Forensic Audit in Maricopa County, AZ
- Thread starter AC
- Start date
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
I'm not against an unbiased source investigating. Cyber "Ninjas" would be about as unbiased as RC Slocum and Barry Switzer overseeing an investigation of the the UT recruiting program. They're the equivalent of Powell and Guiliani who are going to be bankrupted by their lies. Karma, yo!
If they're so biased why did they make you so happy when they upped the voter count for Biden? The problem is that Maricopa county itself has been caught red handed deleting election data. They've been caught in numerous other lies. The AG has opened up an investigation because of the BS the county has pulled. The Ninja's perceived bias has nothing to do with any of that. You need to start looking at the facts instead of listening to crap the news is pushing.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Said as if Conservatives don't have a bias to give more credibility than it's deserved. In full context, R's (see: Trump) said the election would be stolen before voting started, on election night and since even without evidence. At some point you have to recognize that you're the Boy Who Cried Wolf. Yes, there may be some credibility to the analysis now (not confirming but open to the possibility) but given all the failed attempts at amateur data analysis and demonstrably laughable allegations why would anyone continue to listen?
In the R power circles this was never about litigating the 2020 election. This was always about planting the seeds for 2024. It's a political ploy to energize the base, make it a tad harder to vote, easier to throw out ballots. It's working too. A Monmouth poll out today say 35% of voters think 2020 should be overturned. Can we agree those are R voters? R's will continue to beat their "stolen election drum" through 2022 and 2024. To me, it's clear that y'all care more about power to implement your agenda then freedom or democracy. Those are simply slogans that hide the real motivations.
Last edited:
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
Because it was funny. It didn't make me happy. It would have been like my dream scenario of Casey Thompson throwing the game and moving to the Sooner sideline with two minutes left. That didn't happen either. I can dream.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
The problem is your justification of dismissing the data is another anomaly itself.
That hasn't happened before. Why? Who knows, but the smoke builds and builds once you are aware it exists.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
Yes, everyone has bias. There is no way around it. I agree his warnings about election fraud before the election weren't based on much either. I dismissed them from my thought personally.
I have said since after election night that there were strange occurrences and anomalies that warranted investigation. Those anomalies were never explained. Those accused simply obfuscated which made me even more suspicious. Some of the failed attempts were due to the fact that the people weren't looking at the right things. Some of them were due to judges refusing to take the case regardless of the evidence. You never listened because of your own bias, so that is a bit of a moot point.
I don't have any love for the R party myself. I am sure they have been playing political games. Just like the Ds of course. That is one reason why I hate government so much. There isn't a good side and a bad side. There are only 2 corrupt groups playing games for money and power.
And it isn't "y'all". I am not an R. Haven't been one for a while. All I care about is freedom. That's it.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
You've fallen into the QAnon trap. If you never look backwards to see that the previously claimed smoke was actually some amateur data analyst lighting up a joint then every new claim of smoke has validity. If you look backwards to see how often these amateur analysts were incorrect due to false foundational assumptions then each new claim would be looked at with ever increasing skepticism.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
That ******* has claimed every election that he's been involved in was going to be fraudulent prior to the election. The money raised for "stop the steal" and the people willing to trump their ethics to see the R there is the reason for this. It was a razor's edge in a few places to have the will of the people blunted.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
Try again. The data I showed was looking back over 100 years. Why just go back to QAnon claims? You have more interaction to QAnon to anyone else on this board.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
Hey pot meet kettle. That's all the Rs and Ds are. Don't forget the Ds claimed a fraudulent election for 4 years. You telling me they didn't raise money using scare tactics?
I'm not an R and don't follow their activities, so it isn't relevant to me.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
The last paragraph of the linked article shows the author has already caught on to SH's line of reasoning.
Raises good questions in a balanced way.
Election Oddities
Raises good questions in a balanced way.
Election Oddities
To the average liberal anything that falls out of the purview of the MSM that they watch/read is a QAnon conspiracy.
You're not a simpleton. You're a smart guy who I think has a blind spot on this, as we all have blind spots, myself included. I think Kendi's influence greatly exceeds a homeless person's or 99 percent of people's influence. Like I said, most of us don't have the platform he has in academia and in the corporate world. It's also not true that his ability to execute his ideas are that limited. We haven't seen departments of anti-racism pushed yet, but all of these "equity" (as opposed to equality) initiatives that are being pushed administratively are basically following Kendi's agenda.
This is a pretty racist mentality - not by you but by the media. If just being eloquent or well-spoken is enough to get the media to give you a platform, what does that say about their opinion of black people in general? I do think there is truth to this. It's the "clean, articulate, nice looking, and not scary" mindset that Biden pointed out about Obama back in 2008. However, if that alone (or even primarily) was driving the their decision to give him a platform, Thomas Sowell and Glenn Loury, would have a similar platform, and Jesse Jackson (who's often incoherent) would have no platform.
Another thing he has in common with David Duke. When he became a major political figure, like Kendi, Duke presented a far more mainstream persona than his predecessor Klansmen had. He was well-spoken, likable, and didn't come across as a freak. He even distanced himself from some of the worst abuses of the KKK. Then people looked into his past and looked at the fact that a very radical agenda was behind the nice facade, and he has been discredited ever since. I've never seen Kendi grilled about the implications or specifics of anything he pitches. Does he ever debate anybody or talk to anyone who isn't completely in his camp?
Do you have a link to this during the campaign? Because I don't recall a firm commitment either way. What I mostly remember him doing is refusing to answer the question and saying he doesn't want to "change the subject."
That's often true but not always. The Greenspan Commission and BRAC Commissions did lead to actual policy changes. I hope you're right, but if Democrats hold their House majority and expand in the Senate, it will clearly be on the menu.
We'll have to agree to disagree. lol. In five years, most of us will forget all about McConnell, because he basically acted like the slimy politician we expect him to be, and the impact of one extra conservative justice will be written off. If the court gets packed, it will have major implications long after we're both gone.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Yes, we'll have to agree to disagree. McConnell's antics will be felt for a lot longer than 5yrs because the judges he chose to ram through the process we also very young by SCOTUS standards. If it will be forgotten within 5yrs that's a testament to McConnell's PR acumen.
Justice Elana Kagan was the only justice young enough when confirmed to be compared by the Republican nominated lot.
As an aside, I can't believe that Clarence Thomas was confirmed at age 43. That should be point #1 to reinforce that SCOTUS nominees need more demonstrable experience before getting appointed. Of all the judges, he's the lightest of lightweights on the court. Yes, I say that even though he's a big Nebraska Husker fan and season ticket holder by virtue of his wife.
Last edited:
More evidence of ballot harvesting.
Wis. Election Panel Told Nursing Home Staffers To Illegally Cast Ballots
Republican Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin following the Racine press conference. “Using elderly residents with cognitive decline to commit election fraud is reprehensible, and should concern every Wisconsinite and American.”
Wis. Election Panel Told Nursing Home Staffers To Illegally Cast Ballots
Republican Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin following the Racine press conference. “Using elderly residents with cognitive decline to commit election fraud is reprehensible, and should concern every Wisconsinite and American.”
Obviously, the life tenure element is a big part of this. However, Democrats obviously want to take advantage of this too, and there's a reason why they don't as often or to the same degree.
When you're appointing someone to the Supreme Court, the expectation is that the person be from an Ivy League law school and be an elite from those schools - a court of appeals judge or a faculty member or other kind of leader from those schools. Well, liberal candidates who meet that criteria are a dime a dozen. There are tons of them, so there's a lot of competition. Conservative candidates who meet that criteria are pretty unusual, so there's far less. That means it's much easier for a young conservative lawyer to hustle his way up the chain to the appellate courts and ultimately to the Supreme Court by attracting attention to himself or herself.
As for Clarence Thomas, he was replacing Thurgood Marshall. That meant the expectation was that not only would the candidate have to be from an elite school, he would have to be black. Well, that's an enormous limitation for a Republican, especially in 1990. (I think it would be easier now.) Bush simply didn't have a lot of choices. Otherwise, I think he would have gone with one of them and avoided the controversy. What's kinda sad is that Thomas could have become more qualified by putting in more time on the DC Circuit and getting appointed by George W. Bush. He still would have been reasonably young for a nominee and would have had a 10+ year record on the most prestigious appellate court in the country besides the Supreme Court. (That's what Sonia Sotomayor did.)
Having said that, there have been other justices whose qualifications certainly didn't dwarf Thomas's though I can't think of any in recent years with less. Byron White was only 44. He had been an outstanding NFL football player and had largely been a business lawyer in Colorado. He wasn't unqualified, but there were probably hundreds of potential candidates who were significantly more qualified. What really got him the nomination was his connection to JFK.
There has been talk of putting an age limit on justices for obvious reasons. I can see merit to a minimum age as well. If you're under 50, I'm going to question your experience for the highest court in the United States.
Horn2RunAgain
2,500+ Posts
Yeah but Ron Johnson said....in 3, 2, 1..
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
