Our MAGA chickenshit Congressman Juan Ciscomani is a GOP, Guardian of Pedophiles, for refusing to sign the discharge petition to have the Epstein files released to the public! MAGA Juan has been in office since 1-03-2021 and has held zero town hall meetings in Tucson! He votes for the obscene Big Beautiful Bill and then asks Republican senators to vote against the bill? More bullshit about DACA children who are here because their parents entered the USA illegally and Chickenshit Juan states that they should have a shot at the American dream but then votes for the obscene Big Beautiful Bill? Tucson deserves a Congressional representative that at least has the guts to come to Tucson and hold a town hall meeting! Also, anybody that sexually abuses and beats up young children deserves to spend the rest of their miserable lives in prison and so do the people who protect them from justice! Are you listening chickenshit Juan???
Ciscomani's words don't match his actions. He says he supports DACA recipients having the opportunity to pursue the American Dream.
He voted for the so-called Big Beautiful Bill that increases the likelihood that DACA recipients will be detained and deported. The bill ended the right of DACA recipients to get health care through the Affordable Care Act.
The so-called Big Beautiful Bill made no mention of DACA recipients having "a shot at the American Dream." Nor did it budget even one dollar towards that end.
As the adage goes, watch what they do, not what they say.
•I see the full names of Joe & Curt. Is this the complete TA Who We Are disclosure list, please? Not asking for a friend.
•Also, I don't think there was a reply (?) to my Q in my earlier TA comment, re: Why a judge REALLY dismissed the reasonable, imo, suit filed by Sadie Shaw, when a potential tipping-point # of voters were impacted by the ballot-mailing screw-up. Shades of Bush v Gore with judges deciding election results, rather than We the Voters. Yes, it would cost lot$$. That didn't stop them in Phx a few years ago.
Curt and I are the primary writers for the Tucson Agenda but we work closely with our colleagues at the Arizona Agenda, as well as some freelancers.
I can post the court paperwork from Shaw's case but IIRC they didn't get into the details of their decision. I believe it was made from the bench.
It wasn't about $$.
Yes, there is a potential as a tipping point, but the voters affected was ~ 70. If they were allowed to vote (it is unclear whether they did or not - we just know they were affected.) they would still have to vote in a disproportionate number for Shaw to prevail.
It is unclear whether such a decision would impact other races, as Shaw was asking for a new election. If granted, how would this impact the general election? Would we have am empty seat in Ward 3 come December?
... only 19 votes separated the two candidates. Nearly four times as many Democratic voters may have been impacted by the data error, the Shaw campaign said in a court filing dated Aug. 15. ...
The sentence you choose to use leaves out a pretty big piece of information.
How were they impacted? Were they able to vote? I don't know the answer, but if Shaw had people who were denied the right to vote, I suspect there would have been more than a single hearing.
I didn't discount the additional votes. A Pima County Superior Court Judge did.
If the 76 votes were cast/had been counted - again this is a leap because we are assuming they didn't vote in the election - Ms. Shaw would need 47 of the 76 votes to go in her favor.
This is relatively out of line with the near 50/50 split between the two candidates.
I don't know who the voters are that were affected and their voting records are secret. (If I had a list, I could tell you IF they voted but not who they voted for.)
As for holding up an election for one candidate's lawsuit, the law allows for appeals without interfering with the general election.
Point of fact, I believe Ms. Lake's latest challenge about the Governor's race was heard two years after the race ended.
Our MAGA chickenshit Congressman Juan Ciscomani is a GOP, Guardian of Pedophiles, for refusing to sign the discharge petition to have the Epstein files released to the public! MAGA Juan has been in office since 1-03-2021 and has held zero town hall meetings in Tucson! He votes for the obscene Big Beautiful Bill and then asks Republican senators to vote against the bill? More bullshit about DACA children who are here because their parents entered the USA illegally and Chickenshit Juan states that they should have a shot at the American dream but then votes for the obscene Big Beautiful Bill? Tucson deserves a Congressional representative that at least has the guts to come to Tucson and hold a town hall meeting! Also, anybody that sexually abuses and beats up young children deserves to spend the rest of their miserable lives in prison and so do the people who protect them from justice! Are you listening chickenshit Juan???
CiscoGerryMandi
Are you listening , Cisco?
Ciscomani's words don't match his actions. He says he supports DACA recipients having the opportunity to pursue the American Dream.
He voted for the so-called Big Beautiful Bill that increases the likelihood that DACA recipients will be detained and deported. The bill ended the right of DACA recipients to get health care through the Affordable Care Act.
The so-called Big Beautiful Bill made no mention of DACA recipients having "a shot at the American Dream." Nor did it budget even one dollar towards that end.
As the adage goes, watch what they do, not what they say.
Wow, Tucson Agenda is way more feisty than the Arizona Agenda😂
•I see the full names of Joe & Curt. Is this the complete TA Who We Are disclosure list, please? Not asking for a friend.
•Also, I don't think there was a reply (?) to my Q in my earlier TA comment, re: Why a judge REALLY dismissed the reasonable, imo, suit filed by Sadie Shaw, when a potential tipping-point # of voters were impacted by the ballot-mailing screw-up. Shades of Bush v Gore with judges deciding election results, rather than We the Voters. Yes, it would cost lot$$. That didn't stop them in Phx a few years ago.
Curt and I are the primary writers for the Tucson Agenda but we work closely with our colleagues at the Arizona Agenda, as well as some freelancers.
I can post the court paperwork from Shaw's case but IIRC they didn't get into the details of their decision. I believe it was made from the bench.
It wasn't about $$.
Yes, there is a potential as a tipping point, but the voters affected was ~ 70. If they were allowed to vote (it is unclear whether they did or not - we just know they were affected.) they would still have to vote in a disproportionate number for Shaw to prevail.
It is unclear whether such a decision would impact other races, as Shaw was asking for a new election. If granted, how would this impact the general election? Would we have am empty seat in Ward 3 come December?
... only 19 votes separated the two candidates. Nearly four times as many Democratic voters may have been impacted by the data error, the Shaw campaign said in a court filing dated Aug. 15. ...
~azluminaria.org
The sentence you choose to use leaves out a pretty big piece of information.
How were they impacted? Were they able to vote? I don't know the answer, but if Shaw had people who were denied the right to vote, I suspect there would have been more than a single hearing.
•If Ms. Shaw supposedly lost by 19 votes, how can anyone discount the additional # of potential votes she may have had?
•IF those affected were able to vote and be counted?
•Do we know?
•Would she have sued, if they were? I d t s.
☆A schedule is far less important than the true will of We the Voters. But, I suppose, ONLY in an actual Democracy.☆
I didn't discount the additional votes. A Pima County Superior Court Judge did.
If the 76 votes were cast/had been counted - again this is a leap because we are assuming they didn't vote in the election - Ms. Shaw would need 47 of the 76 votes to go in her favor.
This is relatively out of line with the near 50/50 split between the two candidates.
I don't know who the voters are that were affected and their voting records are secret. (If I had a list, I could tell you IF they voted but not who they voted for.)
As for holding up an election for one candidate's lawsuit, the law allows for appeals without interfering with the general election.
Point of fact, I believe Ms. Lake's latest challenge about the Governor's race was heard two years after the race ended.