So it seems this dude is a wrestler, and here's a random Twitter quote: "If the CHURCh understood the Laws of God which govern our relationship with Him, our neighbor, and those whom he has given authority to we wouldn’t be in this situation. The Church has failed to represent the lawful nature character and heart of God. Lawlessness is rampant." Anyhow, look him up on Twitter.
If you Google this story you'll see this dude got a fair bit of media exposure. I'd say more than I'd expect. So much for "the media doesn't report on this".
We also have some mystery Arizona law firm involved here. So what's the story exactly in how this specific person got involved with this specific law firm? I'd follow that lead but I sort of got an idea about who is involved here.
Just because we have a signed affidavit doesn't mean its true...
This guy (or rather these lawyers) did have their day in court: https://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/records/election-2020/... and the Justice offers a lengthy and educated opinion on the issue as a whole (basically while there might have been some irregularities there is no way they would have changed the outcome of the elections). And man, there is a lot of minutes/paperwork here.
Is this your best evidence of fraud? I think it's pretty thin.
Also please vote in your elections, it impacts all of us.
You picked the one high-profile case where an individual who did not vote in a specific state somehow had a signature verified ballot cast in their name. Because of who he is, and because of his beliefs, it made headlines (in conservative media).
If you google "Nahshon Garrett CNN" you see the following results: https://pasteboard.co/JIuN3X9.jpg
You can swap CNN for almost every major media outlet(NBC, MSNBC, etc) and see the same results. So, compared to the amount of articles posted that call allegations of fraud baseless, or claim there is no evidence, the coverage this well-documented counterexample is extremely minimal. It's noteworthy that an independent channel (Tim Pool) has such a presence in the results.
> Also please vote in your elections, it impacts all of us.
There hasn't been a President in 40 years (until Trump, ironically) that has not started a new war. As someone who strongly believes that violence should only be tolerated as a defensive measure of last resort, I cannot in good conscience vote for anyone who does not believe the same.
Where exactly is that "well-documented" documentation? It's not in the affidavit. For all we know this guy voted in Arizona just so he could cry foul, or nobody really voted in Arizona using his name. Even if we say that one of his friends or acquaintances (clearly a Biden supporter) knew that he moved and took advantage to fake a vote where does that exactly leave us? How many people are in this situation? Would it change the results? Was this somehow systematically exploited? And how exactly?
Why should I assign any credibility to what some seem to call "Pro-Trump ‘voter integrity’ group that is calling Pennsylvania voters has ties to White House"? Does this group have any credibility? Now I need to watch a video? But sure, let's see what they're saying and I'll get back to you.
We have plenty of credible sources, including from the current administration, who tell us that the elections was generally fair.
Not voting has an impact, so if the president that won starts a war, and you didn't vote for the other guy (hypothetically) then you did actually effectively vote for the president. You don't get to walk away from democracy like that.
EDIT: So I went to the video. I gotta say "Trump Pence" in the background inspires confidence in the message. I'm not gonna spend an hour of my time listening to this so I jumped to the "dead voters" segment because that seemed interesting. "blah blah blah", "no records", "duplicate names make this difficult", "very small numbers", "small numbers", "I can not say there was an effort to vote in the name of the deceased"... "Its very difficult to determine who is dead and who is not". So great, it's all good then?
You seem to have a strongly held position on the subject, and I have no interest in trying to change your position. However, it would be beneficial for democracy if you would take the time to understand the position of those with different views than yourself. It helps a lot if you don't actively admit (and condescendingly phrase) that you won't spend your time to understand their concerns.
> Not voting has an impact, so if the president that won starts a war, and you didn't vote for the other guy (hypothetically) then you did actually effectively vote for the president. You don't get to walk away from democracy like that.
Actually, not voting very specifically does not have an impact and reduces the thresholds required for recalls for elected officials. I'll vote in every election once we have a voting system that doesn't perpetuate the powers of the two most corrupt institutions in America.
Why is this a question of "view"? Isn't the picture pretty clear? I don't really have a view here other than "someone is wrong on the Internet" ( https://xkcd.com/386/ ). And that someone just happens to be you ;) (oops, condescending again). My political views don't really align with much of what's going on in the US on both major parties.
If President X won by 1 vote, and you didn't vote for President Y (oops, ignore that's not how "democracy" works in the US, doesn't matter how many people vote for X), then I'm sorry but your not voting is what made X president. You can spin that anyway you want but it seems like a pretty universal fact. Can US presidents be recalled?
Anyhow, I will agree with one point I think you're making, democracy in the USA is really screwed up. Keep in mind there's other ways of participating in the democratic process, you can run to office yourself or get involved in the campaign of someone who resonates with you.
"condescendingly phrase" - I'm sorry. I probably am being condescending. It's age and my annoyance and disappointment with the USA. Really, what the heck is wrong with you people? Try and tune that out and listen to the core of my position. I.e. there's no credible evidence that the result of the elections is due to some massive fraud or conspiracy.
EDIT: I also want to add that I'm not shutting you out. I'm just asking for some sort of evidence that I can go look at and is going to be compelling/convincing and pointing out that asking someone to watch a one hour video (I watched a portion, randomly, and it had nothing) or to follow some random links (I followed one, randomly, and found nothing) isn't really the way to go about asking someone form an opinion or change an opinion. I don't think (in my biased opinion) that this is a situation where I'm clearly holding a wrong view, there's a mountain of good evidence to that extent, and I'm just ignoring it and sticking with my views. But hey, maybe I'm wrong.
EDIT2: I should know better than arguing with random people on the Internet. But like I said, this is actually important stuff that impact everyone on this planet. If you guys can't get your act together, who can?
EDIT3: Let's use my edit window fully. So you're saying the election was not stolen except there's no way Biden really received all these votes? Or am I misreading your original commentary? So it was stolen? Or it wasn't stolen?
Did Obama also start a war? I honestly can't keep track any more.
Well let's look at once recent example that I mentioned.
[0] CNN completely discredited the Hunter Biden story when it was released. They called it 'Russian Disinformation' and in their articles repeatedly used charged language such as "dubious" to refer to the information presented.
This was done on an ongoing basis by the majority of news organizations at the time. EDIT - [3] And supported by social media giants (Famously Twitter, but Google/Youtube did the same thing)
Fast forward past the election and the narrative has changed rather sharply. [1] They no longer call the story Russian Disinformation, and instead publish that the FBI is actively investigating Hunter Biden.
[2] As I mentioned, the same thing happened after 2001. The largest news institutions eagerly promoted that the US was under extreme threat. CNN in 2002 was publishing quotes like "we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud” and "Saddam is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time.”
Then when it became clear that there was no WMD's to be found they started giving room to the opposing narrative such as: Joe Wilson “I think it’s safe to say that the US government should have or did know that [the Niger documents were] fake before Dr. ElBaradei mentioned it in his report at the UN yesterday.”
Just to be clear, I'm not saying 'everything is a lie and the election was stolen and Trump is telling the truth'
What I am saying is that the sources of information have proven themselves to be incredibly untrustworthy to the point where many people automatically believe the inverse of what they claim.
[0] https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/18/media/new-york-post-hunter-bi...
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/09/politics/hunter-biden-tax-inv...
[2] https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war...
I think it's perfectly fine for them to add commentary by pundits. If they believe the president to be lying, they have to do their best to give a competing narrative. But they can't be sticking their narrative into the objective part of the story. Trump said this. Election Official XYZ said this was incorrect because of that. That's it. If they claim something is objectively incorrect they'd better have a very solid basis for it.
I don't know if left-of-center people just don't notice it anymore, but anyone right-of-center feels like they're reading Pravda all the time these days.
For the sake of intellectual honesty, I'll post this on my main account. Strong odds it doesn't go well, but transparency is worth striving for.
I have seen [3,4,5]quite a bit of evidence that there was at least some fraud taking place, and that the evidence of that fraud has been suppressed. Whether the fraud was enough to change results, no clue. I have also seen people attacking the character of everyone presenting or talking about said evidence, rather than addressing the actual content of the claims.
The above is concerning, but it doesn't lead me to believe an election was stolen. However, the narrative that's being played out is that Joe Biden, a 78 year old segregationist who was crucified publicly by his now running mate Kamala Harris for those policies, and who basically didn't campaign or hold rallies, and who has [0]received most of his money from the 'upper class', won nearly 12 Million more votes than Barack Obama in 2008. He did this while [1]winning in substantially fewer counties than Barack Obama.
However, most importantly, the majority of the lawsuits have [2]not been addressed based on their merits but have instead been dismissed based for procedural reasons (e.g. legal standing, injury). As a result, there has not been a transparent process through which the evidence that has been presented has been addressed.
One would expect that these dismissals, and the evidence presented would have become major news. That has not happened, and that leaves people who have seen some of the evidence or who have heard about it feeling concerned.
Now, I'm hesitant to bring up the Hunter Biden story because the media narratives on it are hyper-polarizing. But, many of the claims about the contents are true and some (many?) of the videos and emails have been leaked. This story was smothered by social media, just like the election-related concerns. This has led to a complete eradication of trust in the media as a whole by a huge portion of the population.
- PERSONAL OPINION -
The issue is not what happened, the issue is that we have become divided. Until we have more transparency we will not see people coming back together. There is no way to fix the division until the concerns of both sides can be addressed publicly, transparently, and without media (including social media) interference. Seeing videos of raw footage being marked as misinformation by twitter eradicates whatever trust people had in them.
This election cycle, and the way the media is operating, reminds me of the way we found ourselves in the middle east. Everyone knew([6,7]except our allies) there were WMD's until there weren't.
[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2020-election-trump-biden...
[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/12/09/fac...
[2] https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/dec/10/donald-trump-... (CTRL+F "lawsuits been disposed")
[3] https://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=1...
[4] DISCLAIMER I am aware of the bias of the individual presenting, but the content is what is important here. https://youtu.be/XH9ihoLi1NA
[5] https://www.youtube.com/user/veritasvisuals
[6] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2003/03/31/who-lied-to-wh...
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries