So the actual audits done in response to the proper challenges under proper statutory authority that did not find that there was anything sufficiently wrong to overturn the results of the election (and, in many cases, concluded that there wasn't even anything wrong in the first place) are not real audits?
Having actually read several of the lawsuits filed (mostly those after the Texas v Pennsylvania suit), I can tell you that almost none of those lawsuits actually called for a real audit of the election. They actually called for annulling the results of the election in various ways. Many of them didn't even allege voter fraud, and a few specifically denied allegations of voter fraud. If the people filing these lawsuits said they only wanted real audits of the election in media statements, they are fucking liars.
Did you reflect on this statement at all?
Fuck, you're on a programming forum, so I'm assuming you can do simple boolean logic.
----
I have a large family in GA. They predominately vote republican. Most of them DO NOT LIKE Trump. He's fucked several members of my family over financially (China imports a boatload of pecans, if you weren't aware. We grow pecans).
I have two diehard republican uncles - Neither voted for Trump in this election. One because he watched his mother (my grandmother) die of covid while trump was still spouting off how small a deal it was. The other because he doesn't think his company will survive another 4 years of the China trade war.
The ground truth, and I'm on the fucking ground here, is that GA was already not inclined to favor Trump in this election.
Add record Black/Minority turnout and it's pretty clear why the state went the way it did.
Hell, I normally vote split ticket on local elections, but not this year.
Yet you come in here and spout off bullshit to try to tell me how my local state should continue to audit and audit and audit until magically the results change to what you want? Get the fuck out of here.
Yes, because the images have serial numbers. It's not difficult to understand.
You argue from a position of bad faith, with doctored evidence and a clear intent to muddy the waters instead of seek truth.
Moreover, we've had to warn you about this before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21162256. I'm currently banning so many accounts that have built up track records of abusing HN that it would be easiest to just add one more.
However, I looked at your commenting history and it's mostly quite good, so instead I'm going to put this down as an episode of going on tilt under pressure (it happens to all of us) and just ask you to please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and not sink to this kind of the thing in the future.
"Every single case got struck down by judges" is not a new argument to my ears. Do you think most of those judges heard actual evidence, or were throwing cases out on procedural grounds? Have you considered that question?
Has Matt Braynard's work been heard and responded to?
What are the responses to these?
https://spectator.us/reasons-why-the-2020-presidential-elect...
https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/23/5-more-ways-joe-biden-m...
Look at this "fact check", does it seem reasonable to you? https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2020/12/fact-check-video-...
Here's a response to it: https://gellerreport.com/2020/12/no-the-georgia-vote-countin...
I think 90% of all these concerns are likely to be dismisable. But they haven't even been examined, and I have a deep and abiding fear of the remaining 10% actually having merit.
IIRC, there was an election case in Pennsylvania that made it up to the Federal appeals court. There it was dismissed for lack of evidence. (The opinion was written by a judge appointed by Trump.) You can think of that as "procedural grounds" and "not hearing the evidence", I suppose, but to me it looks like examining the evidence and finding it lacking at the most basic level.
Yes. And I even read complaints filed, responses to those complaints, arguments and rulings. And you can too (here's a summary of many of the cases, with links and citations to the actual court documents)[0].
I could tell you what conclusions I drew, but I won't. Don't believe me or anyone else. Read the court documents yourself. They are matters of public record.
[0] https://electioncases.osu.edu/2021/01/summary-of-post-electi...