*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7654
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #7900 on: December 27, 2020, 06:24:32 PM »

The election night results in that county were found to be very wrong. They reported that Joe Biden won by a local landslide, and a second look and count revealed that actually Trump had won. A later hand recount  confirmed that Trump won. You are claiming that because the later hand recount confirmed that 'second look' count that the original election was legitimate and that the audit which found issues in that county should be disregarded. Lol no. Your increasingly desperate arguments that forensic audits should be disregarded are from a losing position.

And you are arguing that, because the system to detect fraud and errors worked, the entire election is worthless and needs to be ignored. 

And again, did you READ the audit?  I did.  I posted by conclusion and since YOU did not reply, I assume you agree.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

Rama Set

Re: Trump
« Reply #7901 on: December 27, 2020, 06:56:17 PM »
The election night results in that county were found to be very wrong. They reported that Joe Biden won by a local landslide, and a second look and count revealed that actually Trump had won. A later hand recount confirmed that Trump won in that county and affirmed that second look count. You are claiming that because the later hand recount confirmed that 'second look' count that the original election was legitimate and that the Dominion machine audit which found machine issues in that county should be disregarded. Lol no. Your increasingly desperate arguments that forensic audits should be disregarded are from a losing position.
That’s absolutely not my claim. As you should be aware, but seem not to be, sadly. The election process is more than just the casting of votes on Election Day. There are policies and procedures in place to vet and correct results so that the certified result is as accurate as possible. Votes changing from one candidate to another after Election Day but before certification, through the implementation of the proscribed policies and procedures is a sign that the process’ safety nets are functioning.

The certified result matching the recount of hand marked ballots which then matches the canvass are evidence that the election result is accurate and to within a very small margin of error.

People who are of sound mind and able to rationally assess the results see that this is the case. Unfortunately there is an astonishingly large number of people in the USA who trust tribal proclamation over evidence. It’s fucking terrifying because of the economic and military power the USA wields. I hope you can personally, and collectively, get your shit together and be responsible human beings.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #7902 on: December 27, 2020, 07:53:57 PM »
Quote
proscribed policies and procedures

Standard audits and recounts isn't standard procedure in an election, sry.

*

Offline WTF_Seriously

  • *
  • Posts: 1331
  • Nobody Important
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #7903 on: December 27, 2020, 08:02:53 PM »
We have already talked about positive evidence for fraud, for which there is plenty.

The courts, an overwhelming majority of them, seem to disagree.
Flat-Earthers seem to have a very low standard of evidence for what they want to believe but an impossibly high standard of evidence for what they don’t want to believe.

Lee McIntyre, Boston University

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #7904 on: December 27, 2020, 08:10:16 PM »
We have already talked about positive evidence for fraud, for which there is plenty.

The courts, an overwhelming majority of them, seem to disagree.

In order to make this argument you would have to show that whatever you are thinking about actually got to the point of evidentiary hearings, and weren't dismissed for technicality and standing reasons.

Courts did end up agreeing with fraud claims, have granted multiple requests for forensic audits for fraud so far, and all results from forensic audits conducted as of date have found issues with the machines. You are a bit far behind.

Rama Set

Re: Trump
« Reply #7905 on: December 27, 2020, 08:29:28 PM »
Quote
proscribed policies and procedures

Standard audits and recounts isn't standard procedure in an election, sry.

Of course they are, what a silly thing to write. Many states have triggers for mandatory recounts and others have recounts at the request of stakeholders. Audits are part of standard procedures, you can find the policies for them with a simple google search, and are necessary to ensure that the process is working as intended, which it is. Hence why many of Trump’s suits haven’t even alleged fraud, they simply haven’t haven’t found anything outside of isolated incidents and to no one’s surprise, the incidents have been distributed across party lines.

Ten days until the GOP senate tries to burn it all down!

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #7906 on: December 27, 2020, 08:31:07 PM »
Many states have triggers for mandatory recounts and others have recounts at the request of stakeholders.

So none of it is standard then and you have conceded your argument. Ok.

Rama Set

Re: Trump
« Reply #7907 on: December 27, 2020, 08:44:57 PM »
Many states have triggers for mandatory recounts and others have recounts at the request of stakeholders.

So none of it is standard then and you have conceded your argument. Ok.

I suppose if you want to just resort to pedantic dancing around the word "standard", we can do that, but it doesn't change anything about the fairly commonplace occurrence of recounts.  More importantly, it doesn't mean Trump won the election.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7654
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #7908 on: December 27, 2020, 09:17:22 PM »
We have already talked about positive evidence for fraud, for which there is plenty.

The courts, an overwhelming majority of them, seem to disagree.

In order to make this argument you would have to show that whatever you are thinking about actually got to the point of evidentiary hearings, and weren't dismissed for technicality and standing reasons.

Courts did end up agreeing with fraud claims, have granted multiple requests for forensic audits for fraud so far, and all results from forensic audits conducted as of date have found issues with the machines. You are a bit far behind.
Name 3 separate audits.  Because I know of only one.
And honestly, the audits aren't changing anything.  So Audit away.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline WTF_Seriously

  • *
  • Posts: 1331
  • Nobody Important
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #7909 on: December 27, 2020, 09:17:28 PM »

In order to make this argument you would have to show that whatever you are thinking about actually got to the point of evidentiary hearings, and weren't dismissed for technicality and standing reasons.


Not really. I can pretty much present any argument I want and claim it as fact.  You seem to do it quite regularly.
Flat-Earthers seem to have a very low standard of evidence for what they want to believe but an impossibly high standard of evidence for what they don’t want to believe.

Lee McIntyre, Boston University

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #7910 on: December 27, 2020, 09:42:16 PM »
Many states have triggers for mandatory recounts and others have recounts at the request of stakeholders.

So none of it is standard then and you have conceded your argument. Ok.

No, like always, you are wrong. At least 38 states have automatic audits as standard election operating procedure...Not all, but most, certainly not "none".

Post-Election Audits
In states that conduct post-election audits (see table below for more details) it is usually a statutory requirement. Legislatures can decide whether or not to require post-election audits in their states...
While the phrase "post-election audits" can be used to mean a variety of election validation efforts, as a term of art it refers to checking paper ballots or records against the results produced by the voting system to ensure accuracy. 38 states + DC currently have a post-election audit as defined here.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/post-election-audits635926066.aspx

Here's a table of the when, why and how each state performs their audits:
https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/post-election-audits635926066.aspx#state%20reqs

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7654
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #7911 on: December 27, 2020, 09:44:41 PM »
This just in:
BOMBSHELL!

Donald Trump had an affair with Hillary Clinton in 2000!

From unnanmed sources, the affair was in direct retaliation to Bill Clinton's multiple affairs.  Hillary, wanting to hurt her husband, began seeing Donald Trump, a strong supporter of Democrats at the time.  The source claims that the two would reguarly discuss "buisiness" in his private residence.  He divorced Marla the year previously.

The source claims that noises and grunts could be herd lasting anywhere from 5 minutes to 20.  Hillary often left shortly after and Mr. Trump claimed to be tired and not wish to be disturbed.

-----

This is a fact.  If you don't believe me, provide positive evidence that this affair did not happen.
Rememeber: He never did send her to jail despite the moutains of evidence that she is a traitor and runs a child sex ring.  Think about it....
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #7912 on: December 27, 2020, 09:46:06 PM »
So what? Still no systemic fraud that altered the outcome of the election.

Your source didn't assess all counties. Your source only looked at a few counties, and in those sets found things which were hard to explain.

Like I said, so what? Still no systemic fraud that altered the outcome of the election. Period.

How did your source find no systemic fraud if he only looked at a few counties? You can't make a conclusion from what you presented. Quite disingenuous of you.

You've been making disingenuous conclusions based upon a single county here and there for over a month now. So you must be joking. As well as making disingenuous conclusions based upon a motor pool mechanic who Sydney Powell falsely claimed was a cyber security specialist, a day-drinking "witness", Some guy who is an economist, not a statistician making wild statistical claims...and on and on. So don't try and tell me I'm being disingenuous when you wrote the book on it and have been nothing but disingenuous since 11/3. Everyone can see that. I don't know why you can't.

And as far as sources go, how about former Attorney General and Trump loyalist, Bill Barr?  Who said, "to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”

We have already talked about positive evidence for fraud, for which there is plenty. We are now talking about the positive evidence for no fraud. You have admitted to have insufficient evidence and are only imagining that there is no systemic fraud, essentially saying "so what, I don't need evidence." This is a ridiculous sentiment.

The positive evidence for no systemic fraud that would have altered the outcome of the election is that Bill Bar, Attorney General and Trump loyalist, can't seem to find any evidence that there was systemic fraud that would have altered the outcome of the election, and said so, "to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”

What do you make of Bill Barr's statement?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #7913 on: December 27, 2020, 10:36:53 PM »
Many states have triggers for mandatory recounts and others have recounts at the request of stakeholders.

So none of it is standard then and you have conceded your argument. Ok.

No, like always, you are wrong. At least 38 states have automatic audits as standard election operating procedure...Not all, but most, certainly not "none".

Post-Election Audits
In states that conduct post-election audits (see table below for more details) it is usually a statutory requirement. Legislatures can decide whether or not to require post-election audits in their states...
While the phrase "post-election audits" can be used to mean a variety of election validation efforts, as a term of art it refers to checking paper ballots or records against the results produced by the voting system to ensure accuracy. 38 states + DC currently have a post-election audit as defined here.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/post-election-audits635926066.aspx

Here's a table of the when, why and how each state performs their audits:
https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/post-election-audits635926066.aspx#state%20reqs

Your link and quote says specifically that there are not standards across all states. Looks like you debonked yourself.

Rama Set

Re: Trump
« Reply #7914 on: December 27, 2020, 10:39:46 PM »
Here’s how Trump can still win.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #7915 on: December 27, 2020, 11:06:42 PM »
Many states have triggers for mandatory recounts and others have recounts at the request of stakeholders.

So none of it is standard then and you have conceded your argument. Ok.

No, like always, you are wrong. At least 38 states have automatic audits as standard election operating procedure...Not all, but most, certainly not "none".

Post-Election Audits
In states that conduct post-election audits (see table below for more details) it is usually a statutory requirement. Legislatures can decide whether or not to require post-election audits in their states...
While the phrase "post-election audits" can be used to mean a variety of election validation efforts, as a term of art it refers to checking paper ballots or records against the results produced by the voting system to ensure accuracy. 38 states + DC currently have a post-election audit as defined here.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/post-election-audits635926066.aspx

Here's a table of the when, why and how each state performs their audits:
https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/post-election-audits635926066.aspx#state%20reqs

Your link and quote says specifically that there are not standards across all states. Looks like you debonked yourself.

I said that. I said 38 states do have standardized audits and standardized triggered recounts. You said:

Standard audits and recounts isn't standard procedure in an election, sry.

Flat out wrong. You debunked yourself...again, sry.

*

Offline Snupes

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1957
  • Counting wolves in your paranoiac intervals
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #7916 on: December 28, 2020, 01:51:00 AM »
Your link and quote says specifically that there are not standards across all states. Looks like you debonked yourself.

"Not all states have audits as standards, but 38 do"
"Your source says not all states have audits as standards"

Amazing observation.

Also:





It's happening! Monday, we'll finally have definitive proof that this election was fraudulent! Monday, mark it down!
There are cigarettes in joints. You don't smoke it by itself.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7654
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #7917 on: December 28, 2020, 05:04:08 AM »
I'm still shocked Trump's lawyers haven't mentioned the special watermarks thst they put onto every ballot each county printed legally.

Like, that would totally prove fraud so easy but not a peep about it.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #7918 on: December 28, 2020, 06:18:30 PM »
Many states have triggers for mandatory recounts and others have recounts at the request of stakeholders.

So none of it is standard then and you have conceded your argument. Ok.

No, like always, you are wrong. At least 38 states have automatic audits as standard election operating procedure...Not all, but most, certainly not "none".

Post-Election Audits
In states that conduct post-election audits (see table below for more details) it is usually a statutory requirement. Legislatures can decide whether or not to require post-election audits in their states...
While the phrase "post-election audits" can be used to mean a variety of election validation efforts, as a term of art it refers to checking paper ballots or records against the results produced by the voting system to ensure accuracy. 38 states + DC currently have a post-election audit as defined here.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/post-election-audits635926066.aspx

Here's a table of the when, why and how each state performs their audits:
https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/post-election-audits635926066.aspx#state%20reqs

Your link and quote says specifically that there are not standards across all states. Looks like you debonked yourself.

I said that. I said 38 states do have standardized audits and standardized triggered recounts. You said:

Standard audits and recounts isn't standard procedure in an election, sry.

Flat out wrong. You debunked yourself...again, sry.

Did you even bother to read your link? The audits and standards are all different for all the states, even among the 38 you are trying to champion.

We were discussing the 2020 election discrepancies in Antrim County, Michigan. From your source, here is the section on that state in question:

https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/post-election-audits635926066.aspx



So the audit doesn't affect the certified result in this state and the small randomized audit is only used for training purposes.

Yet you guys are supposed to be arguing that these audits and procedural standards would have prevented any fraud in the Antrim County 2020 Presidential Election.

Wrong and insufficiently researched, as typical.

Rama Set

Re: Trump
« Reply #7919 on: December 28, 2020, 07:53:12 PM »
In Antrim county, the hand recount of hand marked ballots matches the certified results matches the canvass. Where did the fraud take place?