(in fact, it's impossible in 99% of cases)

@Zuluzeit Got it. I still wonder if any of you have watched the overstock.com guy’s interview. I honestly hope that none of this election fraud is true, but I have just seen too many believable and reasonable people’s testimonies. I really try to vary who and what I listen to so that I can come up with my own opinions. I honestly did not start with my belief and then build evidence like someone suggested.

The NSA listening post missile guy...

@Maw Hahaha Yeah, proving the absence of existence is a little tricky. That's why the burden of proof is a thing.

it's almost like they're trying to see who can come up with that most outlandish crap that they can actually get people to believe in. Some of the stuff is just insane.@Lorinda

Therefore, if someone can't disprove existence (what people are looking for when they seek audits) then they're never going to find proof of non-existence, meaning this searching is going to lead nowhere. It will do **nothing**.

Because people will always have another excuse.

But this but this but this but this but this but this....

And it's all nothing.

Need access to the evidence

I'm all for transparency and looking for fraud, but when you ask for the 20th attempt to do so it changes my opinion pretty severely.

@Lorinda Have you listened to all of the explanations of claims made from speculation? Did any of them seem like they came from credible people, using the same measures you employed in determining credibility of claimants?

I didn't say anything other than it was garbage. That's logically unimpeachable

Such is the risk of federalism. You don't just get the upsides from one ideology, you get both the pros and cons.

Wtf is a claimant? @busillis more jargon please.

Not even sure it's a word. Sounded good to me.

I'm just messing with you....

Pretty sure it is.

It only seems to work in the context of illegal discussion.

Just messing with the dude

Not arguing. Viva la fraud

It's another word for plaintiff, iirc.

I know what the word means

Well, what you presume is fraud.

Again I'm just busting dudes balls

Stop the CBT.

Lol

That's not true... Matt Braynard did a widely publicized data analysis with list that he purchased using money he raised in an effort to produce a list of potential fraudulent voters. He provided a copy of his results to the FBI and, most likely, the Trump campaign. They could use that list and track down each of the voters and/or determine who voted for them. There are a number of things that can be done. They don't need access to the machines in order to track most of this stuff down. Otherwise, how can they assert anything even close to fraud???

Damn I learned something that I didn't want to learn.

Reminds me of the conversation with Doc. lol

That's what those trapeze people do...

The ones that swing from appendages that would seem uncomfortable.

Omg

Uncomfortable definitely not a strong enough word.

Are we talking signatures on Pennsylvania ballots? Cuz that's the only thing I'm talking about

@TaLoN132 it's fixing to write an algorithm to show you that this is not the case.

In my opinion the only defects that are apparent is in the signature check

Actually, his analysis was about PA mail-in ballots. He attempted to identify people that were not frequent voters or had appeared to have moved, but still voted in their old precinct, and a bunch of other categories. This would overlap with probable invalid signatures.

His being Braynard's....

This is all rather beside the point it doesn't matter. The electoral college already cast as votes. I'm just saying that the legislature shouldn't pass a law only to have the judiciary completely rewrite it

You can always cherry pick some data to prove a point that the people who pay the bills want you to prove. That's a damn fact.