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

a reply to: Bluntone22

99% voter turnout.

How does that work, what is the # of voters that represents 99%, for 2016 you had roughly 230, 000,000 eligible voters, and about 130,000,000 voted..59%

This time you had almost 10 million more eligible voters, and the percentage went up by 7% to 66% voted..where does 99% come into this?

a reply to: vonclod

There are precincts that had 99% or higher turnout.

www.foxnews.com...


The percentage is also based on registered voter turnout not unregistered eligible voters.

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

She's not talking about faithless electors.

She's talking about their State Legislature de-certifying the popular vote and appointing a new slate of electors. This is perfectly Constitutional - in fact it is precisely how our Constitutional Republic works.

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

Yea, I remember learning all about "Faithless Electors" during the 2016 election when democrats were calling for the electors to give Hillary her rightful throne.

a reply to: Bluntone22
Ok, thank you for the explanation.

a reply to: vonclod

a reply to: Bluntone22

Honest question:

What would constitute actionable evidence in your opinion?

I am guessing if fraud was perpetrated, it was probably planned. No loose ends and all that. So what do we have?

Do you trust the DOJ to do the right thing if presented with said evidence? If not, does the evidence even matter?

originally posted by: canucks555

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.

Provide proof that there is no fraud, the challenges to the states elections if done correctly will have one of two outcomes. it will prove fraud or it will be proof that there is no fraud. But only if there is a thorough and unbias investigation.

Barr said there is no evidence they have accepted of widespread fraud that they have seen that would change the results of the election. He did not say there was no fraud...just that they have not determined there is enough to change the results. You cannot use what he said to say no fraud occurred. I actually think a thorough investigation of the whole election in every state should be done to determine how much actually occurred, so they can stop the fraud in it's tracks. Every election has had fraud in it since I have been around. In our government class they explained this back in the the seventies, that is why we have recounts and audits that can be done in close states if the election is close. Technology is used more against people than to help people these days, but people cannot see it because they have been conditioned to think it is better.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
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.

So let’s just add some legal clarity here: “reasonable doubt” is not the standard; it is never the standard. Beyond reasonable doubt is the standard used in criminal matters; in order to convict someone of a crime, you must prove that they committed the crime beyond all reasonable doubt. It is the most stringent standard. In civil cases the standards vary, with the least stringent being a preponderance of evidence, which basically means that you have to prove that something is more likely than not. Establishing a reasonable doubt is enough to escape a criminal conviction but it is never enough to affirmatively prove a case.

There is one criteria: can you trust the
results of the election. Of so certify
the election.

C' mon man...... Many examples why it can
not be trusted.

a reply to: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: ThatDidHappen
There is one criteria: can you trust the
results of the election. If so then certify
the election.

C' mon man...... Many examples why it can
not be trusted.

a reply to: johnnylaw16

well if by some way states over ride the EC then you will get your wish .
Trump could have shown all the cheated votes but for some reason has not so if it comes to using A rigged EC then you will get what you want NO country as the United stats falls into 4 or 5 smaller country's .
wonder which one Trump will be dictator for life in ? better plan on moving to be in the right country .

So much cheating and yet NOT one lawsuit by Trump showing that amazing .

anyway good luck in Trump land .

who knows smaller country are less corrupt so it may just work out for the best .
as Trump wont get new York or CA or most of the east cost dont come begging for money .

originally posted by: ThatDidHappen
There is one criteria: can you trust the
results of the election. Of so certify
the election.

C' mon man...... Many examples why it can
not be trusted.

a reply to: johnnylaw16

Your opinion of whether you can trust the election is the standard of evidence in your head and nowhere else (luckily, I might add, for those of us living in reality)

originally posted by: rickymouse


Provide proof that there is no fraud, the challenges to the states elections if done correctly will have one of two outcomes. it will prove fraud or it will be proof that there is no fraud.

Errrr....no.

Challenges, if done properly, will have to prove the assertion that fraud has taken place.

It is up to the plaintiffs or prosecutors to prove that it has taken place.

Nobody has to provide any evidence it has not taken place.

There will one of two outcomes. Fraud will be proven or not proven.

If it is not proven, it is assumed it has not taken place.

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

originally posted by: rickymouse


Provide proof that there is no fraud, the challenges to the states elections if done correctly will have one of two outcomes. it will prove fraud or it will be proof that there is no fraud.

Errrr....no.

Challenges, if done properly, will have to prove the assertion that fraud has taken place.

It is up to the plaintiffs or prosecutors to prove that it has taken place.

Nobody has to provide any evidence it has not taken place.

There will one of two outcomes. Fraud will be proven or not proven.

If it is not proven, it is assumed it has not taken place.

So, if someone defrauds you out of fifty grand and all you have is witnesses to show it happened, aren't you allowed to present a witness to the court to prove your case. The thought is that you need physical evidence and not just witnesses that will testify or sign an affidavit is not real, witness testimony is evidence.

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

originally posted by: rickymouse


Provide proof that there is no fraud, the challenges to the states elections if done correctly will have one of two outcomes. it will prove fraud or it will be proof that there is no fraud.

Errrr....no.

Challenges, if done properly, will have to prove the assertion that fraud has taken place.

It is up to the plaintiffs or prosecutors to prove that it has taken place.

Nobody has to provide any evidence it has not taken place.

There will one of two outcomes. Fraud will be proven or not proven.

If it is not proven, it is assumed it has not taken place.

So, if someone defrauds you out of fifty grand and all you have is witnesses to show it happened, aren't you allowed to present a witness to the court to prove your case. The thought is that you need physical evidence and not just witnesses that will testify or sign an affidavit is not real, witness testimony is evidence.

Of course witness testimony can be evidence. But, (1) it has to meet basic requirements of admissibility and reliability, and (2) it has to be weighed against all other submitted evidence and arguments. Trump and his supporters have put forth no witness testimony of election fraud that has been credited by any court. Their "thousands of affidavits" are not evidence of anything.

a reply to: johnnylaw16Refusing to take the lawsuit means that it is their opinion that it is garbage. Refuse is what you haul to the landfill. Yet I have thrown stuff away that was of value to a lot of people, I tossed at least a thousand bucks worth of construction materials in the landfill, brand new, two years ago when I sold my workshop. I also gave away stuff worth at least three grand to people I knew or who needed it or could find someone who could use it. It was refuse to me.

The courts refuse cases that are legit all the time, appeals of innocent people in prison are refused....yet they stick ten years in there and after five appeals they finally accept their evidence and the people go free with a pile of money in their pocket for wrongful imprisonment. I have known half a dozen judges personally and they are mostly opinionated. One of those judges was impartial and actually let the evidence determine the outcome. Most do not, they are just like regular people their beliefs determine how they judge things. Same with jurors, the lawyers accept or reject jurors based on beliefs they portray during court screening of witnesses. I have been called to Jury duty a couple of times and been dismissed because of my knowledge of what happened or because I was a business owner and the lawsuit was against a business. Another two times I was not accepted even before we went to court, knocked out of Jury duty because of my profession, or one time because a deal was reached between the parties. I have opinions based on my life, just like most people do....even judges.

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: johnnylaw16Refusing to take the lawsuit means that it is their opinion that it is garbage. Refuse is what you haul to the landfill. Yet I have thrown stuff away that was of value to a lot of people, I tossed at least a thousand bucks worth of construction materials in the landfill, brand new, two years ago when I sold my workshop. I also gave away stuff worth at least three grand to people I knew or who needed it or could find someone who could use it. It was refuse to me.

The courts refuse cases that are legit all the time, appeals of innocent people in prison are refused....yet they stick ten years in there and after five appeals they finally accept their evidence and the people go free with a pile of money in their pocket for wrongful imprisonment. I have known half a dozen judges personally and they are mostly opinionated. One of those judges was impartial and actually let the evidence determine the outcome. Most do not, they are just like regular people their beliefs determine how they judge things. Same with jurors, the lawyers accept or reject jurors based on beliefs they portray during court screening of witnesses. I have been called to Jury duty a couple of times and been dismissed because of my knowledge of what happened or because I was a business owner and the lawsuit was against a business. Another two times I was not accepted even before we went to court, knocked out of Jury duty because of my profession, or one time because a deal was reached between the parties. I have opinions based on my life, just like most people do....even judges.

Yeah, you could maybe try to claim this with a one-off dismissal but nearly 40 dismissals later, it's hard to argue judicial bias. Even a Trump appointed judge in PA dismissed a Trump suit.

a reply to: johnnylaw16Which makes me think that the lawyers are actually trying to get judges that are opinionated politically to dismiss the case so they can go to the supreme court without having it sent back to lower courts. The Trump appointed lawyer may just be playing the game to prove they did not just target Democrat Judges.

He has hired some of the best lawyers, this is possibly a legal setup.