(11-17-2022, 11:53 AM)KingIngram052787 Wrote:

(11-17-2022, 09:52 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: No [BLEEP]. We've had this conversation before. It's called a preponderance of evidence and the appearance of impropriety. Of course, we don't have evidence Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. Nobody is saying that. If we did, people would already be in jail (lol, jk). 

Democrats used Covid to push a narrative that we needed mail-in voting, the least historically secure method of voting. Since then, most of our swing states went hard blue in heavily populated counties, while almost every other state in the country swung right, even the blue ones. It's not a coincidence. 

You can explain away the statistical anomalies all you want of which there are many, all in favor of the same party, all only in toss up or swing elections. Whether or not it's cheating (it is), this is a bad system that is making voters feel disenfranchised, and you don't care. Don't get me wrong, you'd care if the full weight of the media was telling you to care. Unfortunately, the media is lying to you. They are shills who don't report news. They report propaganda. The moderates in this country need to stop being so [BLEEP] obtuse.

I tend to agree with some of what you say here.  I used to be an auditor at a Big 4 public accounting firm, and in order to do the audits of these companies, our firms had to be independent in both fact and in appearance.  It's the appearance piece here you are referring to.

We should be taking steps so that there are absolutely no doubts about our elections, even by true nut jobs/radicals.  Things shouldn't even look funny, every "i" should be dotted and every "t" crossed because it's that important that EVERYONE agree on our elections.

If we had to do it for the capital markets, surely we should have to do it for our elections, no?

Yes. Exactly. This guy gets it. And it's IMPORTANT. Like... there needs to be public ire. Nothing will change without it. 

Also, Mikey... preponderance of evidence is not the same thing as evidence. It's basically just cause and effect reasoning that uses circumstantial evidence to arrive at a conclusion. 

If I go to trial and I have a picture of my red car the evening before you borrowed it with no dent, and a picture of my car the next morning and it's got a huge dent in it. And I can also present witnesses that you were drinking and drove it home. Then I can show swerve marks going through my yard and red paint on my mailbox... NONE of that proves YOU actually made the dent in my car or ran over my mailbox. In a criminal case, this probably wouldn't be sufficient EVIDENCE. However, in a civil case, that evidence could be sufficient enough for a jury to feel 51% confident that you actually did cause the damage. That's called preponderance of evidence. I think there is enough of it to justify suspicions of election fraud, and, at the very least, the appearance of impropriety. 

This can NOT be acceptable to the American public.

---