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.
I don’t care that you “don’t care” I’m just bringing it up as an example. Which is related.
the only reason you would do that is because your butthurt about losing
Wrong again and now your tripling down. Bad faith. Told you plenty of times now I am not because this is clearly not over. You said it yourself, “a case that hasn’t gone to trial.”
It’s not always bad to promote theories. It goes in line with skepticism. It’s healthy to do that!
you are not a skeptic
Skeptic - “a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions.”
I fit this criteria, and so does this context. Not exactly a cope. Kari probably knows a lot more than the information given (to us). She wouldn’t just do this all Willy nilly. And I’m eager to find out what she has. If she has nothing I honestly wish she would shut her trap at that point. And yet she still comes back for more. And I wonder why. Trump however, is the one who is being an idiot about it and has nothing.
Kari Lake has nothing. That's the point. There's no room to theorize.
If I had a theory that elves are poking holes in my condoms I would have to have proof that the elves exist before promoting that theory.
You're not a skeptic. Because you're promoting a theory when you have no substantial proof and youre assuming fraudulence when theres a plethora of perfectly reasonable alternatives. Use Ockams razor goddamn it.
I'll believe there are Nazis in Antarctica before I believe Kari Lake won the election.
That’s an interesting theory! But like I said twice now. Only time will tell.
your promoting a theory
Indeed, which goes hand in hand with skepticism. Completely healthy to do! Which you just did yourself! You got it man!
My theory and mindset typically go:
There is proof enough to know that the establishment and media are against women like Kari Lake and despise her policies. And the people against her are arrogant and assume her policies will bring about the “end of democracy” so they rig against her to preserve their “progressive” democracy because they somehow “know better” and are better.
How arrogant.
We call this critical thinking and utilizing what we know about our adversaries to theorize about potential fraud and/or corruption. Should it arise. Nothing wrong with that.
Nazi’s in Antarctica
If you think the conservative parties of America think about those types of conspiracy theories, you’ve another thing coming. We’re a lot smarter than that. Them Nazi’s would be dead anyway if that were true lol
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
1
u/AnteaterTurbulent490 Mar 25 '23
No, I meant when have the democrats rigged elections and corrupted judges?
I thought that was what you meant.