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

[AzogtheDefiler]

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!!!

LOL you are deranged. You watch Disney cause you have special problems. Police should investigate you.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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?

Again you don’t speak for me. Go fuck up
some more resumes.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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.....

They were in the article you posted or another user did. Why is there a dispute if “there is nothing to see here?

 

[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?

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."

Zzzzzzz long winded and easily offended. You sir are a leftist

 

[JoeB131]

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

Which election accountability laws were those, exactly?

We had an unprecedented situation with the pandemic where people couldn't vote in person because Trump mishandled Covid as badly as he did, and then you complain when people voted him out?

Everyone who voted was entitled to vote. We need more people to vote, not less.

 

[JoeB131]

LOL you are deranged. You watch Disney cause you have special problems. Police should investigate you.

And reported.

 

[lennypartiv]

.

Let's start by first uncovering actual fraudulent ballots.

Which is why this audit is going on in Arizona. The people who did the first recount/audit were clueless and missed the obvious fraud.

 

[JoeB131]

Which is why this audit is going on in Arizona. The people who did the first recount/audit were clueless and missed the obvious fraud.

By fraud you mean, "My guy didn't win, even though all the polls had him trailing."

 

[lennypartiv]

By fraud you mean, "My guy didn't win, even though all the polls had him trailing."

The people running the polls don't know what they're doing. We saw that in 2016.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

LOL you are deranged. You watch Disney cause you have special problems. Police should investigate you.

And reported.

Of course. Par for the course for you….

 

[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."

Zzzzzzz long winded and easily offended. You sir are a leftist

Three paragraphs is long-winded, and calling out that name-calling doesn't equal an actual response is easily offended? You sir are a dishonest shill. I know which of the 2 I'd rather be.

 

[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?

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."

Zzzzzzz long winded and easily offended. You sir are a leftist

Three paragraphs is long-winded, and calling out that name-calling doesn't equal an actual response is easily offended? You sir are a dishonest shill. I know which of the 2 I'd rather

How was it “name calling “? No you’re the liar. jc456 was right

 

[Moonglow]

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?

They legislate the problem away.

 

[surada]

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

Which election accountability laws were those, exactly?

We had an unprecedented situation with the pandemic where people couldn't vote in person because Trump mishandled Covid as badly as he did, and then you complain when people voted him out?

Everyone who voted was entitled to vote. We need more people to vote, not less.

Well, Trump is REALLY helping the Georgia Democrats.

Trump allies seek to import Arizona's election audit to Georgia

In a bid to bolster former President Donald Trump's lies about widespread fraud in the 2020 election, Trump's Republican allies are now seeking Arizona-style audits in other swing states -- including Georgia, where the former President's false claims have set off an intraparty war.

www.cnn.com

 

[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?

Specifically what do you want me to say?

I don't know, these are your arguments. Just make one, and be prepared to support and defend that one. If you can do neither, don't change that particular argument but acknowledge you can't and move on.

 

[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?

I don't know, these are your arguments. Just make one, and be prepared to support and defend that one. If you can do neither, don't change that particular argument but acknowledge you can't and move on.

I think we need to do as many investigations as possible to have more transparency for the NEXT election. I have said this numerous times on this board and maybe even this thread. Feel free to check on that. Never said we should overturn this one. So, what specifically would you like me to post to satisfy you that I being honest?

 

[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."

Zzzzzzz long winded and easily offended. You sir are a leftist

Three paragraphs is long-winded, and calling out that name-calling doesn't equal an actual response is easily offended? You sir are a dishonest shill. I know which of the 2 I'd rather

How was it “name calling “? No you’re the liar. jc456 was right

You sound like a biased leftist lemming.

This is not calling me a name?

 

[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?

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."

Zzzzzzz long winded and easily offended. You sir are a leftist

Three paragraphs is long-winded, and calling out that name-calling doesn't equal an actual response is easily offended? You sir are a dishonest shill. I know which of the 2 I'd rather

How was it “name calling “? No you’re the liar. jc456 was right

You sound like a biased leftist lemming.

This is not calling me a name?

That you find offensive? Sir, with all due respect you are being overly sensitive. I truly mean that.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

LOL you are deranged. You watch Disney cause you have special problems. Police should investigate you.

And reported.

 

[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."

Zzzzzzz long winded and easily offended. You sir are a leftist

Three paragraphs is long-winded, and calling out that name-calling doesn't equal an actual response is easily offended? You sir are a dishonest shill. I know which of the 2 I'd rather

How was it “name calling “? No you’re the liar. jc456 was right

You sound like a biased leftist lemming.

This is not calling me a name?

That you find offensive? Sir, with all due respect you are being overly sensitive. I truly mean that.

I'm not offended but it is calling me a name. Something you were convinced you didn't do to the point of calling me a liar. Again this is what I mean with honesty. Instead of acknowledging something obvious, because I have pointed it out before, you deny and call me a liar.

You are the one claiming I'm offended. As I said that is the way I deal with that particular fallacy. Calling it out. It doesn't offend me. What it does is put it front and center that you have trouble giving a coherent argument.