stockton," says Nolan. The Democrats' strategy, he says, was to handle them as often as possible -- perhaps bending, crinkling or otherwise altering them -- so that additional chads become displaced, thereby disqualifying the ballot.

 The result? In the Stockton election, Nolan said Democrats were successful in getting the vote count reversed from a plus-54 win by Republicans to a minus-17 loss.

 "I vowed that I'd never let that happen again," Nolan said. "So I asked my staff to track down the lawyer that headed up the team for the Democrats."

 Haueter was, at that time, chief of staff for Nolan, and it was he who first contacted attorney Tim Downs, who readily admitted the Democratic strategy and even described the tactics to Nolan.

 "When I first called him and explained to him who I was and why I was calling, he chuckled and said, 'I wondered when you guys would get around to calling me,'" Haueter said, adding that Downs told him -- "'I've taken several seats from you across the United States.'"

 "Downs told me, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, 'You get me within 100 votes and I can steal any election,'" Haueter told WorldNetDaily.

 Nolan subsequently hired Downs and "brought him out to train my staff in the techniques they [Democrats] were using" so they could protect themselves against future election-fraud victimization, Nolan said.

 Nolan and Haueter said Downs described three basic tactics:

 "The first rule is, you keep counting until you're ahead. And if that doesn't put you ahead, you recount, re-recount -- you keep counting until you're ahead. If you're behind, then you've got nothing to lose."

 Second, Nolan said, "the more times those ballots are handled, the more chance there is that chads will break loose" and hence disqualify the ballot.

 Third, he said, "the minute you're ahead, you stop and declare yourself the victor."

 "After that, you don't want the ballots handled any more," Nolan said, "because some of the chads for your candidate might break loose. While you're behind it doesn't matter, but if you're ahead and more break off or become disqualified for your candidate, that's a bad thing." A favorite tactic, said Nolan, is to ask election officials for ballots, "allegedly so they can look at it more closely." When operatives do, often they will bend or crinkle ballots covertly in an effort to break another chad loose and thus have the ballot thrown out.

 "This whole process sounds like exactly what is going on in Florida," Nolan said. "And the more times those ballots are handled, the more chances are you'll break some of them [chads] loose."

 Nolan referred to Fox News' Tony Snow's weekend interview with Bush campaign representative and former Secretary of State James Baker, in which he asked Baker why -- after each time election officials run ballots through mechanical vote-tally machines -- there have been more votes counted or taken away from both candidates.

 "Baker didn't have an answer to that," Nolan said. "But the answer is, because they've handled those ballots more times, breaking loose more of those chads" -- those that perhaps weren't completely punched through.

 "The tactics fit what [Downs] told me back in 1982 and 1983," Nolan said, who added that he didn't know who Downs may have worked with using these tactics recently.

 WorldNetDaily attempted to reach Downs by phone on Sunday, but was unsuccessful.

 Following a mechanical recount over the weekend, Palm Beach election officials awarded an additional 36 votes to Gore, while Bush lost three.

 "A hand count of four selected precincts turned up enough additional votes for Gore to prompt the Democratic majority on the county election commission to order the hand recount in all 531 precincts," the Associated Press reported.

 Republicans, news accounts said, lodged "strenuous protests" and pledged to file a lawsuit halting yet another recount of Palm Beach votes. That hearing is scheduled for today.

 Reports said nearly 30,000 ballots have already been rejected in Palm Beach County because they had two or more holes punched for president, or because computers could not detect any holes at all. Ballots with two votes also are rejected in hand counts.

 Corroborating Haueter's and Nolan's account is a parallel story by Los Angeles-area political strategist Arnold Steinberg. In a National Review.com piece titled "Beware of Hanging Chads," Steinberg asks, "Do you know what two words will determine the Presidential election?" The chilling answer, he said: "Hanging chads."

 Steinberg, describing a 1980 congressional race between long-time incumbent, Democrat James C. Corman, and Steinberg's client, Republican challenger Bobbi Fiedler, recalls how after Fiedler's upset victory -- by a slim margin -- over the heavily favored Corman, the Democrats called for a hand recount.

 "Democratic Party lawyers and recount specialists descended on the county registrar's office," says Steinberg. "Each recount station had a government employee to do the counting, flanked by one Democratic and one Republican observer.

 "The Democrats' agenda was, of course, to change the election result, and they went about it systematically. At their urging, the recounting began with Corman's strongest precincts, Fiedler's weakest. Their intention was to recount ballots in those areas until the election outcome was reversed, and then stop the recount. Similarly, today in Florida, the Gore people are demanding hand recounts in their favored counties, where they would be most likely to gain."

 Just as important as the order in which the precincts are recounted, however, is outright ballot tampering, says Steinberg.

 "Their hired guns tried lots of tricks on Corman's behalf, but what I remember most was the hanging chads. A chad is the perforated square (or circle) on the ballot that a voter depresses with a pin to indicate his preferred candidate. The chad hangs from the ballot if the voter didn't fully depress it -- for instance, if an older person did not press firmly enough. This matters because voter machines usually are not able to tabulate cards with hanging chads.

 "It often comes down to interpreting the voter's intention. Does the chad hang 'strongly' -- i.e, detached only a little -- meaning that it is a mistake that should not be counted? Or does it hang loosely -- i.e., mostly detached -- as an intended vote would be?

 "What my lawyers soon discovered was that the opposition would eyeball a disputed ballot before picking it up to officially inspect it. If the hanging chad indicated a vote for Fiedler, the lawyer for the other side picked up the ballot ever so carefully, so he could argue that the voter really never intended to vote for Fiedler. If the hanging chad was a Corman vote, the lawyer picked up the ballot quite vigorously, so that the chad soon was no longer hanging.

 "'You see,' their guy would declare, 'that voter obviously intended to vote for Corman.'"

 Luckily, says Steinberg, "it didn't take long to figure out all the opposition's tricks. I added more lawyers, more observers, and the bad guys eventually caved. Bobbi Fiedler's victory was preserved. But it was a nasty business."

 Echoing Nolan's and Haueter's experience with manual-vote recounts, Steinberg says, "The more things change, the more they stay the same."

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1932 on: July 21, 2022, 05:55:43 PM »
Quote
You are so gleeful that GOP candidates were disqualified....
When have you seen me express anything like glee?

Quote
Talk about delusional! Dems have always been vote-fraudsters. Have been for years...
William, you continue to confuse assertions of fact with actual evidence. Tim Downs has been dead for more than a decade. Who exactly do you think is mobilizing Democrats to go work for Republican petition mills to sneak thousands of signatures onto their ballots?
« Last Edit: July 21, 2022, 06:03:32 PM by Tom »

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1933 on: July 21, 2022, 07:04:36 PM »
By "shenanigans," you mean election fraud that disqualified two primary candidates? I mean, yeah, I'm concerned by it, and glad they were disqualified as a consequence.

In Michigan it was five candidates.  There's absolutely no indication that anyone involved thinks the Republican candidates were anything but unsuspecting victims.   

The best case for the disqualification being a miscarriage was probably Perry Johnson.  Michigan requires 15k signatures.  Perry turned in over 23k, generally well beyond the margin for signatures that are likely to be disqualified.  The Board determined that 13.8k were valid, and threw out 9.4k (of which 6.9k were from the fraudulent actors). That's clearly a candidate that had groundswell support and likely only stopped collecting legitimate signatures because of the deliberate actions of the fraudster.  The fraudsters (in each case) made sure that they "collected" more than enough signatures to completely blow through the standard safety margins - that's quite literally an intentional and deliberate decision that's designed for no other purpose than to ensure the signature verification process will fail if challenged.

The DNC did challenge the signatures.  The four member Board split on party lines 2:2 on whether to allow the candidates (who no one legitimately questioned were the victims, unlike your snarky and baseless inferences) onto the ballot.  With the tie the candidates were off the ballot.  So literally, the Democrats on the board eliminated these candidates from the ballot.  It's hard to me to see the justice, at least in Perry's case, of that decision where you had actual knowledge of the campaign being defrauded and clear evidence they had received significant groundswell support (to the tune of 13.8k signatures) and that "but for" the fraud they would have continued to collect signatures and likely hit the goal prior to the submission deadline. 

James Craig was the front runner, and he ended up with 10.2k accepted signatures and 11.1k that were rejected (of his 21.3k submitted, 9.8k were from the fraudulent actors).

The MI courts (at the lower levels) effectively ruled that the Board didn't have to verify each signatures before it was rejected and in fact, part of the complaint was that the Board threw out entire sheets based on who the canvasser's were.  The case was appealed to the MI Supreme Court and the relief requested was an order putting the candidate's name on the ballot.  The MI SC rejected the case on technical grounds, effectively saying that the relief was the "wrong" relief - he couldn't require the court to require the Board to put his name on the ballot, but they also said that he may have been entitled to have required the board to comply with the law on specific verification of the names.  In any event, it was too late for him to do so (because the hard coded ballot submission timeline would lapse).

So you have a candidate that any reasonable observer would believe that "but for" being defrauded would have gotten the signatures, who very likely could have gotten replacement signatures if the Board had communicated that it was considering rejecting the signatures in a timely manner, kept off a ballot for election based on the decision of 2 members of the opposite political party.  Does that really serve the interests of the electorate?  Remember getting on the ballot does not mean that you win the nomination, and if the candidate did win the nomination, wouldn't that mean that it was the correct answer?  It's been the historical practice of the federal courts to err on the side of including such a candidate on the ballot rather than excluding them, since the election itself would cure any possible risk on this issue.

What interest does excluding a defrauded candidate on a technicality serve, where the electorate could have directly weighed-in? 

Quote
Let's charitably ignore your attempt to draw a false equivalence between actual forgery and technical inconsistency, and instead focus on your assertion that we should be angry at Democrats because some Republicans were caught engaging in shenanigans, which of course they would not have done. I mean, no one's asking for signed confessions, here; they were actually asking William for any evidence at all to suggest that the firms paid by piece to collect signatures did not, for their own benefit or the benefit of their client, generate fake signatures.

Why?  Seriously, why on earth would we presume guilt of the victims?  Do you not seriously understand how messed up that demand is?

Not to mention there is no serious account of this that's consistent with your spurious insinuations.  The former police chief withdrew as soon as he found out - he wanted no association with the fraudsters.  Yet here you are demanding "proof" before you'll actually consider fairness?

It's literally the truth that the DNC filed the challenges (no evidence that this was coordinated, but also none that it wasn't - based on your theory can you "prove" that they did so in good faith - discounting any statements they or apparently any neutral observers made on the situation).  It's literally the truth that decision of the 2 Democrats on the Board kept them off the ballot and it's hard to see how that serves the interests of a fair election absent a demonstration that the candidates caused the fraud (all neutral accounts seem to agree they were not aware of the fraud - not least in part because they would have had the opportunity and incentive to correct it if they had been). 

Instead, we should jump at the contra-logical interpretation that the candidates themselves went out of their way to make sure that they had enough obviously fraudulent petitions to eliminate the standard safety margins in their signature collection efforts.

These are suspicious times and WM hasn't carried the burden that the DNC or any material chunk of Democrats caused this as part of a deliberate plan, but there is zero question that the bad actors in fact did engage in a deliberate strategy that ensured each of these candidates  would both belief they had an adequate safety margin and also not in fact have an adequate safety margin. 

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1934 on: July 21, 2022, 07:36:38 PM »
Seriati, would you agree that many of the candidates for whom ACORN collected signatures were actually victims?

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1935 on: July 21, 2022, 08:05:16 PM »
... you continue to confuse assertions of fact with actual evidence. Tim Downs has been dead for more than a decade. Who exactly do you think is mobilizing Democrats to go work for Republican petition mills to sneak thousands of signatures onto their ballots?

Are you serious? I name Pelosi first, because she pushed an unwarranted HR-1 as her first bill upon gaining the House. It's only reason was to make vote-scamming because of emergencies more possible. Then, Voila! the pandemic allowed an excuse for vote harvesting, and Pelosi was ready. There were hundreds if not thousands of eyewitness testimony about vote-scamming - but you won't see them, because the courts never looked at them claiming lack of standing. Perhaps those affidavits disclosed names. The media never bothered to publicize them - but they got the SCOTUS secret and illegal brief into print fast enough. To start with, accept the Dems arrested for it who pleaded guilty after the 2000 Mules documentary. Did you ask who provided the bogus ballots that were filled out and submitted illegally? Who organized the money to pay all these 58,000 Mules who were identified. This was not a local, small time scheme.

Also, accept that the normal Democrat vote-scamming went on as usual. They've been doing it for so long, that expecting less would be Pollyannish, neh? At counting house after counting house, schedules were violated, and poll-watchers discouraged from doing their jobs. Can I name the water main break as a scam?

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1936 on: July 21, 2022, 08:12:12 PM »
William, almost every single truth claim in your post was entirely false and, worse, easily falsifiable. (Just as an example: 58K mules have not in fact been "identified.") I really don't like having to explain basic facts to you, especially because I know you're impervious to them -- but if you're going to try to have these conversations, please don't just randomly insist on crap.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1937 on: July 21, 2022, 08:33:15 PM »
William, almost every single truth claim in your post was entirely false and, worse, easily falsifiable. (Just as an example: 58K mules have not in fact been "identified.") I really don't like having to explain basic facts to you, especially because I know you're impervious to them -- but if you're going to try to have these conversations, please don't just randomly insist on crap.

Again, an excuse for not providing any refutation for your accusation? Did you or did you not actually see the documentary, where they explained the huge total number they came up with, but decided to go with the small 2000 number to make it impossible for any naysayer to challenge them. These 2000 were impossible to be defended - yet you do it by looking at the total number that was claimed, yet not put on the table. You can't challenge the 2000, but pretend the full number was not valid? Did any of the 2000 give you a sense of their innocence? None of the larger number were iffy - it's just that the 2000 were irrefutable.

So let me ask, who paid the bounty to the 2000 scammers. and who printed and gave them the bogus ballots? It makes one wonder if anyone offered you a price to be here now, neh? Look, they paid it to them. They seem to be your bosom buddies. Hopefully you are doing this pro bono - but based on the incident, one needs to have a suspicious mind. We know they pay. You are doing their work.

Answer us, who has that kind of money to spread around, and who has the facility to print up hundreds of thousands of bogus ballots, get then to all the drop off points, and fill them out in the few hours after the numbers needed was ascertained?

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1938 on: July 21, 2022, 08:49:05 PM »
...These are suspicious times and Wm hasn't carried the burden that the DNC or any material chunk of Democrats caused this as part of a deliberate plan, but there is zero question that the bad actors in fact did engage in a deliberate strategy that ensured each of these candidates  would both belief they had an adequate safety margin and also not in fact have an adequate safety margin. 

Yes, like the UnSelect J6 Committee, I don't have the authority to indict anyone, nor even ask Justice to be served. I do have logic and Occam's Razor to point a finger at the Democrats for doing this. I'm not saying all Democrats are dirty - but there are too many who are. When Senator Philip Hart was representing Michigan, he was known as a purely honest and honorable man who would never bend or break the law for political gain. He was so respected by both sides that they named the new office building after him when he died. So, yes, there were and probably are good Democrats now. They don't speak out when Pelosi or Schumer do something reprehensible, and even Manchin bows to the pressure. Those like, Nadler, Schiff, or Maxine Waters are beyond the pale, and I doubt there ia anyone who doesn't have their numbers.

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1939 on: July 21, 2022, 09:39:04 PM »
Did you seriously criticize me for criticizing your 58K number, on the grounds that even the filmmakers knew 58K was blatantly unsupportable and thus went with a number over an order of magnitude smaller?

jc44

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1940 on: July 22, 2022, 06:44:19 AM »
Answer us, who has that kind of money to spread around, and who has the facility to print up hundreds of thousands of bogus ballots, get then to all the drop off points, and fill them out in the few hours after the numbers needed was ascertained?
Donald Trump?

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1941 on: July 22, 2022, 09:17:39 AM »
...These are suspicious times and Wm hasn't carried the burden that the DNC or any material chunk of Democrats caused this as part of a deliberate plan, but there is zero question that the bad actors in fact did engage in a deliberate strategy that ensured each of these candidates  would both belief they had an adequate safety margin and also not in fact have an adequate safety margin. 

I do have logic and Occam's Razor to point a finger at the Democrats for doing this. ...

So you have zero evidence for the claim but keep making it anyway. The campaigns know who they hired to gather signatures. They should know who defrauded them. Why can't you show me how this was all planned as a long con by the DNC, just waiting for the right time to snag up those unsuspecting Republican campaigns. The more likely explanation is that the Republican firms took on too much work for the governors race (lots of candidates and individuals can only sign one of the petitions) and then tried to cheat their way out of it.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1942 on: July 22, 2022, 09:21:31 AM »
... To start with, accept the Dems arrested for it who pleaded guilty after the 2000 Mules documentary. Did you ask who provided the bogus ballots that were filled out and submitted illegally? Who organized the money to pay all these 58,000 Mules who were identified. This was not a local, small time scheme.
...

Last time I asked you gave me one Woman in Arizona who was charged in December 2020 (long before the documentary) for harvesting 4 ballots in the Democratic primary. I'll ask again who are the people arrested, charged, and pled guilty to ballot harvesting during the general election.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1943 on: July 22, 2022, 09:31:59 AM »
So let me get this straight, you guys have been arguing "with a straight face" that ballots that are received and that don't comply with the technical election laws must be counted because "every vote must count" and also "with a straight face" are somehow not concerned by Shenigans that literally disqualify candidates from the election.  Candidates, given their front runner status, that would have no trouble meeting the signature requirements legitimately but who fail to do so solely because of bad actors.
...

I've consistently argued that all ballots received that followed the guidelines of election officials and court rulings at the time should be counted. Even if you think the election officials and courts ruled incorrectly before the election.

I am concerned about these fraudulent actions that the campaigns purchased. Maybe they shouldn't be trusted with the powers of government if they are so easily and obviously defrauded. I'm much less sympathetic to campaigns with at least 6 figure budgets turning in fraudulent documents vs the individual who mails a ballot 3 days before the election but the post office delivers it a day late.

On a broader point I think the signature requirements and a lot of other ballot requirements are just ways to make sure only people with access to money can afford to run. Both parties support this type of stuff because it make sure only insiders or people connected with donors can get on the ballot to begin with.


TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1944 on: July 22, 2022, 09:58:48 AM »
So let me get this straight, you guys have been arguing "with a straight face" that ballots that are received and that don't comply with the technical election laws must be counted because "every vote must count" and also "with a straight face" are somehow not concerned by Shenigans that literally disqualify candidates from the election.  Candidates, given their front runner status, that would have no trouble meeting the signature requirements legitimately but who fail to do so solely because of bad actors.
...

I've consistently argued that all ballots received that followed the guidelines of election officials and court rulings at the time should be counted. Even if you think the election officials and courts ruled incorrectly before the election.

I am concerned about these fraudulent actions that the campaigns purchased. Maybe they shouldn't be trusted with the powers of government if they are so easily and obviously defrauded. I'm much less sympathetic to campaigns with at least 6 figure budgets turning in fraudulent documents vs the individual who mails a ballot 3 days before the election but the post office delivers it a day late.

On a broader point I think the signature requirements and a lot of other ballot requirements are just ways to make sure only people with access to money can afford to run. Both parties support this type of stuff because it make sure only insiders or people connected with donors can get on the ballot to begin with.

There are a lot of candidates who have enough grass roots support that they don't have to buy their signatures. Signature requirements are necessary, look at the California Governor recall fiasco when they only required 65 signatures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_California_gubernatorial_recall_election#/media/File:Sample_ballot_for_CA_recall.png

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1945 on: August 01, 2022, 05:21:05 PM »
Another one bites the dust. Guy Reffitt, armed insurrectionist, just got himself 7 years. Threatened his own kids, who testified against him. Brought a firearm to his "peaceful protest" then helped lead the mob in violent rebellion. Why do they keep putting all these Antifa guys behind bars?

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1946 on: August 01, 2022, 05:37:09 PM »
If you would just take the time to do your own research instead of listening to the Lame Stream bought and sold Media, you would know that it has been proven beyond a doubt that every one of these people are a deep state Soros/Gates funded Anitfa long term plant used to discredit Trump.  How can you follow these obvious media lies?  The Truth (patent pending, trademark pending) is out there if you would just take off your Liberal Media bias.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1947 on: August 02, 2022, 07:49:26 AM »
More proof that the election was not stolen. Cyber Ninjas claimed that 282 dead people in AZ voted. Turns out to have been off by a factor of almost 281. Only 1 case was found.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/arizona-ag-wraps-criminal-probe-090423443.html

Again going to prove that election security was good and that the people running the Cyber Ninjas audit were incompetent and had an agenda.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1948 on: August 06, 2022, 12:47:45 PM »
If you would just take the time to do your own research instead of listening to the Lame Stream bought and sold Media, you would know that it has been proven beyond a doubt that every one of these people are a deep state Soros/Gates funded Anitfa long term plant used to discredit Trump.  How can you follow these obvious media lies?  The Truth (patent pending, trademark pending) is out there if you would just take off your Liberal Media bias.

Rush Limbaugh used to say that humor has to be true to be funny. Your heavy-handed attempt at false irony proves his point. The continual abuse of honest and honorable people who disagree with your disinformation is disrespectful and only established your own lac k of credibility.

We just had a primary election in Michigan, with all the heightened interest in getting it right - and look what happened:
https://republicbrief.com/poll-challenger-fired-from-detroit-counting-center-for-challenging-ballots-and-internet-connection
Quote
“DETROIT: Poll Challenger Thrown Out Of Counting Center For Challenging Ballots and Internet Connection To Computer…Demands Detroit Police Officer Arrests Men Who Broke The Law!”

Several reports from different counting locations have commented that there were obvious testing going on to see what the vote-scammers could get away with for future elections.

The issue is to stop this mindset - not just the specific scamming they are trying to perfect.

I hope there will be more attorneys available in future elections, because without any - the "Men in black" said their policy trumped the law. In fact, policy has no force of law. It is merely a procedure designed by policy-makers for their own self-interests. I hope the ousted observer gets these abusive security staffers arrested, as well as their bosses who told them to break the law. This is what must be focussed upon - not just the tactics of illegally certifying or decertifying ballots. As a secondary plan, I propose all observers come equipped with bodycams.

The downside of this is the courts holding up the law, over spurious policies only cited to facilitate scamming. How would you handle such heavy-handed tactics if you were the observer trying only to do your job? Multiply this one example by the thousands of observers throughout any election, like in 2020 who filed affidavits of eyewitness wrong-doing that the courts refused to even look at, citing "lack of standing."

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1949 on: August 06, 2022, 09:48:31 PM »
Quote
Multiply this one example by the thousands of observers throughout any election...
Why? Are we going to assume that outliers are actually representative for some reason?