Election Integrity (evidence of lack)

If Republicans (successfully) cheat enough, the laws will change.

That's why they have to "successfully" cheat. If that means playing the "judge game"

The reason they have stopped complaining is that they think it was "too big to rig" that the level of fraud which is possible without even further detection (for we have certainly detected some see this thread) was insufficient to overcome the sheer majority of people which have rejected the deep state candidates.

Maricopa county has been an epicenter of proven dirty election subversion

how would you explain it if in two years Trump has done nothing to secure elections?

he'll have the justice department and presidential immunity so he won't need to concern himself with it.

The reason they have stopped complaining is that they think it was "too big to rig" that the level of fraud which is possible without even further detection (for we have certainly detected some see this thread) was insufficient to overcome the sheer majority of people which have rejected the deep state candidates.

lol

If you lose, it's because they cheated. If you win, it's because you won so big the cheating didn't matter.

Pathetic.

Maricopa county has been an epicenter of proven dirty election subversion

Maybe they should hire an independent party to come in and investigate.

how would you explain it if in two years Trump has done nothing to secure elections?

You mean like put together a voter fraud commission?

Nothing will happen. He doesn't care about election integrity, he cares about winning.

he'll have the justice department and presidential immunity so he won't need to concern himself with it.

lol, 

impeachment: flop

justice system: flop

assassination: flop

It's like there's too many "guard rails" to allow subverting a democratically elected president.

Consistent

Wouldn't help, the fake elections are unauditable by design.

Trump is also a "guard rail"

Consistent

Constantly made up with no evidence to fit your narrative.

Wouldn't help, the fake elections are unauditable by design.

How convenient

This thread is filled with the evidence.

How convenient

...for cheaters, yes.

This thread is filled with the evidence.

It's filled with anecdotes, many of which (and probably most) are not even legitimate examples.

then there's the fact you haven't provided a single reason to believe whatever levels of voter fraud are actually taking place benefit ones side over the other in any meaningful

But that of course doesn't matter to the Trump conspiracy wing.

How convenient

...for cheaters, yes.

For people who aren't concerned about facts and logic.

I don't see the point in pretending you've been paying attention. You know nothing because you wish to know nothing.

But that of course doesn't matter to the Trump conspiracy wing.

The solution is the same no matter who is cheating and by how much. So why should it matter?

That's right they listed Biden Harris as a client.

I don't see the point in pretending you've been paying attention. You know nothing because you wish to know nothing.

I already challenged you, in depth on the example you started this thread off with.

If 10,000 people cheat in an election and 5k cheat for one side while 5k cheat for the other...

So when you suggest an election result cannot be trusted because of the cheating, it is not enough to prove that there has been some fraud

you also need to prove that the fraud benefited one side over the other.

You haven't even bothered to try and make that case.

That's right they listed Biden Harris as a client.

And...?

If 10,000 people cheat in an election and 5k cheat for one side while 5k cheat for the other...

So we shouldn't care about cheating because it is mathematically possible that the cheating cancels out and has no net effect....

So when you suggest an election result cannot be trusted because of the cheating, it is not enough to prove that there has been some fraud

Of course it is.

No I do not. An unknown upper limit to the fraud or an upper limit to the fraud that is in excess of the margin of victory is by definition untrustworthy.

Fake election = untrusted results = outcome that could have been changed by fraud for all we know

You haven't even bothered to try and make that case.

and I won't. I can't even quantify the fraud much less figure out which ballots are fraudulent and who those ballots were cast for. If I could that would mean the election was auditable, which would be inherently more trustworthy and the entire situation could be resolved by an audit.

And...?

A client is someone who pays you.

The Biden Harris campaign paid an organization that submitted fraudulent voter registrations and then went into hiding when it was discovered. This is what they call "evidence of left-tribe election fraud" in the real world.

I pointed out the fact that proving that there is cheating doesn't prove the results were skewed by it in any particular direction.

Translation; "I have no evidence"

So when you suggest an election result cannot be trusted because of the cheating, it is not enough to prove that there has been some fraud

Of course it is.

Math says otherwise.

Wow, an organization that was caught in a fraudulent scheme were paid by a presidential campaign. And we know this because the fraudsters told us so.

Amazing how your impossibly high standards of critical thinking plummet as soon as the narrative becomes convenient for you.

Burden of proof error.

My conclusion is: We don't know who the winner was/is.

That's a negative.

Correct translation: Those who claim a democratic election took place have no evidence

Math says otherwise.

Post the math.

The only other possibility is a false flag. Is that what you are claiming is more probable?

Burden of proof error.

My conclusion is: We don't know who the winner was/is.

That's a negative.

You claimed that Trump won because the right overcame the fraud, that's not a negative and it logically necessitates that the fraud worked against them, meaning it was mostly done by the left.

And again, it's not a burden of proof error. You're the one claiming our elections are untrustworthy while ignoring the hurdles your claim has to overcome.

Proving the levels of fraud being committed are plausibly sufficient to change the outcome is just one of them. Proving that the fraud skews in either direction is another hurdle, says math.

The checks and balances in place to ensure election integrity are more than sufficient.

The burden of proof is not on the person who takes the position no (as in insufficient) fraud, that's the default position.

You're simply doing what every conspiracy theorist does, accusing others of fraud/cover up and pretending it's everyone else's job to refute your baseless allegations. It isn't.

So when you suggest an election result cannot be trusted because of the cheating, it is not enough to prove that there has been some fraud

Of course it is.

Math says otherwise.

Post the math.

-5000 + 5000 = 0

The only other possibility is a false flag. Is that what you are claiming is more probable?

What I'm saying is that your "evidence" is terribly underwhelming.

Again, have you confirmed that the Biden/Harris campaign was in fact a client of this organization?

This is what's necessary to make an entry level case.

You are ignoring context.

The context was your statement "So when you suggest an election result cannot be trusted because of the cheating."

See there it is again. "untrustworthy"

It's untrustworthy when you can't trust the result is accurate no matter which way the bias is.

I do think and did claim that the left-tribers are cheating more and that true democracy would favor the right, but I do not need to prove that to prove untrustworthiness.

If that is your default position you owe me money, the contract I claim you signed says so. <- remember this, it's the thought experiment you couldn't handle last time. 

If somebody claimed I owed them money and obedience because they landed on the moon, it sure as hell is their job to prove they landed on the moon (in a world where landing on the moon is somehow relevant to that).

How did you determine the number of fraudulent ballots was exactly 10,000?

That's not one of the options. It's either:

1.) People paid by the Harris campaign cheated

2.) It's a false flag by people trying to spread distrust in the election

3.) Lancaster county election officials were lying about fraudulent registrations and who did them

"your evidence doesn't matter" = (3).

In which case: Now whose accusing others of fraud/cover up?

Again, have you confirmed that the Biden/Harris campaign was in fact a client of this organization?

If they weren't then there is only one possibility: The field and media corps claiming that they were clients was an overt lie.

I am pointing out that in order to rationally justify your skepticism regarding the election results on the basis of fraud, you have to make a plausible case that the fraud could have overturned the results.

So just as a thought experiment, let's say the election was decided by exactly 10k votes and let's also say that there were exactly 10k plus 1 fraudulent ballots cast. What are the chances that fraud changed the result?

Answer: Statistical impossibility. For that to occur literally every single one of the 10k plus fraudulent ballots needed to be for the same side while 0 fraudulent ballots were cast for the opposite. Given that we know fraud is committed on both sides, that mathematically raises the threshold on how many fraudulent ballots it would take to swing the results, which in turn puts that much more emphasis on the need not only to prove a high rate of fraud, but a disproportionate beneficiary of that fraud. That's what it would take mathematically therefore that point cannot be discarded while claiming to be rational.

When the left wing candidate wins and you claim we should not accept that result on the basis of fraud, your claim logically necessitates that the left cheated more than the right.

So no you don't get to pretend it doesn't matter who's doing the cheating and provide no basis for why you claim one side is notably worse than the other.

If that is your default position you owe me money, the contract I claim you signed says so. <- remember this, it's the thought experiment you couldn't handle last time. 

I destroyed that point, but clearly you couldn't handle it. Don't remember what thread it was, pull it up and I'll gladly show you.

If somebody claimed I owed them money and obedience because they landed on the moon, it sure as hell is their job to prove they landed on the moon (in a world where landing on the moon is somehow relevant to that).

Basic epistemological error.

The burden of proof is always on the person who makes the claim.

And given the number of safeguards in place and lack of any historical precedent for the kind of thing you're talking about, it's more than sufficient.

Again, a group that allegedly provided services to the Harris campaign was caught trying to cheat. So what does this prove?

And do we even know that it was the organization, or just someone working within it? Those are two different things.

Again, have you confirmed that the Biden/Harris campaign was in fact a client of this organization?

If they weren't then there is only one possibility: The field and media corps claiming that they were clients was an overt lie.

No, it isn't. It means people got things wrong.

Where did the 3 Million voters go between 2020 and 2024?

They stayed at home. Not prepared to welcome either candidate.

They stayed at home. Not prepared to welcome either candidate.

Possible. LOL

Trump was so happy with the 2024 results he promised to deport them.

Has anybody mentioned anything about the vote count in the elections: