When you made this comment it was a certainty that someone was going to point out that it's predicated on a lie. @Harry Leggs did not suggest that he testified in this proceeding as your answer above presupposes, effectively lying.
What is this? Short attention span theater? The entire predicate for using this technology was so that images of every single ballot could be reviewed in a completely automated process without any difficulty whatsoever. Secondly, The only reason for not satisfying all parties that the election was held fairly by permitting a review of all of the ballot signature matches (which would resolve the issue beyond all dispute), is that the side that "won," believes that they didn't really win. Essentially, the "winners" are saying "we could prove it, but we just don't wanna!" Does that argument convince you, because it doesn't convince me.
Actually, your post makes no sense whatsoever. This comment for example is both untrue and incoherent.
You might have more success if you tried responding to a thread requiring less intellectual rigor. Like being able to follow the line of a conversation for example.... sez the guy who's dismissed his own thread's premise.
People make comments like this that make them look like an absolute fool, when they obviously have not listened to what was said in the video which addresses this point squarely. But don't let me dissuade you.Bbecause you looking like a fool, makes your political bankruptcy all the more transparent, making my job of persuasion to any open minded person that might stumble upon this thread all the easier.
votepatternanalysis.substack.com
Your side has attempted to make multiple claims of specific examples of fraud, none of which have held up and most of which have simple explanations.
None of the explanations would pass an audit. They would be red flags and evidence of vote fraud in any sane world. Of course you are an advocate for vote cheating and anti-democratic.
What is this joke, do you not understand what a secret ballot is?
Even with mail-in ballots. Although the envelope they arrive in requires a signature, once that is verified, the ballot is as anonymous as every other one.
No it is not. You simply do not know what you are talking about.
You can find a video of someone saying just about anything you want to hear.
[/QUOTE]Look at all these extra votes for Biden during the late nights and esp in Georgia when Repub watchers were sent home.
Anomalies in Vote Counts and Their Effects on Election 2020
A Quantitative Analysis of Decisive Vote Updates in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia on and after Election Night
Yes, I absolutely want to hear from reputable sources.
If you are talking about points of similarity, you are talking about a subjective review of each point. Yes, it is a specialized field of study, but until the people signing became robotic in that signing, it remains subjective.
One, Computer ID is still subjective, and if it is supposedly so much better, then why not use it for in person ID.
Robert Barnes is not "somebody." He is a subject matter expert on A) election law, and B) this particular election as he worked on this exact case.
Translation, I'm going to repeat this lie as long as the New York Times provides me cover. The New York Times has no reputation. They have lied about this from the beginning, and they continue to lie about it. And you mark yourself (and what you are) by advancing this argument.
Obviously, you have not been conscious at any point since the 2020 election. Perhaps it would be better if you just went back to sleep, Rumpelstiltskin.
We're talking about mail-in ballots. And there are two signatures. One on the envelope in which the ballot must be returned, and one in the voting rolls to which it must be agreed. If the signature on the envelope is not agreed to the signature on the voting rolls the ballot is invalid and cannot be counted.
Please, just go back to sleep. This is a discussion for people who are conscious.
It is prima facie evidence of vote cheating until proven otherwise.
