I know, but it's kind of like if you were watching TV, and the news came on and started talking about how a huge firestorm has wiped out the area that you live in, only to find no such thing when you open your windows.
Could it be they only picked 100 because, shocker, they actually went through the whole vetting process for the ballots counted before counting them. This is why our count took so long to finally be certified.
Nope.
That's not what all the Affiants that have been given testimony to Trump's team have been claiming.
That's easy. Arizona has had no-excuse mail-in ballots since 1991, and has been making full use of that for some time now. For instance, in 2012, 61% of Arizonans voted by mail, and in 2016, 78% did. More importantly for this claim, however, is that Arizona created a Permanent Early Voting List in 2007. As of 2020, roughly 75% of registered voters in Arizona are on that Permanent Early Voting List. So pick a random eligible voter in Arizona and there's a 3/4 chance that they voted by mail and didn't request a ballot this year because they didn't have to. That's the point of the Permanent Early Voting List.
That's disingenuous. If you're on the "permanent list" then you implicitly requested a ballot for this year and every other year until you opt-out, move, or die.
This sounds like the talk of someone who came to conclusion based on their faulty assumptions and can't admit they were wrong.
Don't be too hard on him. He's "temporally displaced". He's 3 weeks behind the rest of us and was thrown into the future by forces as yet unknown. No other possible explanation exists how someone could be so willfully, hysterically, sadly and tragically wrong about so much. It can only be he doesn't know what has been disproven. And if he is as interested in politics as he presents, the only reason he hasn't seen what we've seen is because it didn't exist in his timeframe yet.
People forget about their media subscription after a few months if they have it on an automatic bank charge. This list has been around for 13 years.
Man, Id love to be on a permanent list for vote in ballots so I don't have to worry about filling it out every 4 years. My country doesn't do that yet
You might want to copy and paste that, save you from having to type it out again in future. Might just be a good response to other posts.
They only called people who had a ballot cast in their name.
No, disingenuous is asking "Did you request a mail-in ballot" without consideration for whether or not such lists existed, or how the respondents might interpret the question. And we have every reason to believe that is exactly what happened here, because by his own account that's what he asked: " Did a person with your name vote? Did you request a mail-in ballot? Did you return a mail-in ballot?"
Common mistake actually. In 37 states Felony convictions do not permanently remove your voting rights. In 16 of them, voting rights are automatically restored at the end of incarceration, and the remaining 21 tend strongly towards "through parole/probation".
We literally get cases like that every election, and almost invariably they end up being one of two things: 1) Clerical error or 2) two different people with similar names. It happens. See, for instance, Dobrovolny v. Nebraska.
Your credulity is noted, but I would remind you that I was specifically answering the question "how would Matt Braynard have been able to find hundreds of people who never requested a ballot if their whole process was vetted beforehand".
Remember what I said about reading down the common mistakes list? Page 8 and Page 9.
Bottom of Page 10.
Sure, just as soon as we get the mainstream media to do their jobs so that private citizens (or the POTUS) don't have to do it for them.
I like how a lot of your "arguments" rest upon people casting fraudulent votes, but entirely trust Twitter users, which have a much easier, and less risky level of entry for fake-ness, fraud if you will.
1) That video shows jack shit
They have been doing their jobs. So far the "private citizens and POTUS" have been wrong, consistently. Reliably.
Your source is a guy who is more likely than not Q. Like, the actual lying grifter who makes the Q-drops. This is your source. A guy who is helping to bring the Protocols to the modern age.
