On audits, elections and public trust

[master_dc]

Blue ANON, first time hearing that, thanks for the enlightenment.

Are the libs saying, “no fraud, no need to investigate, clean election…”?

I am of the mindset, if there is any proof of fraud, investigate. The only examples of fraud I have read about are actually votes for Trump. Because of the impracticality of a full audit, it is understandable that a large, random sampling of ballots would suffice to identify any irregularities from machines and tabulating devices. Signature verification… a little more tricky if it is even possible.

That all being said, when did the right get concerned about election integrity? Just this past election? Did they call for the 2016 election to be audited? Did the libs? Or is the Mueller investigation the equivalent to what is currently happening?

You would think with modern technology, election integrity would be increasing. Some in the “know” claim it is. Just because people have a “hunch” or just happen to “believe” something is fishy, should the rest of the country appease their “hunch”?

[Mayan Elephant]

I am of the mindset, if there is any proof of fraud, investigate.

I have a different mindset, I suppose.

I think the investigations should precede the determination of proof, not the other way around. But, I can see that such a mindset is heresy on one side of that ideological fault line.

I have no intention of changing your mind or anyone else's mind. I am equally disinterested in holding an opinion that if someone does in fact want an investigation to determine facts, rather than proof to warrant an investigation, that they are useless creatures of conspiracy.

[Mayan Elephant]

Blue ANON, first time hearing that, thanks for the enlightenment.

1: Are the libs saying, “no fraud, no need to investigate, clean election…”?

2: That all being said, when did the right get concerned about election integrity?

3: Just this past election?

4a 4b: Did they call for the 2016 election to be audited? Did the libs?

5: Or is the Mueller investigation the equivalent to what is currently happening?

6: Just because people have a “hunch” or just happen to “believe” something is fishy, should the rest of the country appease their “hunch”?

1 - I have seen that argument. Yes. Does that apply to all "libs"? No idea.
2 - It clearly kicked off in a big way with the changes to election process by governors and courts. Post 2018 in GA and 2020 in most the country.
3 - I consider this piqued interest, but I have no idea.
4 - a. No. Ain't that something? b. No. Ain't that something?
5 - Mueller was very different. I do not see the connection. The Mueller investigation was some Blue Anon gone rogue crap, right? Or, was it QAnon gone rogue crap, yes?
6 - Maybe not. And that is the exclamation on all of this. Somehow, investigations and audits are seen as an appeasement to a hunch. While, to some, that is acceptable, to others it is not. It was acceptable enough for Mueller, right? An investigation of a hunch? But not acceptable to someone else. It is all ideological at this point and who gives AF as long as my side is best.

[Gunnar]

. . . I am saying that the integrity is not there.

You have yet to show any credible basis for saying that, that is even the slightest bit compelling. We are not saying that there were zero instances of electoral fraud. Indeed, mandated and exhaustive oversight of the election by appropriate officials has exposed some real perpetrators of election fraud, who were appropriately charged and punished. But they were too few to change the outcome of the election either way, and almost all of those caught at it were Republicans, most of whom, ironically, excused their behavior by claiming they were just trying to give Trump a better chance of winning by countering what they were sure was widespread Democrat fraud. Talk about projection!

[Mayan Elephant]

. . . I am saying that the integrity is not there.

You have yet to show any credible basis for saying that, that is even the slightest bit compelling. We are not saying that there were zero instances of electoral fraud. Indeed, mandated and exhaustive oversight of the election by appropriate officials has exposed some real perpetrators of election fraud, who were appropriately charged and punished. But they were too few to change the outcome of the election either way, and the vast majority of those caught at it were Republicans, most of whom, ironically, excused their behavior by claiming they were just trying to give Trump a better chance of winning by countering what they were sure was widespread Democrat fraud. Talk about projection!

you are conflating my points to the point of absurdity.

my comment was about the integrity of the audits. nice chopping and twisting and great self-congratulations. You clearly have all the facts. I have not seen the evidence that "the vast majority of those caught at it were Republicans, most of whom, ironically, excused their behavior by claiming they were just trying to give Trump a better chance of winning by countering what they were sure was widespread Democrat fraud." But, I am sure that is absolutely verified and footnoted and you can back that up with actual audited information. I believe! Clearly, you are perfectly right and everyone who has a concern about the integrity of the process or the audit is victimizing you by having a different standard. i hope you are okay.

what could be more clear about Kish's original post than this conversation? Holy godballs. This is nuts.

okay. the Post-Mormons have a lock on the truth now. They have a lock on the truth about the election, Trump, mueller, audits, fraud, standing, evidence and evidentiary. They have locked down the truth on everything. The ones over there? They are stupid. Put me in that camp too. I have not changed. I still think that dickish victimization and self-righteousness is problematic and that there is a better way to go about this. It does not need to be this rigid.

Hat's off to Kish on this one.

[Mayan Elephant]

. . . I am saying that the integrity is not there.

You have yet to show any credible basis for saying that, that is even the slightest bit compelling.

I have a bigger bitch with this. An audit is not credible because you said it was. And it is not credible because Whitmer said it was. It is credible if and when it stands up to scrutiny and review. Is it verifiable and replicable? The burden is not on me to have faith in your BS. The burden is on whoever is making the claim to be convincing. And it is perfectly reasonable for someone to lack faith in the same crap as you. Especially, since, like me, at one point you faithfully believed some rather kooky crap.

[Gunnar]

my comment was about the integrity of the audits.

It doesn't matter. You haven't presented credible justification for doubting the integrity of the audits either, unless you are talking about the asinine, farcical "audit" now being perpetrated in Maricopa County, AZ, by the Cyber Ninja group.

[Gunnar]

I can think of no kookier crap than the huge Trumpian lie that the election was stolen from him, with the possible exception of Marjorie Taylor Green's claim that last year's California fires were started by Jewish space lasers.

[Mayan Elephant]

my comment was about the integrity of the audits.

It doesn't matter. You haven't presented credible justification for doubting the integrity of the audits either, unless you are talking about the asinine, farcical "audit" now being perpetrated in Maricopa County, AZ, by the Cyber Ninja group.

right. dueling farcical audits. a judgment based purely on ideology.

you are right though, it doesn't matter. it will not change anyone's ideology and the other folks are stupid. not only is there no point in debating it, there is no point in acknowledging that ideology plays any role in our own righteousness.

[Icarus]

ME, I am trying to follow.

Is your argument, people will see things how they want to see things, so there is no use debating?

No. My argument is that people will see things to confirm their bias, and both sides are susceptible to that. Blue Anon and QAnon are the same damn thing in this regard.

My second argument is that there are valid concerns and facts on the other side of the fault lines.

There is no equivalent on the left, you're just regurgitating idiotic Right Wing talking points. "Blue Anon" is a figment of their imagination and they so desperately needed a scapegoat to take focus off of Q.

There are no valid concerns regarding the integrity of the election. The "concerns" originate from bogus claims and flat out lies that have been refuted time and time again. Think of the four "dead" voters that were mentioned on Tucker Carlson. Turns out none of them were actually dead. But hey, there is bias and people believe what they want to believe but that doesn't make their concerns "valid" it just makes them self serving. The orang moron lied about the election, made up claims from whole cloth and his moron base just follows him and believes everything he says.