- 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
re: Through sworn testimony today in GA, 147,000 votes are invalid if the law is followed.
Posted on 4/3/24 at 9:56 pm to Dday63
Posted on 4/3/24 at 9:56 pm to Dday63
quote:
In this instance you have one commissioner saying he was told there was no signature verification in Fulton County. It's just hearsay evidence
I mean, the J6 committee's star witness was someone whose testimony was treated as Gospel when it was nothing more than blatant hearsay. "I was told he said something to the effect of..." The "Trump lunged at the steering wheel! He's completely unhinged!" narrative that was plastered and spread as fact was all over every network for weeks. All based on hearsay.
An actual Board member comes forward with testimony, and it's dismissed as hearsay? Tony Bobulinski has receipts, emails, text messages, bank statements, etc. but he isn't credible, either. The hypocrisy of the left has no bounds.
This post was edited on 4/4/24 at 12:52 pm
2
Posted on 4/4/24 at 1:54 am to stuckintexas
Don’t let Dday fool you. He’s a prog bitch pretending to care.
The election board member wasn’t just told that no signature matching took place. He was told that the software that the county was using had issues with the signature matching. And that the issues persisted past the 2020 election. And that the issue precluded the county from performing signature matching in the software despite repeated attempts to fix it from the vendor.
So he asked what the workers did in place of the software which wasn’t working. And they said “nothing.” So it seems it would be easily verifiable to have the election board present the evidence of the signature matching portion of the software working and functioning correctly.
The election board member wasn’t just told that no signature matching took place. He was told that the software that the county was using had issues with the signature matching. And that the issues persisted past the 2020 election. And that the issue precluded the county from performing signature matching in the software despite repeated attempts to fix it from the vendor.
So he asked what the workers did in place of the software which wasn’t working. And they said “nothing.” So it seems it would be easily verifiable to have the election board present the evidence of the signature matching portion of the software working and functioning correctly.
Posted on 4/4/24 at 7:41 am to Dday63
quote:
And no one is ever able to show an affect on the actual vote count. You see things like "30 ballots scanned twice", but did those double scans actually wind up in the vote count? No one ever says.
Which is the problem. To rely on the election system, the system needs to explain how these would NOT be included in the vote count. The reality of the situation is that it has not been explained, and thus the system is not being relied upon. It cannot be proven or disproven, it cannot be audited. Before any numbers are counted, recomputed etc., an auditor must first assess the control environment, if the numbers cannot be audited, controls are all you have to analyze. I could explain this to you again, but you never bother to answer.
quote:
In this instance you have one commissioner saying he was told there was no signature verification in Fulton County. It's just hearsay evidence, and it's an incredible accusation, so what did anyone fo about it?
Great question, can the state prove that the electronic verification was operational and effective? Basic audit procedure. If they want people to believe the results, it’s on them to prove, which is a self evident fact.
quote:
I mean, they were supposed to be matching signatures as the ballots came in the mail, and there should have been poll watchers standing right there, so what actually happened?
Here is the one you never want to come back to. The issue at hand related to the GBI report you love to reference dealt specifically with the overriding of this mitigating control. You say “GBI did a thorough investigation, no wrongdoing was found, nothing to see here”. Forget the inconsistencies of the interviews, or that Ruby the temporary worker basically bowed out and asked for an attorney, the question was never asked whether the state considered it appropriate to continue counting without poll watchers present. You acknowledge the poll watchers as a mitigating control, but cannot understand how the results are less reliable without that control present (or even overridden).
You seem to have a problem with anchoring, needing your first impression to be disproven in order to question it, rather than asking the questions before your mind is made up. This seems to come from your reliance on authorities in developing your opinions, which is a common aversion to engaging your critical thinking.
Posted on 4/4/24 at 7:47 am to stuckintexas
quote:
ETA: not calling you a hypocrite or a liberal, but I do feel like at some point their precedent has to be followed and used against them. I think this guy is telling the truth. Why undermine him?
That dude is a typical hypocrite liberal who writes out long posts without saying anything and pats himself on the back for being a goose stepper.
Like sfp does
Posted on 4/4/24 at 7:49 am to Dday63
quote:
I honestly want to know this stuff. I live in Fulton Co., and want the answers.
There was cheating.
Also a water main broke and stopped the count.
Posted on 4/4/24 at 7:55 am to TigerB8
Considering how inconsistent, vast and unverifiable our elections are AND how much time, money and energy are spent trying to influence the people we vote for you’d have to be literally retarded (or the beneficiary of the results) not to think our elections are tampered with.
Posted on 4/4/24 at 8:15 am to OceanMan
quote:
needing your first impression to be disproven in order to question it
Not merely an "impression", OM, but a chosen inclination. Today cultural moniker for this is "Confirmation Bias", and is usually associated with TDS victims, who surrender their rational observation and conclusions to delusional personal distaste for Trump.
One can read the Book "Envy" by Helmut Schoeck who was in Munich University in 1938, and witness the pernicious effects of said ('team player'/anti-narcissist) delusion. There is great pain in such irrational and obviously suicidal delusion. And sadly, it is only the pain that snaps the victims out of their suicidal stupor. Pain check is in the mail.
Posted on 4/4/24 at 8:52 am to TigerB8
News Flash.
Law won't be followed, if that works to harm the Leftist Agenda.
Law won't be followed, if that works to harm the Leftist Agenda.
Posted on 4/4/24 at 8:54 am to Deuces
quote:
Meaning Trump is our actual president?
Wanna buy a bridge….and a Bible?
Posted on 4/4/24 at 9:30 am to TigerB8
I'm curious if this system is so fricked up that they overturn the election so Trump technically won in 2020 so he's ineligible to run in 2024. Just waiting until the last second so there's no Republican that can sway votes.
That's some deep tin foil hat shite but everyone with power hates Trump. I wouldn't put anything past them.
That's some deep tin foil hat shite but everyone with power hates Trump. I wouldn't put anything past them.
Posted on 4/4/24 at 9:34 am to Born2rock
quote:
and a Bible?
Let me guess… you are one of the low info voters that thinks trump is selling bibles for $60. Am I right?
Posted on 4/4/24 at 9:59 am to OceanMan
quote:
I could explain this to you again, but you never bother to answer.
I don't think I've ever interacted with you.
I agree the system is unreliable, and it always has been. We have skated along with mostly unverifiable election results forever, but it usually is not a problem because the election results are not close enough for there to be an issue.
Then comes a close election like 2020, or 2000, and the flaws in the system are revealed.
We need to work towards fixing inherent flaws, but that does not mean there was intentional fraud or abuse of the system. It's just a flawed system (I'm not saying there wasn't fraud, I'm saying flaws in the system don't prove fraud)
quote:
Great question, can the state prove that the electronic verification was operational and effective? Basic audit procedure. If they want people to believe the results, it’s on them to prove, which is a self evident fact
And you would think someone would have looked into this since the issue was raised in 2020, and we have had elections since then. I suspect the answer is out there.
quote:
Here is the one you never want to come back to.
Quick aside, I don't know what you are referencing as never wanting to come back to.
quote:
the question was never asked whether the state considered it appropriate to continue counting without poll watchers present
Um, that question was asked and answered a long time ago. The law does not require the poll workers to wait on the poll watchers. It is the poll watchers responsibility to be present. The watchers could have stayed at State Farm Arena until the lights were turned off and the doors were locked, and both parties should have been furious at their watchers for leaving early.
quote:
You seem to have a problem with anchoring, needing your first impression to be disproven in order to question it, rather than asking the questions before your mind is made up. This seems to come from your reliance on authorities in developing your opinions, which is a common aversion to engaging your critical thinking.
That is a weird assumption you have made about me that is totally off base.
I'm looking for answers and do not have preconceived answers in mind. The vast majority of this board believed there was fraud the day after the election, WANTED to believe there was fraud, and continues to cling to false or incomplete information as proof of fraud.
So I'm a contrary voice, and I get accused of having made up my mind already.
This thread is a prime example. 1 former commissioner, testifying in Jeffery Clark's disciplinary hearing, says something about the lack of signature verification in Fulton County. He said the same thing in December, 2020, and he filed an affidavit to that effect last year in another matter.
But this board sees a tweet and declares Trump the true president. I ask if there are any details, but I'm the one who lacks critical thinking?
This post was edited on 4/4/24 at 10:15 am
Posted on 4/4/24 at 10:01 am to Dday63
quote:
We need to work towards fixing inherent flaws, but that does not mean there was intentional fraud or abuse of the system. It's just a flawed system
oh my. Posted on 4/4/24 at 10:16 am to BBONDS25
I don't find flaws in our electoral system funny in the least. You do you, though.
Posted on 4/4/24 at 10:17 am to Dday63
What is funny is you trying to pretend there wasn’t intentional fraud and/or abuse of the system.
This post was edited on 4/4/24 at 10:18 am
Posted on 4/4/24 at 10:19 am to the808bass
quote:
Don’t let Dday fool you. He’s a prog bitch pretending to care.
110%. Just like SFP, Kiwi, indeguy and LSUfanhouston.
Posted on 4/4/24 at 10:46 am to the808bass
quote:
Don’t let Dday fool you. He’s a prog bitch pretending to care.
Nane calling, the default mode of the MAGA brainwashed.
I'm not a "programmer bitch", I'm a contrarian, which this board obviously cannot handle.
However, you provided good information on the signature matching issue. Can you provide a link?
Posted on 4/4/24 at 10:46 am to BBONDS25
quote:
What is funny is you trying to pretend there wasn’t intentional fraud and/or abuse of the system.
I've never said there wasn't.
Posted on 4/4/24 at 10:52 am to Dday63
quote:
In this instance you have one commissioner saying he was told there was no signature verification in Fulton County. It's just hearsay evidence, and it's an incredible accusation, so what did anyone fo about it?
Tell this shite to E Jean Carroll, Eric Ciaramella, Christine Blasey Ford, Cassidy Hutchinson, and so on....
If you dont like hearsay, your issue is with dems, not some commissioner in Georgia.
This post was edited on 4/4/24 at 10:52 am
Posted on 4/4/24 at 10:52 am to Dday63
a student of SFP, I see.
Thats the last thing we need around here.
Thats the last thing we need around here.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News