Is This Why Kari Lake Lost?

[Faun]

Why do I need a link for asking a question?

Read previous posts.

Why should anyone answer your hypothetical questions?

 

[cnm]

What you're saying, with a straight face, you care enough to go to vote, and you leave half of ballot empty.

Herschel Walker hears you.

 

[Chillicothe]

That’s an accusation.

Ummm, noper. It ain't.

Now, on the other hand, good poster 'Lantern"...if you are voluntarily self-identifying as a QAnon nutter, or a QAnon Anti-Semite....well, mein freund, that is on you. Not my poor avatar.

So, getting to the nub of the issue: Are you an Anti-Semite? A QAnon Anti-Semite? Or any other kind of Anti-Semite?

Saddle up, Skippy.

 

[Chillicothe]

"Majority of leftist wanted to fine Americans for not getting a jab. Majority of leftist wanted to require those who didn't get jab to stay at home. Half of leftist wanted to fine, or imprison people for just questioning "vaccines". Half of you lefties were proposing government tracking program for people that were not jabbed. About one third of lefties wanted to remove the children from parents who didn't get a jab. You were all denying Trump's election for four years, and even longer, while calling us deniers. You sent FBI after parent who were questioning school boards. You sent IRS after people who were speaking against the left. You call everyone who doesn't agree with you a terrorist, right wing extremist, etc. You censor everyone who speak against you..."

• "Majority....
• Half of .......
• One third.....
• You were all .....
• You call everyone ....
• You censor everyone....."

Well, that was a remarkable little keyboard exercise from the good poster Americano. Even had some quantifiable allegations (e.g., 'majority', 'half' 'a third').

So, metrics are metrics, and most of the time are understandable by most people. Which gives good poster Americano an advantage in proving his assertions. He can simply go to his relied-upon sources and share with the forum those numbers.

Batter up, mi amigo! Give it your best shot. Show us what you've got.

 

[FA_Q2]

No, I asked you simple question, and you still couldn't give straight answer. So much about your reasoning.

Let's try again...

Would you consider fraud if number of counted ballots is higher than number of registered voters? Yes or no.

I gave you a yes or no. And then I explained it in full. Because that is what you do when you are not actively trying to remain ignorant.

Apparently you cant even read.

 

[j-mac]

How do Democrats misinterpret the Constitution in your view?

Depends on what they want at the moment.

 

[rightwinger]

Depends on what they want at the moment.

Non answer

 

[lantern2814]

Ummm, noper. It ain't.

Now, on the other hand, good poster 'Lantern"...if you are voluntarily self-identifying as a QAnon nutter, or a QAnon Anti-Semite....well, mein freund, that is on you. Not my poor avatar.

So, getting to the nub of the issue: Are you an Anti-Semite? A QAnon Anti-Semite? Or any other kind of Anti-Semite?

Saddle up, Skippy.

How about you get an education retard? You made an accusation and now don’t have the guts to back up YOUR accusation. No surprise. Are you an empty suit? A coward? A liar who can’t back up his accusations? Yes to all three. Show any Anti-Semitic remarks I’ve made Sparky. Saddle up.

 

[Ame®icano]

Ah, so you are going that "I'm just asking questions" Tucker Carlson thing.

Let's see...

Here is the first one:

Just to check your reasoning, let me ask you simple question, unrelated to above.

I'm not saying it's the case, but hypothetically, would you consider fraud if number of counted ballots is higher than number of registered voters?
Yes or no would be enough.

Here is the second one:

No, I asked you simple question, and you still couldn't give straight answer. So much about your reasoning.

Let's try again...

Would you consider fraud if number of counted ballots is higher than number of registered voters? Yes or no.

What does it looks like to you?

No leftist can answer simple question.

 

[Ame®icano]

All you showed is that even fewer voters were interested in voting for AG. And the discrepancy between SoS and AG, neither of which had a Libertarian running, was only about 12K. Thanks for reaffirming what I posted.

Reaffirming? Not even close.

Do you have any proof, other than your guess, that people who voted, filled the partial ballot?

 

[Ame®icano]

Why should anyone answer your hypothetical questions?

I explained that earlier. Even if I didn't, why does it matter.

If you're not interested in answering, why are you replying?

But no, you can troll with your hypothetical unfunded replies about "why discrepancies", but you can't answer the question that was asked.

 

[Ame®icano]

Herschel Walker hears you.

What he has to to with this thread?

 

[Faun]

Reaffirming? Not even close.

Do you have any proof, other than your guess, that people who voted, filled the partial ballot?

Yes, reafirming.

I pointing out the 50K discrepancy in the Senate race came from the Libertarian candidate. The Republican candidates for Senate and SoS were close with each other as were the votes for the Democrats in those races. The Libertarian got 53K, which could explain the 50K gap as many 3rd party posters here often say they refuse to vote for the duopoly.

You then point out the Attorney General race. That was very close to the above SoS race, which also didn't have a Libertarian in the race and was seperated by just about 12K votes.

 

[Ame®icano]

• "Majority....
• Half of .......
• One third.....
• You were all .....
• You call everyone ....
• You censor everyone....."

Well, that was a remarkable little keyboard exercise from the good poster Americano. Even had some quantifiable allegations (e.g., 'majority', 'half' 'a third').

So, metrics are metrics, and most of the time are understandable by most people. Which gives good poster Americano an advantage in proving his assertions. He can simply go to his relied-upon sources and share with the forum those numbers.

Batter up, mi amigo! Give it your best shot. Show us what you've got.

I wrote that from something I've seen while back. Yep, It's not censored, yet.

>50% would be "majority"
~50% would be "half of"
~29% is about "one third"

 

[Faun]

I explained that earlier. Even if I didn't, why does it matter.

If you're not interested in answering, why are you replying?

But no, you can troll with your hypothetical unfunded replies about "why discrepancies", but you can't answer the question that was asked.

It matters because it's irrelevant. Ask questions about things that actually happened. Had that actually happened, I would have answered, "probably."

 

[Ame®icano]

I gave you a yes or no. And then I explained it in full. Because that is what you do when you are not actively trying to remain ignorant.

Apparently you cant even read.

No, you gave me an explanation, with conditional answer, unrelated to what I asked.

Plus you provided links to "fact checkers" who are just MSM employees that spins MSM lies. If you can rely on them, you're stupider™ than I thought.

 

[Chillicothe]

"You made an accusation and now don’t have the guts to back up YOUR accusation"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Umm, poor poster Lantern, your defensiveness is starting to appear a bit like paranoia.
But, we can be patient with your avatar. You seem sincerely hurt by what you imagine.
So, we hear you. We understand your pain. Let's take it one step at time.

First, what my avatar posted was this:
"So, yeah, my avatar has read previously on this gossipboard that the term 'groomer' and, for that matter the name "Soros" is a sign of a QAnon nutjob. Or maybe he read that using the term "Soros" was really a dogwhistle for anti-Semites to signal each other? Is poster "Lantern" self-identifying as either? Or both?"

My avatar's assertion is that..."he read".
And that is true. He has read that observation about groomers, and anti-Semites.
Are you asserting that my avatar is lying about having read that here?

Now, to be sure we recognize that you may possibly be turning that inward. And maybe self-identifying as a groomer, or an anti-Semite. My overworked avatar would not know if you are either, or both. But perhaps you do?

Are you one....or the other?
If so, well, how did you come to be that?

 

[FA_Q2]

No, you gave me an explanation, with conditional answer, unrelated to what I asked.

Plus you provided links to "fact checkers" who are just MSM employees that spins MSM lies. If you can rely on them, you're stupider™ than I thought.

That was not a conditional answer, it was an answer that included relevant conditions.

That you want to remove any relevant conditions does not speak to my inability to answer your contrived question that had false premises. It just shows that the question was not honest in the first place.

Perhaps you can explain why you want relevant context removed?

 

[lantern2814]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Umm, poor poster Lantern, your defensiveness is starting to appear a bit like paranoia.
But, we can be patient with your avatar. You seem sincerely hurt by what you imagine.
So, we hear you. We understand your pain. Let's take it one step at time.

First, what my avatar posted was this:
"So, yeah, my avatar has read previously on this gossipboard that the term 'groomer' and, for that matter the name "Soros" is a sign of a QAnon nutjob. Or maybe he read that using the term "Soros" was really a dogwhistle for anti-Semites to signal each other? Is poster "Lantern" self-identifying as either? Or both?"

My avatar's assertion is that..."he read".
And that is true. He has read that observation about groomers, and anti-Semites.
Are you asserting that my avatar is lying about having read that here?

Now, to be sure we recognize that you may possibly be turning that inward. And maybe self-identifying as a groomer, or an anti-Semite. My overworked avatar would not know if you are either, or both. But perhaps you do?

Are you one....or the other?
If so, well, how did you come to be that?

Now throwing out more accusations. I identify as neither of those thIngs asshole. Though from your projection we can plainly see what you are.... and it ain’t pretty Cletus.

 

[munkle]

I wonder. A woman who made her living reporting the news is somehow unable to find any proof of cheating that would hold up in court.

Are you nuts?