Will Adam Laxalt Sue Over Washoe County Blackout When Lead Was Cut in Half?

[munkle]

If the Nevada senate election were a piece of clothing and I gave it the smell test, I wouldn't even bother putting it in the washing machine I would just throw it out.


Will Adam Laxalt Sue Over Washoe County Blackout When Lead Was Cut in Half?

"It is not often that election stealers hand someone such a clear moment in time when election laws were violated, and a patently unbelievable coincidence took place which strongly affected the outcome of the election. Mandatory, not optional, surveillance cameras in Nevada’s second most populous county go dark overnight, and when they come back up the Trump-endorsed GOP candidate’s lead has been cut in half.

Nevertheless, the GOP governor and lt. governor candidates won by solid margins, the lt. governor-elect by 5 full percentage points. And the results were announced the very same night. Talk about not passing the smell test."

Cameras Go Dark at Vote Counting Facility in Key Nevada County | SGT Report

www.sgtreport.com

"Cameras at the vote counting facility in a Nevada county still counting midterm election votes stopped broadcasting overnight, officials said on Nov. 10.

The livestream computer application that provides the feeds “lost connection with” the cameras at 11:24 p.m. on Wednesday, according to Bethany Drysdale, a spokesperson for Washoe County."

 

[MisterBeale]

Do you have any more concrete and better sources to keep this from being moved into the CT or badlands?

 

[Rambunctious]

We should all sue to get our fair and legitimate elections back... but we have absolute cowards running the GOP....

 

[MisterBeale]

I have no evidence that he is considering suing, it just seems like speculation at this point.

 

[MisterBeale]

This is the latest I have.

 

[MisterBeale]

 

[toobfreak]

It is not often that election stealers hand someone such a clear moment in time when election laws were violated, and a patently unbelievable coincidence took place which strongly affected the outcome of the election. Mandatory, not optional, surveillance cameras in Nevada’s second most populous county go dark overnight, and when they come back up the Trump-endorsed GOP candidate’s lead has been cut in half.

Well, you see, it works this way:

1. You blatantly steal an election from the GOP because they're too lazy and stupid to have any system in place to prevent it.
2. Then you beat them to the punchline a second time by ridiculing them for being ludicrous, baseless, debunked "election deniers!"
3. Then you declare election deniers all a national threat to democracy after spending years and millions of dollars trying to deny the 2016 election because you took Trump so not seriously, he blew right in under your radar.
4. Then you steal the midterms despite the UNIVERSAL agreement this would be a GOP pasting, again, blatantly.
5. Now, all you have to do is call them election deniers again as proof of your warnings all along that they are a cult of dangerous MAGA coupists looking to overthrow democracy and you and the media can now forever minimalize them, leaving you wide and clear now as their being the only obstacle to stealing every election making the USA a one-party installed totalitarian oligarchy.

 

[MisterBeale]

Adam Laxalt speaks to Tucker on the state of his Nevada Senate race | Fox News Video

Nevada U.S. senate candidate Adam Laxalt says the system is 'very, very flawed' as votes continue to trickle in days after election day on 'Tucker Carlson Tonight.'

www.foxnews.com

 

[toobfreak]

Adam Laxalt speaks to Tucker on the state of his Nevada Senate race | Fox News Video

Nevada U.S. senate candidate Adam Laxalt says the system is 'very, very flawed' as votes continue to trickle in days after election day on 'Tucker Carlson Tonight.'

www.foxnews.com

That's all fine, unless a whole bunch of democrats planned to wait till election day so that the GOP would count on them all being republicans.

 

[BackAgain]

Do you have any more concrete and better sources to keep this from being moved into the CT or badlands?

Who determines, here, the “quality” of a source?

 

[MisterBeale]

Who determines, here, the “quality” of a source?

You absolutely have a great point. I am in total agreement.

IMO? I think it comes down to, how many times a particular source has made a mistake, how many times they have gotten the story right, and how many times they have gotten the facts right.


I did not move this thread until I checked Adam Laxalt's twitter thread and campaign site for news that there would be a suit. Mostly, because I am familiar with both sites that were linked in the OP, and they have both gotten information hopelessly wrong in the past.

. . . and I checked what I consider a broad unbiased search engine as well. A lot of folks in the back won't even check first. That is YOUR job to get it right.


When I post threads, I look for multiple sources. That is how good science operates as well, it is called, "peer-review."

This particular member, tends to fall for stories, that NEVER abide by the "two source rule." It always makes me suspect. Some think he does this on purpose.

If you are going to post a story, I don't care WHICH source you use, but if you can't find more than one source reporting the same story?

The Two-Source Rule

In journalism, there’s something called the two-source rule. The rule generally states that when sourcing information, a fact isn’t entirely credible unless it can be verified by two sources. Valid…

communicationclamor.wordpress.com

Eight Simple Rules for Doing Accurate Journalism

Some new, some old, some wonderfully clichéd

archives.cjr.org

 

[MisterBeale]

That's all fine, unless a whole bunch of democrats planned to wait till election day so that the GOP would count on them all being republicans.

IF we are being completely honest. . . and since this is already in the CT zone?

I think there is a large private intel subcontractor somewhere in Florida that has perfected this entire thing, going back to 2018.

A lot of it, has been based off of these professionals doing it in foreign nations for years.

When the entire MSM corporate press establishment, as well as the legal establishment, and each and every other professional association depends on the pronouncements of this interlocking establishment, it really does not matter when, or even if it all becomes rotten. Especially if they can make anyone that says anything about it all, look silly in the eyes of sober citizens.




There is a whole network, of Deep State corporations and foundations, and it is WAY beyond just the DNC or GOP. I noticed, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's brother, was in the DoJ during Trump's time, and he helped with it.

IMO? I think it was in Broward County, that they perfected how to tilt and slant elections. If folks are wedded to the idea that Trump is not in on this? He lives down there now. I don't think that is coincidence.

Folks might get burned if they are too trusting.


I did not believe there would be a "red wave," that would materialize. As long as they can convince a significant portion of the population through propagadanda and free stuff, that things aren't so bad, the rest can be manurfactured and gas-lit that the reality of the voting, is how the count is what the computers and mail in votes say it is.

That is not important here. A sure sign of the deception a foot, is when Trump is attacking folks in his own party, to maintain control over it all.

Trump's former campaign manager threatens to commit suicide

What's going on? 2020 had been the strangest year by far...

www.usmessageboard.com

Stolen Elections

I'm pretty much sure that i'm on board with most of the country and they're on board with me.

www.usmessageboard.com

Will People Ever Be Held Responsible For The Election Of 2020?

:shutupsmiley: shill. That's no a legal nor logical argument.

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[toobfreak]

Who determines, here, the “quality” of a source?

 

[BackAgain]

You absolutely have a great point. I am in total agreement.

IMO? I think it comes down to, how many times a particular source has made a mistake, how many times they have gotten the story right, and how many times they have gotten the facts right.


I did not move this thread until I checked Adam Laxalt's twitter thread and campaign site for news that there would be a suit. Mostly, because I am familiar with both sites that were linked in the OP, and they have both gotten information hopelessly wrong in the past.

. . . and I checked what I consider a broad unbiased search engine as well. A lot of folks in the back won't even check first. That is YOUR job to get it right.


When I post threads, I look for multiple sources. That is how good science operates as well, it is called, "peer-review."

This particular member, tends to fall for stories, that NEVER abide by the "two source rule." It always makes me suspect. Some think he does this on purpose.

If you are going to post a story, I don't care WHICH source you use, but if you can't find more than one source reporting the same story?

The Two-Source Rule

In journalism, there’s something called the two-source rule. The rule generally states that when sourcing information, a fact isn’t entirely credible unless it can be verified by two sources. Valid…

communicationclamor.wordpress.com

Eight Simple Rules for Doing Accurate Journalism

Some new, some old, some wonderfully clichéd

archives.cjr.org

The rules seem to indicate that one should provide “a” source.

If you happen not to credit the source cited, then you have a reason to debate the poster citing it. You remain free to offer your own contrary opinions and provide your own sources. But, frankly, as a mod, I don’t believe it is properly up to you to move threads or shit them down merely because you hold the opinion that “a” cited source lacks credibility.

(As for the professional reporting rule of two sources, that’s fine in theory. But let’s be realistic. They tend to “cite” unnamed sources “close to” the investigation etc. in other words, they can simply make shit up. I no longer trust the news or the antiquated notion of the principles they used to have.)

 

[MisterBeale]

The rules seem to indicate that one should provide “a” source.

If you happen not to credit the source cited, then you have a reason to debate the poster citing it. You remain free to offer your own contrary opinions and provide your own sources. But, frankly, as a mod, I don’t believe it is properly up to you to move threads or shit them down merely because you hold the opinion that “a” cited source lacks credibility.

(As for the professional reporting rule of two sources, that’s fine in theory. But let’s be realistic. They tend to “cite” unnamed sources “close to” the investigation etc. in other words, they can simply make shit up. I no longer trust the news or the antiquated notion of the principles they used to have.)

So then, should we then leave threads that use INFOWARS, or Veterans Today as their primary source to start threads, and just leave them in politics?

How about The Globe, should we start allowing that as a source?

According to YOAR logic, where does this end?

 

[BackAgain]

So then, should we then leave threads that use INFOWARS, or Veterans Today as their primary source to start threads, and just leave them in politics?

How about The Globe, should we start allowing that as a source?

According to YOAR logic, where does this end?

I — like you — can mock ANY source. And often for damn good reason. But that’s not the question, as I believe you know.

The question remains: what does the USMB “rule” actually say? And a related question is whether it is properly up to any mod to unilaterally change that rule.

Mister Beale. Don’t get me wrong. I like you and your general style here. In fact, even with regard to another mod who I believe has taken a distinct dislike of me, I most often find him to be fair and reasonable. I’m only saying that if you find a citation to be of no real value, expose it. But don’t move threads or delete threads just because the OP’s cited source is considered lame. That’s not what the USMB rules call for.