07 Sep 23
@wildgrass saidHow did the Trump team do that? You are holding the Trump team responsible for the actions of the alternate electors. You act as though the alternate electors had no choice to do what they did. This brings up obvious questions.
You could challenge in court, with evidence. Didn't happen though. The trump team opted to subvert government checks and balances which is illegal.
Did Trump ask the alternate electors to do what they did?
Did Trump threaten the alternate electors to get them to do what they did?
Why are the alternate electors not being held responsible for their own actions?
You don't seem to think the alternate electors were capable of refusing. Why?
@metal-brain saidWe will see what prosecutors come up with for evidence. It would be a conspiracy if the fake electors agreed to participate or not. My understanding is that they are being held responsible in addition to other conspirators.
How did the Trump team do that? You are holding the Trump team responsible for the actions of the alternate electors. You act as though the alternate electors had no choice to do what they did. This brings up obvious questions.
Did Trump ask the alternate electors to do what they did?
Did Trump threaten the alternate electors to get them to do what they did?
Why are ...[text shortened]... or their own actions?
You don't seem to think the alternate electors were capable of refusing. Why?
@metal-brain saidNo court ordered the audit; that was Raffensberger trying to keep Trump happy. It was a worthless exercise anyway; it is impossible to change any vote after the write-in envelope signature has been verified because the ballot is then separated from the signature to maintain the secrecy of the vote.
I know. That was the case for both of them. The only difference was the recount result, but the court only allowed signatures to be checked in 1 county in the whole state. That is not normal. If you want to prove election integrity you check all counties. Instead the court sowed deeds of doubt by restricting it to 1 county only.
@no1marauder saidStatewide recounts have happened 31 times, but only 16 of them have been "consequential" (meaning that they had any chance of impacting the outcome).
No court ordered the audit; that was Raffensberger trying to keep Trump happy. It was a worthless exercise anyway; it is impossible to change any vote after the write-in envelope signature has been verified because the ballot is then separated from the signature to maintain the secrecy of the vote.
3 recounts have resulted in reversals, with the biggest vote total swing of 440. Notably, this was Al Franken's 2008 US Senate victory in Minnesota, which he won by 225 votes.
A swing of 11,780 votes is statistically impossible by recounting already-submitted ballots. That's why the 1 county recount was ordered by the SoS just for show, instead of court mandated. It never had a chance of impacting the outcome.
@wildgrass saidThe one county audit of signatures on mail in ballots was not a recount. It found " only 2 signatures identified as problem. A wife who signed her name to both her & husband envelopes." That was out of 15,000 ballots. https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/cobb-county/gbi-finishes-signature-audit-cobb-county-finds-only-two-mismatches/ON42CSQBORHYJDBGZKKMPC3YAQ/
Statewide recounts have happened 31 times, but only 16 of them have been "consequential" (meaning that they had any chance of impacting the outcome).
3 recounts have resulted in reversals, with the biggest vote total swing of 440. Notably, this was Al Franken's 2008 US Senate victory in Minnesota, which he won by 225 votes.
A swing of 11,780 votes is statistically imp ...[text shortened]... by the SoS just for show, instead of court mandated. It never had a chance of impacting the outcome.
Georgia had already done a full hand recount of every ballot in the State, more than 5 million in all. It did find several thousand uncounted votes, but far short of Biden's margin of victory. https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-2020-election-results/2020/11/19/936647882/georgia-releases-hand-recount-results-affirming-bidens-lead
@no1marauder saidIt is amazing actually that they can audit results to the level of detail where they find a wife signing her husband's ballot. The Arizona audit was absurdly detailed as well, which should put to rest any possible argument that trump won. The courts knew this. The lawyers knew this. The entire idea that January 6 was some important decision point was made up, so the alternate electors scheme was illegal.
The one county audit of signatures on mail in ballots was not a recount. It found " only 2 signatures identified as problem. A wife who signed her name to both her & husband envelopes." That was out of 15,000 ballots. https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/cobb-county/gbi-finishes-signature-audit-cobb-county-finds-only-two-mismatches/ON42CSQBORHYJDBGZKKMPC3YAQ/
Georgia had a ...[text shortened]... 20-election-results/2020/11/19/936647882/georgia-releases-hand-recount-results-affirming-bidens-lead
12 Sep 23
@no1marauder saidThen we will never know.............because secrecy is so important in modern society.
No court ordered the audit; that was Raffensberger trying to keep Trump happy. It was a worthless exercise anyway; it is impossible to change any vote after the write-in envelope signature has been verified because the ballot is then separated from the signature to maintain the secrecy of the vote.
You cannot even go on facebook without them analyzing your browser history, but mailing in a vote still demands privacy?
Having your vote secret should be dependent on voting in person. Anybody who mails in a vote should waive that right to privacy. Georgia set up their state for massive voter fraud. Signatures should be on the ballot.
@metal-brain saidIt's no secret. Oregon's been mailing ballots to every eligible voter since 1998, including the bush-gore election. Why not start there? Surely you'd find the evidence you're looking for.
Then we will never know.............because secrecy is so important in modern society.
You cannot even go on facebook without them analyzing your browser history, but mailing in a vote still demands privacy?
Having your vote secret should be dependent on voting in person. Anybody who mails in a vote should waive that right to privacy. Georgia set up their state for massive voter fraud. Signatures should be on the ballot.
13 Sep 23
@wildgrass saidEvidence in an election where the signatures are not on the ballot? that is impossible. As soon as the ballots are removed from the envelopes the evidence is destroyed. That is why the signatures should be on the ballots.
It's no secret. Oregon's been mailing ballots to every eligible voter since 1998, including the bush-gore election. Why not start there? Surely you'd find the evidence you're looking for.
Mail in ballots should have no right to privacy. If you want privacy vote in person.
13 Sep 23
@metal-brain saidThere's zero difference between how they handle votes in person and votes by mail. You either have your signature checked or show some ID depending on the State and then you fill out a ballot and feed it into a machine. The individual ballots can't be traced to a certain person, so you could scream "Fraud!" for the same puerile reasons you do for mail in ones.
Evidence in an election where the signatures are not on the ballot? that is impossible. As soon as the ballots are removed from the envelopes the evidence is destroyed. That is why the signatures should be on the ballots.
Mail in ballots should have no right to privacy. If you want privacy vote in person.
Basically, what you are trying to do is deny the validity of any election results.
13 Sep 23
@no1marauder saidThat is complete BS and you know it!
There's zero difference between how they handle votes in person and votes by mail. You either have your signature checked or show some ID depending on the State and then you fill out a ballot and feed it into a machine. The individual ballots can't be traced to a certain person, so you could scream "Fraud!" for the same puerile reasons you do for mail in ones.
Basically, what you are trying to do is deny the validity of any election results.
You know full well that mail in ballots are treated differently than in person votes.
@metal-brain saidTell me how ................................. exactly.
That is complete BS and you know it!
You know full well that mail in ballots are treated differently than in person votes.
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147483
13 Sep 23
@no1marauder saidare you really so stupid that you have to ask that question?
Tell me how ................................. exactly.
@mott-the-hoople saidAre you really so stupid that you can't answer it?
are you really so stupid that you have to ask that question?
There's no difference; when you vote in person your identity is checked, you are given a ballot and then the ballot is fed into a machine.
When you vote by mail, your identity is checked, the ballot is taken out of the second envelope and fed into a machine.
In NY, if you vote in person, they do a signature match just like when you vote by mail.