It's Past Time To Get Rid Of The Crazy

[Kathianne]

I've mentioned before and after the election that Kari Lake was a candidate I initially rejected, mostly because Trump, but thanks to both her articulation of positions, her ability to call out opponent and press, I came around. Truly hoped she could be part of new face in AZ.

Alas, she lost. Close, but crazy really was her undoing, in spite of Maricopa trying to steal that story.

We need candidates that express much less crazy:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/kari-lake-is-the-new-stacey-abrams-arizona-gubernatorial-election-11669849107?mod=opinion_lead_pos4


OPINIONREVIEW & OUTLOOK
Kari Lake Is the New Stacey Abrams
If the election was a ‘sham,’ how did other Republicans win?
By The Editorial BoardFollow
Dec. 1, 2022 6:55 pm ET

What Kari Lake wants the public to forget is that she lost the Arizona gubernatorial race by 17,116 ballots, or 0.7 percentage point, which is outside of recount range. She’s now calling the election a “sham.” Congrats, Ms. Lake, you’ve earned the 2022 Stacey Abrams Sore Loser Award.

Election Day in Arizona included real problems in Maricopa County, home to Phoenix and more than half the state’s population. But it simply isn’t believable that these snafus cost Ms. Lake the election. How did she perform in Maricopa specifically, compared with other Republicans?


Ms. Lake received 77,342 fewer votes than GOP state Treasurer Kimberly Yee.


Ms. Lake received 39,165 fewer votes than the combined GOP U.S. House candidates.


Ms. Lake received 23,901 fewer votes than GOP county prosecutor Rachel Mitchell.

...

If granular numbers tell the story better, the Arizona Republic points to a Maricopa precinct called Bayshore, where it says Republicans have an 11-point registration advantage. The state’s three Trumpiest politicians all lost the precinct. Ms. Lake garnered 2,003 votes. Senate aspirant Blake Masters took 1,911. Secretary of State nominee Mark Finchem had 1,877.


Ms. Yee won Bayshore with 2,229 votes, 11% more than Ms. Lake. Ms. Mitchell earned 2,080. A GOP state Senator had 2,120. The takeaway? Ms. Lake would have won if she hadn’t alienated mainstream Republicans. But she called John McCain a “loser” and echoed President Trump’s debunked 2020 fraud claims. Some GOP voters don’t want a Governor who will say almost anything for a pat on the head from Mr. Trump.

...

[BoogyMan]

I wish it were that clear-cut in Maricopa. It is not. Demanding that it be seen as such is why the party will continue to fracture and will continue to marginalize itself.

There is more than enough evidence to show that the election in Maricopa was a complete sham. Especially with today's release of the fact that Katie Hobbs was in communication with Twitter management and directing the censorship of conservative voices she found objectionable. Censoring conservatives in her own election...let that sink in.

https://thepostmillennial.com/revealed-katie-hobbs-office-contacted-twitter-to-censor-posts?utm_campaign=64501


Arizona Governor-Elect Katie Hobbs is facing backlash as proof that her office requested for certain tweets to be censored came out of Elon Musk's release of the "Twitter Files," the internal documents showing collusion between government officials, campaign teams, and other like actors with the social media giant to silence political dissent.

On January 7 2021, the communications director for Hobbs' Secretary of State office emailed the Center for Internet Security (CIS), a 501 nonprofit cybersecurity organization that "makes the connected world a safer place for people, businesses, and governments through our core competencies of collaboration and innovation," according to their website.

"I'm flagging this Twitter account for your review," Hobbs' comms director wrote to misinformation@cisecurity.org, linking to an unidentified profile. The subject line was "Election Related Misinformation."

The "misinformation" department at CIS then forwarded the message along to an employee at Twitter, writing "Please see this report below from the Arizona SOS office. Please let me know if you have any questions."

"Thank you," Twitter wrote back. "We will escalate."

About seven hours later, a Twitter employee wrote again; "Thank you… both tweets have been removed from the service." Copied on this response was an employee at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), a branch under the federal government's Department of Homeland Security (DHS)...

[Kathianne]

I wish it were that clear-cut in Maricopa. It is not. Demanding that it be seen as such is why the party will continue to fracture and will continue to marginalize itself.

There is more than enough evidence to show that the election in Maricopa was a complete sham. Especially with today's release of the fact that Katie Hobbs was in communication with Twitter management and directing the censorship of conservative voices she found objectionable. Censoring conservatives in her own election...let that sink in.

https://thepostmillennial.com/revealed-katie-hobbs-office-contacted-twitter-to-censor-posts?utm_campaign=64501

Since you have all this insider knowledge, really would like to know how it was that so many others won. Very tricky manipulation there.

[BoogyMan]

There is no insider knowledge, Kathianne, there is a simple and full-on refusal to stand back and let someone piss on my shoes and tell me it is raining again.

The whole of the DNC pre-election day early vote happened without a single flaw. Election day rolled around and BOOM! This is not normal, we all see it, I am just tired of rolling my eyes and moving on.


Since you have all this insider knowledge, really would like to know how it was that so many others won. Very tricky manipulation there.

[Kathianne]

There is no insider knowledge, Kathianne, there is a simple and full-on refusal to stand back and let someone piss on my shoes and tell me it is raining again.

The whole of the DNC pre-election day early vote happened without a single flaw. Election day rolled around and BOOM! This is not normal, we all see it, I am just tired of rolling my eyes and moving on.

Just saying, "There's mire than enough evidence" means what? Where? When presented? Corrupt judge? Who is (s)he?

Flat statements are not facts. Very Trumpian though.

[BoogyMan]

Ooooo, you have your button-pushing pants on! LOL

Even the useless Republican AG, short timer, Mark Brnovich has called on the Maricopa clowns to answer and they have refused.

https://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2022/11/21/brnovich-demands-answers-from-maricopa-county-about-what-he-suspects-are-election-law-violations/

I know you are well enough read to know that the concerns about Maricopa county are not specious. Especially the fact that the entirety of the early vote running flawlessly then the blowup on the day of the vote when distrustful Republicans were expected to bring their ballots in.

Add to that the admixture of unscanned ballots with already scanned ballots effectively making those ballots disappear, especially without a recount.

We could go into the idea of people being sent from polling place to polling place and not being allowed to vote or not being able to vote because they ran out of time and the mess is made complete.

Today it also was made clear that Katie Hobbs had been allowed to censor conservatives on Twitter in AZ regarding her own election. This is not speculation, it is fact. The fraud is real and Hobbs is a criminal piece of garbage.

Brnovich has 1st hand accounts of the issues, I hope that America has the testicular fortitude to stand up to the Democrat filth that is perpetrating this mess and shove the fraud down their throats.

We all deserve better.




Just saying, "There's mire than enough evidence" means what? Where? When presented? Corrupt judge? Who is (s)he?

Flat statements are not facts. Very Trumpian though.

[Kathianne]

Here's my deal. Yes, I agree some shenanigans went on in Maricopa; waiting for proof of.

Having lived in DuPage County, in the long shadow of Cook County, poll shenanigans I'm familiar with. Nearly everyone knows King Richard added ballots in '59 until there were enough to put Kennedy over, right? Still waiting for the proof on that too.

As Trump has made clear, the system isn't easy, nor fair. Still and all, I'm unaware of a better one and will stay loyal to this one and more than willing to encourage finding said proof.

Not willing to throw away Constitution cause Donald says so.

[SassyLady]

Since you have all this insider knowledge, really would like to know how it was that so many others won. Very tricky manipulation there.

Please explain? In Maricopa other Republicans won? Who?

[SassyLady]

Since you have all this insider knowledge, really would like to know how it was that so many others won. Very tricky manipulation there.
If you're the SOS it's not too tricky.

[Kathianne]

Please explain? In Maricopa other Republicans won? Who?

Read the links, SL. The problems didn't follow the non-Teumpers. The carried heavier R precincts, which the 3 did not.

[SassyLady]

Read the links, SL. The problems didn't follow the non-Teumpers. The carried heavier R precincts, which the 3 did not.
So, basically Hobbes only needed to cheat on the governor, SOS and AG positions to keep her corruption behind a cloak. The rest do not have the power to expose her "shennanigans".

[Kathianne]

So, basically Hobbes only needed to cheat on the governor, SOS and AG positions to keep her corruption behind a cloak. The rest do not have the power to expose her "shennanigans".

If you think Trump's solution is good, go for it.

[BoogyMan]

Donald has *nothing* to do with my concerns here and you are pretty much aware of my thoughts on that side of the coin. Don't try to minimize my concerns with a quick swipe of orange paint because it is easy, what is going on in AZ is wrong. I gave you what the feckless AG has already puked up, it is not my fault that he doesn't have the guts to do the needful.

I am not willing to overlook obvious fraud because it is easy and because people call me names for standing in the breach where the gutless fear to stand.


Here's my deal. Yes, I agree some shenanigans went on in Maricopa; waiting for proof of.

Having lived in DuPage County, in the long shadow of Cook County, poll shenanigans I'm familiar with. Nearly everyone knows King Richard added ballots in '59 until there were enough to put Kennedy over, right? Still waiting for the proof on that too.

As Trump has made clear, the system isn't easy, nor fair. Still and all, I'm unaware of a better one and will stay loyal to this one and more than willing to encourage finding said proof.

Not willing to throw away Constitution cause Donald says so.

[Kathianne]

Donald has *nothing* to do with my concerns here and you are pretty much aware of my thoughts on that side of the coin. Don't try to minimize my concerns with a quick swipe of orange paint because it is easy, what is going on in AZ is wrong. I gave you what the feckless AG has already puked up, it is not my fault that he doesn't have the guts to do the needful.

I am not willing to overlook obvious fraud because it is easy and because people call me names for standing in the breach where the gutless fear to stand.

Tell me what you disagree with in the post you quoted. Need of proof? Throw out Constitution since the system is fallible?

[SassyLady]

If you think Trump's solution is good, go for it.

I liked Kari Lake way before Trump endorsed her. Unlike a lot of people I don't let what Trump is doing on the national stage affect what I think is best for Arizona.

I'm not a republican but I certainly attended a ton of community meetings and town halls this election cycle. We didn't discuss Trump. We discussed the corruption in Maricopa and Pima counties ... including the corrupt McCain part of the GOP. There quite the division going on in the GOP.

The people in power put Hobbes in there because she's easier to manipulate than Lake.

Ever heard of Runbeck?

Here's a starting place for you.

https://cleverjourneys.com/2022/11/12/maricopa-using-runbeck-again-to-scan-ballots-with-no-observers/

[Kathianne]

I liked Kari Lake way before Trump endorsed her. Unlike a lot of people I don't let what Trump is doing on the national stage affect what I think is best for Arizona.

I'm not a republican but I certainly attended a ton of community meetings and town halls this election cycle. We didn't discuss Trump. We discussed the corruption in Maricopa and Pima counties ... including the corrupt McCain part of the GOP. There quite the division going on in the GOP.

The people in power put Hobbes in there because she's easier to manipulate than Lake.

Ever heard of Runbeck?

Here's a starting place for you.

https://cleverjourneys.com/2022/11/12/maricopa-using-runbeck-again-to-scan-ballots-with-no-observers/

Again, I'm not going to go in circles on corruption. I'm also not going to pretend that Lake should have won given her opponent, yet couldn't stop herself from throwing into crazy talk, likely within her losing margin.

I'm all for cleaning up elections, have put forth my views for decades now. What I won't do is pretend that just saying it makes it so, didn't work for Atacy Abrams either.

[SassyLady]

Again, I'm not going to go in circles on corruption. I'm also not going to pretend that Lake should have won given her opponent, yet couldn't stop herself from throwing into crazy talk, likely within her losing margin.

I'm all for cleaning up elections, have put forth my views for decades now. What I won't do is pretend that just saying it makes it so, didn't work for Atacy Abrams either.

Saying it didn't happen doesn't make it so either Kath.

Calling people crazy who question the validity of an election is exactly how the corruption keeps going.

What is the crazy talk you keep referring to?

[BoogyMan]

The appeal to Trump which you, dear lady, know I have never done. I have also never called to toss out the constitution.

We do have to come to grips with this. The proof is there, the witnesses, the documented actions, etc. What we need to get rid of is the ambivalence.


Tell me what you disagree with in the post you quoted. Need of proof? Throw out Constitution since the system is fallible?

[Kathianne]

Saying it didn't happen doesn't make it so either Kath.

Calling people crazy who question the validity of an election is exactly how the corruption keeps going.

What is the crazy talk you keep referring to?

I never denied there could be corruption/fraud. Crazy talk is her McCain remarks and sounding Trump like in search of the kraken.

It appeals to a few, turns off many more. Some of those turned off may have voted for other Republicans, just not those with crazy bent.

Once again, staying local to someone managed to lose against an incompetent who wouldn't debate, that's not easy.

[SassyLady]

I never denied there could be corruption/fraud. Crazy talk is her McCain remarks and sounding Trump like in search of the kraken.

It appeals to a few, turns off many more. Some of those turned off may have voted for other Republicans, just not those with crazy bent.

Once again, staying local to someone managed to lose against an incompetent who wouldn't debate, that's not easy.

Well, I guess you can call me crazy because I believe the McCain faction are rhinos and bad for Arizona. I paid more attention to Kari's policies, her willingness to answer any question, go all across Arizona to talk to the people. She frightened the rhinos and they turned on her. And yes, she's a little like Trump in that they can't control or corrupt her. That's why she lost. Not because she's crazy.

And, it's a low blow to refer to a belief someone has about stolen election as "very Trumpian" is a low blow Kath.

[Kathianne]

Well, I guess you can call me crazy because I believe the McCain faction are rhinos and bad for Arizona. I paid more attention to Kari's policies, her willingness to answer any question, go all across Arizona to talk to the people. She frightened the rhinos and they turned on her. And yes, she's a little like Trump in that they can't control or corrupt her. That's why she lost. Not because she's crazy.

And, it's a low blow to refer to a belief someone has about stolen election as "very Trumpian" is a low blow Kath.

Would have been low blow if that's what I'd written. It wasn't. I'd referred to Trump's solution-just put him back in power- it's what the Founder would have wanted.

[SassyLady]

Just saying, "There's mire than enough evidence" means what? Where? When presented? Corrupt judge? Who is (s)he?

Flat statements are not facts. Very Trumpian though.
Sorry if I misunderstood. This was your response to Boogeyman talking about the election.

Sounds like any opinion about a poster's feelings regarding election corruption is in the category of "very Trumpian".

[Kathianne]

Sorry if I misunderstood. This was your response to Boogeyman talking about the election.

Sounds like any opinion about a poster's feelings regarding election corruption is in the category of "very Trumpian".
I guess you have to make your own interpretations. I choose not to put you or anyone else permanently judging myself or others by often snarky language and implications. Choices, something it seems we all speak to time and again.

I often avoid some threads, simply because it's too easy to hurt others feelings. For some reason though when I do join in, others don't have such sensibilities. They are quick though to take offense, even when stated that wasn't meant.

[BoogyMan]

I always just call those things out, make it clear that is not what I said for further clarity, and then make my argument. Life is too short to get upset about stuff like that.


I guess you have to make your own interpretations. I choose not to put you or anyone else permanently judging myself or others by often snarky language and implications. Choices, something it seems we all speak to time and again.

I often avoid some threads, simply because it's too easy to hurt others feelings. For some reason though when I do join in, others don't have such sensibilities. They are quick though to take offense, even when stated that wasn't meant.

[Kathianne]

I always just call those things out, make it clear that is not what I said for further clarity, and then make my argument. Life is too short to get upset about stuff like that.

That's what I am trying to do here. Jimnyc and quite a few others have been telling me since 2016 to be myself, write what I want, deal with others problems or not as they arise.

I really haven't listened and backed off since that election, mostly only sharing what few things in common I found with the new order. Since Jan 6th, I've slowly begun to rejoin my take and voice.

I knew Trump and more important the feelings he seemed to get so many on the right to feel, articulate, and go forward with contained seeds of not only division, but destruction. The whole 'winning' emphasis and name calling and 'fight' no holds bar, did not bode well to me. How powerful was the message, combined with policies that really worked, very.

[fj1200]

If you're the SOS it's not too tricky.

Yeah, it's still pretty tricky. But if that's the standard then every SOS needs to stand down in elections where they're on the ballot, including Kemp in GA four years ago.

And if there is anything there then I'm guessing it'll come out down the road, or not, as in two years ago.

[Kathianne]

Yeah, it's still pretty tricky. But if that's the standard then every SOS needs to stand down in elections where they're on the ballot, including Kemp in GA four years ago.

And if there is anything there then I'm guessing it'll come out down the road, or not, as in two years ago.

Yep, somehow it's gotten to be that if one isn't going to youtube for information that someone else agrees with, one has become a trogolyte or a liberal or someone out to destroy the country by any means possible. I'm not there, yet.

[LostInSeattle]

There is no insider knowledge, Kathianne, there is a simple and full-on refusal to stand back and let someone piss on my shoes and tell me it is raining again.

The whole of the DNC pre-election day early vote happened without a single flaw. Election day rolled around and BOOM! This is not normal, we all see it, I am just tired of rolling my eyes and moving on.

I read the "article" you linked to. There's a whole lot of nuthin' there. Just random allegations, outrage and misinformation; nothing of substance, no details, no analysis, no actual investigation or reporting.

No offense, but it's seems to me that you're pissing on your own shoes.

[BoogyMan]

The "allegations" you dismiss so easily and with such abandon are all substantiated by first-hand accounts. Not hearsay, not 3rd party allegation, actual first-hand accounts.

I doubt you mean no offense but none will be taken in any case.


I read the "article" you linked to. There's a whole lot of nuthin' there. Just random allegations, outrage and misinformation; nothing of substance, no details, no analysis, no actual investigation or reporting.

No offense, but it's seems to me that you're pissing on your own shoes.

[Kathianne]

The "allegations" you dismiss so easily and with such abandon are all substantiated by first-hand accounts. Not hearsay, not 3rd party allegation, actual first-hand accounts.

I doubt you mean no offense but none will be taken in any case.

There's a world of difference between allegations and convictions, we all know that. The system is slow, by design
You said yourself, the AZ AG is already asking questions. I've no doubt more than one lawsuit is underway.

Answers will come, if pursued.

[BoogyMan]

The big problem here is that Brnovich has shown himself to have a spine like freshly cooked spaghetti. He is on his way out and is likely not going to carry through.


There's a world of difference between allegations and convictions, we all know that. The system is slow, by design
You said yourself, the AZ AG is already asking questions. I've no doubt more than one lawsuit is underway.

Answers will come, if pursued.

[LostInSeattle]

The "allegations" you dismiss so easily and with such abandon are all substantiated by first-hand accounts. Not hearsay, not 3rd party allegation, actual first-hand accounts.

I doubt you mean no offense but none will be taken in any case.

I certainly do mean NO offense to you personally. Your post, however, is assinine, as is the "article" you linked to. Let's look at it, shall we?

The headline claims Hobb's office contacting Twitter to review certain tweets. This is actually false out of the gate. The SOS contacted Center for Internet Security - a non-partisan non-profit that works to combat cyber threats, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), regarding a Twitter account. The CISA is charged with, among other things, combatting cyber disinformation of the type that was a topic of great concern in the five part report of the Republican-led Senate intelligence committee panel on the Russia investigation, that showed tremendous Russian dis/misinformation interference in the 2016 election. CISA then contacted Twitter to review the account's posts, which Twitter did and concluded that they should be removed.

It's important to note that there was no "order" from the government to Twitter, so no censorship of any kind.

So what were the these tweets and why did the article not post them? Well,the original tweets have not been released, but surely an actual journalist would at least provide some indication of their content, wouldn't they? Why yes, a responsible journalistic publication would, do that, if for no other reason than to place the flagging and removal in some kind of fucking context. But to do so would undermine the misinformation of this article, which apparently worked quite well on you.

According to this news source, 'the office flagged a Twitter account that was alleging the Arizona voter registration system is owned and operated by “foreign actors.”'
https://www.azfamily.com/2022/12/05/hobbs-office-defends-asking-twitter-take-down-tweets-2021/

That seems like exactly the kind of disinformation that you would want and expect a SOS to bring to the attention of CIS, CISA, and Twitter. It is exactly the kind of disinformation tweet that an account controlled by Russia, or China, or Iran would make.

[LostInSeattle]

If you look here:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.71.8.pdf

pages 45-46 have the redacted email exchange of the review request.

CIS noted two tweets of particular to the AZ SOS, saying,
"Reason: These messages falsely assert that the Voter Registration System is owned and therefore operated by foreign actors. This is a further attempt to undermine confidence in the election institution in Arizona."

As a side note, page 47 has a misinformation flag from the Kentucky SOS, and I'd bet there are many others in the doc. So this is thing that multiple states participate in.

Finally, it's worth noting that Twitter sometimes said no. Page 51 has a request from Washington State that Twitter denied in part saying that some of the tweets did not violate their policies.

So much disinformation has been spread regarding the AZ SOS request. That shit needs to end.

[BoogyMan]

Well, this is just precious - and a little silly.

The fact that CISA was in the middle made no difference at all other than to give you a talking point that you don't understand. CISA is not now, nor has it ever been, charged with dealing with cyber-disinformation. They have resources that address some disinformation items of concern but they are not and will not police disinformation. They do have teams to research foreign dis/mal information but this is so far outside of that wheelhouse that I don't think you get the ridiculousness of your claim. They have a eISAC as well, that would have been a better option for you to build your argument on, but I digress. How do I know? I worked very closely with CISA in the last 20 years of my 30-year cybersecurity career. CISA has real cyber concerns to deal with and they (likely their internal ISAC handler teams - undergrad CS students) acted as a middleman here, nothing more. Their having passed along requests ads no credibility to your feeble argument at all.

Was there censorship on Twitter enacted at the request of Katie Hobbs? You bet there was. No amount of dishonesty on your part can change that fact.

Twitter's previous management chose to censor people at the request of a leftist SoS in AZ, so YES, there was censorship, and it was upon her request.


I certainly do mean NO offense to you personally. Your post, however, is assinine, as is the "article" you linked to. Let's look at it, shall we?

The headline claims Hobb's office contacting Twitter to review certain tweets. This is actually false out of the gate. The SOS contacted Center for Internet Security - a non-partisan non-profit that works to combat cyber threats, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), regarding a Twitter account. The CISA is charged with, among other things, combatting cyber disinformation of the type that was a topic of great concern in the five part report of the Republican-led Senate intelligence committee panel on the Russia investigation, that showed tremendous Russian dis/misinformation interference in the 2016 election. CISA then contacted Twitter to review the account's posts, which Twitter did and concluded that they should be removed.

It's important to note that there was no "order" from the government to Twitter, so no censorship of any kind.

So what were the these tweets and why did the article not post them? Well,the original tweets have not been released, but surely an actual journalist would at least provide some indication of their content, wouldn't they? Why yes, a responsible journalistic publication would, do that, if for no other reason than to place the flagging and removal in some kind of fucking context. But to do so would undermine the misinformation of this article, which apparently worked quite well on you.

According to this news source, 'the office flagged a Twitter account that was alleging the Arizona voter registration system is owned and operated by “foreign actors.”'
https://www.azfamily.com/2022/12/05/hobbs-office-defends-asking-twitter-take-down-tweets-2021/

That seems like exactly the kind of disinformation that you would want and expect a SOS to bring to the attention of CIS, CISA, and Twitter. It is exactly the kind of disinformation tweet that an account controlled by Russia, or China, or Iran would make.

[BoogyMan]

They sometimes said no and you think that negates the censorship of free discussion of ideas and concerns in a supposedly free country?

AG Brnovich in AZ has first-hand accounts of the issues with the election in Maricopa county. No amount of whinging and whining will make them go away and I am sure that the left is content to wait out Brnovich leaving office to bury those people's concerns right along with their uncounted votes from drawer 3 that got mixed with already tallied ballots making it impossible to count them unless a recount was ordered.

Well done.


If you look here:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.71.8.pdf

pages 45-46 have the redacted email exchange of the review request.

CIS noted two tweets of particular to the AZ SOS, saying,
"Reason: These messages falsely assert that the Voter Registration System is owned and therefore operated by foreign actors. This is a further attempt to undermine confidence in the election institution in Arizona."

As a side note, page 47 has a misinformation flag from the Kentucky SOS, and I'd bet there are many others in the doc. So this is thing that multiple states participate in.

Finally, it's worth noting that Twitter sometimes said no. Page 51 has a request from Washington State that Twitter denied in part saying that some of the tweets did not violate their policies.

So much disinformation has been spread regarding the AZ SOS request. That shit needs to end.

[LostInSeattle]

Well, this is just precious - and a little silly.

The fact that CISA was in the middle made no difference at all other than to give you a talking point that you don't understand. CISA is not now, nor has it ever been, charged with dealing with cyber-disinformation. They have resources that address some disinformation items of concern but they are not and will not police disinformation. How do I know? I worked very closely with CISA in the last 20 years of my 30-year cybersecurity career. CISA has real cyber concerns to deal with and acted as a middleman here, nothing more. Their having passed along requests ads no credibility to your feeble argument at all.

Was there censorship on Twitter enacted at the request of Katie Hobbs? You bet there was. No amount of dishonesty on your part can change that fact.

Twitter's previous management chose to censor people at the request of a leftist SoS in AZ, so YES, there was censorship, and it was upon her request.

If you in fact worked with CISA then you would be familiar with this page:
https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/election-disinformation-toolkit_508_0.pdf

It says, among other things, "The Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) works together with national partners to identify, respond to, and mitigate the spread of MDM (false or misleading information) that may impact the nation’s elections. Reducing the circulation of MDM requires engagement of all citizens who are part of the elections process, including you...
"Election officials play a critical role in countering the proliferation of MDM about the administration of elections. Disruption of public trust is and will continue to be a threat to the election process..."

It appears you may be confused about what censorship is. Private sector actors such as Twitter cannot censor anyone, at least not as defined by the First Amendment. They have rules they can enforce, that's it, rules which by the way . The government cannot force Twitter to do anything. If it did, that would be censorship. But you haven't presented a shred of evidence that such is the case; you just make assumptions. We don't even know that the account in question was a person as opposed to a foreign government bot.

And if my argument is so feeble, why don't you actually address it?

[LostInSeattle]

They sometimes said no and you think that negates the censorship of free discussion of ideas and concerns in a supposedly free country?

As explained in the previous post, Twitter cannot censor anyone, nor is there evidence that they were "pressured" to remove those posts.



AG Brnovich in AZ has first-hand accounts of the issues with the election in Maricopa county. No amount of whinging and whining will make them go away and I am sure that the left is content to wait out Brnovich leaving office to bury those people's concerns right along with their uncounted votes from drawer 3 that got mixed with already tallied ballots making it impossible to count them unless a recount was ordered.

Well done.
Is this somehow relevant to the Twitter issue?

[BoogyMan]

CISA provides resources, they do not, will not, and cannot police. They do not have the charter, the enforcement capability, or the legal basis for such enforcement. I don't care if you can quote words you don't understand.

Your argument is feeble, it was addressed, and it is ridiculous on its face.


If you in fact worked with CISA then you would be familiar with this page:
https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/election-disinformation-toolkit_508_0.pdf

It says, among other things, "The Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) works together with national partners to identify, respond to, and mitigate the spread of MDM (false or misleading information) that may impact the nation’s elections. Reducing the circulation of MDM requires engagement of all citizens who are part of the elections process, including you...
"Election officials play a critical role in countering the proliferation of MDM about the administration of elections. Disruption of public trust is and will continue to be a threat to the election process..."

It appears you may be confused about what censorship is. Private sector actors such as Twitter cannot censor anyone, at least not as defined by the First Amendment. They have rules they can enforce, that's it, rules which by the way . The government cannot force Twitter to do anything. If it did, that would be censorship. But you haven't presented a shred of evidence that such is the case; you just make assumptions. We don't even know that the account in question was a person as opposed to a foreign government bot.

And if my argument is so feeble, why don't you actually address it?

[BoogyMan]

You asserted that Twitter cannot censor, I think you will find when all is said and done, that millions of people disagree and their voices are being heard now.


As explained in the previous post, Twitter cannot censor anyone, nor is there evidence that they were "pressured" to remove those posts.


It is relevant to the line of argumentation you were making.


Is this somehow relevant to the Twitter issue?

[Kathianne]

The big problem here is that Brnovich has shown himself to have a spine like freshly cooked spaghetti. He is on his way out and is likely not going to carry through.

I don't know if you live in AZ or not, but if so, contact your state rep., write to local and urban papers/newsites. Get involved, you seem very passionate.

[BoogyMan]

I am in God's country, with Gunny!


I don't know if you live in AZ or not, but if so, contact your state rep., write to local and urban papers/newsites. Get involved, you seem very passionate.

[SassyLady]

Impossible Variant in Election Day Data

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/12/breaking-gateway-pundit-right-az-state-officials-find-impossible-variant-election-day-data-25-gop-voters-flipped-votes-top-gop-candidates/

[Kathianne]

Impossible Variant in Election Day Data

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/12/breaking-gateway-pundit-right-az-state-officials-find-impossible-variant-election-day-data-25-gop-voters-flipped-votes-top-gop-candidates/

'Investigations continue.' Good, nothing wrong on that.

Impossible? I don't think so. One may say you or Hoft think extremely unlikely or honestly impossible, but in fact it is possible.

[SassyLady]

'Investigations continue.' Good, nothing wrong on that.

Impossible? I don't think so. One may say you or Hoft think extremely unlikely or honestly impossible, but in fact it is possible.
Possible? Maybe. More believable that it is due to cheating.

[Gunny]

I am in God's country, with Gunny!That's why I've been hesitant to take a side on this issue. We're not in AZ.

I think the Dems, as an entity, know how to vote to beat the system just as I think the right is so in denial and scared to death to call them on it they can't manage to figure out how to use the same strategy/tactics. I don't know that it necessarily has to be either legal or illegal. Seems to me the Dems know how to get out the vote and the GOP sucks at it.

I know the Dems cheat whenever and wherever they can get away with it cuz that's how they roll.

I think Trump killed the midterms as much as anything else, and Lake was a Trump-endorsed candidate. As it was anywhere that was close or a surprise upset that was "supposed to be" a shoe-in for the GOP.

A far as AZ goes, Sassy and Kathianne live there. I get The Center Square regularly. I read all three :) That's the info I have. I haven't paid much more attention to than that so it would be unfair for me to claim anything one way or the other. Other than what I stated above :)

We didn't have any questions. Alfred O'Rourke got crushed. Again :laugh:

[Kathianne]

Possible? Maybe. More believable that it is due to cheating.

We all have our biases. Whe I personally did vote for Lake, it was because the opposition was so really awful. IF I'd heard the McCain comment I likely would have changed the Lake vote, while leaving the non-Trump/non stop the steal votes alone. I wouldn't have had to have cheating involved with the ballot count.

[SassyLady]

We all have our biases. Whe I personally did vote for Lake, it was because the opposition was so really awful. IF I'd heard the McCain comment I likely would have changed the Lake vote, while leaving the non-Trump/non stop the steal votes alone. I wouldn't have had to have cheating involved with the ballot count.
Well, I guess you'll be really happy to have Hobbes as your governor. We'll just have to wait and see how bad she really is. After all, we got Biden because of mean tweets by Trump and now we've got Hobbes because Lake said something mean about McCain. Amazing what little it takes these days to get elected.

[Kathianne]

Well, I guess you'll be really happy to have Hobbes as your governor. We'll just have to wait and see how bad she really is. After all, we got Biden because of mean tweets by Trump and now we've got Hobbes because Lake said something mean about McCain. Amazing what little it takes these days to get elected.

Somehow we get from I voted for Lake, to I'll be happy with Hobbes. Yeah.

Mean tweets have little to do with Trumpian problems, at least beyond an excuse for his losing. His pettiness, bitterness, need for revenge, and now we can definitely add lack of respect for Constitution are among some folks not voting for him.

Lack of good judgment and respect for those of differing opinions might be part of Lake's.

Basically telling fellow partisans to pound sand because they won't buy 100% of what you're pushing is just stupid/crazy imo.

[fj1200]

That's why I've been hesitant to take a side on this issue. We're not in AZ.

Apparently that's not a requirement.


Possible? Maybe. More believable that it is due to cheating.

No. Not more believable. More believable is that certain factors influenced Republican voters to not pull the lever as they normally would as shown in elections all over this fine country.

[Gunny]

Apparently that's not a requirement.



No. Not more believable. More believable is that certain factors influenced Republican voters to not pull the lever as they normally would as shown in elections all over this fine country.

Is it ever? I have a problem with the entire right. If it was made up of just Texas voters, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. One thing I can tell you for sure that we did here: Trump was not an issue, either way, on our ballot. The focus was where it should be on the Biden Admin/Federal government.

I shouldn't have to repeat in every thread on the same topic what I think of the Donald. He's only part of the problem. The people on the right that hate him and blame the midterms solely on him are as much to blame for failure as his presence. Only even the most intelligent of them that I know are so blind to their own Trump bullshit they can't wrap their minds around the fact that the current disorganized, leaderless, clusterfuck of a GOP is as much to blame as the poser they allowed in the door to Pied Pier people looking for answers.

The Dems couldn't do half the job the right is doing to itself. Trump or no Trump. Collective, alleged LEADERSHIP on the right/GOP should have already kicked his ass to the curb. That's what leadership is for.

Instead we got a bunch of fingerpointing while no one's doing a damned thing.

[fj1200]

Is it ever? I have a problem with the entire right. If it was made up of just Texas voters, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. One thing I can tell you for sure that we did here: Trump was not an issue, either way, on our ballot. The focus was where it should be on the Biden Admin/Federal government.

I shouldn't have to repeat in every thread on the same topic what I think of the Donald. He's only part of the problem. The people on the right that hate him and blame the midterms solely on him are as much to blame for failure as his presence. Only even the most intelligent of them that I know are so blind to their own Trump bullshit they can't wrap their minds around the fact that the current disorganized, leaderless, clusterfuck of a GOP is as much to blame as the poser they allowed in the door to Pied Pier people looking for answers.

The Dems couldn't do half the job the right is doing to itself. Trump or no Trump. Collective, alleged LEADERSHIP on the right/GOP should have already kicked his ass to the curb. That's what leadership is for.

Instead we got a bunch of fingerpointing while no one's doing a damned thing.

You're describing politics. The out-party has no leader while the in-party has a leader. As soon as the Republicans are back in the white house it will be flipped. The only thing that is not standard politics is the trump factor. He was a buffoon with followers and the Republican party really had no option but to accept him as the choice in 2016; to do otherwise would have ripped the party apart. I'm not sure what you think the current leadership could have done more to win elections this time around.

[Kathianne]

You're describing politics. The out-party has no leader while the in-party has a leader. As soon as the Republicans are back in the white house it will be flipped. The only thing that is not standard politics is the trump factor. He was a buffoon with followers and the Republican party really had no option but to accept him as the choice in 2016; to do otherwise would have ripped the party apart. I'm not sure what you think the current leadership could have done more to win elections this time around.

I basically agree with this. I do think that it seems to be an impossibility for 'conservative' leaders to speak out with moral authority regarding someone like Trump or Pelosi or Schumer or Shifty. They all seem of the same bent both politically and personally. In no way though do I find an argument for staying the course with any of them, for the sake of 'winning.' Yet, even in a small conservative environment like this, back in 2015/16, such discussions caused major rifts here. Speaking out did NOT bring better conversations or more free speech, rather name calling and loss of cohesion among the group. Members were lost and some semi-silenced by choice. The rifts have not healed, rather papered over.

I do think that with a problem like Trump, dealing with it more forcefully may have caused a party split. With Trump 'winning' then losing, then totally losing it, may have saved the party with smaller permanent losses. It may have even had some cleansing effect in the sense that some leadership quit; some because openly hostile to Trump-even while supporting some policies; some openly displayed their support the 'winning' to jockey for next cycle with their sychophant behaviors, making them less credible as leaders.

[fj1200]

^As always, well said.

[Gunny]

I basically agree with this. I do think that it seems to be an impossibility for 'conservative' leaders to speak out with moral authority regarding someone like Trump or Pelosi or Schumer or Shifty. They all seem of the same bent both politically and personally. In no way though do I find an argument for staying the course with any of them, for the sake of 'winning.' Yet, even in a small conservative environment like this, back in 2015/16, such discussions caused major rifts here. Speaking out did NOT bring better conversations or more free speech, rather name calling and loss of cohesion among the group. Members were lost and some semi-silenced by choice. The rifts have not healed, rather papered over.

I do think that with a problem like Trump, dealing with it more forcefully may have caused a party split. With Trump 'winning' then losing, then totally losing it, may have saved the party with smaller permanent losses. It may have even had some cleansing effect in the sense that some leadership quit; some because openly hostile to Trump-even while supporting some policies; some openly displayed their support the 'winning' to jockey for next cycle with their sychophant behaviors, making them less credible as leaders.

And I agree with most of this :). Question is, how long does the right (even the Nation) think it can go on losing like this to unified in lockstep left before all is lost? I get the arguments from the differing facts, but there's a point in time where people have to put aside their so-called "individuality and freedom" to address the bigger threat. I have not seen any effort made by the right to recognize the larger threat. I'm all about what's left of individuality and freedom. No one has won a single war without sacrifice, and not just on the actual firing line.

That doesn't mean suck it up and vote "R". I mean put the right people out there to begin with. That starts with the voters. If the people are dissatisfied enough with current alleged leadership, then they need to do something. Not participating is just leaving the field to the enemy.

[Kathianne]

And I agree with most of this :). Question is, how long does the right (even the Nation) think it can go on losing like this to unified in lockstep left before all is lost? I get the arguments from the differing facts, but there's a point in time where people have to put aside their so-called "individuality and freedom" to address the bigger threat. I have not seen any effort made by the right to recognize the larger threat. I'm all about what's left of individuality and freedom. No one has won a single war without sacrifice, and not just on the actual firing line.

That doesn't mean suck it up and vote "R". I mean put the right people out there to begin with. That starts with the voters. If the people are dissatisfied enough with current alleged leadership, then they need to do something. Not participating is just leaving the field to the enemy.

For me it means NOT ignoring blatantly immoral people running for office, regardless of party. Speak out, but first one has to have and stay true to one's own moral compass. It's very easy or at least less traumatic to go with the flow of overwhelming opposition, when the opposition is people one liked and identified with. Unfortunately though, sometimes the worst decisions are reached when going with the crowd, no matter how one tries to couch the acquiescence, one still sold out.

Principles do matter, however inconvenient they are.

[Gunny]

For me it means NOT ignoring blatantly immoral people running for office, regardless of party. Speak out, but first one has to have and stay true to one's own moral compass. It's very easy or at least less traumatic to go with the flow of overwhelming opposition, when the opposition is people one liked and identified with. Unfortunately though, sometimes the worst decisions are reached when going with the crowd, no matter how one tries to couch the acquiescence, one still sold out.

Principles do matter, however inconvenient they are.How antiquated a notion. Principles. Pffft. You must be my age :)

I think the reason(s) for voting may have passed us by.

[Kathianne]

Possible? Maybe. More believable that it is due to cheating.

Not impossible, not necessarily cheating. This happened repeatedly not only in AZ, but throughout the country. Some is Trump, more I think, is Trump-like meanness and denial:


https://www.wsj.com/articles/georgia-runoff-warnings-for-both-parties-raphael-warnock-herschel-walker-election-red-wave-endorsement-trump-11670449634?mod=hp_opin_pos_1

...But in reality, Democrats’ relative victory in the midterms came courtesy of Donald Trump, whose high-profile endorsements helped nominate freakish candidates, leading GOP-leaning voters to split their tickets. This was clear in Senate races, where candidates Mr. Trump carried to primary victories with his “full and complete endorsement” ran behind more-traditional Republicans in the fall.




Preview


Subscribed
In Ohio, 1 of 6 supporters of Gov. Mike DeWine cast their Senate ballots for Democrat Tim Ryan or left it blank. This is why Mr. Ryan’s Trumpian opponent, J.D. Vance, won by less than 7 points, while Mr. DeWine won by almost 26. In Arizona, almost 14% of supporters of the GOP’s victorious candidate for state treasurer left their ballot blank or voted for Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly, who defeated Trump-endorsed Blake Masters by 4.9 points.


Ticket-splitting also cost the GOP House seats as Republicans and GOP-leaning independents rejected Trump-endorsed candidates. More than 1 in 5 voters for New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu refused to support Trump-backed Republicans in the state’s two congressional districts. Mr. Sununu won by more than 15 points, while the GOP House candidates lost by 8 and 12.


In North Carolina’s First District, Mr. Trump endorsed Sandy Smith. She lost, in large part because she was accused by two previous husbands of domestic abuse. In a major county in the district, 1 of every 8 voters split their ticket, voting Democrat for House and Republican for Senate. Same in the 13th District, which rejected a young Trumpster for the House but went Republican for Senate.


In Ohio, Republicans lost two pickup opportunities when about 21% to 38% of Mr. DeWine’s voters in counties in the Ninth District voted Democrat for Congress. In the 13th District, 19.1% of DeWine supporters in one major county split their ticket, and 18.5% did in another. Both GOP candidates had little but Mr. Trump’s enthusiastic endorsement to recommend them. Republican-leaning voters found that insufficient.


Between 7% and 13% of GOP gubernatorial nominee Tudor Dixon’s supporters in Michigan’s Third District counties turned thumbs down on John Gibbs, Mr. Trump’s handpicked candidate. Trump favorites in Alaska and in Washington state’s Third District who stressed their ties to the former president also lost, running behind their statewide tickets.


In total, the GOP threw away at least nine House seats running nominees voters found too extreme, unqualified or closely tied to Mr. Trump and so split their tickets. Imagine how different the House would be if it was divided 231-204 in favor of Republicans rather than 222-213.

...

[BoogyMan]

When has it ever been a requirement for someone to live somewhere specific to hold a view?


Apparently that's not a requirement.

No. Not more believable. More believable is that certain factors influenced Republican voters to not pull the lever as they normally would as shown in elections all over this fine country.

[fj1200]

When has it ever been a requirement for someone to live somewhere specific to hold a view?

A bit of a wink, wink, nudge, nudge. :salute:

[BoogyMan]

Trolling again?

A bit of a wink, wink, nudge, nudge. :salute:

[icansayit]

https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.1575337405.6468/fposter,small,wall_texture,product,750x1000.jpg

[fj1200]

Trolling again?

Sorry to be under your skin. My B.

[BoogyMan]

You couldn't if you tried, just an annoyance, like a rash. LOL


Sorry to be under your skin. My B.

[fj1200]

You couldn't if you tried, just an annoyance, like a rash. LOL

As you say. :carryon:

[Kathianne]

Don't call her crazy:

https://hotair.com/karen-townsend/2022/12/12/marjorie-taylor-greenes-odd-walk-back-on-her-crazy-remarks-to-new-york-young-republican-club-n517307

[fj1200]

Don't call her crazy:

https://hotair.com/karen-townsend/2022/12/12/marjorie-taylor-greenes-odd-walk-back-on-her-crazy-remarks-to-new-york-young-republican-club-n517307

Who does... what was... where in the... why??????

[BoogyMan]

Why not? She has proven herself to be only VERY loosely tied to the same reality as everyone else on the earth.


Don't call her crazy:

https://hotair.com/karen-townsend/2022/12/12/marjorie-taylor-greenes-odd-walk-back-on-her-crazy-remarks-to-new-york-young-republican-club-n517307

[SassyLady]

Using sarcasm to show the attacks against her are no worse than what the libs do to her.

[Kathianne]

Using sarcasm to show the attacks against her are no worse than what the libs do to her.

Not sure how one is supposed to comment on this level of crazy.

[fj1200]

Using sarcasm to show the attacks against her are no worse than what the libs do to her.

It's what she does to herself. And by extension her ideas, policies, party, etc.

[Kathianne]

It's what she does to herself. And by extension her ideas, policies, party, etc.

Hard to believe she doesn't know exactly what she's doing.

[Kathianne]

Yeah:

https://instapundit.com/560198/


DECEMBER 21, 2022
CRAZY TRAIN: Mike Lindell: I’m Going to Prove That the Elections In Miami/Dade County Were Rigged… By Ron DeSantis. “ (https://ace.mu.nu/archives/402426.php)This is why there will never — N E V E R — be any real wins on voting integrity. Because any time we want to talk about cleaning up voter rolls so that dead people’s names aren’t on them, nor are names of people on them five or six times for their five or six previous addresses, mandatory voter ID, mail-in ballots only on request and with signature verification and a copy of a photo ID, or any of a dozen practical, vital, this-must-happen-now reforms, we have jokers like this screaming about The Kraken.”