Futurama Fry

It's already been audited to death. Biden won. Get over it.

No they've been "counted" and "re-counted" not audited. At this point, an audit won't change presidency, but it will show if it was a "free and fair" election.

And if it was, will you STFU about it?

Yes. And if it isn't, what would you do?

Manually recounts came up with the exact same numbers. Recounted twice in some states.

Recounts, yes. Audits haven't happened.

What exactly do you think the difference would be, other than getting the result you want?

The difference is that it would ensure that it was a free and fair election. It's not going to take the tyrant out of office, but approximately 64% of Republicans and 20% of Democrats (as memory serves) think the election was inaccurate

You don't know, do you? The recounts could actually have served all the purposes of an audit as you understand it and you wouldn't even know.

The recounts checked the counts, the audit is checking several things forensically. Such as checking the paper and ink to see if they are all official ballots (there was testimony of someone saying it felt similar if it was counterfeit money), checking machines to see if anything in the logs changed votes or if someone tampered with via internet, the list goes on, but the point is it's a forensic audit paid for by donation and Democrats are fighting like crazy to stop it. They've even blatantly rejected court orders to give over election material. If there's nothing to hide, why not say "sure, go ahead and look"?

A manual recount checks the machines by hand ballots already! All these things you're complaining about have been checked already! Things don't magically get done differently just because you put the word "forensic" in it!

And if those hand ballots are fake to compensate for the machines adding votes (conspiracy theory) a check on the paper for authenticity would prove it. It's completely different than a recount. I, for one, want to be certain that there was no foul play by either party.

They come with barcodes to check authenticity. Which was why this entire case went nowhere in the courtrooms.

I, for one, am absolutely certain that your conspiracy theories are a pile of bullshit.

Why are you arguing against an audit. Not a good look for anyone on either party.

We HAD audits. Not a good look for you that we triple checked, AND 70 judges tossed your lawyers out on their asses, and you STILL complain about shit you can't prove - THAT'S a TERRIBLE look.

We'll see

We ALREADY saw! 70 lawsuits and not one vote was ruled fraudulent. Not a single one.

THAT'S WHAT WE SAW. IT IS OVER. THERE IS NO We'll see ABOUT IT.

What's the harm of an audit if it is as you say?

Well, for one thing, it's conned people like you into thinking that we haven't already done an audit. WE DID.

Barcodes can be copied. Much like millions of fake ballots, like the ones pulled from under a table after a false alarm of pipe burst and only Democrat counters stayed with no watchers. It might be conspiracy, but it's based in events that cause me to question.
Recounts are completely different than audits. Audits are in-depth inspections.
As I said to mini, if the outcome is that the election was sans fraud, I'll accept the outcome. What will you say if it proves fraud? Will you accept it or will you claim that there was fraud in the audit?

Ok: alleging fraud is subject to federal rule 9b: you have to describe WITH PARTICULARITY the circumstances of fraud. That's why this case was thrown out 70 times. It is NOT ENOUGH to say a barcode can be copied maybe. It is not enough to testify that a layman said a ballot felt like a fake printout maybe. Who printed it? Where? How were these duplicate ballots selected and gathered? Election watchdogs from BOTH SIDES signed off on the whereabouts of these ballots - what's your proof that THEY were all in on it?

Speculation alone that maybe it is possible for the magical government to magically switch a ballot barcode loses a fraud case.

The recounts satisfied ALL THE THINGS YOU WANT FROM AN AUDIT according to election law - something that the Arizona corporation in charge of the audit is not complying with. And their conclusions will therefore be thrown out of any courtroom. The whole point of election law is to lend credibility to the count - and if they're not going to follow election law and tamper with the ballots so they'll never be able to be recounted again, that's going to cement the original count, not discredit it. And that's what you SHOULD be worried about.

A forensic audit paid for by donation? Need we ask WHOSE donations? I smell a rat.

Like how the election process in major counties of question were largely funded by left wing Facebook CEO?

Is that the Q version?

No, it's factual. Google it
Here's one of many links : https://politicalvelcraft.org/2020/12/26/mark-zuckerberg-out-spent-u-s-government-financing-the-u-s-elections/

I am opening new blocks to continue conversation...
When you stated "It is NOT ENOUGH to say a barcode can be copied maybe. It is not enough to testify that a layman said a ballot felt like a fake printout maybe. Who printed it? Where? How were these duplicate ballots selected and gathered?", that is exactly what an audit will show. A recount won't do that.
In this audit (in which a recount WILL NOT do) will show where the paper came from, if the ballots were filled out with the same pin, if the ballot fill-in were done via printer (like a sample ballot printer can do by the thousands), if the folds match up, if the addresses of the mail-in ballots are valid, if the machines have been tampered with. It goes deeper into the inspection than you are grasping.

As far as your statement to election law, state governors violated the constitution and election laws by implementing their own without going through the state legislature.

And the government isnt magical, they're corrupt. On both sides. I believe this government needs an enema. But this is the first time that someone is deeply looking into it and apparently the Democrats are fighting like crazy to stop it. The way I see it is like this - (hypothetically of course) police find someone who looks like they committed suicide. Regular police (recounters) come in and inspect crime scene (recount), detectives want to do further "forensic" inspection (audit), spouse (Democrats) fights with police stating there's no need for further inspection.
Did said person commit suicide or were they murdered?

Courts ruled that state governors followed election laws just fine. Many times over.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any propositions made it to court, but were dismissed before being accepted for court.
I don't really have faith in the court system due to 210 people having charges against them for the antifa and BLM riots, and yet 140 were dismissed and the rest had charges dropped. And yet 300 plus people will be faced with 60 years to life for just walking around in the Capitol building (yes I know there were violent people there, that is not whom I am referring).

Long story short, all cases start with a brief hearing of what the case is being brought to the court. This is mostly to prevent frivolous lawsuits - court time is tightly scarce. So that was your chance to lay out what the case you have consists of. The burden of proof of this point is not high, so understand that the legal standards of the case would have to be particularly weak not to make it past this point to procede into court - AND IT DID NOT. The "evidence" that has you so convinced did not meet even the most basic of legal standard - qualifications under the hearsay rule, qualifications under standing, compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and, oftentimes, straightup not even having the proper paperwork! Stuff that would get a lawyer fired from a reputable law firm! I really cannot emphasise enough the low calibre of legal staff that was bringing this case to the courts! - so that despite 70 lawsuits being filed, not one single vote - NOT ONE - was proven fraudulent.

So, yes, it made it to court, it just didn't make it past the most basic checkpoints of a court against frivolous lawsuits and inadmissible evidence.

And the question that I would like to pose to you is: if it's not good enough to convince a court, why is it good enough to convince you?

I will answer your question although you still have yet to answer mine...As you said, inadmissible evidence. I guess hundreds of sworn affidavits aren't enough to sway a court. They never went to hearing. That is why im not convinced. And as I said, an audit is completely different than a recount. Another example is - a recount is like counting oranges in a bag. An audit would be cutting them open to see if they are blood oranges or regular.
Now back to my question, if this audit shows viable proof of election fraud, what will you say?

I read those affidavits. Half of them straight up admitted they didn't actually see what happened. They were garbage and the courts treated them as garbage.