AZ GOP won lawsuit and found 2% of duplicate ballots were changed from Trump to Biden

a reply to: PraetorianAZ

Damn, lucky. I aint seen ammo in a long ass time. Pissin me off, I am used to putting a few hundred down range a month.

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ

originally posted by: TKDRL
a reply to: GraffikPleasure
I say we just booga booga boogaloo and get it over with.

Bass Pro surprisingly has 5.56 in stock 2 weeks ago and I picked up another 1000 rounds.

Those are rookie numbers, you're gonna have to bump that up by a couple of zeros.

originally posted by: TKDRL
a reply to: PraetorianAZ

Damn, lucky. I aint seen ammo in a long ass time. Pissin me off, I am used to putting a few hundred down range a month.

It wasn't cheap. Cost me .50 cents a round. Better than the dollar a round I'm seeing online. After I bought my boxes I was already seeing people selling them for double what they paid.

Im still having a tough time finding 6.5 creedmore and 9mm though

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ

originally posted by: TKDRL
a reply to: GraffikPleasure
I say we just booga booga boogaloo and get it over with.

Bass Pro surprisingly has 5.56 in stock 2 weeks ago and I picked up another 1000 rounds.

Those are rookie numbers, you're gonna have to bump that up by a couple of zeros.

LOL I said another 1000 rounds implying on top of what I already have. Between my father in law and I just 5.56/.223 we have prop 20-25k rounds.

But he has more guns and ammo than I can even play with in a day. Hes been collecting since the 80's and was picking up M1 Garands for 200 bucks Army surplus and 8mm mausers for $150. He has a pare of FN-FAL's from Rhodesia heavy ass guns lol

He could easily arm a company of men just by himself.

a reply to: putnam6

So out of a hundred random duplicate ballots, 2 were switched from Trump to Biden? that actually is a lot for a small sample size

Always from Trump to Biden every single time I haven't heard of one instance
where a Biden vote got changed to a Trump vote. Obviously because Trump
made himself a sitting duck for the corruption the radical and desperate left
are capable of perpetrating on the American people.

How anyone can look at the democrat party with out complete disgust going
forward?

Enough to gag a maggot.

Complicit republicans just as contemptable.

This is exactly the kind of thing that should bring every American together
in Washington D.C. for a week. To hell with all of our differences
because if this fraud is aloud to stand? We no longer have a country that
allows it's people their differences. We have to much to lose if we allow ourselves
to be so easily divided.

Is it so hard to see what's on the horizon for the American people?
We are headed a tyrannical hell.

yep you guys are right two is enough OMG Trump should now be king
being your so desperate it is a lot more then two for both sides less then 100s so yes NOT enough to change the out come .
Thing is Trump needs to FIND PROOF of millions acutely Trump says 10s of millions .

originally posted by: midnightstar
yep you guys are right two is enough OMG Trump should now be king
being your so desperate it is a lot more then two for both sides less then 100s so yes NOT enough to change the out come .
Thing is Trump needs to FIND PROOF of millions acutely Trump says 10s of millions .

What?

The rubber will hit the road tomorrow on this matter. Then we'll all know what the evidence actually shows.

One individual makes a claim that 1 or 2 votes out of 100 reviewed were switched.

Note, that is a claim, and has not been proven.

Some of you get the bigger picture though. There's no going back from this.

originally posted by: GraffikPleasure
a reply to: johnnylaw16

I think one thing most people here don't do is ask this to those that say there is no evidence. And i actually agree with that. Because there is nothing but heresay at this point....

What is sufficient "evidence" for you? Like how can it be shown to you that you'd say ok we should definitely investigate?

Because why investigate at that point right? We would already know there is fraud.

I'm trying to be genuine here...
What would change your mind because obviously sworn testimony means nothing to you. Which of im being honest wouldn't for me either.

No, totally fair question. But it's important to look at everything in context, including the context of how legal proceedings actually work. Sworn testimony can be evidence, but sworn testimony turns out to be wrong all of the time. Sometimes it's because people lie and deceive, but other times it's due to innocent mistakes and witnesses misinterpreting what they saw. The bottom line is: we don't just assume that sworn testimony is correct.

That's why in courts you have an adversarial system. We look for corroborating evidence; we consider the evidence from the opposing side, we look at everything together, weigh it appropriately, and then come to a determination as to what happened.

My main point through all of these thread is that if Trump's and his supporter's evidence is as strong as they say it is, they should be putting forward in court to be tested through this adversarial process. We are rarely seeing that happening at all. And to answer your question, proof to me would an accumulation of evidence that stands up to rigorous scrutiny.

Now, to be fair, in this case, it sounds like the parties are trying to develop evidence. However, my point here, is that it is still way too early to draw the sweeping conclusions that are drawn in the video and in this thread. All that this video presents is one side's story of what was purportedly found. We need more information about what exactly was found, and we need to hear the other side's view as well. This is why the judge will likely order briefing on the issues before taking any further action based on Plaintiffs' findings.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Some of you get the bigger picture though. There's no going back from this.

We've already reached that point, though. It is a path we began down at least 20 years ago, when we entered the asinine argument of dimpled, pregnant, and hanging chads and how they could be read like tea leaves to guestimate voter intent... and here today, on ATS eve, we can find multiple people who believe that election was stolen and have no faith in the system ever since. This year it just so happens the questions are bigger, the stakes greater, and close to half of those who cast votes WILL lose faith in the system regardless of who ultimately is sworn in on Jan 20th.

America is broken and there is no amount of glue, duct tape, or bailing wire that can put it back together again. Respect and trust are dead... if the United States was a marriage, divorce would absolutely be the smartest and most humane path forward. So, trying to wrap my head around this, a divorce (usually) involves the loss of trust, respect, and tolerance between two parties that once loved each other above all else. Now, sitting here looking at half the country and (being honest) able to say "You know, I never really felt any degree of love for that other party" why in the blue world of Hell would the clear and undeniable existence of mistrust, disrespect, intolerance, and outright spite and disdain not lead to a natural and healthy divorce between the parties involved? To be real honest, I don't even think the process of breaking up the states would result in much furor, even. Most of the states, themselves, are either galvanized and strongholds of one of the two ethos's or have a minority party living in them that has likely wanted to head out for greener pastures anyway and has simply lacked the motivation. Well, wrote up the papers of dissolution and give folks one or two calendar years to pack their belongings and move to a state on the side they feel positive feelings towards, or come to Jesus with the idea of staying put, and let's close this out and start living our lives again.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

As sometimes happens, on this point, we agree completely.

originally posted by: midnightstar
yep you guys are right two is enough OMG Trump should now be king
being your so desperate it is a lot more then two for both sides less then 100s so yes NOT enough to change the out come .
Thing is Trump needs to FIND PROOF of millions acutely Trump says 10s of millions .

Why would one even attempt to cheat an election in a way that
leaves evidence lying around that just gets one busted? The left
cheated and they don't give s crap what the world knows. Because
it isn't what everyone knows that matters. It's what you can prove.

And that's how the democrat party finally accomplished the coupe D' tat
they sought for the whole four years of DT's presidency.

Just because there is no evidence to be had? Doesn't mean there was no
crime.

We are so doomed

originally posted by: carsforkids

Just because there is no evidence to be had? Doesn't mean there was no
crime.

Actually, legally speaking, that is exactly what it means. No evidence, no crime.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I understand legally speaking. That's why this was included in my post.

Because
it isn't what everyone knows that matters. It's what you can prove.

But not speaking in legalities.

If I raped you in a manner that left no evidence would there still be a crime?

I can say it another way if you like?

Not every crime provides evidence.

a reply to: carsforkids

If you raped me, I would know, so at that minimum I have evidence of the fact.

I could argue it in court by providing physical evidence.

If I want into court and my only argument was "carsforkids raped me" however, with no corroborating evidence, you would not likely be found guilty of a crime.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Make it a rape murder then. lol

If I want into court and my only argument was "carsforkids raped me" however, with no corroborating evidence, you would not likely be found guilty of a crime.

Even tho I raped you

PLEASE READ: electionwiz.com...

And tell me, how is the "3%" figure arrived at?

originally posted by: carewemust

PLEASE READ: electionwiz.com...

And tell me, how is the "3%" figure arrived at?

Yeah, I can't tell if that was a typo, or they are inferring that because there were 3 errors (2 votes taken from Trump, 1- added to Biden) regarding two ballots out of 100 that there was a 3% error rate.

3 vote net delta from the count out of 100 cast votes, although leveraging the issue, is still a valid way of looking at it.

Either way, 2-3% would be huge if it was representative of the population. Now they need to go out and do a quick 1000 to see if it was an anomaly or if it still shows up at a notable rate, then get a full deep independent forensic audit -- that the state has to pay for since they were either negligent or complicit.

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: GraffikPleasure
a reply to: johnnylaw16

I think one thing most people here don't do is ask this to those that say there is no evidence. And i actually agree with that. Because there is nothing but heresay at this point....

What is sufficient "evidence" for you? Like how can it be shown to you that you'd say ok we should definitely investigate?

Because why investigate at that point right? We would already know there is fraud.

I'm trying to be genuine here...
What would change your mind because obviously sworn testimony means nothing to you. Which of im being honest wouldn't for me either.

No, totally fair question. But it's important to look at everything in context, including the context of how legal proceedings actually work. Sworn testimony can be evidence, but sworn testimony turns out to be wrong all of the time. Sometimes it's because people lie and deceive, but other times it's due to innocent mistakes and witnesses misinterpreting what they saw. The bottom line is: we don't just assume that sworn testimony is correct.

That's why in courts you have an adversarial system. We look for corroborating evidence; we consider the evidence from the opposing side, we look at everything together, weigh it appropriately, and then come to a determination as to what happened.

My main point through all of these thread is that if Trump's and his supporter's evidence is as strong as they say it is, they should be putting forward in court to be tested through this adversarial process. We are rarely seeing that happening at all. And to answer your question, proof to me would an accumulation of evidence that stands up to rigorous scrutiny.

Now, to be fair, in this case, it sounds like the parties are trying to develop evidence. However, my point here, is that it is still way too early to draw the sweeping conclusions that are drawn in the video and in this thread. All that this video presents is one side's story of what was purportedly found. We need more information about what exactly was found, and we need to hear the other side's view as well. This is why the judge will likely order briefing on the issues before taking any further action based on Plaintiffs' findings.

To make a long story short here...

You can't really get "evidence" because there is no access to the machines, ballots etc.

They really have nothing other than, yes, corroborating testimony which you and I agree has flaws.

I'm just saying i think this is almost designed so there is no HARD evidence to take to court to investigate...more evidence.

Put yourself in these peoples shoes, what would you have done?

Edit
Also just curious. How much of the AZ and Mich testimonies have you listened to? I have a total of 11 hrs. It's just interesting to me.

originally posted by: GraffikPleasure

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: GraffikPleasure
a reply to: johnnylaw16

I think one thing most people here don't do is ask this to those that say there is no evidence. And i actually agree with that. Because there is nothing but heresay at this point....

What is sufficient "evidence" for you? Like how can it be shown to you that you'd say ok we should definitely investigate?

Because why investigate at that point right? We would already know there is fraud.

I'm trying to be genuine here...
What would change your mind because obviously sworn testimony means nothing to you. Which of im being honest wouldn't for me either.

No, totally fair question. But it's important to look at everything in context, including the context of how legal proceedings actually work. Sworn testimony can be evidence, but sworn testimony turns out to be wrong all of the time. Sometimes it's because people lie and deceive, but other times it's due to innocent mistakes and witnesses misinterpreting what they saw. The bottom line is: we don't just assume that sworn testimony is correct.

That's why in courts you have an adversarial system. We look for corroborating evidence; we consider the evidence from the opposing side, we look at everything together, weigh it appropriately, and then come to a determination as to what happened.

My main point through all of these thread is that if Trump's and his supporter's evidence is as strong as they say it is, they should be putting forward in court to be tested through this adversarial process. We are rarely seeing that happening at all. And to answer your question, proof to me would an accumulation of evidence that stands up to rigorous scrutiny.

Now, to be fair, in this case, it sounds like the parties are trying to develop evidence. However, my point here, is that it is still way too early to draw the sweeping conclusions that are drawn in the video and in this thread. All that this video presents is one side's story of what was purportedly found. We need more information about what exactly was found, and we need to hear the other side's view as well. This is why the judge will likely order briefing on the issues before taking any further action based on Plaintiffs' findings.

To make a long story short here...

You can't really get "evidence" because there is no access to the machines, ballots etc.

They really have nothing other than, yes, corroborating testimony which you and I agree has flaws.

I'm just saying i think this is almost designed so there is no HARD evidence to take to court to investigate...more evidence.

Put yourself in these peoples shoes, what would you have done?

Edit
Also just curious. How much of the AZ and Mich testimonies have you listened to? I have a total of 11 hrs. It's just interesting to me.

Just to clarify, who do you mean by "these people"? I think you're referring to the Trump team and asking what I would have done in their shoes, but correct me if I am wrong.

Your question presupposes that there is something to be done. If I were them I would have conceded when the networks called it for Biden.

But let's say that I were them, and I thought that there might have been fraud--how would I investigate? I would look for witnesses. OK, they have done that. Then what? Then you follow up on the witness statements. You find one witness that sees something suspicious, you find other evidence to corroborate. One witness alleged that she saw 30,000 votes being run through the machines multiple times. Ok, if that were true there would be huge discrepancies between the numbers of ballots cast and the numbers of ballots counted. We have seen no evidence of that presented in court, thus we can conclude that this likely didn't happen. If I couldn't corroborate anything, then I would conclude that no fraud had occurred.

But more importantly, what would I do if I knew that there was no fraud but still wanted to overthrow the election results: Then I would do exactly what they are doing. I would sow distrust in the system by bringing forward the allegations of fraud that I was unable to verify. I would seek to present that evidence not to courts but to partisan legislatures and on televised hearings. I would claim that there is lots of evidence but not put forward anything in court where I could be sanctioned or held in contempt.

The amount of people and logistics that would have been involved in creating a fraud of this magnitude in multiple states is insane. There is no way that there would not be evidence, and it would easily be proven in court.

The only reason that no such fraud has been proven in court is because no such fraud occurred. End of story.