I believe him because he’s Black(that’s capitalized now, I think). It wouldn’t matter what he said, because I’m not a racist.
Not really… Unless I’m misremembering something, that issue was almost exclusively about ballot counting in an EXTRAORDINARILY close state, with the hanging chad issues, etc. Gore certainly wasn’t denying the election results a year+ later, nor was he endorsing/supporting candidates who made claims of election fraud. These situations just aren’t very similar at all. There is a massive difference between claiming fraud and asking for a recount. Arizona recounts were fucking done. This stuff has been analyzed to death. (referring to presidential election)
I’ll also add that saying ‘if I lose, someone must have cheated’ is very off putting, and for many voters, can change their preferred candidate. I, personally, would never, ever vote for a candidate who made a statement like this, regardless of party affiliation.
Evidence, to this point, is not on her side. If she is actually proven right, ever, then we should all change how we look at her. But the overwhelming evidence suggests she is incorrect, so why would I give her claim credence, particularly given the fact that she specifically said that she would not accept a loss under any circumstances? Of COURSE she claimed fraud afterwards, lol. She said she would before the election happened.
I don’t understand this. There was a massive degree of recounting, for like a fucking year, after the presidential election in Arizona. What, specifically, are you suggesting wasn’t scrutinized in that election? Or are you saying the Presidential election was properly scrutinized, but not Lake’s? I definitely could have misread that part, so asking for clarification. But in any event, I see far more reasons to believe Lake lost than won. If they do a recount and she ends up winning, so be it. But she was an awful candidate, and nobody should actually be surprised by the results.
But that being said: what is/are the voting irregularities that existed that you believe could have swayed the result in favor of Lake, and what evidence has been shown, to this point, that would substantiate her claims? I have seen very small things like voting machines having scanning issues, which is kind of just a thing that can happen anywhere. In the cases I read about, voters were asked to drop their ballots in drop boxes to be manually counted. Her claim that ‘voters voted 2, 3, 4 times’ is absolute horse shit without actual evidence, so I’m not entertaining that one until I see a shred of evidence.
For me, I would need to see evidence of fraud OUTSIDE of her claims. Independent verification, not just a sore loser.
So I’ll ask you: at what point would you be willing to accept that there was no statistically significant irregularity in the voting? What could be done that would satisfy you? Anything?
Statistically significant is defined as more than 5%… This election was ‘won’ by 0.678% popular vote. So this is a statistically insignificant difference, yet also enough to win an election.
Are there terms that would satisfy my trust in the outcome? Yes.
- Not having one of the candidates running for office also be the Secretary of State (or at least recusing him/herself - looking at YOU Hobbs and Kemp) would certainly be a good start.
- Getting rid of the mail-in ballot would be another great choice (chain of custody is the first thing to target when investigating election integrity).
- I’m not one for Big Fed moves, but Mandatory voter ID at all elections (must be US citizen and resident of voting district).
- No more changing voting laws the day of voting either.
- Also, not being called a “Q Anon conspiracy theorist” EVERY FUCKING TIME someone points out an election anomaly that should be investigated.
I think these are reasonable requests frankly.
“I believe that if everyone in Florida who tried to vote had had his or her vote counted properly, that I would have won,” - Al Gore, 2002
It is difficult to substantiate claims when the person holding the key to investigating said claims is also the person who won the election that is being investigated, no?
I don’t want to get into polling data, but it is well known that GOP candidates outperform the polls regularly… Lake was expected to be the popular vote in the polls meaning it is even more likely that she wins the popular vote. Still, polling data is merely polling.
AZ Election trends:
- GOP beat Dems in house races by 6%
- GOP take 6/9 house seats, flipping 2 seats
- GOP take 16/28 State Senate seats
- The Treasurer (R) outperforms Lake by 5% and rival by 9%
Yet Lake (who was expected to RUN this election) didn’t win the popular vote? Not often does everything go one color except the head of the show… it’s suspect.
Most of the reported issues with tabulators happened in Republican counties and districts, THE DAY OF the election? Again, suspect…
What would really make me trust the outcome of elections more, would be if we didn’t dogmatically accuse anyone wanting an investigation of being an ‘election denier’.
^Thanks for at least asking “why”. Others (really like one person) in this thread jumped straight to Q Anon comments before entertaining opinions that conflict with their own.
P.S I agree that pre-emptively saying you won’t concede an election is a terrible call for everyone involved. This is my one reservation with Lake.
4 Likes
You left out this part: “I strongly disagreed with the Supreme Court decision and the way in which they interpreted and applied the law. But I respect the rule of law, so it is what it is."
2 Likes
I heard that Bush paid off Al Gore to concede.
He had no choice but to accept their decision, so his words on the matter at that point, mean nothing…
Let’s say he didn’t respect the rule of law; what was he going to do? Fight the Supreme Court?
gonna have to re-up on my 99% Deet Anti-Contrarian spray 
EDIT:
I made a GIF for you… I hope you feel special - I don’t make GIFs for anyone.
@Euphemism2009 Thanks for the inspiration ^
Mr. Receptors is blowing all the Libs outta the water. Good work, sir!
1 Like
I suppose he could have incited a riot or something.
3 Likes
Ahhhhh…another January 6th reference. When will you learn that it was NOT an “insurrection”? Furthermore, you should review your January 6th Committee. It’s another big nothing burger…just like Russia!
You’re the one who said it, not me.
Sure. I suppose he could have incited a riot more peaceful than the average BLM ‘peaceful protest’ that resulted in an absolute abuse of DOJ power and neighbors turning in neighbors (AKA anyone ideologically opposed to them)…
But we’re talking about Gore here. Instead, he decided to retire to a life of private jets and mega-mansions whilst profiting off a Green Energy agenda that he was heavily invested (literally invested) in.
You’d feel stupid to know that many that Andrewgen is disagreeing with are ardent conservatives.
But you wouldn’t know, having just joined today. Presumably to just join this thread.
Our Russian bot has just outed itself.
I think it’s really just one (who has been lurking but refusing to respond to me) thats a Conservative, but I’ll let people correct me if I’m wrong.
Also, @Euphemism2009 isn’t that new, but still relatively new to this site… probably not a Russian bot (feel free to check his post history though).
The “Mr. Receptors” and the 2009 make me think he’s a 13-year-old kid.
Shall I refer you to my last post to you or are you just going to ignore my questions for the 3rd time?
That’s fair, and I have no problem using ‘enough to overturn’ rather than ‘statistically significant’.
… maybe this wasn’t obvious, but I mean ‘at this point.’ Is there anything that can happen NOW that would satisfy you? Your first point was that the results have not been scrutinized, so I was asking what type/degree of scrutiny you’re looking for in this election. A discussion about candidate eligibility, viability of mail in ballots, voter ID, etc are all viable discussions, but they have nothing to do with how we approach the election that just happened, as far as determining ‘was this election fair?’
Your ‘please don’t call me a qanon conspiracy theorist just because I want election oversight’ is, of course, reasonable.
Fair enough… but still not remotely the same. It’s still not an accusation of fraud, among other things. He was contesting how several hundred votes were counted in one county in one state. A far cry from the myriad of accusations that the Trump crowd has clung to.
That’s kind of how conspiracy theories work. They have an inherent degree of ‘there’s no way to prove me wrong’, so the conspiracy theorist feels justified in their belief. That’s why it’s generally incumbent on the accuser to actually PROVE their case/position. If all the accuser is saying ‘terrible things happened, I don’t have any evidence it happened, but YOU don’t have any evidence it didn’t’… Well, I know where I stand on such things.
Yea, because Lake was an extraordinarily shitty candidate. It’s not suspect at all. The treasurer probably outperformed her because the treasurer wasn’t buried in baggage and people are more likely to vote along party lines when they don’t know the candidate. This is obvious. Also, none of those stats you just shared suggest that Lake losing was unreasonable, just that a really crude statistical model would have had her winning.
Everything you’re saying can be answered by the fact that, across the US, non-incumbent candidates for office, across the US, who were vocal election deniers, lost their elections more often than they won. Incumbents fared better, but certainly didn’t see a boost from their Trump-support.
2 Likes
whataboutism is stupid. this is a silly way to counter the insurrection point.
This one? You were correct at this point.
No, these ones:
But I don’t think you’re interested in a civil conversation, which is disappointing.
- I don’t think there is any actual evidence of fraud in the AZ governor election. If you have actual evidence, I’d be very open to seeing it.
- I don’t think there is any actual evidence of fraud in the AZ 2020 Presidential election either. If you have actual evidence, I’d be very open to seeing it.
You avoided answering whether or not YOU think these statements were true by saying they haven’t been proven false. Do you or do you not think they are true?
1 Like