Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 8:01 am

kalm wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 7:39 am

Sure!

So, just for shits and giggles, what is wrong with the audit?

kalm wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 8:51 am

SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 8:01 am

So, just for shits and giggles, what is wrong with the audit?

Well you suggested I use Google do I did. I literally searched “what is wrong with the (Arizona) audit....

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirty ... g-but/amp/

SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 9:56 am

kalm wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 8:51 am
Well you suggested I use Google do I did. I literally searched “what is wrong with the (Arizona) audit....

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirty ... g-but/amp/

Ahh, the standard boilerplate response. A lot in that article has been debunked previously in this thread.

I did happen to take a look at the official audit report and am AMAZED that not one single error was found, even though Maricopa had around 200k in adjudicated ballots. You'd think with a 10% adjudication rate, there would at least be one error in the audit, but nope. Perfectly accurate. We'll see how it matches up with the full audit and not just 4 polling stations.

SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 9:56 am

kalm wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 8:51 am

Well you suggested I use Google do I did. I literally searched “what is wrong with the (Arizona) audit....

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirty ... g-but/amp/

Ahh, the standard boilerplate response. A lot in that article has been debunked previously in this thread.

I did happen to take a look at the official audit report and am AMAZED that not one single error was found, even though Maricopa had around 200k in adjudicated ballots. You'd think with a 10% adjudication rate, there would at least be one error in the audit, but nope. Perfectly accurate. We'll see how it matches up with the full audit and not just 4 polling stations.

kalm wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 10:05 am

SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 9:56 am

Ahh, the standard boilerplate response. A lot in that article has been debunked previously in this thread.

I did happen to take a look at the official audit report and am AMAZED that not one single error was found, even though Maricopa had around 200k in adjudicated ballots. You'd think with a 10% adjudication rate, there would at least be one error in the audit, but nope. Perfectly accurate. We'll see how it matches up with the full audit and not just 4 polling stations.

Give me your top 5 debunked items with sources.

SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 10:25 am

kalm wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 10:05 am

Give me your top 5 debunked items with sources.

Google is your friend. You should be doing your own homework.

But to list 3 off the top of my head.

The audit is looking for crazy conspiracy theories like bamboo and watermarks in/on the ballots. They did, and the guy who brought it up, said they were doing it because they wanted to dispel all the gaslighting and that he did not believe the crazy statement. I think I even posted his interview in this thread.

Only EAC certified groups may perform the audit. Ibanez and I discussed this. The two firms that were chosen in the first audit were not even certified by the EAC at the time they were chosen. Only after it was pointed out, did they magically receive certification the next day. So that simply appears to be a roadblock to those that don't play "the game". In addition, the EAC head was appointed by Nancy Pelosi!

Lastly, the whole lack of partisanship is bologna as well. The Dems are on record as saying they would not participate. That's like someone not playing golf with you, but they then claim your round doesn't count because they weren't playing.

Why are you so afraid of an actual hand recount of all ballots?

We won't get into how the opposition was embarrassed by getting caught lying to gain entry to the audit.

UNI88 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 10:03 am

SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 9:56 am

Ahh, the standard boilerplate response. A lot in that article has been debunked previously in this thread.

I did happen to take a look at the official audit report and am AMAZED that not one single error was found, even though Maricopa had around 200k in adjudicated ballots. You'd think with a 10% adjudication rate, there would at least be one error in the audit, but nope. Perfectly accurate. We'll see how it matches up with the full audit and not just 4 polling stations.

Maybe you're both right. There were irregularities in vote counting and this audit is a clusterfvck - a predetermined result looking for justification, kind of like Trump's impeachments.

SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 9:56 am

kalm wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 8:51 am

Well you suggested I use Google do I did. I literally searched “what is wrong with the (Arizona) audit....

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirty ... g-but/amp/

Ahh, the standard boilerplate response. A lot in that article has been debunked previously in this thread.

I did happen to take a look at the official audit report and am AMAZED that not one single error was found, even though Maricopa had around 200k in adjudicated ballots. You'd think with a 10% adjudication rate, there would at least be one error in the audit, but nope. Perfectly accurate. We'll see how it matches up with the full audit and not just 4 polling stations.

SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 8:08 pm

UNI88 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 10:03 am

Maybe you're both right. There were irregularities in vote counting and this audit is a clusterfvck - a predetermined result looking for justification, kind of like Trump's impeachments.

How has the audit been a cluster? At this point, it has only been a manual counting of ballots. Nothing more. I can understand if they put the ballot into a black box and came up with differing results, but that isn't what is happening.

You have people sitting at a table with the ballot on a turnstile. They get around 8 seconds to determine who the vote was placed for, and if after 50 ballots, the individual totals are off by more than one vote, they must redo the 50.

Ibanez wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 5:48 am

SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 8:08 pm
How has the audit been a cluster? At this point, it has only been a manual counting of ballots. Nothing more. I can understand if they put the ballot into a black box and came up with differing results, but that isn't what is happening.

You have people sitting at a table with the ballot on a turnstile. They get around 8 seconds to determine who the vote was placed for, and if after 50 ballots, the individual totals are off by more than one vote, they must redo the 50.

Taking longer than expected
Claiming files were deleted only to learn that they' didn't know what they're doing
Being run by someone w/ no training or experience is this sort of work
Having other vendors quit
The external squabbles with the Party that initially wanted the audit

SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 9:45 am

Ibanez wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 5:48 am
Taking longer than expected
Claiming files were deleted only to learn that they' didn't know what they're doing
Being run by someone w/ no training or experience is this sort of work
Having other vendors quit
The external squabbles with the Party that initially wanted the audit

It is taking longer than expected, but they finished the manual hand recount and only have 200,000 duplicates to go through.

What if the physical ballot count falls short of what the election said happened? That's what I'm interested in. Lol

UNI88 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 9:56 am

SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 9:45 am

It is taking longer than expected, but they finished the manual hand recount and only have 200,000 duplicates to go through.

What if the physical ballot count falls short of what the election said happened? That's what I'm interested in. Lol

Why should I trust the auditors any more than you trust the EAC head appointed by Nancy Pelosi?

UNI88 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 10:03 am

SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 9:56 am

Ahh, the standard boilerplate response. A lot in that article has been debunked previously in this thread.

I did happen to take a look at the official audit report and am AMAZED that not one single error was found, even though Maricopa had around 200k in adjudicated ballots. You'd think with a 10% adjudication rate, there would at least be one error in the audit, but nope. Perfectly accurate. We'll see how it matches up with the full audit and not just 4 polling stations.

Maybe you're both right. There were irregularities in vote counting and this audit is a clusterfvck - a predetermined result looking for justification, kind of like Trump's impeachments.

SDHornet wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 11:38 am

UNI88 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 10:03 am

Maybe you're both right. There were irregularities in vote counting and this audit is a clusterfvck - a predetermined result looking for justification, kind of like Trump's impeachments.

The whole point of voting machines is to remove errors, no? The audit should reveal close to no errors if the machines are doing what they are supposed to do.

Skjellyfetti wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 12:18 pm I think the point of voting machines is to county quickly with very low error. And, that low margin of error is why most states have an automatic recount at a certain threshold.

The amount of time it is taking them to hand count one county in Arizona kinda shows why it is not a feasible method to count ballots. We'd still be counting votes from election day on Inauguration Day.

SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 12:17 pm

SDHornet wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 11:38 am

The whole point of voting machines is to remove errors, no? The audit should reveal close to no errors if the machines are doing what they are supposed to do.

Exactly. Just like the audit of the 4 polling stations right after the election which showed 100% accuracy. Should match up perfectly.

SDHornet wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 11:38 am

UNI88 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 10:03 am
Maybe you're both right. There were irregularities in vote counting and this audit is a clusterfvck - a predetermined result looking for justification, kind of like Trump's impeachments.

The whole point of voting machines is to remove errors, no? The audit should reveal close to no errors if the machines are doing what they are supposed to do.

UNI88 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 12:31 pm

SDHornet wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 11:38 am

The whole point of voting machines is to remove errors, no? The audit should reveal close to no errors if the machines are doing what they are supposed to do.

There is no doubt in my mind that there are inconsistencies and errors in the counts. I'm pretty sure there were errors and inconsistencies that hurt Trump and there were errors and inconsistencies that helped him. I fully support finding ways to prevent those kinds of errors and inconsistencies but I don't think they cost Trump the election. He lost because he's a loser.

Ibanez wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 5:44 am

SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 9:56 am

Ahh, the standard boilerplate response. A lot in that article has been debunked previously in this thread.

I did happen to take a look at the official audit report and am AMAZED that not one single error was found, even though Maricopa had around 200k in adjudicated ballots. You'd think with a 10% adjudication rate, there would at least be one error in the audit, but nope. Perfectly accurate. We'll see how it matches up with the full audit and not just 4 polling stations.

i'm willing to bet 1 of 2 things will happen

1) This "audit" reaches the same conclusion as the other 3 that came before it; OR

2) They declare some fraud happened but won't show any evidence of it.

Remember...the Republicans have been saying for months there is evidence but in 60+ court cases nothing has ever been presented. If they had the balls (and the evidence) they would do what Ross Perot did with his charts in the 1990s.

SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 5:17 am

Ibanez wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 5:44 am i'm willing to bet 1 of 2 things will happen

1) This "audit" reaches the same conclusion as the other 3 that came before it; OR

2) They declare some fraud happened but won't show any evidence of it.

Remember...the Republicans have been saying for months there is evidence but in 60+ court cases nothing has ever been presented. If they had the balls (and the evidence) they would do what Ross Perot did with his charts in the 1990s.

#2). Incorrect. Team Trump and others have won the majority of the cases now that the courts have started to finally hear them.

Here's the running list.

http://wiseenergy.org/Energy/Election/2 ... _Cases.htm

The database the Epoch Times relied on includes election-related lawsuits dating back to March 2020. Not all of them list the Trump campaign as a complainant, and some aren’t directly related to the general presidential election.

What we are trying to do is to identify all lawsuits related to the 2020 presidential election," Droz said. "In other words, these are not all directly about Trump. For example, most of them have to do with things like whether modified state election laws were changed legally."But some of the cases Droz counted as wins for Trump and the GOP aren’t directly related to the general presidential election.

Ibanez wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 6:04 am

SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 5:17 am

#2). Incorrect. Team Trump and others have won the majority of the cases now that the courts have started to finally hear them.

Here's the running list.

http://wiseenergy.org/Energy/Election/2 ... _Cases.htm

39 are Non merit for things like they're moot, statute wasn't violated, lack of jurisdiction. 39 is more than the 17. Some of those Trump wins are good...like the extended voting in Nevada (but wait...wasn't he complaining about that in Arizona?) or more access for the Poll Watchers.



What's really interesting is that I did my own google search and came across a Politifact page...debunking your link. Epoch Times? C'mon SG. You can't be bringing that Q shit here.

The database the Epoch Times relied on includes election-related lawsuits dating back to March 2020. Not all of them list the Trump campaign as a complainant, and some aren’t directly related to the general presidential election.

What we are trying to do is to identify all lawsuits related to the 2020 presidential election," Droz said. "In other words, these are not all directly about Trump. For example, most of them have to do with things like whether modified state election laws were changed legally."But some of the cases Droz counted as wins for Trump and the GOP aren’t directly related to the general presidential election.

www.politifact.com
I didn't play for the Boston Red Sox but I count their World Series win as an accomplishment for myself.

SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 5:17 am

Ibanez wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 5:44 am i'm willing to bet 1 of 2 things will happen

1) This "audit" reaches the same conclusion as the other 3 that came before it; OR

2) They declare some fraud happened but won't show any evidence of it.

Remember...the Republicans have been saying for months there is evidence but in 60+ court cases nothing has ever been presented. If they had the balls (and the evidence) they would do what Ross Perot did with his charts in the 1990s.

#2). Incorrect. Team Trump and others have won the majority of the cases now that the courts have started to finally hear them.

Here's the running list.

http://wiseenergy.org/Energy/Election/2 ... _Cases.htm