What We Must Believe to Believe Biden Won

[TLK Valentine]

I think you are confusing a couple things here.

GA ALWAYS does an audit. This one was much more extensive than normal, which was essentially a full recount. The $8million is how much it would cost Trump to do a recount in all of WI, but Trump opted to recount only a few counties in WI, costing him $3 million.

Assuming it cost him $3 million, and not the taxpayers.
Let's audit Donald as soon as he leave office -- it would be like him to stick us with the bill.

 

[trunks2k]

Yes, I'm assuming that a full recount in Georgia would have cost him about the same. And no, Georgia doesn't always do a full recount.

No, they don't do always do a full recount but they do always audit (this audit happened to include a full hand recount).

In GA, candidates may request a recount if the margin is <.5% and must be done within two days of the state certifying the vote (which happens today). Recounts are, by law, done by machine.

Considering an audit was done, along with a full hand recount that just confirmed the results, a machine recount would be a waste of time. Now, I think a hand recount is WORSE than a machine recount in terms of accuracy when you are doing a full recount, but if the hand recount is matching up with the existing count, I wouldn't expect a machine recount to show a difference either. A recount is not going to change the votes by thousands. An audit can, and did, since an audit is going to see the sorts of mistakes that cause those big changes, but a recount isn't.

Hand recounts are good for samples and finding significant errors, but not for full recounts. It's slower and less accurate since humans are much worse at counting than machines.

 

[Bobber]

Maybe you're avoiding the issue. We could talk about whether it would be fraud or not fraud all day long but the point is certain Preachers (not all but some) have said God told them Trump would be President. Whether Trump got their by fraud or not does not mean God didn't tell them Trump would be President so we'd have to say one was wrong to call them false Prophets. If they were right on what actually happened they were right period.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Maybe you're avoiding the issue.

The issue is that Biden won.

Donald has a vested interest in avoiding that particular issue: He's got state and federal prosecutors in this country, and creditors abroad -- the Oval Office has been his only protection, and he loses that on Jan. 20.

His followers' interest, well... maybe they're not yet ready for a post-Donald America; who can say?

We could talk about whether it would be fraud or not fraud all day long

Indeed... Donald's legal team gets paid to do that in court -- and from the looks of things, they're grossly overpaid.

but the point is certain Preachers (not all but some) have said God told them Trump would be President.

Which raises three possibilities:

1. God got it wrong.
2. God changed His mind.
3. Whoever these preachers were talking to, it wasn't God.

Take your pick.

Whether Trump got their by fraud or not does not mean God didn't tell them Trump would be President so we'd have to say one was wrong to call them false Prophets. If they were right on what actually happened they were right period.

Well, given that Donald's legal team just keeps failing in case after case, state after state, it's looking like Donald isn't getting there by any means -- legal or otherwise.

The "false prophet" label is looking more and more appropriate -- and at exactly 12:01 pm on January 20, 2021, it'll be official.

 

[Whyayeman]

Ridiculous statement---obviously there are over 70 millions people who think just the opposite and voted for him! There were just over 5 million more that voted for Biden.

Yes, the highest turnout in a hundred years. It is easy for non-Americans to forget that this election was for senators too, and state positions as well as federal. Actually the Republican vote held up very well for these elected posts - except for the President. Trump did not achieve the level of votes that lesser Republicans managed. To me, that suggests that the loss demonstrates that Trump's personal following has declined.

What must we believe to believe Biden won? Obviously, believe the authentic voice of America as recorded in the highest ever number of votes cast for his candidacy. If you still believe there was systematic fraud despite the lack of any evidence, well, you will believe any old thing.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

He protested because there was no audit, making it pointless.

As if he’d accept the results of an audit if it showed he lost.

 

[HARK!]

MOD HAT ON

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Bobber]

As if he’d accept the results of an audit if it showed he lost.

Maybe yes, maybe no. But a great percentage of his supporters would IF it was a serious audit with transparency and accountability.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Well, whatever it takes, Biden pulled it off in Georgia.

Georgia's Recount Confirms Biden's Lead; AP Declares Him State's Winner

Donald got the hand recount he demanded... and lost again.

All of Biden's advantage and more derives from ballots with questionable signatures, ones which would have been thrown out in 2016 (Stacey Abrams got the signature verification requirements reduced)

 

[Erik Nelson]

Ballots requested doesn't equal ballots sent in.

ballots "not counted" doesn't equal "not sent in (not received by the State)"

 

[Sparagmos]

And if what they said ends up coming about after all will you repent for calling them such? Maybe God was speaking to them after all?

Repent for what? Do you seriously think God expects us to believe anyone’s claims that God is talking to them?

 

[TLK Valentine]

All of Biden's advantage and more derives from ballots with questionable signatures, ones which would have been thrown out in 2016 (Stacey Abrams got the signature verification requirements reduced)

Will Charlie Kirk be testifying in person at any of the numerous lawsuits Donald's legal team is pushing (you know, the ones that haven't already been dismissed for lack of merit), or will they just be entering his youtube channel into evidence?

 

[Erik Nelson]

PA kept counting & counting & counting mail-in ballots (after election day) which broke 80-20 against Trump, in contravention to all other statistical trends

SHOCKING EXCLUSIVE: WE CAUGHT THEM! Pennsylvania Results Show a Statistically Impossible Pattern Behind Biden's Steal! WE CAUGHT THEM!

 

[Nithavela]

PA kept counting & counting & counting mail-in ballots (after election day) which broke 80-20 against Trump, in contravention to all other statistical trends

SHOCKING EXCLUSIVE: WE CAUGHT THEM! Pennsylvania Results Show a Statistically Impossible Pattern Behind Biden's Steal! WE CAUGHT THEM!

Quote from your source:

But what happened next was shocking. Pennsylvania began counting ballots by mail.

I'm going to let this speak for itself.

 

[TLK Valentine]

PA kept counting & counting & counting mail-in ballots (after election day) which broke 80-20 against Trump, in contravention to all other statistical trends

1. Donald spends months encouraging his supporters not to vote by mail.
2. 80% of the mail-in ballots were not from Donald voters.

Could it be that his followers actually listened to him?

Nah... who'd actually take him seriously?

 

[Yttrium]

PA kept counting & counting & counting mail-in ballots (after election day) which broke 80-20 against Trump, in contravention to all other statistical trends

SHOCKING EXCLUSIVE: WE CAUGHT THEM! Pennsylvania Results Show a Statistically Impossible Pattern Behind Biden's Steal! WE CAUGHT THEM!

Come on, Eric, you need higher standards than that for a decent conspiracy theory. Don't use arguments that can be refuted by thinking about it for a half second. You need to find outlandish things that will take some time for us to figure out what you're talking about, let alone try to explain.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Come on, Eric, you need higher standards than that for a decent conspiracy theory. Don't use arguments that can be refuted by thinking about it for a half second. You need to find outlandish things that will take some time for us to figure out what you're talking about, let alone try to explain.

You need to read the article

 

[Yttrium]

You need to read the article

I did read it. It was funny, but insufficiently hilarious. I have an MS in math. I was hoping for some dopey fake statistics math to back up their claim that it's "statistically impossible", but they didn't even try. They just showed a chart with the percentages, and assumed readers would take their word for it on the statistics. Very disappointing.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Joe Biden won illegal votes from thousands of noncitizens, study shows - Washington Times

 

[Erik Nelson]

I did read it. It was funny, but insufficiently hilarious. I have an MS in math.

Your word alone outweighs scholarly journalism?

You and yours are truly elite