One of these things is not like the other

When you run a business you will get audited by the government. If something your company does raises a red flag with the government, they will audit you. If there is an anomaly in your government mandated paperwork you must legally submit, it can trigger an audit. And sometimes, various agencies will just randomly audit you to make sure you are obeying all their regulations.

The IRS audits everyone’s financials to make sure they are paying all their taxes. That’s federal, but you will also be audited by your state tax commission. If your state has sales tax you will eventually undergo a sales tax audit.

If you have employees you will get random audits to make sure your EEOC paperwork is in order, and you can have ICE audits to make sure all your employees are citizens or have their immigration paperwork in order.

Your workplace will eventually be audited by OSHA to make sure it is compliant with health and safety regulations. If you process food products, you will be audited by the USDA inspectors. They even have people to check your dairy cows.

If you own a restaurant you’ve surely met your state Health Inspectors many times. Are you building a house? That’s getting inspected by a building inspector to make sure it is up to code.

If you are involved in military contracting you will be audited by the DCAA. Every single invoice, every part, and every single billable hour had better match what you reported to the government. (and trust me, this one is basically a colonoscopy).

If you are part of any small business programs you will be audited by the SBA. If you sell or manufacture firearms you will be audited by the BATFE. In preparing this post I did a quick search for government auditor positions, and there were jobs for agencies I’d never even heard of before.

In between all of these various government audits, companies employ internal auditors to continually check all their systems to make sure they are in compliance, and then they bring in outside 3rd party CPA firms to test them as well, all to get ready and fix any potential problems before the various government auditors show up. Because if the government catches you doing something wrong they can fine you, shut you down, or even throw you in jail.

Every government department has auditors to check on every single entity under their purview. Every single government program that does business with the private sector has auditors to check those businesses for compliance. Every single state and city that gets money from some government department gets audited by that government department, and then those local governments check all the people and businesses they work with too. Every step of the way the government audits the people, and if you don’t obey their rules, you will be corrected, punished, fined, or imprisoned.

It is a great big audit jamboree of everybody checking everybody else’s work, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing, because it is always safe to assume in any given endeavor human beings make mistakes and sometimes they are dishonest.

Except for elections. Elections are special.

Apparently elections are a sainted process, and people would never lie and cheat there, and the people over the controls would never obfuscate and cover their asses if their controls were insufficient. That only happens in literally every other industry on Earth… but not in elections. They are different.

Because the government gets to audit the people, but the people don’t get to audit the government. Nope. At best we get recounts, where we simply count the fraudulent data twice. And if you don’t like it, shut up.

If your company has glaring statistical anomalies that all benefit the same party, or there were tips saying you’d violated some regulation, government auditors would perform an audit on you. You could be innocent, and there could be a perfectly rational explanation for those flags. But that doesn’t matter, a full audit would still be performed, because the government would make sure you hadn’t wronged it.

But that’s a one way street. If the people feel they have been wrong in an election, no audits are performed. Sure, you might get a cursory spot check here or there, but the idea of having outside auditors come in and give them access to the data to check to make sure it is valid? (like is required in every other thing in the world) That’s crazy!

No. Checking an election consists of the system asking the system if the system is okay and the system declaring the system is fine. Then they call that an “audit” and you should just suck it up. In elections you can just make up whatever excuse you want to explain the flags, and that’s cool. If anyone questions this, they obviously hate democracy.

And even if you’re like me, and you’ve got a professional background of going through many different kinds of audits from various federal and state agencies, if you think the election result should be audited with the same level of scrutiny the government would apply to any of our businesses or personal financials, you are a terrible conspiracy theorist, and should be shamed into silence. Now enjoy these “fact checks” written by journalism majors who can’t balance their checkbooks.

I’m kind of bummed that I got that accounting degree, and then spent all those years being audited in various industries, when all I had to do is declare “I checked myself and everything is fine here” and that’s sufficient.

Now watch. As you share this a horde of gas lighting morons will arrive on your page to shame you into silence. We already know what they’ll say. They’ll cite court cases being tossed, even though most of those were on standing or legal procedures, not fraud. Most of the fraud stuff has never been presented in court, and even if it did, it was compiled by outsiders using data available to the public, not real auditors with access to source data, which is what is necessary in order to prove fraud. Or they’ll cite some of the weak sauce “audits” which have happened around the country, even though at best those are spot checks (sometimes in the wrong spot!) not audits, and they were conducted by the same people who probably fucked it up to begin with. Don’t worry. None of them will read this far. Just watch.

So in conclusion, the government loves auditing everything the people do because we are incompetent, untrustworthy, cheaters. But if the people want to audit election results, we are terrible bad conspiracy theorists who need to be shamed into silence. Them auditing us is good and necessary. Us auditing them is silly foolishness.

I’m glad we got that cleared up.

bow before AppGoogleZOn
Destroyer of worlds- availalbe on audible december 15th

381 thoughts on “One of these things is not like the other”

  1. This has been my mantra for years. People would lie, cheat and steal for money, everyone agrees with that. For some reason, when it comes to power, including the power to enrich yourself, everyone is suddenly a Saint. No one would ever do anything untwoard to gain that.

    1. Remember the left said they would remove Trump “by any means necessary”.

      By any means includes massive vote fraud.

      1. it’s a standard time travel trope to discuss going back and killing Hitler.

        If Trump is literally Hitler (or even worse), the most ethical thing is to get him out of power, and cheating in an election is surely more ethical than murder, right?

        Unfortunately for this approach, back in the real world, Tump is not Hitler, or even remotely close.

          1. If Trump were Hitler they’d be supporting him. Like everything else about the left, they are confused about the definition of the word ‘fascism’ and use it for everybody and thing they disagree with. Seriously, not making people wear masks is fascist? That’s some major cognitive dissonance.

          2. No, no, no. You’re confusing Mussolini with Hitler. If Trump were Hitler, we’d all be able to buy inexpensive, easy to work on brand new cars designed by Porsche.

            Either way though, there would be some snappy marching going on.

  2. I’m trying not to be blackpilled but the truth of posts like this make it hard. I think we’re in for interesting times.

          1. I don’t know Whedon personally. However, from everything I read about him, he is your standard rigidly PC Hollyweird twerp, with all the cognitive dissonance that implies. It is entirely plausible that he failed to realize until after it was already in the can that he’d written a libertarian manifesto, and then it was too late. Perhaps this is why Firefly got cancelled.

          2. It’s widely believed that the real heart and soul behind Firefly was not Whedon himself, but Tim Minear. Judging from what Minear’s guidance made of Angel, this seems likely to be true.

          3. Credit Tim Minear. Look at the episodes he had a hand in, and compare those to the episodes he didn’t.

            And recall that his “dream project” is to film a version of *The Moon is a Harsh Mistress*.

        1. No, I just guess you’ll have to settle with neighbors like me being thrust into combat mode when they come to take us away because for whatever reason we’re no longer convenient for them.

          Then you’ll hear in the “news” about terrorist conspiracies being uncovered, plots to kidnap a governor, etc.

      1. I was thinking more of the Chinese curse but given the background Chinese influence on Firefly that works too.

      2. And the Confucian.
        Recall that he lived in China in the time of the “Hundred Kingdoms”, also known as the “Warring States”, a period that also gave us Sun Tzu.
        To paraphrase the last Demonrat thief, “stolen elections have consequences”.
        John in Indy

    1. I’m wrestling with that myself.

      Not in my happy place.

      Two serious ‘not going to bed’ mistakes back I wound up writing far too many words outlining how the election is the straw that broke the camel’s back. The reason the appearance of fraud is too much to tolerate is trust lost to prior events.

      Part of our problem is that we have too much academic theory in us, and despair because we don’t have answers we can comprehend in that way.

      I have a deeper problem, that is more emotional baggage.

    2. Well, do as the government do. Stop complying with their audits and inspections. If every single Patriot simple complied with constitutional laws and regulations, and nothing else, what would they be able to do? Like the left, become ungovernable. Get all Patriots to stop sending them your federal tax, just support your state. They can spend their time coming after all of us, but what jail will they put us in? We currently live under Taxation without representation”. Modern day Boston Tea party.

  3. Their has been one attempted audit of the DoD.

    After several years they gave up as they were completely un auditable.

    Oh, they found missing equipment, phantom buildings, and incredible waste just by scratching the surface but any attempt to go any deeper was met my an unyielding and insanely complex beurocracy.

    I imagine, that is exactly how they like it.

    I’d love to see an audit of the Fed, or DoE, or EPA. None of those are ever going to happen

    Elections are different. They are a mass of differing feifdoms and run by feckless tools drawn from horribly clicking local parties. O. Top of that everyone has something to lose if anyone looks too close.

    1. Personally I enjoyed receiving a yearly colonoscopy from the DCAA where my company could be debarred for a typo, so that they could report back to a federal entity that routinely loses track of billions of dollars. 🙂

    2. People forget that one of Mike Flynn’s publicly started highest priorities was to audit the intelligence agencies.
      He was forced out by Mike Pence and the FBI in 22 days.
      And then mercilessly hounded with false charges and deliberate interference with his ability to defend himself for another four years.

  4. Hmm, dang, I’m trying to flip the switch to Vote and it doesn’t seem to be working anymore!!

    Maybe we should use the other setting….

  5. There’s a team of auditors, investigators, and data analysts, of which I’m a member of, that has been looking at the election data in Texas, mostly one large county.

    I have seen the data that the county is required legally to release to the state. Every possible scam you can think of and more took place. Combine that with criminal levels of apathy from the government and press, there goes your so-called republic.

    Anyone that claims there are no issues, or that cheating doesn’t affect the races, is a liar. This just isn’t a statistical analysis. This is going over the voter records and finding unregistered voters voting, non-residents voting, dead voting, people residing in foreign countries voting, voters voting twice or thrice, voters being illegally purged, ghost voters, computers changing votes, observers being denied entry to the polls, and so on…

    And the “press” will not acknowledge any issue with this election regardless of the credentials of the auditors.

    Now multiply this to a national scale especially the swing states. This is warfare through cheating, propaganda and corruption. You don’t need an army if you count the votes and decide the winners beforehand.

    So what’s next? Either citizens are going to accept their shit sandwich or not…

    1. The “press” are willingly a propaganda arm of one party that blindly bows to their “dear leaders”.

      Restoring the republic may have to begin with eliminating the press.

      There is no other institution I have more contempt for. Well, maybe I have more contempt for those who serve the devil and evil, but that group includes the press anyway.

    2. Because it’s never enough to “change the election count” so I doesn’t matter! How many times have we heard that??? ????????

      1. If the fraud didn’t change the outcome of the election, what was the point? Changing the outcome was the whole REASON for the fraud!

      1. You should look at Hidalgo County as well. That was a royal mess that has a ton of weird things happening that all benefited the incumbent Rep (D of course).

    3. And that’s in Texas. Imagine what you could pull of in a machine politics city like Philly or Detroit if you had one or two people with control access colluding.
      A veritable fraud opportunity gold mine.
      But audits are good everywhere else, but bad here, so shut up, because reasons. 😀

  6. When I was in graduate school, for a field that was quite technical and did not end in the word “studies”, all the larval doctorates were taught a) how you can fool yourself with data, and how to catch it, b) how your less-than-esteemed colleagues might try to fool you with data, and the professional penalties for same, and c) how your @$*^%#*^# students will try to fool you with data, and how to catch it. Very, very useful skills I think should be mandatory for graduation.

    (executive summary: there will ALWAYS be noise in real data. Undergrads submitting lab reports with perfectly straight lines on the data, not even the error bars? Call them in for some frowny-face counseling about the penalties for cheating.)

    Real asteroids don’t slow down (unless they hit something)
    Real election counts don’t DECREASE over time
    Real voters are not fermions and cannot be in two places (and voting) at the same time

  7. “When treason prospers, none would dare call it treason.”
    Not an exact quote but some famous guy said that a long time ago.
    I have lost track of the amount of fraud committed in this election, it is too much to keep track of. If the election results were faithfully tabulated it would have been a Reaganesque electoral blowout for Trump. I bet you coke he won the popular vote too.
    I predict that the establishment will win out. Washington D.C. will prosper and the nation will suffer, hope I’m wrong. Anyways nicely written post Larry!

    1. DC is going to suffer for it, also.

      DC prospers when the collected money stays in country, and the country is somewhat prosperous to have wealth to pull off.

      Policy wise, these people are bad for prosperity, and they will have little need to keep up the pretense of pretending to share power with other domestic factions.

      Furthermore, Winnie the Pooh will not be interested in letting people think they can flaunt him.

      1. Ponder the Cloward-Piven Strategy and ask yourself whether civilizational collapse is a feature or a bug of the Democrats’ Cunning Plan.

      2. Is civilizational collapse a bug in the Left’s Cunning Plan, or is it a feature? Remember who invented the Cloward-Piven Strategy and how long they’ve been working at it.

    2. Treason doth never prosper; what’s the reason?
      Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.


      1. We have allowed it to prosper for so long that I fear that we will have have to burn everything down to rid ourselves if it

        1. Pelosi’s invitation of representatives carrying the common cold to the Speaker’s vote is a concession that she knew it was harmless all along.

          She has been knowingly waging war against the US on behalf of a foreign power.

          Ergo a) she can be banned from holding a seat in the Legislature under the 14th amendment b) can be arrested for the crime of treason c) Other members of the Chinese Asset delegation, who have been willfully and knowingly colluding with her, can be likewise.

          And if federal LEOs and the courts are too crooked to act, that would seem to qualify under the same criteria that permitted Lincoln to call out the militia and suspend habeas corpus.

  8. Thank you for this post. It’s absolutely true and timely.

    I’m sick and tired of the gaslighting by the left and their simpaticos in the NeverTrump brigade.

  9. One of things is not like the other.

    In the US elections (and in most elections around the world) you have a requirement that voting is secret. This requirement limits the data one has to “audit” the election results.

    In the finance, in the sales, in the workplace – you have requirements to gather data, and to keep data in case of audit (and if you lose it, you have problems).

    1. keeping the vote secret does not prohibit letting people see the actual ballots (as is being done in Georgia)

      keeping the vote secret does not prohibit auditing the source code (and validating that the source code corresponds to what’s actually running on the voting machines)

      There is a LOT that could be done to audit this election that is being blocked. What do they have to hide that they are so opposed to an audit?

      1. What can be done and *is being done* (where requested) is hand-counting the ballots to check that the results agree (within the small margin of error) with the electronic tabulation results. This is / was possible because in (almost) all cases the electronic voting machines provide paper trail (paper records), for both in-place voting and mail-in / absentee voting.

        The audit of the source code would not give any additional information, in my opinion.

        Sidenote: there were independent observers from both parties that function as live audit.


        I personally would prefer if the voting machines provided source code and were independently tested long before the elections. But this is a separate topic.

        1. Worth noting….

          While Auditors can audit results, they also in my experience can include teams that audit *processes*.

          So even if (for example) an Audit can’t conclusively show that a specific vote total is wildly manipulated (or even if it would show it wasn’t), it can identify failures in the system and prescribe ways to fix them.

        2. Allowing mail in ballots makes the election moot.

          Recounting the vote after false ballots are already in the system makes the election moot.

          Counting or recounting the ballots when observers are kept far enough away as to be unable to observe the count makes the election moot.

          Refusing to allow auditors to inspect the voting machines or software makes the election moot.

          Refusing to allow poll observers into polling places makes the election moot.

          Shredding ballots and other evidence when federal law requires all materials to be kept for 22 months after the election makes the election moot.

          1. > Allowing mail in ballots makes the election moot.

            U.S. allows mail in ballots for absentee voting (and now for some time for all voters) at least since the Civil War. You say that all elections since then were moot?

          2. What a fucking stupid way to rephrase the comment of a guy who is currently auditing election fraud into something absurd. 😀

            Mail in ballots and absentee ballots are not the same thing at all. And also, rushing in whole new mail in ballot systems into place JUST THIS YEAR in a bunch of new places with the justification of Covid creates all sorts of new opportunities for fraud WHICH WOULD REQUIRE AUDITING TO CHECK.

            Wow. You are really super dense or profoundly dishonest. Right now I’m leaning toward dishonest, because I doubt you are that stupid. I mean, you are typing this on a computer after all.

        3. Wow. You manage to cram a lot of bullshit in there, don’t you. 😀 (hang on… aren’t you the same dude who was pretending to understand how stats work last month because you watched a YouTube video Deboonker?)
          1. Hand recounts, already addressed. Useless placebo in the case of fraud because it merely recounts bad data twice.
          2. Your opinion is stupid and irrelevant. The people benefiting from fraud always believe that audits are unnecessary. Yet as already pointed out, audits exist in literally every other endeavor for a reason.
          3. And there are several hundred affidavits about the observers being removed in these same questionable locations.

          1. Oh well, to be so [maliciously] misunderstood…

            > 1. Hand recounts, already addressed. Useless placebo in the case of fraud because it merely recounts bad data twice.

            Context missing. Hand recounts prove that electronic tabulation software works correctly – I was not saying that it proves that there were no fraud.

            > 2. Your opinion is stupid and irrelevant. The people benefiting from fraud always believe that audits are unnecessary. Yet as already pointed out, audits exist in literally every other endeavor for a reason.

            Misunderstood. I was not saying that auditing elections is unnecessary, but [in the previous response] that it is more difficult than proving fraud in finance, taxes, workplace etc., because there is less data (votes are secret, not public).

            > 3. And there are several hundred affidavits about the observers being removed in these same questionable locations.

            I said nothing about this issue. Why are you mentioning it here?

            On the other hand, from what I know, almost all lawsuits related to observers being not allowed were lost (with the exception of one lawsuit that overturned the “safe distance” rule).

          2. In my continuing quest to discover if Jakub is profoundly stupid or profoundly dishonest, the jury is still out. He should hope for stupid, because eventually I get bored and block dishonest. (I block the stupid too eventually, but they are usually entertaining longer) Either way he’d probably be better off shutting up and buzzing off.
            1. No. Context is not missing. Because this entire time the dishonest have purposefully conflated recounts with audits in order to bamboozle the low information suckers. In this context useless placebo recounts have continually been used to obfuscate the issue and as an excuse to not have audits. And not having audits is the point of this post.
            2. No. It is not more difficult. Not at all. And I say that as somebody who has been through audits with most of the agencies listed in my post. You are wrong or lying. Everything has different audit criteria. This is not unique or special.
            3. I mention it because it is a clear audit flag, you you specifically mentioned how there were observers. Which is once again a common tactic of lying pieces of shit trying to obfuscate the issue. Meanwhile, back on earth, the observers got kicked out, shunted off, blocked, or otherwise stymied.
            You bringing up the lawsuits is further indicative that you’re lying or stupid, because most of those got tossed before that, or were a “meh, too late now” or it wasn’t significant enough. NONE of them said that the observer’s lied about being blocked or removed. And as stated in the OP, lawsuits mean fuck all about this, because observers not being able to observe is an audit flag, so where the fuck are our audits?

            You should probably just shut up now.

          3. “You are really super dense or profoundly dishonest.” Embrace the power of and, oh Esteemed ILOH.
            (Edited for clarity)

        4. It is the same topic. This is especally true when they are hacked in real-time in GA senate hearings.

          I would also like to see tye machines provided to DEFCON. If it survives there it is likely GTG

    2. In Texas you don’t who a voter has voted for, but you do know when they voted to the day along with their name, age, and residential address, and mailing address. The daily records are forwarded from the counties to the state. There may also be historical records from previous elections. You can also use property, tax records and other means to do validation. And you can go out and interview voters that have had their vote purged or somehow have 10 extra people that voted that are registered at their residence and don’t exist.

      What can you do with this information? You can detect unregistered voters. Voters that voted twice or more. Residential households that have excessive numbers of voters. Residential households that have “ghost voters” that don’t reside there. Foreign mailing addresses claiming ballots for addresses where they lived 10 years ago or never lived. Homeless shelters with perfect voting records between primaries and the main election that voted 100% for one party. Dead voters. Former voters that have moved out of state that other people are voting for. Voters that list PO Boxes, schools, churches and commercial buildings as residences. Voters that get purged by the computer system that all live a in specific precinct that votes red. Votes that don’t match the down ballot. Election observers getting removed from the polls in blue areas. Election officials that can’t verify the voting computers transaction logs. Computer systems run by third parties with software that was written out of country owned by companies that are not US companies.

      So while the vote is secret, the voters information and when they voted isn’t. And this is happening in one county in Texas. According to my teammates, other large population counties in Texas are worse. And Texas isn’t a swing state. It still has a large number of rural and suburban counties that aren’t blue to balance out the cities that are red… for now.

      1. Also, counterfeit mail-in/absentee ballots not printed by the state’s official printing companies, and printed with votes already filled in. Mail-in/absentee ballots without the correct legally prescribed verbiage. Mail-in ballots deliberately designed to look different for Republican areas than for Democratic areas, thus signaling the system to kick them out and submit them for adjudication.

    3. This comment is galling because of how naïve it is.
      There are plenty of ways to audit a PROCESS.
      There are plenty of ways to make sure that a ballot was cast by a legitimate registered voter who is actually alive and in that state, without knowing how said voter voted.
      Seriously, shut the fuck up already. Your crayon level grasp of these topics is painful to read, and we all know that now you’re simply going to google search and post the first link to something that you think supports your dumbass position.

      1. What’s hilarious about this Jakub Narebski guy and all the others like him is that Georgia is finding a new “misplaced” memory card full of Trump votes about every week since November, pretty near.

        Jacob doesn’t notice.

        Some guy whose name escapes me for the moment hacked an in-use Georgia voting machine LIVE and in living colour at the Georgeia senate hearings. Like he was sitting in the hearing, giving his testimony, part of which was remote-hacking a running Dominion voting pad, right then.

        Jakob doesn’t notice.

        Some other guy has demonstrated beyond any doubt that reams of Michigan votes were created by laser printer. It’s easy to spot them because the “vote” marks are pixilated at 600dpi, and include lots of little random pixels from where the original was scanned.

        Jakob doesn’t notice.

        Because to Jakob, none of that matters. #OrangeManBad is the most important thing. Any lie or theft that supports Jakob’s team is good. Any fact or obvious truth that supports the other team is bad.

        1. “Some other guy has demonstrated beyond any doubt that reams of Michigan votes were created by laser printer. It’s easy to spot them because the “vote” marks are pixilated at 600dpi, and include lots of little random pixels from where the original was scanned.”

          Out of curiosity, where did you come across this? While I’m in Michigan, I’ve not seen word one about this anywhere I frequent.

          1. All laser printers sold in the US and Europe in the last 25 or so years mark every page they print with forensic data so that they can be traced, with the printer serial number and date and time the document was printed, among other things, stored in the forensic data. The stated purpose is to aid investigations of counterfeiting. It’s called the “Machine Identification Code” and there is an article about it at Wikipedia that has more information about it than anyone really wanted to know. Interested parties might also look over U.S. Patent No 5515451.

            Did anyone bring this up in the Congressional hearings a few weeks ago when this came to light? I have to wonder what an analysis would reveal.

            I am especially interested to learn who owns the printers in question, where the printers were located when the documents were printed, and who was present. Don’t most of the large office type laser printers and copiers have HDDs in them now too? They are used to store logs of who printed what and when, too, also for forensic purposes, and some even store a digital copy of every document printed. Anyone want to make any guesses?

      2. I’m a CPA as well, and I happily agree with the whole audit position. Here’s my question, who handles the audits, who’s responsible for the audits, and who pays for the audits? Elections are decentralized to states and localities, lots of reasons for that, some you might even support. If North Dakota’s citizens don’t want to pay for their elections to be properly audited, who gets to make them pay for it? There are a lot of actual real questions and issues that are valid when you say elections should be audited.

        1. Re paying for the audits, I think I speak for many of us when I raise my hand as willing to throw down hard cash. I did so for the Georgia runoff and I don’t live in that state. But given what Loeffler said on the night of the electoral college vote I want a refund in her case.

          1. They could probably use some of that Pakistani gender studies money. That would cover it.

        2. Usually, the candidate challenging the results pays, out of campaign funds.

          The question is moot when the Democrats refuse to allow any investigations. It’s almost like they KNOW an audit would turn up fraud of epic proportions.

        3. Valid questions. Also, not nearly as important. The first thing is convincing the people that real 3rd party audits are necessary (and all the democrats are against this for some baffling and mysterious reason we could never possibly guess at).
          But hell, make the contesting campaign pay for it. If people think there’s some meat to the flags, they’ll pony up.
          As for who, this is what the Big 5 exist for (wait… four… I’m showing my age 😀 ). And if the other campaign declares one of those is biased, they can pay for one of the others to do their own audit.
          Either way, it just requires the state to give access. Whatever this costs the state in man hours compliance it’s going to be cheaper than one riot.

        1. I’m perfectly calm. I was the one saying that we should have transparency and scrutiny so millions of people could retain confidence in their system months ago to prevent more “fiery but peaceful” type shit. Y’all called them conspiracy nuts and told them to shut up. Look how good that worked out. Oh well! 😀

  10. It’s not just elections, accountability is light across most government endeavors. Congress has exempted themselves from OSHA and insider trading regulations. Qualified Immunity shields government actors from civil liability from violating the rights of citizens.

    I guess I’m part of the gaslighting (I hate that term, it was widely overused by the left and I’m no more fond of it now that the right has adopted it – if you disagree with my arguments, address the substance don’t just call me gaslighter) hoard to say yes these claims have been heard in court and yes there have been audits.

    Many of the lawsuits were dismissed on procedural grounds because they were filed improperly or the remedy they asked for was far out of proportion to the harm described. These lawsuits threw everything they could find against the law to see what would stick. Then those same weak claims are repeated (e.g. the Texas lawsuit) in different forums. It’s pretty clear that the real goal here is to appease Trump and his voters and to drum up donations to benefit Trump (this is why not a single dollar donated to Trump’s “election defense fund” goes to fund legal efforts until $5k goes to his PAC and another $3.3k goes to the RNC). Also, if this was a serious legal challenge, I would think the plaintiffs could find a lawyer that can spell his name correctly on court documents.

    Trump v. Boockvar (PA)

    In this action, the Trump Campaign […] seek to discard millions of votes legally cast by Pennsylvanians from all corners […], Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise
    almost seven million voters. […] One might expect that when
    seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with
    compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, […] [T]this Court has been presented with strained
    legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative
    complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state.

    Aguilera v. Fontes (AZ)

    Plaintiffs’ first sentence of their Complaint states “Plaintiffs are two individuals who experienced difficulties voting on election day.” Plaintiffs thereafter contradict themselves in
    footnote 1 on page 8 (“Footnote 1”) which reads “References to plaintiffs should also be taken to refer to those Maricopa County voters who experienced similar issues.” In Aguilera 1 Plaintiffs Aguilera and Drobina indicated an intention to certify a class of voters purportedly harmed by using Sharpie markers on their ballots and to proceed with that matter as a class action. No such certification occurred as Plaintiffs voluntarily and shortly dismissed Aguilera 1 In this matter, class certification has not been requested. Therefore, in this cause, contrary to Footnote 1, no evidence or claims are properly before the Court concerning possible grievances of any unidentified voters.

    In many of the lawsuits, courts did examine the evidence and found it wanting:

    Trump v. Boockvar (PA)

    Defendant Counties, by implementing a notice-and-cure procedure, have in fact lifted a burden on the right to vote, even if only for those who live in those counties. Expanding the right to vote for some residents of a state does not burden the rights of others.


    The second claims that the “use of notice/cure
    procedures violated equal protection because it was deliberately done in counties where defendants knew that mail ballots would favor Biden/Democrats.” The former finds no support in the operative pleading, and neither states an equal protection violation.


    Plaintiffs fail to plausibly plead that there was “uneven treatment” of Trump and Biden watchers and representatives. Paragraphs 132-143 of the FAC are devoted to this alleged disparity. None of these paragraphs support Plaintiffs’ argument.

    Aguilera v. Fontes (AZ)

    THE COURT FURTHER FINDS Banko’s testimony unhelpful to the issues before the Court[…]

    THE COURT FURTHER FINDS no probative value to Banko’s testimony which was unspecific, categorical, appeared largely speculative and untrustworthy, and was not material […]

    THE COURT FURTHER FINDS to the extent Banko’s testimony was intended to show that the tabulators at one site, different from the polling locations where Plaintiffs voted, experienced problems on Election Day, such evidence directly undercuts Plaintiffs’ claims that voting machines are reliably perfect.

    And yes, we did have several audits here in Georgia. They verified that the printed ballots matched the counts from the scanning machines. It wasn’t a spot check, every single ballot was hand counted. Personally I’m pretty happy we can do that now. I recall when we last got new voting machines in Georgia around 2000 when we didn’t have the capability. While I’d like ever more improvements in voting security (an open source system, publicly created and audited by some of our finest universities would be a potential option).

    But no matter how many lawsuits are filed or audits done, it’s never enough until and unless the result is to overturn the election and say Trump won. That’s what Trump has been saying from the beginning – the only way I can lose is fraud. That’s the kind of thing I expect to hear from a tin pot dictator says and our great nation deserves better. After everything else failed, the next demand is access to legally protected, confidential information that would reveal how individuals voted (Trump demanded this on the call with the Georgia Secretary of State). If Republicans really wanted fair and secure elections, why did they block so many bills to improve election security before the 2020 elections? It’s telling that these concerns only came to light when their candidate lost an election.

    1. Go fuck yourself.

      a) Saying that an acceptable design would be done by ‘our finest universities’ is nonsense, whether you mean Georgia universities or US universities. You are effectively saying “let us have professors and graduate students design it.” That is a step down in acceptability from design by engineers in industry. One, experience. Two, the political issues are significantly worse. Graduate students are heavily international, and additionally have reason to fear crossing university administrations. Professors are promoted by processes much too politically selective for conservatives to trust them as impartial.

      b) Who designs a computer system is of critical importance, if there is any dispute.

      c) Procedural objections here seem to be of the form i) you didn’t follow the appropriate procedure ii) you don’t have standing iii) disparate remedies. The consent decree that was previously in force had the result of preventing the arguments from being well developed, and up to date. The first law suits would be expected to deal with such problems. Some of the standing objections have been obvious nonsense. In rejecting ‘disparate remedies’, the courts are innocently or maliciously ignoring how the previous official malfeasance with COVID restrictions and BLM support has created a Republican voter concern for personal security that relates to the presidential election. In combination with earlier acts, the appearance of fraud organized across several states makes more extreme remedies appropriate. As such, the uniformity of judicial results creates the appearance that the judges are part of a combination preventing federal laws from being enforced.

      d) Judges are only in control of the formal legal system. Informally, the public has always effectively been a superior court to the supreme court, simply one that is impractical and unwise to use.

      e) The controlling precedent may be contained in volume four of the Collected Works of Lincoln. We are in the process of establishing that there is a powerful combination preventing the laws of the nation as passed (WRT mail in votes and document retention) from being enforced, and that the ordinary process of court will not remedy the issues raised. April, 1861, suspension of Habeas Corpus, and summoning of the militia.

      f) Trump’s statement is a statement of opinion about his level of popular support. If the apparent fraud is real fraud, then the level of measured support may be wildly different from his actual level of support. As long as those concerns are not addressed, 90% pro Trump seems like it might be a plausible possible level of true support. If the true support is in fact 90%, Trump’s belief in his level of popular support would be well founded.

      g) Trump is definitely untrustworthy, but the consequence is not what you would assume. Even if he were to concede, I would not trust that concession, I would just assume that he had cut a deal to save his family, and sold ordinary Americans out. He would be stupid to think the Democrats would deal fairly with him, or could possibly deliver on anything they could offer him. But times are stressful, and stress makes people stupid.

      1. And h), the level of blatant, brazen, fearless, gleeful, in-your-face fraud that took place without consequences means that we’re never going to have an election in this country again that means anything. It means the government isn’t legitimate, and everybody knows. Historically speaking, this tends to have dire consequences in the near term.

    2. “It’s pretty clear that the real goal here…”

      There is only one argument made by the enemy, and it never varies. Instead of addressing the substance of the argument, the enemy pretends the argument is being made in bad faith, due to the unscrupulous motive of the man making the argument. Not an iota of evidence is ever introduced to prove the motive, it is merely asserted. This is an informal logical fallacy called ad hominem.

      1. Claim: The real goal here [clarification: in filing these lawsuits] is to drum up donations to benefit Trump

        Evidence: Not a single dollar donated to Trump’s “election defense fund” goes to fund legal efforts until $5k goes to his PAC and another $3.3k goes to the RNC.

        Also, I’m amused that I’m being accused of ad hominem attacks when I’ve been called the enemy, dishonest, a liar, and a gaslighter.

        1. Well I called you a dishonest lying gaslighter (I save enemy for people shooting at me) but I don’t think that counts as an ad hom attack. More like a description. I shot down your argument on its own merits. You being a lying gaslighting piece of shit was like a happy bonus.

        2. Where donations to Trump go, or in what order he spends them, has no logical relevance to the motive for filing lawsuits. What you are presenting as evidence of motive is an irrelevant remark on an apparently unrelated topic.

          In logic, a gratuitous assertion can be gratuitously denied.

          You are a gaslighter who has apparently inhaled your own gas. You cannot set your argument in order after being told explicitly how to do so.

          1. ah actually I think you are inhaling the gas too.

            the connection between where the donations go and the likely motive of trump seems pretty clear. it would take a total suspension of common sense not to see it.

          2. Obviously, in this case “common sense” is a synonym for agreed upon left wing media narrative.

          3. thats right. of course. you are absolutely correct. Trump has no history of putting himself and his money first. or of being a pathological liar. foolish me to have thought so.

          4. He totally might. He also might not.
            And that changes absolutely nothing about my OP
            as I said, your description is the currently agreed upon left wing media narrative.

            Don’t like it? Oh well. Everything I just said is accurate. Deal with it. 😀

          5. JW> Where donations to Trump go, or in what order he spends them, has no logical relevance to the motive for filing lawsuits.

            Yep, your comment is a gratuitous assertion. Oh, did you mean me?

            Nope, financial gain is pretty common motive for all kinds of shenanigans. Trump in particular has a long history of taking advantage of rubes. You might disagree with me, but to say financial gain isn’t a potential motive in filing a lawsuit is pretty nutty.

            JW> You are a gaslighter who has apparently inhaled your own gas.

            I’m increasingly convinced y’all don’t really know what that term means, you just stared using it because liberals were. Find someone better to steal insults from. No one ever liked being called Attercop, and Tomnoddy of course is insulting to anybody.

            JW> You cannot set your argument in order after being told explicitly how to do so.

            Not so good at the whole reading comprehension thing either I guess. I just labeled the things I said earlier as claim and evidence to make them easier for you to understand.

            LC> You are on my page spouting bullshit. Ergo it is open season. Deal with it.

            You seemed confused as to why I mentioned ad hominem attacks. I was just trying to point out how threading works, but since it’s your page, I’m sure you knew that all ready.

            LC>your description is the currently agreed upon left wing media narrative.

            Hey John, your buddy Larry gave you an example of an ad hominem. See he didn’t bother to refute the other person’s argument or even address it. He just claimed it was also the view of a disfavored party.

          6. So the guy who literally opened with I AM NOT A GAS LIGHTER BUT– who then proceeds to tell everyone that they are crazy, what they saw with their own eyes didn’t happen, and then proceeds to try to shame a bunch of strangers into shutting up for several days is now saying that we don’t know what that term means and are only using it because someone else used it first.
            Meanwhile, here’s the first thing on Wikipedia about the term:
            “Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person or a group covertly sows seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or group, making them question their own memory, perception, or judgment.”

            Gee whiz. I can’t imagine why this guy gets charged with that so much that he felt the need to hang a lampshade on it in his very first post, before he launched into a textbook example of said behavior.
            But of course, we should then assume he is totally honest and arguing in good faith after he gets called on that behavior and switches gears to other dishonest manipulative behaviors.
            Oh, and if you get bored of this and just insult him, he’ll cry about civility.

            “Not so good at the whole reading comprehension thing either I guess.” – heh… he says to a guy who is a professional wordsmith.
            On that note, you guys ever notice that it is always the manipulative lying sack of shit, constantly changing topics, dropping out of context quotes, making demands of others, and sea lioning… who then bitches about the reading comprehension of others once they grow tired of the dishonest games?

            I know how threading works, jackass. Only I read all of these in the moderation page, so I don’t actually give a shit. 😀

            You crying about Ad Hom is kinda funny, because you get the respect you deserve. You opened as a manipulative dishonest piece of shit, so now you get treated like one. Dipsticks like you always do. Some random stranger barges in, is an asshole (but only in a mealy mouthed fake civility way) and then you cry tone argument when people don’t want to play your passive aggressive fuck-fuck games. Seriously. Nobody buys that anymore. That tactic got old years ago.

            It’s kind of hard to “refute” the argument of a galloper, since each of your posts has about 6 new arguments in it. But I’ve already talked about that dishonest tactic in a different response.

          7. Quite true. And people have choices on where they want to put their money on this issue. They don’t have to donate to Trump; they can donate to the GOP, Judicial Watch, Ron Paul’s organization, and several others equally concerned with this election. The fact that Nemo et al concentrate on Trump shows that they’re personally fixated on him, and unlikely to respond to reason. But we knew that already.

        3. So let me get this straight: Trump’s PAC and the RNC are receiving donations, therefore there was no electoral fraud.

          Pull the other one; it’s got bells on.

          1. Oh, and the candidate who doesn’t accept pay for being the President of the United States is the greedy guy, whereas the guy who somehow became a multi-millionaire on Senate pay, and whose children unwillingly pay him 50 percent of all their earnings, is clearly living the ascetic life of Mother Theresa with no need of funds.

          2. I found that thread interesting – two reasons.

            First, expressing $5,000 and $3,500 dollars as $5K and $3.5K is a psychological trick to make the numbers sound larger.

            Second, the total of $8,500 is almost certainly the “startup” costs for such a campaign, advanced before donations start coming in. Remarkably cheap, too! The campaign to recall the brown vagina (AKA the Honorable Mayor of Tucson) cost more than that to get going.

    3. Lol.
      to paraphrase: “I do not like the term gas lighting” – proceeds to tell us that our memories and perceptions are wrong and what we *really* must be thinking and doing instead, and what our secret motives must be to believe in such an incorrect manner.
      After ignoring the original OP – “Demand that you address MY argument” – then cut and pastes a bunch of stuff lacking context to be judged solely upon the dishonest framework he provided, which would require anyone debating in good faith to spend hours research and replying (which experience has taught he’ll simply ignore anyway).
      However, you’re flat out wrong on this part (or you are a giant liar, could go either way)
      “And yes, we did have several audits here in Georgia. ”
      No, actually by professional audit standards anywhere else in the world, no. You did not. GA specifically did what I talked about in the OP, with the system checking the system and the system declaring the system is fine. The closest thing you had to an “audit” was a spot check conducted by the system of a different county that was not in question (Cobb), and it wasn’t until last Wednesday your state legislature demanded that they check Fulton County. Your SoS is embarrassing and if this was in private industry I’d be taking bets with the other auditors about how badly he is about to get fucked.

      So you can take your gas lighting, lying ass off my page. If you don’t like a term to be used on you, try not exemplifying it next time.

      1. OP> Most of the fraud stuff has never been presented in court

        I quoted portions from two opinions where the court addressed the claims of fraud.

        > cut and pastes a bunch of stuff lacking context to be judged solely upon the dishonest framework he provided, which would require anyone debating in good faith to spend hours research and replying(which experience has taught he’ll simply ignore anyway)

        What other way would I dispute your point that the courts haven’t addressed the substance of the fraud claims other than quoting the court’s opinion? Yes, it might take some time, but if you want to know what the courts actually did you’ve got to read the opinions. You can’t rely on the media to get that stuff right.

        I’ll be happy to discuss the lawsuits in detail. I surely haven’t read all of them – I think there have been over 40, but if you think there are specific claims made by the campaign that weren’t taken serious by the courts I’ll read that opinion.

        OP> they’ll cite some of the weak sauce “audits” which have happened around the country, even though at best those are spot checks (sometimes in the wrong spot!) not audits, and they were conducted by the same people who probably fucked it up to begin with. Don’t worry. None of them will read this far. Just watch

        > However, you’re flat out wrong on this part (or you are a giant liar, could go either way)
        > “And yes, we did have several audits here in Georgia. ”

        I think we are just using different definitions of audit. My point was the Georgia audit wasn’t a spot check, every single ballot was in scope. Call it a recount if you want, but it would catch potential issues such as the barcode on the ballot not matching the text of the ballot, election workers running ballots multiple times (a claim made by president Trump), or errors or malicious code in the tabulation software (as Powell and other claimed).

        If you want to define an audit as something done by outsiders, that’s fine. Let’s pass a bill to make the next election better. Of course it was Republicans who blocked efforts to do that, as Senator Blackburn objected to “bills that will seize control over elections from the states and take it from the states and where do they want to put it? They want it to rest in the hands of Washington, D.C., bureaucrats,”

        > So you can take your gas lighting, lying ass off my page. If you don’t like a term to be used on you, try not exemplifying it next time.

        I enjoy vigorous, good faith discussions with people who hold diverse opinions. I was under the impression you did as well.

        1. Nemo: “I enjoy vigorous, good faith discussions with people who hold diverse opinions.”

          Y’know, buddy, lying is called a sin for a reason. Maybe you should think about that a little bit.

        2. Yep. You are a gaslighting lying piece of shit, ain’t you? I called that one fast. 😀
          First I’ll skip down to the bottom of your stupid bullshit, because that’s the part that needs to be addressed the most.
          “I think we are just using different definitions of audit.”
          Yes. I’m a retired auditor using the term as it is used by actual auditors for actual audits in real life.
          You are some fucking rando who blundered onto my page barfing up the idiot definition used by moronic journalists and ass covering politicians who wouldn’t know a real audit if it bit them on the face.
          Once you understand that, the rest of this becomes rather clear. (I’m pretty sure you understand that, but again, you’re a gas lighting piece of shit)

          Also, on your “audits” first off, they spot checked the county that didn’t have red flags (15k random sample, 300 weird, the system said those looked fine to the system, and then they rando called 10 of them and called it a day) and yet they have studiously avoided the county with the flags. In fact, it took until last Wednesday for the state legislature to demand that the SoS hold an audit of Fulton County (which if it ever happens, I’m sure once again it’s be a spot check conducted by the system, which is NOT an audit by any real professional definition).

          Plus, you’re spiking the Dunning-Kruger graph pretty hard there, sparky. Because even in the OP you are butt hurt about I talked about the difference between internal, 3rd party, and government audits. My gosh you are fucking stupid. If I want to call 3rd party audits audits? Lol. Fuck you, dummy. I don’t know if I have the crayons sufficient to break this down for you. You have the internal audits FIRST to make sure your system is in order. Once you throw up a bunch of massive red flags indicative of fraud then it is too late and then it mandatory that you are audited by OUTSIDERS. Of course you don’t let the people who screwed up audit themselves. Fucking duh, idiot.

          Now, back to the beginning of your weak obfuscating bullshit. I never said all, but of the vast overwhelming majority of the court cases, fraud evidence wasn’t reviewed at all. AND (this part is super important so pay attention, but we all know you’ll find a way to fuck it up anyway) in ALL of them the fraud evidence presented before the court consists of what 3rd party outsiders have been able to extrapolate based upon the information available to the general public, not the actual source data as would be required in an actual audit. So we can tell that something is wrong by the sheer audacity of the ratios, but we can’t prove it without an audit. In the examples I cited in the OP you managed to totally ignore, when something kicks up audit flags, we don’t go to court with just the flags. The flags MANDATE an audit in literally everything else… except elections. Fraud causes require audits.

          (which again, pieces of shit like you want to avoid for some mysterious reason)

          Actual fraud audits take weeks/months, and actual fraud cases take years. Only in this case, we didn’t get any actual audits at all (for mysterious and baffling reasons nobody could ever possibly guess at!) so it’s recursively fucked. But of course, the same fuckers who demanded years of investigations of Russian collusion based upon almost no reliable evidence, are aghast at the idea of having audits of an event with a thousand times as many red flags.

          I do enjoy good faith discussion. However it’s pretty fucking clear from the get go that you’re a gas lighting piece of shit… And you’re self aware enough that you had to open by hanging on a lampshade on how obvious that fact is. From that I take it that you get called on your gas lighting a lot. That’s probably because you are really ham fisted at it.

          And finally, I think I make it pretty clear that I don’t give a shit about the impressions of morons. Fuck off. 😀

          1. The actual lawsuits are what matters, so I’ll address that first.

            > I never said all, but of the vast overwhelming majority of the court cases, fraud evidence wasn’t reviewed at all.

            That doesn’t match the opinions I read. What’s your source? How many opinions did you read?

            In the cases I read when the Court struck it down for procedural reasons, it seemed like the right call – such as the issue was moot – where even if all the fraud alleged in the lawsuit was correct it wouldn’t have changed the outcome of the election. Which cases do you think were decided wrongly?

            > (this part is super important so pay attention, but we all know you’ll find a way to fuck it up anyway) in ALL of them the fraud evidence presented before the court consists of what 3rd party outsiders have been able to extrapolate based upon the information available to the general public,

            Not true, several insiders offered affidavits that alleged fraud. They just weren’t creditable. There were also affidavits from election officials in response.

            In Constantino v Detroit, the court addressed allegations from Dominion contractor Melissa Carone (of SNL fame) and said “Neither Republican nor Democratic challengers nor city officals substantiate her version of events. The allegations are just not credible.”

            The court also addressed the affidavit from Republican poll watchers, such as Zachery Larsen. His claims were also found to be unfounded and the court noted that he failed to file any formal complaint on the night of the election, coming “forward to complain after the unofficial vote results indicated his candidate had lost”

            > “I think we are just using different definitions of audit.”
            > Yes. I’m a retired auditor using the term as it is used by actual auditors for actual audits in real life.

            Yes, you were an accountant. This ain’t accounting. You want election audits to work like your audits did. They don’t. Too bad. Different fields have different kinds of audits. The time to improve the system is before the election, not after you lost.

            > So we can tell that something is wrong by the sheer audacity of the ratios, but we can’t prove it without an audit. In the examples I cited in the OP you managed to totally ignore, when something kicks up audit flags, we don’t go to court with just the flags. The flags MANDATE an audit in literally everything else… except elections. Fraud causes require audits.

            All the red flags I saw raised had reasonable explanations. Like dead man that Tucker Carlson claimed had voted, which was actually his widow voting as Mrs. James Blalock.

            The only one of these red flags that I think made it into an actual lawsuit was the absurd lawsuit from Texas against four other states. Pennsylvania’s response was the best rejoiner on that one:

            “The cascading series of compounding defects in Texas’s filings is only underscored by the surreal alternate reality that those filings attempt to construct. That alternate reality includes an absurd statistical analysis positing that the probability of President-Elect Biden winning the election was ‘one in a quadrillion'”

            The whole filing is well worth reading, full of zingers like ” The Court should not abide this seditious abuse of the judicial process, and should send a clear and un-mistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated.”

            > If I want to call 3rd party audits audits? Lol. Fuck you, dummy. I don’t know if I have the crayons sufficient to break this down for you. You have the internal audits FIRST to make sure your system is in order. Once you throw up a bunch of massive red flags indicative of fraud then it is too late and then it mandatory that you are audited by OUTSIDERS. Of course you don’t let the people who screwed up audit themselves.


            That’s how elections audits are done. Here’s a link with a table listing who conducts audits on a state by state basis. Most are local election officials, some are the state officials.


            > Actual fraud audits take weeks/months, and actual fraud cases take years.

            This is one of the reasons why the account audit process isn’t used in elections. There’s this little thing coming up on Jan 20. While I’m sure Trump would jump on claim that he should remain in office while this years long fraud investigation goes on, it doesn’t work like that. Again, America isn’t a tin pot dictatorship.

            > Only in this case, we didn’t get any actual audits at all (for mysterious and baffling reasons nobody could ever possibly guess at!) so it’s recursively fucked. But of course, the same fuckers who demanded years of investigations of Russian collusion based upon almost no reliable evidence, are aghast at the idea of having audits of an event with a thousand times as many red flags.

            It’s not mysterious, we’re using the rule that were set up before the election. Using the existing process isn’t a conspiracy theory. Not letting Trump get a do over isn’t evidence of ill will.

            If Congress wants to investigate election fraud, they can do it all day long. No one is stopping them. They can subpoena anyone they want. But they aren’t actually investigating shit. They’re just grandstanding.

            Oh and about the gaslighting thing. You can keep accusing me of gaslighting you. I don’t really care, it just makes you sound weak. Gas lighting is emotional abuse that causes someone to doubt their sanity. Do you find me citing court cases to be abusive? Do you need a cookie and a hug? Some positive affirmations? Don’t worry Larry, I’m not a puppy hater, I’ll still buy your books even if you call me names.

          2. You are SOOOOOO BORING.
            Why in the world are you still talking when I’ve made it abundantly clear that I think you are a dishonest idiot straw grasping and time sucking because your initial gas lighting failed?

            Now you are engaging in what’s called a Gish Gallop. Dude, just stop. It’s pathetic.

            “What’s your source” he barks, because that’s totally not just a dishonest tactic to make me waste my time providing him with a bunch of links which he will then not bother to read.

            Then he flails about citing court cases which change literally nothing I said in the OP or later about how fraud/audits work in court.

            Then more gas lighting:
            “Yes, you were an accountant. This ain’t accounting.”
            Uh, actually it is, you stupid fuck. The pertinent part would be what’s called Auditing. Which we usually cover in college starting in about the 300 level on up. Then it’s one of the normal fields of accounting, and the primary reason CPA firms exist. Another large part of the job is looking at large data sets and spotting anomalous things using a bunch of different tools in order to drill down on those items to figure out why they are anomalous. Duh.

            “You want election audits to work like your audits did. They don’t. Too bad.”
            Wow, you really are dimwitted. 😀 That’s what my entire post you are making a fool of yourself in the comments of is about.
            Elections do not work like any other thing in the world. You, being a dishonest gas lighting piece of shit say “too bad”. Normal people (the audience this post is written for) ask “why?”

            “Different fields have different kinds of audits.”
            Are you just trying to make your posts look bigger by stating the painfully obvious?

            “The time to improve the system is before the election, not after you lost.”
            Except according to democrats, no time is ever the right time to improve the system. That’s racist voter suppression.
            But there you go, being a gas lighting piece of shit again.
            If you weren’t a dishonest scumbag trying to shame people into compliance, you would note that if you want to make people aware of a glaring flaw in the system, the time that 70 million of them are feeling screwed over by the system is the ideal time to make them aware of one of the massive flaws in it. And since most people don’t understand that elections do not get audited, now was a great time for me to write this post.
            Which is exactly when gas lighting fuckfaces like you show up. Curious. 😀

            “THIS ISN’T ACCOUNTING!”
            Again, wrong. It’s Auditing. 😀
            Auditors are primarily accountants by trade and education. And most 3rd party auditors come from CPA firms. Though there are specialists, which is how you end up with IT guys and programmers working for CPAs.
            Hell, even my buddy who did election auditing for the State Dept mostly used accountants (and yes, by State standards for foreign elections, our election throws flags)

            So it doesn’t matter how many times you repeat stupid shit, it remains stupid.

            Your link is goofy and just continues to prove my point. The whole post is about double standards. But it is nice how you went out to google and then plugged in the first straw grasping thing you discovered that you thought helped your case. In every other walk of life, the people in charge of a system are not the people who get to clear the system as fine. That is unacceptable to the government everywhere else for reasons even you aren’t dense enough to miss.

            Your bit about timing is stupid. Full fraud investigations take months. However initial audit findings, even in complex systems, can usually confirm that fuckery was afoot, and approximately how much fuckery was afoot, in a few days or a couple of weeks, depending on how much collusion was involved. Tracking that back to the source and documenting it all is the time consuming part. But you would know that if you were an accountant. 😀

            But anyways, if the government applied the same scrutiny to its flags as it does to regular citizen’s flags, and actual audits were launched, we could have confirmed if fraud happened or not before the end of the year. So your entire point there is fucking stupid and just further illustrates what a straw grasping moron you are.

            When I said “mysterious” I was being facetious, because we all know the reason real audits didn’t happen. The results benefited the democrats, and the democrats own the media and big tech. Which is why whenever we talk about this stuff we get stuck with a bunch of moronic fact checks. If Trump had a bunch of miraculous statistical anomalies save his ass in the middle of the night, the media would have gone on a non stop crusade demanding investigations and every single state would have caved and launched investigations and special counsels. Which could’ve at minimum confirmed fraud happened and if it was statistically significant in about a month.

            Only since the fraud benefited democrats, the idea of audits is shunned, and we end up with gas lighting dopes like you instead. Yay.

            And yes, I know you don’t like being called a gas lighter, but that’s what you are. You know it. We all know it. You even hung a lamp shade on it when you opened because you know you’re bad at. It doesn’t make me weak to state the obvious. It’s just obvious. You opened by telling people what they’d seen with their own eyes was wrong, they’d all imagined it, and they were crazy for believing it, then you explained what their true motivations must be. It’s fucking text book. It isn’t my fault that you’re really bad at it. As far as abusive, you’re just random dipshit number 10 this week. I don’t even remember your name, nor do I care. You are interchangable. I write these responses in the comments for the audience. Nor do I find you citing court cases abusive, I’ve already explained why I find it dishonest, totally different. I don’t think you are actually smart enough to abuse anyone but yourself. 😀

            However, in your pathetic attempts at insulting me, you do bring up one really interesting point (albeit on accident). Sad Puppies.
            The part that people like forget is that one of my goals when I launched SP was to test of see if the organizers were rigging the nominating process by tossing votes for people they didn’t like, as was commonly alleged at the time. I wanted to test this. So one of the things I did was keep careful track of all the people who said that they were going to cast nominations and for what, and then I compared that data to what the organizers released. I didn’t tell anyone I was tracking this. When the final data came out, it was within the margins expected, which indicated no dishonesty on the part of the organizers, which I then announced. The organizers actually appreciated that and thanked me for putting that allegation to bed. (it’s amazing what a little auditing can do!)

            Morons always forget that part happened. 😀

            But anyways, I don’t give a shit if you buy my books or not. I provide a quality entertainment product. Take it or leave it. However, you purchasing my product doesn’t mean you get a pass when you’re a dishonest gaslighting piece of shit in my blog comments.

        3. Also, this bit is fucking idiotic – “Of course it was Republicans who blocked efforts to do that, as Senator Blackburn objected to “bills that will seize control over elections from the states and take it from the states and where do they want to put it? They want it to rest in the hands of Washington, D.C., bureaucrats,”
          First off, there’s no reason that a state can’t bring in outside 3rd party auditors if there are a bunch of election red flags. There are entire career fields ALREADY DEVOTED TO THIS. And the states ALREADY USE THEM for everything else.
          And then the data they use would be open to scrutiny (because even auditors get audited) AND it would be available to be argued by both sides IN COURT.(gee whiz… you can’t prove fraud based upon outside observation?! This is my shocked face! But morons keep barking about all these lost court cases!)
          An audit is not “seizing control” you fucking dolt. (but of course, you aren’t actually that stupid, you are just obfuscating the issue because you are chickenshit who bungled his initial shame attempt).

          So once again, this all boils down to the fact that my OP is spot on, and in any situation other than an election (that benefits democrats, because we all know if Trump had gotten late night Kim Jong Un ratio vote dumps sufficient to win the media would have whipped the populace into a frenzy demanding investigations) there would be audits for a good reason.

          1. > An audit is not “seizing control” you fucking dolt.

            I agree, that was a quote from a Republican senator, as part of his justification for blocking bills from the Democrats to improve election security.

            Note: I’m not saying I endorse those specific bills, I’m pointing out that Republicans had plenty of time to improve the process before they lost the election. They not only declined to do so, they blocked attempts to do so.

          2. You might want to actually read people’s comments, though I’m sure that would slow down your vitriol. You called him a dolt for describing an audit as “seizing control”, even copying and pasting that part of his comment without realizing that it was the republican Senator Blackburn who described audits that way and that the commenter was in favor of the election security bills Blackburn and the other republicans rejected.

            In a way this is a microcosm of your approach to election data analysis. You start with an agenda and misinterpret the data until it fits your preconceived notions and scream “I’M AN AUDITOR” at anyone who points our the flaws in your reasoning.

          3. Heheheh.
            Mew mew mew! You are mean to people who waste your time with silly bullshit on your own page. HOW DARE YOU!
            He’s a dolt for a wide variety of reasons. His whining about some senator doesn’t really change that. If Senator Blackburn said stupid shit on my page I’d call him a dolt too.

            Your last sentence is a complete lie.
            My actual approach to analyzing this election was going LOL WUT the morning after election night when Joe Biden had a whole bunch of Kim Jong Un level miracles happened.
            Then I actually looked at the data, and became increasingly disgruntled when I found that 4 late night vote dumps out of 9000 total were in the 99.98th percentile in ratio, and were also big enough that if you moved them back to a merely insane 99th percentile it would swing 42 electoral votes. Upon delving into this further it turned out that these were also super anomalous when compared to history, demographics, every trend in the rest of the country, and every other comparable city. Plus they didn’t just buck the trends everywhere else, they reversed them by orders of magnitude… but miraculously the trends returned to normal once you crossed an arbitrary county line, even though none of the demographics changed. Fascinating.

            Then when I wrote about this stuff I had to listen to hundreds of low information morons barf up the first “fact check” they found on Google… Oh wait… I’m sorry. That’s what lefty idiots consider “pointing at the flaws in my reasoning.”

            Also, I don’t think I’ve ever actually screamed I’m an auditor at anyone. That would be super dorky. 😀

            Now fuck off, sea lion. You’re just butt hurt I wasn’t gullible enough to waste my time writing up a thesis you’d then ignore.

          4. Yeah, you woke up, saw some numbers someone pulled out of their ass, and it’s been one big downward spiral since then. Biden did not get 98.4% of the votes in what you call the “Wisconsin Midnight Mystery Dump”, aka Milwaukee reporting its absentee votes when they said they would in the way they said they would (not such a mystery, detective). He got around 82% of the votes released in that period. If he had gotten 98.4% I’d agree that that’s obviously fake, but he didn’t. Also, the article that you say found 200% turnout in 7 wards published an update that said they had been working from incorrect data. There is one ward still over 100% turnout, and Trump won it 3 votes to 2.

            Also, this is just a side note, but either you didn’t say what you meant to say, left out some key details, or you don’t understand how percentiles work. Having 4 vote dumps in the 99th percentile wouldn’t be “insane”; when you have 9000 of any set of results, 90 of them will be in the top 99th percentile by definition. It’s not important since you were clearly working with numbers that someone pulled out of their ass, but still.

            Also, you organized a campaign to alter the results of a Sci-Fi book award. You are a huge dork by any definition, but that’s not a bad thing, accept your true nature and you will be happier.

          5. First off, you moron, that was two months ago, when information was flying fast and furious. The part you are leaving out is that this was in the initial confusion of everyone waking up and going “Huh?” and trying to figure out what happened. As new information comes in, you update it. He didn’t get 98.4% of that dump. Duh. And the Milwaukee turn out numbers were incorrect. And there were a bunch of other things that turned out to be nothing too. That’s what happens in the first few days after something really weird happens.

            HOWEVER, since then, and these numbers aren’t in dispute, the dumps are 99.98th percentile in RATIO.
            Which brings us to your second paragraph, and why you are missing the point.
            Of course there are going to be some votes on the edge of the bell curve.
            However, when those same dumps ALSO are on the edge of the bell curve in SIZE.
            AND those same dumps are also sufficient to swing 42 electoral votes.
            AND the ratio on those dumps is incongruous when compared to every demographically comparable area.
            AND the ratio on those dumps changes as soon as you cross a county line even though the demographics of the two areas are basically unchanged.
            AND those same dumps also happen to be the same ones that have all the allegations of misconduct around them by witnesses.
            AND those same dumps also happen to be the ones that didn’t have election observers or the observers were stymied.
            AND these ALL happened in the places that had “quit counting for the night”, only to have these dumps all occur at really weird hours in the early morning.
            AND those same dumps are worth a whopping 42 electoral votes.
            AND if you moved that ratio back to a mere 99th percentile, that would flip those 42 electoral votes the other way.
            Put all of that together and anybody who isn’t a dishonest shill can see that is super weird

            Yet now, I’ve got to listen to low information morons bark about how I don’t understand how statistics work. Uh huh…

            Also, I didn’t “alter the results” of a sci-fi book award, dipshit. I just got people who don’t normally participate to participate.

            As for dorkiness, I’d say the mini painting and war gaming covers that. 😀

            Now fuck off you dishonest little shit. You’re just butt hurt I didn’t fall for your sea lioning yesterday.

            And there’s only one way to prove if this was just a late night miracle.

          6. This is in response to your comment at JANUARY 5, 2021 AT 11:54 PM. Your threading system seems to have bottomed out and won’t let me reply to that one directly.

            > Now you are engaging in what’s called a Gish Gallop. Dude, just stop. It’s pathetic.

            Ahh, the Gish Gallop. That’s a good one, as a long time anti-creationist, I appreciate the deep cut there. Of course, it’s also not true. I’m not making many spurious claims and asking you to rebut them. I’m rebutting your unsubstantiated claims with sources.

            I’ll break it down again:

            OP> They’ll cite court cases being tossed, even though most of those were on standing or legal procedures, not fraud.

            I gave you three that weren’t, you’ve cited none. Or any other source. But asking for sources is dishonest and hurts your feelings, so I should just stop my emotional abuse, right?

            > The pertinent part would be what’s called Auditing. Which we usually cover in college starting in about the 300 level on up. Then it’s one of the normal fields of accounting, and the primary reason CPA firms exist.

            Right, no one else in the world ever audits things but accountants. And anyone who does it differently than accountants is doing it wrong.

            > Another large part of the job is looking at large data sets and spotting anomalous things using a bunch of different tools in order to drill down on those items to figure out why they are anomalous.

            That’s a large part of a lot of jobs. But you keep insisting your magical accountant powers give you insight into how elections work that no one else has ( except all the other randos you polled in your echo chamber who like totes agreed with you). Trump’s rallies were bigger than Biden’s and that involves numbers, which you know all about because you’re an accountant, so he totally must have won right?

            All the supposed red flags you’re so concerned with are bullshit. They’re the product of a bunch of idiots on the Internet who don’t know what they’re talking about.

            If those claims had merit, they should be raised in court. When they were, they were slapped down for cause. Some lawsuits were also rejected on procedural grounds, but when your lawyer is a Qanon idiot who can’t spell his own name, that’s to be expected.

          7. Gish Gallop, i.e. throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks.
            You bounce from thing to thing constantly throwing up new items which require the other guy to waste his time doing research and formulating responses. Which you will then ignore as you toss up several more.
            A good example is bringing up Senator Blackburn yesterday and tossing out a quote with no context and you saying that it represents a republican rejecting the idea of audits. Since I don’t give a shit about Blackburn and have never paid any attention to that person, in order to respond to that one item of your multitude you’ve barfed up, I’d have to go look up the actual quote, find the real context, look up the law in question, figure out if you are lying or not (which, experience has taught you probably are) and then type up a response which you will promptly ignore as you throw out six more quotes from various things all conveniently staged in your narrative context.

            So instead of wasting a few hours of my life, I just make fun of you for my own entertainment and for the edification of the audience instead. And once I get bored or the blog post is old enough that there isn’t sufficient audience, I block you.

            You keep citing various court cases, but absolutely none of that changes what I said originally about how fraud is normally investigated and proven in court. Again (and this is for anyone still reading, because you’re obviously full of shit) you can tell that something is fucky by the data available, but you can’t prove it in court without actual investigations. And what we’ve been given on that front is woefully lacking by all comparable professional standards.

            Ergo, you barfing up ten more quotes about the same topic is silly, because read the previous paragraph again, you repetitive time suck. 😀

            Your bit whining about accountants is funny, because it ain’t like I’m the only guy in America who looked at this and said something is fucky. That’s just more time suck obfuscation. Of people who look at lots of data to find weird things, there’s also plenty of statisticians, data analysts, various types of investigators, QA people, software folks, and people who monitored 3rd world elections for the State Department, also saying that this is clearly fucky for various reasons which are glaringly obvious to them. Hell, we even had an astrophysicist bust out MathCad to crunch the probability numbers on some of Biden’s anomalous vote dumps. So no. I’m not alone. (but seriously, you really can’t help yourself with the textbook gas lighting shit, can you?)

            You can keep saying that all the red flags are bullshit (a great many people far smarter than you disagree) except there’s only one way to actually find out… And that way is, drum roll please, what this post is about. 😀

          8. You make a lot of claims there. Could you provide a link to the source of your numbers? I’ve been having trouble finding a place that gives hard numbers on absentee ballots and what share went to which candidate. All of the ones I have found are from right after the election and talk about preliminary estimates. I think seeing the numbers would be edifying

          9. Again with the fucking sea lioning.

            Sorry, Rando. The only time I actually take the time to write out anything to you dishonest twerps is when there is sufficient audience. This post is too old.
            Plus, you’ve already tried this before, so I’m just going to block you because you are boring.

          10. I like how Nemo’s response to you showing that election audits suck horribly was “of course they do!” as if it should be uncontroversial that national elections should undergo less scrutiny than the business dealings of a small company.

        4. “I think we are just using different definitions of audit.”

          The Prog-Socs excel at doing just that. Makes any debate in good faith impossible. Also makes logical reasoning impossible. MiniTru’s job was to first change the meaning of words, and then to eliminate them entirely. Looks like you have a guaranteed job under Biden-Harris.

  11. Mr. Correia, you are a national treasure and a gift from heaven. Thank you for words of common sense. Here in the gasping wastelands of blithering nonsense the occasional oasis where one can take a small sip of sweet reason is truly refreshing.

    1. And your threading system is completely broken, so I’ll just piggy back on John’s brow nosing.

      I haven’t been including new arguments (except in response to yours), just new evidence. Almost all of which is directly citing the court case you and yours claim haven’t address the fraud claims on the merits.

      But that’s ok, just keep asserting things without evidence and call citing sources dishonest. I’m sure you feel like you’re right and that’s good enough. Who needs evidence? Feels > Reals, right?

  12. I did a Benford’s analysis of Philadelphia city precinct data – it is a test to check random numbers. I used this extensively as a Certified Information System Auditor in the past….

    Unsurprisingly Trump’s votes followed the distribution curve, biden’s did not – quite the anomaly found… As an auditor this would be a red flag to investigate further….

    1. I talked about Benfords back in November. They’re not proof. They’re a flag telling us we need to audit that. I said that at the time.
      So then hundreds of lefty Deboonkers showed up to scream at me that they aren’t proof, and I’m like no shit, sherlock, I said that, now where’s the fucking audit?

      1. Agreed – it’s a flag that says “look at this more” or “that appears to be a normal distribution of random numbers”…

        It’s one tool in the auditor’s toolset…

        I’ve also seen folks rail on Benfords that it’s basically useless (of course fraud auditors use it all the time) – that’s like saying the division sign is useless and doesn’t work…


        1. And our whole point is, the courts shut down any attempt to preserve that evidence for investigation. Of course if the governors and AGs of those states refuse to take election fraud as cases, they obstruct any attempt to investigate too. Complete obstruction of justice; where the population is left looking at what appears to be a massive crime, and no legal remedy. That’s one of the criteria mentioned in the Declaration of Independence for armed, lethal rebellion.

  13. Stepping away from the discussion of election fraud…
    Given that if you run a business, you will get audited by the government, it occurs to me to wonder about something.

    What does anyone expect to find in Donald Trump’s tax returns that hasn’t already been uncovered by swarms of government auditors, including the IRS?

    1. I wrote about that back when it happened here on the blog. Watching the news media pretend to be tax experts was hilarious.

      1. Watching them work to find every little record of every deal and every exemption made by Trump, his family and his organization, meanwhile ignoring how a bunch of broke and disbarred and failed attorneys and libartsmajors who became politicians all managed to amass fortunes, all the while also ignoring all the whistleblowers that came out against the various shenanigans and chicanery and outright fraud and abuse and serious felony-level fumets of the politicians (wheeze, cough, wheeze) is sad but amusing in a dark ‘we’re all going to die’ manner.

        Seriously, voting integrity in this nation sucks rocks and has since at least before Woodrow Wilson, and only got worse during Woodies’ and FDR’s administrations.

        What’s so frickin hard about ‘One Citizen, One Vote’ can’t people understand? Note: Citizen. Not a ‘person’ or a ‘body.’ A Citizen.

        What next, not understanding the concept behind ‘Shall not be Infringed’?

        1. Shoot man, there’s so many places in this country where they read that as “Shall be infringed (unless you’re rich, or politically connected to the right people, or both)” it ain’t even funny.

  14. I am amazed that no one worries about the rural areas. My father was a NM state election commissioner in the 1950’s.. They found the most massive fraud in rural counties that had one party control. The tipoff was that the result of the counts from those counties always was reported last. Then they found that between only a few unusual precincts, there was always just enough votes to overcome the statewide lead of the Republicans.
    And when they audited the suspect precincts, they had an amazing number of dead people voting.
    Sound familiar?
    What if the one party control was for a place like Philadelphia?

  15. Speaking of things needing an audit and not getting one, a self-identified Proud Boy was arrested yesterday for burning a #BLM flag. In a different state from the one he was arrested in, I think.

    After a year of #BLM and #Antifa rioters beating up people (and shooting them to death too), stealing their American flags and burning them, I have yet to hear about a self-identified #BLM/#Antifa weenie being arrested and charged over a flag. It just doesn’t happen.

    Lest anyone think this is a uniquely American thing, I can tell you it’s not. Same exact thing happening down the road from me in Caledonia Ontario. Indian “demonstrators” vandalizing shit, beating people and burning stuff, zero arrests. White settlers (aka normal people) standing on the corner minding their own business, taking pictures of said “demonstrators” get arrested immediately. No crime committed, 100% legal to take pictures, no charges laid, but definitely arrested and tossed in the pisser for 48 hours.

    Just sayin’.

    Same topic, did y’all know that Canada uses Dominion voting machines? Yep. We do.

  16. Do you believe that the only way Biden could have won was through fraud? If an outside audit was performed and no evidence of widespread fraud was found would you accept the results of the election? If the answer is no you are no longer discussing politics, you are discussing religion.

    1. 1. I accepted Bill Clinton and Barack Obama wins as legitimate, because they won. Statistical anomalies existed (like during Obama v. Romney when Obama got multiple Philly precincts with Saddam Hussein level turn out and 100% ratios, which was hilarious) but those things weren’t statistically significant enough to change the results. So Obama won fairly. Great.
      2. I would be happy to have Joe Biden as president if independent certified auditors performed real in depth audits of the super anomalous vote dumps and their data showed that nope, it’s all good, and statistical miracles simply fell like rain upon Joe Biden late on election night.
      3. However, they haven’t performed any real audits… Gee whiz… I wonder why?
      4. I asked a bunch of forensic accountants, auditors, fraud investigators, and data analysts if they’d ever in their careers seen a case throw this many red flags where it turned out to not be fraud? And the answer was an overwhelming no.
      5. And yet… still no real audits happened. And in fact, the media treats anyone asking for an audit as an insane conspiracy theorist… Even though many of us did this for a living, some of us for the government. They can’t even entertain the IDEA of having real audits and have done everything in their power to disparage and shame those who want real scrutiny applied. In fact we need to be ritually shamed into silence for questioning democrats who are without sin.
      5. So who is the religious ones now? 😀

      1. If the evidence showed widespread fraud I too will acknowledge that Trump won. I never said I wouldn’t. But even if a full audit like you want were started today Trump’s would still stop being president at noon on the 20th and Nancy Pelosi would be acting president. If the results were shown to fraudulent later he could still be sworn in, but that wouldn’t help him now.

        1. Irrelevant.
          The side that benefited from all the flags has been declaring that it’s too late now since a few days after the election.
          The audits should been launched as soon as all the red flags were detected back during the beginning of November, which is more than enough time to see if fraud happened and if it was statistically significant.
          Hence, the double standards, because they (every government agency) would’ve done it to us (the people)
          Which means that I now get to listen to a bunch of whining excuse makers go LOL MAGA COPE (which is especially ironic since I’m not really a Trump fan) because they are happy to see half of the country lose all faith in the electoral process, because they’re short sighted idiots who don’t grasp the long term consequences of having a country with a two tiered justice system and a populace who believes their vote will never matter again.
          Also note, the same dishonest assholes have been yelling “too late now” since early November, so that’s obviously a bullshit excuse.

          So let’s go ahead an launch audits now anyway. If there’s nothing to hide, great. Prove it. Biden will still be president regardless, but at least then we’d know if and how much the election was rigged.

          Your rebuttal is extra sad, considering that it was Too Late Now the entire time we had Russian Collusion investigations (based on 1/1000th of the evidence) and four years of hash tag not my president. 😀 So spare my your bullshit.

          1. And an audit is not a trial. We don’t need big name lawyers and politicians grandstanding on TV for this. We do need a bunch of reputable, honest audit firms with an understanding of legal chain of custody (so we need lawyers, honest ones) so that if they do find fraud, THEN it can be legally admissible evidence.

          2. Yep.
            Everywhere else in the world it goes-

            This time it went
            Fuck You 😀

          3. (so we need lawyers, honest ones)

            Nice idea, but both of the honest lawyers retired a while back, and I think one of them is dead now.

            Kidding aside, none of that will work unless you can subpoena the necessary records to perform an audit, and the chance of any court granting such a subpoena is zero.

      2. So, Larry, when can we expect your announcement that you are going to challenge the Mitt in the Senate primary so you can go to DC and start fixing this stuff? I am in Texas, but grew up in Chicago so I know I could still cast a ballot for you in Utah from here!!!!

          1. LOL. So was The Donald, and he still got elected. (Although it took him several attempts to get it right.)

      3. I speak for no one else, of course, but I would not be happy to have China Joe as President regardless of the circumstances. He is a traitor and a tool of hostile foreign interests. He is corrupt. And he has such severe Alzheimer’s that he is barely capable of stringing three words together. This is not someone into whose hands I want to see the nuclear launch codes placed, even if he weren’t the public face of the Sex-Change-Operations-For-Six-Year-Olds Party.

    2. Peter, I know you were asking Larry but I’ll answer, too.

      On election night we watched the returns, everyone on the edge of their seats, right? We all knew that in person voting would likely favor Trump and mail in voting would favor Biden. So we watched the returns. We listened when the newsies explained that they wouldn’t call a state for Trump because mail in was expected to favor Biden. We watched as the mail in votes were counted and the relatively nice smooth curve creeped up and the totals became closer and closer. I would be so close and we just hoped that they ran out of mail in votes before Biden overtook Trump’s huge in-person vote lead.

      And then weird stuff happened to those smooth curves but only in certain places where the vote was close. There were big jumps, weird spikes. One of them turned out to be a reporting county accidentally adding a zero but none of the rest were explained or corrected. It went wonky.

      Had we watched the curve as mail in votes were counted and Biden ended up catching up before they ran out of votes, YES, we would have accepted it.

      If, after the fact, someone could point to other states, ones that were clearly going to Biden or clearly going to Trump, states with no weirdness or reports of shenanigans, and the mail-in vote counts did the same thing? That would have gone a long way. A long way. Even if it would still need to be explained.

  17. Great way to clean up voter fraud. Last 10% of counties to report their numbers get an immediate detailed outside audit starting as soon as 90% of the counties have reported final results. SOB’s in suites ready to pounce while they are still counting.
    Sigh. I can always dream.

  18. the primary problem is this: the election laws dont require an audit. the rules require you to contest the elections through the courts. those are just the rules that were agreed to beforehand. complaining that there is no audit is like complaining that the rules are wrong. fine if you are interested in having a conversation, but otherwise meaningless.

    this is just like some other situations where the rules agreed to beforehand are followed. oh, like, say, i dont know, Obama not getting to appoint a Supreme Court Justice, even though he was President, and still had 8 months in his term, becauase the rules say the Senate has to confirm, and they didnt.

    rules are sticky things.

    oh, i know, bring on the deluge about the election rules not being followed here. but thats just it, the rules provide for a mechanism to tell if the rules are followed: the courts.

    thats just the rules. good for the goose, good for the gander.

    1. Partly true. Which then begs the question why are the rules set up in such a recursive ass backwards manner that redress is basically impossible?
      The answer, is that republicans are generally chickenshits who get walked all over.
      However, it is within the power of the states to have real audits of their systems. Them failing to do so is a valid concern, which brings us back around to our incredibly goofy double standard and two tiered justice system.

      1. I don’t think Republicans actually want to be in control of Government. Much better to sit in the back of the room, talk all sorts of shit about what they’d do if they were in power, then collect campaign donations from us poor deluded fools that hope for once they aren’t full of crap.

        1. I think at least three quarters of Republican office-holders are controlled opposition, because they behave like controlled opposition.

          Every time the Democrats hold both houses of Congress and the Presidency, they go for broke and ram through all their harebrained dream programs.

          Every time the Republicans hold both houses of Congress and the Presidency, they twiddle their thumbs and make excuses about why their hands are tied and they can’t really do anything at all for the people who elected them, but pls do donate to our re-election campaign funds, we accept cash, check, money orders, gold coins, and credit cards, yada yada yada.

          I don’t claim to know how it works. One conspiracy theory claims that some of them are idealists but they are being blackmailed by sinister forces unspecified. Another says that almost all of them are hard-core Leftists themselves and pretending to disagree with Democrats is just kayfabe for the rubes in the cheap seats. I don’t claim to know. But I see the pattern.

          Once in a generation we have been fortunate enough to see a Republican outsider come along, a charismatic populist who is wildly popular with the people but openly hated by elected Republican officials. He tries to rouse them off their lazy worthless blubbery asses and do something for the people who elected them. They fight him far harder than they ever fought the Democrats. It happened to Reagan. It happened to Trump. I don’t think we’ll see another in my lifetime. For that matter, I think we’ll all be exceedingly lucky not to see another civil war, very soon now.

          1. You forget the conspiracy theory that what you have is a joint establishment that plays kabuki theatre with the true wants of the right and left, while giving the base of both parties shiny distractions and emphasis on othering to keep them from joining up against the establishment / megacorp center that loots the treasury.

            “You didn’t get your Wall, but you got judges and tax breaks!” “You don’t get your end to foreign wars but you’ll get gay marriage and a hope of student loan forgiveness!”

            ‘What, both the Tea Party and the Occupy crowd hate the bank bailout? Quick, make sure to demonize each group to the other so they don’t join together long enough to accomplish anything about it!’

      2. Elections should be audited *constantly*. Someone convicted of electoral fraud within an area? Automatic audits every election for ten years for everywhere the fraud impacted. Results with significantly unusual numbers? Audit. Lost evidentiary trail? Audit (and a presumption of criminal charges for at least malfeasance). Otherwise normal? Audit a set percentage every election on top of all the above.

      3. I think some of those rules put in over the past 35 years was because of that horrible court agreement they had where the GOP was forbidden to bring any charges of election fraud.

    2. Yeah, but it’s come to the attention of 90% of the GOP, and even 30% of the Dems, that those “rules” were never made in good faith, were never intended to actually work, and aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on.

      My job is to work with my neighbor, a State Rep, over the next couple of years, and fix the election system in NH, to make fraud hard, and auditing and chain of custody easy and reliable. If that means disenfranchising the criminal, the lazy, and the illegal, then good. I’ll gladly point them out publicly and show why they’re wrong.

  19. We. Are. Done… The US as we knew it is gone. Now the question is, what will replace it? All of the documentation/videos/etc. isn’t enough to motivate the right people to actually audit any of this crap. There is only one box left to open.

    1. Was listening to Jones on InfoWars tonight. He and Roger Stone don’t think the U.S. is unrecoverable yet.

  20. The main problem is that you have no plausible narrative. Could you please describe or link to a description of how election fraud on such a massive scale (ranging from 10s to 100s of thousands of votes) could have been accomplished that would stand up to hand recounts (so not due to compromised software) and that wouldn’t require the complicity of thousands of people, many of whom are republicans and all of whom have kept it a secret. I promise I’ll give it a read.

    1. Lol. 😀
      Are you fucking kidding me?
      “Hi. I’m some anonymous rando on the internet. Even though there has been hundreds of articles and posts written on this complex topic by subject matter experts, including several by you, that I’ve not bothered to read for myself over the last two months, I’m sure you have nothing better to do than write a thesis (complete with annotated bibliography!) to educate me here in your blog comments. Now I’m going to say a few things that indicate I know almost nothing about this subject at all. Everything I just wrote about the scale neccesary and how fraud works in real life is totally wrong, however I promise that I’m totally honest and will read the several thousand words you need to write to educate me about Fraud Auditing 101 in good faith.”

      Holy shit, you might as well have told me you are a Nigerian barrister who needs to move a million dollars. Are people actually that gullible?

      1. So what you’re saying here is that it’s perfectly acceptable for you to ask people to do all sorts of research about your assertions, but when their assertions require research it’s an attempt to confuse the issue.

        1. Nope. It’s simply a matter of logistics and time.
          I, by myself, write a post. I make assertions.
          Then thousands of people read my post.
          They are free to research my assertions if they want. They are free to disagree.
          However, they came to me. I did not go to them.
          If I stop whatever I am doing to thoroughly research every challenge and demand made of me by the never ending parade of anonymous internet randos, it would be a full time job.
          Ergo, that’s impossible.
          Plus, I simply don’t give a shit about your opinions most of the time. 🙂

    2. In the extremely small off chance that you aren’t merely a sea lion, look up Peter Navarro’s report. Just the summary is 36 pages long and has 150 foot notes. That’s a good place to START.
      In there, there’s several different types of fraud possibly in play.
      All your stuff about complicity is totally wrong.
      I could pull off most of the anomalies with 3-5 people colluding, and 1 or 2 levels of control access.
      In finance, people routinely pull off fraud in systems with triple that level of controls.
      Also, for most of the likely types of fraud which could explain the statistical anomalies, a hand recount is utterly meaningless and would do nothing to confirm the data. Period.
      If bad data is mixed in with good data, a recount merely recounts the bad data again.
      That’s the ultra short version.
      You want the long version, my teaching rate starts at $500 an hour.

      1. And even that brief explanation was a waste. I just saw J. Rando Fakename’s other post. Total sea lion.
        Update your scripts, losers. You’re boring me.

      2. Larry, people can pull off financial fraud with small numbers of people because it can be done without actually altering anything other than electronic records. The reason I mentioned hand recounts is it removes the possibility of purely electronic voter fraud. You and your merry band have to obtain 10s of thousands of paper ballots that will be accepted as legitimate, either by suborning the printing process or by making fake absentee ballot requests and then intercepting the ballots. You have to fill them out and submit them in the names of 10s of thousands of actual voters who are either already registered in your county or who can be registered to vote in your county without raising any red flags. If even half of those voters try to vote themselves there will be 100s of thousands of reports of people being told they can’t vote, which will be concentrated in the counties where the fraud happened. (Instead what we’ve seen are a few hundred accounts from a wide areas, many of them in non-battleground states). In some states, you have to either forge signatures or subvert the signature verification process. Then, of course, you have to deliver them into the counting centers and make sure they’re counted. And this is one county, to change the election you need multiple counties across multiple states so either you need many other groups working independently or a big conspiracy. Here we run into another problem because if this is being done by independent groups who all manage to work efficiently but without interfering with each other, or you need a big conspiracy coordinating groups all over the country. All of this has to be done under the noses of election observers and in a way that leaves insufficient evidence to convince even one judge of fraud. The sheer amount of leg-work that this would require far exceeds what 2-3 people could do even if they were working on it full time. Not to mention that this means that either

        Also, neither of Navarro’s reports provide a narrative. The first lists “irregularities” but provides no rational explanation for how recount-proof fraud took place and avoided leaving glaringly obvious evidence. He never says specifically how it could have been done because neither he, you or anyone I’ve seen can actually provide an explanation for how this could have happened that would have worked and fits the facts. All you do is make vague, disjointed claims because you know that anything more substantial would be easily shot down. But maybe I’m doing you an injustice, maybe you actually have a thorough understanding of the voting system and how it’s safeguards could be so easily circumvented on a massive scale. If so, then I’d love to hear it.

        1. There is no need to guess or speculate. Audits will show what happened. Bring them on!

          Why do you oppose audits?

        2. You’ve hit the nail on the head. All these so called red flags are just things that denizens of the Internet fever swaps of the Internet don’t understand. When you don’t know much, there are many things you don’t understand. So they seem like a lot of evidence – until you actually look at the details.

          The Trump campaign lawsuits have largely been dismissed because they haven’t shown any plausible evidence of fraud. If they had survived summary judgement, they could have performed discovery and continued their investigation.

          I just grabbed Navarro’s second report. It’s just a bunch of conspiracy theory nonsense that tries to cast COVID related changes to how elections were run as some kind of Democratic conspiracy. The report even admits that most of the things it describes were legal.

          I spot checked two of the claims about illegal conduct from the second Navarro report and both cite the first report which in turn cites allegations in lawsuits that were dismissed. The first claim was that 15,000 voters in Nevada had voted in other states. That’s footnote 63 in the second report cite, footnote 32 in the first report, which in turn cites Texas vs Four states Trump lost.

          The second claim was that drop boxes violate Wisconsin state law. This is footnote 72, footnote 57 in the first, ultimately citing Lee v. Whitmer.

          So it’s all smoke and mirrors leading back to the court cases that the Trump campaign keeps losing and Larry keeps refusing to discuss in detail.

          Also insiders have investigated the claims of fraud. If you listen to the call between Trump and the Republican Secretary of State in Georgia, Raffensperger explains how Trump’s claims have been investigated and were all unfounded. This just leads to threats from Trump and ad hominem attacks from Larry against Raffensperger.

          1. So… Your “random” spot check of all those pages of summary just happens to be the same few items that other people argued against which you totally found on your own and not through a google search? 😀
            Yes. You are profoundly honest. I was so wrong about you.

          2. > Your “random” spot check of all those pages of summary just happens to be the same few items that other people argued against which you totally found on your own and not through a google search?

            Umm, ok question my honesty again instead of addressing the substance of my argument. No skin off my back. I googled nothing about the report, I just found it and started reading. Have that many other people pointed out problems with the report? If other people have found the same issues, it might be because there aren’t that many things the report 1) claims are illegal and 2) gives a citation.

            So, let me find something else wrong with the report. I’ll start at the end and go backwards until I find the first specific claim that something is illegal with a footnote. Looks like that’s page 21 – Trump campaign complained the SoS illegally established drop boxes, footnote 76. That footnote references Trump v Boockvar. The claim about drop boxes isn’t addressed in the Court’s opinion. It looks like it was included in the original complaint but dropped in the amended complaint. Boockvar’s memo in support of the motion to dismiss mentions that the drop box claim was previously litigated elsewhere.

            I guess Trump didn’t think the claim was worth pursing after they already lost in another suit. In any case, that report is smoke, mirrors, and unproven accusations all the way down.

          3. I know this has been a long time, but for proof of why it is that we distrust anything coming from the Georgia Secretary of State: update here from the evil call from Trump that many claimed was obstruction, In other words, the GA SOS office sent false information to the national media, which was actually used in the second impeachment trial. The actual recording was found as part of an open records search apparently in a laptop trash folder.
            This means that we must trust the fraud investigation run by someone who fraudulently provided “evidence” used in an impeachment trial? If a police investigator had done something like this, every case they had ever worked would be subject to a reinvestigation with who knows how many convictions overturned. Obviously, the election isn’t going to be changed now / shouldn’t be changed. However, this means very clearly that the GA SOS cannot be trusted to have performed a real audit of the issues presented. Remember, the initial person with the conversation who lied was the “chief investigator” for the GA SOS. This means either the investigator is willing to lie to the leadership of the office of the SOS, seeing her lies used as “evidence” in an impeachment trial, or the leadership of the office of the SOS is willing to lie on her behalf.

        3. BARK BARK went the sea lion.
          I don’t think you understand how most financial fraud works, and your education comes from watching TV where hackers in a dark room type dramatically. 😀 (on the contrary, the easiest kind of financial fraud involves paper)

          Of course the Navarro report isn’t about details. It’s a summary. Fucking duh. How dense are you? Don’t answer. Rhetorical question.

          So now let’s take a look at you spiking the Dunning-Kruger graph trying to play Deboonker.

          Here is the problem with your idiotic rebuttal. We see the end result. It’s fucky. As to how it got fucky, there’s a wide variety of paths that could be taken to get to that destination. Of course, since every one is different, and the strategies vary upon who is colluding, and NONE OF THEM CAN BE PROVEN WITHOUT AUDITS (which again, is the entire fucking point of the post you dopes keep being deliberately obtuse about) it is impossible to say which way was taken or which safeguard was circumvented. So then it’s a catch 22, because dishonest shitheads like you go up and bark gIvE mE dEtaIlS except that’s impossible without actual investigations.

          To dumb it down for you. We’ve got about two gallons of human blood on the floor, so we assume there’s been a murder, but you demand to know what the murder weapon was, only we’re not allowed to investigate.

          As for how, lots of ways.
          Most fraud involves collusion to circumvent controls.
          So your method is dependent upon which controls you have someone on your side colluding with.
          That explains the vast majority of fraud that happens literally everywhere else, so let’s assume elections are the same.
          You guys say 10s of thousands of ballots like it is some massive number. In reality, that’s a few boxes on a handtruck.
          Mail in ballots have the fewest controls, so that’s the easiest to work with.
          You talk about massive conspiracies, except if you’ve got one or two volunteers at the counting center, they wheel those inside and hide them until they are needed.
          Then you simply process them as needed. Like after you “stop the count” and there’s no observers you bust those out and run them.
          And if there isn’t a recount in that specific area, you can even run them through the machines multiple times.
          That’s putting votes in. It is even easier to take votes for the other guy out. You just throw those away.
          And if there is a recount (and you’ve got collusion) you’ve got plenty of time to fabricate extras to make up for the gap.
          For all your stuff about how each of these ballots is matched to an actual living legally registered human being, nope. Because once the ballots are separated from the envelope there is no way to prove which ballots are real and which are not.
          And how do you tell all the mail in envelopes are real? (hint,audits)
          You guys act like it is so impossible to get these extra mail in ballots in there. Except all that takes is the internet and a little bit of effort. Hence all the people who moved, yet still voted. Or imaginary people. Or married names, who voted with maiden names. My buddy who hasn’t lived in Colorado for ten years discovered that he turned in a mail in ballot in Colorado. We did an experiment with this after I got Deboonked by Reuters about how hard it is to come up with available identities to register for mail in ballots, and an information security guy got several hundred for $20 on a shady part of the internet in less than an hour. We live in a country where identity theft is a huge business, with data breaches involving the personal data of tens of millions of people happening every year… but the idea that a motivated person could gather some of these to commit election fraud eludes guys like you for some baffling reason.
          How do we check to see if these people are real and legit? AUDITS.
          (this is why dishonest people love mail in ballots)
          You keep coming back to big conspiracies, and how this would require lots of people working together across state lines. Nope. Look up stand alone complex.
          For the last 4 years people have been told nonstop that Trump is Literally Hitler who is going to kill them all with his evil and stopping him is the most important thing ever.
          So then when presented with the opportunity, we should be shocked that people cheated?
          And this cheating primarily happened in cities already known for blue machine politics and corruption? Where collusion would be the norm, and they know that they will face no consequences? (to the point that they brag about it on Twitter right after the election and then lawyer up and say they were just talking metaphorically when that goes viral?)
          Why would it take an interconnected conspiracy to have places like Philly and Detroit just do what they’re normally known for?
          Your bit about election observers is already addressed, because the places in question ALL specifically had issues with blocking or removing observers.
          Hell, Atlanta they have 4 democrats on video processing ballots that were hidden under tables all day AFTER all the republicans were kicked out, and the DEboonking of that consists of the GA SoS saying that they investigated that video and found nothing wrong… Only they have never actually said what happened and they’ve not released any details of the investigation. They just said the system checked the system and the system said it is fine.
          You talk about sheer amount of leg work like this is so impossible. Not at all. This is a couple days prep and one night of work.
          You talk about the signature verification process, only that ignores A. the possibility of collusion among the processor. B. the fact that they massively weakened that in these same places due to Covid, so that we had rejection rates which were absurdly small when compared to regular years.
          So how did all the blood get on the floor? Was it a knife? A gun? I don’t know. We’d have to actually investigate. But you’re over here insisting that the only way that blood could have gotten there is if the guy got eaten by Godzilla, and you don’t see Godzilla tracks.

          So there you go, you walking embodiment of the Brandollini Principle.

          1. > Hell, Atlanta they have 4 democrats on video processing ballots that were hidden under tables all day AFTER all the republicans were kicked out, and the DEboonking of that consists of the GA SoS saying that they investigated that video and found nothing wrong…

            It was investigated by the GA SoS, the GBI, the video was shared with Trump, and SoS went over it with local media and GA state legislators. But keep believing your conspiracy theories.

            Here’s more sources you will ignore:



          2. This comment: “You guys say 10s of thousands of ballots like it is some massive number. In reality, that’s a few boxes on a handtruck” got me doing a bit of back-of-the-napkin math…

            Figure a ream of printer paper is 500 sheets, lets say ballots are thicker paper, so lets say in an equivalent volume, we get 400 ballots. You get 10 reams in a box, so we’re now at 4000 ballots in a box one person can easily carry.

            Now load up your hand cart.

            If you’ve got it set up with just two wheels on the ground, you’re moving probably 5-6 boxes of 4000 ballots each. 20000-24000 ballots being moved easily by ONE person. Flip the hand cart down so it’s got four wheels on the ground?

            You can easily load 9 boxes on that cart and now one person is moving 36000 ballots in one go.

            So yeah, “ooo 10s of thousands of ballots!” just got moved by one person.

          3. Yep…
            Disingenuous people always try to frame this stuff like it’s so crazy impossible in various ways.

          4. And the ILOH doesn’t need my help but the person who embedded with Antifa last summer (google it) has proven that it’s really damn simple to give low level useful idiots a task or tasks at a cellular level and you end up with macro results. (Also google guerrilla warfare communist style) So if a bunch of lefttards are told to run blank ballots through machines, alter ballots, forge signatures, ad naseum and that they get the joy of sticking it to Orangeman. Boom useful idiot foot soldiers, easily repudiated if needed.

      3. Like Larry said, a hand recount would only be a check against what the computer was counting. If the hand could showed 100 ballots submitted, 55 for Trump, 44 for Biden, and 1 write-in, then the voting machine should display exactly the same, and it’s output to the next level of consolidation would have the exact same numbers.

        Of course then we have the issue of what happens at those consolidation points when a local district has unfavorable numbers for the candidate they want; but that’s past the hand count point. And it’s already been proven that those can be hacked easily.

        1. AND, unless proper controls are in place and functioning, a hand recount is worthless for verifying past machine counts based on matching PRESENT machine counts. We already know that there are assorted conditional switches in the software that allow diddling the count.

          Are all the diddle switches set the same during the verification spot check as they were during the actual count? Is there even any record of that? Have all combinations of diddle switches been tested to determine if any of them give the same results as the past results?

  21. Thank you Larry for an excellent column. The one point I’d like to make is that the reason we have no election integrity is because politicians like it this way. I don’t see how it could be otherwise. Every single evaluation of electronic voting systems done by respected security experts in the IT industry and academia over nearly two decades has shown the systems (hardware and software, especially the software) were shoddily designed and implemented. The manufacturers essentially went out of their way to do a shitty job and claimed security through obscurity (in most cases, refusing to let researchers have access to software source files and current generation hardware). Congress has allocated hundreds of millions of dollars for election security upgrades and that money clearly did not produce systems that were free of known security holes and designed-in opportunities for mischief.
    Net: local politicians, Congress, local election officials, state governments, and manufacturers are all perfectly content with the status quo. None of the election integrity issues are conceptually difficult to fix – they just require the will to do so and that clearly is not present.

  22. Once upon a time there was a bank. It was a minor branch of a huge National Bank. For years there were rumors of ‘irregularities’ at that bank, but they were never investigated. Recently, though, several bank employees have told investigators that they have personally witnessed some of the ‘irregularities’. In particular, the bank consistently reports that it has $15 million in cash reserves on hand. That’s a lot for a small branch bank, and has raised suspicions, but now the employees say there is no more than a few hundred thousand dollars. Most of the money is missing.

    The Bank’s Managers perform an audit, and report that all their paperwork is in order and there are no ‘irregularities’ at all, no sir, none.

    A Bank Examiner stops by to check on things. Sure enough, all the paperwork checks out, in detail. Everything is great — until he asks to count the money in the vault. Instantly, a stone wall is slammed in his face. They won’t open the vault. They show their paperwork, over and over, but the vault stays locked up tight.

    The Bank Examiner files for a court order to get access, but it is denied. “You have no evidence that the $15 million is not in the vault. Go away!” The local newspaper reports the story, calling the Bank Examiner’s suspicions a ridiculous Conspiracy Theory.

    It turns out that judge received large campaign contributions from the bank’s Wall Street headquarters. The newspaper gets a lot of advertising money from them, as well. Everybody dismisses that as just a coincidence.

    Employees from other branches of the same bank contact the Bank Examiner and tell him their branches also report large amounts of cash on hand, which is likewise missing. If one tenth of their reports are true, something much bigger is going on, a conspiracy involving hundreds of millions of dollars at the very least. The Bank Examiner goes to court and is turned away, again and again, because ‘there is no evidence’.

    What is the poor Bank Examiner to do? The courts demand evidence, but all the evidence is IN THE FUCKING BANK VAULTS!! Which is why he’s going to court! The only way to find out the truth is to COUNT THE FUCKING MONEY!! — which is the one thing they won’t let him do!

    So, if the bank is honest, and all that money is innocently sitting there right where it’s supposed to be, WHY THE FUCK WON’T THEY LET HIM COUNT IT?! If they’ve got nothing to hide, WHY are they so desperate to hide it?
    This little allegory should help all but those too fucking stupid to be trained to tie their own shoes see what is going on. Our election examiners must have access to the ballots, the records, and the machines used to count the votes. That’s where the evidence is. That is what the Democrats are refusing to provide. They are playing “You Don’t Have Evidence!” in four-part harmony, while hiding the evidence.

    If they’ve got nothing to hide, WHY are they so desperate to hide it?

  23. Well said.

    What do you mean my comment was to short? Brevity is supposedly the soul of wit. I have nothing else to say, frigging word counting algorithm! I enjoyed the article and wished to compliment it! Is this too much to ask???

    1. It also typically requires more words to lie/gaslight. Plus, outside of our host’s books and posts? Most people’s walls of text aren’t all that interesting.

      Nothing like reading someone trying to make a point while they circle around the mountain, ride the rapids, climb a tree, and chase a couple squirrels.

  24. For everyone having a hard time with the audit concept, consider your local corporate chain restaurant’s relationship with the health department.

    Assuming your chain is sane, it sends out teams from the regional director and the state director, and from some third party, to check the cleanliness of your restaurant. Why? Because they do not want the county or city health department to find anything bad when _they_ come to the restaurant.

    If the corporate health teams, or the third party health teams, find anything, the restaurant staff is in trouble and the manager is in trouble. But if the county finds anything bad, the restaurant will be fined or shut down, and the list of bad things found will be printed/posted in the local news sources. The only way you can avoid the health department checking your restaurant is to close the restaurant permanently. Locking the inspectors out is not an option.

    1. Exactly right.
      I used to be a nursing home administrator, and we are subject to annual surveys by the State (an audit!).
      Several times a year the corporate level sends out individuals who conduct mock surveys, then any problems can be fixed, just so the State Surveyors with the red pen and big monetary penalties (and marketing downsides) don’t find major issues.
      And, God forbid, if the State hits you with a big deficiency- pack up your desk Mr Administrator.

  25. this is awesome.

    side one: AUDIT, AUDIT, AUDIT!

    side two: there is largely no actual evidence of fraud, and when there has been it has been considered and rejected by courts.

    side one: insults, and then for good measure, AUDIT, AUDIT, AUDIT again.

    love it.

    1. The thing is, virtually NONE of the evidence has actually been considered by the courts. They have simply refused to hear the cases on procedural grounds.

      The evidence actually exists – in mountains – publicly accessible. There is at least one site that does nothing but aggregate links to official court documents and affidavits that are viewable by the public. But suuuure, no evidence at all.

      But hey, you do you. The next honest election you clowns in the U.S. have will be the first.

      1. not true. you clearly have not been following the court cases closely. several have consdiered and rejected the evidence as insufficient.

        1. The most significant cases in the battleground states have all been rejected on procedural grounds. Most of the evidence has never been placed before a court.

          Try not telling me what I haven’t read. You‘re absolutely useless as a mind-reader.

          1. oh please. the most significant cases? try the most pipe dream cases. the Texas case? a laugher. most legal experts could tell there was no standing in that case as soon as it was filed. probably Trumps lawyers knew there was no standing too, but they filed it anyway, just for the publicity. most of the other cases are like that too.

            the bottom line on the procedural decisions isnt as rosy for your side as you think it is. standing is not an optional consideration. its part of how our legal system works. and its not actaully that hard to file a case in the right way to get standing usually. so the fact that Trump has screwed up so many filings on procedural issues is just his own fault. its not something to hold up as a virtue.

          2. In the first place, I don’t have a side; I’m Canadian. But you stupid fuckers have just allowed fraud to decide an election in favour of the side that openly wants to shut down free speech and free assembly, and there goes my #1 market – and also the home country of the platform that allows me to get my work to my customers.

            In the second place, THERE IS NO WAY TO GET STANDING. Nobody has it. Nobody will ever have it. The way the courts have ruled, they are simply at liberty to reject any and all challenges brought against election results. No fraud CAN be prosecuted, because the courts will NEVER hear the cases. If you sue before the election, too bad, stupid, you can’t prove harm; no standing. If you sue after, too bad, stupid, that’s laches and you should have sued earlier; no standing.

            Relax, asshole. You’ve won – forever – or until people start voting with bullets, which cannot be forged or disputed.

    2. Well of course you love it. You are demonstrably a piece of shit. 😀
      Side 1’s response to your obvious nonsense: Why not have audits? Everything else in the world gets audited.
      Side 2: tHeRe iS nO pRoOf!!!!
      Side 1: Well cool, I disagree. Let’s have an actual real investigation by real professional certified 3rd party investigators and prove that.
      Side 2: NO! I like how the courts have already rejected the things I don’t like!
      Side 1: But we’ve already repeatedly established you can’t prove fraud in court based upon outside conjecture only looking at the limited data made available to the public. To prove fraud requires actual investigations.

      Gee whiz. I can’t imagine why after a couple months of this I skip right to insults.

      1. > But we’ve already repeatedly established you can’t prove fraud in court based upon outside conjecture only looking at the limited data made available to the public. To prove fraud requires actual investigations.

        You obviously don’t know the difference between “you can’t prove fraud” and “you haven’t proven fraud”. Why are you afraid to discuss the details of the court cases?

        Actual investigations (by Republicans) have been done and didn’t find any evidence:

        1. GA SoS investigated claims of fraud and found nothing.
        2. AG Barr has said that the DoJ investigated claims of fraud and found nothing.

        More investigations that could be done:

        1. Election fraud is a crime. Any prosecutor could issue subpoenas to get more data. They would likely be quashed by the courts, but they can take a swing and miss.
        2. You don’t need to prove fraud in court to be able to investigate. If sufficient evidence was present to survive a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff could conduct discovery.

        1. I’ve already repeatedly explained why, you dipstick. But you can go ahead and keep banging that drum if you feel like.

          Your massive list of TWO WHOLE investigations that didn’t find any evidence is kind of awesome, considering that-
          1. the GA SOS is the guy I’ve been talking about with the whole “the system checked the system and the system found nothing wrong”. I’ve repeatedly talked about how his weak sauce spot check of the wrong county was meaningless. The GA SoS is probably the best example in the world of a guy who totally fucked up at his job who is now engaging in CYA. The 4 democrats on video processing ballots they pulled out from under a table after the “pipe broke” and all the republicans left ON VIDEO got dismissed by him as “we checked and nothing was wrong,” except he’s never offered an explanation or said what that “investigation” discovered (this was even in the Trump phone call last week) AND this is the same doofus the state legislature finally ordered him last Wednesday to signature audit the county that actually had the flags.

          2. Barr? Snort. You would have been better off citing the CISA guy who declared this was the securest election ever (while simultaneously allowing the largest data breach to ever happen in all of human history). The DoJ was ordered to go investigate, and then Barr didn’t do shit. He stonewalled. He didn’t rock the boat. He killed time until it was too late, then he announced his resignation. By the DoJ “investigating claims” what audits did they perform? What did they investigate? What did they actually do? Because according to a bunch of senators, the DoJ didn’t actually investigate anything.


          Next part, election fraud is a crime. You are correct. We could maybe… I don’t know… audit the results?

        2. I’m going to block your IP now though, because I’ve wasted far too much time talking to your dumb ass, you are too stupid to take the hint and shut up. Plus traffic has tapered off, so less audience.

        3. All these statistical red flags that supposedly justify an audit. Have they even been put in front of a single court? The closest I’ve seen is the Texas lawsuit where they alleged the odds of Biden winning were a quadrillion to one.

          I haven’t read all 40+ lawsuits (that’s your gish gallop right there), but I haven’t seen your red flags raised. If that’s the case then even Trump’s crazy Qanon lawyers won’t put their names on such BS. That itself speaks volumes.

          1. If there’s no proof of bad stuff happening at the restaurant, all the various inspection teams still drop by. And so does the regional manager, and the state manager, and the store manager, and maybe even the president or vice president of the whole corporation. And the customers are watching, too.

            And if one of the craziest customers gets a wild hair up their butt, and reports that they’ve seen alien slime UFOs in the fry basket, the county health department, is going to check over that restaurant with a fine tooth comb, just to see if there’s something wrong that wasn’t spotted by anybody else but the crazy lady.

            But elections are different. You can totally trust the people running them, just because they say so.

  26. There is a figure of speech perfectly suited to describe this situation: “The fox is guarding the henhouse.”

    1. I prefer ‘Dracula is in charge of the blood bank’ 😛
      “Good-bye, Citizen Secretary.”

  27. Here’s the thing, Mr. Correia:


    No, I mean it. There are laws on the books against it, but they are mere window-dressing because they cannot and will not be enforced. Here’s a quick summary of the court cases to date:

    1. If you sued before the election, you have no standing to sue because you cannot prove that any damage has been done.

    2. If you sued after the election, you have no standing to sue because it is too late and you should have sued earlier.

    3. Since nobody ever has standing to sue, the only people allowed to enforce the law are those in charge of breaking it.

    From now on, if Governor J. Stalin of the People’s Republic of North Utopia so chooses, he can send out ballots to every living thing in his state, with only one candidate listed, and that name already marked in indelible ink. (This is what they actually used to do in the U.S.S.R., except that they did actually require you to go through the sham of showing up to vote in person, so they would know whom to shoot afterwards.) Then he can choose for himself which of those ballots to bother counting.

    This will be perfectly legal, because nobody has standing to bring a lawsuit claiming otherwise. It won’t even matter if Governor Stalin somehow fails to keep his own party in control of the state legislature, because precedent has now been set permitting the executive branch in a state to override the law as written by the legislature.

    Congratulations on your new banana republic, folks. All nice and legal, yessir. And all completely fraudulent. Your votes are nothing but window-dressing, and the only ones claiming otherwise are the fools who think they can put themselves on the winning side by licking the boots of their masters. The one consolation is that their votes don’t mean anything either.

      1. I know exactly what standing is. And I am going by actual reasons given by the actual courts to rule that plaintiffs did not have standing.

        If you can’t sue before the election because no harm has occurred, and can’t sue after because laches, then when, pray tell, can you sue? Never, that’s when. Every case can be thrown out on purely procedural grounds and the evidence need never be heard – which is precisely what your masters want.

        1. im sorry you find it so hard to understand how to get standing. but the fact of the matter is, it is a requirement for any case in the US. not just election related cases.

          so, the idea that you are somehow trying to making standing the boogey man for Trumps legal failures is pretty funny. because you are basically saying the nuts and bolts of how the US legal system works is the reason why Trump cant prevail. which is, as i said, pretty darn funny.

        2. Don’t waste your time trying to educate the troll, unless you are able to stand over it with a 2×4 and pound the lessons in.

          Even then, your arm will get tired long before the troll learns anything. It’s not worth the effort.

          It’s just trying to divert us from the real issue — that all investigation of the facts is being blocked — by blathering on and on about specific methods being employed to do the blocking.

          You have explained your position in a way that intelligent people can understand. That is enough.
          Dark Willow: “Bored now.”

        3. im sorry you find it so hard to understand how to get standing.

          I don’t find it hard at all. The courts have ruled that nobody ever has standing, period. The law will never be enforced, because the courts will not hear the cases. It couldn’t get much simpler than that.

          Once again: If you sue before the election, no matter who you are, you have no standing to sue because no harm has taken place. If you sue after the election, no matter who you are, you have no standing to sue because of laches.

          I grant you that a good many cases have been rejected on the grounds that the plaintiffs were not themselves the aggrieved parties. This is the normal meaning of ‘standing’ in civil suits, and not just in the U.S., thank you very much. But it has been explicitly ruled that NO ONE can ever have standing to sue in cases of electoral fraud, because it is always either too early or too late and the courts will not hear your case. Ever.

          This is all perfectly legal, but as I say, it is also perfectly fraudulent. Nothing prevents both those statements from being true at once. And I will never again care a plugged nickel who is set up as the alleged winner of any future U.S. election, because I know they will be rigged in advance. Only a complete idiot would believe that votes matter when electoral fraud cannot be overturned or punished by law.

          1. i see. you’re not actually trying to talk about standing. you are just using it as a joke. that’s fine. it just isnt that interesting talking to you then.

          2. > it has been explicitly ruled that NO ONE can ever have standing to sue in cases of electoral fraud, because it is always either too early or too late and the courts will not hear your case. Ever.

            [ Citation Needed ]

            Of course no citation will be provided, because this is a false statement.

            I’ve cited three cases that were dismissed on the merits. You (and Larry) have cited none.

            I’ll add a fourth – Lee v. Whitmer. This is one of the cases that Navarro cited. I didn’t even look at it before reading his citation.

            “Having reviewed the full evidentiary record submitted by Contestants and Defendants, and having considered, without limitation, all evidence submitted to the Court as well as the parties’ written and oral arguments, the Court makes the following findings of fact:”

            The court then goes on to recount over 20 pages of factual findings, among them a review of several other cases where these issues have been litigated and resolved in other cases, including a ten hour evidentiary hearing.

            The court also notes that the contestants (plaintiffs) missed the deadline to disclose witnesses, “much of Contestants’ evidence consists of non-deposition evidence” which “falls outside the scope of the contest statue”, “also constitute hearsay”, yet “The Court nonetheless considers the totality of the evidence provided by Contestants in reaching and ruling upon the merits of their claims”

            The final outcome?

            “[T]he Court concludes that Contestants’ claims fail on the merits under [a preponderance of the evidence standard, which is a lessor standard than the Court decided was appropriate] or under any other standard”

            So even considering evidence that was submitted late and is not allowed by the rules of the court, this lawsuit can’t even meet a lessor standard.

            That’s 4 lawsuits decided on the merits against Trump. I’ve heard that around 40 lawsuits were filed (it could be more now) so that’s a spot check of around 10%. Not a single one was rejected for lack of standing.

          3. Which changes literally nothing that I said yesterday about how fraud cases are normally processed.
            But you sure do like to Gish Gallop.

          4. Nemo, nobody gives a flying fuck about cases that were dismissed on the merits. Those covered a tiny percentage of the evidence available and did not cover the really big fuckery in the key swing states. Meanwhile, cases have been dismissed for lack of standing because of laches (filed after the election, therefore too late) or because of no proof of damage (filed before the election, therefore too early). These things are facts. And those cases have standing as precedent.

            No U.S. court need ever hear a case under the so-called electoral fraud laws again. They have only to cite whichever precedent applies, and dismiss the case without a hearing. Which is precisely what most of them are doing.

    1. Other people on the Internet have been saying it for a while. In the US we don’t have a justice system. We don’t have a legal system either. We have judges and lawyers playing a vast game of Calvinball. There are no rules, only the whims of unelected little tinpot kings in black robes. There are no laws, only power. There are no court proceedings, only kayfabe for the rubes in the cheap seats.

      People on the Right value custom and tradition, and are taught to revere the nation, which they identify with the system. They don’t want to believe, but since November a lot of eyes have gotten pried open and forced to stare at what’s happening. On the 6th across the country we got a taste of how they feel about what they saw. And I think it’s going to escalate.

  28. You forgot one:

    You can’t sue during the election, because. For, reasons. The Court is closed on Election Day?

    I now think this will not end with rage and curses.

    It will end with “Bored now.”

    Or, possibly, “Oops.”

  29. Just waiting for Larry to announce he is running for Mitt’s Utah senate seat to go to DC and try to start a clean up of this mess. I am in Texas, but will vote for him anyway!! (I grew up in Cook County-{Chicago} so I know how to do it. My parents voted Republican their whole life, as good Chicago south side Irish, but ever since they died they have voted Democrat in every election for the last 24 years!!

  30. Would you be as angry about the alleged fraud if were in the other direction? If Trump had won and there were just as many flags indicating fraud in counties where he won? If yes then more power to you. If not then go fuck yourself.

  31. Except, that isn’t, at all, how this works.

    First, there were audits. Plenty of them. You simply don’t like that the audits continue to agree with the original, correct, counts.

    Second, the entire basis of the American democracy is based on the idea that it is cyclical. The solution to losing a single election is NOT to throw a tantrum. You are supposed to work on winning the next election. That’s why the courts keep throwing this nonsense out, because it is, frankly, fundamentally un-American and antithetical to how our country functions as a democratic institution.

    1. A. already addressed the “audits” we got. They were weak sauce and half ass. Hot dog stands who don’t pay their quarterly withholdings get more scrutiny.
      B. The whole cyclical thing doesn’t work if a significant chunk of the populace comes to believe that their votes will never matter again because the other side cheats. That leads to chaos. If you want them to have faith in the system, you need to transparently demonstrate to them that the system still works and will still work in the future. Another reason to have real professional 3rd party audits in business is so that the investors have confidence. Currently, a whole bunch of investors in our system have lost confidence. So you guys should probably call them idiot traitors some more. I’m sure that’ll work out splendidly.

  32. I would just like to point out to Nemo, Bob and Jakub Narebski that there are MAGA demonstrators inside the Capitol building right now, demanding the fraud be reversed. There’s a friggin’ army of pissed-off Americans standing out front of the place ready to run in there and burn it to the ground, judging by the signs and the looks on their faces.

    When a faction corrupts elections, that has much worse consequences than merely a president that you don’t like. Consequences like what we are seeing today. Don’t say we didn’t tell you this was going to happen.

    1. You mean domestic terrorists trying change election results through the use of violence and threats of violence?

      1. Odd, I don’t remember you being angry at the Democrats in 2016, when they tried to change the election results through procedural manners, and then tried to storm the inauguration.

        I also don’t remember you being angry at the Democrats in 2018 when they stormed the Senate and tried to intimidate Senators into changing their votes during the Kavanaugh nomination.

        I don’t remember you being angry at the Democrats in 2020 when they decided to riot for months on end in Portland & Seattle.

        I don’t remember you being angry at the Democrats in 2020 when they made it clear that voting for Trump was an invitation to riot.

        So, rando, I don’t care for you at all.

    2. They did break in. Crushed past the barricades and smashed the glass doors.
      Apparently one of the cops fired a gun.
      Trump supposedly told them all that yes, the election was stolen, and then told everyone to go home.
      I hope when Congress gets back together and finishes counting and challenging certification that they do the right thing.

      But I’m not holding my breath.

    3. And interestingly enough, no fires, no rampant vandalism of local businesses, no looting, no arson, cops actually allowed many people past the barricades in the first place, cops were all around Ashli Babbitt when she was murdered, some state rep telling people NOT to vandalize things in the building. This wasn’t a riot with the mob charging the Bastille. This was a semi-aggressive sit-in. But the lying media and their Prog-Socs handlers are trying to inflate this into worse than any of the riots this summer, and a Trump-led coup attempt. And the social media sites are continually trying to scrub all the videos countering those claims of violence.

      We are so past 1984.

      1. Now the newsmedia is throwing everything they have against the wall to see if anything sticks.

        Oopsie, it’s already been retracted, but the original story is still in the URL. I’m a little surprised they didn’t double down with stock images of a funeral and make up a name so that they could wave the bloody shirt. It’s not like they have any credibility left.

  33. The galling part is most of the excuses are so fatuous that they raise entirely new questions about really basic stuff. For example: “we found a memory card with more votes on it.”

    Really? You lack basic controls over the cards which store votes? Where was it? Who had access to it? What is your chain of custody process and your process if the chain of custody is breached? How was that followed for this card and where are those records? Where is the backup documentation and the verification reports run to assure data integrity on this card? How many other cards were out of chain of custody? With whom? How long? We’re they verified? Show those records and supporting documents. How many votes were deemed invalid, for what reasons and how was that data captured and stored? On and on ad nauseam.

    “Hey, there is Security camera video of people pulling personal suitcases out from under tables, pulling ballots from them and running them through machines. Isn’t that illegal?”

    No, voter fraud is exceedingly rare. Go home traitor.

    1. The question I have about the memory cards is this:

      Why in the ever-loving fucktwaddle are votes being ‘stored’ on memory cards? Whatever happened to the physical ballots? There is absolutely no reason, ever, for a ballot not to be cast in physical form and retained for the length of time required by law. And it should be not only possible but easy to have an accurate count of those ballots at every stage of the process, so you know if some went missing after being cast.

      But none of this matters, as long as the Democrat wins, hurr hurr.

      1. Our district uses a paper ballot.
        We use black pens to color in the ovals next to our choices.
        We insert the paper ballots into the machine where our choices are supposedly counted. The ballots are retained in bin in the machine. I can’t answer whether the machines were zeroed out and the bins empty at the beginning of election day. I can’t answer if the number of paper ballots matched the number of people who voted. I can’t answer whether the machine tallies matched the paper ballots; except I think I heard someone at our GOP Committee meeting say they did a manual count and they did match the tallies correctly; so there’s some hope for honesty at our local level. Whether those numbers were correctly added to the tallies at the next level of consolidation is a total mystery though.

      2. I think it varies from system to system, but for some systems, the memory cards are for transferring the machine’s vote count to a central database, because they don’t want to make the machines able to connect directly to a network as that makes them more vulnerable.

        1. They can’t print it out on a sheet of paper? Is it at least some kind of special proprietary memory card that can be set to read-only to prevent tampering? Or is it a thumbdrive that came in a box of cereal?

        2. Got no problem with using sneaker-net for data transfer, as long as:
          A. Sender can reliably verify that the information on the storage media matches the information in the voting machine.
          B. The receiver can verify the information on the storage media matches the updated figures in the consolidation machine.
          C. That a return file is brought from the consolidation point to the original sender to confirm accuracy of what was sent.
          D. That chain of custody was preserved from beginning to end.

  34. Yup. A bunch of protesters are showing us how to get standing. Invade the Capitol building.

    Trump is showing us how to get standing. Nationalize the National Guard, and send it into DC.

    CNN is calling this an Insurrection. OK, then Trump should thank CNN for their support, invoke the Insurrection Act, have the military audit the election, and have military tribunals to punish the guilty.

        1. you are insane. the guard putting this down wont be because of fraud or not, but because of storming the capital.

          1. Why do you think people are storming the Capitol in the first place, idiot?

            So far, the ONLY official response to over 900 documented complaints of electoral fraud has been to shoot at people who demanded an investigation. No investigation is forthcoming, nor ever will be.

            If the facts were on your side, you would have allowed a full investigation, knowing you would be exonerated. You would have thrown open all the records and dared the Trump campaign to do its worst. Instead, you have been stonewalling desperately, as if you had everything to hide.

            What did you think was going to happen? People would just lie down and accept dictatorship because you say so?

            You don’t win a revolution without fighting, cupcake. You wanted a revolution; now you may just have one.

          2. that is just a big dung heap.

            this whole myth about why dont we do an audit if everything is ok is just a big burden shift. its not our burden to show eveything this ok. its your burden to show its not. and you havent met that. and nothing is preventing anyone from trying meet it. state AGs and the DOJ can investigate all they want. in fact they have, and they found nothing.

            so its all a big ruse. you want an audit because thats the only thing left to complain about now that all the existing evidence has turned out to be nothing.

            then, once you get an audit, and nothing comes up, you will complain that the audit wasnt good enough.

            and so on and so on.

            and what do i expect? i expect poeple to follow the law. if you think there is fraud, pursue the ample legal avenues available to you.

            the people have overwhelmingly chosen biden. that is the revolution. anythying else will be put down. as it should be.

            want your own country? fine. go find one that you like. this one already has a duly elected government.

          3. “then, once you get an audit, and nothing comes up, you will complain that the audit wasnt good enough.”
            Oh, that’s a reasonable reason to not have actual audits… People might not like them! 😀
            Wow. If only we’d had a real audit in order to test this theory!

            I’ve personally been through audits where the government spent three weeks and hundreds of man hours combing through tens of thousands of invoices, records, and interviewing every single employee, and checking every physical record against electronic, and confirming the existence of every single supplier, and every single transaction in our bank accounts… all to recover $600. And it wasn’t like my company was building nuclear warheads or anything that important.

            But these fuckers give us a couple spot checks conducted by the people who’d get in trouble if anything is wrong and call it good.

            Which is kind of the point of the OP.

            I’m just catching up on all the posts from yesterday afternoon, and this Sullivan dipshit posted a ton of them. I think I’m just gonna go ahead and block his boring ass to spare me the future recursive annoyance.

          4. This is such a pile of shit.

            this whole myth about why dont we do an audit if everything is ok is just a big burden shift.

            Nobody is asking your side to do an audit, moron. They are asking you to PERMIT an audit to be done. You have stonewalled every attempt.

            its not our burden to show eveything this ok. its your burden to show its not. and you havent met that.

            You have made it clear that your minds are already made up. You will not listen to any evidence given. The fact that you cite in your support those courts that have also refused to hear the evidence is sufficient proof of that.

            and nothing is preventing anyone from trying meet it.

            Except for the fact that all the existing hard evidence is in the hands of the alleged perpetrators, and some of jit has already been destroyed.

            state AGs and the DOJ can investigate all they want. in fact they have, and they found nothing.

            Actually, they have done nothing in most states, and the DOJ has done nothing.

            so its all a big ruse. you want an audit because thats the only thing left to complain about now that all the existing evidence has turned out to be nothing.

            Every U.S. election is crooked. Everybody knows that, but you conveniently forget it because your guy won. And no, ‘all the existing evidence’ has not ‘turned out to be nothing’. Most of it has never been presented before any court, because the courts have refused to hear the cases.

            then, once you get an audit, and nothing comes up, you will complain that the audit wasnt good enough.

            and so on and so on.

            I’ve told you and/or others in this thread before, you’re not worth shit as a mind-reader. Try a hobby that can actually be performed using a human brain.

            and what do i expect? i expect poeple to follow the law. if you think there is fraud, pursue the ample legal avenues available to you.

            There are no longer any legal avenues. The Electoral College has cast its votes and Biden is president-elect. After that point, there is no legal avenue to contest a U.S. presidential election.

            the people have overwhelmingly chosen biden.

            You don’t know what the people have chosen. You only know what the reported ballot count is, and that ballot count has been obviously falsified in numerous ways.

            that is the revolution. anythying else will be put down. as it should be.

            So you’re going to round up all the Republicans and shoot them, are you? Nice of you to be so tolerant. ‘One man, one vote, one time only’ used to be a Third World thing. Now it’s America.

            But don’t worry, child. The people who shoot the Republicans will come for you, too, as soon as your usefulness is at an end. Better start grovelling to Master while you still can.

            want your own country? fine. go find one that you like. this one already has a duly elected government.

            I’m not even an American, as you would know if you had ever actually read any of my comments instead of skimming them looking for places to spout your bullshit talking points. But my livelihood depends on the U.S. having free speech and a functioning economy. Both of those are gone now, and I expect them to be gone forever.

            Thanks for fucking me over, asshole. I didn’t even get a say in it. Neither did you; you only pretend that you did because it gives you egoboo to think you’re on the winning side.

    1. and this will likely result in Trump being impeached again. and hopefully removed this time. which he should be. and prevented from holding office again. which he should be.

        1. I can’t imagine a graver provocation to a populace already enraged at a corrupt Congress. Are Leftists that stupid, or are they trying to accelerate the country on the path to that civil war they’ve been pushing so hard to start since Clinton?

          1. I can imagine a graver provocation. Kicking the Republicans who HAVE challenged the results, both in court and during certification, out of Congress, as at least one Democrat Congresscritter has put forth.

            When you punish people for FOLLOWING the legally constituted challenge system, calling it “sedition”, “coup”, and “treason”, you delegitimatize the entire system.

          2. Here in Michigan, Attorney General Dana Nessel has threatened Michigan lawyers who cooperate with the ongoing investigations into voting fraud with disbarment–a power she legally lacks, which is reserved to the Michigan State Bar alone. You’d think the Attorney General would know something about law, but I guess not. This is in addition to threatening to have them arrested and charged with everything from sedition to sinking the Lusitania and assassinating William McKinley.

            Remember those two Republican poll watchers who refused to certify Detroit election results and testified about witnessing widespread organized large-scale fraud, and whose families and children were threatened in a Zoom call by a Democrat state rep from Dearborn? The ones who got doxxed and harassed for speaking out? Dana Nessel has put out arrest warrants for them, for “election interference.” They have apparently gone into hiding.

            These actions clearly show that Dana Nessel and the Democrats in Michigan have nothing to hide, and have faith that the truth will exonerate them.

            It’s just like that decree from the Michigan Bureau of Elections on December 1st ordering that all logs and all stored information on electronic voting machines used in the entire state of Michigan were to be deleted and destroyed immediately. The order is, of course, unprecedented.

            It also happens to be in violation of Federal law, which requires all such records to be kept a minimum of two years after each election. But clearly this is the action of a group with nothing to hide. This couldn’t possibly be the action of people caught not just with their hands in the cookie jar, but trying to steal the entire cookie jar and sneak out of the house with it stuck under their bathrobes like an enormous cylindrical beer-gut. Clearly they’re not trying to cover anything up. Clearly.

          1. ah the Canadian expert again. nice to have you weighing in on stuff. lol.

            as it so happens, it appears you can impeach a past president, in order to get the remedy of preventing him from taking office again.

          2. There’s an obvious reason why impeaching a past president is merely a hypothetical, and has never been attempted before. Since you’re too enslaved to your Master to see anything, I shall spell it out:

            If the American people are so uniformly against Trump, what possible risk is there that he will ever attain elected office again? Impeaching him now would be a complete waste of time – not that it wasn’t when your side impeached him before and failed to convict.

            Impeaching Trump now would be about as useful as digging up a dead criminal and throwing his corpse in jail.

          3. as only a slight detraction from your many talents as a Canadian expert on American stuff, it appears you cant read. there is an enormous upside to impeach Trump after he leaves office: proactively preventing him from being president again. i.e., not leaving it to an election, which, given his effectiveness as a pathological liar, is always a risk. impeaching him and preventing him from having office again removes that risk.

          4. And I’m going to have a blast filing waste fraud and abuse cases against every idiot congress critter that puts their name on any impeachment bill.

            And the best thing is they can’t legally do jack to me for it.

          5. Ah, yes. “Those inbred hick Deplorables are too stupid to vote the right way, so we have to make sure they don’t get the chance to vote the wrong way this time. We’ve got to take responsibility. This is Literally Hitler(tm) we’re talking about, after all. This is too important to leave to the proles.”

            Now, there’s a sentiment in accordance with democratic ideals, am I right, guys? Do you suppose that’s what Ruby Freeman said as she altered Republican ballots?

    2. All the people protesting in DC have to do is say that they are setting up a new CHAZ. The media will then have to reverse their condemnation and get behind it.

    3. It’s hilarious. BLM and Antifa riot for a year, burn down half the country, loot and murder people in the streets, and CNN says “These are peaceful protestors.”

      But God forbid some patriots show up in Washington unarmed to pay Congress a friendly visit and remind them whom they work for. CNN: “Eek! Thqueak! Terrorists! Insurrection! Nazis! Won’t thomeone call out the National Guard to protect us from this violence? Eek! Thqueak! I’m literally shaking, guys!” The pearl-clutching is something to see.

      Paging Mr. Orwell. Won’t you please pick up the white courtesy phone, Mr. Orwell?

      1. Mr Orwell is probably sitting somewhere, screaming at his radio, “1984 WASN’T MEANT TO BE A HOW TO BOOK YOU TWITS!”

  35. Is the only reason you are so mad about this the allegations of fraud? If the fraud were to have been seen going in the opposite direction, throwing wins to Trump, would you still be this mad?

  36. To all liberals…
    If you only knew the hell that has been unleashed. You do not understand the rage in middle America. Liberals always assume that they can turn it up and turn it down dependent on who is in office. Liberals decided to test 11 like Spinal Tap when Trump got in office, knowing conservatives will stay quiet. Conservatives have always been more of the power switch, off or on. Took all of the bullshit and the riots because we knew we owned the high ground because Trump would be reelected. Even after all of the media carrying the water and blocking anything to hurt Biden, it still took blatant cheating to move Biden to the win. Congrats, you got away with it. But us deplorables in middle America, we realize that unlike that knob you want to turn from 2 to 11 depending on who is in office, you finally flipped the switch. The conservatives are now ON and may god rest your soul, this country is going to tear itself apart because of your need for control and power.

    And now you kill a veteran in the halls of congress – Ashli Babbitt – unarmed.

    It is time to set things right.

    1. this is the classic response of conservatives. threaten violence when their ideas do not prevail. thats why they love the second amendment so much. it facilitates their go-to threat.

      and this threat of tearing the union apart. please. putting aside that that is not going to happen, if the red states were to somehow leave the union, first: good riddance, second: they would be a third world country. the blue states carry this country on our backs.

      1. Whereas you only threaten violence when your ideas DO prevail. As witness your talk about this election being your revolution, and ‘putting down’ anyone who doesn’t go along with your extremist agenda.

        It isn’t conservatives who are talking about putting every voter on the other side in concentration camps.

      2. Ah, Leftists. In front of a phalanx of their BLM/Antifa terrorist shock troops, in the eerie light of a city in flames, they stand atop a mountain of corpses, and point at the rest of us. “These violent right-wing extremists are threatening our democracy!”

        Projection isn’t just for movie theaters any more, evidently.

  37. “Yep, your comment is a gratuitous assertion. Oh, did you mean me?”

    A gratuitous assertion is one offered without proof. You uttered two logically unrelated statements. The first was the priority of Trump donation, who takes a cut when. The second was an assertion that therefore his motive is bad.

    Neither the first nor the second statement have any logical relation to each other. Your argument suffers the formal logical fallacy of irrelevance.

    You seem to be assuming that if and only if Trump put all his donations into his legal fund and nowhere else is his motive for challenging the election result a desire to challenge the election results. The assumption is false. Other motives can exist even in this case, and other circumstances explaining the situation.

    ” Not so good at the whole reading comprehension thing either I guess. I just labeled the things I said earlier as claim and evidence to make them easier for you to understand ”

    I understood perfectly, thank you. Your labels of claim and evidence are false. Not only is what you present as evidence not evidence of the claim, it is not even a related subject matter.

    You claim many things are motivated by love of pecuniary gain. True enough. You offer no evidence that such is the case here. Trump could be motivated by patriotism, or a sense of injured merit, or competitive spirit, or satanic hatred, or obedience to his space alien masters from Sigma Draconis. You have offered merely a gratuitous, that is, unsupported, statement.

    Nor have you produced any credential to take your authority as a mindreader on faith.

    Instead of correcting your argument, or clarifying it, you react with sneers against my capacity to grasp the mental drool you think to be an argument. Again, this is the informal logical fallacy of ad hominem.

    You also pretend to know where I first heard the term gaslighting and why I employ. And yet again, you assert it is because of some moral failing or mental incapacity on my part. Again, this is illogical. It is ad hominem.

    I need offer no more proof than the testimony of your own foolish words to show that you and yours have no arguments aside from personal attacks. It is the weakest imaginable from of argument.

    Mr. Correia is using your own tactic against you because he is not teaching you logic. He is teaching you humility, a lesson far more sorely needed.

  38. You can only impeach a sitting official (impeachment is not limited to a President.)

    If Trump is no longer president, he can’t be impeached.

    If you can’t get this straight, you are not tall enough for this ride.

    As for an audit, it isn’t really necessary. As we all know, Constitutionally the state legislatures are given sole power to determine the mechanisms for the elections. That means state election law.

    Any deviation from election law (like, say, a court saying ballots can be turned in later than election law says) means the election was not conducted IAW constitutional authority, ergo the ballots for that entire state are invalid. No audit required, simple if A, then B.

    This is what the Texas lawsuit was about, seeking remedy for the failure of several states to follow their own election laws. Texas tried to sue in the only court authorized to hear such a complaint, the US Supreme Court.

    The USSC ducked it by claiming Texas doesn’t have standing.

    In the only court authorized to hear cases between states, one state doesn’t have standing to sue another.


    Just like last time, with Cruishank, the USSC has precipitated yet another civil war. People are not going to stand for having their vote nullified. What happened today is just a small taste of what is to come.

    1. While it may be legally possible to overthrow the results without an audit. That would not be feasible politically, and I don’t mean the elites in power I mean politically for the masses.

      I do agree it’s going to get worse before it gets better, but the other option of just overthrowing this without an audit would of been more damaging.

      As I see it the system is designed so it can’t be properly audited and this needs to be changed.

    2. not true. its an open question whether you can impeach a previous president. many legal experts believe you can. the obvious benefit and rationale for doing so is to prevent them from holding further office. do some research before you pretend to know something about a topic like this.

      you also seem to have a childs understanding of standing. trust me that the supreme court go this one right in the Texas case. standing is not about there being any conceivable harm to a party. it needs to be a direct and substantive harm. the harm to Texas from how other states conduct their elections is way too attenuated to produce standing. that is not controversial among anyone who understands the issue. only people on here, wanting something to rail against, think otherwise.

      1. You sir, are full of crap if you believe the harm to Texas, or any other state for that matter, is too attenuated to produce standing. The USSC utterly failed in that ruling. And I doubt it was due to lack of imagination on their part; they’re too smart for that. It was solely due to cowardice and corruption.

        1. “We put the nuclear launch codes into the palsied hands of a dementia patient who struggles to string together three coherent words in a row, and we did this willingly and gleefully because Orange Man Bad. But don’t worry. Most of our computer models show that Texas won’t get very much of the radioactive fallout. Just get used to bringing a geiger counter with you to the supermarket and doing a full decon job on fresh produce. You’ll be fine. Stop whining.”

        2. there is literally nothing to say to this.

          standing is a legal concept. it is not decided by idiots talking on blogs. it is decided by judges in view of hundreds of years of precedent.

          if you think that all 9 supreme court justices, 3 of which have been appointed by trump himself, 6 of which are conservative, are less able to coheretly deal with the legal concept of standing than some idiot on a blog, then, well, i repeat. there is literally nothing else that can be said to you.

  39. CORRECTION for Unknownsailor: the Cruishank case came after the Civil War. Thus, I believe you meant to cite Dred Scott in 1857 as an ironic spark for the Civil War, given the Courts role today.

    The Supreme Court announced its 7-2 decision against Dred Scott on March 6, 1857. In the Court’s majority opinion, Chief Justice Taney wrote that enslaved people “are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word ‘citizens’ in the Constitution, and can, therefore, claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.”

    Now, the disenfranchised by fraud can go suck eggs and die. Or else fight for their rights! One man, one vote — no more, no less as demanded by any real reading of the Equal Protection clause of the US Constitution. And in 1857, SCOTUS was dominated not only by Democrats but Southern Democrats.

    Thus, yet another irony: although today’s Court isdominated by Republicans, we will soon witness the death of the Republican Party.

    All paying attention by 90% will abandon the party of Treason to their standard bearer, Treason to the Constitution and the Rule of Law, and Treason to The People.

    THE USA is dead, dead, dead! Long Live Liberty!

  40. its really not that complicated folks. Texas would have standing to sue over something another state did regarding Texas, but it doesnt have standing, or indeed any right to have any say whatsoever, over how another state does its own election.

    thats just how the system works. and not just for election law, but for any type of law. if you have a problem with that, you have a problem with how the US justice system is engineered, you have a problem with the consitution.

    and you can believe the Texas AG knew this even before he filed his suit.

    1. In other words, neither the states of the Union nor the citizens thereof have any grounds to complain about a stolen election, because it’s none of their business who rules them. Thanks for confirming what I’ve been saying all along

      Installing a man fraudulently as President of the United States doesn’t affect Texas, apparently. What, Texas can opt out of being governed by the U.S.A.? That’s the only basis on which you can claim that they are not affected.

      1. Texas can opt out of being governed by the U.S.A.?

        Probably not, but that would be nice. Nicer than going to war, which seems to be in the offing:-(.

        1. Texas can go as far as I am concerned. good riddance. maybe now New York can actually get more money back than its paying to the federal government once net money takers like Texas leave.

          1. Be sure to include all those trillion-dollar blank checks we regularly write to Wall Street banks that are “too big to fail” when you’re trying to figure out who owes whom.

          2. hahaha. it sure as hell aint Texas writing them. again, given New York’s singularly large annual overpayment to the federal government, it is mostly New York that is paying that.

  41. “When the law no longer protects you from the corrupt, but protects the corrupt from you – you know your nation is doomed.” – Ayn Rand

    This is where we are as a country.

    “If this be treason, let us make the most of it”. – Patrick Henry

  42. I’m going back to Larry’s original post.

    LC: “Because the government gets to audit the people, but the people don’t get to audit the government. ”

    Out of all government processes, elections are what involve “the people” most fully. When you go to your polling place, you are surrounded by volunteers, far more than there are government employees. They are checking your identify on the voter rolls, marking you as having voted, giving you your pass to the voting machine (or your ballot), and collecting your ballot, observing the handling of ballots and machines.

    All being done by different people of both parties. (Note the separation of authority, which is comparable to financial management fraud prevention.) The same is true of ballot counting and verification.

    At my polling place, one of those people is the woman who lives across the street from me. There are a couple others from my neighborhood. You too can volunteer if you have the stamina for the long days.

    Larry’s complaints always begin without any doubt that there has been some kind of fraud — with the presumption of fraud based on a statistical process, without explaining how to prove or disprove something he’s convinced is true. This kind of reasoning is why we have courts that demand evidence.

    LC: “Nope. At best we get recounts, where we simply count the fraudulent data twice.”

    No, we got a lot more than that. Ballots were checked against voter rolls. Tapes were scrutinized, people were interviewed to find out why they left the room and came back – in fact, every single claim of fraud was looked at.

    LC: “They’ll cite court cases being tossed, even though most of those were on standing or legal procedures, not fraud.”

    No, they were also tossed for lack of EVIDENCE. Unfortunately for his cause, Trump just can’t get past that.

    LC: “Most of the fraud stuff has never been presented in court…”

    Yes, it has. Mr. Trump has persistently, thoroughly, and energetically sent every suggestion of fraud that has been brought to his attention or that he has seen on TV to every court of law that has jurisdiction. The fraud claims were too flimsy to withstand scrutiny.

    The scenes at the Capitol yesterday were the result of Mr Trump and his countless helpers (including Larry) proclaiming, despite all evidence to the contrary, that there has been election fraud.

    The truth is that he made too many voters despise him. He got VOTED OUT.

    Somebody loses every four years, folks.

    1. Okay flip it to the other-side and lets assume that fraud was committed, how would you prove that it occurred? Most of the arguments are going but you can’t prove it, this is too flimsy, when the process as designed makes it extremely difficult to get a firm clear audit/judgement.

      Also there have been cases of fraud shown the issue is it’s not proven to a degree that it would matter which is what’s being slapped in the faces that evidence is lacking, but when there is smoke there is fire and it’s hard to prove anything with the current system. To be clear I don’t even mean the judges are blocking it as the system I mean the way votes are handled I just legitimately don’t know how you would prove many ways you could fraud even if you had full control to do whatever right now.

      I guess I’m already thinking about 2024 and 2028 and so on and so forth.

      Biden is in power the Dems will probably celebrate before eating each other alive and there will be more elections, I don’t think this will be good for our nation but whatever life moves on, this is about the system. This kind of mistrust in our system is dangerous, I thought it was a problem in 2000 too and I thought it was absurd that we didn’t have a better way to deal with auditing votes. But no, if you think the system has a problem you’re just a sore loser, and should just trust the system, because you see, the mistrust is the problem, the system is fine.

      1. There might still be people casting ballots in the years to come, but there will be no elections. It’s not an election when the ‘winner’ is picked in advance and the ‘votes’ adjusted as necessary.
        Leo: “Well, if we assume you’re a dishonest person—”
        Max Bialystock: “Assume, assume!”

      2. There were voting problems in the 2000 election, as you point out. Did you know that Congress passed a bipartisan bill in the 2001-2002 session in response? Look up the “Help America Vote Act.” It addressed problems with voting machines, established minimum standards in election administration, and created an Election Assistance Commission to assist states with federal elections. It mandated voter registration processes for better security and required poll worker training, and provided funding for states to carry out these mandates.

        I agree that distrust in the voting system is dangerous. It would be very alarming if real problems were being made light of, but on the other side, creating distrust where no evidence of voter fraud conspiracy can be found is also dangerous, and reprehensible.

        When people believe in fraud without evidence, then nothing will ever convince them to change their minds. It becomes an emotion rather than logical thought. We actually do have a good system for auditing votes. Although I am aware that a number of people on this forum have made broad (but vague) claims to the contrary.

        1. Nothing you just said addresses last minute rule changes “because of covid” or shifts to mail-in ballots.

          Oh, look! Twenty years ago a law was passed that everyone ignored in 2020 because covid death cooties means that we can’t reject ballots without signatures. Waaaaah!

          How dare you undermine confidence in the system!

          Also, if you didn’t burn dinner you wouldn’t get hit.

          1. True, I didn’t address any state’s change of rules in mail balloting. Because it isn’t fraud, and states do get to set their own rules.

          2. You’re cute, Donna.

            But that only gets you so far.

            No, mail in ballots aren’t fraud. Mail in ballots facilitate fraud and anyone who is honest knows that they make fraud a million times easier.

            And no, mail in absentee ballots aren’t the same because they’re handled differently. And yet, even with regular absentee ballots there are always multiple cases of someone else filling them out and mailing them in.

          3. Synova, mail in ballots seem to be pretty secure in the western states that have used them for years. I agree that the potential is there for problems if states don’t handle them well. But you exaggerate the potential for fraud.

            Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah, and Washington State conduct their elections entirely by mail and the people there were wondering what all the hysteria was about.

        2. Yeah that makes sense. I mean I warned people no matter what happen it was going to be accused of fraud not just because of who was up for re-election but because bureaucracy has problems and 6 months at best to prepare for this with mail in ballots is not enough time, and it was going to be a disaster. Only to hear stuff about how trump was trying to shutdown the post office in order to steal dem votes.(despite the policy starting pre-covid)

          Now incompetence also allows fraud, and sometimes you can use incompetence to hide fraud.

          But I’m not surprised the system was having problems with so little time to prepare, also why states that were used to these proceedings did fine as you mentioned. As well as Flordia which I’m pretty sure their bureaucrats were in a WE WILL NOT BE THE PROBLEM AGAIN mode.

    2. I do not presume to speak for our esteemed host, but there’s something you have misinterpreted.

      He has not, so far as I can determine, said “Fraud took place and this statistical evidence proves it.” He has said “The statistical evidence indicates that something sketchy took place, indicating the need for an audit so that we can all learn the truth.”

      Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.

      p.s. Isn’t it funny how so many Leftist politicians are scrambling to ignore orders to turn over voting records and order voting machine logs wiped in defiance of both court orders and Federal law? If there was no fraud, wouldn’t the records would exonerate them? I am not a lawyer, but I know that there is the legal concept of “spoliation of evidence.” Destroying evidence during the investigation of a crime is tantamount to a confession of guilt–unless you’re a Clinton, of course, in which case Director Comey assures us that “no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges.”

      1. Larry has said repeatedly that Benford’s Law suggests something is wrong with Biden’s votes. He doesn’t say how or why, nor would most people be able to understand the statistical analysis. It’s simply innuendo. Someone else (who must understand it) said so. And everyone understands what is being implied: the election was rigged.

        Anyway, Larry’s chain of logic goes like this: Benford’s Law suggests Biden’s votes are faked/manipulated/whatever. And look, lots of people think the election was fraudulent. Therefore we should “audit” the election to assuage their fears. No explanation of how that would differ from all the investigations that have been conducted since November. Something vague about looking at the underlying data. What would that data be?

        And that data, whatever it is, wouldn’t make a difference. People will dismiss additional data as they have dismissed the recounts and court cases. There is always a deeper layer of computer code/computers wiped/mysterious flash drives/mysterious boxes/dead dictators/underlying data.

        In other words, it’s turtles all the way down. No bottom at which someone will say, “OK the election WAS on the level.”

        By the way, when you say “Isn’t it funny how so many Leftist politicians are scrambling to ignore orders to turn over voting records and order voting machine logs wiped in defiance of both court orders and Federal law?” can you tell us who those Leftist politicians are? Because this sounds like BS.

        And, regarding Benford’s Law, it is used by the IRS to flag for investigation suspicious activity in financial accounting. It is not proof of fraud.

        In elections, however, Benford’s Law is not useful in finding fraud. Dr. Jen Golbeck, who is an expert on Benford’s Law, has a thread on Twitter explaining how it works and what it shows regarding election data:

        The problem with citing Benford’s Law is that you need math chops to understand it, so everyone decides whether to accept what they hear others saying based on their own prejudices, or gut — which doesn’t do math.

        1. Which is extra funny, since I’ve not mentioned Benfords for like two months, and when I did talk about them, I talked about how they’re a STARTING point. I also explained how audit flags work, where flags aren’t proof, they’re an indicator that this is something auditors would want to drill down on.

          Yet mysteriously, the left is still deboonking how this doesn’t work for elections, which came as a shock to the State Department guy posting here who used them at his job monitoring south and central American elections. 😀

    3. Thanks for the tips on how elections work, except I’ve counted votes. I’m passingly familiar.
      And it’s another reason I think audits should be mandatory! 😀

      Basically your entire post is emotional obfuscation, whining about the sanctity of this sainted process which–unlike every other human endeavor–is above reproach. Because volunteers work SO HARD. And your description of how much scrutiny was applied is utter horseshit.

      And then in conclusion, I should shut up because I AM PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for the actions of angry people who feel disenfranchised by the system, betrayed by their party, lied to by their media, who’ve been locked down and pushed around, and who watched the other party loot, burn, and riot for the last year with impunity, a week after the government said Let Them Eat Cake… Sounds reasonable.

      Let’s see how this shame attempt works out for you. The previous 10,000 didn’t, but I’m sure this one will be the one that finally forces me to fall in line. 😀

      1. Nope, that’s misrepresenting. I didn’t say you should shut up.

        I’ve read your blog for enough years that I remember the contempt you expressed for Trump 4-5 years ago. Well, Trump hasn’t changed. But you seem to be taking part in his victimization narrative now. And his hate campaign.

        I would appreciate it if you didn’t refer to me as a Leftist. I’m not. I followed the whole Sad Puppies thing on your blog and other sites. I found the attacks on you ridiculous and offensive. I defended the idea of including popular and adventure SF in the Hugo nominations. And I take it that the sort that made up the online mob are what might fairly be called Leftists. I don’t like the term, however, because of its broadness and because people use it abusively and in such a way that makes all Democrats and center-to-liberal people the enemy, which they are not.

        Returning to what I said at the top of this post, I did not say you should shut up. That wouldn’t make sense, since I’m a guest on your blog. However, I do think that everyone who helps amplify Trump’s “rigged election” talk bears a small portion of responsibility for what comes of it.

        This is a little baffling: “Basically your entire post is emotional obfuscation, whining about the sanctity of this sainted process which–unlike every other human endeavor–is above reproach. Because volunteers work SO HARD.”

        I did not describe election processes as sanctified. I described them as a group endeavor in which there was division of responsibility as a protection against manipulation and cheating. I don’t see emotionality or whining in that.

        1. What you clearly miss is that it’s not about disliking or “hating” Trump. Someone I dislike a great deal can still be right.

          And his “victimization” complex? Well, we’ve been watching for years now and people who dislike him greatly have found themselves FORCED to defend him. Why? Because truth matters a whole lot. And disliking him makes no difference to that.

          Trying to tell people that we all ought to lie and refuse to care that the election was almost certainly won through fraud “but it was against a bad guy so that’s okay” and that the upset caused is the fault of those who refuse to agree for the sake of peace and unity?


          1. If what you say were true, I would agree. But I see no evidence that the election was almost certainly won through fraud.

            In fact, the very vaporous body of complaints suggests otherwise. If something nefarious had taken place, a number of people would be testifying about something specific.

            Instead, we get a host of stuff like: Trump had the lead at ten and then he lost it. (Big deal) Someone saw boxes being opened. Might have been fake ballots! (Grasping at straws) Trump carried Georgia in 2016, so how could he not carry it in 2020? (The vote shifted because people didn’t think he was a good president.) And so forth.

            Sorry to keep harping on this, but show me evidence.

          2. I don’t get how so many people can ask for “proof” that a candidate whose own rallies drew more hecklers than supporters defeated the most popular incumbent President since Reagan. Did anyone, anywhere, really vote to put the nuclear launch codes into the hands of a man whose crippling dementia is known to the whole world, and which has been fodder for the late-night TV talk show comedians’ monologues for the past year?

            Because if that’s the kind of audience we have here, I’ve been appointed by the city of New York to help them sell the Brooklyn Bridge. They have to sell it due to budget cuts. Have I got a deal for you!

          3. Nomen, sorry you don’t get it, but yes I do ask for evidence. I didn’t even say “proof” — just evidence. If that can’t be supplied, then it’s you who should ask yourself why you believe in massive voter fraud.

            Trump is not “the most popular incumbent President since Reagan.” Both Bushes, Clinton, and Obama had higher approval ratings. Even Jimmy Carter averages higher. (Gallup)

            What late-night comedians do you watch? I’ve seen Colbert, Fallon, Kimmel, Meyers et al. making fun of Trump with gusto–his weird lies, his belief in his own superiority in all things, etc, etc. Mockery of Biden is generally of his folksy lingo and a few idiosyncrasies.

            Attempts to portray Biden as suffering from dementia have disappeared, now that we’ve all seen him in multiple appearances, speaking factually and coherently. You’re beating a dead horse.

          4. According to whom? “Polls” from the corrupt, fake-news media?

            You’ve been coming here for months. You’ve been shown the evidence. Mr. Correia has done everything but put on a skit for you with big fuzzy puppets.

            And no, I won’t shut up and be silent “for the sake of peace and unity.” Peace and unity be damned, if everything it’s based on is a lie. I refuse to be ruled by lies. I refuse to acknowledge an illegitimate government that was put in place by fraud, one that acts directly against my interests and disenfranchises me and a hundred million others.

            “Beating a dead horse,” indeed. Whom are you trying to convince? Me or yourself?

          5. Nomen, actually I’ve been coming here for years. As I put in parentheses, the approval ratings come from Gallup. If you’re going to claim Trump is the most popular incumbent since Reagan, you would expect to have something to back that up. But it doesn’t really concern me; popularity isn’t the issue.

            As for beating the dead horse of the Biden-has-dementia idea, I’m just going to add this: before my father died about 8 months ago, he suffered from dementia. I saw the disease and its progress for years, long before we recognized it for what it was. And if anyone is showing signs of dementia, it’s Trump. The lack of attentiveness and ability to concentrate, the paranoia that most of Trump’s aides describe… that’s what my family saw long before the aphasia and memory loss (which is what most people associate with dementia) became apparent.

            It is very worrisome to have a president with impaired mental faculties, especially Trump, who also lacks feeling for others. Unlike Reagan, who was a kind and caring man.

          6. “Popularity isn’t an issue,” she said, dismissing all the election irregularities and denying that a wildly popular incumbent President whom the far-Left newsmedia still, for now, admit got at least fourteen million more votes in 2020 than he did in 2016, could possibly have been the rightful winner had he not been buried in millions of “votes” that came out of laser printers.

            And yes, I know about Alzheimer’s too. One of my grandfathers had it for several years before he died. Alzheimer’s textbook Wernicke’s Aphasia is all over China Joe. It’s really adorable that you’re waving your hands and trying to gaslight us and say “nuh uh, it’s DRUMPF that’s losing his marbles!”

          7. Nomen, Trump was wildly popular with the people who supported him. Unfortunately, he was not wildly popular with enough people.

            The 2020 election was not decided by Trump 2020 beating Trump 2016’s vote count. More people in total voted across the country — 23 million more people than voted in 2016. Trump got 10.4 million more votes than he did in 2016. It wasn’t enough, and the votes weren’t in the states that mattered.

            “Millions of votes that came out of laser printers” … this is your faith, not fact.

          8. It isn’t terribly plausible to me that any significant number of American adults would vote to put the nuclear launch codes into the hands of a weak, sick, pathetic dementia-riddled geriatric, with a long history of being a willing agent of hostile foreign powers, who is under criminal indictment in Ukraine for graft, bribery, and extortion, who can barely string together a coherent sentence.

            You may have noticed that Biden’s rallies drew more hecklers than supporters. Saying “no, really, tens of millions of Americans voted for him, they really really did” is gaslighting. A handful of purple-haired SJW cranks and malcontents hate Trump, and I don’t have the faintest idea why they don’t get out of my country, since they can’t shut up about how much they hate everything about America.

            Go look up Dale Harrison, who calls himself “bigchoppadoe.” Go look up Ruby Freeman. Participants in the fraud feel so justified and so safe that they made videos of themselves altering and destroying ballots and posted them on the Internet to boast and gloat. They appear to believe there will be no consequences. How did they come to believe that, I wonder? Why do you suppose they think a corrupt system will protect them and it’ll all get swept under the rug? Where did they get such a crazy idea?

        2. If “all Democrats and center-to-liberal people” aren’t the enemy, then why do they behave like the enemy?

    4. Yeah, and I should trust any of my neighbors because?
      I had multiple signs stolen off my property.
      I had bags of shit heaved over the fence onto my property.
      Donna, you show an appalling lack of understanding of human nature if you think your townsfolk aren’t capable or willing to fraud an election.
      Someone I DO trust was one of the ballot watchers. He said chain of custody was broken multiple times for hours at a time.

      1. So if you have both Democrats and Republicans handling ballots, and Democrats and Republicans watching the procedures, you still believe… what? There is always a fraudulent election? Nothing can make an election fair?

        I think I have a fairly realistic outlook on human nature. I have read about LBJ’s first election (which his opponent cheated him out of) and his second election (in which he made sure he cheated better than his opponent).

        There is also a link somewhere above to a Texas political newsletter (Texas Trash Talk) that seems to be a good piece of journalism. It’s not relevant to the presidential election, because Trump won Texas anyway. (Unless maybe the election would have gone to Biden? I don’t think the Texas election was that close.) But it is a good enough investigation to warrant a closer look from investigators.

        I did not talk about my neighbors out of misty-eyed sentimentality, but in reference to “the people” in contrast to the government in running elections. And to point out division of responsibility, so that no individual is unsupervised.

        Because elections are not some blank wall behind which mysterious things are going on. “The people” are right there and see it and take part in it.

        If you’re saying you don’t trust ANY election, then I can’t help you out of that pit of despair. But it would appear to be a self-fulfilling belief, if you get enough people on board.

        1. You mean those Republican observers who were run out of the voting precincts by police at midnight and told the vote counting would cease until the next morning? The ones who couldn’t see in from outside because the Democrats boarded up the windows from the inside, then continued the vote count over night after saying it was halted and calling the cops to remove Republican observers? The Republicans who were not present when the Democrat vote counters then miraculously found hundreds of thousands of uncounted votes, 100% for Biden, once all the witnesses were gone? In over twenty states simultaneously?

          Do you mean the Republican poll watchers whose families and children were threatened in Michigan by a Democrat from Dearborn? The ones who got doxxed and harassed for daring to object and talk about the irregularities they saw? The ones who refused to certify the results?

          Those Republican poll watchers?

          1. That’s not accurate. If you don’t know that, you can do your research. I’m kind of tired of hearing those fables.

          2. Ah, yes. It’s the “nuh uh, la la la la, I can’t hear you” counter-argument Leftists like to use when confronted with inconvenient truths.

          3. To take one claim that you mention, originating from Twitter:

            Between 3:30-4:30AM, they “ found” 140,000 mail in ballots for Biden in Wisconsin. Between 3:30-5:00AM, they “ found” 200,000 mail in ballots for Biden in Michigan. Between 2:00-4:00AM, they “ found” 1,000,000 mail in ballots in Pennsylvania. All for Biden. None for Trump.

            This claim was, in fact, not true. Michigan and Wisconsin released batches of votes that were not all for Biden. Milwaukee County’s absentee votes were released all at once, 170,000 total. The majority were for Biden, but not all. In Pennsylvania on the night of Nov. 3 Biden gained 1 million votes, Trump gained about the same amount.

            There is an obvious problem with getting news from sketchy sources and calling all news media fake. You’re either going to be manipulated or you’re going to deceive yourself.

    5. In my previous home states I remember a voting process very similar to what you described. Where I live now, a month or so prior to every election they mail out a ballot to every registered voter and a voter information booklet to every household. We fill out our ballots at leisure, seal them into the privacy envelopes, sign said envelopes, and then drop them off at one of the big steel ballot boxes (which strongly resemble USPS mailboxes) scattered across the county. My usual ballot box is in the middle of the sheriff’s parking lot. A couple days later I get an email from the county elections people saying they had received and counted my ballot.

      What bothers me is that I have no easy way to verify that claim. I didn’t see my actual ballot slide into the scantron-style electronic ballot box like we had back in Oklahoma. I didn’t see the machine blink its acceptance or kick it back out.

      Do they have multi-party observers working together to be certain that no ballots are accidentally misplaced after sending that reassuring email? I don’t know. Maybe I ought to politely ask the county election people.

  43. Larry, I don’t go on FB so I appreciate you posting more to your blog here. Your voice is like Rush Limbaugh’s, reminding me that we aren’t alone in the wilderness. Of course, I also enjoy the brutal insults. Thanks!

  44. Just a side remark: There is actually less there there to the court cases being tossed argument than there appears at first glance. As the esteemed Prof. Reynolds has noted, the Trump campaign had prepared for possible court battles by hiring two high-powered law firms who were well-equipped for this sort of battle, and those law firms were intimidated *after the election* into dropping their representation by a campaign of social-media threats, leaving the Trump campaign scrambling for representation. This is not the ideal for legal battles.

    1. Yeah, the party of peace, love, and tolerance threatened to murder their families until they dropped out. But now it is time to come together and let the healing begin. 😀

  45. Wait, I am confused. The audits described in the OP are audits controlled by the industry being audited. Why should elections be any different? Is that cigarette harmful to your health? Let’s ask the tobacco company scientists audited by the tobacco industry auditors. Is that Pinto safe? Let’s ask the auto manufacturer. Is that Boeing safe to fly? Let’s ask Boeing’s auditors. Nearly every audit is controlled by the industry powers that run it, and I have participated in many audits, across several industries in my career. Arguing that the government audits are ineffective because of this is taking the stance that all the other audits are ineffective.

    The only question I have at this point is why the outrage is specifically targeted at only one instance, and not the practice in general?

    1. Except your entire premise is incorrect.
      – “The audits described in the OP are audits controlled by the industry being audited.”
      Where did you get that silly idea from?
      As I explained in the post you apparently didn’t read, they would have internal auditors, then outside 3rd party, and then outside government auditors. The government auditors are the ones with the fines and criminal charges, ergo they’re the most important and final authority.
      So this- “Nearly every audit is controlled by the industry powers that run it” is clearly bullshit.
      But thanks for that hot take.

      1. “Where did you get that silly idea from?”

        Didn’t you here of the Boeing max failure? The outside government auditors took the word of the The 3rd party auditors asked boeing if it was OK and took their word. The internal boeing auditors were instructed to ignore the failure modes and pass through to production. people died. It was all over the news.

        The international bottled water association sets the guidelines for drinking water. It is populated by bottled water industry professionals who work at the bottled water facility plants. It provides this information to the FDA to craft the guidelines for drinking water. The FDA takes these recommendations whole cloth and incorporates them as the standard. The internal audits, and third party audits are all conducted by this same circle jerk.

        ISO audits are a joke. Look up Christopher Paris. He has been fighting this type of situation for years.

        Government source inspection is a joke. Over the past few years these inspections have been pulled back to the point where government inspectors are instructed to ONLY review documents. They do not review the process, they do not review the product, they do not review the results. They review the piece of paper that says the results are good.

        But what the hell do I know, I only have first hand experience.

        1. I like how you say goverment inspections is a joke, yet seem to miss the point of Larry bringing up the problem of only allowing the government to inspect elections.

          PS your internet claim of having real world experience is so precious.

          1. @ Ad Astra

            “I like how you say goverment inspections is a joke, yet seem to miss the point of Larry bringing up the problem of only allowing the government to inspect elections.”

            I am sorry for the lack of clarity. It is not only the government doing the inspections, there are third party auditors accountable to…the government.

            I have a problem with this. What I am missing is the similar outrage toward the practice in airlines, food safety, environmental impact, etc.

            When lefties like myself raised the alarm on those other issues, we were silenced because it just makes good sense to have the ones who produce the results be responsible for defining acceptable standards. There was no reason to raise taxes and perform audits with “real scrutiny” because only lefties care about contributing to that kind of bloat.

            Only now, after decades of calls for change, do we agree on something, except (as demonstrated in the responses to my comments) instead of agreeing, you want to pick a fight with me.

  46. Your books are good.

    However, you are wrong about voter fraud. The commentary on yhis rant are delusional.

  47. Larry, why does Donna’s post show date and time on Jan 8 and comes before Nomen Nescio’s post on Jan 7?Maybe I am just not a
    Web savvy guy but this confuses me, and makes hard to follow threads if chronology is out of order. These are the last two posts at this time of 10:52 CST Jan 7th.

    1. That would be because I replied to Aaron after I replied to Nomen, even though Aaron’s comment was earlier. Sorry for the confusion.

  48. Georgia got audited three times. How many times do you audit until you get the result you want????

    1. Already addressed.
      Their biggest “audit” was a 15k spot check, with 300 problems they hand waved, and then random calling 10 voters, in a county that didn’t throw flags. I’ve seen the feds give a hot dog stand greater scrutiny.

    2. One real audit by actual professional certified 3rd party auditors applying real scrutiny in a transparent manner available for the public to review sufficient to maintain their confidence, in the location that threw up the red flags would be nice.
      Thanks for asking! 😀


        Third party…Check
        Available for review…Check
        Certified…maybe (without the cash to pay for a registrar lookup I can’t be sure, but a cursory look at their website indicates they do appear to meet the ISO 9001 standard)
        If you specify which certification body you prefer, I can better search based on that information.

        The other terms you indicate are ambiguous and would require further definition, (real scrutiny, maintain confidence) but unless one is willing to pay for a specific audit at a specified depth, it is unlikely to exactly match your criteria. Such is the nature of audits.

        1. The data on that report says it was collected November 2 – the election occured on November 10. The data contained therein refers to 172 addresses with a total of 3046 ballots. In what world is that a valid audit?

        2. That “audit” you’re claiming as valid was gathered prior to the election, November 2, 2020. It is an audit of 3046 ballots from 170 different locations with returned ballots >= 10. How does that rebut any of the claims of fraud / moved voters / dead voters / questionable ballots pulled out after Republican observers were kicked out. Incidentally, SOS Raffensperger’s office has lied and changed their story repeatedly about the ballots pulled from under the table and whether or not they said they were done counting for the evening, so his trust me nothing to see here is worthless without providing the evidence he says he has.

        3. Great work here, sadly many people made up their minds regarding election results long ago and will only accept anecdotes that fit their narrative. Your evidence will: never be good enough, be certified by the wrong people, be too long to read (lol) and considered “homework”, etc etc

          You will always be wrong and they will always be right, especially in a safe space echo chamber such as this one.

        4. Have you actually read the report? It’s from data that was gathered on November 2, 2020 from 3046 ballots from 172 different addresses, simply looking at whether or not response rates seem suspicious there. In what world is that a legitimate audit regarding the issues of fraud that have been alleged in Fulton county?

        5. reading the report and the data it seems that of the 3046 ballots “examined” there were no indications of ballot harvesting. They looked at accepted ballots by address and examined the address for whether the number of ballots accepted/requested by that address was reasonable. They assume that ballot harvesting would only show up as “Ballot harvesting would result in either unusually high or low ballot return rate.” This ignores what most ballot harvesters do as has been reported by actual ballot harvesters: – “help” the people to fill out the ballot, provide an incentive to fill out the ballot in a particular way, remove the ballot after taking it and updating it or replacing it with one filled out the “correct” way. There is nothing in what they reported that explained how they proved that none of that happened.

          Frankly, I found the report to be a bit embarassing for a company with the prestige that Mitre has.

          Retired aerospace engineer who had the responsibility of auditing software development activities for major aerospace companies on the behalf of the FAA.

        6. That isn’t an audit. It’s a comparison of a small collection (a little over 3000) of absentee ballots from addresses with 10 or more ballots either requested or returned with publicly available data gathered on November 2, prior to the election.

          1. Perhaps audits is not what you are looking for.
            Audits are samplings of data to determine the statistical significance compliance to a standard. A comparison of small collection of absentee ballots is literally sampling the data. If you want something different than an audit, please state so, but what was asked for was delivered.

   is defined as the,, process, or production step.

  49. To the people saying, and I paraphrase, “if there’s nothing to hide why are they fighting so hard to stop one from happening”. Pretty sure the same question could be applied to the 2016 election and the “idea” of Russian collusion. Why would Trump and his admin be afraid, and not do everything in their power to help the investigation? Then as now lots of people had lost faith in the election process. What was your stance then? I’m a leftist who is confident fraud did not occur, if I could I would allow any audit you wanted. Sadly I don’t have the power.

    1. When we have three years of active investigation into the Biden administration, we can talk again.

      But really, is your point actually that Russia buying a few Facebook ads is equivalent in election malfeasance to possible direct vote fraud and manufacturing of stacks of Biden ballots?

      If it’s comparable to anything it’s comparable to Facebook’s direct application of censorship of Trump supporters, which makes some Russian ads look like far too few potatoes to even brew some Vodka, comrade.

      1. No my point is that both sides believe bad things happened in two separate elections, and the same arguments you are using now, to investigate what you believe are inconsistencies, were made by Dems the past few years. It a silly argument to make that the other side would agree to x if they really were innocent.

        1. Right. Because bought-and-paid-for opposition research political libel supplied by Hillary Clinton’s campaign, that everyone knew was fiction right from the start, which the FBI has admitted they knew from the start to be 100% lies made up out of whole cloth, which they were nonetheless overjoyed to be able to use to justify a legal fishing expedition, is exactly equivalent to thousands upon thousands of inexplicable and bizarre statistical anomalies in election data, plus the sworn testimony of 1200 people who claim to have seen large-scale organized election fraud firsthand, plus numerous individuals who claim to have taken part in the election fraud putting videos on social media boasting and gloating about it, because they feel not only completely justified but completely safe doing so, plus Leftist state government election officials ordering the unprecedented and illegal destruction of election records in response to court orders to produce them for the investigation, plus Leftist state attorneys general threatening to arrest and charge people for cooperating with the investigation, plus Leftist social media being so terrified of the truth that they’re censoring anyone and everyone who dares to question The Narrative. Right. Those two things are exactly the same. You’ve sure convinced me.

          1. In addition to projection, progs need to fling the “tu quoque” fallacy around to divert attention from their master’s shenanigans. Sad, really.

    2. How about this: “If there was Russian collusion, why was no evidence ever presented?” You would think that after three years and millions of dollars they would have produced something approaching proof.

      1. The evidence WAS presented — exactly as it was fabricated by the Hillary Clinton For President campaign.

      2. Democrats in 2016: “The voting system is horribly insecure! The election was rigged by sinister foreign powers! Republicans must have cheated! We wuz robbed! Not my President!”

        Democrats in 2021: “The voting system is perfect! It is absolutely insane to think an American election could have been rigged by sinister foreign powers! We won’t even let you investigate allegations of widespread organized election fraud! Shut up, you insane conspiracy theorist! Shut up or we’ll shut you up! How dare you question the integrity of our elections?”

        I know. It’s called cognitive dissonance and it’s a necessary component of the Leftist mindset. I know. I know.

        1. Replace Democrats with Republicans and you’ll see what the other half of the country is saying about you right now. Like literally word for word.

          The “evidence” that you see that is so convincing for your side is the same type of “evidence” seen by my side that was so convincing for 2016.

          1. Except one side has sworn testimony from over a thousand witnesses that they’ve personally observed large-scale organized fraud, truckloads of ballots proven in front of Congress to have come out of laser printers, the testimony of hundreds of experts on mathematics and security that all manner of anomalies of the type that tend to correlate with fraud are present in the reported election data, proof by network security experts and software experts in front of Congress that the voting machines were not only insecure but apparently designed to allow remote access and manipulation of vote data, and records of high-ranking politicians trying to threaten and intimidate all witnesses, while the other side has bizarre and insane conspiracy theories they’ve confabulated in their impotent rage because Orange Man Bad and It Was Her Turn, which do not exist and never existed outside of their own fevered imaginations.

            To quote from our esteemed host, one of these things is not like the other. One of these things, we must admit if we’re being honest here and not just regurgitating this morning’s DNC talking points, does not belong.

          2. Here’s the thing read any of those affidavits and they all say something similar to this “I counted 20 Biden votes in a row, that feels wrong to me” or “I saw two people walk by and say Biden as they shook hands, something was obviously wrong”. They are all just flimsy misgivings that are easy to sign because they don’t put the person at any risk. They make no claims that can be proven or disproven.
            Or they’re like the one from the postal worker in PA. The second they are actually interviewed by authorities about their claims they take them back as quick as can be. You go ahead and keep believing people that recant their testimony when they could actually be in trouble for lying. I’m sure they aren’t grifting you when they emerge from these meetings and loudly proclaim, while no longer under the threat of perjury, that they were coerced.

          3. There are sworn testimony and signed affidavits from 1200 witnesses, all of whom risked prison for perjury, and all 1200 of them made it up for attention. Or maybe it’s a conspiracy to get Biden. I’m waiting for them to trot that out.

            I can’t help but notice you don’t have anything to say about the ballots proven to have come out of laser printers, or the insecurity of the voting machines, or the urban voting precincts with 300% turnout, or the overnight vote dumps for Biden. Did this morning’s DNC talking points email not list approved counterarguments?

            I’ve seen it said in other forums. Leftists project. It’s a compulsion with them. They can’t help themselves. They’ve spent four years REEEEEEEEing like autistic children about a conspiracy to steal the 2016 election, possibly with illegal foreign aid. Anyone who didn’t anticipate their brazen attempt to steal the 2020 election, possibly with illegal foreign aid, just hasn’t been paying attention.

      3. Proof WAS found — that the Hillary Clinton for President campaign paid a Russian spy to make up a fake ‘dossier’ which was then used as a pretext to illegally interfere with Trump’s campaign and illegally investigate President Trump after he was elected.

        Lies were ‘leaked’ to the media, and the fake news stories concocted from those lies were used to justify still more ‘investigation’ which after three years completely exonerated Trump.

        None of the liars and corrupt bureaucrats involved were ever brought to account for their actions. The second-biggest political scandal in our history was simply pushed aside to make room for the fake impeachment of President Trump.

        You can’t make this shit up, folks. You just can’t.
        Does the Left drive those idiots barking mad, or were they drawn to the Left because they were already batshit crazy?

    3. Have you paid any attention to the way muellers special counsel investigation ran things? General Flynn and the massive Brady violations against him? A member of the special investigation actually going to jail for falsifying data sent to the FISA courts? Brennan and Comey testifying different information to Congress? (Perjury we just don’t know which one did it and the swamp protects its own). How many phones did they brick in violation of federal law and doj policy? The Mueller investigation was an absolute abuse of feseral power where the process is the punishment.

    4. So what your saying is if you were charged with a crime you would immediately renounce all of your Constituional rights and let the cops do what ever they wanted to prove your “guilt”.

    5. For me, I think there’s 3 differences:

      Primary one was that regarding Russian collusion the did investigate with a special prosecutor (cool, I like some basic accountability), found it was based upon oppo research done by a source known not to be credible, and a few thousand social media adds. Yet the investigation still kept it up for years while some people, Schiff in particular, went out and claimed intelligence showed one thing, when truth came out much later it showed there was nothing there.

      The second issue is the claim “oh we audited it” but it’s such a patch work job, done by insiders, with no outside verification. Even a peace offering to help shore up trust would be huge.

      The third thing is the “SHUT UP, CONSPIRACY MONGER!” response. It gives the vibe of “me thinks thou dost protest to much.” Conservative and Liberals argued over Russia collusion, but organizations are censoring arguments over election integrity.

      Overall, as someone who leans libertarian, I very much like accountability. One of the highlights of the Trump administration was that the press remembered its job was the hold the President accountable, something that was sadly lacking in the prior administration (outside of “Ben Smithing” things).

      1. I agree, though to be honest, the press didn’t really do much to hold Trump accountable. Any legit accountability reporting was lost in the storm of biased emotion and reporting slanted news of incredibly stupid stuff. People who piss their own authority down the toilet aren’t *able* to hold anyone accountable.

        As an example, just one, so it’s clear I’m not making it up.

        The “real” news media reporting on North Korea:

        They warned us about future events, not what Trump did, or Kim did, but what was going to happen in the future because Trump called Kim “rocket man” or some such.

        They took sides, portraying Kim’s sister as glamorous and cosmopolitan and oh so deliciously snarky when she snubbed Vice President Pence. Heck, North Korea wasn’t even really bad, you know.

        Trump got Kim to the negotiating table with South Korea. This is a MASSIVE foreign policy achievement. Unprecedented and incredible. Trump really should have a Peace Prize, just for that. How was it reported? Do you recall?

        Reporters, “holding Trump accountable”, though just months earlier they were gushing over Kim’s sister, who is a legitimate monster as well, demanded that Kim was soooo evil that even talking to him was a violation of some sort, that anything less than deposing and trying Kim for crimes against humanity and his people, was an outrage. Every public chance they got they tried to force Trump or his administration into making statements that Kim was a monster. This while real progress was being made to pull Kim into real negotiations that might result in those desperately abused people in North Korea having a better life.


        Because hating Trump was more important than peace, or people’s lives, or compassion, or diplomacy. Because “journalists” didn’t care. No matter what Trump did was wrong. He was wrong to threaten Kim, right up until he was wrong to NOT threaten Kim.

        This is not “holding Trump accountable”.

        But yeah, don’t expect any journalists to hold taxidermy-Joe accountable for what his animatronics technicians do either.

        1. Oh, I wasn’t saying they did it well, in fact they were abject failures. Trump’s actual deficiencies (*cough*deficits*cough) were not what was looked at, and instead they made him into the bad guy of a fever dreams.

          Still it was a nice break from tongue bathing the Oval Office.

          What’s funny is, if the left had played ball with Trump, he might have given them a lot of ground. He’s a negotiator after all. Instead they demonized him worse than any president in my memory (and that’s saying something after Bush 2.0) and he allied himself with his base.

  50. The supreme court stopped an incredibly important recount in Florida at the turn of the century and set up that no-audit precedent

    1. ‘The supreme court stopped an incredibly important recount in Florida at the turn of the century and set up that no-audit precedent’

      RECOUNTS are not audits, as has been repeatedly stated on t his thread.

      The USSC overruled the Florida SC in this case because the recounts were being conducted only in counties with ‘significant’ numbers of ‘undervotes’, i.e. counties with hanging chad problems or similar issues (almost all heavily Democratic). This violated the equal protection clause, because the recounts were selective, not inclusive.

      1. And even then Bush won two vote counts and Gore only won one.

        Gore also sued to get military ballots disqualified because of something that the APO did while handling them. Because he knew that a majority of military are Republican.

    2. Wonder why the guy actually interviewed by federal authorities recanted his claims? Could it be that once actually in a position to be charged with perjury he told the truth?

      I have no clue about any of your other points or claims, that why I didn’t address them. I’ve never heard about laser printed ballots proven in Congress or any of the things you claim were proven in Congress. The Senate had a hearing on the election, it didnt include hundreds of mathematicians testifying. Returning to the laser printed ballots thing Delaware County in PA has listed online a bid looking to print election ballots and in the requirements it lists laser printing as acceptable. So looks like laser printing is just fine.

      I’m not projecting anything, just trying to explain why some people believe things that you don’t. And maybe attempting to show how each side was suckered into believing false narratives that suited their worldviews.

      1. Assuming you’re talking about the project Veritas postal worker, he didn’t recant his testimony. He did testify he was assuming people were talking about back dating ballots and that he had no knowledge of it, but the federal agent admitted on tape he was trying to twist the postal workers mind to get a recant because they didn’t want a real investigation. Additionally the worker signed and dated all ballots he collected after the election which isn’t something he would have done without believing shady things were happening. His belief shady things were happening isn’t proof and is weaker than a lot of affidavits because it’s hearsay and supposition of what the conversation meant, but he didn’t recant hearing a conversation he believed to be about backdating ballots.

        1. Yes that’s whom I meant. Thanks for clarifying that he didn’t recant. However I do believe you are mistaken that the agent he was twisting the worker to avoid a real investigation. He said they were trying to twist him, but the reasoning for that was to see if he was making things up.

          1. I have a reply with a link to audio of the interview where you can hear the worker talk about twisting the mind and all the people involved but it’s in moderation. While I would recognize twisting the mind as a valid interrogation / memory recall tactic, the fact that the USPSIG leaked him supposedly recanting to news services when he didn’t makes any such defense questionable at best.
            Honestly the inaccurate leak feels like the Obama administration members going to friendly news channels and swearing they had the classified evidence of Trump’s collusion with Russia, and then when under oath admitting they knew nothing. Of course, once the narrative is set, the facts don’t really matter.

    3. Supreme court blocked trying to guess intention based on partially punched ballots, not auditing the process. Additionally, the recount run by the media afterwards actually resulted in a larger win for Bush.

  51. I have to say looking at this as an outsider, this looks like a giant clusterfuck, where both sides can and have brought valid points. The problem i see is in the extreme focus of an absolute, in either direction. I personally see a value in validating the election even from the point to calm the ,,masses”, but you still have these extreme fanatics who are against everything which comes from the dems or in better terms not from trumps own mouth. For example problems in the containment of corona. I dont say that every panicky choosen measurment is to enforce, but small adjustements in your personal live like wearing a mask (which wont cause you any excessive harm) would be nice , even if they dont do anything, because atleast you try and arent condeming people to death. Anyway the only thing the last couple of days showed the world was that the core pro Trump community is not thinking properly, they startet good with a protest, which is their right wiht such an important point of worrie, but the the actions afterwards were just despicabel and not of any use for their cause.
    I hope this text was understandable, if not here is the sinopsis of my opinion:
    Control of this election is necessary for all sides.
    The working with extremes and total disregard of points from the different party is idiotic (example covid and the refusal to wear masks, it is not a huge deal and maybe it could help)
    The demonstration was in the right of the people, but the action afterwards were idiotic and not helpful for their point. Also is the ignorance for the consequences is similarly sad as the ,,Reichsbürger” in germany and the ,,Freemen” in austria.

    If you want to show me the flaws in my points i would appreciate it. This post was sponsored by sleep deprevation and depression about the extreme idiots on all sites.

  52. I’ve read all your book, most of them several times.

    I’ve followed you since Sad Puppies 3, early 2014 since before shit hit the fan with GamerGate.

    I’ve respected your notion of ‘get paid’, and I’ve absolutely followed you for all your fisks and no-nonsense injections of reality into all the wild progressive bullcrap.

    I’ve lost all respect for the Hugos and the exclusionary incrowd it represents these days.

    I still love your books and I will continue to buy them…

    But damn! If after 60+ lawsuit that haven’t been able to turn up shit, if even given all the gerrymandering by the GOP and all the verifiable attempts at voter disenfranchisement by the GOP you still believe the somehow the vote was ‘stolen’ from the certifiably narcissistic sociopath that is regrettably still our POTUS for the next two weeks…

    I’m starting to have my doubts about your own sanity.

    There is nothing redeemable about what happened these last few days and certainly nothing redeemable about Trump still trying to overthrown the clearly elected new government to come.

    Suggesting anything else is inviting total anarchy and civil war, by what is more than clearly a minority opinion, electoral college or not.

    All in all, I don’t think I’ve ever been this disappointed by an author I’ve admired and followed for this long.

    I thought you were at least marginally rational about this sort of shit!

    1. So… I’m right in all these other places, but because I’m not falling in line on this topic (even though it is what I used to do for a living), I should shut up, because otherwise I’m personally responsible for the actions of millions of other people who feel lied to and disenfranchised they’ve lost all faith in the system and its watchdogs who’ve they caught lying to them daily, so you are sooooooooo disappointed in me.
      That about it?
      The part about questioning my sanity was fucking textbook.
      Your concern trolling/shame attempt was pretty lame, but let’s be honest. This is the real meat of your argument.
      “Suggesting anything else is inviting total anarchy and civil war, by what is more than clearly a minority opinion, electoral college or not.”
      You sound like a battered trailer park wife who keeps “walking into a door”. Perhaps this time if you’re nice, he’ll stop hitting you.

    2. Gerrymandering in a presidential election? Yes, a small subset of states assign electors based on congressional districts, with two floating for whoever wins the state election, but all of the states that we are discussing (Georgia, Wisconsin, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Michigan) use the statewide winner gets all electors model. Unless you are calling the original drawing of state lines as gerrymandering, you’re throwing out words in an attempt to obfuscate.
      I laugh at the claims of the rights efforts to “disenfranchise” that gets trotted out all the time. Voter ID requirements aren’t disenfranchising. Requiring signature matching / security envelopes to be filled out correctly on ballots that are going through the mail and can be filled out by anyone doesn’t count as disenfranchisement, regardless of what the shadow governor of Georgia might want to claim.
      60 lawsuits, most of which were thrown out on “latches” ie sued too late, or standing, ie you can’t prove that you were directly harmed doesn’t mean there wasn’t evidence.
      Once again, the usual process in these would be red flags, audit, data, or even redflags, lawsuit, discovery, evidenciary hearing, maybe dismissed maybe continues, but the process on these went red flags, lawsuit, dismissed with occasionally commenting on the easiest part of the data to dismiss. Or as run by Georgia, file a claim that the Trump lawsuit’s claims of illegal voters are wrong, but the information behind your response is too secret to show anyone, so just trust me on this one and get them thrown out.
      Many of these states held hearings on alleged voter fraud. Some of the information presented was refuted ie Michigan’s 1/1/1900 as d.o.b. in their qualified voter file is okay because we don’t need actual records on who is voting, but most of this was handwaved away as nothing to see here / the state’s didn’t require the witnesses to be under oath of perjury, even though they had submitted affidavits attesting to this information.

      The Sydney Powell “kraken” lawsuits do seem to have zero evidence underpinning them, but now that dominion has sued her, opening up discovery I’m looking forward to seeing what happens there.

      1. You are absolutely correct.

        The Left projects. You are right, voter ID requirements don’t disenfranchise anyone. Know what does disenfranchise people? Rigged elections. Rigged elections disenfranchise people. And for some mysterious reason, all the exact same people who were screaming that the 2000 election was “rigged” and the 2016 election was “rigged” deny angrily that there could possibly have been anything at all sketchy about the 2020 election, to the point where they censor the President of the United States and are doing their best to silence all dissenting speech.

        And if you notice the pattern that these people only complain about election rigging when they lose, you win one quatloo.

        I’ve seen it said on other forums. “The Greeks used boats to cross the Aegean Sea to wage war against Troy. But then they burned their boats! I don’t understand! Were the Greeks pro-boat, or anti-boat?” The boats, of course, were just tools to be discarded when they had served their purpose.

        Just so, pretty much any Leftist talking point, any “principle” they claim to espouse, is only a tactic. The only consistency you can expect from them is that they want power and have no principles. Every Leftist talking point, every Leftist slogan, from “equality” to “free speech” to “social justice” to “hope and change” to “judicial supremacy” to “civil rights” to “the Constitution is a living document” to “common-sense safety regulations” to “if it saves just one life” to “do it for the children” to “renewable green energy” has been a tactic, a brazen lie to trick a free people into putting weapons into their hands that they promptly drove into our backs. Every single time.

        Are we going to wise up and perceive the pattern? Or is Lucy going to keep on pulling that football away from Charlie Brown, and is good ol’ Charlie Brown going to keep on being shocked when it happens?

  53. I had to skim the comments as there are so many. Forgive me if I restate things already said.

    I think talk of auditing is a little silly at this point because:
    1) It has been obvious for a long time now that serious auditing was needed.
    2) Auditing has been resisted, done on the wrong data, or on the wrong counties, with no observers … all probably purposefully.
    3) Lots of data, such as the work of Matt Braynard, is just ignored. There are hours of witness testimony to the purposeful frustration of poll watchers and challengers. All ignored.
    4) The courts bend over backward to dismiss case,s based on them being filed too early, too late, or there being no standing. These are all excuses. In particular the Texas vs. Pennsylvania supreme court case was dismissed on standing with no serious explanation (with two dissensions). There are quite a few lawyers, including Robert Barnes and Alan Dershowitz, who disagreed with the decision and stated that it, in effect, gave a signal to all the lower courts to ignore election cases.

    With law (not to mention enforcement) taken out of the equation auditing is reduced to a bit of hand waving for public relations.

    The question now is what kind of society and power structure exists such that the basic rules of civilisation can be ignored, the infractions go mostly unreported or at least completely unreported to half the population, be undressed by the either the the courts or law enforcement, and any outrage at that state of affairs be interpreted as conspiracy theories or radicalisation by that same unseeing half of the population.
    In what sort of society can there be midnight arrests and then transparently political prosecutions, demonization by media seemingly at the flick of a switch, suppression of any stories damaging to one narrative….

    I think that there are three reasons for we have seen this brazen election stuff now:
    1) The oligarchy is in the ascendant. It used to be the “military industrial complex” but it may now be dominated by tech billionaires. Much of the cash may come from abroad. Who knows?
    2) Trump was not a “uniparty” swamp creature, meaning that the oligarchy actually cared who was elected.
    3) COVID with the attendant increase in mail in ballots provided an irresistible opportunity.

    I think the work of Joel Kotkin, “The Coming of Neo-Feudalism: A Warning to the Global Middle Class” may in relevant.

  54. Next up: ‘Private possession of guns are a public health health crisis’ will become a top priority for the Harris/Obama administration. Freezing of bank accounts, threats to job security, no-knock raids, etc. etc. for attempting to retain such private property will be used to ensure compliance. That is the biggest priority for the incoming tyranny, for as long as half the nation is armed and the bulk of the rank and file of the military come from that demographic the threat of armed rebellion will be ever-present. There will be a push for a national police force to replace the obviously irredeemably racist and corrupted local police. Push for nationalized elections down to the township level, with voting entirely done by mail. Also a renewed push to have government-approved news feed monitors inserted in all media operations to ensure that only the news that’s fit to print will be disseminated (the media fought that back the first time, but now that they’ve made their deal with the devil, they’re going to learn the hard way what the devil’s side of the bargain was). There will be renewed attempts to completely eliminate hard currency from the economy to both track purchases and other spending for wrongbuying and to better and more easily manipulate the 0’s and 1’s in account databases. There will be successful attempts to import variations on proposed legislation in the UK, especially Scotland and Northern Ireland, to criminalize ‘hate speech’ uttered in private, including third party reporting by persons who feel the words spoken should have been considered offensive by the targets of such speech even if said targets don’t agree that they were. Masks will become a permanent part of our wardrobe, because there will always be a medical emergency mandating such attire, and noncompliance=criminality.

    And that’s just the start. And if you think I’m going full Alex Jones here, I just have to read the news from the rest of the Anglosphere and elsewhere to see where things might be going. We have pundits praising Tyrant Xi and his ilk for how they run their nations. We have pundits proposing a replacement of the rule of law for the rule by immutable and mutable characteristics, where justice will be made depending on what demographic(s) you belong to, not who you are. Overt racism and sexism, only the Critical Justice people don’t call it that because marginalized people can’t by definition be bigoted.

    I hope most if not all of this won’t come true. But you better be prepared. Because Monsters are marginalized people too, and they deserve reparations from those who slaughter them.

    1. I think you’re not wrong.

      One of the things that keeps me up at night is that democracy is fragile, as is civilization. It is not the norm, historically speaking. The norm of all of human history across all nations and times is peasants ruled by brigands, according to Alfred Duggan. Historically speaking, it’s rather unusual to see democracy last as long as it has here.

      And sometimes Thomas Jefferson isn’t on the ballot, and the choice becomes Pinochet vs. Pol Pot. And I know enough history to know which one I’d choose.

  55. What really annoys me is that we’re having this mess despite having long had the technology to make GOOD vote counting machines. Machines that are completely transparent about how they work, tamper resistant, cryptographically verifiable from start to finish, and generally as trustworthy as any contentious process ever can be. Look at how GitHub, the Debian software repositories, GnuPG, SSH, and TPM hardware all work – and how the wider community scrutinizes them – and you’ll start to see the general idea. The hard part is making the vote tally itself fully reconstructable and still have it be a secret ballot. But it can be done. Reading about the cryptographic algorithms behind the “how” (to preserve secrecy) makes me wish for extra-strength ibuprofen, but it really seems possible. Yet we aren’t even close to that in real-world elections. Sigh.

    1. What if the machines work that way because powerful interests find it very convenient? What if the security measures you’re talking about would be inconvenient for them?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *