Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
The_Honourable wrote:Although I'm giving the benefit of the doubt that the PNM won, by observers not being here and Rowley not showing the correspondence that the observers can't be here because of covid, funding etc, an avenue was opened for this debacle to take place mischief or not by the UNC.
Dohplaydat wrote:Redress10 wrote:Dohplaydat wrote:VII wrote:Everyone knew they would cry fraud..these people are dangerous...
Sigh and what if there was fraud?
I can tell you for a FACT that there was some fraud in Toco PDs where persons were allowed to vote on behalf of others and the UNC rep was bullied into allowing it. That UNC person made a note of it in her diary, but because it was only 15 votes and her safety is at question, it was not brought up officially.
I don't support UNC, not this UNC at least (though i did vote for them). But the bias in people's responses are rediculous. If there was fraud, even if PNM would have won still, that should NEVER happen nor be allowed in a democracy.
Let them investigate please, this is for the betterment of our future more than you'd think.
UNC rep getting bullied when there are police officers at each polling division.
Cool story bro
Lol 100% true son, police allowed it she said
The_Honourable wrote:Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:The question asked by one reporter was "If the time was extended why did the UNC people leave?"
Was that question answered?
Apparently there was consensus among the Returning officer of the EBC, PNM reps and UNC reps for the counting to be done between the hours of 9-5. PNM reps made the suggestion to the presiding officer for the time to be extended seemingly without UNC reps present. The presiding officer agreed and the recount was restarted at 6pm and ended 11pm without UNC reps present.
I said seemingly because i'm not clear if the suggestion to continue recounts from 6-11 was made when UNC reps was present or not. If the UNC reps was present and said no, the process will be resumed from 9 to 5 the next day. Even if UNC reps were not present when the suggestion was made, you cannot continue a recount without consensus from UNC reps and without their presence.
Dohplaydat wrote:VII wrote:Everyone knew they would cry fraud..these people are dangerous...
Sigh and what if there was fraud?
I can tell you for a FACT that there was some fraud in Toco PDs where persons were allowed to vote on behalf of others and the UNC rep was bullied into allowing it. That UNC person made a note of it in her diary, but because it was only 15 votes and her safety is at question, it was not brought up officially.
I don't support UNC, not this UNC at least (though i did vote for them). But the bias in people's responses are rediculous. If there was fraud, even if PNM would have won still, that should NEVER happen nor be allowed in a democracy.
Let them investigate please, this is for the betterment of our future more than you'd think.
I don't support UNC, not this UNC at least (though i did vote for them)
Dohplaydat wrote:Redress10 wrote:Dohplaydat wrote:VII wrote:Everyone knew they would cry fraud..these people are dangerous...
Sigh and what if there was fraud?
I can tell you for a FACT that there was some fraud in Toco PDs where persons were allowed to vote on behalf of others and the UNC rep was bullied into allowing it. That UNC person made a note of it in her diary, but because it was only 15 votes and her safety is at question, it was not brought up officially.
I don't support UNC, not this UNC at least (though i did vote for them). But the bias in people's responses are rediculous. If there was fraud, even if PNM would have won still, that should NEVER happen nor be allowed in a democracy.
Let them investigate please, this is for the betterment of our future more than you'd think.
UNC rep getting bullied when there are police officers at each polling division.
Cool story bro
Lol 100% true son, police allowed it she said
Trinispougla wrote:Dohplaydat wrote:VII wrote:Everyone knew they would cry fraud..these people are dangerous...
Sigh and what if there was fraud?
I can tell you for a FACT that there was some fraud in Toco PDs where persons were allowed to vote on behalf of others and the UNC rep was bullied into allowing it. That UNC person made a note of it in her diary, but because it was only 15 votes and her safety is at question, it was not brought up officially.
I don't support UNC, not this UNC at least (though i did vote for them). But the bias in people's responses are rediculous. If there was fraud, even if PNM would have won still, that should NEVER happen nor be allowed in a democracy.
Let them investigate please, this is for the betterment of our future more than you'd think.I don't support UNC, not this UNC at least (though i did vote for them)
Isn't this a contradiction? You said you're not supporting them, even though you did vote for them and now you are relating a story that no one else other than you can corroborate that fits into their narrative of fraudulent elections?![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Trinispougla wrote:The_Honourable wrote:Although I'm giving the benefit of the doubt that the PNM won, by observers not being here and Rowley not showing the correspondence that the observers can't be here because of covid, funding etc, an avenue was opened for this debacle to take place mischief or not by the UNC.
that could be easily found out under the freedom of information act. Not one member of the opposition has done that so it leads me to believe that they are just hanging out bait for their base. Devant Maharaj has requested and received numerous documents under the freedom of information act and he did not see it fit to request it.Rowley does not think its necessary to show a correspondence between a sovereign government and an international body of countries. Secondly, the ebc has only been accused of one mishap, the extension of voting hours last election, which was found to be illegal. This not Guyana with weak, easily manipulated institutions. Even with the vote last time, both parties asked for the extension and it was extraordinarily disingenuous for the opposition to go to the court and challenge it after they had been beaten. If the UNC had serious objections as to the fairness of the contest(due to the lack of international observers which is not necessary legally to carry out an election in the representation of the people act), they should have boycotted it. The opposition of venezuela did that in their last election and they have the majority of international support now. Instead, the opposition fully participated in one of their most spirited campaigns in history, jearlean john being the best example. They had motorcades and walkthroughs all throughout the island. They would not have done that and spent the kind of money they did( The relief in la horquestta talparo) if they truly felt the process was compromised
Kewell35 wrote:The_Honourable wrote:Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:The question asked by one reporter was "If the time was extended why did the UNC people leave?"
Was that question answered?
Apparently there was consensus among the Returning officer of the EBC, PNM reps and UNC reps for the counting to be done between the hours of 9-5. PNM reps made the suggestion to the presiding officer for the time to be extended seemingly without UNC reps present. The presiding officer agreed and the recount was restarted at 6pm and ended 11pm without UNC reps present.
I said seemingly because i'm not clear if the suggestion to continue recounts from 6-11 was made when UNC reps was present or not. If the UNC reps was present and said no, the process will be resumed from 9 to 5 the next day. Even if UNC reps were not present when the suggestion was made, you cannot continue a recount without consensus from UNC reps and without their presence.
Hmmm....if the UNC reps didn't agree with it from 6 to 11 then why didn't the EBC/PNM reps just resume it from 9 to 5 the next day?
Who requested the recount? It is in the interest of the country for the recount to be done in shortest possible time. You mean UNC so busy they can't stay a couple more hours? I was really hoping UNC was going to accept the results but seems like they will have to bow to public pressure since their delay tactics is not in the best interest of the country. I hear them talking about doing this for democracy so why they didn't query the marginal (Moruga/Tabeland) they won and PNM lost by less than 1000 votes. I don't know who advising them but their delay strategy will work for the PNM who will use it as an excuse for everything under the sun.Kewell35 wrote:The_Honourable wrote:Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:The question asked by one reporter was "If the time was extended why did the UNC people leave?"
Was that question answered?
Apparently there was consensus among the Returning officer of the EBC, PNM reps and UNC reps for the counting to be done between the hours of 9-5. PNM reps made the suggestion to the presiding officer for the time to be extended seemingly without UNC reps present. The presiding officer agreed and the recount was restarted at 6pm and ended 11pm without UNC reps present.
I said seemingly because i'm not clear if the suggestion to continue recounts from 6-11 was made when UNC reps was present or not. If the UNC reps was present and said no, the process will be resumed from 9 to 5 the next day. Even if UNC reps were not present when the suggestion was made, you cannot continue a recount without consensus from UNC reps and without their presence.
Hmmm....if the UNC reps didn't agree with it from 6 to 11 then why didn't they just resume it from 9 to 5 the next day?
VII wrote:Irregularities and all kinda ting but you gain a seat !!! Aye never again this UNC ...
Dohplaydat wrote:VII wrote:Irregularities and all kinda ting but you gain a seat !!! Aye never again this UNC ...
U don't have to worry this UNC will self implode.
neilsingh100 wrote:Who requested the recount? It is in the interest of the country for the recount to be done in shortest possible time. You mean UNC so busy they can't stay a couple more hours? I was really hoping UNC was going to accept the results but seems like they will have to bow to public pressure since their delay tactics is not in the best interest of the country. I hear them talking about doing this for democracy so why they didn't query the marginal (Moruga/Tabeland) they won and PNM lost by less than 1000 votes. I don't know who advising them but their delay strategy will work for the PNM who will use it as an excuse for everything under the sun.Kewell35 wrote:The_Honourable wrote:Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:The question asked by one reporter was "If the time was extended why did the UNC people leave?"
Was that question answered?
Apparently there was consensus among the Returning officer of the EBC, PNM reps and UNC reps for the counting to be done between the hours of 9-5. PNM reps made the suggestion to the presiding officer for the time to be extended seemingly without UNC reps present. The presiding officer agreed and the recount was restarted at 6pm and ended 11pm without UNC reps present.
I said seemingly because i'm not clear if the suggestion to continue recounts from 6-11 was made when UNC reps was present or not. If the UNC reps was present and said no, the process will be resumed from 9 to 5 the next day. Even if UNC reps were not present when the suggestion was made, you cannot continue a recount without consensus from UNC reps and without their presence.
Hmmm....if the UNC reps didn't agree with it from 6 to 11 then why didn't they just resume it from 9 to 5 the next day?
matr1x wrote:Imagine in UNC had won, what kind of madness pnm supporters would have done......
VII wrote:PNM and PNM supporters have shown time and time again that they are mor egracuous than UNC in defeat.. what nonsense you talking again..you blinded by hate so.much so that history means nothing to youmatr1x wrote:Imagine in UNC had won, what kind of madness pnm supporters would have done......
matr1x wrote:VII wrote:PNM and PNM supporters have shown time and time again that they are mor egracuous than UNC in defeat.. what nonsense you talking again..you blinded by hate so.much so that history means nothing to youmatr1x wrote:Imagine in UNC had won, what kind of madness pnm supporters would have done......
That is an utter lie
Kewell35 wrote:neilsingh100 wrote:Who requested the recount? It is in the interest of the country for the recount to be done in shortest possible time. You mean UNC so busy they can't stay a couple more hours? I was really hoping UNC was going to accept the results but seems like they will have to bow to public pressure since their delay tactics is not in the best interest of the country. I hear them talking about doing this for democracy so why they didn't query the marginal (Moruga/Tabeland) they won and PNM lost by less than 1000 votes. I don't know who advising them but their delay strategy will work for the PNM who will use it as an excuse for everything under the sun.Kewell35 wrote:The_Honourable wrote:Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:The question asked by one reporter was "If the time was extended why did the UNC people leave?"
Was that question answered?
Apparently there was consensus among the Returning officer of the EBC, PNM reps and UNC reps for the counting to be done between the hours of 9-5. PNM reps made the suggestion to the presiding officer for the time to be extended seemingly without UNC reps present. The presiding officer agreed and the recount was restarted at 6pm and ended 11pm without UNC reps present.
I said seemingly because i'm not clear if the suggestion to continue recounts from 6-11 was made when UNC reps was present or not. If the UNC reps was present and said no, the process will be resumed from 9 to 5 the next day. Even if UNC reps were not present when the suggestion was made, you cannot continue a recount without consensus from UNC reps and without their presence.
Hmmm....if the UNC reps didn't agree with it from 6 to 11 then why didn't they just resume it from 9 to 5 the next day?
Dude, half a day later isn't that long of a time and now because of that it ends up prolonging the issue even longer.
Yes, UNC should have stayed a couple of hours more but proceeding without their agreement when you knew you could have just resumed it the next morning is just....odd and is not right. Maybe there is more that isn't being said.
maj. tom wrote:Bro, stop. You can't argue with a racist.
Don't even bother to reply to him. If you look at his post history you will see the writings of a very impoverished person lacking many things in his life. That's why he projects so much here. And all racists and bigots are always justified in their minds about the problems that they perceive. Just like all those people in the crowd if you Google Images "Little Rock Nine." Take a read about it too.
maj. tom wrote:Bro, stop. You can't argue with a racist.
Don't even bother to reply to him. If you look at his post history you will see the writings of a very impoverished person lacking many things in his life. That's why he projects so much here. And all racists and bigots are always justified in their minds about the problems that they perceive. Just like all those people in the crowd if you Google Images "Little Rock Nine." Take a read about it too.
eitech wrote:maj. tom wrote:Bro, stop. You can't argue with a racist.
Don't even bother to reply to him. If you look at his post history you will see the writings of a very impoverished person lacking many things in his life. That's why he projects so much here. And all racists and bigots are always justified in their minds about the problems that they perceive. Just like all those people in the crowd if you Google Images "Little Rock Nine." Take a read about it too.
That fella from trinidad? He and the next one does be crying for storms to hit here too
assassin wrote:It was reported that for Tunapuna, the hours of 9am to 5pm were agreed for the recount. David Nakhid and team arrived at 11am and the count started at that time. He advised that he had to leave by 6pm.
The returning officer indicated that they were willing to break at 5 and resume at 6pm to carry on in light of the late start. Nakhid and team left.
I am not clear on whether the count was continued at 6pm, but the EBC indicated that the returning officer has the authority to determine the days and times for the recount.
Nobody on Nakhid's team was available to remain to advance the recount?Kewell35 wrote:neilsingh100 wrote:Who requested the recount? It is in the interest of the country for the recount to be done in shortest possible time. You mean UNC so busy they can't stay a couple more hours? I was really hoping UNC was going to accept the results but seems like they will have to bow to public pressure since their delay tactics is not in the best interest of the country. I hear them talking about doing this for democracy so why they didn't query the marginal (Moruga/Tabeland) they won and PNM lost by less than 1000 votes. I don't know who advising them but their delay strategy will work for the PNM who will use it as an excuse for everything under the sun.Kewell35 wrote:The_Honourable wrote:Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:The question asked by one reporter was "If the time was extended why did the UNC people leave?"
Was that question answered?
Apparently there was consensus among the Returning officer of the EBC, PNM reps and UNC reps for the counting to be done between the hours of 9-5. PNM reps made the suggestion to the presiding officer for the time to be extended seemingly without UNC reps present. The presiding officer agreed and the recount was restarted at 6pm and ended 11pm without UNC reps present.
I said seemingly because i'm not clear if the suggestion to continue recounts from 6-11 was made when UNC reps was present or not. If the UNC reps was present and said no, the process will be resumed from 9 to 5 the next day. Even if UNC reps were not present when the suggestion was made, you cannot continue a recount without consensus from UNC reps and without their presence.
Hmmm....if the UNC reps didn't agree with it from 6 to 11 then why didn't they just resume it from 9 to 5 the next day?
Dude, half a day later isn't that long of a time and now because of that it ends up prolonging the issue even longer.
Yes, UNC should have stayed a couple of hours more but proceeding without their agreement when you knew you could have just resumed it the next morning is just....odd and is not right. Maybe there is more that isn't being said.
Kewell35 wrote:assassin wrote:It was reported that for Tunapuna, the hours of 9am to 5pm were agreed for the recount. David Nakhid and team arrived at 11am and the count started at that time. He advised that he had to leave by 6pm.
The returning officer indicated that they were willing to break at 5 and resume at 6pm to carry on in light of the late start. Nakhid and team left.
I am not clear on whether the count was continued at 6pm, but the EBC indicated that the returning officer has the authority to determine the days and times for the recount.
Nobody on Nakhid's team was available to remain to advance the recount?Kewell35 wrote:neilsingh100 wrote:Who requested the recount? It is in the interest of the country for the recount to be done in shortest possible time. You mean UNC so busy they can't stay a couple more hours? I was really hoping UNC was going to accept the results but seems like they will have to bow to public pressure since their delay tactics is not in the best interest of the country. I hear them talking about doing this for democracy so why they didn't query the marginal (Moruga/Tabeland) they won and PNM lost by less than 1000 votes. I don't know who advising them but their delay strategy will work for the PNM who will use it as an excuse for everything under the sun.Kewell35 wrote:The_Honourable wrote:Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:The question asked by one reporter was "If the time was extended why did the UNC people leave?"
Was that question answered?
Apparently there was consensus among the Returning officer of the EBC, PNM reps and UNC reps for the counting to be done between the hours of 9-5. PNM reps made the suggestion to the presiding officer for the time to be extended seemingly without UNC reps present. The presiding officer agreed and the recount was restarted at 6pm and ended 11pm without UNC reps present.
I said seemingly because i'm not clear if the suggestion to continue recounts from 6-11 was made when UNC reps was present or not. If the UNC reps was present and said no, the process will be resumed from 9 to 5 the next day. Even if UNC reps were not present when the suggestion was made, you cannot continue a recount without consensus from UNC reps and without their presence.
Hmmm....if the UNC reps didn't agree with it from 6 to 11 then why didn't they just resume it from 9 to 5 the next day?
Dude, half a day later isn't that long of a time and now because of that it ends up prolonging the issue even longer.
Yes, UNC should have stayed a couple of hours more but proceeding without their agreement when you knew you could have just resumed it the next morning is just....odd and is not right. Maybe there is more that isn't being said.
Just curious, the returning officer alone determines the day and time? there's no say from UNC?
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 256 guests