2020 General Election

[SeattleGriz]

Keeping this separate from my post with Kalm.

I can't get past the paywall, but have read some screenshots. Interesting the NY Times was pointing out all the issues with elections and the lack of true forensic audits back in 2018 when screaming Trump stole the 16 election. Libs seem to have memory holed these problems.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/maga ... terms.html

[kalm]

Sure!

So, just for shits and giggles, what is wrong with the audit?

Well you suggested I use Google do I did. I literally searched “what is wrong with the (Arizona) audit....

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirty ... g-but/amp/

[SeattleGriz]

So, just for shits and giggles, what is wrong with the audit?

Well you suggested I use Google do I did. I literally searched “what is wrong with the (Arizona) audit....

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirty ... g-but/amp/

Ahh, the standard boilerplate response. A lot in that article has been debunked previously in this thread.

I did happen to take a look at the official audit report and am AMAZED that not one single error was found, even though Maricopa had around 200k in adjudicated ballots. You'd think with a 10% adjudication rate, there would at least be one error in the audit, but nope. Perfectly accurate. We'll see how it matches up with the full audit and not just 4 polling stations.

[UNI88]

Well you suggested I use Google do I did. I literally searched “what is wrong with the (Arizona) audit....

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirty ... g-but/amp/

Ahh, the standard boilerplate response. A lot in that article has been debunked previously in this thread.

I did happen to take a look at the official audit report and am AMAZED that not one single error was found, even though Maricopa had around 200k in adjudicated ballots. You'd think with a 10% adjudication rate, there would at least be one error in the audit, but nope. Perfectly accurate. We'll see how it matches up with the full audit and not just 4 polling stations.

Maybe you're both right. There were irregularities in vote counting and this audit is a clusterfvck - a predetermined result looking for justification, kind of like Trump's impeachments.

[kalm]

Well you suggested I use Google do I did. I literally searched “what is wrong with the (Arizona) audit....

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirty ... g-but/amp/

Ahh, the standard boilerplate response. A lot in that article has been debunked previously in this thread.

I did happen to take a look at the official audit report and am AMAZED that not one single error was found, even though Maricopa had around 200k in adjudicated ballots. You'd think with a 10% adjudication rate, there would at least be one error in the audit, but nope. Perfectly accurate. We'll see how it matches up with the full audit and not just 4 polling stations.

Give me your top 5 debunked items with sources.

[SeattleGriz]

Ahh, the standard boilerplate response. A lot in that article has been debunked previously in this thread.

I did happen to take a look at the official audit report and am AMAZED that not one single error was found, even though Maricopa had around 200k in adjudicated ballots. You'd think with a 10% adjudication rate, there would at least be one error in the audit, but nope. Perfectly accurate. We'll see how it matches up with the full audit and not just 4 polling stations.

Give me your top 5 debunked items with sources.

Google is your friend. You should be doing your own homework.

But to list 3 off the top of my head.

The audit is looking for crazy conspiracy theories like bamboo and watermarks in/on the ballots. They did, and the guy who brought it up, said they were doing it because they wanted to dispel all the gaslighting and that he did not believe the crazy statement. I think I even posted his interview in this thread.

Only EAC certified groups may perform the audit. Ibanez and I discussed this. The two firms that were chosen in the first audit were not even certified by the EAC at the time they were chosen. Only after it was pointed out, did they magically receive certification the next day. So that simply appears to be a roadblock to those that don't play "the game". In addition, the EAC head was appointed by Nancy Pelosi!

Lastly, the whole lack of partisanship is bologna as well. The Dems are on record as saying they would not participate. That's like someone not playing golf with you, but they then claim your round doesn't count because they weren't playing.

Why are you so afraid of an actual hand recount of all ballots?

We won't get into how the opposition was embarrassed by getting caught lying to gain entry to the audit.

[kalm]

Give me your top 5 debunked items with sources.

Google is your friend. You should be doing your own homework.

But to list 3 off the top of my head.

The audit is looking for crazy conspiracy theories like bamboo and watermarks in/on the ballots. They did, and the guy who brought it up, said they were doing it because they wanted to dispel all the gaslighting and that he did not believe the crazy statement. I think I even posted his interview in this thread.

Only EAC certified groups may perform the audit. Ibanez and I discussed this. The two firms that were chosen in the first audit were not even certified by the EAC at the time they were chosen. Only after it was pointed out, did they magically receive certification the next day. So that simply appears to be a roadblock to those that don't play "the game". In addition, the EAC head was appointed by Nancy Pelosi!

Lastly, the whole lack of partisanship is bologna as well. The Dems are on record as saying they would not participate. That's like someone not playing golf with you, but they then claim your round doesn't count because they weren't playing.

Why are you so afraid of an actual hand recount of all ballots?

We won't get into how the opposition was embarrassed by getting caught lying to gain entry to the audit.

That’s only three with zero sources.

Google is your friend.

[SeattleGriz]

Ahh, the standard boilerplate response. A lot in that article has been debunked previously in this thread.

I did happen to take a look at the official audit report and am AMAZED that not one single error was found, even though Maricopa had around 200k in adjudicated ballots. You'd think with a 10% adjudication rate, there would at least be one error in the audit, but nope. Perfectly accurate. We'll see how it matches up with the full audit and not just 4 polling stations.

Maybe you're both right. There were irregularities in vote counting and this audit is a clusterfvck - a predetermined result looking for justification, kind of like Trump's impeachments.

How has the audit been a cluster? At this point, it has only been a manual counting of ballots. Nothing more. I can understand if they put the ballot into a black box and came up with differing results, but that isn't what is happening.

You have people sitting at a table with the ballot on a turnstile. They get around 8 seconds to determine who the vote was placed for, and if after 50 ballots, the individual totals are off by more than one vote, they must redo the 50.

[Ibanez]

Well you suggested I use Google do I did. I literally searched “what is wrong with the (Arizona) audit....

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirty ... g-but/amp/

Ahh, the standard boilerplate response. A lot in that article has been debunked previously in this thread.

I did happen to take a look at the official audit report and am AMAZED that not one single error was found, even though Maricopa had around 200k in adjudicated ballots. You'd think with a 10% adjudication rate, there would at least be one error in the audit, but nope. Perfectly accurate. We'll see how it matches up with the full audit and not just 4 polling stations.

i'm willing to bet 1 of 2 things will happen

1) This "audit" reaches the same conclusion as the other 3 that came before it; OR

2) They declare some fraud happened but won't show any evidence of it.

Remember...the Republicans have been saying for months there is evidence but in 60+ court cases nothing has ever been presented. If they had the balls (and the evidence) they would do what Ross Perot did with his charts in the 1990s.

[Ibanez]

Maybe you're both right. There were irregularities in vote counting and this audit is a clusterfvck - a predetermined result looking for justification, kind of like Trump's impeachments.

How has the audit been a cluster? At this point, it has only been a manual counting of ballots. Nothing more. I can understand if they put the ballot into a black box and came up with differing results, but that isn't what is happening.

You have people sitting at a table with the ballot on a turnstile. They get around 8 seconds to determine who the vote was placed for, and if after 50 ballots, the individual totals are off by more than one vote, they must redo the 50.

Taking longer than expected
Claiming files were deleted only to learn that they' didn't know what they're doing
Being run by someone w/ no training or experience is this sort of work
Having other vendors quit
The external squabbles with the Party that initially wanted the audit

[SeattleGriz]

How has the audit been a cluster? At this point, it has only been a manual counting of ballots. Nothing more. I can understand if they put the ballot into a black box and came up with differing results, but that isn't what is happening.

You have people sitting at a table with the ballot on a turnstile. They get around 8 seconds to determine who the vote was placed for, and if after 50 ballots, the individual totals are off by more than one vote, they must redo the 50.

Taking longer than expected
Claiming files were deleted only to learn that they' didn't know what they're doing
Being run by someone w/ no training or experience is this sort of work
Having other vendors quit
The external squabbles with the Party that initially wanted the audit

It is taking longer than expected, but they finished the manual hand recount and only have 200,000 duplicates to go through.

What if the physical ballot count falls short of what the election said happened? That's what I'm interested in. Lol

[UNI88]

Taking longer than expected
Claiming files were deleted only to learn that they' didn't know what they're doing
Being run by someone w/ no training or experience is this sort of work
Having other vendors quit
The external squabbles with the Party that initially wanted the audit

It is taking longer than expected, but they finished the manual hand recount and only have 200,000 duplicates to go through.

What if the physical ballot count falls short of what the election said happened? That's what I'm interested in. Lol

Why should I trust the auditors any more than you trust the EAC head appointed by Nancy Pelosi?

[SeattleGriz]

It is taking longer than expected, but they finished the manual hand recount and only have 200,000 duplicates to go through.

What if the physical ballot count falls short of what the election said happened? That's what I'm interested in. Lol

Why should I trust the auditors any more than you trust the EAC head appointed by Nancy Pelosi?

Because is all recorded on 24/7 public feed video and there are audit inspector positions throughout that are open to any party affiliation. If the inspectors nor video feeds aren't raising concerns, then the manual recounting is progressing accurately as expected.

[SDHornet]

Ahh, the standard boilerplate response. A lot in that article has been debunked previously in this thread.

I did happen to take a look at the official audit report and am AMAZED that not one single error was found, even though Maricopa had around 200k in adjudicated ballots. You'd think with a 10% adjudication rate, there would at least be one error in the audit, but nope. Perfectly accurate. We'll see how it matches up with the full audit and not just 4 polling stations.

Maybe you're both right. There were irregularities in vote counting and this audit is a clusterfvck - a predetermined result looking for justification, kind of like Trump's impeachments.

The whole point of voting machines is to remove errors, no? The audit should reveal close to no errors if the machines are doing what they are supposed to do.

[SeattleGriz]

Maybe you're both right. There were irregularities in vote counting and this audit is a clusterfvck - a predetermined result looking for justification, kind of like Trump's impeachments.

The whole point of voting machines is to remove errors, no? The audit should reveal close to no errors if the machines are doing what they are supposed to do.

Exactly. Just like the audit of the 4 polling stations right after the election which showed 100% accuracy. Should match up perfectly.

[Skjellyfetti]

I think the point of voting machines is to county quickly with very low error. And, that low margin of error is why most states have an automatic recount at a certain threshold.

The amount of time it is taking them to hand count one county in Arizona kinda shows why it is not a feasible method to count ballots. We'd still be counting votes from election day on Inauguration Day.

[SDHornet]

I think the point of voting machines is to county quickly with very low error. And, that low margin of error is why most states have an automatic recount at a certain threshold.

The amount of time it is taking them to hand count one county in Arizona kinda shows why it is not a feasible method to count ballots. We'd still be counting votes from election day on Inauguration Day.

So basically humans are too incompetent to hand count (and double check those counts) so we should leave it up to the machines. And you realize not every single county/jurisdiction/district will need to be hand counted right? Weakest argument on this matter yet.

[Ibanez]

The whole point of voting machines is to remove errors, no? The audit should reveal close to no errors if the machines are doing what they are supposed to do.

Exactly. Just like the audit of the 4 polling stations right after the election which showed 100% accuracy. Should match up perfectly.

Exactly..just like they have in the previous audits.

[UNI88]

Maybe you're both right. There were irregularities in vote counting and this audit is a clusterfvck - a predetermined result looking for justification, kind of like Trump's impeachments.

The whole point of voting machines is to remove errors, no? The audit should reveal close to no errors if the machines are doing what they are supposed to do.

There is no doubt in my mind that there are inconsistencies and errors in the counts. I'm pretty sure there were errors and inconsistencies that hurt Trump and there were errors and inconsistencies that helped him. I fully support finding ways to prevent those kinds of errors and inconsistencies but I don't think they cost Trump the election. He lost because he's a loser.

[SeattleGriz]

The whole point of voting machines is to remove errors, no? The audit should reveal close to no errors if the machines are doing what they are supposed to do.

There is no doubt in my mind that there are inconsistencies and errors in the counts. I'm pretty sure there were errors and inconsistencies that hurt Trump and there were errors and inconsistencies that helped him. I fully support finding ways to prevent those kinds of errors and inconsistencies but I don't think they cost Trump the election. He lost because he's a loser.

Take it with a grain of salt, but hearing Maricopa county is short physical ballots by 5 - 10%. 10% of 2.1 million is 210,000. I rate this one up there with Q right now.

You wait. Republicans called what would happen when MCBOS would not allow the audit to happen on the storage premises. They will now use the shipping of the ballots as excuse for lost ballots. MCBOS already got busted for loading up the ballots without a destination.

Shady as fuck.

[SeattleGriz]

Georgia Secretary of State FINALLY admits there are chain of custody documents missing for drop boxes. I brought this up weeks ago, but Klam didn't like the source, the Georgia Star, so it just had to be false...only it isn't.

[SeattleGriz]

Ahh, the standard boilerplate response. A lot in that article has been debunked previously in this thread.

I did happen to take a look at the official audit report and am AMAZED that not one single error was found, even though Maricopa had around 200k in adjudicated ballots. You'd think with a 10% adjudication rate, there would at least be one error in the audit, but nope. Perfectly accurate. We'll see how it matches up with the full audit and not just 4 polling stations.

i'm willing to bet 1 of 2 things will happen

1) This "audit" reaches the same conclusion as the other 3 that came before it; OR

2) They declare some fraud happened but won't show any evidence of it.

Remember...the Republicans have been saying for months there is evidence but in 60+ court cases nothing has ever been presented. If they had the balls (and the evidence) they would do what Ross Perot did with his charts in the 1990s.

#2). Incorrect. Team Trump and others have won the majority of the cases now that the courts have started to finally hear them.

Here's the running list.

http://wiseenergy.org/Energy/Election/2 ... _Cases.htm

[Ibanez]

i'm willing to bet 1 of 2 things will happen

1) This "audit" reaches the same conclusion as the other 3 that came before it; OR

2) They declare some fraud happened but won't show any evidence of it.

Remember...the Republicans have been saying for months there is evidence but in 60+ court cases nothing has ever been presented. If they had the balls (and the evidence) they would do what Ross Perot did with his charts in the 1990s.

#2). Incorrect. Team Trump and others have won the majority of the cases now that the courts have started to finally hear them.

Here's the running list.

http://wiseenergy.org/Energy/Election/2 ... _Cases.htm

39 are Non merit for things like they're moot, statute wasn't violated, lack of jurisdiction. 39 is more than the 17. Some of those Trump wins are good...like the extended voting in Nevada (but wait...wasn't he complaining about that in Arizona?) or more access for the Poll Watchers.



What's really interesting is that I did my own google search and came across a Politifact page...debunking your link. Epoch Times? C'mon SG. You can't be bringing that Q shit here.

The database the Epoch Times relied on includes election-related lawsuits dating back to March 2020. Not all of them list the Trump campaign as a complainant, and some aren’t directly related to the general presidential election.

What we are trying to do is to identify all lawsuits related to the 2020 presidential election," Droz said. "In other words, these are not all directly about Trump. For example, most of them have to do with things like whether modified state election laws were changed legally."But some of the cases Droz counted as wins for Trump and the GOP aren’t directly related to the general presidential election.

www.politifact.com
I didn't play for the Boston Red Sox but I count their World Series win as an accomplishment for myself.

[SeattleGriz]

#2). Incorrect. Team Trump and others have won the majority of the cases now that the courts have started to finally hear them.

Here's the running list.

http://wiseenergy.org/Energy/Election/2 ... _Cases.htm

39 are Non merit for things like they're moot, statute wasn't violated, lack of jurisdiction. 39 is more than the 17. Some of those Trump wins are good...like the extended voting in Nevada (but wait...wasn't he complaining about that in Arizona?) or more access for the Poll Watchers.



What's really interesting is that I did my own google search and came across a Politifact page...debunking your link. Epoch Times? C'mon SG. You can't be bringing that Q shit here.

The database the Epoch Times relied on includes election-related lawsuits dating back to March 2020. Not all of them list the Trump campaign as a complainant, and some aren’t directly related to the general presidential election.

What we are trying to do is to identify all lawsuits related to the 2020 presidential election," Droz said. "In other words, these are not all directly about Trump. For example, most of them have to do with things like whether modified state election laws were changed legally."But some of the cases Droz counted as wins for Trump and the GOP aren’t directly related to the general presidential election.

www.politifact.com
I didn't play for the Boston Red Sox but I count their World Series win as an accomplishment for myself.

Nice one. You pull a random number out of your heiney, so I provide some context on how Trump and others haven't lost every case. You finally decide to get off your ass and do some research...on the spreadsheet I sent you AND you use PolitiFact as that research.

I see nothing wrong there.

[JohnStOnge]

i'm willing to bet 1 of 2 things will happen

1) This "audit" reaches the same conclusion as the other 3 that came before it; OR

2) They declare some fraud happened but won't show any evidence of it.

Remember...the Republicans have been saying for months there is evidence but in 60+ court cases nothing has ever been presented. If they had the balls (and the evidence) they would do what Ross Perot did with his charts in the 1990s.

#2). Incorrect. Team Trump and others have won the majority of the cases now that the courts have started to finally hear them.

Here's the running list.

http://wiseenergy.org/Energy/Election/2 ... _Cases.htm

You really need to give it up. All of those cases were decided on their merits. What that site basically does is say that because the GOP side won a majority of a small handful of cases where the filing even passed the laugh test that means there is really SOMETHING there. Nope. There is nothing there.