@coldjoint,
In all of these 'stats' you keep putting up:
1. the majority are irregularities (which is different to evidence of fraud. It can be a indicator of fraud...or another issue like a computer programing error)
2. for those irregularities:
- the computer ones where they could only get the figures from an audit, they don't produce the audit search, nor link back to official data. Anyone trying to show fraud should know objective, intelligent who have no vested interest will want this (particularly from a person who has cried wolf so, so many times, or from a person with a vested interest)
- they usually don't post the percentage of votes for either candidate (which means it is still only an irregularity, rather than evidence of fraud, because for all we know, the votes are equal, and no one gains by looking further into it, and if equal, there is no fraud)
- and if they know the number of irregular votes like in your above example, then they know the number of votes for each candidate - so it is highly suspicious that they don't quote these numbers
- if they are showing computer irrgularities , you can't just selectively take 4 of the top 10 as a Republican that support your argument and say 'see'...objective observers need to see the other top 10 for objective comparison
I've seen some posts from you that are interesting. But the large majority are plain problematic, where people claiming issues, aren't providing the information needed to identify an actual alleged fraud issue.
I'm not surprised the courts keep throwing them out.
