AZ State Senator: "I'm Ready to Go and Appoint the Electors"

Sounds good to me. She's talking about doing exactly what has to be done to save us from the steal. It's been a concerted effort to remove our President before the 2016 election even started. We need more like Trump. Not yet more Deep State operatives. Sylvia Allen (R) Monday night at a state legislature hearing on election integrity.

AZ State Senator: "I'm Ready to Go and Appoint the Electors"

"If you destroy the electoral system to where our votes now mean nothing because we've got thugs in charge and thinking they can rip our vote away from us, we have destroyed this republic," said Arizona State Sen. Sylvia Allen (R) Monday night at a state legislature hearing on election integrity.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

I have no doubt that this election was stolen.
Seriously..
Biden won less counties than clinton.
Ballots being counted without witness..
99% voter turnout.
And so many more examples....but....

Without evidence that will hold up in court, we can't just decided to ignore the constitution.

The only way for something tangible to come of this is for the FBI to step in and investigate.

Cool. Ya know what happens to faithless electors in Arizona? Their vote is canceled, and they are replaced.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Doctor Smith

I have no doubt that this election was stolen.
Seriously..
Biden won less counties than clinton.
Ballots being counted without witness..
99% voter turnout.
And so many more examples....but....

Without evidence that will hold up in court, we can't just decided to ignore the constitution.

The only way for something tangible to come of this is for the FBI to step in and investigate.

There isn't enough time. The FBI moves like 2 old people celebrating their anniversary. By the time they wrap up an investigation, 2040 will be here and we will be deciding to vote for Baron Trump or something.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: LordAhriman
Cool. Ya know what happens to faithless electors in Arizona? Their vote is canceled, and they are replaced.

Not when they are appointed by the legislature.

a reply to: Doctor Smith
The Republican-controlled Pennsylvania legislature is positioning to appoint Trump electors for the 12.14.2020 meeting too.

It's interesting that FoxNews's White House correspondent John Roberts raised red flags just 4 days after the election, that this would happen.

Fox News knew that Democrats Cheated, and had a good chance of being exposed before December 14th.

The coverup of the fraud is what irks me. Whether it be ignorance or whether the state leaders are in on it is immaterial, there are people saying fraud does not exist when it does. Will it change the results of the election, I do not know. But I know that everything everywhere must be examined and this kind of thing has to stop.

originally posted by: rickymouse
The coverup of the fraud is what irks me. Whether it be ignorance or whether the state leaders are in on it is immaterial, there are people saying fraud does not exist when it does. Will it change the results of the election, I do not know. But I know that everything everywhere must be examined and this kind of thing has to stop.

They call it the MSM for a reason. It's what most people watch for their news, so if a CNN watcher is told theirs no fraud, then there is no fraud. Anything to the contrary is met with skepticism because CNN ABC NBC CBS Fox etc can't be wrong because those people who watch them trust them. In there minds, if there's any election stealing going on, it's Trump doing it.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Kudos for having conviction without advocating it be pushed on people.

That's my favorite kind of person.

People often confuse me with a centrist, or someone who doesn't have an ideology of my own... That's simply not the case. And, I actually prefer to be in the presence of other people who have beliefs and convictions. But I certainly rather they aren't pushy about it. That kind of feeds my libertarian leaning bias though, and my Christian childhood of evangelism through one's walk.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Yeah, I'm a big proponent of proof, evidence, etc.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Easy!!

Biden won more votes than Obama, it just proves that the only reason Obama won was because Biden commands the majority of Amerikas hopes and dreams

originally posted by: rickymouse
The coverup of the fraud is what irks me. Whether it be ignorance or whether the state leaders are in on it is immaterial, there are people saying fraud does not exist when it does. Will it change the results of the election, I do not know. But I know that everything everywhere must be examined and this kind of thing has to stop.

If fraud exists then please provide proof.
Proof, btw, isn't some guy on YouTube OR anyone on CNN stating their "opinion"
So far the courts have not been given any proof. That's why everything is getting tossed out.

Let's be clear, and I don't mean to seem offensive. Your "Gut feelings" won't help your prez get reelected. You need proof.


Attorney General William Barr on Tuesday said there has been no evidence of widespread voter fraud that would change the outcome of the election, undercutting President Trump's repeated baseless claims to the contrary.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

Democrats and Democrat supporters do not care if this election was stolen.

They do not care about Democrat corruption.

They believe Trump deserves it.

originally posted by: Butterfinger
a reply to: Bluntone22

Easy!!

Biden won more votes than Obama, it just proves that the only reason Obama won was that Biden commands the majority of Amerikas hopes and dreams

And we thought Biden was riding Barrack's coattails when it was Obama riding Joey Biden's the whole time. we are supposed to believe Joey Green Jobs got 80 Million legit votes when we had an unprecedented mail-in vote. Mail-in votes usually have a 4% rejection rate and for the 2020 election, that rejection rate is .4%.

a reply to: canucks555

Im going to be honest: asking for proof is kind of silly. At best, you can get evidence. No one here has a smoking gun. If anyone does, its not been shared. What needs to be found is "reasonable doubt", unless there is a threshold of evidence that is different in this case. Very rarely does "shadow of a doubt" stand in as a requirement, reasonable doubt suffices.

I know...its a nitpick. But in a world where you can hunt up links from official sources that say all sorts of nonsense, keeping in mind that the actual thing being searched for is evidence, not proof. Proof rarely exists outside of mathematics.

a reply to: Bluntone22

I'm the same, but I say let's push the same precedent back on the democrats that they pushed on us with the impeachment, then a law can be made afterwards to strengthen the chance of a fair election.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

There's no doubt there's a level of corruption in the parties. Look no further than Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders. I think they get most of their foul play out in the primaries against their own.

I also don't think it's a widespread secret that the media tends to favor the left. So I do think it's a fair argument the left gets more pull in generals via MSM (hell, I don't even think that's an argument).

But the question is did they steal the general with fraudulent votes. That would imply it was evident Trump was going to win.

I don't think it was evident Trump was going to win. I dislike Biden more, but putting my own feelings aside, and guessing public opinion, I think he had an edge.

That's just my opinion, and mere speculation... But for me, my sense typically does alright for me. Since I'm operating off my senses (which may very well be flawed and even wrong), the burden of proof, or overwhelming evidence will be with the accusor(s).

If it's as widespread as it's alleged, it shouldn't be difficult. And I'll admit there has been isolated instances of fishyness, and bold claims from first hand accounts... But in the digital age where everyone has a device taking hard accounts, with the claims and ramifications being so large, we're gonna need people to provide some substance.

I haven't said yet that I don't think it's possible, I know my government well enough. But I'll still eat crow for being skeptical should we see some damning evidence.

I do think it makes it harder for the right though since there's no shyness from hyperbole from some factions. See block chain watermarks, Venezuela, and a firefight between the army and CIA in Germany. I think that turns independents off from the underlying notions that are more believable.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

There's no doubt there's a level of corruption in the parties. Look no further than Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders. I think they get most of their foul play out in the primaries against their own.

Or Ross Perot. A dirtbag in his own way, the way he was treated broke my desire to vote for almost 30 years.

I also don't think it's a widespread secret that the media tends to favor the left. So I do think it's a fair argument the left gets more pull in generals via MSM (hell, I don't even think that's an argument).

There is something called "The Fair Time Doctrine" (or similar) that broadcasters are required to abide by. Meaning I cannot, as a radio station, refuse to air ads for a candidate. I have to give equal time, and equal timeslots (i can't relegate one candidate to all overnight slots for their ads, while putting others in prime mid afternoon slots).

I think that this needs to be reviewed in the concept of "dark money" advertising. Media needs to be held to account in this regard. I know we are nowhere close to this, as we haven't even addressed the "dark money" itself. But for CNN's president to tell its people to hype the impeachment...that seems to violate the fair time doctrine in spirit.

But the question is did they steal the general with fraudulent votes. That would imply it was evident Trump was going to win.

I don't think it was evident Trump was going to win. I dislike Biden more, but putting my own feelings aside, and guessing public opinion, I think he had an edge.

That's just my opinion, and mere speculation... But for me, my sense typically does alright for me. Since I'm operating off my senses (which may very well be flawed and even wrong), the burden of proof, or overwhelming evidence will be with the accusor(s).

If it's as widespread as it's alleged, it shouldn't be difficult. And I'll admit there has been isolated instances of fishyness, and bold claims from first hand accounts... But in the digital age where everyone has a device taking hard accounts, with the claims and ramifications being so large, we're gonna need people to provide some substance.

I haven't said yet that I don't think it's possible, I know my government well enough. But I'll still eat crow for being skeptical should we see some damning evidence.

I do think it makes it harder for the right though since there's no shyness from hyperbole from some factions. See block chain watermarks, Venezuela, and a firefight between the army and CIA in Germany. I think that turns independents off from the underlying notions that are more believable.

I am not sure Biden had popular support. If he did, it wasn't in places online that anyone I know frequents, outside of maybe Reddit and its vast echo chamber. If you look on FB comments, Biden was constantly dragged. IG appeared pretty evenly split. Twitter, slight edge to Biden. YouTube was all about Trump in the comments.

I was basing my prediction on comments made online. Obviously a flawed premise...but it seems to be a decent way to gauge public opinion in general.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I agree we need to review how media operates in this country. I do my part by not consuming corporate media further than a click here and there to read context brought up in a discussion. I know that not near enough, and we need to figure out further action. I'd humor a government conversation, but I'd play Devils advocate on that since it is after all the government.... But I do know we used to have it better with some guidance from above.


As for the popular opinion on Biden, I don't think you're wrong. The optics I saw it through is the is no question Trump has more of a passionate base. Biden didn't have any that I'm aware of. The question in my mind was pro Trump vs anti Trump. I think there was more anti Trump sentiment in the masses, whether or not they're right or based in reality as to why they disliked him being moot.

Again, the last part is mere speculation by me.