Same to you. If it turns up fraud, you'll find some way to dismiss it.
Yes. Can you imagine the opposite?
Though it's not as if printing absentee ballots is the ONLY way that people can cheat.
Election results discussion thread (and sadly the inevitable aftermath)
- Thread starter Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)
- Start date
- Status
Though it's not as if printing absentee ballots is the ONLY way that people can cheat.
If an independent investigation concluded fraud occurred on a significant scale-- enough to affect the outcome of the election in Georgia-- I'll freely admit i was wrong, and you are encouraged to quote this post back to me.
It would be the first such finding of its kind, and would be entirely novel information. What I've been dismissing so far has been entirely, incomparably different: incoherent rambling for the most part, or exclusively Republican workers.
See above. Are you promising you'll hold with the findings of this particular investigation?
Yes, insofar as it concerns printed ballots, as opposed to simply forged ones.
Hmm... why? Is it exclusively being carried out by Republicans? You've already said that non-affiliated officials can't be trusted, since finding fraud would somehow implicate them all.
This hypothetical investigation, independent in nature that it is, would you agree with its finding if it found no evidence of voter fraud at all? That all the conspiracy theories of dead voters, implanted votes, ghosts with access to databanks, etc... was all nonsense and that Joe Biden won a fair and square election, would you admit everything you've posted and peddled thus-far was complete nonsense and you were taken for a complete ride?
Or would you dispute the findings and claim there was outside influence that changed the facts and/or findings of the investigation? Are you interested in an investigation, or are you interested with a singular result to prove what you believe to be true?
Agree Josh Hawley is in the right, and while I shop at Walmart, Walmart does use slave labor to assemble their products.
Update;
Walmart Apologizes for Calling Josh Hawley 'Sore Loser' in 'Mistaken' Tweet
"The tweet was mistakenly posted by a member of our social media team who intended to publish this comment to their personal account," a Walmart spokesperson told Newsweek.
www.newsweek.com
The forensic audit would only detect printed ballots, not anything else.
You don't collect fingerprints in order to determine the cause of death.
You don't do an autopsy to figure out a motive.
These are separate parts of an investigation only meant to determine certain specific things.
So no, one investigation turning up negative results isn't going to disprove the other ways fraud could have been committed.
Not unless I have any reason to believe that.
Denver Riggleman - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
LOL Bigfoot interest
Vote Smart | Facts For All
Vote Smart provides free, unbiased, in-depth information about current officials, candidates, issues, legislation, and voting. Non-partisan and nonprofit since 1988.
justfacts.votesmart.org
Yeah no friend of anyone left of the center.
Please define "any reason" in regards to an independent investigation set up to determine the existence of mail in ballot voter fraud in relation to voter signature identification.
The audit approved today was not meant to find fraud in signatures.
But any reason means any reason.
Even a bad person with a bigfoot fetish can be correct once in awhile. I never said he was the reincarnation of Marx.Denver Riggleman - Wikipedia
LOL Bigfoot interest
Vote Smart | Facts For All
Vote Smart provides free, unbiased, in-depth information about current officials, candidates, issues, legislation, and voting. Non-partisan and nonprofit since 1988.
Yeah no friend of anyone left of the center.
You asked if I would accept the findings of the investigation if everything turned up roses, didn't you?
" Or would you dispute the findings and claim there was outside influence that changed the facts and/or findings of the investigation?"
I don't see how a #2 pencil vs a #4 would be enough to dismiss a vote, but I guess what really matters is whether or not the machines would dismiss a vote from a #4 pencil, or a sharpie or whatever.
Here's the guy detailing the forensic techniques
Here's them voting to go ahead with the examination
I'm also taking to an active duty military guy and I asked him what he thought about the military running elections, and he's all for it.
Having armed soldiers at the polls could greatly intimidate voters and suppress turn out. Also considering the president is their commander in chief they are not a neutral entity.
Dang it. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mcconnell-blocks-2000-stimulus-checks-quick-vote
Odd. It would neither inimidate or suppress me. What are you writing about? Also, I have photo ID.
Yep, this is hopelessly partisan. What's really going to happen with this "forensic examination" is that it will itself be a politicised process; the investigation will be held and send the data sent to politicians, who will then write whatever suits them. Let's take the assumption that the forensic examination does not reveal any substantial fraud. Those overseeing the report can simply write it to magnify anything that might allude to there possibly having been substantial fraud even though they couldn't find clear evidence for it, and the complainants will claim vindication.
The other thing they can do, of course, is effectively bury it for not showing the results they wanted. Either never release it, or let it gently slip out in when the issue has died down and media are firmly focused somewhere else, which means they can credibly save up the same farce tactic for 2024 (just like they waved away their 2016 claims to resurrect them for 2020).
Finally, I fundamentally object to such investigations targetting specific counties or vote tranches that just happened to particularly vote for the other party. There should be a full forensic investigation of the entire state, or at least a reasonable cross-section of counties.
No. Absolutely not.
Firstly, there is no reason to assume the military are less corrupt than non-military.
Secondly, as a general concept the military are the single biggest threat to non-military rule, because they are the ultimate force of the state, and if they feel like taking over, they all too easily can. Western democracies have therefore developed a lot of principles and processes to firmly subordinate the military to civilian control. Giving running of the election over to the military is an dangerous undermining of this. It is in the power inherent to running an election in the hands a top-down hierarchical organisation that prioritises obedience to one's superiors, and the risk this places for election fiddling at the behest of army superiors. After that, for the implicit message that the civilian authorities are not competent to run their own affairs, and how this is perceived in the relationship of military and non-military: if the civvies can't run their elections, why should they run the government?
I would actually suggest the better thing to do is to create a state-wide pool of election officials with reasonable representation. Then apply election officials to counties at random, thereby prevent excessive single party dominance in electoral locations. Although I suspect the overwhelming majority of election officials tend to be honest people. There's more likely to be failures in procedure due to accidental mistake, maybe some under-training.
- Status