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

[AzogtheDefiler]

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

And reported.

View attachment 492394

When danger rears its ugly head cowardly JoeB131 turned and fled.....

 

[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.

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.

What fallacy? From the beginning I have said they should do as many investigations as possible to make the 2024 more transparent and less divisive. I am not sure why that offends you? Please explain. Thank you. My apologies for offending you.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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

Unbiased CNN...LOL

Are you ever honest? EVER?! You live in a fantasy world. Of course CNN will do a hit piece on Trump considering they were caught stating that they criticized Trump because it garnered them ratings, which have plummeted since Trump left the WH. Funny how the vilify Trump but protect Cuomo...hmmmmm

 

[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.

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.

I consider a "name" to be a swear.

 

[forkup]

think we need to do as many investigations as possible to have more transparency for the NEXT election.

How does investigating THIS election make the NEXT election more transparent?

As to as many investigations as possible. There have been numerous election challenges, recounts, and audits conducted. All of them have shown the same result. Despite that, a considerable part of the GOP believes Biden was not duly elected. Every investigation, including this particular audit even if it turns up nothing extends the narrative that something untoward happened even if it's just under the premise "where there's smoke there's fire". At this point, there are zero reasons that an extra audit will convince ANYBODY who still believes to give up that belief. Although it will reinforce that belief further for all of them.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

think we need to do as many investigations as possible to have more transparency for the NEXT election.

How does investigating THIS election make the NEXT election more transparent?

As to as many investigations as possible. There have been numerous election challenges, recounts, and audits conducted. All of them have shown the same result. Despite that, a considerable part of the GOP believes Biden was not duly elected. Every investigation, including this particular audit even if it turns up nothing extends the narrative that something untoward happened even if it's just under the premise "where there's smoke there's fire". At this point, there are zero reasons that an extra audit will convince ANYBODY who still believes to give up that belief. Although it will reinforce that belief further for all of them.

You find irregularities and fix them for the next election so they don't happen. Like instant replay helps the refs get better when officiating a sporting event. It will convince me. That is one voter. I am also sure I am not the only one. I did not like the fact that there is so much controversy and that 40% of the country believes it was fraudulent. Now you are saying we don't need to improve the transparency? OK...I disagree.

 

[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.

I consider a "name" to be a swear.

I don't care how you define a term. I can't argue against what you "think" something means. I can only go by how the dictionary defines a term. Name-calling is a form of verbal abuse in which insulting or demeaning labels are directed at an individual or group.

I think calling me a "biased leftist lemming" fits that description, or do you want to argue it doesn't?

 

[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.

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.

I consider a "name" to be a swear.

I don't care how you define a term. I can't argue against what you "think" something means. I can only go by how the dictionary defines a term. Name-calling is a form of verbal abuse in which insulting or demeaning labels are directed at an individual or group.

I think calling me a "biased leftist lemming" fits that description, or do you want to argue it doesn't?

If the shoe fits…you’re offended because I hit a nerve in my opinion. Calling you a biased leftist is perfectly acceptable and not against the rules of this board.

 

[forkup]

You find irregularities and fix them for the next election so they don't happen.

There are always irregularities. Elections are administered by humans after all. No amount of audits will fix them.

It will convince me. That is one voter.

Great to hear. Why didn't the previous 2 convince you? Or for that matter the recount? Or for that matter Bill Barr saying there was no large-scale election fraud? Or the 60 odd election challenges that were lost?

Now you are saying we don't need to improve the transparency?

Nope, we don't. Besides the fact that most if not all of the counting of ballots can be followed live. They are supervised by members of both campaigns. Every single campaign can request a recount, and contested ones get audited legal challenges can and do get filed. What exactly is not sufficiently transparent and what will audits do to make it more transparent?

 

[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.

I consider a "name" to be a swear.

I don't care how you define a term. I can't argue against what you "think" something means. I can only go by how the dictionary defines a term. Name-calling is a form of verbal abuse in which insulting or demeaning labels are directed at an individual or group.

I think calling me a "biased leftist lemming" fits that description, or do you want to argue it doesn't?

If the shoe fits…you’re offended because I hit a nerve in my opinion. Calling you a biased leftist is perfectly acceptable and not against the rules of this board.

Indeed name-calling is acceptable on this board. I wouldn't want it any other way. Unfortunately for you, that wasn't the argument being made. I didn't argue if it is allowed or not. The only thing I argued is that you did it.

And since you've now turned yourself into a pretzel trying to deny, defend, or strawman it, I will leave you to it. As I said, since you seem to be simply unable to argue in an intellectually honest manner I see no point in continuing.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You find irregularities and fix them for the next election so they don't happen.

There are always irregularities. Elections are administered by humans after all. No amount of audits will fix them.

It will convince me. That is one voter.

Great to hear. Why didn't the previous 2 convince you? Or for that matter the recount? Or for that matter Bill Barr saying there was no large-scale election fraud? Or the 60 odd election challenges that were lost?

Now you are saying we don't need to improve the transparency?

Nope, we don't. Besides the fact that most if not all of the counting of ballots can be followed live. They are supervised by members of both campaigns. Every single campaign can request a recount, and contested ones get audited legal challenges can and do get filed. What exactly is not sufficiently transparent and what will audits do to make it more transparent?

So the argument is the supervisors were too far to see anything and the mail in ballots favored one candidate over another. I am glad you believe the process is excellent and transparent. I disagree.

 

[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.

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.

I consider a "name" to be a swear.

I don't care how you define a term. I can't argue against what you "think" something means. I can only go by how the dictionary defines a term. Name-calling is a form of verbal abuse in which insulting or demeaning labels are directed at an individual or group.

I think calling me a "biased leftist lemming" fits that description, or do you want to argue it doesn't?

If the shoe fits…you’re offended because I hit a nerve in my opinion. Calling you a biased leftist is perfectly acceptable and not against the rules of this board.

Indeed name-calling is acceptable on this board. I wouldn't want it any other way. Unfortunately for you, that wasn't the argument being made. I didn't argue if it is allowed or not. The only thing I argued is that you did it.

And since you've now turned yourself into a pretzel trying to deny, defend, or strawman it, I will leave you to it. As I said, since you seem to be simply unable to argue in an intellectually honest manner I see no point in continuing.

My apologies that you were offended.

 

[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?

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?

It’s who you are. Not an insult

 

[Gracie]

wtf? General Discussion forum....where nothing really matters what you start as a thread, Talk about anything......but that isn't true, is it? Every time I start a thread in here, it gets moved.

For your information, Moderators....my question is NOT a conspiracy theory. It's a legit question of what happens if an elected (supposedly) POTUS is not legit, WHAT HAPPENS if it is found out it is NOT legit? What are the rules if that happens? What is the next step? Is there a law about it? If so, where? How is that a conspiracy theory????

Kat flacaltenn MeBelle WinterBorn katsteve2012 and whomever is a moderator.

 

[forkup]

You find irregularities and fix them for the next election so they don't happen.

There are always irregularities. Elections are administered by humans after all. No amount of audits will fix them.

It will convince me. That is one voter.

Great to hear. Why didn't the previous 2 convince you? Or for that matter the recount? Or for that matter Bill Barr saying there was no large-scale election fraud? Or the 60 odd election challenges that were lost?

Now you are saying we don't need to improve the transparency?

Nope, we don't. Besides the fact that most if not all of the counting of ballots can be followed live. They are supervised by members of both campaigns. Every single campaign can request a recount, and contested ones get audited legal challenges can and do get filed. What exactly is not sufficiently transparent and what will audits do to make it more transparent?

So the argument is the supervisors were too far to see anything and the mail in ballots favored one candidate over another. I am glad you believe the process is excellent and transparent. I disagree.

An argument that was brought before a judge and subsequently voluntarily dismissed. https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=371. You can argue anything you like. I can argue that the moon is made out of cheese. A good argument is decided by its merit, not by the fact it is being made. And apparently, that one doesn't have enough merit to even continue before a court according to the people who filed it.

Now tell me exactly how auditing will help here?

 

[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.

I consider a "name" to be a swear.

I don't care how you define a term. I can't argue against what you "think" something means. I can only go by how the dictionary defines a term. Name-calling is a form of verbal abuse in which insulting or demeaning labels are directed at an individual or group.

I think calling me a "biased leftist lemming" fits that description, or do you want to argue it doesn't?

If the shoe fits…you’re offended because I hit a nerve in my opinion. Calling you a biased leftist is perfectly acceptable and not against the rules of this board.

Indeed name-calling is acceptable on this board. I wouldn't want it any other way. Unfortunately for you, that wasn't the argument being made. I didn't argue if it is allowed or not. The only thing I argued is that you did it.

And since you've now turned yourself into a pretzel trying to deny, defend, or strawman it, I will leave you to it. As I said, since you seem to be simply unable to argue in an intellectually honest manner I see no point in continuing.

My apologies that you were offended.

You simply don't get it. I'm not offended. The only thing I wanted is that you acknowledged it without being dishonest about it. If you can't be honest about something so obvious and unimportant to your actual argument. How can I expect you to be honest about something that does go to the heart of the topic we are discussing? It's really not that hard.

Anyway enough of this sidetrack.

 

[JoeB131]

When danger rears its ugly head cowardly @JoeB131 turned and fled.....

Nope, you break the rules, I report you, and you get added to the long list of people who got banned for breaking the rules.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You find irregularities and fix them for the next election so they don't happen.

There are always irregularities. Elections are administered by humans after all. No amount of audits will fix them.

It will convince me. That is one voter.

Great to hear. Why didn't the previous 2 convince you? Or for that matter the recount? Or for that matter Bill Barr saying there was no large-scale election fraud? Or the 60 odd election challenges that were lost?

Now you are saying we don't need to improve the transparency?

Nope, we don't. Besides the fact that most if not all of the counting of ballots can be followed live. They are supervised by members of both campaigns. Every single campaign can request a recount, and contested ones get audited legal challenges can and do get filed. What exactly is not sufficiently transparent and what will audits do to make it more transparent?

So the argument is the supervisors were too far to see anything and the mail in ballots favored one candidate over another. I am glad you believe the process is excellent and transparent. I disagree.

An argument that was brought before a judge and subsequently voluntarily dismissed. https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=371. You can argue anything you like. I can argue that the moon is made out of cheese. A good argument is decided by its merit, not by the fact it is being made. And apparently, that one doesn't have enough merit to even continue before a court according to the people who filed it.

Now tell me exactly how auditing will help here?

So instant replay didn’t take off right away in sports. But eventually smarter heads prevailed and while it delayed some games, getting the right call ultimately makes the games better. An audit doesn’t have to reverse the election but it can lead to perhaps modus operandi that may be improved to ensure that elections are more transparent and people feel better about them once the are over. It is less about “judges” more about common sense. Not sure why you’re not understanding this and being condescending?

 

[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.

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.

I consider a "name" to be a swear.

I don't care how you define a term. I can't argue against what you "think" something means. I can only go by how the dictionary defines a term. Name-calling is a form of verbal abuse in which insulting or demeaning labels are directed at an individual or group.

I think calling me a "biased leftist lemming" fits that description, or do you want to argue it doesn't?

If the shoe fits…you’re offended because I hit a nerve in my opinion. Calling you a biased leftist is perfectly acceptable and not against the rules of this board.

Indeed name-calling is acceptable on this board. I wouldn't want it any other way. Unfortunately for you, that wasn't the argument being made. I didn't argue if it is allowed or not. The only thing I argued is that you did it.

And since you've now turned yourself into a pretzel trying to deny, defend, or strawman it, I will leave you to it. As I said, since you seem to be simply unable to argue in an intellectually honest manner I see no point in continuing.

My apologies that you were offended.

You simply don't get it. I'm not offended. The only thing I wanted is that you acknowledged it without being dishonest about it. If you can't be honest about something so obvious and unimportant to your actual argument. How can I expect you to be honest about something that does go to the heart of the topic we are discussing? It's really not that hard.

Anyway enough of this sidetrack.

Your verbiage illustrates you are offended. You want me to be honest but you’re not even honest with yourself.

 

[forkup]

You find irregularities and fix them for the next election so they don't happen.

There are always irregularities. Elections are administered by humans after all. No amount of audits will fix them.

It will convince me. That is one voter.

Great to hear. Why didn't the previous 2 convince you? Or for that matter the recount? Or for that matter Bill Barr saying there was no large-scale election fraud? Or the 60 odd election challenges that were lost?

Now you are saying we don't need to improve the transparency?

Nope, we don't. Besides the fact that most if not all of the counting of ballots can be followed live. They are supervised by members of both campaigns. Every single campaign can request a recount, and contested ones get audited legal challenges can and do get filed. What exactly is not sufficiently transparent and what will audits do to make it more transparent?

So the argument is the supervisors were too far to see anything and the mail in ballots favored one candidate over another. I am glad you believe the process is excellent and transparent. I disagree.

An argument that was brought before a judge and subsequently voluntarily dismissed. https://healthyelections-case-tracker.stanford.edu/detail?id=371. You can argue anything you like. I can argue that the moon is made out of cheese. A good argument is decided by its merit, not by the fact it is being made. And apparently, that one doesn't have enough merit to even continue before a court according to the people who filed it.

Now tell me exactly how auditing will help here?

So instant replay didn’t take off right away in sports. But eventually smarter heads prevailed and while it delayed some games, getting the right call ultimately makes the games better. An audit doesn’t have to reverse the election but it can lead to perhaps modus operandi that may be improved to ensure that elections are more transparent and people feel better about them once the are over. It is less about “judges” more about common sense. Not sure why you’re not understanding this and being condescending?

Common sense dictates that if you site a counterargument to someone, that argument has actually been found to have merit. As pointed out, the idea that the supervisors were too far has already been weighed and found lacking. Reiterating it like it has merit after that is anything BUT common sense. So is by the way comparing it to the progression of instant replay.

And I didn't mean to be condescending. I engaged in what is a reductio ad absurdium. Because your argument was already considered meritless and you still used it anyway. It's not that I haven't been condescending before, even in this OP, this just wasn't one of those times.

By the way, you still haven't told me how an audit would help in any of these issues? I can maybe see how an audit might help in determining specific flaws in the voting process. Although as I mentioned before 2 previous audits in this county make that highly unlikely. And as I also mentioned before, there is little chance any additional audits will actually increase trust. Since there have been many before without finding anything, but also without convincing anybody either. Telling me the actual results of investigations don't change the minds of conspiracy theories, which widespread election fraud in 2020 is. This includes Trump by the way.

It is also illustrated by your argument about ballot distance. This case was not just investigated, but actually dismissed and YOU still use it, citing common sense no less.

But audits will do absolutely NOTHING for transparency. Telling me it's a talking point that you probably haven't actually thought through yet.