It was 37, not 35. Page 5 of the linked document below.
I wonder where I got 35?
Not sure what this is referring to either, but Republicans in AZ (which was apart of Trump's 2020 stolen election lie) paid millions for a full forensic audit....which ended up finding 35 "questionable" ballots. Not fraudulent. Not Chinese bamboo or counterfeit....just questionable.
Pointing out your lack of intellectual curiosity isn't a red herring.
Claiming that not mentioning inevitable insignificant candidates is a "lack of intellectual curiosity" is a red herring and poisoning the well.
I have and had zero interest in that fact because there are no mysteries, puzzles, or contradictions to resolve about it. You've already admitted that there was an update that included zero votes for Pratt and that it only happened once "a glitch".
The facts are not in contention, my inclusion of the claim in my incomplete list of evidence has been justified. Therefore my intellectual curiosity about whether you had a counter argument is now also exhausted. I have the answer, you don't.
You may or may not continue to attempt to gaslight me on this topic, they're your keystrokes to waste.
Evasion
Anyone that has used technology knows that it glitches, lags, freezes, etc all the time. My work laptop shut down Chrome and Teams multiple times yesterday.
You know nothing of these matters. You are incapable of debating this assertion due to lack of background knowledge (or you do know and are lying), but I can explain how it could have been done which would make split updates impossible and I can also explain to you why the fact that it only happened once proves that it was not designed in a sensible way.
Just say the word.
Blockchain logs are your question.
Why weren't they mandated 20 years ago is my question to you.
A lack of them doesn't change anything about election auditing
When someone is cleaning the floor with a toothbrush, you can safely assume it's because someone wants it to take a long time.
When someone refuses to use clear and obvious solutions that would allow remote/early/digital voting without fraud, it is reasonable to assume it's because they either don't want remote/early/digital voting or they want fraud.
We know they have no problem with remote, early, or digital voting.
Oh, really? Can you provide some examples?
How about this one, that there are sex trafficking rings focused on providing underaged prostitutes to rich and influential global players?
I ridiculed and dismissed that one around 2011. I can update my heuristics fortunately.
I didn't follow the story very closely. You can say Trump was over charged and the DA was really reaching to find something to charge Trump with, but there isn't a conspiracy.
You just described a conspiracy, AND I was talking about the conspiracy the fake charges were, it was charges of conspiracy.
A conspiracy to charge someone with conspiracy.
Right, you're only proving my point. Even if mail-in voting was done away with and every single voter had to show ID to vote, you'd STILL distrust the results because "they" and "them" are out there pulling the strings from the shadows to steal elections
Putting words in my mouth proves nothing but that you're willing to strawman.
I never advanced the premise that elections are legitimate so long as there is no mail in voting. They are legitimate when outcome changing cheating can be ruled out as a possibility beyond a reasonable doubt.
Satisfying that requirement depends on the design of the election process and there are as many possible solutions as imagination and cunning allows. There are also an even greater number of systems which can never satisfy that requirement or could but in practice don't because people ignore the rules of the system.
The blurb I posted makes it sound like the second ballot was rejected because of the requirement to prove citizenship to vote in FEDERAL elections, which the 2022 election was. The blurb says nothing about Facebook posts or an investigation related to a Facebook post.
but you also implied a sequence of events which implied she would not have gotten away with if she had not publicly admitted it. That is false.
It remains possible and plausible that the fraud was only discovered because she admitted to it. It remains possible and plausible that the ballot would have been counted if she didn't admit to it. It remains possible and plausible that the ballot was counted in 2022.
I KNOW the infallible and paragons of honesty which are government middle management denied that it was counted, but they have every reason to lie as they have been caught lying countless times before.
Their word is as good as a cop's who turns off their bodycam, and for the same reason.
There's no such thing as a "strong argument" when you make up reality to reinforce what you want to believe.
Identifying possibilities is not "making up reality" and even if I did assert as absolute fact fabrications of my own design (which I have not except as thought experiment), it would not cause the concept of strong arguments to cease to exist.
I mean, the strongest argument for Pratt falling to third is math
I am not interested in explaining why Pratt fell to third or failed or any other outcome of purported elections.
I am interested in whether the outcome was rigged. Just because there were non-cheating ways someone could have lost, does not mean cheating does not exist or that it is acceptable.
Not at all because I don't want to believe anything.
All praise to the perfectly unbiased human ZenMode.
I live in AZ and was very curious to see what, if anything, Cyber Ninjas found. It ended up being basically nothing, as I noted above. I don't want them to find nothing. I want to know the truth, either way.
Then you should watch the court recordings about the misprinted ballots.
Yes, people could be out paying homeless people to vote, but one homeless person claiming they were paid doesn't make it true that homeless people ARE being paid en masse.
Not just "could", "would".
How many homeless people does it take to make it true? How many were asked? How many of those asked knew it was a crime and kept their mouth shut?
Answering those questions and questions like them is "analysis".
BTW, the person paying them to vote would be breaking the law, but that's not election/voter fraud.
Let republican mega-donors pay per vote (or not to vote) and see how you feel about it.
Yes, but we don't know if that druggy is even telling the truth.
We don't know if anyone is telling the truth without Corroborating hard evidence, and that is almost never in political controversy.
So 'we' either give up, lie (cough), or do fuzzy logic analysis such as looking at motivations and corroborating/contradicting corollaries.
So when you quote some election official's claims, and there is no hard evidence access (and there isn't because they block it), I am unimpressed when they investigate themselves and found no wrongdoing.
On the other hand, when someone answers a question that evidences them in a criminal conspiracy as if it's no secret, that tells you that person didn't know it was illegal or improper and is telling the truth because she sees no reason to lie.
Given that basically every person in the country has a portable, video recording device in their pocket, you'd think that someone would have video of Person A paying Homeless Person B after Homeless Person B filled out their ballot.
You'd think the same about drug deals, but they just keep getting drugs. Weird.
Still:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G-gjvJG86Q
View: https://youtu.be/um_hscNkcjs?t=87
(with time argument for your convenience)
You have not established any such thing.
Blind denial
If you're intellectually honest, the question should absolutely be "how do I prove it happened"
No it isn't. I know that nobody prove it and that is proof that the system is not legitimate.
If I ask a bank for an audit of my account and they cannot provide it, I don't need a prove a damn thing. They had a duty to prevent theft and keep records and they failed.
Whether by astounding incompetence or malice it does not ultimately matter.
I have already proved this to you by thought experiment, you simply ignored it (probably because you aren't actually the only unbiased human in the universe).
A question you could answer, state by state, if you took the time to understand what's actually involved in election security.
I consider the odds of you knowing more about how elections are actually run than me to be about 1000:1.
How about you review this thread and the hundreds of others like it on this site and others. You are not entitled to dismiss every individual clue as non-conclusive then reset the debate by asking for facts like there were none presented.
Somethings are known by smoking gun, others by a whole lot of smoke.
The "reality", as you call it, is that at total of 37 potentially illegal ballots were found. 37 out of 2.1 million.
Every single mail in ballot that wasn't canvassed or had the chain of custody breached is potentially illegal.
goodauthority.org
www.brusselstimes.com
