Arizona Election Audit

#2,378
#2,378
Orangeslice13 said:
GW endorsed Clinton. (That’s also a fact) and so did Muller. (Fact) Yeah, Mueller was real Trump friendly
Click to expand...
Mueller is a conservative Republican. Period.

George W. Bush did not endorse Hillary Clinton either. His father George H.W. Bush, did call Trump a "blowhard" and said that he voted for Clinton. Maybe that's where you're confused?

Just like @tnmarktx wants to say that a Trump-appointed judge (Stephanos Bibas) is biased against Trump... I know that will always be your fallback, whether it makes any sense or not.
 
#2,379
#2,379
BowlBrother85 said:
There is nothing here for a Democrat to fight. Biden won. Trump lost. You are delusional if you think that an audit, which began three months after the winning candidate was sworn into office, is going to retroactively change the outcome of the 2020 Presidential Election.

The crazy thing here, is that even if you concede the two states that Republicans have spent the most time whining over (Arizona and Georgia) to Donald Trump.... Joe Biden still wins the election with 279 electoral college votes. I would be willing to bet that most of you idiots don't even realize that.

So, what would the next state be then? Wisconsin? Pennsylvania? Michigan (which Biden won by over 150,000 votes)? This is a joke.
Click to expand...

Obviously some think there is something to fight. Just because you don’t think so doesn’t mean anything.

I don’t care about the audit. Whatever is found it won’t change anything either way. I don’t know if other states will do an audit. If they do, who cares? It’s not going to change anything now or in the future.

You seem like you don’t want anyone questioning anything. That seems strange. What if there were a ton of fraud in favor of Trump? Wouldn’t you want to know that? I know I would.
 
#2,380
#2,380
BowlBrother85 said:
Mueller is a conservative Republican. Period.

George W. Bush did not endorse Hillary Clinton either. His father George H.W. Bush, did call Trump a "blowhard" and said that he voted for Clinton. Maybe that's where you're confused?

Just like @tnmarktx wants to say that a Trump-appointed judge (Stephanos Bibas) is biased against Trump... I know that will always be your fallback, whether it makes any sense or not.
Click to expand...

Meuller is a RINO. Don’t try and say otherwise. There was a reason why he was chosen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13
#2,381
#2,381
BigOrangeTrain said:
Obviously some think there is something to fight. Just because you don’t think so doesn’t mean anything.

I don’t care about the audit. Whatever is found it won’t change anything either way. I don’t know if other states will do an audit. If they do, who cares? It’s not going to change anything now or in the future.

You seem like you don’t want anyone questioning anything. That seems strange. What if there were a ton of fraud in favor of Trump? Wouldn’t you want to know that? I know I would.
Click to expand...
No... that is not it at all. I don't mind audits... even six months after an election. An audit should be performed by an objective party. An audit should not be conducted by someone who has already conclusively determined what the audit should find. The only problem I have with the audit, is that the Republican-controlled legislature in Arizona should not have hired "Cyber Ninjas" to conduct it. They are a little known firm, with no experience in working with elections.

There can be only one reason as to why they were hired in the first place:

Republicans in the Arizona State Legislature were aware of Doug Logan's posts on Sidney Powell's website, and they approved of them. They wanted to hire an auditor who would conclude that Donald Trump was the true winner of Arizona. Logan was the one auditor they could easily find who had already done that at the time he was hired.
 
#2,383
#2,383
BigOrangeTrain said:
Meuller is a RINO. Don’t try and say otherwise. There was a reason why he was chosen.
Click to expand...
Robert Mueller was chosen by George W. Bush as FBI Director, because he was a RINO? Interesting.

The term "RINO" has been bastardized to mean "a conservative Republican who opposes Trump". It's absurd.
 
#2,385
#2,385
BowlBrother85 said:
All of your posts come from the same 2 or 3 discredited sources. It's just more conspiratorial tripe, being advanced through an outright lie. You never address these allegations critically, or take the time to scrutinize them. You are eager to believe anything which suggests voter fraud, because you want to believe that Trump was cheated.
Click to expand...

I'm not keeping up with this election stuff, but how many times have we heard this BS. Who discredited it? Gtfo of here with that progressive propaganda bs. If you provide a reliable source then I will change my stance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: W.TN.Orange Blood
#2,386
#2,386
Impossible Girl said:
And Hillary Clinton and the Obamas supported traditional marriage. Remember that?
Click to expand...
Sure... but are you impossible, like "impossible meat" that is plant-based but actually heavily processed and high in sodium and fat? Or are you just hard to get along with? Not important... I don't know how the first definition would even apply to a human being... just curious, I guess.
 
#2,387
#2,387
BowlBrother85 said:
Sure... but are you impossible, like "impossible meat" that is plant-based but actually heavily processed and high in sodium and fat? Or are you just hard to get along with? Not important... I don't know how the first definition would even apply to a human being... just curious, I guess.
Click to expand...
Is it your MO to try and divert attention from your bad point by questioning someone’s screen name?
 
  • Like
Reactions: W.TN.Orange Blood and BreatheUT
#2,391
#2,391
BowlBrother85 said:
No... that is not it at all. I don't mind audits... even six months after an election. An audit should be performed by an objective party. An audit should not be conducted by someone who has already conclusively determined what the audit should find. The only problem I have with the audit, is that the Republican-controlled legislature in Arizona should not have hired "Cyber Ninjas" to conduct it. They are a little known firm, with no experience in working with elections.

There can be only one reason as to why they were hired in the first place:

Republicans in the Arizona State Legislature were aware of Doug Logan's posts on Sidney Powell's website, and they approved of them. They wanted to hire an auditor who would conclude that Donald Trump was the true winner of Arizona. Logan was the one auditor they could easily find who had already done that at the time he was hired.
Click to expand...

So what would happen if something significant was found and backed up by an independent group that Democrats approve of?
 
#2,392
#2,392
BowlBrother85 said:
Mueller is a conservative Republican. Period.

George W. Bush did not endorse Hillary Clinton either. His father George H.W. Bush, did call Trump a "blowhard" and said that he voted for Clinton. Maybe that's where you're confused?

Just like @tnmarktx wants to say that a Trump-appointed judge (Stephanos Bibas) is biased against Trump... I know that will always be your fallback, whether it makes any sense or not.
Click to expand...
You're probably the most delusional poster on VN and that's probably understating it.
 
#2,393
#2,393
BowlBrother85 said:
Robert Mueller was chosen by George W. Bush as FBI Director, because he was a RINO? Interesting.

The term "RINO" has been bastardized to mean "a conservative Republican who opposes Trump". It's absurd.
Click to expand...
There's been a split in the Republican Party between those who support Trump and those who don't. So saying "Robert Mueller is/was a Republican" is meaningless. It's obvious which side he came down on. The Bush family clearly came down on the anti-Trump side as well. So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. And interestingly, you don't mention the people who were on Mueller's team, many of whom, IIRC, had ties to Democrats. So there's a lot more to the discussion that you seem to want to ignore.

While we're on the subject of divide, the Dems need to be careful going forward, because they're facing a similar situation as the Republicans. On one side, you have traditional Democrats, and on the other side, you have this new generation, such as "The Squad", that are heavily pushing socialism. It will be interesting to see how both parties evolve from these splits. I just wish people wouldn't wrap their identities around these parties. More people need to think for themselves rather than letting their politics define how they think and what they believe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SlipKidVol and Orangeslice13
#2,395
#2,395
Weezer said:
There's been a split in the Republican Party between those who support Trump and those who don't. So saying "Robert Mueller is/was a Republican" is meaningless. It's obvious which side he came down on. The Bush family clearly came down on the anti-Trump side as well. So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. And interestingly, you don't mention the people who were on Mueller's team, many of whom, IIRC, had ties to Democrats. So there's a lot more to the discussion that you seem to want to ignore.

While we're on the subject of divide, the Dems need to be careful going forward, because they're facing a similar situation as the Republicans. On one side, you have traditional Democrats, and on the other side, you have this new generation, such as "The Squad", that are heavily pushing socialism. It will be interesting to see how both parties evolve from these splits. I just wish people wouldn't wrap their identities around these parties. More people need to think for themselves rather than letting their politics define how they think and what they believe.
Click to expand...
No, it's not. The Mueller report was fair with Trump. Although it did find that Russia interfered with the 2016 Presidential Election, the report stated that it:

"Did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign."

As far as the question of obstruction is concerned, the Mueller report laid out facts on both sides but did not reach a conclusion. The report stated that:

"While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

Based on the passing of campaign information and internal polling data from Rick Gates (a subordinate of Trump's campaign manager, Paul Manafort) to Konstantin Kolimnik (who is affiliated with the Russian government), the Mueller report could have concluded that the Trump campaign had provided opposition research to Russian agents to be used against Hillary Clinton on social media, but they did not. I don't see how any other objective special counsel could have been more fair with Trump, than the Mueller probe was.

I suppose you could argue that the Mueller team was harsh in their prosecutions of Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, Rick Gates and George Papadopoulos, but they aren't Trump... and since all of them received a pardon from Trump, what did that really amount to in the long run?
 
Last edited:
#2,396
#2,396
BowlBrother85 said:
No, it's not. The Mueller report was fair with Trump. Although it did find that Russia interfered with the 2016 Presidential Election, the report stated that it:

"Did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign."

As far as the question of obstruction is concerned, the Mueller report laid out facts on both sides but did not reach a conclusion. The report stated that:

"While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

Based on the passing of campaign information and internal polling data from Rick Gates (a subordinate of Trump's campaign manager, Paul Manafort) to Konstantin Kolimnik (who is affiliated with the Russian government), the Mueller report could have concluded that the Trump campaign had provided opposition research to Russian agents to be used against Hillary Clinton on social media, but they did not. I don't see how any other objective special counsel could have been more fair with Trump, than the Mueller probe was.

I suppose you could argue that the Mueller team was harsh in their prosecutions of Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, Rick Gates and George Papadopoulos, but they aren't Trump... and since all of them received a pardon from Trump, what did that really amount to in the long run?
Click to expand...
It's not obvious to you what side he came down on? Then you're being willfully blind. Mueller is clearly anti-Trump, but that doesn't make him anti-Republican.
 
#2,397
#2,397
Weezer said:
It's not obvious to you what side he came down on? Then you're being willfully blind. Mueller is clearly anti-Trump, but that doesn't make him anti-Republican.
Click to expand...
You must not have read the summary of the Mueller report that William Barr and Rod Rosenstein prepared. The Mueller report exonerated the Trump campaign of collusion, and then didn't pick a side on the question of obstruction. I don't see how a sensible Trump voter could have hoped for a better outcome that that.
 
#2,398
#2,398
BowlBrother85 said:
You must not have read the summary of the Mueller report that William Barr and Rod Rosenstein prepared. The Mueller report exonerated the Trump campaign of collusion, and then didn't pick a side on the question of obstruction. I don't see how a sensible Trump voter could have hoped for a better outcome that that.
Click to expand...

I don't consider anyone who votes by party sensible. As far as a better outcome, he could have left out the part about exonerate/does not exonerate.

None of that changes that Mueller is clearly anti-Trump. The GOP is split.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top