- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 12/22/22 at 2:20 pm to LSU2ALA
quote:
Is distrusting the system to count your ballot via the drop box really a reason to consider yourself disenfranchised.
The entire system is set up so that voters can be sure (witness) their vote being tabulated. The system being unable to operate is absolutely a serious failure. To be disenfranchised, their vote would actually have to not be counted. But, in situations where a voter couldn't witness their vote tabulation, the state/county would have to show evidence (with clear chain of custody) that a given vote was tallied. FYI, the state/county isn't going to be able to do that.
Posted on 12/22/22 at 2:21 pm to MFn GIMP
quote:
Right. Shrink-to-fit is for an image bigger than the print paper. In this instance the print paper was bigger than the image 20" vs 19". It's an impossibility that could be what happened.
That makes sense.
Posted on 12/22/22 at 2:28 pm to moneyg
quote:
The entire system is set up so that voters can be sure (witness) their vote being tabulated. The system being unable to operate is absolutely a serious failure. To be disenfranchised, their vote would actually have to not be counted. But, in situations where a voter couldn't witness their vote tabulation, the state/county would have to show evidence (with clear chain of custody) that a given vote was tallied. FYI, the state/county isn't going to be able to do that.
I keep seeing people talk about chain of custody, but I haven’t seen whether or not the county broke the law or their own policies or if they followed policies and procedures that appear to be flawed. If they followed their laid out procedures, then they don’t have to prove more than that. It will be up to Lake to prove the chain of custody was broken.
That assumes the county followed their procedures. If they didn’t or if their procedures broke state law, then that’s a problem for the county.
Posted on 12/22/22 at 2:35 pm to LSU2ALA
Did I hear him correctly that there were 12,000 possible ballot permutations for the county? Why would you have a vote anywhere model when there are that many possible different ballots? It seems ripe for issues.
Posted on 12/22/22 at 2:36 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
such a reckless call
was on tv next day.
at the time it was not viewed as reckless by him. he said he was looking for some pattern in some precincts and the thing happened so he called it.
anyone using "reckless" about analysis he did which turned out to be 100% correct should give reasons that make sense besides the TD version Fox owes us.
This post was edited on 12/22/22 at 2:38 pm
Posted on 12/22/22 at 2:38 pm to CelticDog
He just said it took the people who submitted affidavits that it took them 2 hours in the actual voting booth? What?
Posted on 12/22/22 at 2:39 pm to Wednesday
quote:
oicemails received from a Betty, diminutive of Elizabeth- of which 3 were employed.
SO - in other words, the defendant attys were inducing perjury???
Posted on 12/22/22 at 2:41 pm to LSU2ALA
The county produced no chain of custody documents for 250,000 ballots.
Lake asked for it.
They left a voicemail that they couldn't get it together.
The county showed up with no chain of custody documents at the trial.
There is no evidence that Maricopa followed its chain of custody protocols.
Lake asked for it.
They left a voicemail that they couldn't get it together.
The county showed up with no chain of custody documents at the trial.
There is no evidence that Maricopa followed its chain of custody protocols.
Posted on 12/22/22 at 2:45 pm to Wednesday
I had a downvote earlier when I posted this but can someone tell me how shrink-to-fit caused a 20 inch ballot image be dropped to 19 inches, on only some ballots, because it "shrink-to-fit" was used for a 20 inch piece of paper?
Posted on 12/22/22 at 2:46 pm to Wednesday
He just said they changed the "fit to page" setting.
WTF?
WTF?
Posted on 12/22/22 at 2:46 pm to LSU2ALA
quote:
you are not disenfranchised. You chose not to vote because you don’t like the options.
careful there = you are invalidating the entire reason for mass mail-in ballots
Nancy not gonna like that
Posted on 12/22/22 at 2:46 pm to MFn GIMP
It can't. which is why the cyber guy freaked out at the hypothetical.
Your downvoter is just someone who is experiencing cognitive dissonance
Your downvoter is just someone who is experiencing cognitive dissonance
Posted on 12/22/22 at 2:48 pm to loogaroo
quote:
He just said they changed the "fit to page" setting.
WTF?
Yesterday he said there were no 19" ballot images printed.
Posted on 12/22/22 at 2:48 pm to MFn GIMP
quote:
Right. Shrink-to-fit is for an image bigger than the print paper. In this instance the print paper was bigger than the image 20" vs 19". It's an impossibility that could be what happened.
The shrunken image was 19", not the original image.
Posted on 12/22/22 at 2:49 pm to Wednesday
quote:
It can't. which is why the cyber guy freaked out at the hypothetical.
Your downvoter is just someone who is experiencing cognitive dissonance
Exactly. It's impossible for a "shrink-to-fit" print option to make an image designed to fit on the available paper to be decreased on the same paper. It makes no sense.
With that said, there is no way this judge rules in Lake's favor but it's obvious some shenanigans went on in this election.
Posted on 12/22/22 at 2:50 pm to Wednesday
quote:
The county produced no chain of custody documents for 250,000 ballots.
Wouldn't this be an "open & shut" case then? Lake provided an expert witness that testified procedures/law was violated & the county/state says "no we didn't"....well, show us chain of custody proof then. They can't. Isn't this the simple description?
Posted on 12/22/22 at 2:51 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
The shrunken image was 19", not the original image.
Yes. I'm not saying anything otherwise. I'm asking how does shrink-to-fit shrink a 20" image to 19" when the size of the print paper has not changed? You can't shrink a 20" image designed for 20" paper to 19" on the same 20" paper because of shrink-to-fit.
Posted on 12/22/22 at 2:53 pm to MFn GIMP
If this is true:
then why would this happen:
Makes no sense.
quote:
it's obvious some shenanigans went on in this election.
then why would this happen:
quote:
there is no way this judge rules in Lake's favor
Makes no sense.
Posted on 12/22/22 at 2:53 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
The shrunken image was 19", not the original image.
Even taking your statement at face value. Per testimony yesterday, which has not been refuted by Hobbs' team yet, the only way to choose the shrink-to-fit option is someone with admin access. That makes it an intentional choice to do so. You just proved an intentional action that caused issues with the election day voting process.
Page 17 of 25
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News