Kari Lake wins AZ Repub primary for governor

NavigatorII

Bull Gator
Dec 8, 2004
13,514
26,106
113
She hasn't been around lately......hmmmm.....(singing) "oh where oh where has our little Nole gone, oh where oh where can she beee" 😂
I understand the 2020 let's move on, and secure elections. That part. What I don't understand is defending Cocaine Mitch, the Turtle. He's gotta go, replaced by an America first candidate. And we all know that can't be an Dimrat.
 

jfegaly

Bull Gator
Feb 1, 2006
7,639
12,695
113
I understand the 2020 let's move on, and secure elections. That part. What I don't understand is defending Cocaine Mitch, the Turtle. He's gotta go, replaced by an America first candidate. And we all know that can't be an Dimrat.
Problem is, you can’t just move on, until you address what happened in 2020. And the folks saying just move on….that’s what they mean. They just want to kick the can down the road (nominate a new candidate) and act like 2020 election fraud didn’t happen.
He who doesn’t address and learn from history is doomed to repeat it.

The problem with all that? If pubs nominate a different candidate, the dems strategy worked. Give them an inch, they will take a mile. At some point, folks gotta take a stand….errrr git of their porch. The only way this corruption ends, is “we the people” take a stand and say “we will not move on”.

That shit needs to end. Now.
 
Oct 1, 2012
30,085
39,070
113
Problem is, you can’t just move on, until you address what happened in 2020. And the folks saying just move on….that’s what they mean. They just want to kick the can down the road (nominate a new candidate) and act like 2020 election fraud didn’t happen.
He who doesn’t address and learn from history is doomed to repeat it.

The problem with all that? If pubs nominate a different candidate, the dems strategy worked. Give them an inch, they will take a mile. At some point, folks gotta take a stand….errrr git of their porch. The only way this corruption ends, is “we the people” take a stand and say “we will not move on”.

That shit needs to end. Now.

You are exactly right. I saw a supposed conservative on another site claiming that if you are saying don't vote till we have election integrity then you are the enemy. Their rationale was we have to vote for the people that will put election integrity first!

Ask Kari Lake how that works. The AZ race should have been called an hour after the polls closed. Instead we are 2 days later and they are still trying to drag it out and steal the election.

Voting is pointless if the process is corrupt.

Until we remove the corruption, the rest is pointless.

'Just move on' is precisely what the cheaters want. I'm stunned that some supposedly intelligent people who claim to be republicans, can't see that. Or would be so emotional to let their TDS blind them to it.
 

goldmom

Ring of Honor
Mar 29, 2002
51,403
4,913
113
The level of stupid in here to attack a Republican who voted for DJT twice and donated to him twice is so deep I can’t do anything but SMH.

The dwindling number in this daisy chain circle jerk is Exhibit A of how a (small) echo chamber works.

Quite frankly I suspect some of you are Democom operatives. And the rest of you are just slow enough to be had...

DeSantis ‘24
Over and out!
 

jfegaly

Bull Gator
Feb 1, 2006
7,639
12,695
113
The level of stupid in here to attack a Republican who voted for DJT twice and donated to him twice is so deep I can’t do anything but SMH.

The dwindling number in this daisy chain circle jerk is Exhibit A of how a (small) echo chamber works.

Quite frankly I suspect some of you are Democom operatives. And the rest of you are just slow enough to be had...

DeSantis ‘24
Over and out!
Well, liz cheney supported Trump also, so I can see where you’re coming from on level of stupid. Birds of a feather, flock together.

Aren’t you too old to vote?

Also….it’s either over or out, not both.
 
Last edited:

sadgator

Bull Gator
Jan 9, 2002
21,554
13,219
113
Copper Monkey 30 minutes prior to kickoff


"Despite a double-digit polling lead a day before the election, Republican gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake was nearly stunned by Karrin Taylor Robson in the Arizona primary.

Lake spent the entire night clawing back from being way behind. The reason: Early voting and mail-in ballots were the first counted and Robson outperformed anyone’s wildest dreams in those arenas. In the end, in-person voting won out, delivering the victory for Lake."


As I said, until we establish election integrity, there's no point having elections. This was the test run for the real election in November.
Lol that you still believe in widespread election fraud…

melissa-carone.jpg
 

jfegaly

Bull Gator
Feb 1, 2006
7,639
12,695
113
Lol that you still believe in widespread election fraud…

melissa-carone.jpg

Sup?
 
Oct 1, 2012
30,085
39,070
113

Sup?
Fitting that @sadgator slinks back to the board on the same day that Hiden declares monkeypox is a Public Health Emergency. A status that hoax flu still has as well.

Sheep never think to question.
 
Oct 1, 2012
30,085
39,070
113
Well, liz cheney supported Trump also, so I can see where you’re coming from on level of stupid. Birds of a feather, flock together.

Aren’t you too old to vote?

Also….it’s either over or out, not both.
Let's put this in football terms that maybe @goldmom can understand.

Let's say it's 1999 and Florida State is in the middle of its season. Well in the middle of the season, Mickey Andrews normally solid defense gives up 50 points to Virginia and FSU loses by 20.

The next day, Andrews is huddled up with his defensive staff in the film room trying to figure out what went wrong. After a few hours, Bowden busts in the film room and says 'Dangnabbit yall! We lost! It's over, JUST MOVE ON! It don't matter HOW we lost, but we LOST! Now let's go win the next one!!!!"

Andrews has no idea how they lost the first one, but the next opponent watches film of the Virginia-FSU game, spots the same weakness in the defense, and exploits it as well, and FSU loses again.

That's why you don't 'just move on'.

But Hiden, obama and hildabeast think 'just move on' is the winning play. Think about it, toots.
 

jfegaly

Bull Gator
Feb 1, 2006
7,639
12,695
113
Love it.

just want to point out to our dem friends how important language is in this stuff.

From the article:

“The former president last year endorsed Lake, who is a strong supporter of Trump’s repeated and unproven claims that his 2020 election loss to President Biden was due to massive voter fraud.”

If that was CNN, MSNBC, CBS, Or any other in the long line of liberal media outlets…..unproven claims, would be swapped for false claims.
 

RayGravesGhost

Gator Great
Gold Member
Jun 13, 2021
4,598
1,572
113
OK....all of you trumpazees can simmer down

Lake won a fraudulent election based on mail-in voting :rolleyes:


Early election results showing only mail ballots received before Election Day gave Robson a solid lead, but that was whittled down as votes from polling places were added to the tally. Lake's victory became clear Thursday when Maricopa County released results from thousands of mail ballots dropped off at the polls on Tuesday.

“The voters of Arizona have spoken,” Robson said in a statement conceding to Lake late Thursday. “I accept the results, I trust the process and the people who administer it.”

Lake spent the days leading up to her own election claiming there were signs of fraud, but she refused to provide any evidence. Once her victory was assured, she said voters should trust her win is legitimate.

“We outvoted the fraud,” Lake said. She pointed to problems in Pinal County, which ran out of ballots in some precincts and had to print more, but she and her attorney, Tim La Sota, refused to provide evidence backing up her claims of fraud.
 

Capt Ron 1

Bull Gator
Gold Member
Nov 29, 2021
6,818
10,851
113
61
Fort Walton Bch, Fl
The level of stupid in here to attack a Republican who voted for DJT twice and donated to him twice is so deep I can’t do anything but SMH.

The dwindling number in this daisy chain circle jerk is Exhibit A of how a (small) echo chamber works.

Quite frankly I suspect some of you are Democom operatives. And the rest of you are just slow enough to be had...

DeSantis ‘24
Over and out!
He will not be on the ticket. When Trump is...you voting blue? Spread Eagle? Pete Buttplugger? Gavin Newscum?
 

BillCutting4585

Bull Gator
Gold Member
Oct 15, 2020
5,821
9,827
113
Apparently, you don't know jack-shyt about how your Demo-Communist heroes and RINOs collaborate to outspend America-First candidates by generating fallacious commercial ads and fake ballots to win elections. Then again, you read Vanity Fair and Salon of all things.....must have sugar in your tank
He doesn’t know anything, he just regurgitates left talking points
 

BillCutting4585

Bull Gator
Gold Member
Oct 15, 2020
5,821
9,827
113
Oh FFS................local news is usually even more retarded than national news. Same cucks, just way way less talented. 😂
When big brother hands over the talking points to the national news and then the national news sends over its talking points to local news, a generation of @RayGravesGhost are born. A generation of shit eaters who blindly follow what they are told and are good little lap soldiers who defend it all.
 

NavigatorII

Bull Gator
Dec 8, 2004
13,514
26,106
113
When big brother hands over the talking points to the national news and then the national news sends over its talking points to local news, a generation of @RayGravesGhost are born. A generation of shit eaters who blindly follow what they are told and are good little lap soldiers who defend it all.
All of our local news stations are owned by the bigger networks, that's why they are affiliates. Some of the local newz "talent" is extremely laughable. :oops: They are effectively grooming new Toomers, Cuomos, Don Lemons, Jake Tapper, Cuck Stelters, Mad Cow Maddows........

Petri dishes for the new sewers.
 

NavigatorII

Bull Gator
Dec 8, 2004
13,514
26,106
113
So it wasn't Lake herself that claimed fraud in the republican only primary?

Poor bill...too dumb to understand the truth...too partisan to not lie about it
What part of "dark money" political contributions does our newest Jerry Lewis Telethon winner not understand? 😂
 
  • Wow
Reactions: nail1988

RayGravesGhost

Gator Great
Gold Member
Jun 13, 2021
4,598
1,572
113
What part of "dark money" political contributions does our newest Jerry Lewis Telethon winner not understand? 😂

Dark money contributions are voting fraud?

...then we know who to blame for making it legal


https://www.vox.com/2021/7/1/225593...citizens-united-john-roberts-donor-disclosure
The Supreme Court just made Citizens United even worse
It’s a great day for dark money.

By Ian Millhiser Jul 1, 2021, 3:15pm EDT

In its infamous decision in Citizens United v. FEC (2010), the Supreme Court tossed a bone to lawmakers seeking to regulate money in politics. With a few exceptions, Citizens United stripped the government of its power to limit the amount of spending on elections, especially by corporations. But the decision also gave the Court’s blessing to nearly all laws requiring campaigns and political organizations to disclose their donors.

They’ve now stripped most of the lingering meat off that bone.

On Thursday, the Court handed down a 6-3 decision in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, which flips Citizens United’s approach to disclosure laws on its head.

Before Thursday, the Court treated most disclosure laws as valid, and it typically only allowed plaintiffs who objected to such a law to seek an exemption from it — not to seek a court order striking down the law altogether. After Americans for Prosperity, there is now a presumption that all such laws are unconstitutional — although this presumption might be rebuttable in some cases.

As Justice Sonia Sotomayor writes in a dissenting opinion, “today’s analysis marks reporting and disclosure requirements with a bull’s-eye.” The upshot is that wealthy donors now have far more ability to shape American politics in secret — and that ability is only likely to grow as judges rely on the decision in Americans for Prosperity to strike down other donor disclosure laws.


Americans for Prosperity was brought by two conservative organizations — the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, a conservative advocacy group closely associated with the billionaire Koch brothers; and the Thomas More Law Center, a conservative law firm that claims it was formed to promote “America’s Judeo-Christian heritage” — against a California regulation requiring charities that wish to raise tax-deductible funds in California to disclose their largest contributors to the state attorney general’s office. So the actual law at issue in this case is fairly far afield from actual campaigns for political office.


But Chief Justice John Roberts’s opinion for himself and his fellow conservative justices has broad implications for all donor disclosure laws. It writes a new legal standard that will allow many future challenges to those laws to succeed, and that also will likely lead to sweeping victories for many of the plaintiffs in such suits.

Americans for Prosperity destroys a consensus that used to exist between liberal and conservative justices​

Not that long ago, there was broad consensus that disclosure laws aren’t just permissible but essential in a democracy. As Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in a 2010 opinion:

Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed. For my part, I do not look forward to a society which, thanks to the Supreme Court, campaigns anonymously ... and even exercises the direct democracy of initiative and referendum hidden from public scrutiny and protected from the accountability of criticism. This does not resemble the Home of the Brave.
That consensus is now dead. Much of the Court’s right flank spent the oral argument in Americans for Prosperity rejecting Scalia’s “civic courage” in favor of a kind of paranoia over cancel culture. Justice Neil Gorsuch warned that the government could demand to see your “Christmas card lists” or to disclose your “dating history” to state regulators. Justice Samuel Alito spoke of “vandalism, death threats, physical violence, economic reprisals, [and] harassment in the workplace” directed against donors to an anti-LGBTQ campaign.

Under the previous consensus — the one announced in Citizens United — disclosure laws would be upheld so long as there is “a ‘substantial relation’ between the disclosure requirement and a ‘sufficiently important’ governmental interest.” Moreover, while some disclosure laws might be vulnerable to challenge, the Court typically only permitted “as applied” challenges, meaning that the plaintiff could seek an exemption from a particular disclosure law, but the law would still apply to other individuals or organizations. In other words, most disclosure laws were valid, and the onus was on the donors who wanted secrecy to prove they individually deserved it.

The Court’s previous decisions, moreover, suggested that the bar for bringing such an as-applied challenge is fairly high. The seminal decision establishing that some organizations must be exempted from disclosure laws is NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson (1958), which was an attempt by the state of Alabama to force the NAACP — then the nation’s preeminent civil rights organization — to disclose its membership.

Had the NAACP done so, Alabama could have turned those names over to the Ku Klux Klan, among other things.

The plaintiffs in Americans for Prosperity do allege that they were the victims of death threats and other sorts of inexcusable activity — Roberts points a statement from someone working in the same building as the AFP Foundation, who said that he could “easily walk into [the CEO’s] office and slit his throat” — but nothing that even approaches the constant threat of terroristic violence that civil rights activists faced in the Jim Crow South.

In any event, as Sotomayor writes in her dissent, she “would be sympathetic” to a decision that “simply granted as-applied relief” to these plaintiffs, because of the threats they’ve faced. But the Court goes much further, striking down California’s disclosure rules on their face — meaning that they are now invalid for everyone.

The Court rewrites the legal standard governing disclosure laws​

As mentioned above, Citizens United held that disclosure laws would be upheld so long as there is “a ‘substantial relation’ between the disclosure requirement and a ‘sufficiently important’ governmental interest.” Roberts’s opinion abandons that standard, holding that disclosure laws must be “narrowly tailored” to advance the government’s interest in requiring disclosure.

Most first-year law students will immediately recognize the significance of these two words, “narrowly tailored,” as it is part of the test the Supreme Court applies when it wishes to impose a very high presumption that certain laws are unconstitutional. The Court, for example, imposes a narrow tailoring requirement on laws that discriminate on the basis of race.

Though Americans for Prosperity does not go quite as far as it could have — it does not apply a test known as “strict scrutiny,” the most skeptical test the Court applies in constitutional challenges — it comes pretty damn close.

When the Court applies a narrow tailoring requirement, it signals that a law will typically be struck down if the government could have advanced its goal in some other way. The practical impact of Americans for Prosperity is that all disclosure laws, including campaign disclosure laws, are now vulnerable if a plaintiff can think of some other hypothetical way that the government might have fostered the goal of transparency.

Roberts justified such a result because he claims that “disclosure requirements can chill association ‘[e]ven if there [is] no disclosure to the general public.’” He fears, in other words, a world in which donors will choose not to donate to groups like the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, out of fear that their names will be disclosed.

And then, of course, there is the shift from as-applied to facial challenges. Rather than simply doling out exemptions to disclosure laws, courts are now much more likely to strike them down in their entirety.

The decision is, simply put, a disaster for anyone hoping to know how wealthy donors influence American politics.
 

RayGravesGhost

Gator Great
Gold Member
Jun 13, 2021
4,598
1,572
113


Sheep never think to question.


This was a video about Sinclair and its conservative affiliates you idiot 🤣
Didn't you notice all of the FOX News affiliates in the video?

They MANDATED their affiliates read this...to their sheep (you)

Sinclair Broadcast Group, the nation's largest owner of local television stations, is facing backlash from some of its anchors after the company's latest mandate, a promotional campaign that sounds like pro-Trump propaganda.



 

NavigatorII

Bull Gator
Dec 8, 2004
13,514
26,106
113
Dark money contributions are voting fraud?

...then we know who to blame for making it legal


https://www.vox.com/2021/7/1/225593...citizens-united-john-roberts-donor-disclosure
The Supreme Court just made Citizens United even worse
It’s a great day for dark money.

By Ian Millhiser Jul 1, 2021, 3:15pm EDT

In its infamous decision in Citizens United v. FEC (2010), the Supreme Court tossed a bone to lawmakers seeking to regulate money in politics. With a few exceptions, Citizens United stripped the government of its power to limit the amount of spending on elections, especially by corporations. But the decision also gave the Court’s blessing to nearly all laws requiring campaigns and political organizations to disclose their donors.

They’ve now stripped most of the lingering meat off that bone.

On Thursday, the Court handed down a 6-3 decision in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, which flips Citizens United’s approach to disclosure laws on its head.

Before Thursday, the Court treated most disclosure laws as valid, and it typically only allowed plaintiffs who objected to such a law to seek an exemption from it — not to seek a court order striking down the law altogether. After Americans for Prosperity, there is now a presumption that all such laws are unconstitutional — although this presumption might be rebuttable in some cases.

As Justice Sonia Sotomayor writes in a dissenting opinion, “today’s analysis marks reporting and disclosure requirements with a bull’s-eye.” The upshot is that wealthy donors now have far more ability to shape American politics in secret — and that ability is only likely to grow as judges rely on the decision in Americans for Prosperity to strike down other donor disclosure laws.


Americans for Prosperity was brought by two conservative organizations — the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, a conservative advocacy group closely associated with the billionaire Koch brothers; and the Thomas More Law Center, a conservative law firm that claims it was formed to promote “America’s Judeo-Christian heritage” — against a California regulation requiring charities that wish to raise tax-deductible funds in California to disclose their largest contributors to the state attorney general’s office. So the actual law at issue in this case is fairly far afield from actual campaigns for political office.


But Chief Justice John Roberts’s opinion for himself and his fellow conservative justices has broad implications for all donor disclosure laws. It writes a new legal standard that will allow many future challenges to those laws to succeed, and that also will likely lead to sweeping victories for many of the plaintiffs in such suits.

Americans for Prosperity destroys a consensus that used to exist between liberal and conservative justices​

Not that long ago, there was broad consensus that disclosure laws aren’t just permissible but essential in a democracy. As Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in a 2010 opinion:


That consensus is now dead. Much of the Court’s right flank spent the oral argument in Americans for Prosperity rejecting Scalia’s “civic courage” in favor of a kind of paranoia over cancel culture. Justice Neil Gorsuch warned that the government could demand to see your “Christmas card lists” or to disclose your “dating history” to state regulators. Justice Samuel Alito spoke of “vandalism, death threats, physical violence, economic reprisals, [and] harassment in the workplace” directed against donors to an anti-LGBTQ campaign.

Under the previous consensus — the one announced in Citizens United — disclosure laws would be upheld so long as there is “a ‘substantial relation’ between the disclosure requirement and a ‘sufficiently important’ governmental interest.” Moreover, while some disclosure laws might be vulnerable to challenge, the Court typically only permitted “as applied” challenges, meaning that the plaintiff could seek an exemption from a particular disclosure law, but the law would still apply to other individuals or organizations. In other words, most disclosure laws were valid, and the onus was on the donors who wanted secrecy to prove they individually deserved it.

The Court’s previous decisions, moreover, suggested that the bar for bringing such an as-applied challenge is fairly high. The seminal decision establishing that some organizations must be exempted from disclosure laws is NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson (1958), which was an attempt by the state of Alabama to force the NAACP — then the nation’s preeminent civil rights organization — to disclose its membership.

Had the NAACP done so, Alabama could have turned those names over to the Ku Klux Klan, among other things.

The plaintiffs in Americans for Prosperity do allege that they were the victims of death threats and other sorts of inexcusable activity — Roberts points a statement from someone working in the same building as the AFP Foundation, who said that he could “easily walk into [the CEO’s] office and slit his throat” — but nothing that even approaches the constant threat of terroristic violence that civil rights activists faced in the Jim Crow South.

In any event, as Sotomayor writes in her dissent, she “would be sympathetic” to a decision that “simply granted as-applied relief” to these plaintiffs, because of the threats they’ve faced. But the Court goes much further, striking down California’s disclosure rules on their face — meaning that they are now invalid for everyone.

The Court rewrites the legal standard governing disclosure laws​

As mentioned above, Citizens United held that disclosure laws would be upheld so long as there is “a ‘substantial relation’ between the disclosure requirement and a ‘sufficiently important’ governmental interest.” Roberts’s opinion abandons that standard, holding that disclosure laws must be “narrowly tailored” to advance the government’s interest in requiring disclosure.

Most first-year law students will immediately recognize the significance of these two words, “narrowly tailored,” as it is part of the test the Supreme Court applies when it wishes to impose a very high presumption that certain laws are unconstitutional. The Court, for example, imposes a narrow tailoring requirement on laws that discriminate on the basis of race.

Though Americans for Prosperity does not go quite as far as it could have — it does not apply a test known as “strict scrutiny,” the most skeptical test the Court applies in constitutional challenges — it comes pretty damn close.

When the Court applies a narrow tailoring requirement, it signals that a law will typically be struck down if the government could have advanced its goal in some other way. The practical impact of Americans for Prosperity is that all disclosure laws, including campaign disclosure laws, are now vulnerable if a plaintiff can think of some other hypothetical way that the government might have fostered the goal of transparency.

Roberts justified such a result because he claims that “disclosure requirements can chill association ‘[e]ven if there [is] no disclosure to the general public.’” He fears, in other words, a world in which donors will choose not to donate to groups like the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, out of fear that their names will be disclosed.

And then, of course, there is the shift from as-applied to facial challenges. Rather than simply doling out exemptions to disclosure laws, courts are now much more likely to strike them down in their entirety.

The decision is, simply put, a disaster for anyone hoping to know how wealthy donors influence American politics.
You just wasted a lot of dead air space and bandwidth.............

Soros backed bullshit. Not surprised you back this. 😂
 

RayGravesGhost

Gator Great
Gold Member
Jun 13, 2021
4,598
1,572
113
Right... the conservative SCOTUS didn't rule in favor in Citizen's United...

navi has a lot of dead air space...its located between his ears 🤣
 

RayGravesGhost

Gator Great
Gold Member
Jun 13, 2021
4,598
1,572
113
Says the idiot that didn't realize the video is about conservative news stations following the political orders of their owner and lying to their sheep viewers like navi

navi grazes on BS to get by 🤣
 

RayGravesGhost

Gator Great
Gold Member
Jun 13, 2021
4,598
1,572
113
bill, navi, and malone were too stupid to realize they were the targeted sheep in the Sinclair video 🤣
 

jfegaly

Bull Gator
Feb 1, 2006
7,639
12,695
113
BTW Rush listeners will remember he used to always play montages of MSM using the exact same phrases to try to drive narratives.

Research Operation Mockingbird. This is nothing new.
Whats funny is little dickey thinks this is about right leaning/left leaning media to us. No, it’s about the establishment little dickey.
 

RayGravesGhost

Gator Great
Gold Member
Jun 13, 2021
4,598
1,572
113
All of that said by the sheep who didn't realize the video is about conservative Sinclair brainwashing them

This group of trumpanzees is uniquely stupid

Or should I say they "are extremely dangerous to our democracy" 🤣