Deep Thoughts By Lauren Boebert–Algorithms!

Rep.-elect Lauren Boebert, as usual, has got it all figured out:

Boebert is of course right about counting the same ballots over and over yielding the same results. That’s why it’s tough to understand why the Trump campaign keeps asking for exactly that to be done in Georgia. And as everyone who has been following this process since Election Day knows, the signatures are verified and then separated from the ballots so that they are, you know, secret ballots. Asking for something everyone knows you can’t have is a pretty good indicator of bad faith, but we suppose in Boebert’s case it’s possible she really doesn’t know how any of this works.

We’re gong to go out on a limb and suggest that Rep.-elect Boebert also doesn’t know what an “algorithm” is, other than a word she heard crackpot attorney Sidney Powell say on TV before Powell got axed by the Trump campaign Sunday–or maybe something Boebert saw on 4/8chan while she was not researching “QAnon?” Boebert’s expertise in this subject is just enough to know an “algorithm” is something mysterious that takes place inside a box called a “computer” and flips votes from Donald Trump to Joe Biden. Computers themselves are mysterious much like algorithms, since neither shooting them nor even the extreme step of heating them to the proper temperature to kill germs makes them behave. So be afraid.

Here’s how the next two years will work: Q or Sidney Powell or their future outer-orbit crackpot equivalent will say it, and then Lauren Boebert will Tweet the closest version she can manage to her 250,000 adoring fans (not a misprint). Our advice would be to stick to subjects covered in the GED exam, though, or she’ll be out of her depth faster than you can say Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi.

That’s not going to happen, so we expect to bring you “Deep Thoughts With Lauren Boebert” on an all-too-regular basis.

0 Shares

14 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. bullshit! says:

    Sidney Powell didn't know what an algorithm is either. Big scary words.

  2. ParkHill says:

    Are any election officials qualified to match your signature?

    I was once on a jury where we had to decide if an ex boyfriend was forging a signature. Sometimes it looked similar, sometimes different, and the "handwriting expert" wasn't that much help.

    I'm never asked to match my signature in any other part of my life like checks, mortgage documents, UPS deliveries.

    So seems a bit weird to throw out ballots over a signature mismatch.

    • JohnInDenver says:

      Denver election officials working on signature verification were trained … and were able to check the signature on the ballot with multiple signatures from previous elections and other interactions with the state — some of which required personal identification AND a signature. 

      And ballots are not “thrown out” …

      Signatures are reviewed by bipartisan election judges.

      If the signature matches, the ballot is accepted and the voter’s record is updated to show that a ballot was verified. If the signature does not match, a [second] bipartisan team of two compares signatures. Accepted ballots are sent to the Ballot Preparation Room. Voters with rejected ballots due to non-matching or missing signatures are sent a Signature Affidavit Form and must also submit a copy of acceptable identification.

  3. MADCO says:

    I can't be more emphatically clear:

     

    I will NOT be certifying this election.

     

    I encourage rep-elect Boebert not to also.

    • JohnInDenver says:

      I'm not totally certain, but I don't believe either you or Boebert are called on to "certify" the election. 

      • Diogenesdemar says:

        That’s not not gonna’ stop either of them, trust me . . .

        . . . I’m totally supporting your brave stance on this, Mco.  As such I’ve decided join you, and I personally will not be certifying our U.S. Presidential election results in Manitoba.

  4. davebarnes says:

    I am pretty sure that Qbert could not define/describe algorithm if her life depended upon it.

  5. MichaelBowman says:

    This about sums it up:

    One day at the Psychiatric Ward…

    A psychiatrist is evaluating three new mental patients. He turns to the first one and asks, "How much is 3 times 3?"

    The mental patient thinks and thinks. He racks his brain. Finally, after several minutes, he answers, "128!"

    The psychiatrist turns to the second mental patient and asks, "How much is 3 times 3?"

    The second mental patients immediately blurts out "Wednesday!"

    Turning to the third mental patient, the psychiatrist again asks, "How much is 3 times 3?"

    The third mental patient thinks, then asks, "Can I have a pencil and paper?"

    "Of course" says the psychiatrist.

    The third mental patient takes the pencil and paper and begins diagramming complex algorithms, charts, and graphs all over the paper. After a few minutes, he confidently answers, "3 times 3 is 9."

    "That's great," says the psychiatrist. "How did you do it?"

    "Oh, it was really easy," says the mental patient. "I just divided 128 by Wednesday."

  6. Sunmusing says:

    so. Lauren Qbert thought they were socialists at first, until a little furry critter whispered a conspiracy into her ear…now she knows that algorithms, cannot be trusted…thank Q that we have a moron representing CD3…

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.