More Completely Legal Election Fortification

zubenelgenubi

zubenelgenubi

I'm a star
It's pretty sad that the State of Arizona won't pay for the audit of their election. Leaving a private company on the hook for millions because they couldn't be bothered to secure their elections. And now they're tying them up in courts, costing them more money, on a fishing expedition probably with the goal of getting cyberninjas to disclose IP, further putting them into financial peril. Democrats in AZ are just as gross as all other democrats.
 
Turdferguson

Turdferguson

Just a turd
zubenelgenubi said:
Do you expect to find something in those, possibly non-existent, records that will invalidate the findings of the audit that were released? I didn't see anything in that article that outlined what cyberninjas is supposed to be withholding. Sounds like a fishing expedition to give more talking points to people who allow the mefia to think for them.
Click to expand...
Isn't that proof of fraud?
zubenelgenubi said:
Why did Maricopa county fight auditing the machines? Why did they delete files before handing the machines over? Why did they fight the audit tooth and nail, obstructing the completely legal audit if there was nothing to hide?
Click to expand...
 
zubenelgenubi

zubenelgenubi

I'm a star
Turdferguson said:
Isn't that proof of fraud?
Click to expand...

No, your example is a seemingly baseless fishing expedition. Signature matches are a specific request, done routinely in audits. Signature match verification was how Obama disqualified his competition for the Illinois Senate seat. Newsom's recall petitions were signature matched. So why fight the signature matches in this situation?

We also know why they fought the release of equipment for auditing. The recovered files that were illegally deleted showed massive issues with the voters rolls. But, hey, let's distract from those facts by using very weak innuendo that the mefia audience will accept completely and without question to use to call into question the legitimately proven fraud.

I also didn't claim the things I was questioning were evidence of fraud. It's fine if you want to use someone's own logic against them, but when you strawman their arguments it just makes you look desperate.
 
zubenelgenubi

zubenelgenubi

I'm a star
i-dont-see-any-evidence-of-election-fraud.jpg
 
728ups

728ups

All Trash No Trailer
zubenelgenubi said:
So nothing? Let's see if we can arrive a a baseline to agree on. Do you believe an audit took place in WI? Or is that a biased slant?
Click to expand...
Seems like no fraud was found( as usual) ,and I am citing three different sources. Carry on

MSN

www.msn.com

www.newsweek.com

GOP-Aligned Group Finds No Evidence of Voter Fraud in Wisconsin

Former President Donald Trump previously claimed there was "election corruption" in Wisconsin, a state he lost by less than one point.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com

MSN

www.msn.com
 
zubenelgenubi

zubenelgenubi

I'm a star
728ups said:
Seems like no fraud was found( as usual) ,and I am citing three different sources. Carry on

MSN

www.msn.com

www.newsweek.com

GOP-Aligned Group Finds No Evidence of Voter Fraud in Wisconsin

Former President Donald Trump previously claimed there was "election corruption" in Wisconsin, a state he lost by less than one point.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com

MSN

www.msn.com
Click to expand...

Audit in quotes in the headline. Lol. They aren't biased. Clearly you don't read being the lying headlines. From your first story:

"42 ballots were confirmed to be someone voting on behalf of someone who was deceased, and 130 ballots were found to come from registered felons."

I guess they missed "more than 265,000 voters cast an absentee ballot illegally."

It's pretty sad when your sources have to neglect to report all the information in order for you to think you have a leg to stand on.

5xghfb.jpg
 
728ups

728ups

All Trash No Trailer
zubenelgenubi said:
Audit in quotes in the headline. Lol. They aren't biased. Clearly you don't read being the lying headlines. From your first story:

"42 ballots were confirmed to be someone voting on behalf of someone who was deceased, and 130 ballots were found to come from registered felons."

I guess they missed "more than 265,000 voters cast an absentee ballot illegally."

It's pretty sad when your sources have to neglect to report all the information on order for you to think you have a leg to stand on.

View attachment 363235
Click to expand...
this is the headline from the tripe you posted. Biased much?
5 Biggest Takeaways From The Latest Review Of Wisconsin’s Rigged 2020 Election
 
zubenelgenubi

zubenelgenubi

I'm a star
728ups said:
this is the headline from the tripe you posted. Biased much?
5 Biggest Takeaways From The Latest Review Of Wisconsin’s Rigged 2020 Election
Click to expand...

Not when it accurately reflects the reality. 265,000 illegally cast ballots is a rigged election. The ballots are illegal because the people casting them committed fraud. 265,000 fraudulent votes is proof of fraud, widespread fraud, and enough to overturn the results. I'm sorry the people you depend on to tell you what to think didn't tell you that.

Your second source lied about the results of the AZ audit, focusing only on the results of the hand recount, which wasn't much different than the original count, but wasn't the whole audit. Then, a link at the bottom of the first story said the cyberninjas made up everything in the AZ audit. So the hand recount didn't match? Your sources are really coming unhinged and can't keep their stories straight. :lol:

5xghkf.jpg
 
UnionStrong

UnionStrong

Sorry, but I don’t care anymore.
zubenelgenubi said:
Not when it accurately reflects the reality. 265,000 illegally cast ballots is a rigged election. The ballots are illegal because the people casting them committed fraud. 265,000 fraudulent votes is proof of fraud, widespread fraud, and enough to overturn the results. I'm sorry the people you depend on to tell you what to think didn't tell you that.

Your second source lied about the results of the AZ audit, focusing only on the results of the hand recount, which wasn't much different than the original count, but wasn't the whole audit. Then, a link at the bottom of the first story said the cyberninjas made up everything in the AZ audit. So the hand recount didn't match? Your sources are really coming unhinged and can't keep their stories straight. :lol:

View attachment 363236
Click to expand...
Many fraudulent ballots in Maricopa county. So many that it was literally impossible to say who won. Democrat controlled county. Largest in AZ. Scumbags
 
zubenelgenubi

zubenelgenubi

I'm a star
UnionStrong said:
Many fraudulent ballots in Maricopa county. So many that it was literally impossible to say who won. Democrat controlled county. Largest in AZ. Scumbags
Click to expand...

But the "mainstream" coverage tries to pretend the hand recount is all that happened. When that lie doesn't work, they try to pretend the cyberninjas are hiding stuff. When that doesn't work, they resort to defamation and make fraudulent claims that the cyberninjas made everything up, even though they were scrutinized every step of the way. You really have to be mentally ill to believe the mefia anymore.
 
UnionStrong

UnionStrong

Sorry, but I don’t care anymore.
zubenelgenubi said:
But the "mainstream" coverage tries to pretend the hand recount is all that happened. When that lie doesn't work, they try to pretend the cyberninjas are hiding stuff. When that doesn't work, they resort to defamation and make fraudulent claims that the cyberninjas made everything up, even though they were scrutinized every step of the way. You really have to be mentally ill to believe the mefia anymore.
Click to expand...
Why are they trying so hard? Because they know they cheated.
 
Top