i dont believe that protests in over 50 cities organically come to fruition with the same materials, tactics, slogans, etc., i know, its mad to believe that tens of hundreds of people across the nation could coordinate anything of any magnitude.
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 2:25 PM Mark - Myakka Technologies <m...@mailmt.com> wrote: > Ken, > > I believe it is far fetched that this was some type of coordinated effort > to cheat. I also believe that is is far fetched that the voting machines > were tampered with. Finally, I doubt these recounts are going to change > anything. > > But, I would like a real audit of the absentee ballots. I would like them > to pull a random sample of absentee ballots to check to see if the person > is a valid voter. Are they alive, are they still residents of the county, > etc. > > I think Georgia would be fairly accurate. I belive they did a voter roll > purge a few years ago. That was one of the issues with Stacey Abrams. She > got her panties all in a bunch, because they removed 1000's of stale voters > from the rolls. > > I don't know if any of these other states have purged their rolls lately. > I'm guessing the ones that have not may have a higher percentage of bad > absentee ballots. At the end of the day, I don't think they will find > enough votes. > > -- > Best regards, > Mark mailto:m...@mailmt.com <m...@mailmt.com> > > Myakka Technologies, Inc. > www.Myakka.com > > ------ > > Monday, November 23, 2020, 1:53:37 PM, you wrote: > > > In the transactional world of certain people, I appointed you, so you > decide in my favor. I don’t think that works with Supreme Court Justices. > They may not be everyone’s favorite judge, but they’re still a judge, not a > total buffoon like the “elite strike force” “release the Kraken” lawyers. > I would be surprised if SCOTUS touched any of this. I have my doubts about > Kavanaugh’s love for beer, but otherwise, they are only going to accept a > modest level of crazytown. > > I also believe that is 99.9% the case with election judges, ballot > counters, secretaries of state, etc. Media and both parties would have you > believe they will act solely according to party affiliation. I think > mostly they just do their job, even if they wish the outcome were different. > > Much of what we see is projection. If that were me, I would totally do > these crooked things, so let’s assume that’s what everyone would do. > Nobody could possibly just be doing a job the best they can, with no other > motives. > > > *From:* AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones > *Sent:* Monday, November 23, 2020 12:27 PM > *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <af@af.afmug.com> > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: this press conference > > Unless there is a direct constitutional question, scotus has no business > being involved. The fact that scotus is even in play is a direct > consequense of the decades of judicial politicking > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020, 12:14 PM Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The Supremes are going to refuse to get involved; if they are asked, which > I'm on the fence about. > bp > <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> > On 11/23/2020 10:06 AM, Steve Jones wrote: > > This shit is neverending entertainment. They put the crazy lady up as the > lead, then shitcanned her, but she didnt stop and theres no infighting. > Pennsylvania is back in play in the courts. Media runs with some judge > dismissing something like it's relevant, theyve bending it for 4 years, > that's just a step in the process to get things to the supreme court. > Either way I see armed conflict prior to inauguration. One side wants to > bury everything and one side wants sunlight on everything, then if it > doesnt bear fruit they want it dissected and sunlight on its guts. > > They're gonna fuck around and get biden disqualified after it's to late > and then the bigot harris will be in play. We dont want that > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020, 11:29 AM Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > https://www.bridgemi.com/guest-commentary/first-person-gop-challengers-we-faced-open-intimidation-detroit > > https://www.bridgemi.com/guest-commentary/first-person-i-was-detroit-poll-challenger-gop-came-make-havoc > Two poll challengers in Detroit with different perspectives about what > they saw at the exact same polling place. > I do see general agreement on the events though. A volunteer busybody > follows people around and questions everything they do. They get annoyed > and say, "buzz off, talk to my supervisor". The Democratic challenger > says, "the GOP poll challenger was being douchey and asking accusatory > questions. Also racism." > The Republican challenger says "All I did was ask questions and they got > all douchey about it. Also I was intimidated/oppressed." > > On 11/23/2020 11:33 AM, Bill Prince wrote: > > That's the sort of thing you'd expect from Huffpost or TheOnion. > Kind of apropos though. > > bp > <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> > On 11/23/2020 7:50 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: > > Back to the press conference, either Fox News has totally turned against > DJT, or someone paired the wrong headline and photo. > > *From:* AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> *On Behalf > Of *Steve Jones > *Sent:* Monday, November 23, 2020 9:06 AM > *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <af@af.afmug.com> <af@af.afmug.com> > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: this press conference > > The intent was that an isp couldn't throttle competitor traffic in > preference of their own, but in true bureaucratic fashion they purposefully > left it vague so it could be reinterpreted at whim. > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020, 7:55 AM Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The 2015 Open Internet Order didn't do even 1/10th of the things > attributed to it. It had nothing to do with congestion, censorship, > freedom, service pricing, etc. > > The rules were no blocking, no throttling, and no paid prioritization. > All three rules had the exception for "reasonable network management". > Reasonable management was not specifically defined, but in discussion it > was said to be driven by a technical need rather than a business one. So > the blocking and throttling we all do to make traffic flow properly was ok > and nobody was ever going to pay any of us for prioritization. I've never > been convinced that the rule was necessary. It seemed like a rule saying > ISP's can't build moon rockets....like ok I'll stop my Apollo project > immediately. > > The actual rules were trivial to obey and I'd bet almost nobody here was > ever breaking them My only concern was Title II status could open the door > on additional rules that might be more onerous later. > > > On 11/23/2020 8:40 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: > > The original Net Neutrality had nothing to do with congested upstream or > peering ports. > > > Why force your competition to be less bad? > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/> > > Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> > > The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> > > > > ------------------------------ > *From: *"Darin Steffl" <darin.ste...@mnwifi.com> <darin.ste...@mnwifi.com> > *To: *"AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group" <af@af.afmug.com> > <af@af.afmug.com> > *Sent: *Saturday, November 21, 2020 9:48:05 PM > *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] OT: this press conference > If net neutrality comes back, there will likely be similar exemptions for > ISP's less than 100k subscribers or whatever the number was before. > > It shouldn't affect us in any real way. It will force the big ISP's to be > good (better?) guys and not let peering cross connects fill up and become > congested for example. > > On Sat, Nov 21, 2020, 9:45 PM Seth Mattinen <se...@rollernet.us> wrote: > > On 11/21/20 7:36 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: > > But as amusing as this may be, it might be time to start looking at how > > the next administration could affect WISPs. Like a 3-2 Dem FCC and a > > new Chairman (woman?). Will Net Neutrality and Title II return? Does > > it matter? > > > > > Net neutrality seems likely to make a comeback. Would it change anything > I do? No, but it might add annoying paperwork. Worst case someone thinks > I'm doing something and files a formal complaint, which would waste time > having to answer it. > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >
-- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
