If Az is shown to have cheated...then what?

[forkup]

It isnt going to be by these jokers. They do not know what they are doing.

Their forensic testing may uncover interesting things, such as where the fraudulent ballots came from.

Let's start by first uncovering actual fraudulent ballots.

 

[dblack]

It seems to be Arizona republicans who have seen their arses. Fake audit by fake auditors. Its ridiculous that this crap is given so much coverage.

You are against the truth being uncovered?

The has nothing to do with your passionate desire for the truth. Nothing. You people are the equivalent of a five year old throwing a fit. You don't deserve to be taken seriously.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

It seems to be Arizona republicans who have seen their arses. Fake audit by fake auditors. Its ridiculous that this crap is given so much coverage.

You are against the truth being uncovered?

It isnt going to be by these jokers. They do not know what they are doing.

Just because you don’t that doesn’t mean others don’t.

Does this sound like people who know what they are doing?

During a listening to within the Senate on Tuesday afternoon, Ben Cotton, founding father of the digital forensics company CyFIR, a subcontractor on Senate President Karen Fann’s audit crew, stated he recovered the information after correctly configuring the laborious drive the place the info was saved.
“I’ve been able to recover all of those deleted files, and I have access to that data,” Cotton stated.

Nonetheless, Cotton repeatedly used the phrase “deleted,” as did Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Warren Petersen, who questioned audit crew members with Fann on the listening to. After the listening to, Fann stood by Cotton’s assertion that the information had been deleted

Arizona Audit: Audit Contractor Says He "Recovered" Deleted Files - News Chant USA

A contractor stated he was in a position to get well knowledge that the Senate’s election audit crew beforehand accused Maricopa County of deleting, undermining a severe allegation the audit publicly lodged towards county election officers. During a listening to within the Senate on Tuesday...

us.newschant.com

I'll ask you again too. Will you accept the results of this audit if that audit doesn't show any fraud and are you prepared to give up on that narrative?

I ll answer you again. Yes. You don’t sound like someone who is logical. You sound like a biased leftist lemming. With all due respect. And will you accept the results if the audit finds serious and numerous fraudulent activity?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

It seems to be Arizona republicans who have seen their arses. Fake audit by fake auditors. Its ridiculous that this crap is given so much coverage.

You are against the truth being uncovered?

The has nothing to do with your passionate desire for the truth. Nothing. You people are the equivalent of a five year old throwing a fit. You don't deserve to be taken seriously.

I feel the exact same way about cancel culture leftists and those who tell me that biological males may simply identify as females and be considered females. Trust the science they say. LOL

 

[dblack]

It seems to be Arizona republicans who have seen their arses. Fake audit by fake auditors. Its ridiculous that this crap is given so much coverage.

You are against the truth being uncovered?

The has nothing to do with your passionate desire for the truth. Nothing. You people are the equivalent of a five year old throwing a fit. You don't deserve to be taken seriously.

I feel the exact same way about cancel culture leftists and those who tell me that biological males may simply identify as females and be considered females.

As do I. But that has nothing to do with all the sore-loser whining about a "stolen" election. It doesn't justify the paranoid delusions.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

It seems to be Arizona republicans who have seen their arses. Fake audit by fake auditors. Its ridiculous that this crap is given so much coverage.

You are against the truth being uncovered?

The has nothing to do with your passionate desire for the truth. Nothing. You people are the equivalent of a five year old throwing a fit. You don't deserve to be taken seriously.

I feel the exact same way about cancel culture leftists and those who tell me that biological males may simply identify as females and be considered females.

As do I. But that has nothing to do with all the sore-loser whining about a "stolen" election. It doesn't justify the paranoid delusions.

That was most unfortunate. Hopefully it makes our election process more transparent going forward so this may be avoided.

 

[dblack]

It seems to be Arizona republicans who have seen their arses. Fake audit by fake auditors. Its ridiculous that this crap is given so much coverage.

You are against the truth being uncovered?

The has nothing to do with your passionate desire for the truth. Nothing. You people are the equivalent of a five year old throwing a fit. You don't deserve to be taken seriously.

I feel the exact same way about cancel culture leftists and those who tell me that biological males may simply identify as females and be considered females.

As do I. But that has nothing to do with all the sore-loser whining about a "stolen" election. It doesn't justify the paranoid delusions.

That was most unfortunate. Hopefully it makes our election process more transparent going forward so this may be avoided.

Yeah, we definitely need to bring our election processes into the 21st century. It's ridiculously outdated. But, again, that has absolution nothing to do with "stolen" election horseshit. This all about Trump's fragile ego and his inability to accept defeat gracefully.

Here's the dialog we're supposed to accept as legitimate:

"Biden won. Trump lost"

"There's no way Trump lost. Democrat's cheated."

"Why do you say Democrats cheated?"

"Because there's no way Trump lost."

"Yes, but what evidence do you have?"

"Trump lost. Look at the vote counts. They say that Trump lost. Clearly the counts are fraudulent. What else do you need?"

"Well, how about actual EVIDENCE that Trump's loss was the result of Democrats cheating. That would work".

"Jeez, it's just obvious! There's obviously no way Trump lost - but, if you insist, we'll dig up some evidence. Just give us time. With enough recounts and enough audits, and with the right people doing the recounts and audits, we're sure to find something...."

"Yeah, right."

 

[forkup]

And will you accept the results if the audit finds serious and numerous fraudulent activity?

Yes, I will. In the manner, these kinds of things are tested. In front of a judge. Something I said twice in this op

Depends on what that "something" is, but yes. That investigation would emd up in the courts more than likely and that'll determine if that something has merit.

Who says? You responded to a post where I stated that if "something" is found investigations might be warranted. This is despite this being the THIRD audit in this particular county. I won't believe the audit is on the up and up but if I state that I want proof of voter fraud, I can't well state that I don't want potential proof investigated. And if necessary argued in court. That is how you test these kinds of particular hypotheses.

Wich brings me to this

I ll answer you again. Yes.

You will of course be able to show that you answered that question in this OP?
Because this is what you replied to someone else asking you if this audit would be enough for you.

As many as it takes to get to the truth

You don’t sound like someone who is logical.

I can show how I structure my arguments. In my book they are way more consistent and logical than your arguments but feel free to SHOW me how I'm illogical.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

It seems to be Arizona republicans who have seen their arses. Fake audit by fake auditors. Its ridiculous that this crap is given so much coverage.

You are against the truth being uncovered?

The has nothing to do with your passionate desire for the truth. Nothing. You people are the equivalent of a five year old throwing a fit. You don't deserve to be taken seriously.

I feel the exact same way about cancel culture leftists and those who tell me that biological males may simply identify as females and be considered females.

As do I. But that has nothing to do with all the sore-loser whining about a "stolen" election. It doesn't justify the paranoid delusions.

That was most unfortunate. Hopefully it makes our election process more transparent going forward so this may be avoided.

Yeah, we definitely need to bring our election processes into the 21st century. It's ridiculously outdated. But, again, that has absolution nothing to do with "stolen" election horseshit. This all about Trump's fragile ego and his inability to accept defeat gracefully.

Here's the dialog we're supposed to accept as legitimate:

"Biden won. Trump lost"

"There's no way Trump lost. Democrat's cheated."

"Why do you say Democrats cheated?"

"Because there's no way Trump lost."

"Yes, but what evidence do you have?"

"Trump lost. Look at the vote counts. They say that Trump lost. Clearly the counts are fraudulent. What else do you need?"

"Well, how about actual EVIDENCE that Trump's loss was the result of Democrats cheating. That would work".

"Jeez, it's just obvious! There's obviously no way Trump lost - but, if you insist, we'll dig up some evidence. Just give us time. With enough recounts and enough audits, and with the right people doing the recounts and audits, we're sure to find something...."

"Yeah, right."

People are angry but the election process needs to more transparent and then there are fewer comments like that IMO

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

And will you accept the results if the audit finds serious and numerous fraudulent activity?

Yes, I will. In the manner, these kinds of things are tested. In front of a judge. Something I said twice in this op

Depends on what that "something" is, but yes. That investigation would emd up in the courts more than likely and that'll determine if that something has merit.

Who says? You responded to a post where I stated that if "something" is found investigations might be warranted. This is despite this being the THIRD audit in this particular county. I won't believe the audit is on the up and up but if I state that I want proof of voter fraud, I can't well state that I don't want potential proof investigated. And if necessary argued in court. That is how you test these kinds of particular hypotheses.

Wich brings me to this

I ll answer you again. Yes.

You will of course be able to show that you answered that question in this OP?
Because this is what you replied to someone else asking you if this audit would be enough for you.

As many as it takes to get to the truth

You don’t sound like someone who is logical.

I can show how I structure my arguments. In my book they are way more consistent and logical than your arguments but feel free to SHOW me how I'm illogical.

So where do I state I would not accept the results? Sure show me yours and compare them vs mine

 

[Lastamender]

It seems to be Arizona republicans who have seen their arses. Fake audit by fake auditors. Its ridiculous that this crap is given so much coverage.

You are against the truth being uncovered?

The has nothing to do with your passionate desire for the truth. Nothing. You people are the equivalent of a five year old throwing a fit. You don't deserve to be taken seriously.

I feel the exact same way about cancel culture leftists and those who tell me that biological males may simply identify as females and be considered females.

As do I. But that has nothing to do with all the sore-loser whining about a "stolen" election. It doesn't justify the paranoid delusions.

They are not paranoid delusions. Those delusions are yours. The election was stolen.

 

[forkup]

And will you accept the results if the audit finds serious and numerous fraudulent activity?

Yes, I will. In the manner, these kinds of things are tested. In front of a judge. Something I said twice in this op

Depends on what that "something" is, but yes. That investigation would emd up in the courts more than likely and that'll determine if that something has merit.

Who says? You responded to a post where I stated that if "something" is found investigations might be warranted. This is despite this being the THIRD audit in this particular county. I won't believe the audit is on the up and up but if I state that I want proof of voter fraud, I can't well state that I don't want potential proof investigated. And if necessary argued in court. That is how you test these kinds of particular hypotheses.

Wich brings me to this

I ll answer you again. Yes.

You will of course be able to show that you answered that question in this OP?
Because this is what you replied to someone else asking you if this audit would be enough for you.

As many as it takes to get to the truth

You don’t sound like someone who is logical.

I can show how I structure my arguments. In my book they are way more consistent and logical than your arguments but feel free to SHOW me how I'm illogical.

So where do I state I would not accept the results? Sure show me yours and compare them vs mine

When you say that you are answering something AGAIN. LOGIC would state you are able to show that you answered before. You are not. Instead, you are moving the goalposts. This is how intellectual dishonesty looks like. With all due respect.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

And will you accept the results if the audit finds serious and numerous fraudulent activity?

Yes, I will. In the manner, these kinds of things are tested. In front of a judge. Something I said twice in this op

Depends on what that "something" is, but yes. That investigation would emd up in the courts more than likely and that'll determine if that something has merit.

Who says? You responded to a post where I stated that if "something" is found investigations might be warranted. This is despite this being the THIRD audit in this particular county. I won't believe the audit is on the up and up but if I state that I want proof of voter fraud, I can't well state that I don't want potential proof investigated. And if necessary argued in court. That is how you test these kinds of particular hypotheses.

Wich brings me to this

I ll answer you again. Yes.

You will of course be able to show that you answered that question in this OP?
Because this is what you replied to someone else asking you if this audit would be enough for you.

As many as it takes to get to the truth

You don’t sound like someone who is logical.

I can show how I structure my arguments. In my book they are way more consistent and logical than your arguments but feel free to SHOW me how I'm illogical.

So where do I state I would not accept the results? Sure show me yours and compare them vs mine

When you say that you are answering something AGAIN. LOGIC would state you are able to show that you answered before. You are not. Instead, you are moving the goalposts. This is how intellectual dishonesty looks like. With all due respect.

Find one post from me and I have many where I say it was “stolen”.

 

[forkup]

And will you accept the results if the audit finds serious and numerous fraudulent activity?

Yes, I will. In the manner, these kinds of things are tested. In front of a judge. Something I said twice in this op

Depends on what that "something" is, but yes. That investigation would emd up in the courts more than likely and that'll determine if that something has merit.

Who says? You responded to a post where I stated that if "something" is found investigations might be warranted. This is despite this being the THIRD audit in this particular county. I won't believe the audit is on the up and up but if I state that I want proof of voter fraud, I can't well state that I don't want potential proof investigated. And if necessary argued in court. That is how you test these kinds of particular hypotheses.

Wich brings me to this

I ll answer you again. Yes.

You will of course be able to show that you answered that question in this OP?
Because this is what you replied to someone else asking you if this audit would be enough for you.

As many as it takes to get to the truth

You don’t sound like someone who is logical.

I can show how I structure my arguments. In my book they are way more consistent and logical than your arguments but feel free to SHOW me how I'm illogical.

So where do I state I would not accept the results? Sure show me yours and compare them vs mine

When you say that you are answering something AGAIN. LOGIC would state you are able to show that you answered before. You are not. Instead, you are moving the goalposts. This is how intellectual dishonesty looks like. With all due respect.

Find one post from me and I have many where I say it was “stolen”.

When you say that you are answering something AGAIN. LOGIC would state you are able to show that you answered before. You are not

I'm not the one who made the statement. I'll answer any question you pose. Right AFTER you concede that you didn't in fact said before that you would accept this audit.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

And will you accept the results if the audit finds serious and numerous fraudulent activity?

Yes, I will. In the manner, these kinds of things are tested. In front of a judge. Something I said twice in this op

Depends on what that "something" is, but yes. That investigation would emd up in the courts more than likely and that'll determine if that something has merit.

Who says? You responded to a post where I stated that if "something" is found investigations might be warranted. This is despite this being the THIRD audit in this particular county. I won't believe the audit is on the up and up but if I state that I want proof of voter fraud, I can't well state that I don't want potential proof investigated. And if necessary argued in court. That is how you test these kinds of particular hypotheses.

Wich brings me to this

I ll answer you again. Yes.

You will of course be able to show that you answered that question in this OP?
Because this is what you replied to someone else asking you if this audit would be enough for you.

As many as it takes to get to the truth

You don’t sound like someone who is logical.

I can show how I structure my arguments. In my book they are way more consistent and logical than your arguments but feel free to SHOW me how I'm illogical.

So where do I state I would not accept the results? Sure show me yours and compare them vs mine

When you say that you are answering something AGAIN. LOGIC would state you are able to show that you answered before. You are not. Instead, you are moving the goalposts. This is how intellectual dishonesty looks like. With all due respect.

Find one post from me and I have many where I say it was “stolen”.

When you say that you are answering something AGAIN. LOGIC would state you are able to show that you answered before. You are not

I'm not the one who made the statement. I'll answer any question you pose. Right AFTER you concede that you didn't in fact said before that you would accept this audit.

Where in my statements did I say I would not? Fine I misspoke. Do you feel better? Yes or No?

 

[jc456]

If you're fine with it then don't complain about the EC.

Except the EC lets people be president AFTER the people have rejected them, and when it does, it usually turns out REALLY BAD.

I trust the people. You clearly do not.

So you don’t like the EC. You should learn why it exists!

 

[forkup]

So how many audits and recounts do you need. Throw out a number....

This was the first reply that prompted my response.

As many as it takes to get to the truth

So I said this

An audit conducted on the behest of the Arizona GOP conducted by a company that is demonstrably biased in favor of election fraud and you still can't simply state that that audit would be enough.

Instead of saying you do accept that audit, (the easiest rebuttal in history), you said this.

Have PWC do it. There must be a way to find a 3rd party that would do it and do it fairly. I refuse to believe that everyone is biased.

This a justification for NOT accepting an audit.

So tell me why you feel these audits are insufficient for you? And again why you still won't commit to accepting the third one that has a demonstrable bias?

This was my second challenge. You didn't even reply to that one.

Where in my statements did I say I would not?

You didn't. You simply implied it by not arguing you did accept the audit. Something that is the most simple way to shut my argument down.

Fine I misspoke. Do you feel better?

No, I don't. Because you still can not muster the honesty to simply apologize.
You were insulting.

a biased leftist lemming

and condescending.

I ll answer you again.

You did that because you wanted to be insulting and condescending. You don't "misspeak" when you type an entire sentence claiming you said something you didn't. And you don't call someone names by accident either.

As I said I'm afraid your intellectual honesty leaves much to be desired.

Again with the most due respect.

(See how someone can imply something without actually saying it?)

 

[jc456]

74.2mil people deserve to know the truth. Rest is partisan dialogue.

So how many audits and recounts do you need. Throw out a number....

As many as it takes to get to the truth

How do you discern "the truth?" From where I'm sitting it's being defined by people who believe fraud happened as, "as many as it takes to agree with my opinion." As a methodology for discerning truth it has some obvious flaws don't you think?

3rd party that doesn't have a dog in the fight is how I would do it.

You can not find such a party. What you can find and what has been found is a system that has members of both parties represented. A system where any challenges to the result are arbitrated by a judicial system that has people of both parties present. The problem is even then the results aren't being accepted.

Case and point... well this. An audit conducted on the behest of the Arizona GOP conducted by a company that is demonstrably biased in favor of election fraud and you still can't simply state that that audit would be enough.

So you want the criminals who cheated to tell you they didn’t? Hahaha how is that Fox?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

So how many audits and recounts do you need. Throw out a number....

This was the first reply that prompted my response.

As many as it takes to get to the truth

So I said this

An audit conducted on the behest of the Arizona GOP conducted by a company that is demonstrably biased in favor of election fraud and you still can't simply state that that audit would be enough.

Instead of saying you do accept that audit, (the easiest rebuttal in history), you said this.

Have PWC do it. There must be a way to find a 3rd party that would do it and do it fairly. I refuse to believe that everyone is biased.

This a justification for NOT accepting an audit.

So tell me why you feel these audits are insufficient for you? And again why you still won't commit to accepting the third one that has a demonstrable bias?

This was my second challenge. You didn't even reply to that one.

Where in my statements did I say I would not?

You didn't. You simply implied it by not arguing you did accept the audit. Something that is the most simple way to shut my argument down.

Fine I misspoke. Do you feel better?

No, I don't. Because you still can not muster the honesty to simply apologize.
You were insulting.

a biased leftist lemming

and condescending.

I ll answer you again.

You did that because you wanted to be insulting and condescending. You don't "misspeak" when you type an entire sentence claiming you said something you didn't. And you don't call someone names by accident either.

As I said I'm afraid your intellectual honesty leaves much to be desired.

Again with the most due respect.

(See how someone can imply something without actually saying it?)

Dude what do you want from me exactly?

 

[forkup]

So how many audits and recounts do you need. Throw out a number....

This was the first reply that prompted my response.

As many as it takes to get to the truth

So I said this

An audit conducted on the behest of the Arizona GOP conducted by a company that is demonstrably biased in favor of election fraud and you still can't simply state that that audit would be enough.

Instead of saying you do accept that audit, (the easiest rebuttal in history), you said this.

Have PWC do it. There must be a way to find a 3rd party that would do it and do it fairly. I refuse to believe that everyone is biased.

This a justification for NOT accepting an audit.

So tell me why you feel these audits are insufficient for you? And again why you still won't commit to accepting the third one that has a demonstrable bias?

This was my second challenge. You didn't even reply to that one.

Where in my statements did I say I would not?

You didn't. You simply implied it by not arguing you did accept the audit. Something that is the most simple way to shut my argument down.

Fine I misspoke. Do you feel better?

No, I don't. Because you still can not muster the honesty to simply apologize.
You were insulting.

a biased leftist lemming

and condescending.

I ll answer you again.

You did that because you wanted to be insulting and condescending. You don't "misspeak" when you type an entire sentence claiming you said something you didn't. And you don't call someone names by accident either.

As I said I'm afraid your intellectual honesty leaves much to be desired.

Again with the most due respect.

(See how someone can imply something without actually saying it?)

Dude what do you want from me exactly?

Honesty! I think any conversation that has any hope of accomplishing anything, has to start with honesty.

I can deal with insults. (Those I can call out) I can deal with bad faith arguments. (those I can debunk if my arguments are better).

Dishonesty however I can't remedy. If a person isn't honest when arguing any hope of actually talking vanishes.