Republican Review of Arizona Vote Fails to Show Stolen Election

wiscoaster

Well-known member
... It was just a political strategy to try to avoid the fairly earned loss. ...
Well, I think it's still in question whether it was a "fairly earned loss" and it's probably a good thing to make sure that processes are in place to make sure that question doesn't come up in the future, but without understanding why the last election is still in doubt those processes can't be put in place.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
Well, I think it's still in question whether it was a "fairly earned loss" and it's probably a good thing to make sure that processes are in place to make sure that question doesn't come up in the future, but without understanding why the last election is still in doubt those processes can't be put in place.
It is not in question. Trump lost the general election by 7.5 million votes, the most by any presidential candidate in history. If he had won the general election but lost only a few critical electoral college states, the logic might make sense. But he didn't.

This was entirely an attempt to overturn his loss. There never was any evidence of fraud in any battleground state. None. He made the whole thing up (a point validated by the report- please read it). Shocking, I am sure.
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
...There never was any evidence of fraud in any battleground state. None. ...
Again, very clever use of language, in that the legal determination of fraud, as a criminal act, is much stricter and more difficult to prove than the common understanding as intentional misrepresentation of fact.

The Free Dictionary said:
Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements:
(1) a false statement of a material fact
(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue
(3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim
(4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement
(5) injury to the alleged victim as a result

To develop and produce evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all five elements of fraud, then yes, it hasn't been and most probably never will be done, simply because it's not provable, but not because it never happened. To make your statement as a representation that the certified vote count isn't flawed is simply not supportable.

That there were tens of thousands of ballots that shouldn't have been certified as legitimate votes, then, yes, I think there's adequate evidence to convince beyond a reasonable doubt. And that type of doubt needs to be absolutely and completely eliminated from all future elections at all levels of government, otherwise myself and a lot of other voters will lose faith in a fair and transparent democratic process, if we don't trust with absolute certainty that the only votes counted were only one lawful vote to only one lawful voter and that the vote counted for that voter represents the ballot choice that voter made.

This isn't about overturning the last election. This is about the next and all future elections. That's what I don't think you're getting. There was a person lawfully certified and lawfully sworn, regardless of whether based on false results or not. Whether it was the right person or not, once done, there's no constitutional mechanism to undo. What needs to be done now is to make sure that type of scenario, whether it happened or not, can never happen in the future.
 
Last edited:

roscoe

Well-known member
That there were tens of thousands of ballots that shouldn't have been certified as legitimate votes, then, yes, I think there's adequate evidence to convince beyond a reasonable doubt.
This is a very strong assertion. Where is the evidence? It wasn't in the CyberNinja report, that's for sure. And no judge reviewing any of the election lawsuits saw any.

Who, precisely, voted who shouldn't have?
 

Skidmarx

New member
I didn't so much vote for Trump in 2016 as I did against Hillary. Ditto 2020, except against whoever it is that's leading the Democratic party by now, sure nor Biden. I don't know that I could vote for or support Trump in 2024. It was too late for a re-count to have any effect the day after the election, much less 6 months later.....it's over.
Having said that, someone convince me that the media didn't choose the winner. Mis-counted, fraudulent votes aside. Tell me that Bloomberg et- al Twitter, Facebook didn't play a large part in the outcome.
Did Dominion rig the machines, were there improper votes cast, I don't know, and could certainly never prove. Go ahead though, convince me that the media didn't pick the winner. As far as I'm concerned, that convinces me that the Deep State, or whatever you want to call it had the fix in. If one part of the process is dirty, it all is. We're not self governing anymore. Maybe all votes are equal in the ballot box, but go ahead and convince me that Mark Zuckerberg or Jack Dorsey, or Michael Bloomberg didn't have more say in determining the outcome of this last election than this entire forum did.
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
Who, precisely, voted who shouldn't have?
That hasn't and probably can't ever be proved to your "precise" satisfaction. But it is a fact that more mail-in ballots were received than were sent out and that's enough proof for me that the net results of the process are tainted.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
I didn't so much vote for Trump in 2016 as I did against Hillary. Ditto 2020, except against whoever it is that's leading the Democratic party by now, sure nor Biden. I don't know that I could vote for or support Trump in 2024. It was too late for a re-count to have any effect the day after the election, much less 6 months later.....it's over.
Having said that, someone convince me that the media didn't choose the winner. Mis-counted, fraudulent votes aside. Tell me that Bloomberg et- al Twitter, Facebook didn't play a large part in the outcome.
Did Dominion rig the machines, were there improper votes cast, I don't know, and could certainly never prove. Go ahead though, convince me that the media didn't pick the winner. As far as I'm concerned, that convinces me that the Deep State, or whatever you want to call it had the fix in. If one part of the process is dirty, it all is. We're not self governing anymore. Maybe all votes are equal in the ballot box, but go ahead and convince me that Mark Zuckerberg or Jack Dorsey, or Michael Bloomberg didn't have more say in determining the outcome of this last election than this entire forum did.
Why did you only list wealthy liberals? You think Charles Koch, the world's 20th wealthiest person, and a staunch conservative, wasn't driving the narrative as well?

The wealthy have always had more sway in elections. You can thank the Supreme Court in the Citizens United decision for making sure that continues.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
That hasn't and probably can't ever be proved to your "precise" satisfaction. But it is a fact that more mail-in ballots were received than were sent out and that's enough proof for me that the net results of the process are tainted.
What? Where did this happen? It wasn't in the Cyber Ninjas report.
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
re: more ballots received than sent:
What? Where did this happen? It wasn't in the Cyber Ninjas report.
Of course it was. Note line 5.4.1 in the 5.2 Summary Report table. Well, OK, that particular line item is 9,000 votes, and I confess imprecision by imperfect inclusion (how's that for alliteration), but when you include other line items it's still tens of thousands of votes of dubious authenticity. And as I said before maybe there's some overlap between line items and I concede maybe there's some reasonable explanation for parts of some of the line item counts, but still the legitimate net results are proved to be in reasonable doubt and frankly, if I was an Arizona voter, if there was even so much as a single extra vote or a single missing vote I'd be wondering whether or not I'd been disenfranchised.

And if you forensically audited all counties in all 50 states you'd likely find similar results in all.

No doubt there is never an election with a perfect vote count, but when the magnitude of the prossible error exceeds the margin of victory then you cannot justifiably certify an election winner. That just makes sense. Yet it's what Arizona did. And they deserve to be called to task, and any other state where the same happened.
 
Last edited:

roscoe

Well-known member
re: more ballots received than sent:

Of course it was. Note line 5.4.1 in the 5.2 Summary Report table. Well, OK, that particular line item is 9,000 votes, and I confess imprecision by imperfect inclusion (how's that for alliteration), but when you include other line items it's still tens of thousands of votes of dubious authenticity. And as I said before maybe there's some overlap between line items and I concede maybe there's some reasonable explanation for parts of some of the line item counts, but still the legitimate net results are proved to be in reasonable doubt and frankly, if I was an Arizona voter, if there was even so much as a single extra vote or a single missing vote I'd be wondering whether or not I'd been disenfranchised.

And if you forensically audited all counties in all 50 states you'd likely find similar results in all.

No doubt there is never an election with a perfect vote count, but when the magnitude of the prossible error exceeds the margin of victory then you cannot justifiably certify an election winner. That just makes sense. Yet it's what Arizona did. And they deserve to be called to task, and any other state where the same happened.
This is what I mean. It isn't anything. It certainly isn't evidence. They just didn't understand how the election worked and instead of figuring it out, just threw something out there.


So, no, this election was not compromised. The result is correct.

This doesn't stop Trump supporters from outright lying:

The provable lies about this election seem to all fall on one side. I can provide more if you are interested, but here is another: https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-afs:Content:9787630390

The actual election itself was, according to actual outside observers, one of the cleanest in US history.

 
Last edited:

wiscoaster

Well-known member
...They just didn't understand how the election worked and instead of figuring it out, just threw something out there.
No, they didn't. Each line item in the data table is explained as to how the data was generated. The explanation for 5.4.1 is on page 8.

You put the veracity of a TWEET over the veracity of an official report to a state legislature!?!? Incredible. How very left of you.
 

theotherwaldo

Well-known member
I've noticed that democrats say that any election that the Democrats win is the cleanest election in history.
Any one that they lose is the result of criminal activity.
-And they get all incensed when their opponents make similar claims when they win or lose... .
 

roscoe

Well-known member
No, they didn't. Each line item in the data table is explained as to how the data was generated. The explanation for 5.4.1 is on page 8.

You put the veracity of a TWEET over the veracity of an official report to a state legislature!?!? Incredible. How very left of you.
It is not simply a tweet. It is a statement from Maricopa County. So, yes, I would take their statement over CyberNinja's. They actually understand the election.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
I've noticed that democrats say that any election that the Democrats win is the cleanest election in history.
Any one that they lose is the result of criminal activity.
-And they get all incensed when their opponents make similar claims when they win or lose... .
Like when? No Democrats complained about the 2016 election that I know of. Certainly not the way Trumpers are complaining now. In fact, never has anyone, in my lifetime. Not even Gore v. Bush 2.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
You put the veracity of a TWEET over the veracity of an official report to a state legislature!?!? Incredible. How very left of you.
Ha ha ha! That is actually pretty funny. Trump tweeted ~25,000 times during his presidency. So I guess Trump was tweeting to leftists?
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
Ha ha ha! That is actually pretty funny. Trump tweeted ~25,000 times during his presidency. So I guess Trump was tweeting to leftists?
Ya, I suppose so, I guess a waste of his time, as I would have advised him, but he didn't ask.
 

Howland937

Active member
Like when? No Democrats complained about the 2016 election that I know of. Certainly not the way Trumpers are complaining now. In fact, never has anyone, in my lifetime. Not even Gore v. Bush 2.

I dunno. I recall about 4 years worth of "stolen presidency", "not my president", "illegitimate president", "but we won the popular vote" and "abolish the electoral college" complaints from the left beginning in 2016. Quite a lot of the early complaints were lobbied by mobs with rocks and fires, beginning prior to the inauguration. Maybe you don't feel like they're similar in scope, but you cannot possibly believe the 2016 loss was handled with class.

They weren't just complaining about the results of the election, but legitimate calls for changing the entire framework by which presidents are elected.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
I dunno. I recall about 4 years worth of "stolen presidency", "not my president", "illegitimate president", "but we won the popular vote" and "abolish the electoral college" complaints from the left beginning in 2016. Quite a lot of the early complaints were lobbied by mobs with rocks and fires, beginning prior to the inauguration. Maybe you don't feel like they're similar in scope, but you cannot possibly believe the 2016 loss was handled with class.

They weren't just complaining about the results of the election, but legitimate calls for changing the entire framework by which presidents are elected.
The presence of the Electoral College is a legitimate subject for public debate, and was, in fact, debated at the first Constitutional Convention. No one ever argued that Trump was not the legally-elected president in 2016, simply that, in the future, the presidential election might better represent the will of the majority.

Going to the battleground states and claiming fraud in all of them after losing, without evidence, is lying. The ultimate goal of this deception was to overturn a legitimate election result.

Two totally different things. One is a policy disagreement, the other a dishonest and fraudulent attempt to overturn an election.
 
Last edited:

Howland937

Active member
one ever argued that Trump was not the legally-elected president in 2016, simply that, in the future, the presidential election might better represent the will of the majority
So you don't feel that claims the election was stolen in 2016, that Trump was not legitimately elected, were also lies?
Personally I see the behavior of both sides as pretty reprehensible. One side spends 4 years attacking the concept of the process (among other things) and trying to overturn the election, the other side attacks the integrity of the process with the same overall goal.

The only real difference is the arguments they've used to sell their B.S.
 
Top