Forensic Audit in Maricopa County, AZ

Did I say I was upset with one of his votes? I think not. Same answer or question with stuff he has sponsored.

I said I am interested in the race and suggested he will have a tough time if the Democrats come up with a decent alternative. Which I doubt they can do.

I have worked on a lot of political campaigns and for a lot of candidates, starting when I was ten years old and passing out leaflets and bumper stickers and ending up managing several successful local campaigns. My interest now as I approach the end of this vale of tears is purely sporting. I got no skin in the game any more.
 
One additional comment: he has two Ivy League degrees and relishes them both. So my default position is to detest him and others of his ilk
 
^ To that I put this from you right here.
"Work on a campaign some time, preferably for someone you are not enamored of particularly, and note how many idiots are rabid supporters or support the lame candidate for reasons that are nonsensical. "
Would you include NOT supporting a candidate for reasons that are nonsensical?
 
^ To that I put this from you right here.
"Work on a campaign some time, preferably for someone you are not enamored of particularly, and note how many idiots are rabid supporters or support the lame candidate for reasons that are nonsensical. "
Would you include NOT supporting a candidate for reasons that are nonsensical?

A good example of this - a good friend of mine worked on the Noble Willingham campaign when he tried to unseat Max Sandlin (East Texas Democratic congressman). I asked him what it was like working for an actor. He said it was terrible. He'd go to events, and Republicans voters loved Willingham - very nice guy and great back-slapper. Seemed like a nice good-old-boy. However, in every other context, he was a total ******* - extremely rude and entitled with staff and others. Furthermore, he wasn't any more conservative than Sandlin was. He was pretty clear that he was only running for himself, and the appeal was nothing more than phony personality. Despite all the hard work, my friend was glad to see Willingham lose. (Sandlin ultimately lost his seat after the 2003 redistricting to Louie Gohmert.)
 
Is this proof and/or admission that that the intelligence community rigged the 2020 election?




Another thing about this, think about what it says. They've dealt with people who sever heads and burn people alive because of religous differences and people who stone gays. However, to them, the people who think men can't get pregnant and that we shouldn't be talking to 5-8 year olds about dicks in schools are worse. Even if you're a person of the Left, the hyperbole has to make you question this guy's integrity.
 
Another thing about this, think about what it says. They've dealt with people who sever heads and burn people alive because of religous differences and people who stone gays. However, to them, the people who think men can't get pregnant and that we shouldn't be talking to 5-8 year olds about dicks in schools are worse. Even if you're a person of the Left, the hyperbole has to make you question this guy's integrity.

What it shows to me is that the Regime loves power and nothing else. They are not public servants or political representatives. They are rulers and dictators. They will not accept dissent be that from a Muslim extremist or a Nebraska farmer.
 
If it's going to just follow the government's orders on censorship, it gets harder for it to argue that it's not a state actor. Effectively, it is.

I've read that the government coercing a private entity to censor political information is a violation of the first amendment. Is this true and is the FBI breaking the law here? What's your take?
 
I've read that the government coercing a private entity to censor political information is a violation of the first amendment. Is this true and is the FBI breaking the law here? What's your take?

Here's the problem. Did the FBI coerce, or did it "request?" If it coerced, then it's definitely illegal. If it simply requested and Facebook dutifully complied (and let's be honest, it probably did since it has the same political agenda), then finding an illegal act is going to be much harder to establish.
 
Here's the problem. Did the FBI coerce, or did it "request?" If it coerced, then it's definitely illegal. If it simply requested and Facebook dutifully complied (and let's be honest, it probably did since it has the same political agenda), then finding an illegal act is going to be much harder to establish.
"Nice windows you have here...be a shame if something happened to them."

Comment or threat? Same thing at the end of the day...
 
Can't believe someone would freely admit to that like Zuckerberg did. Can you imagine the outrage if FB censored a Trump story like his grab them by the ***** one for a week?
 
"Nice windows you have here...be a shame if something happened to them."

Comment or threat? Same thing at the end of the day...

The potential for that is definitely present, but I honestly don't think it was necessary here. We know Facebook's politics. I'm sure they were happy as **** to censor the story.
 
If it's going to just follow the government's orders on censorship, it gets harder for it to argue that it's not a state actor. Effectively, it is.

It has been a state actor since at least as early as 2017. This is what fascism looks like and it ain't Trump.
 
I've read that the government coercing a private entity to censor political information is a violation of the first amendment. Is this true and is the FBI breaking the law here? What's your take?

Since when have our rulers cared what the constitution said? Not at least the last 100 years. It's a dead letter at this point, other than showing what they should be doing, but it has no real power over politicians.
 

Weekly Prediction Contest

Predict TEXAS-ARIZONA STATE

CFP Round 2 • Peach Bowl
Wed, Jan 1 • 12:00 PM on ESPN
AZ State game and preview thread


Chick-fil-A Peach Bowl website

Recent Threads

Back
Top