George Soros is really smart. Goes after District Attorney elections that have always been low $ campaigns with a history of experience and record as key decision factors. Now has turned them into purely partisan political races. Now he’s purchasing 18 Latino Radio stations in a $60M deal architected by Obama and Hilary campaign strategists. Possibly great bang for the Leftist buck.
P.S. @corey-devos Have no fear that “people that really need to see this won’t watch” isn’t the case for me. I’m not convinced, but at least questioning whether you were right all this time.
So a public investigation into an attempted overthrow of a presidential election is more authoritarian (and “communist”) than the attempted overthrow itself.
What a cute and totally unexpected take from The Federalist
Man, these guys must have HATED the 33 different Benghazi hearings that occurred over the span of two years! What was it Kevin McCarthy said about those hearings?
“Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee. A select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping.”
Good news I guess is this will sink the Republicans for years to come in election after election.
Do you think it will sway voters to hand Republicans sweeping loses in Nov?
If not, how can people not see the truth?
So far I think only Navarro in the Admin has been charged for contempt.
Will we see sweeping arrests?
There already has been. You just seem to ignore the reality that hundreds of people were charged and are being found guilty. Moreover, many people close to Trump were charged with crimes and either pled guilty or were found guilty.
Yeah, it still seems to be a case of “where’s the beef”.
1 - With a voting population of 240 million, 1,357 is hardly “widespread”. It works out to .00665%.
Not enough to have changed any Presidential election - even the one Al Gore lost in 2000.
2 - The1,357 number includes all cases going back over 40 years When we look at 2020 alone, I only count 17 cases. That is a laughably inconsequential number. REALLY - 17 cases of voter fraud is “widespread”.
3 - Also interesting is that in 2020 the lack of “Ethnic” names, such as Hispanic.
4 - With a criminal conviction rate of 86%, I am comforted that the government is doing its job to hold people accountable for voter fraud and in fact 2020 seems to be a very minor year with regard to number of cases.
Seems the database isn’t 100% up to date.
Down in Yuma County the Vote Fraudsters themselves have elected positions, also run their own NGOs, and do ballot harvesting. If you were in San Luis, you might not like the election mobsters cheating on elections.
What’s a little fraud and corruption among friends and enemies, right?
P.S. Thanks Ray for calling out the lack of LatinX representation. I’ve started submitting cases for inclusion in their database
They have been charged and sentenced. So again - where’s the beef?
If they got away without facing charges, then there would be some credence to the Right’s fears.
If this is “widespread”, why are only a handful convicted? Why them and not the millions of others (allegedly with zero basis in facts). I would expect if there were millions like the Right is sayin, the courts would be flooded - but there are not.
People commit all kinds of crimes and when there is evidence they go to jail or other penalty according to the law. Pointing at 4 murderers and saying that murder is running rampant and out of control would be absurd. So pointing to 4 election fraud cases and saying that election fraud is widespread is also absurd.
And now a moment of optimism behind the a fog of pessimism.
A meme created by a member of Gen Z.
This is why I like to nurture associations with young people.
Seems Twitter has turned over the raw data so Elon Musk can sort through to figure out percentage of Bots, Bot posts, Bot Likers that Advertisers have been paying for. Twitter SEC filings have claimed <5%. If the number is higher that this, executives and Board members would be in violation of SEC rules.
Accountability in Fact Checking… Getting it in writing seems resonable to most. Reminds me of Dave Van Zandt’s one man MediaBiasFactCheck “group”, i.e. Dave himself, being used as 2nd level authentication.
“Just this week, a New Yorker “fact-checker” reached out to the Florida Department of Health demanding an on-background call. When the department’s press secretary Jeremy Redfern requested that the journalist put her questions in writing, the corporate media employee responded with snark and demanded to speak with someone else.”
Meanwhile an election denier freaked out in court and in addition to losing will probably be disbarred and prevented from practicing law.
One story is a reporter responding in snark (but not really snarky, tbh). The other story is a retired judge acting with behavior that is deplorable and completely reprehensible in at least 5 ways I can count, while in a court of law. He actually made the innuendo that the opposing lawyer won because she fucked the judge. Yes, I use the offensive language because it’s important to actually point out how deplorable the behavior is in comparison to the story you chose to focus on. It goes so far beyond “snarky” to WTF kind of people are you supporting?
But yeah, sure - the Right wing media have to deflect distract and distort away from such an overwhelming loss of their darling Trump. So why not make a big deal about a woman being “snarky” to a snarky man. HOW DARE A WOMAN BE SNARKY TO A SNARKY MAN!
Although, in my opinion it’s not snarky at all to ask to speak to someone else when the person is being snarky.
LOL - do you ever check on the stories you are spoonfed?
Is this really a solution for Republicans? To be snarky to women reporters and then act offended when they ask to speak to someone else?
Is this the master plan?
I’m just curious since you brought it up. I’m not here to judge if she was just looking to get a leg up on the case.
She could have just been spreading out her case with the judge before making her oral arguments.
You see - that shows the level of your morality. You believe it’s within the realm of possibility, which suggests that you may actually be the type to compromise your professional ethics in exchange for pressuring a woman to immoral behavior - if you are in the position to help her or in authority over her.
Which kind of makes me wonder what this retired Republican judge may have done while he was a judge, since he also thinks it’s in the realm of possibility. How many desperate women did he “Me too” in his judges chambers?
So ok, you’re firm in the deplorable camp. Good to know.
