Message from @AdvanceManExtraordinaire
Discord ID: 783074527659819018
Criminal trespass too.
Do you know the difference between a official poll watcher and the other poll watchers? @AdvanceManExtraordinaire
Please explain. Your claim is that poll watchers in Michigan cannot be in the room during the vote count? Do I have that right?
Do you know the difference between a official poll watcher and the other poll watchers? @AdvanceManExtraordinaire
@here Threats of political violence are something I consider a zero tolerance policy for in this channel. Anyone caught doing this will be reported to Discord and removed from the server **permanently**. Remain civil with one another, and follow the rules of the channel and Discord itself.
Ok
Who is doing that
what did I miss
If a city says we allow 150 Republicans and 150 Democrat poll watchers and you roll up with 200 people and they make 50 wait outside yes they should not be in the counting room
Since they were banned their messages were removed.
Was it spears
You dont get unlimited watchers
That guy was a lot
In effort to be as transparent as possible, this is the message in question.
Illegally counting votes would be fraud and this is not what she attested to... No attempt was made to let anyone vote illegally - per her testimony.
lol at the bias pouring out of that headline
I am curious where this takes the legal effort in Arizona. Supposedly this was planned in advance of team trumps hearing.
That subheading I’m going to call, a bit biased.
It is biased. I agree with you, but some of the claims are frivolous.
That guy was nuts and probably drowns himself in Alex Jones type rhetoric
@AdamS Case in point, *"In Arizona, Mr Giuliani claimed without evidence that votes had been changed and that ballot boxes had been “stuffed” before introducing a “witness" who claimed to have "personally debriefed the son of a Cuban intelligence officer who had first-hand knowledge speaking with two of Hugo Chavez’s family members" who said he had a direct connection to voting machines used to alter US election outcomes."*
That is type of "evidence" that makes people discount the rest of what he says. How can anyone take this seriously as "evidence" worth considering?
I would say this mischaracterizes the little I saw of the hearing. Why do they try to whittle it down to something that is easy to construct a silly narrative around?
I’ve noticed most the cases are silly narratives. I believe small scale fraud took place (on both sides) but not mass fraud, no evidence has been presented. Technical irregularities have taken place but not mass fraud or on a level to impact the election. we would have seen concrete evidence by now.
Fine
James... youve been acting like this for the last 4h. Have a grown up conv. Or just let the others
Assuming this accurately represents the essence of what was said - even if it is paraphrased - I'm not sure any amount of additional detail would make it sound any less silly on the whole.
The two so-called sides need to find common ground before we all are irreparably damaged by the tyranny of the few oligarchs.
Fully agree.
Yup. Oligarchs no bueno.
How would you know if it represents the essence of the hearing, having not watched it? Would you trust a left wing source to tell the truth about a hearing That trumps legal team called for? In other words, are the incentives aligned to give you the truth?
@AdvanceManExtraordinaire, you just advanced to level 6!
It's becoming harder to not come to this conclusion. I think the only viable reputable avenue left to Trump is the notion that mail-in ballots were accepted that could reasonably be disqualified because the signatures are demonstrably invalid. I just have not seen anything that is anything other than speculation - something akin to "we believe that invalid signatures were accepted, so we must be able to scrutinize all signatures (which is a somewhat subjective process".
However, in PA, I think they overplayed their hand... They claimed that watchers/observers were excluded from being able to oversee the validation of signatures. I am not sure if this is true or what they are entitled to witness. In CA, signatures are matched as ballots are received, which could be week's in advance. Even so, they went with "we couldn't evaluate signatures, so we ask you to throw out all mail-in ballots" as opposed to "let the signatures be audited by us or a 3rd party", which might have been better received. The fact that they went for invalidating all mail-in ballots, my guess is they didn't think it would work.
I’m all for all investigations and audits to be conducted and if mass election fraud took place we should know. I’m tired of the sideshow circus.
Your know what nm
I don't... That why I stipulated the assumption. Even you agreed it looked/read silly. I was commenting that if it was whittled down - even with the intended bias - the essential facts that the witness was making a link based on "meeting someone who knew someone else that told them something bad happened". I was just making an observation. I made no claim about knowing it was true. I will watch the hearing, though... but probably on 2x speed.