How do you see the August 13th coup playing out? Will Flynn become the emergency leader of the United States this Friday?

[Anonymous]

[OlderAndWiser]

Do you have some inside information that the rest of us do not have?

[goaded]

He's been listening to Mike Lindell. (And, I suspect, laughing.)

[Avicenna]

I don't see any coup playing out except in some people's fevered imaginations

[RolandCuthbert]

It happened! Flynn is running stuff. You trumpers can relax now and go back home.

[goaded]

I like the question, but I question whether you needed to be anon.

[OddBeMe]

Jesus, I’d invade the Capitol of that happened. But we liberals would just throw hackysacks and joint buds.

[anylolone]

lol! No. No coup will take place or even be attempted. That's not trump.

[goaded]

“Just say that the election was corrupt [and] leave the rest to me”

[anylolone]

@goaded We already know it was. AZ already demonstrated and declared that without fraud or error, the vote went for trump.

But trump said a coup is pointless. The electors elect with an information, but they are the ones that elect. They already knew there was evidence of fowl play, the fact that they didn't refuse to vote until issues were cleared out shows they were "faithless electors". Not in the sense of "we ain't voting for trump no matter what" more like "we ain't dragging this process, we are gonna vote what ever come out. It ain't our job."

[goaded]

No, Arizona did neither of those things, all it achived was to render a lot of expensive equipment unusable in future elections. I don't know where you think you're getting informed, but you're not.

[anylolone]

@goaded if that was the case, the equipment was already unusable.

If they can't trust their review of the equipment after the audit, then it was untrustworthy to begin with

Also, the only fraud it showed which changed the results was with the ballots themselves.

But keep being in denial.

[goaded]

Why don't you link to the place that claims the Arizona fraudit found fraud. Probably in The Mirror (English joke).

Devices that are physically in the possession of untrusted and untrustworthy people are much more easily hacked than if they're kept securely.

Looking around at this, I came across a stupid article saying that because Maricopa county officials didn't have admin passwords to the devices they didn't have control over them; on the contrary, it meant they couldn't hack them!

[anylolone]

@goaded What? Are you insane?

It's very simple, if you can't return to the original condition or know it has been compromised, it's not secure.

A lock is a good example.
If I lock my house and can't know someone breached or rekey it, my lock isn't safe.

[goaded]

If you lend your key to someone, they can copy it, and your lock is useless.

[anylolone]

@goaded Try to imagine an eletronically controlled public transportation vehicle that can't be verified for a breach not can be reset with the insurance it will be safe from breaches while in use?

[anylolone]

@goaded Nope, you can rekey the lock.

If you can't rekey your lock or know it has been breached, it's already useless.

And keys weren't given, all they had access to is the lock.

What you claim is that your lock can't be trusted to not be breached if you leave your house, or to show it has been breached.

[Avicenna]

@anylolone: he's not insane, he just has a pathological hatred of Trump and the US

[anylolone]

@Avicenna And? What's the difficulty in understanding that a lock which can't be rekeyed or shown signs of tampering is not safe? Imagine a company having to recall all locks the moment someone decided to send it to lock picker to check how secure it is?

"We can't know if didn't got tampered with, and we can't just change the keys, it's all useless now."
lol!

[Avicenna]

He's obviously someone trained as a lawyer- I've seen those gaslighting techniques designed to sow doubts from law graduates from his country.

[anylolone]

@Avicenna Are you sure he wasn't trained wrong on purpose?
Does he expect the judge and jury to have the memory of a distracted golden puppy?

[goaded]

When you two are done distracting from my original question about your bullshit claim that: "AZ already demonstrated and declared that without fraud or error, the vote went for trump", maybe you could post a link?

As for physical possession of a computing device allowing you to hack it; short of removing and testing practically every non-trivial chip in the system to see if it's been replaced, no, without chain of custody you can't be absolutely sure they haven't been tampered with. (Of course, all a Republican tamperer would need is for the electronic count not to match the physical count, because then their new laws about suspicion of fraud would kick in, and they'd get to choose their state's electoral voters, voters be damned.)

[anylolone]

@goaded Why should I have preemptively post links? That shit is wildly available, and you won't read it, regardless.

And no, you don't have to remove chips to test them, gosh, that would make diagnosing computers way too hard. There are even pliers that can diagnose two connections of a chips straight through.

Also, you can test the machine how they are testing it, by running it. Which is how people found so many shady chips in chinese goods.

[goaded]

It's really not "widely available", because it's made up. Aren't you missing Mike Lindell's 72 hours of nonsense?

[Avicenna]

@anylolone: LOL, maybe you're right. But what's interesting is that some foreign person with no connection to the US has such a pathological fascination with trying to discredit audits of a US election when only a forensic audit can resolve the question of whether there was a significant amount of fraud in previous election and whether procedures need to be changed to ensure more secure elections.

Let's not forget that there were a lot of countries that wanted a Biden victory because Biden is a traitor.

[anylolone]

@goaded It's widely available.

Also, lindel's conference is a mess, it's not very didactic.

But there's interesting things in there. Like the 6th degree polynomial transformation of the census.
Which I still don't know if it really shows mass fraud or just a completely new phenomena.
I suspect the latter.

Also, we were talking about AZ, the conference is interesting, but it's not literally the AZ senate or the audit giving the news.
https://arizonaaudit.com/

[anylolone]

@Avicenna I'm not American, though I do have family there.
Regardless, the US matters.

The US spread CRT, feminism and gender theory here, but they also spread libertarianism, federalism, republicanism, due process, common law, etc...

The US is probably the most important battleground, which is why they tried the march through the institutions there first.

[Avicenna]

If you have family there, you have an interest in what happens there. I have family in other countries myself. And you're right, some good and bad things have originated from the US.

Control of the institutions, especially the federal government, is all-important to the leftists so they can impose their agenda. And they would cheat to get that complete control.

[anylolone]

@Avicenna But that's not the main reason why I care.
If things get though, they can come back.

But that's like running from france in WWII.

[Avicenna]

I know exactly what you mean

[anylolone]

@Avicenna If SHTF there, they can know here that the hybristophilic left is too scared to burn cities down here.

[goaded]

@anylolone So your only source for your claim that the fraudulent audit found something is the people who ran the fraudulent audit? I can't even see a claim of a result on their site! If the AZ senate said they'd found something, there would be a press release from the AZ senate. Link to that.

Seriously, if they'd found anything even 10% credible, it would have been front page news on Fox News for months and Republicans would be screaming it from the rooftops.

(Oh, and I'm laughing my ass off at @Avicenna trying to discredit me and hitting you!)

[anylolone]

@goaded Well, go read the goddamn thing.

Have you tried reading it? It's like saying "it's on MSM, therefore the only source is china".

What matters is the claim being demonstrated, not who claims it.

So go and check the claims, you already made a false claim that the MSN parroted to you, that the machine becomes unsafe for ever if it touches an auditor's hand.

And that elections have to beat to the federal government's drum, something you said quite clearly before the election that it was a lie, when no one was making the claim.

They have to follow their own laws. And their own laws state, along with the constitution that this audit is a fine audit. And note that those laws are old, they weren't made in a pinch.

[goaded]

There was nothing to read.

Home: PIctures of non-existant "live cams" from AZAudit. org,
About: Asking for money, fundtheaudit. com
Contact: A web form and an email address
Sign-up: "Volunteers/Observers needed ASAP 8:00 p. m. to 1:00 a. m. shifts. To volunteer, please fill out this form:"
Scope of work: Two contracts, no results.
Documents: A three page legal finding from April, and the above two contracts. No results.

And nothing else. No "News" page, no findings, no statements from the AZ senate, no nothing.

Then we have my supposed "false claim" that you straw man as "[the MSM told me] the machine becomes unsafe for ever if it touches an auditor's hand", when it was the official in charge of elections in Arizona saying that these particular (unaccredited) auditors broke the chain of custody and "election technology and security experts, including at the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, ... agreed ‘no comprehensive methods exist to fully rehabilitate the compromised equipment or provide adequate assurance that they remain safe to use,’”

I don't know what you're talking about with the next paragraph, but this "fine audit" was bankrolled at something like $0.05 a ballot by the state government, plus millions from interested parties. It was obviously intended to cast doubt on the results (and probably make some cash), and I've still seen nothing that details any results (although there was something about the ballots matching the machine counts - surprise!).

[anylolone]

@goaded You really didn't check anything
home: pictures from the live cameras for us to watch when the counting is being done.
That's where you go to witness when it's happening.

Scope of work. Where you find the methodology, go there first before I bring the senate findings.

[anylolone]

@goaded "It was the official" irrelevant, it's still bullshit. Biden said there would be no vaccine passports, and here they come. Biden just said vaccinated people don't transmit, his own CDC says it does, unless it's faucci, then he say it does, then say it doesn't, and say it does.

What matters is, if the machines become useless through the audit, they were already useless to begin with, and worst, unauditable.

First, here's the full audit hearing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OZmNbBDQ6k

[goaded]

"Where you find the methodology, go there first before I bring the senate findings. "
Why? Why should I sit through a load of bollocks when you could simply point me at the final findings which you claim "AZ already demonstrated and declared that without fraud or error, the vote went for trump."? It's because they found nothing, isn't it.

My God, it's over 5 hours long! You're just full of shit, admit it.

[goaded]

I see there's a lawsuit demanding the documentation generated by the "audit", which Republicans will instantly comply with, right? Oh, no, they appealed against it. I'm amazed! (The Arizona Court of Appeals rejected that appeal just yesterday, so the real results of the "audit" should come out in a week or two.)

This is what a website about the audit that actually contains information looks like:
www.americanoversight.org/.../the-arizona-senates-partisan-audit-of-maricopa-county-election-results

[anylolone]

@goaded Oh no, there's RINOs? Who would have thought?

You know, the republicans you called the devil and now are on your side? Like bush and mitch?

Have you tried looking at their arguments?

And I find it funny that you want someone you push to censor to school you.

I love it, honestly.

[goaded]

None of that made any sense or addressed what I said. Where's the quote that says "that without fraud or error, the vote went for trump"? There must be a site somewhere that says so, or you wouldn't have said it, right?

[anylolone]

@goaded Did you watch the hearing, did you read the methodology?

Watch the goddamn hearing and read the methodology.

[goaded]

No, I'm not going to throw away five hours of my life on the hearing, and the methodology is about what they were planning to look for, not what they found. Who said the Arozona "the vote went for trump"?

[anylolone]

@goaded But you are going to throw your whole life away to censure us.

Do you get how that's funny and self defeating?

[goaded]

I've spent a lot less than five hours asking you to answer one simple question about the very clear claim you made. The only reasonable conclusion is that you made it up, or were repeating someone who did.

[anylolone]

@goaded Yes, you spent way more pushing for censorship.

My MSN said we were going to have a coup this last week, lol, I thought I'd try out a different approach with someone like you. You know, since bolsonaro did no coup.

[goaded]

When did I ask for censorship? I only pointed out that Trump already attempted a coup, and asked you to back up your ridiculous assertion that the Arizona fraudit "demonstrated and declared that without fraud or error, the vote went for trump".

[anylolone]

@goaded "Attempted a coup" lol!

Just seriously, you expect to be taken seriously with that?

Do you understand I'm not trying to convince you, I'm here to convince the audience and demoralize you by making you think about what you are saying.

Like that trans chick with the star wars store guy.

[goaded]

“Just say that the election was corrupt [and] leave the rest to me”

[anylolone]

@goaded Yes, hilary's leaked emails, more importantly, the fact that she order people to hammer equipment to prevent the truth from leaking lost her the election.

Gosh, trump is already doing what he set to do, which is oust as much RINOs as he could, and he's succeeding at that. You hated mitch and liz for so long, you'll be sorry when they are gone, lol!

[goaded]

I asked you to back up your ridiculous assertion that the Arizona fraudit "demonstrated and declared that without fraud or error, the vote went for trump". Still waiting.

[anylolone]

@goaded First we must make sure you know the methodology so you can't feign ignorance later.

Then you must know the findings. Then we extrapolate on that.

[goaded]

No, I don't. You first have to present a link that says "without fraud or error, the vote went for trump". There's no point in looking at how someone reached a conclusion if they never reached that conclusion.

[anylolone]

@goaded Nope, that's not how things work with you.

I'm gonna have you:
1. understand the methodology so you don't come up with stuff I'll have to clear later.
2: understand the findings so you can do the math yourself.
3. have you do the math.
4. you can't bitch if it's your claim.

[goaded]

Your methodology seems to be to make an assertion you can't even begin to back up, then whitter on about how everybody has to watch a five hour video and try to spot... what, exactly?

If your claim: "AZ already demonstrated and declared that without fraud or error, the vote went for trump" were true, you'd be able to point to someone making that claim, then we could examine the evidence behind it. You can't even manage the first step.

[anylolone]

@goaded In order to get that, you gonna have to learn constitutional and arizona law.
First asingnment is, find anything in the methodology with is either unconstitutional or against arizona law.

After you fail to do so, we can start talking without you calling the audit into question every time I bring up the senate findings.

I wanted to not have to give you an assignment, but you are an asshole and must be treated like a child in school.

[goaded]

Your first assignment is to find a statement by anyone other than yourself that states your bogus claim that "AZ already demonstrated and declared that without fraud or error, the vote went for trump.". You've implied they're in something called "the senate findings", but never quoted them or linked to where they are. That's obviously because there's no such finding (which would involve a document, a legal judgement, or a vote).

[anylolone]

@goaded Nope, my first assignment is a law assignment.

And it's not that hard, read the methodology and read arizona's and constitutional law on elections and try to find where the first fails when it comes to the other two requirements.

[goaded]

Earlier you pretended I said anything about censorship, and now you're pretending I'm saying the audit was illegal? All I'm asking for is a simple link to anyone other than yourself who said "AZ already demonstrated and declared that without fraud or error, the vote went for trump." Because I think you were simply lying.

[anylolone]

@goaded I didn't pretend you said anything about censorship here, I know your kind.

Are you gonna say that trump should be on twitter?

Also, don't detract from your assignment.
"read the methodology and read arizona's and constitutional law on elections and try to find where the first fails when it comes to the other two requirements."

[goaded]

All this just to avoid admitting that nobody but you thinks that "AZ already demonstrated and declared that without fraud or error, the vote went for trump". All you have to do to prove me wrong and that it is an "AZ senate finding" is link to the finding.

"I didn't pretend you said anything about censorship here," You say, ignoring the point that you're now trying to pretend I said the audit was illegal.

You: "Yes, you spent way more pushing for censorship."
You: "you gonna have to learn constitutional and arizona law."

[anylolone]

@goaded Should I bring you your assignment again?
It's not a hard assignment.

"read the methodology and read arizona's and constitutional law on elections and try to find where the first fails when it comes to the other two requirements"

Plenty of experts came to that conclusion way before me, it's not like it's my job to crunch those numbers. But I did.

Glad to know you trust not in science and epistemology, only faith in your cult, otherwise why being a retard and try to push of an "argument of authority" skittle?
I need zero authority, do your assignment..

[goaded]

I asked one simple thing of you, five days ago, and you've done nothing but avoid it all along:
"Why don't you link to the place that claims the Arizona fraudit found fraud."

Not proof, not evidence, just one single place that backs up your bogus claim.

All this just to avoid admitting that nobody but you thinks that "AZ already demonstrated and declared that without fraud or error, the vote went for trump". All you have to do to prove me wrong and that it is an "AZ senate finding" is link to the finding.

[anylolone]

@goaded Again, I explained, you are a disingenuous prick, so we are gonna prove it together so there's no confusion here.

"read the methodology and read arizona's and constitutional law on elections and try to find where the first fails when it comes to the other two requirements"

You live on tribalist arguments of authority. You won't get that here.

Find how the methodology of the audit breaks either constitutional law or AZ election law, or just say you can't.

[goaded]

Literally all you have to do to prove me wrong is show me the "AZ senate finding" that you claim backs up your bogus claim that "AZ already demonstrated and declared that without fraud or error, the vote went for trump.".

But instead you want me to prove that the fraudit was illegal, which is not a claim I made.

[anylolone]

@goaded So, you gonna walk back the claim that the audit is illegal?

What about the claim that it's a sham, almost forgot about that one.

And you are gonna prove it, so, if we are in agreement that the audit is legal and of sound methodology, we can move on to the time stamps?

[goaded]

Not at all, since I didn't make that claim. As to it being a sham, that's obvious to anyone not in the cult.

I'm not doing anything until you back up your bogus claim that there's some "senate finding" that says "without fraud or error, the vote went for trump."

[anylolone]

@goaded So, we are going back to the methodology, show me where the methodology, which I provided the link for, breaks AZ election law or constitutional law, or is at least shoddy.

As I said, we can't move on until you at least attempt, or accept the quality and legality of the audit.

"It's obvious" is not an argument. I had the time stamp for you guy, but you are being dishonest, you won't know by how much we know for sure that trump won in AZ with the preliminary of the audit. (could be way more, the actual official finding will be released soon.)

[goaded]

No, we're not. I'm going to keep asking you to back up your bogus claim that there's some "senate finding" that says "without fraud or error, the vote went for trump." That's all you have to do to continue a conversation.

You can keep pretending I'm censoring you, or I've said the bogus, clearly partisan fraudit was illegal (I didn't), but not backing up your statement, and now claiming your "official finding" is in the future, not the past, shows you're, how did you put it? A disingenuous prick.

Lindell and Trump have been playing that tune for getting on for a year, now.

[anylolone]

@goaded We are going back there, you either concede of your show where in the methodology the AZ and constitutional law is broken.

I already proved what kind of disingenuous person you are. That's basically already a win in my perspective. You lack the patience to actually engage in fruitful arguments, you just made ex-nihilo claims. So now you gonna keep making claims and I'm gonna keep riding high, pushing you to actually argue with the law.

[goaded]

Back to where you pretend I said something I didn't, again? I never said the fraudit was illegal, I said it was bogus, partisan, a farce, a scam, a grift, a waste of time, and probably other words to that effect. You, on the other hand, claimed "AZ already demonstrated and declared that without fraud or error, the vote went for trump", and I've simply been asking you to back that up with a link to where "Arizona" "demonstrated and declared" it.

You had a week to come up with that link, finally admitting "the actual official finding will be released soon", which clearly means that they haven't said anything of the sort yet. (And if they haven't yet, they're not going to.)

[anylolone]

@goaded Again, to talk about what's demonstrated we need to establish the methodology.
I won't let you move the cart in front of the horses.

Without talking about the methodology, the results are irrelevant, what you are doing here is a blatant red herring. No matter what happens you still are just switch to say it's a sham and therefore it doesn't matter. So let's argue over if it's a sham by going through the methodology.

[goaded]

But that's just a lie, isn't it. First, establish that it's been demonstrated, then move on to how. You haven't shown me that "AZ already demonstrated and declared that without fraud or error, the vote went for trump", so there's no point at looking at how they didn't.

[anylolone]

@goaded Nope, first order of work is you demonstrating the audit is fraudulent by saying where in the methodology it's illegal against AZ and/or constitutional law, ir where the methodology is weak.

Anything is pointless before this.

What anyone can see is, you have called it fraudulent without ever even seeing the methodology, so much you weren't aware that the cameras are not supposed to be on outside of auditing.
And after being given a big weapon where you could make your argument on by finding the flaw, you just refused.

[goaded]

OMG, you think the cute name "fraudit" implies that I'm saying it's literal fraud and illegal, rather than just a con on right-wing idiots, based on a lie and financed by liars? And that that means you don't have to provide an iota of evidence for your claim? You've now admitted that no official has stated that "without fraud or error, the vote went for trump", I don't know why you're continuing.

[anylolone]

@goaded Well, then it not illegal, not illegitimate, and you can't find a single problem with the methodology? All you say is "we can't trust democrats" apparently, since they got democrats to take place, by the way. Also, we already established that if the machines are untrustworthy after being touched, they are untrustworthy before.

So, can we move on, now that you conceded on everything?

[goaded]

Wow, there's some right-wing "logic", right there. AKA bald-faced lying.

Firstly, remember, I never said it was illegal. Just because it's not illegal doesn't mean it's legitimate. Just because I say it's not illegal doesn't mean it's not a partisan scam based on a lie.

You persist on skipping over the results of the fraudit, which you started out claiming "already demonstrated and declared that without fraud or error, the vote went for trump", and then that "the actual official finding will be released soon", clearly admitting you were lying the first time.

Tell you what, why don't you come back when there's an official report on the results of the fraudit? I'll wait.

[anylolone]

@goaded If it's legal, it's legitimate in the legal sense. Election law decides legitimacy of procedure.
Aside of that, it's the will of the people, the people pressured their representatives and even funded the audit, so, through the will of the people it's legitimate.

That's it. In this case, legitimacy means legality, you called legitimate, you called it illegal.

What you are doing now is a mote and bailey. Go back to the bailey.

Regardless. I gave you the option of going through the methodology and pointing the flaw.

[goaded]

What you're doing now is what you've been doing all week, which is to ignore the fact that the fraudit hasn't found a damn thing, while you claimed it had.

[anylolone]

@goaded Nope, we haven't even got there yet, we have first to reach a logical (IE, ex: fallacy free) consensus on the methodology of the audit.

Only after that I drop the bombs.

[goaded]

If you had a "bomb" you'd have dropped it already. You've already admitted there's no official finding yet, and you haven't even produced a single link where anyone but yourself says "AZ already demonstrated and declared that without fraud or error, the vote went for trump".

[anylolone]

@goaded Bomb comes latter, if you decide to display some honesty.

[goaded]

This from the person who started off by lying about the outcome of the fraudit (both that there was an outcome, and that it "demonstrated and declared that without fraud or error, the vote went for trump"), then pretended I wanted to censor you, and that the fraudit was illegal (rather than bogus, partisan, a farce, a scam, a grift, a waste of time, etc.). Just tell us what your "bomb" is, so we can laugh at it. (I notice Biden's still president, by the way.)

[anylolone]

@goaded As I said, the outcome is only shown after we discuss methodology.

Also, you aren't now in favor of censorship? How do you feel about "fake news" and "hate speech"?

You know we are going to have conversations on the subject, so go back to the bailey.

Also, by calling it a fraud you are calling it illegal, stop being disingenuous and go back to the bailey.

[goaded]

Why is the outcome "only shown after we discuss methodology"? Because you've already admitted there's no official finding yet.

I'm in favour of private companies having the freedom to set the rules on their sites, aren't you? Trump and his friends have multiple national news outlets that are happy to broadcast their lies (although they are being a little more careful with things they're being sued for). Lindell broadcast a whole load of rubbish recently by starting his own site.

(Fraudit is not a legal term, by the way., but it's obviously both baseless and there to support the big lie and enable the weakening of democracy by Republican legislations).

[anylolone]

@goaded There's the hearings, which is what I talked about quite explicitly.
We gonna talk about the methodology until you either show the flaw in the methodology or you accept how robust the methodology is.

Then we talk about the findings, stuff like replacement ballots without unique code or even without code, ballots accepted after legal time, voter rolls, etc, and use information which is free to the public (like the live vote count) to draw basic conclusions, including by how much the county and state would need to switch election results.

[goaded]

Yes, you posted a five hour video and didn't say what or when anything justified your bogus claim. Go ahead, quote something.

The methodology doesn't mean a damn thing, it's the result that matters. The result doesn't matter if the methodology is flawed, or not followed in practice, but since you're not going to link to the results (which, again, you have had a more than a week to produce, and so far just come up with two contradictory statements about the supposed "senate findings" - so lied at least once), there's no point to looking into it.

Somebody recently spent $20,000 on a device that would definitively answer the question of whether the Earth is flat. The methodology was perfectly sound, and they were very disappointed that the result was that the experiment matched the expected result for a round Earth.

[goaded]

Oh, and you already claimed to have given the result when you said: "AZ already demonstrated and declared that without fraud or error, the vote went for trump", you've just not found an iota of evidence to back up your claim (and, in fact, admitted that there's been no such finding).

[anylolone]

@goaded Yes. "AZ already demonstrated and declared" key words, demonstrated and declared.

[goaded]

How and where? (We've already esrablished that the "senate finding" you were touting doesn't exist.)

[anylolone]

@goaded I literally posted the link. You are too retarded to even look.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OZmNbBDQ6k

Can you enumerate what's in those findings?

Doesn't matter, we gonna talk methodology first. You can't but it doesn't matter.

[goaded]

Just yesterday, I said: "Yes, you posted a five hour video and didn't say what or when anything justified your bogus claim. Go ahead, quote something."

Which is the same as your "Can you enumerate what's in those findings?", which it appears you can't, even in your own video. Give quotes, timestamps, do something, anything to back up your lie that "AZ already demonstrated and declared that without fraud or error, the vote went for trump". You're not Arizona, nor are people giving evidence before a committee (especially when they're clearly biased). What does the (Republican) government in Arizona say about that hearing?

Let me guess, any Republican that disagrees with you and with the idea that Trump won is a RINO. (That's called the No True Scotsman fallacy, which you can sprinkle on the two Straw Man fallacies you've already used.)

[anylolone]

@goaded I'll enumerate the findings one we agreed on the status of the methodology, we won't go back to the methodology, do you understand?

No arguments from authority will be taken seriously, I don't care if einstein said god doesn't play dice, it has to be demonstrated that god doesn't play dice.

[goaded]

I understand what you're saying. I don't understand why you're saying it. I suspect it's because Arizona (meaning a court or official investigation result) has not, in fact, "demonstrated and declared that without fraud or error, the vote went for trump", as you claimed without evidence.

That's the claim you've made. You back it up. If it's true, it should be as simple as this: www.goodreads.com/.../2669-god-does-not-play-dice-with-the-universe

[anylolone]

@goaded I'm only going to back it up once we come to a consensus when it comes to the methodology. I even gave you clues.

You know there's a good reason why I said demonstrated before I said declared, do you?

[goaded]

I know you're wiggling like a worm on a hook.

At the moment, you're asking me to accept that God plays Super Mario Brothers because Einstein said so. Start with showing it was said!

1. Prove someone other than yourself claims anyone "demonstrated and declared that without fraud or error, the vote went for trump"
2. Prove they are in any way associated with the state of Arizona
3. We can go from there to discuss whether their claims are valid.

[anylolone]

@goaded You are really projecting here, aren't you? You make arguments from authority here.

I gave you the video o the hearing, either we come into a consensus on the validity of the audit, or you gonna have to figure out by yourself why the those statements demonstrate trump won AZ.

I gave you clues.

[goaded]

Not really. You're still avoiding answering the simplest question, while asking me to watch five hours of video. What representative of Arizona has made your claim that "that without fraud or error, the vote went for trump"?

I'm not talking about arguments from authority (this is your third straw man in this conversation), I'm talking about the simplest possible request: show me someone who's making that claim, to prove you weren't just lying. Or are you saying you're an authority?

[anylolone]

@goaded I just not want to go back to the merits of the audit after I present what the hearing means.

You don't want to come to a consensus on that, you are not interested in an argument, too bad for you, we are having one right now.

Also, aren't you sad that biden "won" AZ with the least amount of counties in history?
A few percent change in one of those and all rolls down.

See? Another clue.

[goaded]

So, you're saying you've not got anyone else's summing up of that five hour meeting, let alone an official finding. Just you, and only you, have pieced together the truth? I think there's a name for people who think like that.

[anylolone]

@goaded There's no direct claim, only what one is forced to infer from the info on late registering, duplicated ballots without unique serial numbers, late mail in ballots and the live feed of voting results in AZ, etc.

Yes, there's a name for what's done, it's called inference, one of the corner stones of logic.

[goaded]

So, when you said "We already know it was. AZ already demonstrated and declared that without fraud or error, the vote went for trump.", it was just your personal interpretation, not anything official. And when you claimed there were "senate findings" to that effect, you were simply lying.

But, but the methodology!

[anylolone]

@goaded Inference is quite different from interpretation.

We are not talking about the bible or other incongruent works like crenshaw's, it's just data.

[goaded]

And yet even right-wing sites, who are willing to defend the use of sheep wormer over vaccines, for example, haven't reached the same conclusion as (random person on the internet) you. That's why you finding literally anyone else making your "AZ already demonstrated and declared that without fraud or error, the vote went for trump" claim was the essential first step to getting me to waste hours of my time following your no doubt twisted logic.

It's a technique called "critical ignoring".
theconversation.com/to-navigate-the-dangers-of-the-web-you-need-critical-thinking-but-also-critical-ignoring-158617

"Learning to ignore information is not something taught in school. School teaches the opposite: to read a text thoroughly and closely before rendering judgment. Anything short of that is rash.

But on the web, where a witches’ brew of advertisers, lobbyists, conspiracy theorists and foreign governments conspire to hijack attention, the same strategy spells doom. Online, critical ignoring is just as important as critical thinking. "

[anylolone]

@goaded Here comes you with "critical thinking is bad" lol.

I'm aware. You see, we don't have an orthodoxy over here, like you guys have.

I find it funny that you have the sheer arrogance of telling people that they can't use inference, and instead should trust your priests blindly.

Instead of, you know, arguing shit on the merits.

Your own argument against critical thinking is self defeating, you define a-priory that you can't argue on the merits, that people can't argue on the merits, which means there's no starting point for figuring out the truth, for anyone.

It's a bootstrap paradox, the first in the line of your priests has no one to validate them, to bestow authority unto them.

[goaded]

Sigh. No, you're simply missing the point.

Which of us is being more unreasonable? You're demanding I read up on a methodology and watch a five hour video before you are willing to continue to your argument, and I'm asking you to... post a link to anyone else making your claim.

12 days you've had to come up with a simple link that might make me think your statement has any merit at all.

[anylolone]

@goaded Well, I read the methodology and watched the video.

Our crowd makes events out of reading your neo-nazi plagiarism. That's our entertainment.
And the methodology isn't all that big, by the way.

So, you are saying that something you admit to understand nothing about is bullshit?
You haven't read a single page that you could understand as bullshit.

And somehow your experts can't point to a single part of the methodology and tell you the arguments.

Now, after we arrive at a consensus that, I would walk you through with sources and time stamps, but you want to put the wagon in front of the horse, so have all that effort by yourself unless you want to get a consensus with the methodology.

[goaded]

You're really going off the deep end, now.

I understand that nobody is claiming what you're claiming, so there's practically zero chance that you're right, so there's no point in wasting time watching five hours of video that you won't even summarise.

A reminder: I'll look further into your claims if you can find a single source that says "AZ already demonstrated and declared that without fraud or error, the vote went for trump".

[anylolone]

@goaded It's not nobody, but the fact others have arrived at the same conclusion is irrelevant next to how a conclusion is reached.

Again, you turn your argument from authority fallacy into a popularity argument when you dread going out from your safe spaces.

[goaded]

Then who else? That's a very simple question.

By the way, was that five-hour hearing where the Cyber Ninjas claimed that they'd found 74,000 votes that weren't logged, only to find that they were in-person early voters (including state Treasurer Kimberly Yee)? They possessed the records to prove themselves wrong, but ignored them. That's a totally unsurprising hit to their practically non-existant credibility, isn't it? https://archive.is/skhyL#selection-535.280-535.308 (In case you don't recognise that, it's a link to back up a statement, you should try them).

It also brings me back to my first comment on this opinion:
“Just say that the election was corrupt [and] leave the rest to me”

[anylolone]

@goaded First, thank you for finally making an argument, even if it's your own.
So, what is not relevant, did you missed my clues? Have you read my clues?

I don't know if you noticed it, but one purpose of this audit is to make auditing and procedures more transparent. So what you just told me is confirmation they were right, it was needlessly a mess.

There's way more than that which shows a mess instead of fraud, if you watched 50 second of the video at the end report you'd have known it. (just the way they stored it all, for christ sake, not to mention the sheer lack of recording.)

[goaded]

I've been making a simple argument all along: your statement is a lie that you can't back up in the slightest.

You've still said nothing to dissuade me (and you don't have a clue to give me).

The only other point I made was that the "auditors" are incompetent, with evidence that they said that 74,000 voters were illegitimate, who weren't.

[anylolone]

@goaded It seems like I dissuaded you, considering you even attempted to make an argument.

Again, look at my clues.

Besides, you know that you just shot yourself in the foot, ballots where delivered, but you had to name tag some random list, it's just an absurd disgrace, besides the whole wrong labeling of boxes (if you watched the video, you'd know they try to explain by saying they just merged boxes haphazardly like fucking amateurs. Gosh, the whole sticking the files in the side of the boxes, probably because they fucked it up and instead of re-doing it, they just gave up and just stuck everything to the side to make it look like that was procedure, lol.)

[goaded]

Again, you have said nothing to back up your claim that Arizona found Trump won (he didn't), and the people doing the fraudit have been shown to be incompetent.

Every time the ballots were counted, even by the amateurs, the numbers came out the same. Trump lost because around 70,000 otherwise Republican voters didn't vote for him, and 20,000 of them even voted for Biden.

[anylolone]

@goaded Have we reached a consensus?

Nope, so let's reach a consensus.

We reached one agreement, that they recorded mail ballots as in-person voting.
Which is retarded. (I'm not even sure if it's true, but I have no reason to doubt it because it seems reasonable that they would make such a rookie mistake considering the self inflicted hactic situation.)

[goaded]

Not even slightly, you've just been lying since the start. There's no official finding that Trump won Arizona, as you claim, and the auditors incorrectly claimed that 70,000 people hadn't legally voted when they had; they were just too stupid to check the records.

[anylolone]

@goaded You keep bringing the sheer flaw of election officials like that's gonna be good for you.

Gosh, imagine that, filing mail votes as presencial votes because "they had to go there" even though they had to mail it and they latter stored them as mail in votes.

You'd think such mistake was on purpose, but likely was just incompetence. Like randomly merging ballot boxes without documenting it, or shoving batch files in the side of the boxes.

Also, as I said, inference, but let's keep arguing on the merits of the methodology of the audit.
Ok, the auditors didn't read minds, they went with what was documented, including on the election methodology and didn't discovered a reason for every blunder that election officials commit.
That's expected and noted, next time when election officials make such mistakes they will be charged. (not real crime by the way, just dereliction of duty. Besides drilling harder the procedures.)

[goaded]

I keep bringing up the fact that you have nothing to back up your claims, unlike mine, which you then misrepresent. Were the votes counted from people who weren't entitled to vote? No. Were all the votes cast by people who were entitled to vote? Yes. Game over (ten months ago).

Your frauditors all just caught covid, apparently.

[anylolone]

@goaded I didn't misrepresent, do you want me to quote directly?

"The reason there was no record of mail-in ballots.." "... because, like Yee, they voted early at an in-person voting center during the last 10 days before the election."
"One... EV32, lists every voter who requested an early ballot each day, while the second... EV33, shows every voter who returns an early ballot each day."

" but the county didn’t process those requests until the next business day, meaning they weren’t included on the EV32 report," this part here I understand. Something must be done to fix it, but I understand.

[goaded]

"I didn't misrepresent, do you want me to quote directly?"

Sure. The most recent example:

Me: "... the auditors incorrectly claimed that 70,000 people hadn't legally voted when they had; they were just too stupid to check the records."

You: "You keep bringing the sheer flaw of election officials like that's gonna be good for you."

The important point was the obvious lack of professionalism by your "auditors", who rushed to claim that they'd found evidence of wrong-doing, before asking the officials for a comment, or checking their own work by considering other, reasonable, ways they could be mistaken.

[anylolone]

@goaded It's not a lack on their professionalism to not find an explanation for every fuck up the election officials make.

For one example, this 74 number is right at the beginning at the hearing, and they give zero explanation, just drop it and say they have no fucking idea and can't explain it.

That's it. "Well, it was easy to explain it", no it would be easy to explain it if they kept their records straight and clean. A record that count the same ballot in one place as mail in, and in another as presencial voting is not a straight clean record.

[goaded]

Good to know it was in that hearing that the auditors proved they weren't after the truth; they just wanted to cast doubt on the results by publicly presenting misleading data that could have been cleared up by asking a simple question of someone who knew what they were talking about.

Those 74 thousand votes were perfectly in order, remember, but guess what the right-wing media predictably made of it. (I'm sure every site that trumpeted that number published a correction.)

“Just say that the election was corrupt [and] leave the rest to me”

[anylolone]

@goaded Well, it's a truth that they labeled mail in ballots as not in mail in ballots, which is a disaster.
That cast doubt, on itself, on the election procedure.

Your objective is to cast doubt of critical thinking, personal autonomy and civil rights, don't come bitching that dissidence is evil, like huffpost complaining that people are asking tough questions to biden over his botched delayed choreographed retread from afghanistan.

[goaded]

We're back to your misrepresentations (and downright lies - they hadn't "labeled mail in ballots as not in mail in ballots") again.

There were clearly records that covered all but a handful of votes, that's how the implication of wrong-doing was so easily disproved (it's a mechanism to mitigate errors, like double-entry book keeping). And the fact is that the "auditors" had the records to prove it themselves, but chose instead to paint a picture of deceit at a hearing where the county couldn't defend itself "as they were not invited, and public testimony was not allowed."

In other words, the fraudit objective is to “Just say that the election was corrupt [and] leave the rest to [Trump]”.

Just a reminder: this biased hearing is what you're using to justify your bogus claim that "AZ already demonstrated and declared that without fraud or error, the vote went for trump.". It hasn't.

[anylolone]

@goaded "misrepresentation" I literally quoted it, I'm gonna quote again.

Do you know I can do it?

"The reason there was no record of mail-in ballots.." "... because, like Yee, they voted early at an in-person voting center during the last 10 days before the election."
"One... EV32, lists every voter who requested an early ballot each day, while the second... EV33, shows every voter who returns an early ballot each day."

" but the county didn’t process those requests until the next business day, meaning they weren’t included on the EV32 report,"

That's quite clear what it means. There weren't clear records, there were in this instance you sited, haphazardly stitched records that show gross incompetence of election officials.

[goaded]

I know you can, I know you usually don't, and I know you're being misleading (or you misunderstood, but you've lost the benefit of the doubt over the last two weeks).

Your first paragraph is OK, apart from skipping over the fact that it's not at all surprising that there isn't a record of a mail-in ballot that didn't exist. The second paragraph is more troubling, since it (a) doesn't mention that instead of 74,000 votes, it's talking about less than 400, and (b) ignores the fact that they were processed next day. The records may not have been clear to amateur "auditors", but they were accurate down to a handful of ballots among millions to anyone who cared to look.

""The reason there was no record of mail-in ballots.." "... because, like Yee, they voted early at an in-person voting center during the last 10 days before the election."
"One... EV32, lists every voter who requested an early ballot each day, while the second... EV33, shows every voter who returns an early ballot each day."

" but the county didn’t process those requests until the next business day, meaning they weren’t included on the EV32 report,"

That's quite clear what it means. There weren't clear records, there were in this instance you sited, haphazardly stitched records that show gross incompetence of election officials."

[anylolone]

@goaded Nope, the 400 were process the next day, that's understandable.
But the fact that all weren't recorded as ballots sent is the issue, that's not misunderstanding, that's not misinterpreting.

Mail-in ballots were recorded as presencial voting in one report, but mail-in in another.
That's rookie mistake of not making sure definitions are kept consistent between reports.

"They were clear for anyone who cared to look" if they read the minds of the election clerks in order to know where to look, or if you just run up to it.

Note they had to waste a shit ton of time with adjudicated ballots without unique identification codes in the thousands.

[goaded]

Did you miss that you hid the fact your quote was talking about 400 and not 74,000 ballots? That's misleading. As is skipping over it in your response.

Nobody had to read any minds, they just had to ask a simple question of people who know what they're doing. It's what genuine auditors do when they find a discrepancy and aren't planning to “Just say that the election was corrupt [and] leave the rest to [Trump]”.

[anylolone]

@goaded Nope, I quoted once about the 400, and said that those not being in the same report as the mostly 70k was expected. Can you even read?

Also, I already explained the trump quote, if trump wanted a successful coup he could already have had it.

[goaded]

"Nope, I quoted once about the 400, and said that those not being in the same report as the mostly 70k was expected. Can you even read?"
You know I can search this conversation? You said nothing of the sort, and you never corrected your comment that made it look like you were talking about 74,000 votes (a significant number) but just 400 (which wasn't, in this election).

Here's the thing about facts and the truth, generally the more you find out the more the evidence backs it up. With deception, it's the other way around.

The fraudit is a transparent attempt to “Just say that the election was corrupt [and] leave the rest to [Trump]”.

"Also, I already explained the trump quote, if trump wanted a successful coup he could already have had it."
Yeah, back on January 6th or August 13th. Are you saying he wouldn't have stayed in office if he'd managed to enough Republicans to lie about the elections in January? BS.

[anylolone]

@goaded Again, I was talking about the 74k. The fuck you are talking about?

I literally quoted here. I'm gonna quote again.
"The reason there was no record of mail-in ballots.." "... because, like Yee, they voted early at an in-person voting center during the last 10 days before the election."
"One... EV32, lists every voter who requested an early ballot each day, while the second... EV33, shows every voter who returns an early ballot each day."

Also, are you talking about the 6th, which was far away from trump, way before he finished his speech and the FBI just admitted there was no coordination between groups to do a coup, and barely any coordination at all?

[goaded]

Bottom line: not one of those 74,241 votes was counted illegally, which is what they're claiming to be looking for, and the right-wing trumpeted as fact (without ever correcting themselves).

As to the 6th, you're being misleading again: "The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U. S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result...". www.reuters.com/.../

Scant evidence means there's at least some, and like I said earlier, evidence for truth and facts tend to get added to, and lies (like the pretence that those 74,000 AZ votes were in any way invalid) tend to fade away.

Rep. Bennie Thompson, chairman of the Select Committee on Jan. 6:
"... we have information that I can't share with you at this point that individuals were planning in anticipation of the election not going their way and by getting access to this information, we'll be able to prove it. Clearly the things we cited in our letter kind of lay out the predicate for what occurred. 'If this happened, we'll do this. If this happened, we'll do something else.' So there was always a plan A, B, C, S in this process. And so there were a lot of people involved"

[anylolone]

@goaded But they were inconsistently recorded.

All of those duplicated ballots with no unique serial number were counted illegally.
Every vote from people who registered only after the election were counted illegally.
All ballots received after the deadline who were counted, were counted illegally.
All ballots counted after the deadline were counted illegally.

[goaded]

They were all recorded, and you're being as truthful with the rest of your list as with everything else. In other words “Just [saying] that the election was corrupt [and leaving] the rest to [Trump]”. Republican and Democratic representatives were there for the count, and they didn't think there was anything illegal; there would have been genuine lawsuits if there had been.

[anylolone]

@goaded They were recorded in one instance as mail in, and in another as presencial.

And again, he's successfully winning right now in elections, more than that cuomo is out, newson is ready to be kicked off for elder, biden is about to be impeached.

[goaded]

How many votes per voter were there? One.

“Just say that the election was corrupt [and] leave the rest to me”

Cuomo wasn't voted out, he resigned. Newsom remains to be seen (but if he's replaced, it will be by someone with massively fewer votes than he was elected by). Biden hasn't done anything worthy of impeachment.

It's no surprise you think that's what winning elections looks like.

[anylolone]

@goaded "How many voters per vote were there" good question, let's see the results coming out.

But when it comes to be obvious, as you clearly said, they weren't clearly recorded.
You tried to paint the audit in a poor light you painted the election officials in a bad light instead.

[goaded]

We have seen the results come out, over nine months ago. But you'll “Just say that the election was corrupt [and] leave the rest to [Trump]”.

[anylolone]

@goaded Hey man, it would be fasters if you guys helped instead of hindered.

And if election officials didn't made such a big mess.

[goaded]

Why would anyone want to help you lie about things?

[anylolone]

@goaded Help with the audit, you have no idea how hard it was to get democrats to join the audit, since they are integral at the very least at the counting procedure.

Not wanting to be part of it show you believe the result, with your oversight, will be the detection of fraud.

[goaded]

Rubbish. It was clear fron the start that it was just a partisan attempt to throw doubt on the election (which was proven by their half truths at a hearing that excluded all dissenting voices, including representatives of the county being fraudited) that they knew would be turned into full-blown lies by the right wing media). Why lend it any credibility?

[anylolone]

@goaded Well, it was clear from the start you wanted nothing to do with it and wanted it not done, more, you wanted no one to do it.

[goaded]

Pretty much, since it was pointless, other than as an opportunity to "say that the election was corrupt [and] leave the rest to Trump”.

[anylolone]

@goaded Certainly didn't sound pointless to half to the population.

Maybe there's a point then, just asserting it's pointless, specially after your two impeachments where your own witnesses cleared trump shows you need more than an assertions.

[goaded]

Half the population of where? That's rubbish. Trump lost in Arizona because Republican voters didn't vote for him, and thousands even voted for Biden.

No witnesses cleared Trump in either impeachment, the Republicans simply did jury nullification.

[anylolone]

@goaded Well, considering the popular push, it's more than half of the population of AZ, by far.
Specially when it comes to the donations.

Remember when you guys went there to intimidate and dox and discovered there was the population of AZ there? Gosh, or maricopa.

[goaded]

Do you ever get tired of just making shit up?

[anylolone]

@goaded I'm not, as you said, you want a full audit not done, it's a "waste" even if you can't show your face around the audit because there's so many people following closely that you just can't risk it.

[goaded]

But you are making shit up. You have been for three weeks, now. Every time I ask you to back one of your statements up, you respond with bullshit. The funding for the fraudit came from right wing organisations, and it's not a "full audit", it's an attempt to “Just say that the election was corrupt". And they haven't even gotten around to doing that, yet.

[anylolone]

@goaded You have been bullshitting for three weeks. And we haven't come to a consensus on the audit, since you show the incompetence of the election clerks and then blame it on the auditors for not finding a plausible explanation.

"It's an attempt" it's a full audit. If it was "an attempt" they wouldn't even bother to explain the mistakes of election officials and would put it all to fraud.

One example is how they deduced that ballot boxes were haphazardly merged, which made reviewing their chain of custody a nightmare for the audit.

[goaded]

No, I really haven't, that's just more bullshit. You never came up with a link to prove "AZ already demonstrated and declared that without fraud or error, the vote went for trump", you claimed the AZ senate had made a finding, when they haven't even received a draft report, and you claim that the clerks were incompetent, when there were only 400 ballots that weren't easily explained, out of literally millions.

Pro-tip: if you're going to fund a fake audit into fake voter fraud, don't illegally use a business address when you register to vote.

"Arizona audit moneyman Patrick Byrne had illegally registered to vote in Park City, Utah.

Yes, of all the ironies, it appears Byrne, who went from Overstock to laughingstock for bankrolling the ambiguous Sarasota computer security company to find election fraud in Maricopa County, Az., violated Utah state statute by listing his place of business as his legal residence on his form."
eu.heraldtribune.com/.../

[anylolone]

@goaded Well, your article did, filling mail in ballots in one place as mail in, and another as presencial.
You pointing the finger at the auditors doesn't make that disappear, it just makes it more obvious.

Also, don't make the quote again.

[goaded]

Which quote? The one that proves an attempted coup? Why not? It's obviously your plan. Of the supposedly "phantom" 74000 votes, all but a couple of hundred were easily explained. I'm still not convinced the easily explained ones weren't correctly recorded; people can request mail-in ballots, then vote in person instead.

[anylolone]

@goaded "proves the attempted coup" lol, no the quote from your article.

This one is about the 70k
"The reason there was no record of mail-in ballots.." "... because, like Yee, they voted early at an in-person voting center during the last 10 days before the election."
"One... EV32, lists every voter who requested an early ballot each day, while the second... EV33, shows every voter who returns an early ballot each day."

And this one about the 400
" but the county didn’t process those requests until the next business day, meaning they weren’t included on the EV32 report,"

[goaded]

Which part of in-person ballots not being recorded as mail-in ballots seems complicated to you? It's like complaining green cars aren't recorded as red cars.

[anylolone]

@goaded What part of mail-in ballots being recorded as in-person ballots in one list and mail-in in another being inconsistent reporting you don't understand?

[goaded]

What part of it makes absolutely no difference to the totals is giving you a hard time?

As I understand it, 98% of those 74,000 people requested a mail-in ballot, decided to vote in-person instead, and therefore weren't sent or didn't use their mail-in ballots. Whether it's me or you misunderstanding the paperwork, the fact remains that they all were entitled to vote, and all cast one single vote which was counted.

How do you suppose that affects the result? All you and the fraudit are looking for is the slightest excuse to lie about the election being completely valid, which has been known since last December.

This isn't Arizona, but a video of Wisconsin's senator.
2 minutes in: "... we obviously counted enough republican votes and trump lost. 51,000 republican voters didn't vote for him...". Trump lost in both states because Republican voters decided not to vote for him. Simple as that.
https://youtu.be/J9xwz7qfuuk

[anylolone]

@goaded What part of mail-in ballots being recorded as in-person ballots in one list and mail-in in another being inconsistent reporting you don't understand?

"Just read the election clerks minds, not their own procedures!"

[goaded]

Still avoiding the elephant in the room that whether or not the record keeping was perfect, the final count doesn't change a bit, I see. Trump lost because Republicans chose not to vote for him, even in Republican states.

[anylolone]

@goaded "the record was not kept perfect" That's a huge point. You conceded on that by accident, congratulations, I agree it was a blunder.

[goaded]

So? Something like 400 ballots in over 2 million had problematic record keeping, and the result was over 11,000 votes against Trump. You're just saying the election was corrupt, like Trump wants. There were more votes for other Republicans in Arizona than there were for Trump; significant numbers of Republican voters recognised he was a disaster.

[anylolone]

@goaded This one is about the 70k
"The reason there was no record of mail-in ballots.." "... because, like Yee, they voted early at an in-person voting center during the last 10 days before the election."
"One... EV32, lists every voter who requested an early ballot each day, while the second... EV33, shows every voter who returns an early ballot each day."

And this one about the 400
" but the county didn’t process those requests until the next business day, meaning they weren’t included on the EV32 report,"

Again, quoting from your article.

[goaded]

Firstly, I think it was your article, secondly, try reading what you quoted:
"The reason there was no record of mail-in ballots.." "... because, like Yee, they voted early at an in-person voting center during the last 10 days before the election."
There was a reason, the frauditors just didn't care.

[anylolone]

@goaded So what you are saying is that you agree that they inconsistently categorized mail in ballots, those 74K.

The auditors don't read minds, they read documents.

You need to stop telling me that I'm wrong because I'm right.

[goaded]

What record keeping mishaps (if there were any) do you think affected the results of the election? Were any of the 74,000 votes invalid?

[anylolone]

@goaded You know my clues didn't involved the mishaps, all that it matters is that you tried to shift the blame here. Calling it a mishap is a hell of an euphemism. A mishap is the 4C not being included in the 70K because of time constrains which should not happen but are understandable.

Let me quote again.

"The reason there was no record of mail-in ballots.." "... because, like Yee, they voted early at an in-person voting center during the last 10 days before the election."
"One... EV32, lists every voter who requested an early ballot each day, while the second... EV33, shows every voter who returns an early ballot each day."

And this one about the 400
" but the county didn’t process those requests until the next business day, meaning they weren’t included on the EV32 report,"

[goaded]

You're still ignoring that they were all recorded, they were all votes by entitled voters, and they were all counted. Trump lost because there were tens of thousands of ballots for Republican candidates for everything but president, and some of them even voted for Biden.

[anylolone]

@goaded You are still ignoring that the auditors would have to read the officials minds to know that.
That's how much of a fuck up that is, and we haven't even talked about my clues.

You just came and gave me gold, for no reason, when we talk about my clues, when we detail it, it's going to be clear that you done me a favor by bringing this up.

[goaded]

Fools gold. There was no need to read anybody's mind, they could have included people who actually know how it works in the hearing and just asked them. Of course, that would have spoiled the chance to “Just say that the election was corrupt [and] leave the rest to [Trump]”.

[anylolone]

@goaded "They could have included the crooks". One of the points of a full audit is that it's independent. Imagine, being involved in grading your own work, lol!

[goaded]

You do understand that a quote is meant to be of something someone actually said, right?

Like “Just say that the election was corrupt [and] leave the rest to me”.

All real audits and recounts include people from across the political spectrum, and they don't hold hearings excluding the other side in order to lie about what they've found. When can we expect the final report, do you think?

[anylolone]

@goaded Again, the audit included people from vast political spectrums, but congratulations on admitting the election clerks were all DNC cronies, you really didn't helped your case here.

What audits don't include is the people who did the work being audited. That's not how an IRS audit works, after you get audited you get to try and explain yourself.

[goaded]

It really is incredible how quickly you'll lie about what I've said.

[anylolone]

@goaded your words responding to me saying the audited don't take part in their audit.
"All real audits and recounts include people from across the political spectrum, and they don't hold hearings excluding the other side in order to lie about what they've found. When can we expect the final report, do you think?"

Well, technically election officials aren't being audited, their work is, but basically the same thing.

[goaded]

And now you're even lying about what you said. Unbelievable.

[anylolone]

@goaded You know I love quoting, don't you? Here's the proof that you said that the election officials were all DNC partisans.

Your words :"they could have included people who actually know how it works"
Since random democrats don't know what's not written in procedure, it's clear you mean the officials.

my response: ""They could have included the crooks". One of the points of a full audit is that it's independent. Imagine, being involved in grading your own work, lol!"

Your reply: "All real audits and recounts include people from across the political spectrum, and they don't hold hearings excluding the other side in order to lie about what they've found. When can we expect the final report, do you think?" Here you imply the election officials are all DNC partisans.

[goaded]

No, you almost never quote me or anyone else, or provide links to back up your clearly bogus claims (e. g. that Arizona had "demonstrated and declared that without fraud or error, the vote went for trump", or "No coup will take place or even be attempted. That's not trump", when it's already happened).

There are many thousands of people across the nation who know how elections work, they could have been taken from any of the other 49 states and still have a better idea of what happens in elections compared to the ridiculously named "cyber ninjas". Also, there weren't any crooks in the initial count, they're all in the fraudit.

[anylolone]

@goaded I quote you here all the time and I just proved you a massive liar.
Shall we go again, on me demonstrating how you implied that the election officials were all DNC cronies? "There are many thousands of people across the nation who know how elections work" not this election since they went out of script, which we already established here.

[goaded]

Again, a clearly demonstrable lie. What was the first time you quoted me in this over three week long conversation? Quote it.

[anylolone]

@goaded Nope.

First quote: "It was the official" 23 days ago.

[Anonymous]

More copeanon stuff. Trump was outmaneuvered by the cathedral but his followers are too deep in petty politics to see that.

[BeMuse]

The coup happened November 3 you glowie fag.

[ThisDudeHere]

a fellow newfag

[BCA6010]

"Doubtful" doesn't begin to cover it...

[rcljr]

WTF are you even talking about?

[karaspara]

What is going on? Another Civil War brewing?

[Still-alive]

Im seeing a lot of q people getting pissed lol

[Snakeyes7]

I am pretty curious to see how that goes.