comment: >
  
  I would argue his superpower now is pleading the 5th.
context: Under Arizona law, "The records containing a voter's signature...shall not be accessible or reproduced by any person other than the voter."
  A violation of the law is a Class 6 felony that could carry jail time. 
  
  Seems pretty clear that Lake broke the law. And to put those signatures out on Twitter of all places is just asking for people to be doxxed >
  
  I do agree, but until someone decides to enforce that law, it's meaningless. >
  
  And you can be sure if one thing:
  She will not see an iota of consequences for this.
  Nothing. >
  
  FFS. This just happened. Can you let the process have half a chance to work before you decide it already has failed? >
  
  Poster is highly likely to be correct. >
  
  Maybe. Maybe not. You don't know. No one does. But this rush to always be the first one to claim the system is going to fail is getting really tiresome. >
  
  Look at the last 6-7 years. We kinda have enough history of these matters to know that she has at a minimum of 6 years for nothing bad to happen. >
  
  You don't know that. You believe that. There is a significant difference between those two. It would be really nice if you would learn that. 
  And there are so many things that are different between this case and so many of the others you've seen that using them to predetermine the outcome here is entirely misguided. 
  First, this is a state issue so it's different players. Second, this is a ex-anchorwoman not a powerful politician. Third, this is a pretty straight-forward case with clear evidence and an unambiguous, uncomplicated law. Fourth, many of the issues you think nothing will happen with are still moving forward. For example, we just heard about the developments in Georgia with the grand jury that experts believe show an indictment of Trump for tampering is extremely likely and not too far off. >
  
  Alright, I understand where you're coming from. Would you at least agree it will take more than 2 years? January 6th was way worse then this, and all the "voter fraud" stuff was on par. >
  
  No, I'm sorry but I am not going to make a guess about what will happen just to make you feel better. We'll know what will happen when it happens, not before. 
  But if two years from now nothing has happened, I will gladly agree nothing happened in two years. And I will be pissed about it then if that's how it ends up. >
  
  How does any decent human being still support Republicans? >
  
  They don't. >
  
  They see the racism, and they still vote for Republicans.
  They see the sexism, and they still vote for Republicans.
  They see the homophobia, and they still vote for Republicans.
  They see the transphobia, and they still vote for Republicans.
  They see the xenophobia, and they still vote for Republicans.
  They see the stripping of rights, and they still vote for Republicans.
  They see the outright Nazi support, and they still vote for Republicans.
  They see the vile vocal hatred, and they still vote for Republicans.
  They can say they are against one or more of those things for whatever reason they would like.  The fact remains, none of those things are deal breakers.  They are willing to overlook all of them for whatever gain they percieve.
  There is no such thing as a decent and good person that still votes for the Republican party.
  I know, I know..."My parents/grandparents/friends/spouse/sibling/cousin/roommate/ what-the-fuck-ever votes Republican and I think they are a good person!".
  No.  No they are not.  They support all of that by voting Republican.  You are blinded by your relationship with that person. >
  
  They might be good people, but those who are, are woefully and/or willfully dumb, which makes them dangerous which ultimately makes them bad people. >
  
  You can’t be a good person and Republican at the same time. Supporting that genocidal party is actually in direct contradiction to what a “good person” would do. >
  
  Yeah but some people are so ignorant and brainwashed from early childhood that they are unaware of the effects of pulling the lever for R or claiming to be R.  All they've heard all their life is R good, D bad and they're shielded from the bad stuff.  Dumb or ignorant doesn't mean bad (as in evil).  It's as much of a problem IMO, if not more, so it doesn't really absolve much. >
  
  I'm sorry, but ignorance of reality is not a valid defense.  You cannot live in the world, with all information at your fingertips, and continually make the decision to remain complicit in GQP nonsense and say, "oops, didn't know!"
  It's a choice.  There are no good people that claim republican alignment. >
  
  It's actually not a choice for many people.  It's only a choice when you're aware there is a choice, which isn't always the case.  
  The Republican leaders have been actively blocking out reality and creating a whole new one for people without exposure to anything else.  It's much easier to control in rural areas, for example, so while all that "information at your fingertips" is out there for many, it's not really for others, and people won't even know what to look for or what to do with it, even if it is in their faces.  That's why education in those areas is being targeted - to keep good people dumb.  
  A common theme of people who "make it out" of these places and go to college report that they can finally see what they had missed out on, and that's when they began to deprogram and change.  That means they are inherently good people, but were never exposed to information and reality beyond their noses until then.  People who are privy to reality as the world sees it and can't or refuse to change (willful ignorance is different from just being dumb or just plain ignorant) are the bad folks. >
  
  
  Lake's attorney responded that she had a First Amendment right to post the signatures. 
  
  Where do you find these lawyers? The absurdity of that claim is mind boggling. She could have tweeted anything she wanted to say about those signatures and that would have been protected by the First Amendment. >
  
  “The first amendment allows my client to commit felonies” >
  
  Her client committed felonies and remains free.
  So far, she’s not wrong. >
  
  This just happened. The tweet was from Jan 23 and the Secretary of State just asked the AG to investigate it. Isn't it a little premature to start acting like the system has failed? >
  
  Nope. Next question. >
  
  Okay. How do you expect to change things if all you do is dump on the system instead of support it having a chance to work? >
  
  She’s already guilty in the Court of Public Opinion, so why do we need a Court of Law? /s >
  
  Lock her up >
  
  Holy fuck, she posted voters signatures on bloody Twitter?   Wow >
  
  You sound surprised... >
  
  As someone who isn't an American...   Nothing surprises me about US politics anymore >
  
  Also, signature matching is a bullshit thing that frequently fails purely because people's signatures aren't nearly as consistent as you think. If you're a high ranking whatever who signs fifty documents a day, sure, yeah, it's probably going to be a pretty clear indicator, but I sign things like five times a month if I'm unlucky, and you're probably the same way. >
  
  And they don't have access to all your signatures either. It sounds like they only have yours from elections so they have very few to go off. >
  
  Well, elections and a few other select things. Government filings of varied documents, your license, etc.
  But even then you might be signing things years apart. >
  
  Hahaha she thought she was going to be Trumps’s Vice President. 
  She may still try. >
  
  I hope she is. She can't even win her home state. She has little to no national appeal. What does she bring to the ticket? >
  
  For the base?…angertainment.  Same as Desantis, MTG, Trump, etc.
  The (R)egressive party has no desire to govern.  All they want is a culture war flamed by convincing simple minds that they’re being wronged by non-existent boogey men and that the only way to take back what’s theirs is to hate dems and send R politicians more $$. >
  
  Right, I get that - when you don't have the facts or the law on your side, pound the table. I'm just saying that if Trump had competent political advisors, they'd find a VP candidate who can bring in the more moderate voters (if that's possible at this point). Trump's already got the angry white asshole vote - he doesn't need any help there. He needs a Mike Pence type for balance. >
  
  Wasn’t God supposed to make her win already? >
  
  Yes but unfortunately her god is Trump. His only real power is yelling(or tweeting) really LOUD!