- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Breaking: Kari Lake loses trial to overturn Arizona Governor election - Vows to appeal
Posted on 12/27/22 at 2:39 pm to David_DJS
Posted on 12/27/22 at 2:39 pm to David_DJS
quote:
So you're arguing that the in-person votes that were tabulated real-time in the voting centers are also to be questioned?
Once comingled with those without chain of custody documents - absofrickinglutely
1
Posted on 12/27/22 at 2:44 pm to Mickey Goldmill
There was enough discrepancy by AZ law there to hold another election in Maricopa County.
The judge chose not to see it that way. Now you have more doubt than before. He made it worse.
What would another election have hurt?
The judge chose not to see it that way. Now you have more doubt than before. He made it worse.
What would another election have hurt?
Posted on 12/27/22 at 2:46 pm to LSU2ALA
quote:
When did Lake’s campaign file the FOIA? Did they do it in enough time to force the issue before trial? I truly don’t know. If they didn’t leave the county enough time to reasonably produce it, that’s on them.
Sometime between the announced result which was in early December and the trial which was last week.
Posted on 12/27/22 at 2:47 pm to loogaroo
quote:
here was enough discrepancy by AZ law there to hold another election in Maricopa County.
can you give us the laws you would cite that show this. or the case precedent for that in arizona?
quote:
What would another election have hurt?
as long as you're not worried about difficulty finding volunteers, cost of the election, timing to get the election done, and reduced turnout because of quick turnaround... then probably only a handful of other big complications.
Posted on 12/27/22 at 2:47 pm to loogaroo
quote:
By any means necessary huh Mickey? You're one of those people that thinks if you can out smart someone to get what you want it's their fault despite how unethical it is aren't you?
Do you not understand machines break and that when humans try to fix them sometimes other things break. If your point is that Maricopa County is not infallible, then, yeah, you’re correct. The problem is you’re bound and determined to take normal technical problems and draw out some nefarious plot. It’s just not there. It’s not cheating.
I’m against cheating. I’m also against being a sore loser and winding people up with bs when you lose.
Posted on 12/27/22 at 2:49 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:By whom?
Techs were sent out to fix those issues.
In other words, an individual or a cabal of electioneers with access to the machines, sabotage them in a way they know has (inadvertently) created confusion/delay in past elections on a sporadic basis.
But this time it's no accident. The perps recognize that by setting up >20% of machines to fail on a day when 70% of voters are Republican, they can decrease voting turnout. So they do just that.
The machines passed pre-election checks. Let's repeat that. The machines PASSED pre-election checks. Then, settings and/or ballot sizes were apparently changed. So the machines which had checked out as perfect pre-election, now failed.
As has happened in the past in Maricopa, techs were sent out to repair/reset the machines. Over the next couple of hours the techs attempted remedies, in some cases with success, in some cases w/o success depending of the capability of the tech. The techs were simply doing their jobs.
The fact techs attempted to fix problems has nothing whatsoever with the possible, indeed probable, nefarious actions disabling the machines. The tech response is absolutely irrelevant.
A Fire Dept Chief arranges the arson of a property for insurance purposes. As the blaze is discovered, alarms notify his Fire Dept. His firefighters arrive on site and attempt to extinguish the blaze.
This Judge would find the FD Chief must be innocent of any nefarious motive because his dept responded and put out the fire.
Posted on 12/27/22 at 2:49 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
No, I'm just not going to make assumptions that would lead to throwing out an election that had the largest margin of victory of any election that has been overturned in the history of the United States. If you want that done, you need to prove it with clear and convincing evidence.
He just produced a gif saying Whoopsie Daisy, Mickey. If you think more evidence than that is needed, then you clearly support the cheaters.
Posted on 12/27/22 at 2:50 pm to LSU2ALA
quote:
When did Lake’s campaign file the FOIA? Did they do it in enough time to force the issue before trial? I truly don’t know.
Well that would’ve been something to consider BEFORE you proceeded to conduct yourself as if you were armed with all the pertinent and relevant information, thus the extensive confidence that you’re exactly right and everyone else is exactly wrong.
Alright, just so we’re clear, you’re just talking outta your arse and actually don’t know the relevant factual backdrop, correct? Don’t feel bad, I don’t know much of shite in that regard either. Makes us spectators, not participants.
Posted on 12/27/22 at 2:52 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
A Fire Dept Chief arranges the arson of a property for insurance purposes. As the blaze is discovered, alarms notify his Fire Dept. His firefighters arrive on site and attempt to extinguish the blaze.
This Judge would find the FD Chief must be innocent of any nefarious motive because his dept responded and put out the fire.
so in this case what evidence was presented showing the chief arranged the arson?
quote:
The fact techs attempted to fix problems has nothing whatsoever with the possible, indeed probable, nefarious actions disabling the machines. The tech response is absolutely irrelevant.
and in this case what evidence was presented that the maricopa county BOE engaged in a nefarious plot?
Posted on 12/27/22 at 2:53 pm to loogaroo
quote:
What would another election have hurt?
Seriously? Hobbs won. You now want her to win twice because Lake throws bs at the wall and winds you up. The judge found there is nothing there. Lake had her chance to introduce evidence and brought nothing. The whole claim has always been let the court hear the evidence. What can it hurt? It’s now we don’t like how the judge ruled so hold a new election. What can it hurt? Lake lost. Get over it.
Posted on 12/27/22 at 2:53 pm to oklahogjr
quote:As long as you're not interested in election integrity, which you aren't, we should all shout "Move on! There's nothing to see here!"
as long as you're not worried about difficulty finding volunteers, cost of the election, timing to get the election done, and reduced turnout because of quick turnaround... then probably only a handful of other big complications.
Posted on 12/27/22 at 2:55 pm to LSU2ALA
quote:No!
The judge found there is nothing there.
That is false!
The Judge found plenty there.
He refused to acknowledge the probability of nefarious intent behind what he found.
Posted on 12/27/22 at 2:57 pm to oklahogjr
quote:Inexplicable machine failures amongst other things.
so in this case what evidence was presented showing the chief arranged the arson?
Posted on 12/27/22 at 2:57 pm to LSU2ALA
quote:
Do you not understand machines break and that when humans try to fix them sometimes other things break. If your point is that Maricopa County is not infallible, then, yeah, you’re correct. The problem is you’re bound and determined to take normal technical problems and draw out some nefarious plot. It’s just not there. It’s not cheating.
I’m against cheating. I’m also against being a sore loser and winding people up with bs when you lose.
They admitted the problems happened several times before and never fixed them. WTF are we to assume? Especially when these problems benefited the other side...more than once!
Posted on 12/27/22 at 2:57 pm to davyjones
quote:
Well that would’ve been something to consider BEFORE you proceeded to conduct yourself as if you were armed with all the pertinent and relevant information, thus the extensive confidence that you’re exactly right and everyone else is exactly wrong. Alright, just so we’re clear, you’re just talking outta your arse and actually don’t know the relevant factual backdrop, correct? Don’t feel bad, I don’t know much of shite in that regard either. Makes us spectators, not participants.
I am talking from the judge’s decision saying the FOIA claim is not germane to this matter. Wednesday just says no I don’t agree and continues to state the county is suspicious because they didn’t introduce the chain of custody documents which they are not required to do so. That’s what I was asking about as she is convinced there is a big conspiracy here around the FOIA.
Posted on 12/27/22 at 2:58 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Inexplicable machine failures
well sometimes things break. Everytime there is any machine failure should we redo the entire election? I think that sounds like overkill but it's an interesting point.
I would also like to understand how that shows nefarious intent. like Something is broken, how did we get to it's probable that it was sabotage. what evidence of that was there?
quote:
amongst other things.
Please continue listing them. I want to understand what i'm missing that you see so clearly.
This post was edited on 12/27/22 at 3:05 pm
Posted on 12/27/22 at 2:58 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
The Judge found plenty there. He refused to acknowledge the probability of nefarious intent behind what he found.
He also found it could not have impacted the margin of victory either.
Posted on 12/27/22 at 3:02 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
By whom?
In other words, an individual or a cabal of electioneers with access to the machines, sabotage them in a way they know has (inadvertently) created confusion/delay in past elections on a sporadic basis.
But this time it's no accident. The perps recognize that by setting up >20% of machines to fail on a day when 70% of voters are Republican, they can decrease voting turnout. So they do just that.
The machines passed pre-election checks. Let's repeat that. The machines PASSED pre-election checks. Then, settings and/or ballot sizes were apparently changed. So the machines which had checked out as perfect pre-election, now failed.
As has happened in the past in Maricopa, techs were sent out to repair/reset the machines. Over the next couple of hours the techs attempted remedies, in some cases with success, in some cases w/o success depending of the capability of the tech. The techs were simply doing their jobs.
The fact techs attempted to fix problems has nothing whatsoever with the possible, indeed probable, nefarious actions disabling the machines. The tech response is absolutely irrelevant.
Printers can work fine then stop working. Electronics have issues especially when performing high volume jobs. The techs said the most common solution to the printer issues was simply shaking the ink toner and putting it back in. They were sent out because issues were popping up. They weren’t there to cause the issue in the first place.
Again, nothing you said shows intent to alter the results. It’s a baseless theory with zero evidence.
Posted on 12/27/22 at 3:02 pm to loogaroo
quote:
They admitted the problems happened several times before and never fixed them. WTF are we to assume?
Incompetence by the government. Everyone on here talks about how the government screws stuff up all the time and that they can’t be trusted to properly run anything, and yet when there is a pretty obvious example of this incompetence, the conclusion some want to jump to is conspiracies.
What makes you think an incompetent government could even pull off a masterminded scheme.
Posted on 12/27/22 at 3:05 pm to oklahogjr
quote:
can you give us the laws you would cite that show this. or the case precedent for that in arizona?
quote:
Arizona law is clear: even inadvertent errors in election require setting aside result if it casts outcome in doubt. Intentionality is NOT required when the error casts actual winner "in doubt."
Barnes is lying?
https://mobile.twitter.com/barnes_law/status/1606329622416744448
This post was edited on 12/27/22 at 3:06 pm
Page 33 of 45
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News