Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

923

https://www.maricopa.gov/5681/Elections-Equipment-Audit

Seems pretty thorough. I was just reading to get a feel for what the enemy is saying. I know watermarks are being checked and ballot folds but wouldn't fraud have showed up in the previous audit?

Asking for a friend

https://www.maricopa.gov/5681/Elections-Equipment-Audit Seems pretty thorough. I was just reading [this article](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/05/arizonas-election-audit-is-a-trainwreck/618834/) to get a feel for what the enemy is saying. I know watermarks are being checked and ballot folds but wouldn't fraud have showed up in the previous audit? Asking for a friend

(post is archived)

[–] • 4 pts

One of the ways they cheated was by fudging the numbers in the system and then trucking in the needed ballots late in the game in order to match them with the numbers in the computer. So when the ballots were counted the two times before, the numbers matched, no problem. But those ballots being trucked around the country (crossing state lines) and showing up in the middle of the night were fraudulent. That’s why those ballots have to be checked for authenticity. If they were not onto something the Democrats would not be lawyering up trying to stop them.

[–] • 4 pts

The first audit was the suspect explaining how they had nothing to do with then dead hooker in their trunk.

[–] • 2 pts (edited )

saying 'i heard you complaints, so ive checked my own work, and yes, i can declare, there was nothing wrong with it' doesnt count.

thats how boeing got the 737MAX in the air without the FAA discovering it was a computer controlled flying brick.

[–] • 2 pts

The original audit was simply to verify that count was correct. Nothing more. This only validated that the ballot scanners functioned and no simple miscount occurred.

The first audit had nothing to do with signature verification, illegal votes, double voting, or any other form of fraud. They weren't auditing fraudulent votes. They were just making sure the votes added up the same both times, regardless of where the votes came from. Total meaningless charade.

I'd hope any major vote rigging operation would at least be able to count the fraudulent votes correctly.

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

It's word semantics. They did not audit. Calling it an audit is a purposeful lie. They recounted. That's not an audit. Legally they are very different activities.

A count simply counts what you have. An audit carefully reviews how you obtained the items of count and if it was legally permissible to include them.

For example, millions of ballots were poisoned outside chain of custody. Legally they cannot be counted. A recount recounted them.

[–] • 1 pt

It wasn't a forensic audit of the actual ballots, just a software check.

[–] • 0 pt

can you link me to something to read about it? Almost impossible to find sites. Maybe conservative treehouse has something.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

Start with facts and they’ll be no reason to red pill you

[–] • -4 pt

The first TWO were plenty thurough. When nothing is found here hopefully this puts it to bed for good. The fucker lost because he speaks and acts like a child, accomplished nothing he said, and rode the coattails of the previous administration.

[–] • 0 pt

I can see you were hiding under a rock the past 4 years.

[–] • -1 pt

No, I was very much here. Are you saying he does not act like a child? Did he build the wall? Where was the healthcare plan?

[–] • 0 pt

Your use of absolutist statements indicate a threshold of intelligence that is too low to comprehend external ideas