theyre not looking to use your balot
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 2:32 PM Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Since I personally have been voting absentee for well over a decade; in
> fact I am registered as permanent absentee. I haven't actually walked into
> an actual polling place in longer than I can remember.
>
> So I have a different perspective on this, and I know the checks they
> build into the system. It would be a real stretch for someone to
> impersonate my ballot. I defy anyone to try and succeed.
>
>
> bp
> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>
> On 11/23/2020 12:24 PM, Mark - Myakka Technologies 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> <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> <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
