Ideological Fault Lines in (Post-)Mormonism

[Mayan Elephant]

jpatterson is waving the banner for his side, with all the vitriolic points that he was told to make. Has he performed a statewide audit? no. Has he done a recount? no.

Clarify your point here, because my interpretation of the above is that one can only legitimately conclude that a statewide audit or recount are legitimate if they conduct it themselves.

That is a fair request, jpatterson. That does deserve clarification.

My point is that there are no complete state audits. They have not been completed or published. And they never were completed or published prior to the inauguaration. So, if you were to make the claim that such an event happened or that such a product existed it must have been done with your own effort. Anyone claiming that there were audits is merely claiming to have firm standing on their metaphorical ideological continent - unless, of course, the person making the claim performed their own legitimate audit.

Your conclusion is not correct. Though, I will accept full responsibility for that. If in fact a legitimate statewide audit had happened, claiming that it was legitimate can be based on facts and a review of the process. Claiming that it happened when it did not actually happen, that is some First Vision BS.

Do not conflate here, please. I am saying THERE WERE NO AUDITS. I cannot make a claim about the legitimacy of something that did not happen, other than claiming that it did not happen. The lunatic fringe seem to think that there were audits and are willing to dagger the other side for not submitting to that assertion.

[jpatterson]

Do not conflate here, please. I am saying THERE WERE NO AUDITS. I cannot make a claim about the legitimacy of something that did not happen, other than claiming that it did not happen. The lunatic fringe seem to think that there were audits and are willing to dagger the other side for not submitting to that assertion.

There were audits, though. Perhaps not 100% state-wide audits, but to say there were no audits is inaccurate, as in Pennsylvania there was an audit of 94% of the counties. So it seems like you're picking at nits here to make a larger rhetorical point that feels like a stretch.

[jpatterson]

This feels akin to being asked to disprove a negative, or to prove something never happened.

No one is going to be able to prove to you that the election was 100% legitimate. Rather, if you have evidence that the election was "stolen," you can find plenty of reasonable people on the left who will entertain your evidence.

The problem is that, similar to the Rosebud fiasco here, there have been lots of promises of evidence of corruption and fraud, only to be left with the best evidence being Rudy Giuliani standing in front of Four Seasons Landscaping.

So, no, I've never personally conducted a state audit. But I'm also unaware of any claims of fraud or errors that elevate to the level a stolen or fraudulent election that haven't been thoroughly debunked. If you'd like to provide some here, I'm all ears but simply saying THERE WERE NO AUDITS isn't cutting it.

[Mayan Elephant]

And..... for the record..... Believing there were audits, when, in fact, there were no audits...... that is as American as apple pie. That does not make one bad, or wrong. It is not shameful to believe there were audits, and even claim to have read the audits, when there were no audits. That is what we do as Americans. Look at Theranos.... no audits. Look at Madoff.... no audits. Enron. Our elections are not unique, they are just what we do. We pretend that something is there even when it is not there and then we slaughter anyone that does not agree to believe like we believe. These are the fault lines that we agree to when we pick our continents of ideologies.

The same can be said about infection control audits. People claim they exist and are real and they prove or validate a belief all the time. When, in fact, THERE ARE NO AUDITS!

We agree to defend these claims that something exists (when we have no confirmation) based on ideology, not facts. We submit to the ideology because surrendering to the facts is hard. No big deal really as long as we can at least acknowledge that it is a submission to an ideology rather than some intellectual fact-based process or decision. I do not give a damn if someone believes in Elfen factories at the North Pole, The Three Nephites or Statewide audits. But, their beliefs are ideological and becoming more and more territorial in nature and that is weird.

[jpatterson]

When, in fact, THERE ARE NO AUDITS!

So what are we to make of news like this?

Almost four months after the November presidential election, Michigan has completed its most comprehensive series of post-election audits in the state's history, confirming the results, Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson announced Tuesday.

The audits examined the ballots cast in the general election, the machines that tabulated those ballots and the election procedures used.

[Mayan Elephant]

There were audits, though. Perhaps not 100% state-wide audits, but to say there were no audits is inaccurate, as in Pennsylvania there was an audit of 94% of the counties. So it seems like you're picking at nits here to make a larger rhetorical point that feels like a stretch.

Did you read the article? That was not an audit. 45K ballots, not all counties. Further, it was done LONG AFTER the inauguration. They identify that the various proposed audits. There was no audit of the election results, including custody, signature matches and all sort of other factors.

I am not making an argument for a different outcome. I am making the point that these claims of audits happening, existing, being legitimate and credible - are based on ideology not facts. Not acknowledging that there is a credibility issue is making the fault lines more prominent, not less.

[jpatterson]

Did you read the article? That was not an audit. 45K ballots, not all counties. Further, it was done LONG AFTER the inauguration. They identify that the various proposed audits. There was no audit of the election results, including custody, signature matches and all sort of other factors.

Yes, I read the article.

Your argument is that THERE ARE NO AUDITS.

That is demonstrably untrue. It seems that now your argument is that there are no state-wide audits (which I don't believe is true given that the Michigan audit news article I linked above says it was statewide)? Or that there were no pre-inauguration audits? Or that the audits were not a specific type of audit that meets your standard of approval?

Well those are entirely different arguments. Goalpost moving is not very conducive to establishing credibility.

[Mayan Elephant]

Yes, I read the article.

Your argument is that THERE ARE NO AUDITS.

That is demonstrably untrue. It seems that now your argument is that there are no state-wide audits (which I don't believe is true given that the Michigan audit news article I linked above says it was statewide)? Or that there were no pre-inauguration audits? Or that the audits were not a specific type of audit that meets your standard of approval?

Well those are entirely different arguments. Goalpost moving is not very conducive to establishing credibility.

I stand by that. Indeed, as an auditor, my standards may be a bit higher. I can accept that. You win.
And, a statewide audit was my standard, yes. I can accept that. You win again.
And the validity and comprehensiveness of the audits matter. I can own that. You win again.
Not doing them with a third party, is also a factor. I need to restate my claim. Madoff published audit results. They were perfect audits. It is the how that matters. Another L on my side.

jpatterson, can you not see the larger point here? Is it that effing elusive? The point is that the mere claim that an audit happened, or did not happen, is a metaphorical weapon of war among ideologies. I read the article, and laughed. That? That is not an audit. An audit would review the custody of the ballots - ALL of them. An audit is not classified as "risk-limiting." An audit gets to the credibility of all of it. Random samples do not find the outliers, and the outliers must be scrutinized HARD. I am not moving the goalposts.

The election results are not credible to many Americans. That does not make Americans crazy. Blue Anon is no more sane than QAnon. In fact, Blue Anon may be more dangerous and organized than QAnon could ever be. They are EXACTLY the same thing doing exactly the same shite. They are the exact same lunatic fringe. The only difference is that more people seem to have a testimony of Blue Anon.

[Mayan Elephant]

Yes, I read the article.

Your argument is that THERE ARE NO AUDITS.

That is demonstrably untrue. It seems that now your argument is that there are no state-wide audits (which I don't believe is true given that the Michigan audit news article I linked above says it was statewide)? Or that there were no pre-inauguration audits? Or that the audits were not a specific type of audit that meets your standard of approval?

Well those are entirely different arguments. Goalpost moving is not very conducive to establishing credibility.

https://publicrecordsaccess.fultoncount ... TypeId=108

Here is another example. Fulton County has not audited a damn thing. and yet, one can find countless articles about Georgia "audits." Here is one...

https://georgiastarnews.com/2021/01/02/ ... bb-county/

This all goes to credibility and ideology. If we like something, we find confirmation. If we do not like something, we find confirmation. I am saying that claiming that something was done when, in fact, it was not done or not done satisfactorily, is just huffing and puffing across the fault line.

[Dr Moore]

This thread should probably be in spirit paradise.