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

[jc456]

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.

That’s what they’re doing

 

[jc456]

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.

Who isn’t honest?

 

[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?

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.

You didnt answer the question

 

[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.

You didnt answer the question

oh? Honesty isn't sufficiently clear to you? I'm not sure I can help you if that's too hard of a concept?

 

[jc456]

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.

You didnt answer the question

oh? Honesty isn't sufficiently clear to you. I'm not sure I can help you if that's too hard of a concept?

Honesty works both ways. So you seem to be a hypocrite

 

[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.

You didnt answer the question

oh? Honesty isn't sufficiently clear to you. I'm not sure I can help you if that's too hard of a concept?

On second thought I might be able to. I'll try to put it in the context of this string of replies.

-When I call you out on not have said you accept the results of the audit currently being performed. Instead of first saying you did and later, after you can't support that statement, trying to state you haven't explicitly said you didn't.

You might say something like. "I didn't want to state I accept that audit because that would put me on the hook if it didn't show anything, and I would have a hard time supporting that I believe the results were fraudulent. ( maybe not the best response but I'm thinking closer to the truth). You could reiterate your protest against Biden's win on other grounds. Something that would have started another can of worms but it would be honest.

-When in the first response tonight you get called on the name-calling. You could for instance say. "Look I know that name-calling works to put someone off his argument and I tried and failed so I apologize. So let's try now to talk like two people who are actually interested in each other's opinion and let's try to lay out our best arguments."

 

[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.

You didnt answer the question

oh? Honesty isn't sufficiently clear to you. I'm not sure I can help you if that's too hard of a concept?

Honesty works both ways. So you seem to be a hypocrite

Fine point out on what you find me dishonest?

 

[kaz]

Will MI follow suit? And if that is proven as a cheat, what happens? Does Sleepy Joe get to keep on in the WH? Or if proven Trump DID win...does he get brought back as potus?

Actually, nothing. The certified results have already been entered, after having been counted three times legitimately. Some half-ass audit of one county isn't going change that.

No, the fake Democrat ballots are already there. Counting them over again doesn't change anything, I mean duh.

JoeB: You see, if you keep counting the money from a bank robbery, you will keep getting the same total! Viola!

 

[JoeB131]

Lets? They are elected. Per our constitution the popular vote is irrelevant just like all those people who voted for the ultimate loser are irrelevant. I have a sense of logic. You clearly do not. No process is perfect.

There are imperfect processes, and there are processes that are fucked up.

Any process that lets a complete fucking disaster like Donald Trump become president after a clear majority rejected him, and proceeds to ruin millions of lives, is completely screwed up.

You have no sense of logic. You are just a little man who doesn't want to own up to a mistake.

I vote for Geo. Bush in 2000 and 2004. He fucked things up. I admitted my mistake and am not going to vote for a Republican until they stop nominating crazy people. See, that's what you do when you are adult. You don't keep doubling down on your mistakes.

G. W. Bush- "I'm the biggest fuckup ever!!!"
D. J. Trump - "Hold My Beer".
Princess Bignose - Those guys represent me!!!

 

[JoeB131]

No, the fake Democrat ballots are already there. Counting them over again doesn't change anything, I mean duh.

JoeB: You see, if you keep counting the money from a bank robbery, you will keep getting the same total! Viola!

Right, because that's how much they stole.

And that's how many votes Biden got.

Of course, there were no fake ballots, the Democrats have been gaining strength in Arizona for years, which is why they have two Democratic Senators now.

 

[JoeB131]

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

Again, your side had no problem with Cancel Culture when it was Jane Fonda or the Dixie Chicks or Colin Kapernaek being cancelled.

Gender and sexual identity have a lot more to it than biology. Why is it you guys get all upset about men who identify as women but never, ever complain about women who identify as men?

 

[kaz]

No, the fake Democrat ballots are already there. Counting them over again doesn't change anything, I mean duh.

JoeB: You see, if you keep counting the money from a bank robbery, you will keep getting the same total! Viola!

Right, because that's how much they stole.

And that's how many votes Biden got.

Of course, there were no fake ballots, the Democrats have been gaining strength in Arizona for years, which is why they have two Democratic Senators now.

Yes, exactly. Democrats counting votes in corrupt Democrat cities kept just kept voting and counting, voting and counting, until Biden won. Recounting the votes keeps coming up with that total. You're getting it for once

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Any process that lets a complete fucking disaster like Donald Trump become president after a clear majority rejected him, and proceeds to ruin millions of lives, is completely screwed up.

Whatever you can say about Donald Trump's character, I think any sane person has to admit that in every possible way, the alternative that was offered in 2016 was much, much, much worse.

I will have to admit that in 2016, I wasn't very happy to vote for Mr. Trump, but it was a case where the devil you don't know was clearly preferable to the one you do know; a matter of knowing that Hitlery Clinton would be a disaster for the country, and hoping that Donald Trump wouldn't be nearly as bad.

And if the election was conducted the way you wish it was, we would have had Hitlery Clinton as President.

 

[Mac1958]

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.

This is just another con to keep the rubes tithing and voting.

It's like all those children who think professional wrestling is real. Good guys vs. bad guys. Meanwhile the children buy the cereal being advertised.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, exactly. Democrats counting votes in corrupt Democrat cities kept just kept voting and counting, voting and counting, until Biden won. Recounting the votes keeps coming up with that total. You're getting it for once

Except that isn't what happened.

What happens is what always happens. The cities take longer to count up because they have more people.

And this is the problem. It took Texas and Illinois just as long to count all the votes as it took Pennsylvania and Arizona. The only difference being that based on PROJECTIONS, they could call winners in those states.

So here's a crazy idea.

Get rid of the Electoral College
Don't declare a winner until ALL the votes are counted.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

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.

This is just another con to keep the rubes tithing and voting.

It's like all those children who think professional wrestling is real. Good guys vs. bad guys. Meanwhile the children buy the cereal being advertised.

Pro Wrestling is Fake ??
Seriously ?

 

[kaz]

Yes, exactly. Democrats counting votes in corrupt Democrat cities kept just kept voting and counting, voting and counting, until Biden won. Recounting the votes keeps coming up with that total. You're getting it for once

Except that isn't what happened.

What happens is what always happens. The cities take longer to count up because they have more people.

And this is the problem. It took Texas and Illinois just as long to count all the votes as it took Pennsylvania and Arizona. The only difference being that based on PROJECTIONS, they could call winners in those states.

So here's a crazy idea.

Get rid of the Electoral College
Don't declare a winner until ALL the votes are counted.

Yes, of course. Democrats blew out all election accountability laws, then didn't cheat. No one is as stupid as you want them to be. You know you're the party that cheats, you're relying on it. And it worked, you just stole the Presidency and a bunch of Senate and House seats. You're fascists and racists

 

[kaz]

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.

This is just another con to keep the rubes tithing and voting.

It's like all those children who think professional wrestling is real. Good guys vs. bad guys. Meanwhile the children buy the cereal being advertised.

Pro Wrestling is Fake ??
Seriously ?

Pro wrestling is as fake as US elections now that Democrats are stealing them

 

[Care4all]

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.

That's been done. So why didn't you accept it?

What’s been done? Accept what?

In Arizona alone, there have been two audits and a hand recount.

By an unbiased third party? News to me. Post it please.

Audits find no problems with Arizona election equipment

PHOENIX (AP) — Two independent audits of election equipment in Arizona's most populous county found no modified software, malicious software or incorrect counting equipment, and none of the computers or equipment were connected to the internet.

apnews.com

PHOENIX (AP) — Two independent audits of election equipment in Arizona’s most populous county found no modified software, malicious software or incorrect counting equipment, and none of the computers or equipment were connected to the internet.

Your own link isn’t even conclusive. It’s disputed. Did you even read it? You’re such a loser it’s sad. A loser antisemite.

Nope, it's no longer in dispute.

Per your article it is. Did you mean to post a different article? Please do so.

I can do that too...

Maricopa County, AZ

Maricopa County Election Forensic Audit Results Released

www.maricopa.gov

... meanwhile, the point of contention raised by Fann was...

“That’s what we agreed on, and that’s not what we got,” Fann said. “One of the companies that did it was a company that all they do is certify machines — they do not do an audit.”​

Aside from the fact the other company did audits, she threw her own complaint that one company only certifies machines into the trash when she hired a company to do their audit which is not in the business to perform an election audit, is not certified to perform an election audit, and has never performed an election audit.

Too bad she turned out to be a monumental hypocrite.

Regardless, they were audited and the machines passed.

Machines only count votes. Did you read your own article? Many disputes about legality of those casting ballots. Read your own article

The other issues were settled by the court. Both Republicans and democrats voting, followed the rules in place before the voting started....that were settled by the court when lawsuits were brought.

That is NOT fraud, or cheating or illegal.

In your opinion. But obviously many disagree. Maybe there should be a live debate on TV so we the American people can hear both sides and decide for ourselves? Don’t tell me what to think. Present the facts and allow me to make my own conclusions. Since you’re so confident, please briefly summarize both arguments for me and allow me to make my decision. Thank you.

Please, by all means, tell us what irregularities or rule changes in Arizona that you still question, that were not settled?

What questionable Rule changes that would be or are, substantial enough to change the outcome of the election are you still concerned with??? I can address them, but I need to know what you believe they are.....

 

[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?

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.

You didnt answer the question

oh? Honesty isn't sufficiently clear to you? I'm not sure I can help you if that's too hard of a concept?

Specifically what do you want me to say?