5 ms·

This spectacle is extra distressing for me personally as someone who lives in Arizona. I live in the district that incumbent Anthony Kern ran in and lost, he h

by jdofaz 5y ago

This spectacle is extra distressing for me personally as someone who lives in Arizona. I live in the district that incumbent Anthony Kern ran in and lost, he has been photographed processing ballots at this "audit". The person who ran the election in the county they are "auditing", Adrian Fontes, lost his seat in the same supposedly manipulated election. I personally know so many people who believe the election was stolen. I have never been so fearful for the future of my country.

lettergram 5y ago
A judge said this audit follows all the laws. It's been litigated. Please do your own research -- not listen to partisan talking points. Here's a public discussion around some of the findings, the Arizona Senate is very clear about what is going on and seems extremely reasonable: https://invintus-client-media.s3.amazonaws.com/6361162879/90 https://invintus-client-media.s3.amazonaws.com/6361162879/90... This audit appears solid to me, I've watched all the court cases and read all the public documents. U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) provided input regarding the audit (https://www.eac.gov/ https://www.eac.gov/). The president of the Arizona Senate explains this. This is amazing gaslighting by the media. This audit has three people counting, photos of the ballots (to later check), checking folds, etc. This is a very well controlled and good audit. Not perfect, but far better than what we had in the past. There are observers from the secretary of states office, democrats, republicans, independents counting, multiple sign offs and everything is recorded so they can go back. You can view the audit live on some of the cameras: https://azaudit.org/ https://azaudit.org/
- jdofaz 5y ago
  I know you are trolling/bot but I dispute almost everything you are saying.
  - yao420 5y ago
    I reviewed his post history before posting a rebuttal, figured it would be worthless as he is railing against Marxism in preschool. Poster is heavily partisan.
    - JohnTHaller 5y ago
      Poster used the term "democrat party", which is a clear bias giveaway
      - lettergram 5y ago
        It's the "Arizona Democratic Party" - https://azdem.org/ https://azdem.org/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_Democratic_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_Democratic_Party
        RIMR 5y ago
        Then say that.
        JohnTHaller 5y ago
        They won't. They just keep saying "democrat party" over and over as a signal to others with their bias. Fun fact: As a counterpoint, the Democratic Party debated adopting a similar derisive nomenclature for the Republicans. They decided against it because "Republican is the name by which our opponents' product is known and mistrusted".
        BitwiseFool 5y ago
        This whole Democrat/Democratic Party thing seems really frivolous to me. The idea that dropping the "ic" is some kind of slur seems very petty. I suspect the main reason why people end up using "Democrat Party" is because party members are referred to as "Democrats" and it's a natural extension to drop the 's' and and Party. And to go even further, why is this point being harped on? Is it because claiming the mantle of the "Democratic" inherently makes the other side seem Anti-Democratic? The United States is a Democratic-Republic and those chosen names of our two parties just seems farcical.
        JohnTHaller 5y ago
  - lettergram 5y ago
    You should look at my history. I'm very much real; been on HN for years. I'm just providing documentation in the opposing view. Particularly, documentation the NPR author decided to omit. HN has a rule of going to the source material, which I provided. The NPR article is partisan take on the issue.
    - RIMR 5y ago
      Yeah bro, a quick visit to your Twitter and I see you retweet all the people I expected you would. You're not a bot, you're just a fool.
      - lettergram 5y ago
        I typically retweet so I have a record. Not necessarily stuff I agree with FYI. I only believe what is provable in documentation. I also never stoop down to insulting people when I don’t have an argument. We all deserve mutual respect and should discuss opinions not character flaws or personality traits. You may think me the fool, but I’ll still engage with your arguments. Would you do the same? Spend an hour and watch the AZ senate hearing. If you disagree, explain why. I don’t see that occurring, but that’s what is required to have a civil discussion.
      - iratic0 5y ago
        He sounds smarter than you actually, you are a bigger fool.
- clajiness 5y ago
  How many times are you going to copy/paste this? dO yOuR oWn ReSeArCh!

by jdofaz 5y ago

lettergram 5y ago

A judge said this audit follows all the laws. It's been litigated. Please do your own research -- not listen to partisan talking points. Here's a public discussion around some of the findings, the Arizona Senate is very clear about what is going on and seems extremely reasonable: https://invintus-client-media.s3.amazonaws.com/6361162879/90 https://invintus-client-media.s3.amazonaws.com/6361162879/90... This audit appears solid to me, I've watched all the court cases and read all the public documents. U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) provided input regarding the audit (https://www.eac.gov/ https://www.eac.gov/). The president of the Arizona Senate explains this. This is amazing gaslighting by the media. This audit has three people counting, photos of the ballots (to later check), checking folds, etc. This is a very well controlled and good audit. Not perfect, but far better than what we had in the past. There are observers from the secretary of states office, democrats, republicans, independents counting, multiple sign offs and everything is recorded so they can go back. You can view the audit live on some of the cameras: https://azaudit.org/ https://azaudit.org/

jdofaz 5y ago
I know you are trolling/bot but I dispute almost everything you are saying.
- yao420 5y ago
  I reviewed his post history before posting a rebuttal, figured it would be worthless as he is railing against Marxism in preschool. Poster is heavily partisan.
  - JohnTHaller 5y ago
    Poster used the term "democrat party", which is a clear bias giveaway
    - lettergram 5y ago
      It's the "Arizona Democratic Party" - https://azdem.org/ https://azdem.org/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_Democratic_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_Democratic_Party
      - RIMR 5y ago
        Then say that.
        JohnTHaller 5y ago
        They won't. They just keep saying "democrat party" over and over as a signal to others with their bias. Fun fact: As a counterpoint, the Democratic Party debated adopting a similar derisive nomenclature for the Republicans. They decided against it because "Republican is the name by which our opponents' product is known and mistrusted".
        BitwiseFool 5y ago
        This whole Democrat/Democratic Party thing seems really frivolous to me. The idea that dropping the "ic" is some kind of slur seems very petty. I suspect the main reason why people end up using "Democrat Party" is because party members are referred to as "Democrats" and it's a natural extension to drop the 's' and and Party. And to go even further, why is this point being harped on? Is it because claiming the mantle of the "Democratic" inherently makes the other side seem Anti-Democratic? The United States is a Democratic-Republic and those chosen names of our two parties just seems farcical.
        JohnTHaller 5y ago
- lettergram 5y ago
  You should look at my history. I'm very much real; been on HN for years. I'm just providing documentation in the opposing view. Particularly, documentation the NPR author decided to omit. HN has a rule of going to the source material, which I provided. The NPR article is partisan take on the issue.
  - RIMR 5y ago
    Yeah bro, a quick visit to your Twitter and I see you retweet all the people I expected you would. You're not a bot, you're just a fool.
    - lettergram 5y ago
      I typically retweet so I have a record. Not necessarily stuff I agree with FYI. I only believe what is provable in documentation. I also never stoop down to insulting people when I don’t have an argument. We all deserve mutual respect and should discuss opinions not character flaws or personality traits. You may think me the fool, but I’ll still engage with your arguments. Would you do the same? Spend an hour and watch the AZ senate hearing. If you disagree, explain why. I don’t see that occurring, but that’s what is required to have a civil discussion.
    - iratic0 5y ago
      He sounds smarter than you actually, you are a bigger fool.
clajiness 5y ago
How many times are you going to copy/paste this? dO yOuR oWn ReSeArCh!