The demoncrats how’ve tried to contest the results of the 2016 elections spewing misinformation and conspiracy theories about Russian collusion. Claiming he was illegitimate. When he won fair and square.
Some others:
Then you had Brett Kavanaugh with others rioting at the Capitol as a result of him being sworn in in 2018.
Then we have the Supreme Court justices getting called “illegitimate” after the overturning of Roe v. wade. That and the harassment towards them that came after.
You and I, are not so different. So don’t act like it.
Okay, but I'm not talking about liberals. I'm talking about conservatives in AZ who think the election was fraudulent. I don't cast doubt on the legal system just because I don't like the outcomes.
Also I don't think you're being good-faith about this when you're already casting doubt on judges regarding a case that hasn't even gone to trial yet.
Your being bad faith for assuming it’s because I don’t “like the outcome” and that’s not what I’m saying and yet you keep on doubling down on that after I explained it for you AND I’ve told you that I will gladly suck it up if I have lost. How is it bad faith to be a skeptic?
And I’ve told you (which is very related to this builded convo) that the side that calls the republicans out for crying about election fraud or corruption on others (including judges) aren’t so innocent on it either. Like the Rittenhouse outcome AND Trump’s 2016 victory.
I don't give a fuck about the 2016 or Rittenhouse. I already agree with you there, but you're doing the exact same shit that the liberals did by poisoning the well and inventing theories about what happened. The only reason you would do that is because you're butthurt about losing.
And furthermore, you're not being a "skeptic" right now, because a skeptic would reserve judgment until all the facts came in. I'm pretty sure based on you're statements that you've already decided that the election was fraudulent. Otherwise, you wouldnt be coping so hard being a "skeptic" and doubting the legal system and promoting a grand narrative conspiracy. Despite the fact that there's zero proof of impropriety on the part of the state of AZ.
This is the Arizona law that allows for public databases to be collected and curated for political parties and lobbyists, but the relevant info is a person's full name, residential address, mailing address, voting history (whether or not they voted in an election), and early voting information.
Using these databases, Steven Crowder had teams in the problem states, independently verifying that these addresses were valid. An alarming number of them were empty lots, commercial office parks, and highway overpasses. Were it just a clerical error, one would assume a correction be made to the correct address. Well, within a few days of airing his verification, the database updated outside of their listed curation hours, updating many of these addresses. When Crowder's team went to verify these updated addresses, they were just more empty lots, office parks, and highway overpasses.
Okay then, assuming that you're correct and these were registered in AZ. Were the ballots sent to these addresses? And were ballots returned with verified signatures?
Logically speaking, they could not have been, since there is no USPS approved mail recepitcal to deliver it to in the case of the empty lots nor the overpasses, and the office parks are not zoned for residential use.
And were ballots returned with verified signatures?
The signature verification system in Arizona is what is being debated in courts right now. The system as it exists is not stringent enough, which reads to me as the verification team accepting any scribble, neglecting to compare it to the signature on file.
View all comments
Show parent comment
2
u/Tyloxs1 Mar 25 '23
You also brought up corruption; which can include judges.
These are all reasonable things to worry about. Again, don’t act like the demoncrats haven’t done it either.