Faustus said:

---

If the state Rs would have paid for top law firms or accounting firms attach their name to the audits it would drawn heads and carried weight.

You can't tell me that one of the Big 5 accounting firms or a reputable law firm wouldn't have been willing to undertake this - albeit it would have been without a predetermined outcome - which nixed their involvement in the first place.

Given that's not happening it's pretty clear that these endeavors amount to little more than hired gun expert reports which don't seek to sway concerned mods or libs (e.g the Court or the jury), but rather that the legislators' constituents were right all along. That's a worthwhile endeavor for those legislators answerable to their electorate.

I could be swayed by proof that comes from the audit, but it's hard to imagine a less suspect process. Then again the process was never geared towards me or moderates, it's geared towards Rs not having to admit defeat. It's helpful to have something more than tweets, DJTs indefatigability, and disdain for the opposition. This does that.

---

Faustus said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Faustus said:

---

If the state Rs would have paid for top law firms or accounting firms attach their name to the audits it would drawn heads and carried weight.

You can't tell me that one of the Big 5 accounting firms or a reputable law firm wouldn't have been willing to undertake this - albeit it would have been without a predetermined outcome - which nixed their involvement in the first place.

Given that's not happening it's pretty clear that these endeavors amount to little more than hired gun expert reports which don't seek to sway concerned mods or libs (e.g the Court or the jury), but rather that the legislators' constituents were right all along. That's a worthwhile endeavor for those legislators answerable to their electorate.

I could be swayed by proof that comes from the audit, but it's hard to imagine a less suspect process. Then again the process was never geared towards me or moderates, it's geared towards Rs not having to admit consession.

---

What a dumb take. And you wouldn't believe any accounting firm either. But you would believe the electronic voting systems employees checking their own systems?

Pro V&V are garbage firms that even a federal judge found not credible (Pro V&V specifically but Pro V&V ceo testified that they relied on SLI provided information witout checking it themselves.)

The inventor of the RLA testified in the same lawsuit that Dominion's systems are not configured in such a manner that his RLA will provide a verifiable result. They would be garbage and a waste of time.

But since you are here, and since the Dems have already admitted they "saved" the election by illegal means, pray tell me when you will admit there is a reason to investigate further??? 2025?

---

I said I'd believe one of the Big 5 accounting firms in the very post you quoted (not that they're infallible when it comes to serving the one paying the fees - but Republicans would be paying the fees in this instance ).

You went with Cyber Ninjas instead, madam.

---

Faustus said:

---

If the state Rs would have paid for top law firms or accounting firms attach their name to the audits it would drawn heads and carried weight.

You can't tell me that one of the Big 5 accounting firms or a reputable law firm wouldn't have been willing to undertake this - albeit it would have been without a predetermined outcome - which nixed their involvement in the first place.

Given that's not happening it's pretty clear that these endeavors amount to little more than hired gun expert reports which don't seek to sway concerned mods or libs (e.g the Court or the jury), but rather that the legislators' constituents were right all along. That's a worthwhile endeavor for those legislators answerable to their electorate. Their voters wanted to hear they were robbed, so to the extent they have control of the state legislature they can retain firms that will produce reports that say they were, it's possible they were, or that conditions were present where they were.

I could be swayed by proof that come from an audit, but it's hard to imagine a less suspect process. Then again the process was never geared towards me/concerned moderates/libs, it's geared towards hard core Rs not having to admit defeat. It's helpful to have something more than tweets, DJTs indefatigability, disdain for the opposition, and quasi celebrities' support. This adds another plank to those buckets of "evidence".

So carry on.

---

Jack Lime said:

---

Quote:

---

IT'S ONCE AGAIN TIME FOR EVERYONE'S FAVORITE GAME:

NAME THE LIBERAL'S LOGICAL FALLACY!!!

The liberal claims "The Arizona Audit is invalid because it's not run by a big name company". Which logical fallacy is he using?

Is it:
A) Equivocation
B) Tu quoque
C) Appeal to Authority
D) Circular Reasoning


If you guessed C) "Appeal to authority", you are correct! Just because an auditor is not well known does not make their work invalid.

---

Congrats on taking a freshman level debate class. But Faustus is right and you're wrong. "Cyber Ninjas" have not proffered an argument, nor have we even seen their results, so there's not fallacy here. Had they made a claim and Faustus dismissed it by using an ad hominem, that would be a fallacy.

But ad hominem is not always a fallacy. The competence, motivations, integrity, and experience of the firm doing the audit matter when the process is opaque and we are to rely on the authority of those running it and accuracy of their claims. "Cyber Ninjas" have no election experience and they've never run an election audit.

Further, Doug Logan is a full Qanon lunatic. He's a highly motivated partisan. Nobody will buy what they're selling that wasn't already convinced before hand.

---

Jack Lime said:

---

Quote:

---

IT'S ONCE AGAIN TIME FOR EVERYONE'S FAVORITE GAME:

NAME THE LIBERAL'S LOGICAL FALLACY!!!

The liberal claims "The Arizona Audit is invalid because it's not run by a big name company". Which logical fallacy is he using?

Is it:
A) Equivocation
B) Tu quoque
C) Appeal to Authority
D) Circular Reasoning


If you guessed C) "Appeal to authority", you are correct! Just because an auditor is not well known does not make their work invalid.

---

Congrats on taking a freshman level debate class. But Faustus is right and you're wrong. "Cyber Ninjas" have not proffered an argument, nor have we even seen their results, so there's not fallacy here. Had they made a claim and Faustus dismissed it by using an ad hominem, that would be a fallacy.

But ad hominem is not always a fallacy. The competence, motivations, integrity, and experience of the firm doing the audit matter when the process is opaque and we are to rely on the authority of those running it and accuracy of their claims. "Cyber Ninjas" have no election experience and they've never run an election audit.

Further, Doug Logan is a full Qanon lunatic. He's a highly motivated partisan. Nobody will buy what they're selling that wasn't already convinced before hand.

---

Jack Lime said:

---

Doug Logan is a Q lunatic. He was sure the election was "stolen" before he'd examined any evidence. It's being financed by right wing "stop the steal" types that expect a return on investment. It's not hard to muddy the waters when they write their report no matter how clean the ballots are.

You want people to trust the "auditors"? Don't hire right wing lunatics with zero experience. They look like hired guns. I suspect this "audit" will get an audit of its own, that will be a lot more interesting.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Faustus said:

---

If the state Rs would have paid for top law firms or accounting firms attach their name to the audits it would drawn heads and carried weight.

You can't tell me that one of the Big 5 accounting firms or a reputable law firm wouldn't have been willing to undertake this - albeit it would have been without a predetermined outcome - which nixed their involvement in the first place.

Given that's not happening it's pretty clear that these endeavors amount to little more than hired gun expert reports which don't seek to sway concerned mods or libs (e.g the Court or the jury), but rather that the legislators' constituents were right all along. That's a worthwhile endeavor for those legislators answerable to their electorate.

I could be swayed by proof that comes from the audit, but it's hard to imagine a less suspect process. Then again the process was never geared towards me or moderates, it's geared towards Rs not having to admit consession.

---

What a dumb take. And you wouldn't believe any accounting firm either. But you would believe the electronic voting systems employees checking their own systems?

Pro V&V are garbage firms that even a federal judge found not credible (Pro V&V specifically but Pro V&V ceo testified that they relied on SLI provided information witout checking it themselves.)

The inventor of the RLA testified in the same lawsuit that Dominion's systems are not configured in such a manner that his RLA will provide a verifiable result. They would be garbage and a waste of time.

But since you are here, and since the Dems have already admitted they "saved" the election by illegal means, pray tell me when you will admit there is a reason to investigate further??? 2025?

---

SlimM said:

---

Sterling82 said:

---

And I can't stand Rachel Maddow but if she provided irrefutable evidence of something I certainly wouldn't ignore it.

---

NOBODY here would trust a CNN/MSNBC sponsored audit even if they provided irrefutable evidence. They would just say it was all faked by the deep state or something like that.

---

🚨BREAKING from @jsolomonReports

Georgia Secretary of State to remove 100K names from state voter rollshttps://t.co/LZ0EFDEK9A

— Jenna Ellis (@JennaEllisEsq) June 19, 2021

will25u said:

---

Day late dollar short.

🚨BREAKING from @jsolomonReports

Georgia Secretary of State to remove 100K names from state voter rollshttps://t.co/LZ0EFDEK9A

— Jenna Ellis (@JennaEllisEsq) June 19, 2021

---