I think you should add the very simple fact that audits aren't simple recounts. If the votes are counterfeit, counting the same votes again isn't proving or disproving anything. If the fraudulent ones were counted, wtf does counting them again solve? Do they think auditting companies is as simple as asking them to calculate everything and see if all the ones were carried over? No, lmao.
An ice cream analogy for a recount would be asking the ice cream store owner where he bought his ingredients from, then going to the manufacturers and asking them if they've had any similar issues.
An audit would be actively testing the ingredients both at the manufacturer and the ice cream store for anything sus (and I don't mean pcr tests, cuz with a high enough cycle, you could test AOC for any signs of intelligence and actually test positive) and then reporting your findings.
That kind of logic doesn't get through to the types of people who were g r 0 0 m e d to think they could never do wrong, though. To them, any form of corruption on their side is too tinfoil. I also don't think it's semantics. It's apples and oranges, or rather apples and eggs. Audits include actuaIforensics whereas recounts don't. If audits were lnvestig ations, recounts would be reading the poIicereport. It shouldn't be treated as one in the same.
The funniest part is that they specifically chose independents to do the work. It's not like we enjoy Republicans over here, which is my litmus test for bias. I may be conservative (technically a classical liberal, but these terms mean nothing to the politically illiterate) but I'm not foolish enough to believe it's team A vs team B. It's the people vs corruption. It always has been. Ideology takes a backseat because, as I see it, it's ultimately about collectivists for the individual vs individualists for the collective.
I think you should add the very simple fact that audits aren't simple recounts. If the votes are counterfeit, counting the same votes again isn't proving or disproving anything. If the fraudulent ones were counted, wtf does counting them again solve? Do they think auditting companies is as simple as asking them to calculate everything and see if all the ones were carried over? No, lmao.
An ice cream analogy for a recount would be asking the ice cream store owner where he bought his ingredients from, then going to the manufacturers and asking them if they've had any similar issues.
An audit would be actively testing the ingredients both at the manufacturer and the ice cream store for anything sus (and I don't mean pcr tests, cuz with a high enough cycle, you could test AOC for any signs of intelligence and actually test positive) and then reporting your findings.
That kind of logic doesn't get through to the types of people who were g r 0 0 m e d to think they could never do wrong, though. To them, any form of corruption on their side is too tinfoil. I also don't think it's semantics. It's apples and oranges, or rather apples and eggs. Audits include actuaIforensics whereas recounts don't. If audits were lnvestig ations, recounts would be reading the poIicereport. It shouldn't be treated as one in the same.
The funniest part is that they specifically chose independents to do the work. It's not like we enjoy Republicans over here, which is my litmus test for bias. I may be conservative (technically a classical liberal, but these terms mean nothing to the politically illiterate) but I'm not foolish enough to believe it's team A vs team B. It's the people vs corruption. It always has been. Ideology takes a backseat because, as I see it, it's ultimately about collectivists for the individual vs individualists for the collective.