Search results

Less now than before. AZ legislature had to sue Maricopa county board of supervisors to get the to give over materials, etc. And they won. GA is doing so as well, as @marke has pointed out. But thanks for acknowledging with silence that I didn’t admit there was no evidence. I’d appreciate a...

https://theologyonline.com/threads/for-those-who-still-insist-that-there-was-election-fraud.55334/post-1803522 You’re losing it, @User Name. The evidence from the audit is not available yet. Audits are not where the idea to conduct an audit came from—that was from the evidence. There have been...

You’ll have to show me where I admitted such. Doesn’t sound at all familiar.

You don’t need an answer to your shifting standards on evidence. Did you read the article where Shrillary said Trump stole the election? There was certainly no smooth transition of power—it was constant friction. You probably don’t remember that Trump was impeached twice.

Yes, every day of his presidency. https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/meet-the-press-70-years/john-lewis-trump-won-t-be-legitimate-president-n706676 https://www.blackenterprise.com/6-reasons-trump-not-legitimate-president/...

Speaking from some direct experience, Brain?

I guess that question is a good one for you as well. Do you bother to read past what someone says when it supports your view? There is no question that some "experts, governors and state election officials from both parties say there was no evidence of widespread fraud. But this is patently...

I don’t have to. Your article does it. For example, “In a brief order, the justices said Texas did not have legal standing to bring the case.” But in saying that, the article refutes its own title, since the reason given is dismissal for lack of standing. Which says NOTHING about the validity...

Not true. The assertions came about because of evidence. The evidence is not sufficient, but the assertions are troubling. Thus the audit. And those words were attributed to you, or a reflection of your thoughts. Do you agree with them? You seem to.

No, you’re not just waiting. You’re asking for results of the audit before the audit is complete. It’s premature, and therefore divisive. Audits should be a uniting function—answering questions so that everyone can agree on the outcome. You are attempting to make people question the reason for...

You can compare the depth of the “audits” prior to AZ’s as well as the transparency. You asked for the data on this one, and I agree. I ask for all the data and techniques used in the other ones that presume to show full compliance with the law when only samples were audited. You don’t have...

Yes! That’s exactly what the Az Senate said! Wow, it’s wonderful when we can agree on so much! I’m glad you are beginning to understand the purpose of the audits now. I bet you are now looking forward to audits in PA and GA, too.

so you’re willing to assess the data from the audit to find out what kind of proof? That’s what we’re asking for as well. I just get the feeling you’ll reject it as you have other oddities that have been presented.

What kind of proof? Let's say it shows that somebody tampered with the machines, and the ballots recount different to, say 1/2 of the total Trump lost by, and mail ballots from unallowed or non-resident locations totaled the other half, and there were up to a hundred of other types, like dead...

Tell me, @Arthur Brain or @User Name, what you would accept from the AZ audit as real or substantial evidence.

So there’s a large divide between beliefs here? Isn’t that the reason for a reasonable accounting via an audit that checks out these things that have raised suspicions in some? If not the courts calling for them, which might be correct, then the state legislatures? They are essentially calling...

Bottom line is that you have no standard for right vs wrong, so you are morally bankrupt. And thus you have neither a desire for the truth nor the ability to recognize it when it arrives. You should worry about your bottom line, and repent.

That’s why audits are necessary. If we knew exactly how much fraud, we’d probably know where, how, and by whom it was committed. How many prosecutors do you know that walk onto the scene of a crime knowing the full extent of the crime, and have already determined who will testify in the trial...

I think you misunderstand @User Name and others of his ilk. What they means is “something that convinces me when my mind is already made up”. By that definition, also used by those who agree with the platform of the dem party, no evidence you provide will suffice. I don’t disagree with him on...

Curiosity on my part, Chair, but do you agree with their request, or not?