Message from @JD~Jordan
Discord ID: 783565157166350367
Who is fighting tooth and nail for ballots to not be audited?
If you still have a chance to watch it, highly recommended regardless of what your beliefs are about the fraud
Audits are automatically done as a function of the law we want to improve election integrity
I think I got the direct link seconds before it was censored! Haha sweet
I don't know. But there is a logic to say look. It was done right. There is no EVIDENCE of any fraud or monster errors so why can't we certify. Why is it necessary to do all these steps. Why keep this dragging on?
I mean wasn't it Trump saying how bad it would be to have to wait weeks or months to find this stuff out
In GA for example, the SOS said ballots would be audited and then backtracked. He's also trying to prevent the machines from being examined.
Why should the machines be examined?
No evidence of fraud
They need the jump drives!
hand recount matches the results
Watch the dominion contractor whistleblower
Can you give me an example of what you would consider to qualify as "evidence"? I keep hearing this claim and it seems like people have a very unrealistic standard for what qualifies as evidence
Show me what you have
Evidence depends on the claim.
My point is that if anyone can just be unhappy with the results and then demand that the state turn over their voting rolls and machines and all his mess... where does it end?
No I'm saying hypothetically, what would be convincing to you? If you were king of US elections, in this case what are some examples of what you would need to see to be convinced the election was stolen?
There are lots of things that could convince me its too broad of a question
maybe use different levels? what evidence would you need to see to think a hardcore audit is appropriate? and then what evidence would convince you to overturn the results
Its like saying what would convince me that dude a killed dude b.... well it depends. Video would do it. So would lots of other stuff
I'm just asking for some examples, I realize there could be different things
You are asking me to make an assumption that it was stolen. I dont even know how it could be stolen without it being obvious
No im not
I'm saying: imagine you are the final person that certifies the election. Trump team is saying it was stolen. Give me a handful of examples of evidence they would need to show for you to be convinced they are correct? you aren't assuming its not stolen. they need to show you the evidence. what evidence do they need?
It ends with if you can successfully convince the legislatures to not certify the election.
And then Congress to not certify it
or a judge to uphold an election contest
What I would need is some evidence that would make me think that either the entire election commission and the sec of state in say Georgia are either corrupt or clearly incompetent because they are saying everything is solid
Okay. And what would be some examples of what such evidence would look like?
No idea
But will be happy to look at it. So show it to me
The point I'm getting at is how people keep saying "no evidence of fraud", I think you've said it once or twice in this convo. There IS evidence. The R&R podcast has said this over and over again. He's shown a bunch of it.
I mean admission by someone that had the power and access to steal the election and then can explain how it happen... but Im not limiting it to that... that is just once example but there may be dozens of examples.
Well... every judge that has ruled on these cases disagree that the "evidence" is solid
respectfully, it's absurd to say "there is no evidence". If you say, "there is not enough evidence to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt"...that would be much more valid. I might even agree with you
No evidence of mass voter fraud (enough to swing an election) which is being claimed by Trump. Technical incompetence: yes. Small level voter fraud on both sides: yes.
A person can testify to something that is a lie... its evidence but its not reliable. When I say evidence I mean something that I feel comfortable relying on
So so me your best piece of evidence
@JD~Jordan Why isn't "Performing actions that enable you to get away with fraud" + "Anomalous results that point toward fraud" + "Blocking access to information that would allow others to verify if you've performed fraudulent actions" evidence?
Again, there IS evidence. Literally hundreds of pages of evidence. This part is indisputable. The question is "is the evidence enough?"
Only in this case, they are asking the Legislators for a Forensic Audit
Its not reliable evidence... A dirty plate is evidence someone had dinner... but its not reliable evidence of who had dinner or even what they might have had to eat