Isn't that the beauty of careless, ambiguous speech. You have been conditioned to think of something as "wide spread" when the term doesn't technically apply. You think of 10,000 votes when the talking head is talking of millions of votes. This very topic on this very site is proof; 43,000 votes in four states is the key but many obtuse thinkers will cite the number 7 million. They laugh, they snicker at the idea of finding a discrepancy of almost 10%. They aren't so amused at the reality of .02% changing the election. That is intentional. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycornwide·spread
/ˈwīdˌspred/
found or distributed over a large area or number of people.
10,000 is a lot of people in my opinion. As a percentage of the total no, but in terms of how many legal votes have to be proven to be false, yes.
Right now everyone is focused on Arizona and the approximate 10,000 vote victory by Biden. If no voter fraud/irregularities are found in Arizona, after the "forensic audit" the first block in disproving the voter fraud/irregularity across the nation will be established.
And once again you have failed to tell me how these discrepancies would have occurred. If you were conducting the audit in Arizona, what would you be focusing on to prove the election was fraudulent or irregularities occurred? Or would you just be shooting in the dark as it seems those in charge in Arizona are doing?
