How much Voter Fraud do you think we will see this year?

[The Conservative]

I was told TX v PA wasn't a fraud case.

But, I suppose the reason you guys don't know the answers to all those fraud questions is because, as Trump's lawyer points out, the fraud is undetectable.

Really? Explain why did TX put the case up to SCOTUS?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I was told TX v PA wasn't a fraud case.

But, I suppose the reason you guys don't know the answers to all those fraud questions is because, as Trump's lawyer points out, the fraud is undetectable.

I mean.. this should be obvious, but.. given the obstruction by PAs executive branch, the broken chain of custody records, and the fact that government is completely incompetent at analyzing computer crime, it is, in effect, undetectable.

Unfortunately for Trump's supporters, our courts only deal with the detectable.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I was told TX v PA wasn't a fraud case.

But, I suppose the reason you guys don't know the answers to all those fraud questions is because, as Trump's lawyer points out, the fraud is undetectable.

Really? Explain why did TX put the case up to SCOTUS?

Because they thought it would be a more sympathetic venue?

I don't really know why, since, as SCOTUS found, TX didn't have standing.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Look, I'll quit posting about this because these dispatches from normie corner are not convincing to you fellas, and my goal isn't to irritate everybody.

[Martin Hash]

Speaking as a licensed accountant:

Forensic indication of fraud is how fraud is detected, which is when further analysis is undertaken. Plenty of fraud is indicated. However, I understand that 30 judges, 2 billygoats, and some guy on Twitter knows more about it than me.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Look, I'll quit posting about this because these dispatches from normie corner are not convincing to you fellas, and my goal isn't to irritate everybody.

Not irritating at all. It’s nice to have a dissenting voice around here. I’ve complained about the circle-jerk many times when I played the role.

I mostly agree with consensus on this particular issue though - the fraud cannot be ignored by any sensible person.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Look, I'll quit posting about this because these dispatches from normie corner are not convincing to you fellas, and my goal isn't to irritate everybody.

Not irritating at all. It’s nice to have a dissenting voice around here. I’ve complained about the circle-jerk many times when I played the role.

I mostly agree with consensus on this particular issue though - the fraud cannot be ignored by any sensible person.

Appreciated.

But, even if it isn't all that irritating yet, I don't have much else to contribute. I expect that, as accurate and brilliant as they are, the arguments I've made will lose some luster with too much repetition.

[Martin Hash]

I’ll admit that the billygoats R probably smarter than me but what about those 30 judges? Let’s see, me vs. 30 judges:

What R the odds 1 of those judges is a licensed, bonded & insured accountant that can testify in court? 1 in 1,000,000? How about 1 of those judges is a licensed, bonded & insured data scientist that can testify in court? How about 1 in 10,000,000? Elected judges don’t have to be lawyers, so that’s a wash, which means the chances of those 30 judges being better arbitrators than me on the issue of election fraud is 10^13 against, give or take an order of magnitude; about the same odds of there not being fraud. Mutterfukkers R going to need a lot more judges!

[SuburbanFarmer]

I’ll admit that the billygoats R probably smarter than me but what about those 30 judges? Let’s see, me vs. 30 judges:

What R the odds 1 of those judges is a licensed, bonded & insured accountant that can testify in court? 1 in 1,000,000? How about 1 of those judges is a licensed, bonded & insured data scientist that can testify in court? How about 1 in 10,000,000? Elected judges don’t have to be lawyers, so that’s a wash, which means the chances of those 30 judges being better arbitrators than me on the issue of election fraud is 10^13 against, give or take an order of magnitude; about the same odds of there not being fraud. Mutterfukkers R going to need a lot more judges!

How exactly does one get ‘licensed and bonded’ as a data scientist? This sounds profitable.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Look, I'll quit posting about this because these dispatches from normie corner are not convincing to you fellas, and my goal isn't to irritate everybody.

Not irritating at all. It’s nice to have a dissenting voice around here. I’ve complained about the circle-jerk many times when I played the role.

I mostly agree with consensus on this particular issue though - the fraud cannot be ignored by any sensible person.

Appreciated.

But, even if it isn't all that irritating yet, I don't have much else to contribute. I expect that, as accurate and brilliant as they are, the arguments I've made will lose some luster with too much repetition.

Well, you’ll have to bring the beef my dude. Simply stating that it’s not fraud because the state officials say so isn’t going to fly.

You do have some valid points on the SCOTUS case, but I don’t think any of us - including the esteemed Mr Hash - are fluent enough in legaleese to issue a definitive ruling.