That's conjecture, though. I'm sorry, but the Lake team never offered evidence that meets the current tests and standards. You can and arguably should argue that the tests for evidence should change, but the entire point of judges is to follow laws as written over pursuing the most "correct" outcome.
Lake couldn't put up a single witness who said they saw direct tampering, and all evidence of irregularities could just as easily be attributed to error (any IT professional will tell you that when doing live event work, things can get more broken before they get fixed, especially if you have volunteers in the staffing pool) whether human or computer as it could be attributed to malice. Lake didn't come prepared with any witnesses who could say they saw someone intentionally change settings, just that printer settings were changed. That's simply not enough - and there's a reason why the court and the court of public opinion are kept as separate as possible.
And then you throw in that the Lake team's best argument were just 1200 ballots that all ended up being counted, things just took time? I'm sorry, but the judge was only following the centuries-old confines of his job in ruling against Kari Lake.
When I say "attributed to error", I didn't mean just "random machine error". Or I would have said that. With words that describe. I chose simply the word "error" so as to imply the multiple types of error there are. Did you know? Human error is a type of error! Human error does not happen consistently! I can only assume you didn't know, or you wouldn't have said such silly things like
"Any error would have been consistent across the entire set of scanners". And that is how I know you know nothing about computers or manufacturing! That is ABSOLUTELY not how things work. You get duds in mass-produced shipments of electronics all the time, and the rest of the box is fine. You can buy 20 brand new computers, the same type, from the same person, set them up and all have them run the exact same inputs, and within a week you could see differences in some of the machines if you're unlucky.
I would love a link to "the vast majority" were set to 19 instead of 20, instead of the 1200 ballots I heard from the Lake team.
And yes, it is conjecture, since you apparently don't know what conjecture means either. It is conjecture that the scanner settings changes were malicious and anything other than a result of trying to get the scanners to print. It's very weak conjecture since those 1200 ballots were counted, so failing to see the harm there. It is not conjecture that settings were changed, which the State has not disputed. Settings being changed as a result of the product not performing the intended action is not against the law.
Now, this would be a big whole to-do and a massive issue if those affected ballots were never counted. But they were counted. So the best fraud the Lake team could come up with is some people had to wait longer than they wanted to vote. They couldn't prove harm or intention, and they couldn't get anyone willing to perjure themselves. The Lake legal team messed up.
Damn. Obviously I can tell you don't give a damn what I think, but I gotta say that is just a shameful way to respond to someone that is seemingly speaking in good faith. I don't like the results any more than the next guy but I just know that reflexively making enemies of people that say the slightest thing you don't like to hear is either a sign of real antisocial underpinnings, or just plain old weakness. Either way it's not the kind of bearing that inspires credibility. Which is what is needed in ANY movement that involves the dissemination of "truth".
It just sucks when someone gets labelled "You Hobbs motherfuckers" apparently for no reason other than lack of absolute and vocal spewing venom and hate about it. Some people put that energy into maintaining sober focus and reappraising evidence and plans. The guy you responded to has insite that is useful moving forward. And didn't needlessly alienate valuable allies.
I realize you won't be able to see this as constructive criticism, but I hope you learn how to be part of a cohesive group of like-minded individuals that may have different perspectives.
Merry Christmas you old salty Anon. I think you are valuable.
So why do I think Im full on praying she continues to present better and better evidence and hope she ultimately prevails? Seems like that's the essence of someone that is exactly not what you are trying to convince me of. Brother, are just hateful? I genuinely think we are on the same side but you are suspiciously against your own teammates. Don't be like that. Hate be cloudin your judgement. Be cool.
And fwiw, I didn't pick up on the bad faith. I think if I hadn't seen you flip so hard and fast to judgement, I would maybe believe you right off. But the credibility isn't what it could have been. And I'm being sincere about this. Again, I bet you don't care. But I hope you do. We need smart anons more than just angry ones. Imo
That's conjecture, though. I'm sorry, but the Lake team never offered evidence that meets the current tests and standards. You can and arguably should argue that the tests for evidence should change, but the entire point of judges is to follow laws as written over pursuing the most "correct" outcome.
Lake couldn't put up a single witness who said they saw direct tampering, and all evidence of irregularities could just as easily be attributed to error (any IT professional will tell you that when doing live event work, things can get more broken before they get fixed, especially if you have volunteers in the staffing pool) whether human or computer as it could be attributed to malice. Lake didn't come prepared with any witnesses who could say they saw someone intentionally change settings, just that printer settings were changed. That's simply not enough - and there's a reason why the court and the court of public opinion are kept as separate as possible.
And then you throw in that the Lake team's best argument were just 1200 ballots that all ended up being counted, things just took time? I'm sorry, but the judge was only following the centuries-old confines of his job in ruling against Kari Lake.
8 of 10 challenges made by Lake’s lawyers were rejected outright. Kinda difficult to present everything you’d like when… you can’t.
100% this, she came empty handed
I'll remind you that ladies are present, good sir. And this is a Christian establishment. ಠ_ಠ
Y'all don't do sarcasm here huh? My bad. Thought horse biscuits was fun and wanted a jokey reply.
When I say "attributed to error", I didn't mean just "random machine error". Or I would have said that. With words that describe. I chose simply the word "error" so as to imply the multiple types of error there are. Did you know? Human error is a type of error! Human error does not happen consistently! I can only assume you didn't know, or you wouldn't have said such silly things like
"Any error would have been consistent across the entire set of scanners". And that is how I know you know nothing about computers or manufacturing! That is ABSOLUTELY not how things work. You get duds in mass-produced shipments of electronics all the time, and the rest of the box is fine. You can buy 20 brand new computers, the same type, from the same person, set them up and all have them run the exact same inputs, and within a week you could see differences in some of the machines if you're unlucky.
I would love a link to "the vast majority" were set to 19 instead of 20, instead of the 1200 ballots I heard from the Lake team.
And yes, it is conjecture, since you apparently don't know what conjecture means either. It is conjecture that the scanner settings changes were malicious and anything other than a result of trying to get the scanners to print. It's very weak conjecture since those 1200 ballots were counted, so failing to see the harm there. It is not conjecture that settings were changed, which the State has not disputed. Settings being changed as a result of the product not performing the intended action is not against the law.
Now, this would be a big whole to-do and a massive issue if those affected ballots were never counted. But they were counted. So the best fraud the Lake team could come up with is some people had to wait longer than they wanted to vote. They couldn't prove harm or intention, and they couldn't get anyone willing to perjure themselves. The Lake legal team messed up.
I'm more of a Calvin
Damn. Obviously I can tell you don't give a damn what I think, but I gotta say that is just a shameful way to respond to someone that is seemingly speaking in good faith. I don't like the results any more than the next guy but I just know that reflexively making enemies of people that say the slightest thing you don't like to hear is either a sign of real antisocial underpinnings, or just plain old weakness. Either way it's not the kind of bearing that inspires credibility. Which is what is needed in ANY movement that involves the dissemination of "truth".
It just sucks when someone gets labelled "You Hobbs motherfuckers" apparently for no reason other than lack of absolute and vocal spewing venom and hate about it. Some people put that energy into maintaining sober focus and reappraising evidence and plans. The guy you responded to has insite that is useful moving forward. And didn't needlessly alienate valuable allies.
I realize you won't be able to see this as constructive criticism, but I hope you learn how to be part of a cohesive group of like-minded individuals that may have different perspectives.
Merry Christmas you old salty Anon. I think you are valuable.
So why do I think Im full on praying she continues to present better and better evidence and hope she ultimately prevails? Seems like that's the essence of someone that is exactly not what you are trying to convince me of. Brother, are just hateful? I genuinely think we are on the same side but you are suspiciously against your own teammates. Don't be like that. Hate be cloudin your judgement. Be cool.
And fwiw, I didn't pick up on the bad faith. I think if I hadn't seen you flip so hard and fast to judgement, I would maybe believe you right off. But the credibility isn't what it could have been. And I'm being sincere about this. Again, I bet you don't care. But I hope you do. We need smart anons more than just angry ones. Imo