Election Do-Over!!! (3 Viewers)

[moke123]

PS, Moke,
Do you recognize purple words and opinions when you see them in a "news" article? If the "reporter" has a clear opinion, did the "reporter" manipulate the facts to support his opinion? When did reporters stop reporting facts and switch to writing opinion pieces?

Actually Pat you should know I do my own fact checking.

I for one believe there was massive election fraud.

We are well aware of your beliefs.

 

[Pat Hartman]

That wasn't the question. The question was is an opinion piece news? Does it qualify as fact when it is full of purple words and opinions?

It gets harder every day to find actual "news". This article doesn't qualify. It is just someone's opinion.

 

[moke123]

It gets harder every day to find actual "news". This article doesn't qualify. It is just someone's opinion.

Isn't that just your opinion?

 

[Steve R.]

I for one believe there was massive election fraud. The way the Democrats reacted confirms it. If they did not commit fraud, they would have been on board with doing an immediate audit before anyone had time to tamper with the ballots or voting machines. But they didn't want an audit. ....

Which is why the California recall petition is so telling in terms of the potential for fraud. Here we have a government run by Democrats actually being scrupulous (voter identification) to insure that the signatures (ballot equivalents) were valid. 18.33% were found to be "invalid". That is a large margin of error. The Democrats when it came to a Republican/Democratic election didn't seem to care much for voter identification, but they sure have cared for a Democratic/Democratic election process. The Democrats did not want the 2020 Presidential election to be have voter identification or be audited.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Everything I say is my opinion unless the question requires a factual answer. If I can edit the article to remove the purple words and conclusions, the remainder might be news assuming there are no factual errors. But it would at least look like news. News = Who, What, Where, When. It does not include my conclusion or adjectives that are intended to bias your conclusion. That would imply that I think you are too stupid to draw your own conclusions so I need to include mine just so you get the point.

If you think that article was news, then we're going to have to agree to disagree on exactly what news is.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Which is why the California recall petition is so telling in terms of the potential for fraud. Here we have a government run by Democrats actually being scrupulous (voter identification) to insure that the signatures (ballot equivalents) were valid. 18.33% were found to be "invalid".

Nailed it, you have the fox guarding the henhouse. Likewise, the same people who called Trump Hilter counting his votes, very obvious if anyone was concerned. There needs to be an independent audit.

 

[AccessBlaster]

BREAKING NEWS.... Channel 5 in Los Angeles just announced inflation is on the way and business will likely pass the higher costs onto the consumers. Lol, ya think? When the government offers you $1.400 of your own money but you have to pay back $5.600 watch out.

As my wife always says "the only free cheese is in the mousetrap" ouch.

 

[Isaac]

All self proclaimed fact checkers should LOVE the book Taboo, by Wilfred Reilly. It really injects hundreds of studies of facts--meaningful ones, where all relevant variables were controlled for, rather than just one--into these topics.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Arizona Audit Underway​

On Sunday, forensic experts confirmed they are examining thousands of ballots cast in November as part of the audit in the Grand Canyon State. They are using ultra-violet lights to search for ballot watermarks and weed-out phony ballots.

Additionally, auditors have been split into several groups with some examining mail-in ballots and others inspecting ballot folders, envelopes along with other related items.

Democrat Party officials have tried to challenge the audit in court and they are deploying their operatives in the mainstream media in an attempt downplay the severity of election fraud as well as discredit Republican challenges to election security.

Arizona Republicans were able to continue the audit after thwarting Democrat attempts to derail the audit this weekend. On Friday, Democrats filed a temporary restraining order to stop auditors from counting the ballots. They later retreated from their position after a judge ordered them to pay $1 million if they lost their legal challenge.

The problem of course is getting through the wall of dishonest liberals. This in my opinion is just the tip of a mulit-state fraud to oust President Trump.

 

[Steve R.]

The Democrats claim to be for election integrity. If there was no fraud, the Democrats have nothing to worry about. Yet:

On Friday, Democrats filed a temporary restraining order to stop auditors from counting the ballots.

Besides this one incident, Democrats (over several states) have been doing everything possible to allow votes to be cast and counted without adequate verification. Why? Seems that the Democrats have something to hide.

 

[Isaac]

Less talked about is the secondary reason AZ is doing this audit. Some legislators want the audit to be done prior to passing a certain voting integrity type legislation, so that they can make a more intelligent decision as to whether the legislation is needed. Then, they can either decide "not needed", and vote No, or decide "needed", and vote Yes. This way, if they do end up passing the legislation, the Democrats oft-repeated assertion "there was no need for that", will ring false. Or, they might decide not to pass it and avoid the whole controversy.

Pretty reasonable approach, if you ask me. Too logical for the Democrats to stomach!

It's funny to watch people going to court, desperate to stop an audit, while claiming there was no problem.

Most innocent parties want vindication?

 

[Steve R.]

The final results are in. The significance of the results is that when those in power want to "validate" an election, in this case a recall petition, they will go to extremes to verify the signatures submitted (ballots). According to the article: "California Secretary of State Shirley Weber announced that 1.6 million of the 2.1 million signatures submitted to recall the Democrat Newsom have been certified as valid, exceeding the threshold of 1.49 million required to trigger a special election." That means that 23.8% of the signatures were determined to be "invalid". By extension, one has to seriously question the validity of any election results where the validity of the person submitting the ballot was not verified.

@Isaac and @AccessBlaster have posted that the Republicans in Arizona are auditing the election results. The connection to the California recall petition is that when the Democratic establishment wants to protect itself when in power, unsurprisingly it wants the election results to be verified. But when the Democrats "beat" the Republicans in Arizona (and other states) it does not want the election results to be verified through an audit. To repeat the obvious implications, the Demcrats must be hiding something, in terms of the 2020 Presidential election.

Gavin Newsom recall petition succeeds in California

State officials confirmed Monday what most had long suspected: that the campaign to oust California Gov. Gavin Newsom has gathered enough signatures to qualify for the ballot.

www.washingtontimes.com

 

[Isaac]

Their (CA) legislation to change the rules about allowing the person subject to recall to have access to all of the identifying information of petition signors is very interesting. They had the common sense to make it not apply to this particular election, as the backlash on that would have been too much. CA governor says that it's a legit change--he wants access to "who" signed the petition in order to be able to communicate with them in case they really "didn't want" to sign it and wish to withdraw.

It seems to me that if someone decided they'd changed their mind, or hadn't really understood, and wanted to withdraw their signature (which they already can do under existing law), that would be sufficient.

Why would the CA government want the ability to know who they are and contact them?

This makes me think of how liberals re-define important terms every few years. I wonder if, in 10 years, we will be sitting around talking about "Voter ID" except instead of meaning requiring an ID to vote, it will refer to a new process that ID's who voted & for what

 

[Pat Hartman]

Here's a link to the camera at the AZ audit. Watching people whose jobs you don't understand seems pointless but maybe we'll find some other site with a description of what is going on.

azaudit

 

[Isaac]

Exemplary transparency

 

[AccessBlaster]

 

[Pat Hartman]

Did someone actually sum up all the votes counted and find a discrepancy? No voter fraud here Just people who are so enthusiastic for Biden and the coming Social Welfare state that punishes its opponents that they just kept going back to vote again

 

[Steve R.]

DOJ: Arizona recount may violate federal law

The U.S. Department of Justice expressed concerns Wednesday involving the unprecedented private recount currently underway of votes cast in the 2020 presidential election in Maricopa County, Arizona.

www.washingtontimes.com

Seems that the Democrats don't want the election results audited. Makes a mockery to the Democrats hyberbolic claims that they want fair and honest elections. When Democrats raise "concerns" that is a buzz word for using the power-of-the-state to intimidate those questioning into silence.

 

[Isaac]

They'll do anything to stop it, which tells you all you need to know!

 

[AccessBlaster]