If you don't even know if there hasn't been an audit or not, you shouldn't really be talking about if they've actually done it or not. I'm starting to wonder if you've actually read through this thread that's documented several times exactly why these recounts (which aren't audits to begin with and are not suitable for uncovering fraudulent ballots) aren't up to par, where poll watchers are kept at a distance where they can't verify what the poll counters are doing, they're allocated to several counters at once, and if they raise objections or set aside ballots to scrutinise later on, those ballots are written off as "indefinitely confined" and aren't actually looked at. Also, when did I ever say I thought Trump's team was the best in the world?
And once again, you can't just claim "well it's already been investigated by all these groups so it's not a problem" because it's entirely irrelevant how many times you investigate a matter if none of those investigations are actually allowed or willing to analyse and discard illegal votes. I don't know why you're so obsessed with youtube videos by the way, though it's telling that you write if off based on that rather than its contents- for instance, is a statistical analysis nullified because it was posted on youtube?
At this point, it'd be easier to ask you to debunk the claims so far since you're so confident that there's no real evidence of fraud (and you can show off how much you know what prima facie means by doing so)- I've already linked to
this site before, but if you don't want something with a list of unverified claims included, then there's
this as well, pick either one. If you're going to ask me instead to prove all the irregularities I've been referring to so far, then again, you should actually read the thread, there's even a nifty highlight system to make it easier. Though it's already telling that you didn't even address the point about no standings and laches, which boils down to "no matter what you present I'm going to dismiss because I want to".
I'm asking you to say whether you know if there's been an audit or not. Because you should know there's been an audit. You just don't like what the audits found, and you don't want to call them audits.
For example, this quick
ol' google result? NOT AN AUDIT. No, the signature audit.....yeahp that's the only good audit..... Oh, gee, sorry, earlier, everyone just kept saying that Rudi and Crazylady were bringing the mythological creatures, and I assumed that was why no other legal challenges were being alleged. I didn't realize that people thought they were incompetent, and there was some other reason that very few challenges were being raised or going anywhere
I'm saying that these groups investigated, and the opportunity to rebut them or provide more evidence that would go against their findings has dragged on for well over a goddamn month. How the fuck do you know they're not allowed or willing to analyze illegal votes? Are you on them? The purposes of individual audits would be to find specific instances or items of fraud, based on the allegations that were made. You're alleging here that literally the entire government system, top to bottom, is crooked and bent against the Trump team - the courts can't be trusted, the electoral committees can't be trusted, the AGs can't be trusted, the legislatures can't be trusted, the feds can't be trusted - who can be? What would ever be good enough for you to show that heavily partisan people have been lying for political gains, and the claims are spurious?
If I took a stats class and it was literally a guy just showing youtube videos, yeah, I'd be fucking mad. You've got youtube videos without court cases; statistics has books I can pick up and equations I can run to verify the shit. So that's why I bring up youtube videos - because that's the argument wholesale.
I will hit both of those websites in a single swoop: it is all fucking speculative conjecture until proven in a court of law. Conservative courts have thrown out the cases presented to them thusfar just as much as have liberal ones. Virtually everything in there is DOESN'T THIS LOOK SUSPICIOUS? and people misreading some goddamn stats.
Here's a thing to slap off some of the deluge:
https://www.patreon.com/posts/44428914, which I cite mostly as an example that the response to most of the coutner-arguments in this post here? People just look away, ignore it, shout the same thing over again. This of course doesn't cover everything alleged in those spots - because you can allege almost anything. You can testify and swear affidavits to anything you want. You're only likely to get hit with perjury if you swear that testimony to a court - good thing they haven't been.
There have been demands of signature audits that the state has been extremely reluctant to do. In fact, regardless of party allegiance, states have been reluctant to do signature audits.
Probably because they would cost ass-loads of money and be prone to a whole lot of trying to match signatures from 2020 to signatures from half a decade ago, inviting a far greater margin of error than other methods.
Now, here's the thing, you could make a legal case to compel a state to initiate such an audit, if you could provide significant proof to a court that signatures have been fucked with or there's some trickery involving them.
