Conservative Resurgence Discusses DOJ Launching Investigations of Election Fraud

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Seems like there is more fraud and BS going on in the Georgia voter audit. Geesus.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[Pat]

I know very little about counting votes, but what exactly is the point of a recount like this? It sounds like they're literally just repeating the process of counting the votes, in the same place, with the same people, and with the same precautions. If that's what they're doing, that won't uncover any bias or fraud. They'll get exactly the same result every time, within the margin of human error. Which explains why recounts never change anything.

Wouldn't it make more sense to start with a spot check, where they pick a few precincts that might be suspect, and then randomly pick a few more as a control, and then have everyone originally involved go through the same process they did the first time, except this time they bring in outsiders from both parties to repeat and thus validate every single step? I.e. no "observers" -- have every last vote handed from the original counter, to an outside member of the red party, and then to an outside member of the blue party. Tally up the results separately, and then compare them to the original results. That would allow them to vet exactly how the procedures differ from precinct to precinct, and by comparing the original vote count with the second closely watched count, and the two outside counts, they'd have a real chance of spotting unequal treatment or fraud. And if that unearths widespread problems, then the state should either do a full recount with a completely different crew under much more stringent conditions, or refuse to certify the vote.

[Steven Mitchell]

I know very little about counting votes, but what exactly is the point of a recount like this? It sounds like they're literally just repeating the process of counting the votes, in the same place, with the same people, and with the same precautions. If that's what they're doing, that won't uncover any bias or fraud. They'll get exactly the same result every time, within the margin of human error. Which explains why recounts never change anything.

Wouldn't it make more sense to start with a spot check, where they pick a few precincts that might be suspect, and then randomly pick a few more as a control, and then have everyone originally involved go through the same process they did the first time, except this time they bring in outsiders from both parties to repeat and thus validate every single step? I.e. no "observers" -- have every last vote handed from the original counter, to an outside member of the red party, and then to an outside member of the blue party. Tally up the results separately, and then compare them to the original results. That would allow them to vet exactly how the procedures differ from precinct to precinct, and by comparing the original vote count with the second closely watched count, and the two outside counts, they'd have a real chance of spotting unequal treatment or fraud. And if that unearths widespread problems, then the state should either do a full recount with a completely different crew under much more stringent conditions, or refuse to certify the vote.

That only makes sense if you assume that the process is designed to find fraud.  It is not.  It is designed so that bureaucrats can check off that they went through the procedure.

That is pretty much a microcosm of the whole "credential" shell game played constantly by some on this site.

[KingCheops]

Nothing like threatening someone's kids to indicate that it is a "free and fair" election.

One observer saw something stupid like 10,000 Biden to 13 Trump.  Results signed off by 2 officials.  When they actually looked it was about 2000 Biden to 13 Trump.  That's not an error -- the process is corrupt.

Edit:  here's the twit thread:

https://twitter.com/DavidShafer/status/1329062200737148932

[SHARK]

Nothing like threatening someone's kids to indicate that it is a "free and fair" election.

One observer saw something stupid like 10,000 Biden to 13 Trump.  Results signed off by 2 officials.  When they actually looked it was about 2000 Biden to 13 Trump.  That's not an error -- the process is corrupt.

Edit:  here's the twit thread:

https://twitter.com/DavidShafer/status/1329062200737148932

Greetings!

That's right, King Cheops. It's just fine that good Liberal Democrats threaten people's kids so as to vote the way they want them to. They LOVE you, my friend! They want us all to have "Unity and Healing", King Cheops!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[SHARK]

I know very little about counting votes, but what exactly is the point of a recount like this? It sounds like they're literally just repeating the process of counting the votes, in the same place, with the same people, and with the same precautions. If that's what they're doing, that won't uncover any bias or fraud. They'll get exactly the same result every time, within the margin of human error. Which explains why recounts never change anything.

Wouldn't it make more sense to start with a spot check, where they pick a few precincts that might be suspect, and then randomly pick a few more as a control, and then have everyone originally involved go through the same process they did the first time, except this time they bring in outsiders from both parties to repeat and thus validate every single step? I.e. no "observers" -- have every last vote handed from the original counter, to an outside member of the red party, and then to an outside member of the blue party. Tally up the results separately, and then compare them to the original results. That would allow them to vet exactly how the procedures differ from precinct to precinct, and by comparing the original vote count with the second closely watched count, and the two outside counts, they'd have a real chance of spotting unequal treatment or fraud. And if that unearths widespread problems, then the state should either do a full recount with a completely different crew under much more stringent conditions, or refuse to certify the vote.

That only makes sense if you assume that the process is designed to find fraud.  It is not.  It is designed so that bureaucrats can check off that they went through the procedure.

That is pretty much a microcosm of the whole "credential" shell game played constantly by some on this site.

Greetings!

So true, Steven Mitchell!

The "Credential" shell game...I love your assessment there!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Conservative Resurgence discusses more revelations that make the electoral process in Georgia, Michigan, and other states, as well as the Dominion Voting Software very suspicious!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Conservative Resurgence program discusses more fraud, more irregularities, suspicious activity, oh--and threats and intimidation by Liberal Democrats towards Republican Canvass Officials in Michigan.

Voter Intimidation is a crime!

Oh, but there's no evidence of fraud, right?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK