2020 Election Fraud Thread (Part 2)

[Kelby]

@NickN

@Oryx

Do you know anyone who changed their mind based on this audit?

Many people on both sides seem to be pretty stubborn on having an open mind about anything political these days.

P.S. If you did not get to hear President Trump speak tonight live in Georgia yet, you should check it out. He did tell his many supporters there remains real concerns about various elements cited in the Arizona report. However such findings are apparently being withheld from the American public by the vast majority of media outlets.

I think I understand the problem.

You continue to believe what Donny says.

[NickN]

@Kelby

I think I understand the problem.

You continue to believe what Donny says.

You are the one that seemingly has a problem not able to fully comprehend how most of us have a mind of their own.

[Kelby]

@NickN

@Kelby

I think I understand the problem.

You continue to believe what Donny says.

You are the one that seemingly has a problem not able to fully comprehend how most of us have a mind of their own.

Ha, that’s exactly the problem: You don’t think for yourself.

You accept whatever the Orange man says.

[GrandWazoo]

@NickN

Check out this communication dated September 24th which also includes several things to look into and potentially improve going forward. All pointed out here as a result of this most thorough audit.

This is horrible. It is citing areas that the CN’s said needed looking into without consulting with the board of elections. The board of elections tweeted in real time as the presentations and it was pretty obvious that the CN’s did not have all the information that they needed to make many of these recommendations.
This has been a common thread in multiple states. The people critical of how things were done were many times not fully aware of the rules and procedures.

[Samm]

@WorldWatcher

@Samm

@westaussie

So how many times does one need the affirmation of the vote to occur given there is apparently a call for another audit?

Election audits should be conducted periodically regardless of accusations of fraud. At very least, an audit can identify potential avenues where the system may be vulnerable to fraud. It doesn’t take a genius to know that the more flexible the system is to make it easier for people to cast votes, the more vulnerable the system will be to fraud.

Problem is it’s not a random audit.

It was an audit and the only reason for it was Trump** lost and the audit is an attempt to cast doubt on the election.

WW

I agree. As I said, random auditing of elections should be routine.

[Samm]

@Oryx

@Samm

My only point is, that by conducting an audit, they have increased confidence in the system.

So you say, but I have seen no evidence that this audit, the third one now in Arizona, has increased anyone’s confidence.

That’s because you can’t see what is in people’s heads if they don’t vocalize it.

[Samm]

@Kelby

@NickN

@Kelby

I think I understand the problem.

You continue to believe what Donny says.

You are the one that seemingly has a problem not able to fully comprehend how most of us have a mind of their own.

Ha, that’s exactly the problem: You don’t think for yourself.

You accept whatever the Orange man says.

That you call Trump “the Orange man” reveals which of you thinks for themselves.

[WorldWatcher]

@Samm

That you call Trump “the Orange man” reveals which of you thinks for themselves.

Except “the orange man” isn’t made up. It’s a fact that Trump** used orange makeup as the spray lines have been shown and makeup on his color.

Using “Orange Man” based on fact and in a derogatory way does not mean that term was not arrived at without evidence determined by self examination.

WW

[Samm]

Regardless that and why he did appear orange, my point stands. “Orange Man” is used to describe Trump for no other reason than to demean him. And in using the term, it says more about the closed biased mind of the person using it, than the man being described or the state of mind of the person they are conversing with.

[WorldWatcher]

@Samm

Regardless that and why he did appear orange, my point stands. “Orange Man” is used to describe Trump for no other reason than to demean him. And in using the term, it says more about the closed biased mind of the person using it, than the man being described or the state of mind of the person they are conversing with.

Just because a true fact is used to demean someone does not mean that the fact nor it’s use was because of “not thinking for yourself”.

WW

[Samm]

Sure it does … particularly when you are accusing others of not thinking for themselves.

[Kelby]

@Samm

@Kelby

@NickN

@Kelby

I think I understand the problem.

You continue to believe what Donny says.

You are the one that seemingly has a problem not able to fully comprehend how most of us have a mind of their own.

Ha, that’s exactly the problem: You don’t think for yourself.

You accept whatever the Orange man says.

That you call Trump “the Orange man” reveals which of you thinks for themselves.

What color is this?

[Samm]

Do you have a point, or are you colorblind?

[Kelby]

@Samm

Do you have a point, or are you colorblind?

I was just wondering if he’d changed his make-up since the last time I saw him.

Didn’t want to err.

[Samm]

You’ve seen him? Up close and in person?

[Paul_Thomson]

@Jezcoe

There is only one side that is attacking the integrity of the vote these days. They want to make it so enough people don’t trust the results that the entire election gets thrown into question.

Maybe you don’t realise this, but when you claim that there is voter suppression, you are attacking the integrity of the vote.

[Paul_Thomson]

@Samm

Regardless that and why he did appear orange, my point stands. “Orange Man” is used to describe Trump for no other reason than to demean him. And in using the term, it says more about the closed biased mind of the person using it, than the man being described or the state of mind of the person they are conversing with.

What do you call the mindset that uses a person’s skin colour to put them down? Ray… something.

[Publius]

@Samm

@westaussie

So how many times does one need the affirmation of the vote to occur given there is apparently a call for another audit?

Election audits should be conducted periodically regardless of accusations of fraud. At very least, an audit can identify potential avenues where the system may be vulnerable to fraud. It doesn’t take a genius to know that the more flexible the system is to make it easier for people to cast votes, the more vulnerable the system will be to fraud.

Are there any boards of election that don’t already audit every election after it’s complete?

[NickN]

@Publius

Are there any boards of election that don’t already audit every election after it’s complete?

Maybe you mean re-count as it will be big news to many of us that “every” single place accross America conducts an election audit…

Also noteworthy that the audit in Arizona went far past merely conducting a obligatory re-count.

Even then, if ballot stuffing (like in Russia this past month was alleged) occurred such an examination would likely NOT detect it.

[Jezcoe]

@NickN

@Publius

Are there any boards of election that don’t already audit every election after it’s complete?

Maybe you mean re-count as it will be big news to many of us that “every” single place accross America conducts an election audit…

Also noteworthy that the audit in Arizona went far past merely conducting a obligatory re-count.

Even then, if ballot stuffing (like in Russia this past month was alleged) occurred such an examination would likely NOT detect it.

That is some very convenient reasoning right there.