Finally! Forensic Election Audit in Maricopa County (AZ) Begins Next Week

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: Boadicea

Tin foil hat time.

Maybe the whole point of using this company to do the audit is to make people get sick of it all and give it up?

If they don't test for it, then people will say it was a sham audit. If they do test for it, then they're just loony birds. They can't win.

It's a lot like that old loaded question, "Do you still beat your wife." The way the user asks it puts the one who is asked it in a no-win situation trying to answer it.

We can see there is obvious pushback, even right here on this forum, much less in the msm. So many people have already made up their mind against there being any fraud. I will say this right now: If fraud is found and proven, there will be many who will still deny it, and for multitudes of different reasons. For those people I would ask, what would it take to change your mind? What kind of proof would you consider valid? This could even apply to the other side. What kind of proof would you consider to be the clincher? The problem I find is that the fraud deniers will never say unequivocably anything they could be held to. And that leaves it so they can continually keep moving the goalposts. What would we here on ATS admit would be irrefutable proof?

I myself would say that if the voting machines were programmed to add less than 100% to each vote for one candidate and greater than 100% to the opposing candidate's vote, that would be irrefutable proof. Somewhere the original program that ran the voting machines still exists.

Edit to add:
I'll wager that the people in this thread who have denied there was any election irregularities, will not answer explicitly what will be acceptable proof. If they answer at all, it will be vague and nothing they could be pinned down to later.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Annee
Let’s be clear exactly who is pushing this audit.

It is the Trump supporters.

Even a lot of Republicans think it’s ridiculous.

So...uh....the entire Arizona senate is "Trump Supporters "?
Ok

Sunshine is for EVERYONE!

This senate? But, of course, this is bias reporting unlike Right Wing news sites.

“The Senate Republicans’ audit, led and funded by people who have promoted falsehoods that the election was stolen from Donald Trump, has become a rallying point nationwide as the “first domino” that could fall in a far-fetched scheme to return Trump to office.” www.12news.com...

I am confused.
Are you stating that the Senate of the State of Arizona did not enact this audit?

So if there was no fraud why do the libs squirm like a bag of snakes that it’s being done?

a reply to: TrulyColorBlind

It's a lot like that old loaded question, "Do you still beat your wife." The way the user asks it puts the one who is asked it in a no-win situation trying to answer it.

That's a perfect analogy. The argument is designed to have no good answer. Especially if someone has already made their mind up. I tend to doubt the bamboo paper claim because it's simply impractical to print that many ballots in China and then have them transported here. Even if the Chinese were so inclined, I'm sure they could find someone here to do it with much less hassle. Also, bamboo paper would directly implicate the Chinese, so it would be to their benefit to do it here. Then even if the paper and ink were tested and did not match official ballots, it would not be tied back to China.

I think there may very well be "phantom ballots" that cannot be tied to a registered voter. But I think they are official ballots coming from the stock of extra ballots that are printed for voters who spoil their first ballot and request a new ballot... except voters did not get a new ballot. Because the Maricopa County Recorder ordered election workers NOT to provide a new ballot -- against State laws and against a Supreme Court order to allow voters a new ballot. The County Recorder outright refused and election workers continued denying voters a new ballot. Their spoiled ballots were instead "accepted" and then sent to adjudication. Leaving all those extra official ballots available for nefarious purposes.

What kind of proof would you consider valid? This could even apply to the other side. What kind of proof would you consider to be the clincher? The problem I find is that the fraud deniers will never say unequivocably anything they could be held to.

That's a good question. Unfortunately, there are always those people who refuse to "believe" anything. And there are those people who will accept a possible circumstantial piece of evidence as definitive proof just because they want to "believe".

I'm actually about to post a new article that deals with this, and I'm going to address it more. Let me know what you think.

I myself would say that if the voting machines were programmed to add less than 100% to each vote for one candidate and greater than 100% to the opposing candidate's vote, that would be irrefutable proof. Somewhere the original program that ran the voting machines still exists.

It's funny how times/people have changed. We know these machines are capable of doing so. We've seen the Dominion literature saying so. We've seen it done in real time by folks who know what they're doing. We know it's possible. Even 25 years ago, this would have been completely and totally unacceptable. No one would have accepted, "Oh, sure it can, but we won't! Promise!!!" Just the possibility would have caused massive rebellion from the left, right and middle. But not today. People are happy to "believe" whatever benefits their "side."

originally posted by: Darkstar12
So if there was no fraud why do the libs squirm like a bag of snakes that it’s being done?

It's a good question that lots of us are asking...

But the companion question to yours is if there was no fraud then why are so many Pubs also squirming that it's being done???

a reply to: Darkstar12

Probably because all it's accomplishing is the perpetuation of the myth that we have an illegitimate President just to appease the Qult. This is further exacerbated by the fact that the audit is being done by a company that has never performed an election audit before, is trying to keep their methods a secret, and is run by someone who buys into the Q conspiracy.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Why do you think that would produce biased results? Why you no like the sunshine?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

We both know you know better, X. You know better than many the need for investigation, evidence, etc. You know very well that nothing can be taken at face value. You know very well that some people do bad things.

This is our investigation, gathering of evidence, testing of evidence, etc. It is not a criminal investigation, and may or may not become one, depending on what is found.

But either way, this audit is necessary and appropriate to confirm the truth, whatever it is. And it's a good thing.

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: Darkstar12
So if there was no fraud why do the libs squirm like a bag of snakes that it’s being done?

It's a good question that lots of us are asking...

But the companion question to yours is if there was no fraud then why are so many Pubs also squirming that it's being done???

“The burning psychological question is whether man will eventually master his institutions so that these will serve him and not rule him.”

The Deep State: How it Came to Be and Why it Fights so Hard

We, the American people, have quite a task ahead of us if we are to wrest control of our government from the Deep State. Over many decades, it has put in place compulsive orders, red tape, and regulations while growing layer upon layer to enforce what it creates. All the while, its roots drive deeper and deeper into our government. Even the politicians who we send to D.C. to represent us are ensnared in the game. They begin to play by the rules set forth by the Deep State; indeed, our elected officials even become dependent upon the Deep State.

And so it is that we face an interlocking defense apparatus that is employed full time by us, using its time to further entrench itself. Further, the politicians who promised to take on the Deep State on behalf of their constituents, though not in so many words, have actually joined forces with those who they were supposed to uproot.

a reply to: Boadicea

So the next time a Republican is elected President you will have no issues when the Democrats push to have the results audited by an untested, secretive, company run by people sympathetic to their cause?

originally posted by: Boadicea
It is not a criminal investigation, and may or may not become one, depending on what is found.

It will never become a criminal investigation, but let's play pretend for a moment. For that to happen you'd need to have a law enforcement agency conduct an investigation which produces the same results in an unbiased manner which means, looking at who is conducting this 'audit', you'll have a better chance of having Jesus come down and cook you a fish dinner while serving you wine.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Why do you think that would produce biased results? Why you no like the sunshine?

Color me crazy, but if the sunshine results in biased results, that's a good thing too. We need to know that as well.

They can either prove fraud/interference/tampering or they can't. If their "proof" is not definitive, then it's not proof of anything.

However, I have to concede (after reading too much nonsense), that too many people do not understand the difference between opinion and fact, and if the audit results are anything less than definitive, we'll have plenty of people believing what they want to believe and mistaking it for fact. C'est la vie. Or perhaps more appropriately c'est le guerre!

originally posted by: Boadicea
If their "proof" is not definitive, then it's not proof of anything.

I'll bet you every penny you have that you'll still have a super majority of Republican Karens whining that the election in Arizona and the United States was stolen.

You wanna take that bet?

a reply to: MetalThunder

Thank you -- very appropriate!

I will read the whole thing when I can...

a reply to: Xcalibur254

I imagine the republicans will be as calm, rational and ready to prove the veracity of the elections as the democrats are right now.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Boadicea

So the next time a Republican is elected President you will have no issues when the Democrats push to have the results audited by an untested, secretive, company run by people sympathetic to their cause?

If I had my druthers, there would be no need for such an audit ever again, because we would all do whatever it takes to reform our election system with such transparency and sunshine that there would be no doubt. At all. Whatsoever.

However, should that not happen (LOL!), then no, I would have no issues with such an audit. The results might be a different story. I would expect any such audit to provide absolute definitive proof, just as I have stated repeatedly regarding this audit. Of course there will be "believers" and "non-believers" no matter what the results, but that's human nature. If the proof is there, most people will see it and accept it for what it is.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It will never become a criminal investigation...

Probably not.

...but let's play pretend for a moment. For that to happen you'd need to have a law enforcement agency conduct an investigation which produces the same results in an unbiased manner...

Well, yes and no. I would of course (!) expect law enforcement to conduct their own investigation into the personal conduct of persons suspected of contributing to and participating in fraud/tampering/interference, etc. So, if the audit finds bamboo paper ballots, then I would expect an investigation into who was responsible for having those ballots printed, transported, and inserted into the ballot count. That could be many different people, all committing different crimes which led to the same election results.

...which means, looking at who is conducting this 'audit'...

No matter who was chosen to conduct the audit, someone would be complaining, so that point is moot. The proof is in the pudding. Either they can prove something or they can't. It's that simple.

...you'll have a better chance of having Jesus come down and cook you a fish dinner while serving you wine.

Oh my... that would be a dinner for the ages!!! (I just hope it's casual and not formal attire...)

originally posted by: Boadicea
I would of course (!) expect law enforcement to conduct their own investigation into the personal conduct of persons suspected of contributing to and participating in fraud/tampering/interference, etc.

Would you? Did these alleged bamboo ballots come with a purchase order with a name attached? No? How do you find these people? Answer: You don't, because they're as real as the Easter Bunny.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I'll bet you every penny you have that you'll still have a super majority of Republican Karens whining that the election in Arizona and the United States was stolen.

You wanna take that bet?

Nope. I never bet on what other people will do because too many people are bat# crazy and make no sense to me!!!

However, for the most part, no, I do not believe that. My best guess is that no matter what is found, probably two-thirds to three-quarters of the population will accept the results of the audit, and about half of the remainder will be undecided and the other half won't believe even if Jesus personally told them while fixing their fish dinner and serving them wine.

originally posted by: Darkstar12
So if there was no fraud why do the libs squirm like a bag of snakes that it’s being done?

Waste of money?

Who’s really squirming though?

Hey how did that fair go, it was going to disrupt the audit, remember? Or do we just pretend those loonies who said it didn’t really say it?