going through both sources you are using in the two posts you have made, it is a wonder you even bothered to reply at all. For starters, I didn’t isolate anything. I quoted Giuliani in context claiming there was fraud. However, I am not obligated to defend the claim. That is your job.
instead you decided to defend the claim of more votes than voters, which appears to be an exaggerated way of saying that too many people appear to have voted for biden instead of trump, so there must be fraud.
from the article in your reply with the picture that I cannot see on my phone.
“The city of Detroit voted overwhelmingly in favor of Joe Biden --
233,908 total votes for the Biden-Harris ticket compared to just 12,654 for the incumbent President Trump. Detroit’s election turnout was 49.56% -- 250,138 total votes out of 504,714 registered voters.”
this is supposed to be your way of basically saying that Giuliani is saying that is exaggerating because he really is trying to create a more reasonable range of 0 to 300% and realizes that 400% over votes is pushing it too far, which is why he backtracks and calls this an exaggeration? That appears to be what you are trying to say.
you literally posted an article showing the voter turnout to be under 50% of the registered voters in Detroit. There were literally 250,000 more voters than votes in this area.
then You post an article from 2016 that says.
“
■236 precincts in balance — equal numbers of voters counted by workers and machines
■248 precincts with too many votes and no explanation (77 were 1 over; 62 were 2 over, 37 were 3 over, 20 were 4 over, 52 were 5 or more over).
■144 precincts with too few votes and no explanation (81 were 1 under, 29 were 2 under; 19 were 3 under; 7 were 4 under; 8 were 5 or more under)”
so this article is saying that around 200 precincts were over counted by 4 votes or under. 52 precincts were 5 votes or more over. You could try to say that one of these precincts were 100, 000, but then if the total count is still under 50% of the registered voters in the area, this would be something that would quickly be proven false because the total votes still creates a boundary from forming the assumption that the 52 precincts
over counted in a more significant way.
so if the over counts mirror the number of over counts found in 2016 and if the total number of votes cast is under 50% of the registered voters in the area, then the over counts cannot be considered significant enough to change the election results.
that is why Giuliani cant use this claim in court even if he can make it or discuss it, with Lou Dobbs on Fox News. That is why trump can tweet about this and his own lawyer can’t use this as a defense within a courtroom.
from the source for the images that is too small to see where you show 88 precincts. From the document link titled voter statistics, there appears to be a total of 503 precincts with the majority of these precincts reports 25 to as high as 50% voter turnout. Precinct 200 reports 50% voter turnout.
so a total of 49% turnout overall is reasonable when you consider that this number is derived from calculating a total number of votes in relation to the total number of voters in the area. An area with a turnout of 25% locally could technically still be a higher number of votes than an area reporting 30% for their individual precincts. Do you understand?
so everything you are saying is misleading and you would have done better to try to defend something that guilianni asserts in the interview with Lou dobbs that he doesn’t call an exaggeration.