🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️
Arizona should decertify their election results since it is now clear that their previous certification included illegal votes far in excess of the margin of error. It won't change the national election, but it would go a long way towards restoring election integrity within its own State.
What is that emoji? Too small for me to see clearly... Hand on forehead?
Yes.
I can't import anything...have not figured out how.
If your goal is to restore election integrity, I would agree.
If your goal is to restore it under the old system, I don't agree.
You can't have elections won by such razor thin margins using a system that is basically "sloppy".
It's like trying to measure parts per billion with an instrument that can't guarantee anything less than 10 parts per million. It's meaningless.
We need systems that are robust, transparent and agreed upon from the start. Then we need apparatus that can operated them properly so we can stay away from this kind of s**tstorm.
Arizona should decertify their election results since it is now clear that their previous certification included illegal votes far in excess of the margin of error. It won't change the national election, but it would go a long way towards restoring election integrity within its own State.
Yes.
I can't import anything...have not figured out how.
Yes.
I can't import anything...have not figured out how.
The emojis here suck. Hoping this will be an area of improvement in the next version of the forum software.
If it helps, under [more] this site has this one in the emoji library: :facepalm2:
Hey, I like this one:
:dumpster:
There is no razor thin, anything. You just don't know and I believe have TDS.
My issue is I have a hard time visually identifying the emoji I want, even when I know it's there. I feel like I'm taking that pattern recognition test on the ASVAB again.
@HikerGuy83
What do you want to do? Import an image like this?
(https://www.pngmart.com/files/11/Facepalm-Girl-PNG-Photos.png)
It often takes me a few passes through them all to find the one I remember seeing, partly because many share similar colors. I don't know if that can be simplified without loosing some of them. And sometimes you need just the right one...
If your goal is to restore election integrity, I would agree.
If your goal is to restore it under the old system, I don't agree.
You can't have elections won by such razor thin margins using a system that is basically "sloppy".
It's like trying to measure parts per billion with an instrument that can't guarantee anything less than 10 parts per million. It's meaningless.
We need systems that are robust, transparent and agreed upon from the start. Then we need apparatus that can operated them properly so we can stay away from this kind of s**tstorm.
De-certifying an election conducted according to the old, sloppy system might go a long way toward creating a new, auditable, robust, transparent system. But such a system will never be agreed on from the start - the Ds will never agree to a system that prevents them from cheating; they'll simply label it "racist".
R-majority legislatures should put in place new systems anyway.
What crystal ball do you have that we don't that tells you how democrats will respond to securing election integrity ?
Please share.
De-certifying an election conducted according to the old, sloppy system might go a long way toward creating a new, auditable, robust, transparent system. But such a system will never be agreed on from the start - the Ds will never agree to a system that prevents them from cheating; they'll simply label it "racist".
R-majority legislatures should put in place new systems anyway.
You mean besides every attempt at securing voting to the actual registered voter along with securing the chain of custody of the ballot being fought tooth and nail by the Democrats every step of the way? Calling anyone who dares attempt to do so a racist among other things...
Here is where i probably agree with the "Stop the Steal" crowd. I'm in favor of all new legislation to increase transparency, voter ID, etc. etc.
Decertifying the election would result in civil war.
That does NOT mean we should not be dong all possible to increase election integrity.
Decertifying the election would result in civil war.With attitudes like this we are doomed.
That does NOT mean we should not be dong all possible to increase election integrity.
Decertifying the election would result in civil war.
That does NOT mean we should not be dong all possible to increase election integrity.
Nonsense. Decertifying would, at most, result in a Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court would almost certainly say that it was far too late and that the decertification did not have to be given effect for federal purposes.
Nonsense. Decertifying would, at most, result in a Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court would almost certainly say that it was far too late and that the decertification did not have to be given effect for federal purposes.What's the point of having a constitution if it isn't enforced? Let me remind everyone here that Texas vs Pennsylvania made no allegation of fraud. It raised constitutional issues only and SCOTUS, the court of original jurisdiction, refused to hear it.
What's the point of having a constitution if it isn't enforced? Let me remind everyone here that Texas vs Pennsylvania made no allegation of fraud. It raised constitutional issues only and SCOTUS, the court of original jurisdiction, refused to hear it.
Did you somehow just figure out that people are ignoring the constitution ?
It's only been going on since the mid 60's and the GOP is just as guilty.
While I was not pleased with this, I am still behind this court.
Gorsuch
Kavennaugh
Barrett
All justify my vote for Donald Trump.
This country would be done if Hillary had been allowed to fill those seats.
Ha! Ha! You are a really phunny guy!
But you are right it having been going on since the 60s if its the 1860s you're talking about!
Decertifying the election in Arizona is the first step to increasing election integrity. The election was fraudulent. It should not stand.
For sure since Roosevelt put his morons on the bench.
Earl Warren will long be considered an enemy of the U.S. by me and others.
Abe Lincon walked all over the constitution, and we built a huge memorial to him in D. C.
We can certainly discuss how time has not been a friend to the basis for a truly great form of government.
Lincoln had many people helping him along the way.
On a different topic:
Ever read just how the states were strongarmed into passing the disgusting 14th amendment.
Back on topic.
Decertification might be the result of a good campaign.
Coming out and yapping about it up front only prepares the opposition for whatever this guy plans.
Seems pretty stupid to start out like this.
He clearly does not care about those who are not as strident as he is.
OK, back on topic, and the "he" and "him" to which you refer is Mark Finchem. I trust him a lot more than other people I know who claim to live in Arizona.
Trust him in what regard.
I am not challenging his integrity.
I am saying it's pretty stupid to go right to decertification as an opening salvo.
It's like when Bush came out with privatizing Social Security.
Regardless of how you did or didn't like the idea...the messaging sucked and was poorly put together.
At first blush, this seems to be the same.
Don't argue the fact of the case....that is not my complaint.
My complaint is poor optics.
I'll give you that it is low probability.
It's probably a moot point.
We'll soon be into the 2022 election cycle and this thing will start to die.
I'm having trouble following your train of thought here @HikerGuy83. First you tell us we can't know how the Ds will respond to election integrity reforms, then you tell us that we can know and you are not surprised at their responses because of some extremism in the existing reform efforts, then you tell us that de-certification would result in Civil War, then you tell us no, that would be a low probability.
We know precisely how the Ds will respond to election integrity reforms because they are already doing so. They called the GA State Legislature's reform bill "Jim Crow on steroids" and they broke quorum here in TX and left the state to try and prevent the State Legislature's reform bill.
Can you point to the specific provisions in those bills, or the specific legislative actions in drafting and passing those bills, that are consistent with - how did you say it again - something about "extremists leading the conversation?" Do you know of some other moderate, non-extreme way to insure election integrity rather than having state legislatures pass reform bills? I'd be interested in hearing the details of any better plan you have in mind, and I would certainly be interested in your plan to get the Ds on board to help out.
Anything that doesn't cave 100% to Democrats is bad optics. Get over that.
I respectfully disagree.
In all my time in this process, I have found that people ignore the middle.
All the left needed to do was peel off a few republicans or indies in order to beat Trump and they were able to do that.
All we need is to peel off a few left of center democrats and we will win.
How you get them is the challenge.
Here is where i probably agree with the "Stop the Steal" crowd. I'm in favor of all new legislation to increase transparency, voter ID, etc. etc.
Decertifying the election in Arizona is the first step to increasing election integrity. The election was fraudulent. It should not stand.
That's right.
That's right. Butt there is no remedy at the federal level. I don't think there are mulligans offered. The AZ electors were bound, the results were certed. That's all folks! All you get now is to do better next time... And that should be the focus.
The only other function of decertification may be a recall of senators/congressmen according to a thrown-out election and re-do, not to mention all state offices that may have been effected - But I don't know if that is true according to AZ state law. :shrug:
De-certifying probably would not change a single office and certainly will not change the POTUS outcome. You’re right, AZ screwed up, full stop, and that’s the end of it.
But it would formally retract the consent of the state of AZ to have its EVs awarded as they were awarded. It would further damage the credibility of the Biden admin and might encourage other state legislatures to reform.
I hope they do it.
Dunno. That will be spun as partisan or Tumpist sour grapes, I think - An action with no other apparent value... Actionable evidence prosecuted to the fullest, and rigorous protections and transparency in following elections would likewise damage Biden, and leave a dang mark too.
De-cert would definitely be spun by the Ds and their media publicists. But everything is spun so spinning is not a reason to reject a proposed action.
Oh and I want prosecutions and jail time as well, just doubtful either will happen.
I cannot deny that.
Well, this is as close as we have ever been since this all started. No krakens or hail marys in the press... Just a state AG and an axe to grind... and he has the power of enforcement behind him.
I'd feel better about the AG if he wasn't a lying crapweasel who's terrified to face his constituents face to face. He's slow-walked every damned thing concerning this stolen election. He will fumble this ball, sure as God made little green apples.
He will fumble this ball, sure as God made little green apples.
De-certifying probably would not change a single office and certainly will not change the POTUS outcome. You’re right, AZ screwed up, full stop, and that’s the end of it.
But it would formally retract the consent of the state of AZ to have its EVs awarded as they were awarded. It would further damage the credibility of the Biden admin and might encourage other state legislatures to reform.
I hope they do it.
Dunno. That will be spun as partisan or Tumpist sour grapes, I think - An action with no other apparent value... Actionable evidence prosecuted to the fullest, and rigorous protections and transparency in following elections would likewise damage Biden, and leave a dang mark too.
And do you believe that such an effort would not be contentious and drive away those who might otherwise join in defeating a far left agenda ?
There seem to be some who think we are with unlimited political capital.
We don't have either chamber in congress or the W.H.
And they can't figure out why.
Oh...that's right....we only lose because the other side cheats.
Did Sinema cheat her way into the senate ?
Did Kelly cheat his way into the senate ?
Hard telling if you can't trust the election process. That's the entire point here.
Where's the provision in the Constitution to decertify an election? Sheesh, I thought liberals were dumb...
There seem to be some who think we are with unlimited political capital.You seem to believe it matters to most of us who cheats. You'd be wrong.
We don't have either chamber in congress or the W.H.
And they can't figure out why.
Oh...that's right....we only lose because the other side cheats.
Did Sinema cheat her way into the senate ?
Did Kelly cheat his way into the senate ?
I am getting ready to start a thread on tracking efforts to do that in Arizona.
Where's the provision in the Constitution to decertify an election? Sheesh, I thought liberals were dumb...
Where's the provision in the Constitution to decertify an election? Sheesh, I thought liberals were dumb...
Towards what end is decrtifying the Arizona electors a stepping stone?
It gets the attention of AZ voters, who will in turn put pressure on the GOP to actually do something about it. The majorities we have are razor thin, so a couple of RINOs can thwart every move we make to repair our elections. There has been a lot of pooh-poohing of our efforts from people who claim to be "Republicans." They're still so uninformed that they think this is about Donald Trump.:yowsa:
Only Rats and RINO defeatists are happy with the 2020 election.
I'm sure you know just as well as the rest of us that the Tenth Amendment reserves to the States, and the people, all powers not specifically delegated to the Federal Government. If the legislature of AZ decides that it no longer has confidence in the result it previously certified and sent to the joint session, as the sole determiner of election procedure in AZ it has all authority to say so by de-certifying.
Even if every state that certified D EVs chose to de-certify, Biden would remain at the Resolute desk; one can reasonably argue that de-certifying would be merely symbolic, with no real impact. AZ, PA, GA, and other states simply screwed up by certifying results that came from procedures that are not trustworthy. Although moot in terms of immediate impact, de-certifying would say clearly that existing electoral procedures are unacceptable. If the AZ legislature chose to de-certify, they would really have no choice but to reform their election laws.
I take no position on whether or not a proposed de-cert would stand a chance in the AZ legislature. In a sense de-cert would be an admission of failure by the state legislature, an admission it had allowed untrustworthy procedures to remain in effect. For that reason alone the proposal might be a non-starter.
It'd basically be masturbation then? Nice to know.Congratulations, this response will do a lot for your credibility here.
If it's true, i'd want prosecutions. State level office can prosecute.I've gone on record on this thread also wanting prosecutions. Were I a defense attorney and the state legislature failed to de-certify I would certainly argue that my client had simply participated in the process which the state legislature certified; and that the state legislature had confirmed the fitness of the process, and my client's participation, by leaving that certification in force.
Congratulations, this response will do a lot for your credibility here.
I've gone on record on this thread also wanting prosecutions. Were I a defense attorney and the state legislature failed to de-certify I would certainly argue that my client had simply participated in the process which the state legislature certified; and that the state legislature had confirmed the fitness of the process, and my client's participation, by leaving that certification in force.
So if you're serious about wanting prosecutions, you might want to think through to what would make for an effective prosecution. A de-certified election would make for a much more powerful prosecutorial case than a certified election.
:shrug:You don't know when to quit digging, do you? I'm not talking about my opinion of your credibility.
Your opinion of my credibility is worth a bucket of warm piss.
I guess. More powerful would be concrete evidence of actual wrongdoing. not just a bunch of forums who "get their spidey sense tingly" because of some discrepancies.A de-certified election would be concrete evidence of actual wrongdoing. The sort of prosecution you claim to want would actually be based on "a bunch of forums who 'get their spidey sense tingly' because of some discrepancies."
Where's the provision in the Constitution to decertify an election? Sheesh, I thought liberals were dumb...
It'd basically be masturbation then? Nice to know.
If it's true, i'd want prosecutions. State level office can prosecute.
MICHIGAN ELECTION LAW (EXCERPT)
Act 116 of 1954
168.861 Fraudulent or illegal voting, or tampering with ballots or ballot boxes; remedy by quo warranto.
Sec. 861.
For fraudulent or illegal voting, or tampering with the ballots or ballot boxes before a recount by the board of county canvassers, the remedy by quo warranto shall remain in full force, together with any other remedies now existing.
I hope that you get that I completely agree with you.
I am getting ready to start a thread on tracking efforts to do that in Arizona.
What I don't go for is pushing bleating words like steal, corrupt, illegal, and decertification. They sounds more like battle cries and I, for one, am sick and tired of the ugly (and frankly stupid) state of politics.
Even the dialogue on this board smacks of some kind of "cancel" if you don't agree with their particular POV (and that does not even mean you had a different one.....you might not have one at all....but that is still wrong.....Hitler would be proud).
I'm sure you know just as well as the rest of us that the Tenth Amendment reserves to the States, and the people, all powers not specifically delegated to the Federal Government. If the legislature of AZ decides that it no longer has confidence in the result it previously certified and sent to the joint session, as the sole determiner of election procedure in AZ it has all authority to say so by de-certifying.
Even if every state that certified D EVs chose to de-certify, Biden would remain at the Resolute desk; one can reasonably argue that de-certifying would be merely symbolic, with no real impact. AZ, PA, GA, and other states simply screwed up by certifying results that came from procedures that are not trustworthy. Although moot in terms of immediate impact, de-certifying would say clearly that existing electoral procedures are unacceptable. If the AZ legislature chose to de-certify, they would really have no choice but to reform their election laws.
I take no position on whether or not a proposed de-cert would stand a chance in the AZ legislature. In a sense de-cert would be an admission of failure by the state legislature, an admission it had allowed untrustworthy procedures to remain in effect. For that reason alone the proposal might be a non-starter.
I will stand in mild disagreement with you @HoustonSam , on the federal certification matter. I think it is designed to be decisive. I think the founders did not want a pissing match. I think they wanted a very decisive end - There is a time for challenging the vote, and the certification, but that is a nearly impossible task in the time allotted. There is further time to challenge the vote at the state, 18 months, I believe, but that does not effect the certification, as the time to challenge that has long ago come and gone.
So I believe decertification to be unconstitutional - The state assigned electors, those electors were received, and at that precise moment, the state assigned its powers to those electors, certified those electors as duly assigned representatives, and handed off their duty to the federal system. Within the federal system the physical vote of the electors is cast - Different system.
As I have said before, there may be value in decertification in the lower offices - Certainly in the state offices, and perhaps in the case of US Senate and House (I don't know). For those offices decertification may hold some value - I have asked that question - but in the matter of the president and vice president, that ship has sailed.
I'm advocating de-certification - perhaps a resolution rather than an act - as a formal statement that the result was not trustworthy, to drive reform action and to bolster any prosecutions by making clear that actual harm was done.
@HoustonSam
Two important things should soon follow. I would expect the pressure would be ramped up on Legislators and Governors to pass real election reform, and perhaps we can see an end to the "Automatic Certifications" that have been going on since forever. People in charge are encouraged to just look the other way when something stinks now, and this might change that entire POV.
Good luck with that. A word of advice: Don't rubbish what people are doing, like you have done so far with the Audit, every step of the way. If folks are willing to put up with that they'd all have subscriptions to the Arizona Republic, too.
I don't recall rubbishing anything.
I have pointed out where I think certain language is not helpful and why.
It seems you are the ones prone to attack those who might not have bought off on your POV.
I don't have an "opposing" point of view.
I have one that is different and in many cases they are not very strong.
Your position is certainly reasonable my friend @roamer_1 . Action by AZ or even by a majority of states could not actually remove Biden from office - that ship has indeed sailed, and crossed beyond the horizon, due in large part to the legislatures of several states being asleep at the switch regarding how votes are actually collected and counted. So as you and I have agreed here before, the state legislatures really have only themselves to blame, and I'm not sure many of them will admit that any blame is actually coming their way, particularly if it raises questions about their own most recent election victories.
I'm advocating de-certification - perhaps a resolution rather than an act - as a formal statement that the result was not trustworthy, to drive reform action and to bolster any prosecutions by making clear that actual harm was done. And while a Federal Court might rule de-certification unconstitutional, personally I would find that ruling spurious, again for reasons on which you and I have previously agreed here - the state legislature is the sole arbiter of election procedure in the state. And since de-cert would be a statement rather than an act, I don't see what the meaning would be of declaring it unconstitutional.
Of course we're merely disagreeing on how, not on what. I think we're both convinced by the AZ audit report that actual crime led to actual harm, and that prosecutions and reform are both needed.
@HoustonSam
Two important things should soon follow. I would expect the pressure would be ramped up on Legislators and Governors to pass real election reform, and perhaps we can see an end to the "Automatic Certifications" that have been going on since forever. People in charge are encouraged to just look the other way when something stinks now, and this might change that entire POV.
But I will again repeat with emphasis, that it is the down-ticket that could yet produce fruit from that act. Does that act throw the election of US Senators and Congressmen by those same illegal votes? Can that cause a recall? And how far down-ticket does the calumny extend, and can all of that be overturned?
Very fair questions. Even as I advocate for de-cert, I have to admit it might be a can of worms we would regret opening. Were I arguing on behalf of the Ds I would cherry pick an auditing state with a majority of recently-elected R office holders and insist that de-cert applied to *all* election results, and that *state* office holders could be subject to removal from office depending on the outcome.
I hope the Rs would say "bring it on, we just want credible results", but I'm really not sure they would.
I for one would be fine with that in a show-up-in-person, purple-finger sorta way... happy77
I for one would be fine with that in a show-up-in-person, purple-finger sorta way... happy77
Dems won't like it.
They' ll have to dig up 10% of their voting constituency to get them to the polls.
Interesting Article:
You only get three freebees at the site.
It's a ramped up killshot aimed at the "stop the steal crow" and an example of the garbage that is peppering the net.
https://newrepublic.com/article/163796/media-arizona-audit-bidens-victory
In a crowded field, the months-long “audit” of the presidential votes in Arizona’s largest county may be the dumbest political story of 2021. The extent to which the word audit applies to the zany shenanigans that Arizona has endured this year is a matter of debate. A better term might be a transparent sham, undertaken by bad-faith actors promulgating easily disprovable lies about the legitimacy of the presidential election. The firm conducting the audit was literally named “Cyber Ninjas”—a detail so absurd it essentially serves as a punchline that doesn’t need a setup. The audit itself was silly, transparently partisan, and sinister, insofar as it didn’t really matter that it was obviously bogus: The whole point was to keep alive the myth that the 2020 election had been stolen from Donald Trump.
In the end, the Cyber Ninjas couldn’t pull it off. Their long-awaited report, released late last week, acknowledged that Joe Biden did, in fact, win Maricopa County. Not only that, he won it by a slightly larger margin than previously thought. If the audit was meant to prove the inherent illegitimacy of the 2020 election, it backfired. And for many in the press, it was a moment to spike the football. CNN’s John King wryly observed that it was a “death blow” to Trump’s “fraud fantasy.” Many outlets reported that it “confirmed” Joe Biden’s victory, as if such a thing were in doubt to begin with. Even The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board stepped in to suggest that enough is enough, asking, “When are Republicans going to quit playing this game?”
These reactions—whether jaded, gleeful, or exhausted—imply that there is some endpoint for Republican claims of fraud: that one day, the GOP will wake up and realize that Joe Biden really did win the election. There is no reason to believe that is the case. Indeed, reaction from the right has been nonplussed: Donald Trump is still claiming victory, while outlets on the right have focused on other sensational and unsupported claims, particularly that tens of thousands of “illegal” ballots were cast, even though election experts have widely disputed these conclusions. Coverage of the audit itself suggests that many news outlets still haven’t realized how to cover Republican efforts to undermine elections.
Looks just like something a Democrat troll would post.Maybe one day they'll accept that some people are still more inclined to believe their lying eyes instead of taking the word of a media that proven time after time it is ill disposed towards the truth. No matter how many lying rags they thrust in front of us.
Looks just like something a Democrat troll would post.
Maybe one day they'll accept that some people are still more inclined to believe their lying eyes instead of taking the word of a media that proven time after time it is ill disposed towards the truth. No matter how many lying rags they thrust in front of us.
Lighten up. An Admin agrees the article you linked should be posted...we are not an echo chamber.
It's an example of what is all over the net.
outlets on the right have focused on other sensational and unsupported claims, particularly that tens of thousands of “illegal” ballots were cast
It is also a position you originally agreed with until you started getting pushback. Yet here you are again posting someone else saying it, and still not challenging a single premise of it.
For example:
The audit itself proved that tens of thousands of illegal ballots were wrongly included in the election total, a crucial point that you have not once acknowledged. To the contrary, you have denied that fact, arguing that the inclusion of illegal ballots did not de-legitimize the results.
Does this board have an ignore function ?
Yes, in your Profile there's an Iggy List.
Lighten up. An Admin agrees the article you linked should be posted...we are not an echo chamber.
Quote me where I said I agreed with that.
Lets turn down the heat.....
Consider it on ice.
(https://dm0qx8t0i9gc9.cloudfront.net/thumbnails/video/HJpjKMlmgiw923pte/videoblocks-young-woman-ice-skating-on-a-frozen-lake-on-a-freezing-winter-day-legs-of-skater-on-winter-ice-rink-in-outdoors-people-winter-sport-and-leisure-concept_svbnpeo6b_thumbnail-1080_01.png)
But in the future, any time some left-wing trash article appears on this board (regardless of who posted it), I reserve the right to categorize that article as something a Democrat would post. Capisce?
That's fair! I only ask that we criticize the article (as it deserves it)
Looks just like something a Democrat troll would post.Does being a moron come to you naturally ?
Or do you practice at it.
Which I did. I said it looks like something a Democrat troll would post. And for that, I was called a moron.
If you find my posts disruptive or detrimental to this forum, just say the word, and I will venture elsewhere.
Which I did. I said it looks like something a Democrat troll would post. And for that, I was called a moron.
If you find my posts disruptive or detrimental to this forum, just say the word, and I will venture elsewhere.
We've lost too many already. Don't do it.what I do not understand is why the heat seems to be higher now than it was before we had all this evidence of electoral shenanigans. We all should be seeing more eye to eye now than we were in November of 2020.
We've lost too many already. Don't do it.
I've been on more than a few boards where the fantatics drive off everyone who does not pass their purity test.
You see it in the party too.
I've had no problem telling them what I think on boards and to their faces.
They don't get to tell me what I think and they certainly don't get to tell me how I should think.
You might want to consider that when you beg them to stay.
I used the ignore function, but (unlike other boards) I still have to endure reading their divel when they are quoted.
That's fair! I only ask that we criticize the article (as it deserves it), but let's not attack the Briefer who posts it....
Arizona should decertify their election results since it is now clear that their previous certification included illegal votes far in excess of the margin of error. It won't change the national election, but it would go a long way towards restoring election integrity within its own State.
@HoodatDoing the right thing, based upon the best available information, is always a good policy & the consequences of doing the right thing are always ultimately desirable. Used to be common sense.
Even more importantly,IMNSHO,it might start a trend by giving other states the push they need to do the same thing.
quoted from the article:
In the end, the Cyber Ninjas couldn’t pull it off. Their long-awaited report, released late last week, acknowledged that Joe Biden did, in fact, win Maricopa County. Not only that, he won it by a slightly larger margin than previously thought. If the audit was meant to prove the inherent illegitimacy of the 2020 election, it backfired. And for many in the press, it was a moment to spike the football. CNN’s John King wryly observed that it was a “death blow” to Trump’s “fraud fantasy.” Many outlets reported that it “confirmed” Joe Biden’s victory, as if such a thing were in doubt to begin with. Even The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board stepped in to suggest that enough is enough, asking, “When are Republicans going to quit playing this game?”
See, that's just it.... That is not what the report says.
The right (my side) simply does not have the same organized media apparutus that the left has.
And it is hurting us.
Yep. It is a total twisting of the truth. The claims made are a serious logic fail. And when you are down to arguing basic logic all that is left is a pig and mud.
See, that's just it.... That is not what the report says.
Are you missing the point ?
Nobody is countering this kind of thing.
That's right, but @HikerGuy83 has a point... Articles like these are used by my batsh*t crazy liberal sister to 'prove' how mislead I am - Even though the record here shows plainly that I didn't listen to the gossip rags on the right.
She is bloody well sure the Right, lead by Tumpy, are assembling a tyranny even as we speak.
One must consider how she came to that conclusion... And it is not hard to see. The leftward-facing media bubble and the rightward-facing media bubble keep the two sides at a fevered pitch.
Yes they are... But only on the right... preaching to the choir... And so it is. And it is the very same from the left, and never the twain shall meet. That is the utter danger of propaganda instead of journalism.
What is hurting you is that right facing media have become the same sort of shills as the MSM.
That is the single major mistake that came with pimping Tumpy up.
I certainly do not believe ANY press anymore... Which is why I waited for an actual implement of the state of AZ to be employed. Evidence tallied with evidentiary value in mind. Such a mill grinds slowly, bit to an infinitely fine grain. Give it time.
I hope to find and support orgs that don't participate in the hyperbolic garbage that is awash on the internet these days.
It is necessary because people are dropping away from the news and there is a great opportunity to fill that vaccum if it isn't name calling and conspiracy theories.
Please share how you think such tripe is being countered.
I am always interested to learn what is out there....that I might be missing.
You are not alone in not trusting anything.
In my estimation, this is where we have great opportunity.
But if you come out and scream the election should be decrrtified....you lose a lot of your potential audience.
I have been able to talk to lefties on a very even tone and discuss things in a way they don't consider (explained the 10th amendment and the concept of federalism to a woman from Minn about six months ago and she was floored. She thought the idea that she could go to her state and make it a left wing Utopia was fantastic. That Kansas didn't need to do the same for her to enjoy what she wanted....that made all the sense in the world to her.
Then she asked how it was going in our effort to promote this stuff.
Imagine how I felt as I explained that today's federal GOP is just as corrupt as the federal dems in centralizing power and pushing in the direction of a complete nanny state.
There are many out there like her.
They are quiet.
They are not going to share opinions without a lot of trush.
They are largely unaware of the potential of this country and each state.
They are generally more prone to be discourged by the hyperbolic B.S. on both sides.
What crystal ball do you have that we don't that tells you how democrats will respond to securing election integrity ?Just their resistance to voter ID should be one serious clue.
Please share.
Just their resistance to voter ID should be one serious clue.
Motor voter schemes, and mail out ballots are two others.
In the absence of assuring that the person is registered, alive, and identified, all can be used to facilitate fraudulent activity.
It is no accident that Democrats are opposed to such accountability.
Just as they are opposed to de-certification.The obvious problem is that those results should never have been certified in the first place.