And he's on the other side.
https://twitter.com/BehizyTweets/status/1606068454288633857
He just implied the issues encountered by voters on election day impacted the outcome. What a moron.
On 12/22/22 10:24 PM, ScottW wrote:
And he's on the other side.
https://twitter.com/BehizyTweets/status/1606068454288633857
He just implied the issues encountered by voters on election day
impacted the outcome. What a moron.
Twas Republicans who pushed election day voting. A bigger impact on the outcome: more people voted for the Democratic candidate.
Didn't watch the video. Was it this guy?
https://www.azmirror.com/2022/12/23/day-two-of-lake-trial-marked-by-competing-expert-testimony/
The second day of Lake’s trial was marked by competing testimony from
two experts, pollster Richard Baris for Lake and University of Wisconsin political science professor Kenneth Mayer for the defense.
Baris has worked in polling since 2014 and studied political science but
has no academic background in polling...
On 12/22/22 10:24 PM, ScottW wrote:
And he's on the other side.
https://twitter.com/BehizyTweets/status/1606068454288633857
He just implied the issues encountered by voters on election day impacted the outcome. What a moron.Twas Republicans who pushed election day voting.
On Friday, December 23, 2022 at 6:45:22 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 12/22/22 10:24 PM, ScottW wrote:
And he's on the other side.Twas Republicans who pushed election day voting.
https://twitter.com/BehizyTweets/status/1606068454288633857
He just implied the issues encountered by voters on election day impacted the outcome. What a moron.
And he admits that Maricopa fatally f'd it up.
And he admits that Maricopa fatally f'd it up.
Be more specific. Who and what was the problem and how wasn't it covered
by "[t]here's simply no data to support any of those claims, and there's quite a bit of data that suggests this did not happen"?
I see a horse. The horse is dead. I want to beat it some more. Beat, beat, beat...
And he admits that Maricopa fatally f'd it up.
Be more specific. Who and what was the problem and how wasn't it covered
by "[t]here's simply no data to support any of those claims, and there's
quite a bit of data that suggests this did not happen"?
I believe Shmoo-scott has simply rewound his blather-tape. Inside the
wingnut silo, the reverberations of the Big Lie are STILL echoing. No
amount of refutation or debunking from outside the silo will ever
dissuade the die-nots from clinging to their fantasy lifeboat.
On 12/23/22 5:40 PM, Fascist Flea wrote:
I see a horse. The horse is dead. I want to beat it some more. Beat, beat, beat...
And he admits that Maricopa fatally f'd it up.
Be more specific. Who and what was the problem and how wasn't it covered >> by "[t]here's simply no data to support any of those claims, and there's >> quite a bit of data that suggests this did not happen"?
I believe Shmoo-scott has simply rewound his blather-tape. Inside the wingnut silo, the reverberations of the Big Lie are STILL echoing. No amount of refutation or debunking from outside the silo will everAn early Christmas present to me:
dissuade the die-nots from clinging to their fantasy lifeboat.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2022/12/24/judge-tosses-kari-lakes-election-challenge-in-arizona-governors-race/69754643007/
"Every one of Plaintiff’s witnesses – and for that matter, Defendants’ witnesses as well – was asked about any personal knowledge of both intentional misconduct and intentional misconduct directed to impact the 2022 General Election. Every single witness before the Court disclaimed
any personal knowledge of such misconduct. The Court cannot accept speculation or conjecture in place of clear and convincing evidence."
On Saturday, December 24, 2022 at 4:29:01 PM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2022/12/24/judge-tosses-kari-lakes-election-challenge-in-arizona-governors-race/69754643007/
"Every one of Plaintiff’s witnesses – and for that matter, Defendants’ >> witnesses as well – was asked about any personal knowledge of both
intentional misconduct and intentional misconduct directed to impact the
2022 General Election. Every single witness before the Court disclaimed
any personal knowledge of such misconduct. The Court cannot accept
speculation or conjecture in place of clear and convincing evidence."
So if the perps won't confess....we're screwed.
But Stephen's happy the future of Maricopa f'ing up elections is bright.
On 12/25/22 11:01 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, December 24, 2022 at 4:29:01 PM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2022/12/24/judge-tosses-kari-lakes-election-challenge-in-arizona-governors-race/69754643007/
"Every one of Plaintiff’s witnesses – and for that matter, Defendants’
witnesses as well – was asked about any personal knowledge of both
intentional misconduct and intentional misconduct directed to impact the >> 2022 General Election. Every single witness before the Court disclaimed >> any personal knowledge of such misconduct. The Court cannot accept
speculation or conjecture in place of clear and convincing evidence."
So if the perps won't confess....we're screwed.Those weren't "perps," those were Lake's expert witnesses.
If there's no clear and convincing evidence from anyone, what's there to confess? Speculation or conjecture?
But Stephen's happy the future of Maricopa f'ing up elections is bright.The current Registrar's term is up in 2025. He was elected promising
fair, competent, transparent elections.
This is another example of you not being satisfied with the clear
outcome of a legal process. It's not that you're wrong, it's that
there's no evidence for what you insist happened. Of course, that
doesn't stop you from rerunning other failed "blather."
I'm not insisting it happened. I'm saying it may have and the legal process is stacked against ever knowing.
On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 2:10:38 PM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 12/25/22 11:01 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, December 24, 2022 at 4:29:01 PM UTC-8, MINe109
wrote:
This is another example of you not being satisfied with the clear
outcome of a legal process. It's not that you're wrong, it's that
there's no evidence for what you insist happened. Of course, that
doesn't stop you from rerunning other failed "blather."
I'm not insisting it happened. I'm saying it may have and the legal
process is stacked against ever knowing.
Can you explain how so many printers simultaneously f'd up after
they all passed the preelection test?
None of the explanations pass the smell test IMO and the argumentAlso not passing the smell test: inventing "25,000-40,000" would-be voters.
that every ballot cast was counted
ignores the impact a 2 hr wait in line can have on turnout. I recall
dems screaming voter suppression for closing polling sites in other
states with a similar claimed effect.
One thing I know is very clear....there is no "legal process" to
validate a suspect election in the time frame required by
certification. The "two-day" trial proves that. And post
certification no one wants to touch it.....ever. Not the judges, and certainly not the election commissions.
One thing I think Lake and team should have done was set up a web
site for everyone and their mother who didn't vote because of the
problems to so declare. I know they wouldn't be signed depositions
under oath etc., not enough time for that....but maybe the judge
would have found reason to grant more time.
On 12/25/22 8:15 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 2:10:38 PM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 12/25/22 11:01 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, December 24, 2022 at 4:29:01 PM UTC-8, MINe109
wrote:
This is another example of you not being satisfied with the clear
outcome of a legal process. It's not that you're wrong, it's that
there's no evidence for what you insist happened. Of course, that
doesn't stop you from rerunning other failed "blather."
I'm not insisting it happened. I'm saying it may have and the legalOn the contrary, there were audits, recounts, investigations:
process is stacked against ever knowing.
https://www.maricopa.gov/5681/Elections-Equipment-Audit
And also this lawsuit.
Can you explain how so many printers simultaneously f'd up afterOperator error. A sad story involving toner settings and harried techs:
they all passed the preelection test?
"... there were, in fact, multiple technical issues experienced on
Election Day. He testified that these were solved by means such as: 1)
taking out toner and/or ink cartridges and shaking them, 2) cleaning the corona wire, 3) letting the printers warm up, 4) cleaning the
tabulators, and 5) adjusting settings on the printer.
...each of these on-site actions were successful to varying degrees,
with shaking the toner cartridge being the most effective."
I suppose you've never had a printer work one day then not on a later day.
None of the explanations pass the smell test IMO and the argumentAlso not passing the smell test: inventing "25,000-40,000" would-be voters.
that every ballot cast was counted
ignores the impact a 2 hr wait in line can have on turnout. I recallAs in that other state, voters stuck it out and voted anyway.
dems screaming voter suppression for closing polling sites in other
states with a similar claimed effect.
On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 7:41:30 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 12/25/22 8:15 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 2:10:38 PM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:On the contrary, there were audits, recounts, investigations:
On 12/25/22 11:01 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, December 24, 2022 at 4:29:01 PM UTC-8, MINe109
wrote:
This is another example of you not being satisfied with the clear
outcome of a legal process. It's not that you're wrong, it's that
there's no evidence for what you insist happened. Of course, that
doesn't stop you from rerunning other failed "blather."
I'm not insisting it happened. I'm saying it may have and the legal
process is stacked against ever knowing.
https://www.maricopa.gov/5681/Elections-Equipment-Audit
And also this lawsuit.
Can you explain how so many printers simultaneously f'd up afterOperator error. A sad story involving toner settings and harried techs:
they all passed the preelection test?
"... there were, in fact, multiple technical issues experienced on
Election Day. He testified that these were solved by means such as: 1)
taking out toner and/or ink cartridges and shaking them, 2) cleaning the
corona wire, 3) letting the printers warm up, 4) cleaning the
tabulators, and 5) adjusting settings on the printer.
Yet none of this crap showed up in pre-election tests. GMAFB.
It's this blather of a literal smoke screen of a multitude of problems
that miraculously only manifested themselves on election day.
And number 5 takes the cake....who f'd with the settings after they've
been set and confirmed as correct. If you do things under control...
these setting are not random nor optional.
And shaking ink cartridges? I haven't had a printer that needed it's new cartridges
shaken for 20 years.
Again...this claim of massive problems is not reasonable nor demonstrative of an organization under control.
...each of these on-site actions were successful to varying degrees,
with shaking the toner cartridge being the most effective."
Shaking is to get the last bit of toner freed up to get the most life out of cartridge.
Who would go into election without new toner cartridges in all the printers? Again....makes no operational or technical sense.
I suppose you've never had a printer work one day then not on a later day.
Sure...but this wasn't "a printer"....this was a lot of printers all decided to not
work properly on one day. Printers that are supposed to be maintained and prepared to be in top working order for that one day. But they didn't.
None of the explanations pass the smell test IMO and the argumentAlso not passing the smell test: inventing "25,000-40,000" would-be voters.
that every ballot cast was counted
As I pointed out, we'll never know if there was or wasn't.
ignores the impact a 2 hr wait in line can have on turnout. I recallAs in that other state, voters stuck it out and voted anyway.
dems screaming voter suppression for closing polling sites in other
states with a similar claimed effect.
You still cried about it and claimed voter suppression.
Now suddenly your tune has changed. Typical.
That's the kind of BS that really displays your lack of honor and integrity. You simply suck.
On 12/26/22 4:38 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 7:41:30 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 12/25/22 8:15 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 2:10:38 PM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:On the contrary, there were audits, recounts, investigations:
On 12/25/22 11:01 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, December 24, 2022 at 4:29:01 PM UTC-8, MINe109
wrote:
This is another example of you not being satisfied with the clear
outcome of a legal process. It's not that you're wrong, it's that
there's no evidence for what you insist happened. Of course, that
doesn't stop you from rerunning other failed "blather."
I'm not insisting it happened. I'm saying it may have and the legal
process is stacked against ever knowing.
https://www.maricopa.gov/5681/Elections-Equipment-Audit
And also this lawsuit.
Can you explain how so many printers simultaneously f'd up afterOperator error. A sad story involving toner settings and harried techs: >>
they all passed the preelection test?
"... there were, in fact, multiple technical issues experienced on
Election Day. He testified that these were solved by means such as: 1)
taking out toner and/or ink cartridges and shaking them, 2) cleaning the >> corona wire, 3) letting the printers warm up, 4) cleaning the
tabulators, and 5) adjusting settings on the printer.
Yet none of this crap showed up in pre-election tests. GMAFB.That's how it happens. Works one day, not the next. Here's more:
https://arizona.votebeat.org/2022/12/8/23500457/maricopa-county-ballot-printer-tabulator-voting-problems-phoenix
[A] Votebeat analysis of technical evidence found that local officials
may have pushed the county’s ballot printers past their limits.
The thickness of the ballot paper the county used, the need to print on
both sides, and the high volume of in-person voting are all likely to
have contributed to poor print quality on ballots, according to
Votebeat’s review of printer specifications, turnout data, and
interviews with eight ballot-printing and election technology experts...
The county used thicker ballot paper than the printer supports when
printing on both sides of the page, according to the user manual for the
OKI B432dn LED printers. Paper weight of up to 80 pounds is supported,
but the county’s ballots were printed on 100-pound paper...
The printers’ fusers, which melt the toner onto the paper, could have
also degraded by the time Election Day arrived, said Coulter, who along
with working for OSET, has advised and trained election workers on technology problems.
End quote.
As usual, you're more interested in complaining than in finding the facts.
It's this blather of a literal smoke screen of a multitude of problems that miraculously only manifested themselves on election day.As votes weren't lost as a result, this isn't a real problem.
And number 5 takes the cake....who f'd with the settings after they've been set and confirmed as correct. If you do things under control...You don't have an industrial printers like those built into voting
these setting are not random nor optional.
And shaking ink cartridges? I haven't had a printer that needed it's new cartridges
shaken for 20 years.
machines and if those cartridges had been tested in pre-election tests
they weren't new.
Again...this claim of massive problems is not reasonable nor demonstrative ofPrinter problems are organizational? Talk about micromanaging. Seems
an organization under control.
like there were tests, then when problems arose there was a system to preserve votes which is very much a sign of organizational control.
...each of these on-site actions were successful to varying degrees,
with shaking the toner cartridge being the most effective."
Shaking is to get the last bit of toner freed up to get the most life out of cartridge.That's right: you're an expert on toner shaking. If your new cartridge didn't work, shaking it would be a reasonable response.
Who would go into election without new toner cartridges in all the printers?
Again....makes no operational or technical sense.
I suppose you've never had a printer work one day then not on a later day.
Sure...but this wasn't "a printer"....this was a lot of printers all decided to notNonsense, there were pre-election tests. And it wasn't that many printers. >>> None of the explanations pass the smell test IMO and the argument
work properly on one day. Printers that are supposed to be maintained and prepared to be in top working order for that one day. But they didn't.
that every ballot cast was countedAlso not passing the smell test: inventing "25,000-40,000" would-be voters.
As I pointed out, we'll never know if there was or wasn't.There's a difference between literally "not knowing" and the statistical likelihood of "25,000-40,000" votes being missing.
ignores the impact a 2 hr wait in line can have on turnout. I recallAs in that other state, voters stuck it out and voted anyway.
dems screaming voter suppression for closing polling sites in other
states with a similar claimed effect.
You still cried about it and claimed voter suppression.No, I acknowledged the problems had been overcome by voter enthusiasm in those specific elections. However, I still believe voting should be
Now suddenly your tune has changed. Typical.
easier, not harder, to do.
That's the kind of BS that really displays your lack of honor and integrity.And when you're losing you fall back on nonsense and insults.
You simply suck.
On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 7:42:46 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
And when you're losing you fall back on nonsense and insults.
They're not built into a voting machine. You are a disinformation machine. Images look like the standard networked printer/copier combo we had at work 20 ears ago.
On 12/27/22 11:55 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 7:42:46 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
And when you're losing you fall back on nonsense and insults.
They're not built into a voting machine. You are a disinformation machine. Images look like the standard networked printer/copier combo we had at workI assumed Arizona had a similar system to Austin's in which a machine
20 ears ago.
prints the vote onto the ballot which is then taken to a reader for tabulation.
https://countyclerk.traviscountytx.gov/departments/elections/meet-your-new-voting-system/
So there's no "voting machine"? Ballots are printed on demand, filled
out to indicate votes then fed to a tabulator?
https://www.maricopa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/80026/Maricopa-County-Response-11-27-2022
"Our preliminary root cause analysis shows the issue was not with the
ink or toner, instead it was the fuser. The printers have three
profiles, one for each item that we print for voters, the ballot,
receipt, and envelope. The ballot “media weight” setting was set to heavy, as recommended, and the receipt and envelope were on a lighter setting, as recommended. These settings were exactly the same as in
prior elections. The solution implemented on Election Day for the 2022 General Election was to set all three “media weight” settings to heavy."
The solution implemented on Election Day for the 2022
General Election was to set all three “media weight” settings to heavy."
And this all makes perfect sense to you.....
No matter. I still have questions.
On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 10:26:06 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 12/27/22 11:55 AM, ScottW wrote:
https://www.maricopa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/80026/Maricopa-County-Response-11-27-2022
"Our preliminary root cause analysis shows the issue was not with the
ink or toner, instead it was the fuser. The printers have three
profiles, one for each item that we print for voters, the ballot,
receipt, and envelope. The ballot “media weight” setting was set to
heavy, as recommended, and the receipt and envelope were on a lighter
setting, as recommended. These settings were exactly the same as in
prior elections. The solution implemented on Election Day for the 2022
General Election was to set all three “media weight” settings to heavy."
And this all makes perfect sense to you.....
No matter. I still have questions.
On 12/28/22 9:33 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, December 27, 2022 at 10:26:06 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 12/27/22 11:55 AM, ScottW wrote:
https://www.maricopa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/80026/Maricopa-County-Response-11-27-2022
"Our preliminary root cause analysis shows the issue was not with the
ink or toner, instead it was the fuser. The printers have three
profiles, one for each item that we print for voters, the ballot,
receipt, and envelope. The ballot “media weight” setting was set to >> heavy, as recommended, and the receipt and envelope were on a lighter
setting, as recommended. These settings were exactly the same as in
prior elections. The solution implemented on Election Day for the 2022
General Election was to set all three “media weight” settings to heavy."
And this all makes perfect sense to you.....It's written in plain English.
No matter. I still have questions.Start with "were votes lost due to printing errors?" If the answer is
'no,' you're done. The answer is 'no,' btw. Votebeat:
"Why some printers had problems and others didn’t is unclear. It could have to do with the age of the printers or the fusers. The county has
only used the printers to print ballots since 2020 but was using them to print ballot envelopes during early voting before that. Of the fewer
than 600 OKI printers the county currently has, 20 were purchased in
2017 and the rest were purchased in 2018, Gilbertson said."
Just old and overwhelmed, like Republican voters.
Were voters unable to vote due to long lines? Maricopa.gov: "Seven
Locations experienced a wait time between 80 minutes–115 minutes... Each of these locations had one or more nearby VoteCenters within a few miles that had a wait-time ranging from 1 minute to 25 minutes during the
period they were experiencing their longest wait-times."
That compares favorably to the multi-hour waits in Georgia.
We'll never know how many didn't vote as a result.
That compares favorably to the multi-hour waits in Georgia.
Jim Crow on STEROIDS!
On 12/29/22 10:23 AM, ScottW wrote:
We'll never know how many didn't vote as a result.But we'll know you'll never be satisfied.
From the ruling:
Indeed, to the extent that a range of outcomes was suggested by Mr.
Baris, he suggested that – with his expected turnout increase on
Election Day of 25,000-40,000 votes the outcome could be between a 2,000-vote margin for Hobbs to a 4,000-vote margin for Plaintiff. Taking
Mr. Baris’s claims at face value, this does not nearly approach the
degree of precision that would provide clear and convincing evidence
that the result did change as a result of BOD printer failures. While
this Court (in the absence of controlling authority) is reticent to
state that statistical evidence is always insufficient as a matter of
law to demonstrate a direct effect on the outcome of an election, a statistical analysis that shows that the current winner had a good
chance of winning anyway is decidedly insufficient. Cf. Moore, 148 Ariz.
at 159 (suggesting that population data might in some cases be
admissible to prove voter disenfranchisement).
Further, Mr. Baris cannot say—and further, there was no evidence at Trial—that these voters were turned away or refused a ballot. These were voters who elected not to vote, whether at a voter center due to long
lines or due to media coverage of “chaos” on Election Day, or any number of unknown reasons. None of these constitutes a direct effect permitting
the Court’s intervention as outlined in prior cases.
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 9:26:39 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 12/29/22 10:23 AM, ScottW wrote:
We'll never know how many didn't vote as a result.But we'll know you'll never be satisfied.
From the ruling:
Further, Mr. Baris cannot say—and further, there was no evidence at
Trial—that these voters were turned away or refused a ballot. These were >> voters who elected not to vote, whether at a voter center due to long
lines or due to media coverage of “chaos” on Election Day, or any number >> of unknown reasons. None of these constitutes a direct effect permitting
the Court’s intervention as outlined in prior cases.
And there you have it. The court clearly admits they cannot in almost
under any circumstances, rectify election malfeasance.
This is why the process of hosting an election must be rigorously controlled. You simply can't fix it after.
But you forever argue that proof of a failed outcome election is required before we bother.
So we keep having elections that are not worthy of the full faith and confidence
of the people....and you wonder why they lack faith.
On 12/29/22 4:55 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 9:26:39 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 12/29/22 10:23 AM, ScottW wrote:
We'll never know how many didn't vote as a result.But we'll know you'll never be satisfied.
From the ruling:
Further, Mr. Baris cannot say—and further, there was no evidence at
Trial—that these voters were turned away or refused a ballot. These were
voters who elected not to vote, whether at a voter center due to long
lines or due to media coverage of “chaos” on Election Day, or any number
of unknown reasons. None of these constitutes a direct effect permitting >> the Court’s intervention as outlined in prior cases.
And there you have it. The court clearly admits they cannot in almost under any circumstances, rectify election malfeasance.Especially when there's no evidence of malfeasance.
This is why the process of hosting an election must be rigorously controlled.Elections are rigorously controlled.
You simply can't fix it after.
But you forever argue that proof of a failed outcome election is required before we bother.Do you mean there's a legislative interest in investigating election problems in order to prevent future problems?
Maybe on the federal level?
So we keep having elections that are not worthy of the full faith and confidenceNo, I don't wonder. The right is questioning elections in bad faith in
of the people....and you wonder why they lack faith.
order to gain future political advantage.
On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 7:03:31 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 12/29/22 4:55 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 9:26:39 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:Especially when there's no evidence of malfeasance.
On 12/29/22 10:23 AM, ScottW wrote:
We'll never know how many didn't vote as a result.But we'll know you'll never be satisfied.
From the ruling:
Further, Mr. Baris cannot say—and further, there was no evidence at
Trial—that these voters were turned away or refused a ballot. These were >>>> voters who elected not to vote, whether at a voter center due to long
lines or due to media coverage of “chaos” on Election Day, or any number
of unknown reasons. None of these constitutes a direct effect permitting >>>> the Court’s intervention as outlined in prior cases.
And there you have it. The court clearly admits they cannot in almost
under any circumstances, rectify election malfeasance.
This is why the process of hosting an election must be rigorously controlled.Elections are rigorously controlled.
You simply can't fix it after.
Yet anyone and their long dead mother can register to vote in Ca.
But you forever argue that proof of a failed outcome election is required >>> before we bother.Do you mean there's a legislative interest in investigating election
problems in order to prevent future problems?
Of course there is.
Maybe on the federal level?
As the feds have proven themselves so corrupt....that's a NO.
So we keep having elections that are not worthy of the full faith and confidenceNo, I don't wonder. The right is questioning elections in bad faith in
of the people....and you wonder why they lack faith.
order to gain future political advantage.
As if Stacey's whole "voter suppression" and targeted voter registration wasn't
in order to gain future political advantage.
You're blind to reality. It's gotten so bad...both sides think they need to outcheat the other to win.
On 12/30/22 10:20 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 7:03:31 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 12/29/22 4:55 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 9:26:39 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:Especially when there's no evidence of malfeasance.
On 12/29/22 10:23 AM, ScottW wrote:
We'll never know how many didn't vote as a result.But we'll know you'll never be satisfied.
From the ruling:
Further, Mr. Baris cannot say—and further, there was no evidence at >>>> Trial—that these voters were turned away or refused a ballot. These were
voters who elected not to vote, whether at a voter center due to long >>>> lines or due to media coverage of “chaos” on Election Day, or any number
of unknown reasons. None of these constitutes a direct effect permitting
the Court’s intervention as outlined in prior cases.
And there you have it. The court clearly admits they cannot in almost >>> under any circumstances, rectify election malfeasance.
This is why the process of hosting an election must be rigorously controlled.Elections are rigorously controlled.
You simply can't fix it after.
Yet anyone and their long dead mother can register to vote in Ca.Their long dead mother won't show up to the polls.
But you forever argue that proof of a failed outcome election is requiredDo you mean there's a legislative interest in investigating election
before we bother.
problems in order to prevent future problems?
Of course there is.Is there a legislative interest in investigating application of tax
laws,
including requirements for officeholders to be audited?
Maybe on the federal level?
As the feds have proven themselves so corrupt....that's a NO.I missed where any federal action can be presumed corrupt.
an idée fixe of yours.
So we keep having elections that are not worthy of the full faith and confidenceNo, I don't wonder. The right is questioning elections in bad faith in
of the people....and you wonder why they lack faith.
order to gain future political advantage.
As if Stacey's whole "voter suppression" and targeted voter registration wasn'tSo? Her goal was to involve more voters, which is inherently good.
in order to gain future political advantage.
The
alternative of making it harder to vote implicitly means minority rule.
You're blind to reality. It's gotten so bad...both sides think they need to outcheat the other to win.I prefer the side that wants everyone to vote.
On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 12:09:51 PM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 12/30/22 10:20 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 7:03:31 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:Their long dead mother won't show up to the polls.
On 12/29/22 4:55 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 9:26:39 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:Especially when there's no evidence of malfeasance.
On 12/29/22 10:23 AM, ScottW wrote:
We'll never know how many didn't vote as a result.But we'll know you'll never be satisfied.
From the ruling:
Further, Mr. Baris cannot say—and further, there was no evidence at >>>>>> Trial—that these voters were turned away or refused a ballot. These were
voters who elected not to vote, whether at a voter center due to long >>>>>> lines or due to media coverage of “chaos” on Election Day, or any number
of unknown reasons. None of these constitutes a direct effect permitting >>>>>> the Court’s intervention as outlined in prior cases.
And there you have it. The court clearly admits they cannot in almost >>>>> under any circumstances, rectify election malfeasance.
This is why the process of hosting an election must be rigorously controlled.Elections are rigorously controlled.
You simply can't fix it after.
Yet anyone and their long dead mother can register to vote in Ca.
But anyone can....and she'll automatically get a mail-in ballot anyway.
Is there a legislative interest in investigating application of taxBut you forever argue that proof of a failed outcome election is required >>>>> before we bother.Do you mean there's a legislative interest in investigating election
problems in order to prevent future problems?
Of course there is.
laws,
Of course....You forget dear Lois already?
including requirements for officeholders to be audited?
Why should officeholders be required to be audited?
I missed where any federal action can be presumed corrupt.Maybe on the federal level?
As the feds have proven themselves so corrupt....that's a NO.
It can and it should. It's safer that way.
Recall Reagan's most dangerous words?
I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.”
I assume it'san idée fixe of yours.
So? Her goal was to involve more voters, which is inherently good.So we keep having elections that are not worthy of the full faith and confidenceNo, I don't wonder. The right is questioning elections in bad faith in >>>> order to gain future political advantage.
of the people....and you wonder why they lack faith.
As if Stacey's whole "voter suppression" and targeted voter registration wasn't
in order to gain future political advantage.
BS...her goal was to get out her more voters.
The alternative of making it harder to vote implicitly means minority rule.
Gibberish
You're blind to reality. It's gotten so bad...both sides think they need to outcheat the other to win.I prefer the side that wants everyone to vote.
Doesn't exist. You're naive.
On 12/30/22 5:18 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 12:09:51 PM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:
On 12/30/22 10:20 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 7:03:31 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote:Their long dead mother won't show up to the polls.
On 12/29/22 4:55 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 9:26:39 AM UTC-8, MINe109 wrote: >>>>>> On 12/29/22 10:23 AM, ScottW wrote:Especially when there's no evidence of malfeasance.
We'll never know how many didn't vote as a result.But we'll know you'll never be satisfied.
From the ruling:
Further, Mr. Baris cannot say—and further, there was no evidence at >>>>>> Trial—that these voters were turned away or refused a ballot. These were
voters who elected not to vote, whether at a voter center due to long >>>>>> lines or due to media coverage of “chaos” on Election Day, or any number
of unknown reasons. None of these constitutes a direct effect permitting
the Court’s intervention as outlined in prior cases.
And there you have it. The court clearly admits they cannot in almost >>>>> under any circumstances, rectify election malfeasance.
This is why the process of hosting an election must be rigorously controlled.Elections are rigorously controlled.
You simply can't fix it after.
Yet anyone and their long dead mother can register to vote in Ca.
But anyone can....and she'll automatically get a mail-in ballot anyway.She won't fill it out.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 19:48:58 |
| Calls: | 6,707 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,239 |
| Messages: | 5,351,622 |