• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What is going on with the kung fu audit in arizona?

This accusation would only make sense if they were dealing with honest or competent auditors, there is no reason to think the auditors are honest or competent.

I think the data shows what it shows. Once it's released, I'm sure we'll hear other opinions from other "experts" regarding validity. Perhaps the democrats would like to conduct their own forensic anaylisis.
 
Which is why they had no problems with the first two legit audits. This audit is not legit.

I've read about those first two audits. They weren't nearly so comprehensive.

I'll wait and see what the report says when it's released. Ir's pretty interesting that Maricopa County has withheld the routers, among other things.
 
I've read about those first two audits. They weren't nearly so comprehensive.

I'll wait and see what the report says when it's released. Ir's pretty interesting that Maricopa County has withheld the routers, among other things.
Yeah,
They ddi not check the ballots for Bamboo traces......
 
I think the data shows what it shows. Once it's released, I'm sure we'll hear other opinions from other "experts" regarding validity. Perhaps the democrats would like to conduct their own forensic anaylisis.
They should audit the auditors
 
We'll see. I found it interesting. If the democrats in AZ are certain the election was clean, they would be more cooperative. I know I would be, and I bet you would be too.
Does that reasoning also apply to trump who refused to cooperate with any investigations? It's not our job to prove the election was clean, it's your job to prove it was rigged.
 
No. A rational person would read it and likely withhold judgement until reports are completed and reviewed.
A rational person would call an obviously farcical audit farcical and realize any findings have no basis in fact
 
They should audit the auditors
Let's see the report before jumping to conclusions. If the evidence presented is valid, exactly who produced it is a secondary concern. If the evidence isn't valid, then a closer look at the auditors would be reasonable.
 
Let's see the report before jumping to conclusions. If the evidence presented is valid, exactly who produced it is a secondary concern. If the evidence isn't valid, then a closer look at the auditors would be reasonable

there is no way to know it’s valid since the audit did not have up close bipartisan auditors double checking their work but at best some half assed cameras
 
Does that reasoning also apply to trump who refused to cooperate with any investigations? It's not our job to prove the election was clean, it's your job to prove it was rigged.

I don't answer for Trump.

Your side of the political aisle claims the election was clean. If you believe that, then cooperation in checking out the veracity of that claim would be reasonable. Obstruction appears to undermine that clean election claim. That's reality.
 
I don't answer for Trump.

Your side of the political aisle claims the election was clean. If you believe that, then cooperation in checking out the veracity of that claim would be reasonable. Obstruction appears to undermine that clean election claim. That's reality.
The “audit” is clearly designed to create evidence out of thin air to call the election into question and further radicalize trump supporters

there is good reason to oppose obfuscating facts there were already known
 
there is no way to know it’s valid since the audit did not have up close bipartisan auditors double checking their work but at best some half assed cameras
I'm sure that whatever the audit reveals will be checked multiple times by multiple entities. Everybody knows this, or should.
 
I'm sure that whatever the audit reveals will be checked multiple times by multiple entities. Everybody knows this, or should.
In order for the results to be trust worthy it should be agreed to by the splc and the heritage foundation or equivalents to both organizations.
 
I don't answer for Trump.

Your side of the political aisle claims the election was clean. If you believe that, then cooperation in checking out the veracity of that claim would be reasonable. Obstruction appears to undermine that clean election claim. That's reality.
That's your reality, not mine. As far as your you don't answer for trump, I'm not asking you to answer for him, I'm asking you why is it ok for trump to obstruct everything even telling those around him not to cooperate with any investigation is ok with you?

Your side of the aisle is the side that refuses to accept the reality trump lost, end of.
 
The “audit” is clearly designed to create evidence out of thin air to call the election into question and further radicalize trump supporters

there is good reason to oppose obfuscating facts there were already known
Then those of you who are absolutely certain the audit is bogus shoild have no problem proving it. It is data, after all.
 
I'm sure that whatever the audit reveals will be checked multiple times by multiple entities. Everybody knows this, or should.
I gave your comment a like because I agree, no amount of nothing found here will satisfy the trump supporters. Each time one of the fraud claims is shot down, another pops up...and will have the same results, trump lost.
 
Then those of you who are absolutely certain the audit is bogus shoild have no problem proving it. It is data, after all.
Again, this is america and we don't have to prove the election was clean, you have to prove it was rigged. What is so hard to understand?
 
Then those of you who are absolutely certain the audit is bogus shoild have no problem proving it. It is data, after all.
It’s already being ripped to shreds without me having to lift a finger (except to type this response)
 
I gave your comment a like because I agree, no amount of nothing found here will satisfy the trump supporters. Each time one of the fraud claims is shot down, another pops up...and will have the same results, trump lost.
I'll wait on the AZ report. Court cases will likely ensue, and the vetting of the methods and data will be undertaken. It'll likely be a lengthy affair. What the AZ Senate might do in the interim will be interesting. Personally, I'm more interested in election integrity than anything Trump-related.
 
Again, this is america and we don't have to prove the election was clean, you have to prove it was rigged. What is so hard to understand?
I believe AZ is looking at legitimacy right now. This isn't difficult. If Maricopa County is certain the election was clean, it would've been a simple matter to cooperate with the auditors. As it is, courts and subpoenas were required, and I think Dominion is still hiding under a bed somewhere, talking to lawyers about another $300 billion lawsuit in hopes of intimidation while clutching access codes like a rosary. If you'll remember, the democrats themselves claimed these machines weren't secure just a couple of years ago. Maybe they were right.
 
If the evidence presented is valid
Ok, fair enough, and WHO is going to determine if the evidence is valid?

Example: IF the report says that there was this flaw or that flaw or they found some "evidence" of fraud, do YOU take THEIR word for it, or wait for a court challenge (so wait another year) - and what if Fox says this looks genuine and CNN says it looks fake, are you going to believe one network over another?

Here is the rub: those on the Right keep harping about "honesty" and "openness" but have no problem with the fact that we still don't know who is paying for this audit? IF it was on the up and up, why not reveal the donors?

Private election funding is illegal, except ...​

Let me say that again. The Senate – which earlier this year approved a bill that would ban private funding for elections – is promoting a campaign to raise private funds to audit the election.

Moreover, the people who live in the State don't trust the audit:
The poll found 56% of those who were informed about the audit felt that it could not be trusted, while those who had not heard much at all were unsure. But the more people learned about the audit, pollsters found, the less likely they were to trust it.

This is purely a partisan exercise, meant to deflect and deceive, there will be NO valid evidence presented, but I will bet my bottom dollar when "evidence" is presented, even if the evidence is couched in vague terms like "maybe, might have been, suspicious, unclear, requires further investigation", that those who BELIEVE the election was stolen will believe the "evidence".
 
No. A rational person would read it and likely withhold judgement until reports are completed and reviewed.

Before or after the two audits that already happened or after this bs scam audit?
 
Back
Top Bottom