Official 2020 November Election Thread.

[j-mac]

To be clear, you're asking for a link to this very thread? Really?

Why would I need a link to this very thread???

No. I’m not asking for a link to a thread I’m already responding in.

Then quit playing games, or I am done with you

I’m not playing games. I was asking you for a link to your claim so that I could investigate it.

I wasn’t asking for a link to the thread that I’m currently in. I didn’t think that would be so complicated for you to understand.

Democrats Just Won Several Major Lawsuits Over Mail Ballots—But Their Fight Continues

Several courts issued decisions this week underscoring the importance of voting by mail, but many more cases are pending

time.com

Democrat lawyers were in courts with Obama judges removing things like signature verifications to do exactly what will be shown they did.

The article doesn't say anything about signature verifications.

The article confirms that teams of Democrat lawyers were in courts attacking vote protections...signatures were but a piece of that.

The article doesn’t say anything about signatures.

Oh Jesus H. Christ....Go to Google and type in anything concerning signature verification, and you will immediately get a slew of articles before the election talking about dropping the verification standards because they are too hard to do in the midst of a pandemic....

What they did, is to fight, and win in court that the mail in ballots signatures need not match the signature on registration files, but rather only needed to match the signature on the outside of the security envelope...Are you freaking kidding me?

I asked you for a link supporting your claim about signature verifications. You gave me a link that said nothing about signature verifications. I didn't think this would be so complicated for you.

If you don't have a link, then just say so. If you have one, I'll look at it. If you don't have one, then I won't.

From what I gathered from your article (that said nothing about signatures), is that there were legal disputes about the rules prior to the election. There were rulings made, and you lost the election according to those finalized rules. I'm not seeing anything nefarious (and I'm not seeing anything about signatures either).

What the hell....What "rules" do you think they were disputing?

 

[j-mac]

To be clear, you're asking for a link to this very thread? Really?

Why would I need a link to this very thread???

No. I’m not asking for a link to a thread I’m already responding in.

Then quit playing games, or I am done with you

I’m not playing games. I was asking you for a link to your claim so that I could investigate it.

I wasn’t asking for a link to the thread that I’m currently in. I didn’t think that would be so complicated for you to understand.

Democrats Just Won Several Major Lawsuits Over Mail Ballots—But Their Fight Continues

Several courts issued decisions this week underscoring the importance of voting by mail, but many more cases are pending

time.com

Democrat lawyers were in courts with Obama judges removing things like signature verifications to do exactly what will be shown they did.

The article doesn't say anything about signature verifications.

The article confirms that teams of Democrat lawyers were in courts attacking vote protections...signatures were but a piece of that.

The article doesn’t say anything about signatures.

Oh Jesus H. Christ....Go to Google and type in anything concerning signature verification, and you will immediately get a slew of articles before the election talking about dropping the verification standards because they are too hard to do in the midst of a pandemic....

What they did, is to fight, and win in court that the mail in ballots signatures need not match the signature on registration files, but rather only needed to match the signature on the outside of the security envelope...Are you freaking kidding me?

I asked you for a link supporting your claim about signature verifications. You gave me a link that said nothing about signature verifications. I didn't think this would be so complicated for you.

If you don't have a link, then just say so. If you have one, I'll look at it. If you don't have one, then I won't.

From what I gathered from your article (that said nothing about signatures), is that there were legal disputes about the rules prior to the election. There were rulings made, and you lost the election according to those finalized rules. I'm not seeing anything nefarious (and I'm not seeing anything about signatures either).

Ok, you want some links?

Could bad penmanship get your ballot tossed? Dems asking courts ahead of election.

Trump legal team argues signature verification crucial to prevent fraud.

abcnews.go.com

Signed, Sealed, Delivered—Then Discarded

Signature matching—which one expert described as “witchcraft”—could lead to thousands of legitimate ballots being thrown out.

www.theatlantic.com

Pennsylvania ballots can’t be tossed out over voters' signatures, court says

The prospect of disqualified mail-in ballots poses a greater threat to Biden’s candidacy.

www.nbcnews.com

Start with those....

 

[XponentialChaos]

To be clear, you're asking for a link to this very thread? Really?

Why would I need a link to this very thread???

No. I’m not asking for a link to a thread I’m already responding in.

Then quit playing games, or I am done with you

I’m not playing games. I was asking you for a link to your claim so that I could investigate it.

I wasn’t asking for a link to the thread that I’m currently in. I didn’t think that would be so complicated for you to understand.

Democrats Just Won Several Major Lawsuits Over Mail Ballots—But Their Fight Continues

Several courts issued decisions this week underscoring the importance of voting by mail, but many more cases are pending

time.com

Democrat lawyers were in courts with Obama judges removing things like signature verifications to do exactly what will be shown they did.

The article doesn't say anything about signature verifications.

The article confirms that teams of Democrat lawyers were in courts attacking vote protections...signatures were but a piece of that.

The article doesn’t say anything about signatures.

Oh Jesus H. Christ....Go to Google and type in anything concerning signature verification, and you will immediately get a slew of articles before the election talking about dropping the verification standards because they are too hard to do in the midst of a pandemic....

What they did, is to fight, and win in court that the mail in ballots signatures need not match the signature on registration files, but rather only needed to match the signature on the outside of the security envelope...Are you freaking kidding me?

I asked you for a link supporting your claim about signature verifications. You gave me a link that said nothing about signature verifications. I didn't think this would be so complicated for you.

If you don't have a link, then just say so. If you have one, I'll look at it. If you don't have one, then I won't.

From what I gathered from your article (that said nothing about signatures), is that there were legal disputes about the rules prior to the election. There were rulings made, and you lost the election according to those finalized rules. I'm not seeing anything nefarious (and I'm not seeing anything about signatures either).

What the hell....What "rules" do you think they were disputing?

You’re asking me to state the legal disputes from your own article...?

From the article you posted (which said nothing of signatures), some of these legal disputes were...

- an expansion of mail in voting in Pennsylvania. This was rules against the Trump administration who wanted to shut this down.

- the US postal service sending postcards with inaccurate information in Colorado. This resulted in the USPS destroying the remaining postcards that would have been sent to voters.

- a temporary injunction against the postal service which resulted in a mandate that all trucks leave according to schedule whether they are full or not.

In the future, I suggest you read your own articles. That way you might know what legal disputes are mentioned in your own article. Not sure why you’re asking me to do that for you. It might also help you understand that signature verification is not mentioned once in your article.

 

[XponentialChaos]

To be clear, you're asking for a link to this very thread? Really?

Why would I need a link to this very thread???

No. I’m not asking for a link to a thread I’m already responding in.

Then quit playing games, or I am done with you

I’m not playing games. I was asking you for a link to your claim so that I could investigate it.

I wasn’t asking for a link to the thread that I’m currently in. I didn’t think that would be so complicated for you to understand.

Democrats Just Won Several Major Lawsuits Over Mail Ballots—But Their Fight Continues

Several courts issued decisions this week underscoring the importance of voting by mail, but many more cases are pending

time.com

Democrat lawyers were in courts with Obama judges removing things like signature verifications to do exactly what will be shown they did.

The article doesn't say anything about signature verifications.

The article confirms that teams of Democrat lawyers were in courts attacking vote protections...signatures were but a piece of that.

The article doesn’t say anything about signatures.

Oh Jesus H. Christ....Go to Google and type in anything concerning signature verification, and you will immediately get a slew of articles before the election talking about dropping the verification standards because they are too hard to do in the midst of a pandemic....

What they did, is to fight, and win in court that the mail in ballots signatures need not match the signature on registration files, but rather only needed to match the signature on the outside of the security envelope...Are you freaking kidding me?

I asked you for a link supporting your claim about signature verifications. You gave me a link that said nothing about signature verifications. I didn't think this would be so complicated for you.

If you don't have a link, then just say so. If you have one, I'll look at it. If you don't have one, then I won't.

From what I gathered from your article (that said nothing about signatures), is that there were legal disputes about the rules prior to the election. There were rulings made, and you lost the election according to those finalized rules. I'm not seeing anything nefarious (and I'm not seeing anything about signatures either).

Ok, you want some links?

Could bad penmanship get your ballot tossed? Dems asking courts ahead of election.

Trump legal team argues signature verification crucial to prevent fraud.

abcnews.go.com

Signed, Sealed, Delivered—Then Discarded

Signature matching—which one expert described as “witchcraft”—could lead to thousands of legitimate ballots being thrown out.

www.theatlantic.com

Pennsylvania ballots can’t be tossed out over voters' signatures, court says

The prospect of disqualified mail-in ballots poses a greater threat to Biden’s candidacy.

www.nbcnews.com

Start with those....

Thanks!

Ok. So I read that 97% of rejected signatures are actually authentic and that mail in voter fraud is very rare.

I read that Democrats pushed for more training for people who verify signatures.

I also read that several states passed “curing” laws in 2019. These laws state that rejected voters must be informed and have an opportunity to verify that they are who they claim they are so that their vote will count.

Very interesting read. Thank you. I don’t see any problems here - seems perfectly reasonable to me. Do you have an issue with this?

 

[j-mac]

To be clear, you're asking for a link to this very thread? Really?

Why would I need a link to this very thread???

No. I’m not asking for a link to a thread I’m already responding in.

Then quit playing games, or I am done with you

I’m not playing games. I was asking you for a link to your claim so that I could investigate it.

I wasn’t asking for a link to the thread that I’m currently in. I didn’t think that would be so complicated for you to understand.

Democrats Just Won Several Major Lawsuits Over Mail Ballots—But Their Fight Continues

Several courts issued decisions this week underscoring the importance of voting by mail, but many more cases are pending

time.com

Democrat lawyers were in courts with Obama judges removing things like signature verifications to do exactly what will be shown they did.

The article doesn't say anything about signature verifications.

The article confirms that teams of Democrat lawyers were in courts attacking vote protections...signatures were but a piece of that.

The article doesn’t say anything about signatures.

Oh Jesus H. Christ....Go to Google and type in anything concerning signature verification, and you will immediately get a slew of articles before the election talking about dropping the verification standards because they are too hard to do in the midst of a pandemic....

What they did, is to fight, and win in court that the mail in ballots signatures need not match the signature on registration files, but rather only needed to match the signature on the outside of the security envelope...Are you freaking kidding me?

I asked you for a link supporting your claim about signature verifications. You gave me a link that said nothing about signature verifications. I didn't think this would be so complicated for you.

If you don't have a link, then just say so. If you have one, I'll look at it. If you don't have one, then I won't.

From what I gathered from your article (that said nothing about signatures), is that there were legal disputes about the rules prior to the election. There were rulings made, and you lost the election according to those finalized rules. I'm not seeing anything nefarious (and I'm not seeing anything about signatures either).

Ok, you want some links?

Could bad penmanship get your ballot tossed? Dems asking courts ahead of election.

Trump legal team argues signature verification crucial to prevent fraud.

abcnews.go.com

Signed, Sealed, Delivered—Then Discarded

Signature matching—which one expert described as “witchcraft”—could lead to thousands of legitimate ballots being thrown out.

www.theatlantic.com

Pennsylvania ballots can’t be tossed out over voters' signatures, court says

The prospect of disqualified mail-in ballots poses a greater threat to Biden’s candidacy.

www.nbcnews.com

Start with those....

Thanks!

Ok. So I read that 97% of rejected signatures are actually authentic and that mail in voter fraud is very rare.

I read that Democrats pushed for more training for people who verify signatures.

I also read that several states passed “curing” laws in 2019. These laws state that rejected voters must be informed and have an opportunity to verify that they are who they claim they are so that their vote will count.

Very interesting read. Thank you. I don’t see any problems here - seems perfectly reasonable to me. Do you have an issue with this?

I do...Obviously the articles are going to downplay the problems with signatures, especially in terms of millions of mail in ballots where there is NO matching of signatures on the ballots, with signatures on file with the registration...It's a recipe for fraud, and that's just one of the problems I see in this election with the states that went along with doing away with this protection....

 

[amethyst]

this is HUGE! gates, Soros involved in Scytl.

Did the US Raid European Software Company Scytl and Seize their Servers in Germany? -- Our Intel Source Says YES, IT HAPPENED!. Did the US Raid European Software Company Scytl and Seize their Servers in Germany? -- Our Intel Source Says YES, IT HAPPENED!

 

[amethyst]

start at 3:17. rep gohmert on Scytl raid

 

[BULLDOG]

start at 3:17. rep gohmert on Scytl raid

You realize Crazy Louie Gohmert is certifiably nuts, don't you?

 

[XponentialChaos]

I do...Obviously the articles are going to downplay the problems with signatures, especially in terms of millions of mail in ballots where there is NO matching of signatures on the ballots, with signatures on file with the registration...It's a recipe for fraud, and that's just one of the problems I see in this election with the states that went along with doing away with this protection....

Ok. Well you articles disagree with you. They indicate that signature fraud is very rare. Here are a few quotes from your own articles:

"Vote-by-mail fraud is also very rare, but signatures are intended to add an extra layer of security"

"But the number resulting in fraud is 'exceedingly small.' He said one study showed nine instances over seven years where someone other than the voter signed -- and that's out of 16 million votes cast."

It's so rare that the numbers indicate that they're much more likely to throw out several valid ballots when trying to identify the invalid ones. Here are a few quotes from your own articles:

"Fraud is exceedingly rare; the much greater danger is that legitimate ballots will be thrown out."

"97 percent of rejected signatures are likely to be authentic—or, for every invalid ballot, 32 valid ones are thrown out."

I'm not sure why you would push articles that disagree with your assertion. It kind of makes it really easy to refute your argument.

Furthermore, as small as a problem as this is, it looks like they're taking extra precautions to ensure that the integrity of the election is maintained. These extra precautions include extra training for people verifying signatures and "curing" laws that allow voters the opportunity to verify their identify in the event that their ballot is flagged and rejected. Here are a few quotes from your articles:

"a 2019 lawsuit filed by Democrats complained that the state offered no training or procedures for officials assessing signatures, “resulting in processes that are demonstrably standardless, inconsistent, and unreliable.” Under a new law, the state must offer standardized training"

"curing isn’t merely a way to help get votes counted, as its detractors claim—it’s also an important anti-fraud tool, because there’s no way to know whether a rejected signature is malfeasance or just messiness unless officials contact voters."

These measures seem perfectly reasonable to me. Additionally, they were passed by state legislatures, so it's really up to them anyway.

All together, the rules had been laid out. Whether you like the rules or not is your problem. Biden won by those rules and as this process finalizes, Biden will be your president.

 

[j-mac]

I do...Obviously the articles are going to downplay the problems with signatures, especially in terms of millions of mail in ballots where there is NO matching of signatures on the ballots, with signatures on file with the registration...It's a recipe for fraud, and that's just one of the problems I see in this election with the states that went along with doing away with this protection....

Ok. Well you articles disagree with you. They indicate that signature fraud is very rare. Here are a few quotes from your own articles:

"Vote-by-mail fraud is also very rare, but signatures are intended to add an extra layer of security"

"But the number resulting in fraud is 'exceedingly small.' He said one study showed nine instances over seven years where someone other than the voter signed -- and that's out of 16 million votes cast."

It's so rare that the numbers indicate that they're much more likely to throw out several valid ballots when trying to identify the invalid ones. Here are a few quotes from your own articles:

"Fraud is exceedingly rare; the much greater danger is that legitimate ballots will be thrown out."

"97 percent of rejected signatures are likely to be authentic—or, for every invalid ballot, 32 valid ones are thrown out."

I'm not sure why you would push articles that disagree with your assertion. It kind of makes it really easy to refute your argument.

Furthermore, as small as a problem as this is, it looks like they're taking extra precautions to ensure that the integrity of the election is maintained. These extra precautions include extra training for people verifying signatures and "curing" laws that allow voters the opportunity to verify their identify in the event that their ballot is flagged and rejected. Here are a few quotes from your articles:

"a 2019 lawsuit filed by Democrats complained that the state offered no training or procedures for officials assessing signatures, “resulting in processes that are demonstrably standardless, inconsistent, and unreliable.” Under a new law, the state must offer standardized training"

"curing isn’t merely a way to help get votes counted, as its detractors claim—it’s also an important anti-fraud tool, because there’s no way to know whether a rejected signature is malfeasance or just messiness unless officials contact voters."

These measures seem perfectly reasonable to me. Additionally, they were passed by state legislatures, so it's really up to them anyway.

All together, the rules had been laid out. Whether you like the rules or not is your problem. Biden won by those rules and as this process finalizes, Biden will be your president.

Well ofcourse they’re going to say that based on the bias of the outlets...the original point stands though. The DNC sent teams of attorneys to states to relax their vote Integrity measures....

 

[XponentialChaos]

I do...Obviously the articles are going to downplay the problems with signatures, especially in terms of millions of mail in ballots where there is NO matching of signatures on the ballots, with signatures on file with the registration...It's a recipe for fraud, and that's just one of the problems I see in this election with the states that went along with doing away with this protection....

Ok. Well you articles disagree with you. They indicate that signature fraud is very rare. Here are a few quotes from your own articles:

"Vote-by-mail fraud is also very rare, but signatures are intended to add an extra layer of security"

"But the number resulting in fraud is 'exceedingly small.' He said one study showed nine instances over seven years where someone other than the voter signed -- and that's out of 16 million votes cast."

It's so rare that the numbers indicate that they're much more likely to throw out several valid ballots when trying to identify the invalid ones. Here are a few quotes from your own articles:

"Fraud is exceedingly rare; the much greater danger is that legitimate ballots will be thrown out."

"97 percent of rejected signatures are likely to be authentic—or, for every invalid ballot, 32 valid ones are thrown out."

I'm not sure why you would push articles that disagree with your assertion. It kind of makes it really easy to refute your argument.

Furthermore, as small as a problem as this is, it looks like they're taking extra precautions to ensure that the integrity of the election is maintained. These extra precautions include extra training for people verifying signatures and "curing" laws that allow voters the opportunity to verify their identify in the event that their ballot is flagged and rejected. Here are a few quotes from your articles:

"a 2019 lawsuit filed by Democrats complained that the state offered no training or procedures for officials assessing signatures, “resulting in processes that are demonstrably standardless, inconsistent, and unreliable.” Under a new law, the state must offer standardized training"

"curing isn’t merely a way to help get votes counted, as its detractors claim—it’s also an important anti-fraud tool, because there’s no way to know whether a rejected signature is malfeasance or just messiness unless officials contact voters."

These measures seem perfectly reasonable to me. Additionally, they were passed by state legislatures, so it's really up to them anyway.

All together, the rules had been laid out. Whether you like the rules or not is your problem. Biden won by those rules and as this process finalizes, Biden will be your president.

Well ofcourse they’re going to say that based on the bias of the outlets...the original point stands though. The DNC sent teams of attorneys to states to relax their vote Integrity measures....

So you're arguing from a position that your own articles disagree with. Got it.

The measures they have taken are perfectly reasonable to me. You just don't like the outcome. It's foolish to complain about the rules after the game has been played.

Biden will be the president.

 

[ClaireH]

Whether it be voter fraud, machine error, or just some idiot losing ballots by accident, there should not be one error. Feel free to color me idealistic, but this is 2020 not 1970 nor even 1990.

As most readers know, back in 1965 Gordon E. Moore (co-founder of Intel (NASDAQ: INTC) postulated that the number of transistors that can be packed into a given unit of space would double about every two years. Currently, the doubling of installed transistors on silicon chips occurs at a pace faster than every two years. Moore's Law Explained

So we're currently at 55 years post Moore's Law, with the rate of technology on steroids, and the US is having election issues.

There needs to be major effort for bi-partisan solutions, that would mean of course actually placing the good of the nation over the partisan one-upping. We humans carry so much baggage with continuing to place party loyalty over the good of our country. There is a better way forward, unlike the inept back and forth swinging of our political system. I look forward to seeing a major change to the two-party system come into fruition.

 

[j-mac]

I do...Obviously the articles are going to downplay the problems with signatures, especially in terms of millions of mail in ballots where there is NO matching of signatures on the ballots, with signatures on file with the registration...It's a recipe for fraud, and that's just one of the problems I see in this election with the states that went along with doing away with this protection....

Ok. Well you articles disagree with you. They indicate that signature fraud is very rare. Here are a few quotes from your own articles:

"Vote-by-mail fraud is also very rare, but signatures are intended to add an extra layer of security"

"But the number resulting in fraud is 'exceedingly small.' He said one study showed nine instances over seven years where someone other than the voter signed -- and that's out of 16 million votes cast."

It's so rare that the numbers indicate that they're much more likely to throw out several valid ballots when trying to identify the invalid ones. Here are a few quotes from your own articles:

"Fraud is exceedingly rare; the much greater danger is that legitimate ballots will be thrown out."

"97 percent of rejected signatures are likely to be authentic—or, for every invalid ballot, 32 valid ones are thrown out."

I'm not sure why you would push articles that disagree with your assertion. It kind of makes it really easy to refute your argument.

Furthermore, as small as a problem as this is, it looks like they're taking extra precautions to ensure that the integrity of the election is maintained. These extra precautions include extra training for people verifying signatures and "curing" laws that allow voters the opportunity to verify their identify in the event that their ballot is flagged and rejected. Here are a few quotes from your articles:

"a 2019 lawsuit filed by Democrats complained that the state offered no training or procedures for officials assessing signatures, “resulting in processes that are demonstrably standardless, inconsistent, and unreliable.” Under a new law, the state must offer standardized training"

"curing isn’t merely a way to help get votes counted, as its detractors claim—it’s also an important anti-fraud tool, because there’s no way to know whether a rejected signature is malfeasance or just messiness unless officials contact voters."

These measures seem perfectly reasonable to me. Additionally, they were passed by state legislatures, so it's really up to them anyway.

All together, the rules had been laid out. Whether you like the rules or not is your problem. Biden won by those rules and as this process finalizes, Biden will be your president.

Well ofcourse they’re going to say that based on the bias of the outlets...the original point stands though. The DNC sent teams of attorneys to states to relax their vote Integrity measures....

So you're arguing from a position that your own articles disagree with. Got it.

The measures they have taken are perfectly reasonable to me. You just don't like the outcome. It's foolish to complain about the rules after the game has been played.

Biden will be the president.

If you say so...But even if that’s the case, he will be considered an illegitimate president by half the country with no mandate, and an opposition senate....IOW, a lame duck from the jump.

 

[XponentialChaos]

I do...Obviously the articles are going to downplay the problems with signatures, especially in terms of millions of mail in ballots where there is NO matching of signatures on the ballots, with signatures on file with the registration...It's a recipe for fraud, and that's just one of the problems I see in this election with the states that went along with doing away with this protection....

Ok. Well you articles disagree with you. They indicate that signature fraud is very rare. Here are a few quotes from your own articles:

"Vote-by-mail fraud is also very rare, but signatures are intended to add an extra layer of security"

"But the number resulting in fraud is 'exceedingly small.' He said one study showed nine instances over seven years where someone other than the voter signed -- and that's out of 16 million votes cast."

It's so rare that the numbers indicate that they're much more likely to throw out several valid ballots when trying to identify the invalid ones. Here are a few quotes from your own articles:

"Fraud is exceedingly rare; the much greater danger is that legitimate ballots will be thrown out."

"97 percent of rejected signatures are likely to be authentic—or, for every invalid ballot, 32 valid ones are thrown out."

I'm not sure why you would push articles that disagree with your assertion. It kind of makes it really easy to refute your argument.

Furthermore, as small as a problem as this is, it looks like they're taking extra precautions to ensure that the integrity of the election is maintained. These extra precautions include extra training for people verifying signatures and "curing" laws that allow voters the opportunity to verify their identify in the event that their ballot is flagged and rejected. Here are a few quotes from your articles:

"a 2019 lawsuit filed by Democrats complained that the state offered no training or procedures for officials assessing signatures, “resulting in processes that are demonstrably standardless, inconsistent, and unreliable.” Under a new law, the state must offer standardized training"

"curing isn’t merely a way to help get votes counted, as its detractors claim—it’s also an important anti-fraud tool, because there’s no way to know whether a rejected signature is malfeasance or just messiness unless officials contact voters."

These measures seem perfectly reasonable to me. Additionally, they were passed by state legislatures, so it's really up to them anyway.

All together, the rules had been laid out. Whether you like the rules or not is your problem. Biden won by those rules and as this process finalizes, Biden will be your president.

Well ofcourse they’re going to say that based on the bias of the outlets...the original point stands though. The DNC sent teams of attorneys to states to relax their vote Integrity measures....

So you're arguing from a position that your own articles disagree with. Got it.

The measures they have taken are perfectly reasonable to me. You just don't like the outcome. It's foolish to complain about the rules after the game has been played.

Biden will be the president.

If you say so...But even if that’s the case, he will be considered an illegitimate president by half the country with no mandate, and an opposition senate....IOW, a lame duck from the jump.

People are free to think whatever they want. They have no basis for it. Just being sore losers.

They can pout all they want. Biden will still be the president.

 

[j-mac]

I do...Obviously the articles are going to downplay the problems with signatures, especially in terms of millions of mail in ballots where there is NO matching of signatures on the ballots, with signatures on file with the registration...It's a recipe for fraud, and that's just one of the problems I see in this election with the states that went along with doing away with this protection....

Ok. Well you articles disagree with you. They indicate that signature fraud is very rare. Here are a few quotes from your own articles:

"Vote-by-mail fraud is also very rare, but signatures are intended to add an extra layer of security"

"But the number resulting in fraud is 'exceedingly small.' He said one study showed nine instances over seven years where someone other than the voter signed -- and that's out of 16 million votes cast."

It's so rare that the numbers indicate that they're much more likely to throw out several valid ballots when trying to identify the invalid ones. Here are a few quotes from your own articles:

"Fraud is exceedingly rare; the much greater danger is that legitimate ballots will be thrown out."

"97 percent of rejected signatures are likely to be authentic—or, for every invalid ballot, 32 valid ones are thrown out."

I'm not sure why you would push articles that disagree with your assertion. It kind of makes it really easy to refute your argument.

Furthermore, as small as a problem as this is, it looks like they're taking extra precautions to ensure that the integrity of the election is maintained. These extra precautions include extra training for people verifying signatures and "curing" laws that allow voters the opportunity to verify their identify in the event that their ballot is flagged and rejected. Here are a few quotes from your articles:

"a 2019 lawsuit filed by Democrats complained that the state offered no training or procedures for officials assessing signatures, “resulting in processes that are demonstrably standardless, inconsistent, and unreliable.” Under a new law, the state must offer standardized training"

"curing isn’t merely a way to help get votes counted, as its detractors claim—it’s also an important anti-fraud tool, because there’s no way to know whether a rejected signature is malfeasance or just messiness unless officials contact voters."

These measures seem perfectly reasonable to me. Additionally, they were passed by state legislatures, so it's really up to them anyway.

All together, the rules had been laid out. Whether you like the rules or not is your problem. Biden won by those rules and as this process finalizes, Biden will be your president.

Well ofcourse they’re going to say that based on the bias of the outlets...the original point stands though. The DNC sent teams of attorneys to states to relax their vote Integrity measures....

So you're arguing from a position that your own articles disagree with. Got it.

The measures they have taken are perfectly reasonable to me. You just don't like the outcome. It's foolish to complain about the rules after the game has been played.

Biden will be the president.

If you say so...But even if that’s the case, he will be considered an illegitimate president by half the country with no mandate, and an opposition senate....IOW, a lame duck from the jump.

People are free to think whatever they want. They have no basis for it. Just being sore losers.

They can pout all they want. Biden will still be the president.

Yep we are...Empty victory if that’s what happens.

 

[XponentialChaos]

I do...Obviously the articles are going to downplay the problems with signatures, especially in terms of millions of mail in ballots where there is NO matching of signatures on the ballots, with signatures on file with the registration...It's a recipe for fraud, and that's just one of the problems I see in this election with the states that went along with doing away with this protection....

Ok. Well you articles disagree with you. They indicate that signature fraud is very rare. Here are a few quotes from your own articles:

"Vote-by-mail fraud is also very rare, but signatures are intended to add an extra layer of security"

"But the number resulting in fraud is 'exceedingly small.' He said one study showed nine instances over seven years where someone other than the voter signed -- and that's out of 16 million votes cast."

It's so rare that the numbers indicate that they're much more likely to throw out several valid ballots when trying to identify the invalid ones. Here are a few quotes from your own articles:

"Fraud is exceedingly rare; the much greater danger is that legitimate ballots will be thrown out."

"97 percent of rejected signatures are likely to be authentic—or, for every invalid ballot, 32 valid ones are thrown out."

I'm not sure why you would push articles that disagree with your assertion. It kind of makes it really easy to refute your argument.

Furthermore, as small as a problem as this is, it looks like they're taking extra precautions to ensure that the integrity of the election is maintained. These extra precautions include extra training for people verifying signatures and "curing" laws that allow voters the opportunity to verify their identify in the event that their ballot is flagged and rejected. Here are a few quotes from your articles:

"a 2019 lawsuit filed by Democrats complained that the state offered no training or procedures for officials assessing signatures, “resulting in processes that are demonstrably standardless, inconsistent, and unreliable.” Under a new law, the state must offer standardized training"

"curing isn’t merely a way to help get votes counted, as its detractors claim—it’s also an important anti-fraud tool, because there’s no way to know whether a rejected signature is malfeasance or just messiness unless officials contact voters."

These measures seem perfectly reasonable to me. Additionally, they were passed by state legislatures, so it's really up to them anyway.

All together, the rules had been laid out. Whether you like the rules or not is your problem. Biden won by those rules and as this process finalizes, Biden will be your president.

Well ofcourse they’re going to say that based on the bias of the outlets...the original point stands though. The DNC sent teams of attorneys to states to relax their vote Integrity measures....

So you're arguing from a position that your own articles disagree with. Got it.

The measures they have taken are perfectly reasonable to me. You just don't like the outcome. It's foolish to complain about the rules after the game has been played.

Biden will be the president.

If you say so...But even if that’s the case, he will be considered an illegitimate president by half the country with no mandate, and an opposition senate....IOW, a lame duck from the jump.

People are free to think whatever they want. They have no basis for it. Just being sore losers.

They can pout all they want. Biden will still be the president.

Yep we are...Empty victory if that’s what happens.

Ok, well we're at an agreement. You will think that it's an empty victory, and I couldn't care less about your baseless opinion.

Biden will still be your president.

Nice talking to you.

 

[j-mac]

I do...Obviously the articles are going to downplay the problems with signatures, especially in terms of millions of mail in ballots where there is NO matching of signatures on the ballots, with signatures on file with the registration...It's a recipe for fraud, and that's just one of the problems I see in this election with the states that went along with doing away with this protection....

Ok. Well you articles disagree with you. They indicate that signature fraud is very rare. Here are a few quotes from your own articles:

"Vote-by-mail fraud is also very rare, but signatures are intended to add an extra layer of security"

"But the number resulting in fraud is 'exceedingly small.' He said one study showed nine instances over seven years where someone other than the voter signed -- and that's out of 16 million votes cast."

It's so rare that the numbers indicate that they're much more likely to throw out several valid ballots when trying to identify the invalid ones. Here are a few quotes from your own articles:

"Fraud is exceedingly rare; the much greater danger is that legitimate ballots will be thrown out."

"97 percent of rejected signatures are likely to be authentic—or, for every invalid ballot, 32 valid ones are thrown out."

I'm not sure why you would push articles that disagree with your assertion. It kind of makes it really easy to refute your argument.

Furthermore, as small as a problem as this is, it looks like they're taking extra precautions to ensure that the integrity of the election is maintained. These extra precautions include extra training for people verifying signatures and "curing" laws that allow voters the opportunity to verify their identify in the event that their ballot is flagged and rejected. Here are a few quotes from your articles:

"a 2019 lawsuit filed by Democrats complained that the state offered no training or procedures for officials assessing signatures, “resulting in processes that are demonstrably standardless, inconsistent, and unreliable.” Under a new law, the state must offer standardized training"

"curing isn’t merely a way to help get votes counted, as its detractors claim—it’s also an important anti-fraud tool, because there’s no way to know whether a rejected signature is malfeasance or just messiness unless officials contact voters."

These measures seem perfectly reasonable to me. Additionally, they were passed by state legislatures, so it's really up to them anyway.

All together, the rules had been laid out. Whether you like the rules or not is your problem. Biden won by those rules and as this process finalizes, Biden will be your president.

Well ofcourse they’re going to say that based on the bias of the outlets...the original point stands though. The DNC sent teams of attorneys to states to relax their vote Integrity measures....

So you're arguing from a position that your own articles disagree with. Got it.

The measures they have taken are perfectly reasonable to me. You just don't like the outcome. It's foolish to complain about the rules after the game has been played.

Biden will be the president.

If you say so...But even if that’s the case, he will be considered an illegitimate president by half the country with no mandate, and an opposition senate....IOW, a lame duck from the jump.

People are free to think whatever they want. They have no basis for it. Just being sore losers.

They can pout all they want. Biden will still be the president.

Yep we are...Empty victory if that’s what happens.

Ok, well we're at an agreement. You will think that it's an empty victory, and I couldn't care less about your baseless opinion.

Biden will still be your president.

Nice talking to you.

Nor I, yours....

 

[XponentialChaos]

I do...Obviously the articles are going to downplay the problems with signatures, especially in terms of millions of mail in ballots where there is NO matching of signatures on the ballots, with signatures on file with the registration...It's a recipe for fraud, and that's just one of the problems I see in this election with the states that went along with doing away with this protection....

Ok. Well you articles disagree with you. They indicate that signature fraud is very rare. Here are a few quotes from your own articles:

"Vote-by-mail fraud is also very rare, but signatures are intended to add an extra layer of security"

"But the number resulting in fraud is 'exceedingly small.' He said one study showed nine instances over seven years where someone other than the voter signed -- and that's out of 16 million votes cast."

It's so rare that the numbers indicate that they're much more likely to throw out several valid ballots when trying to identify the invalid ones. Here are a few quotes from your own articles:

"Fraud is exceedingly rare; the much greater danger is that legitimate ballots will be thrown out."

"97 percent of rejected signatures are likely to be authentic—or, for every invalid ballot, 32 valid ones are thrown out."

I'm not sure why you would push articles that disagree with your assertion. It kind of makes it really easy to refute your argument.

Furthermore, as small as a problem as this is, it looks like they're taking extra precautions to ensure that the integrity of the election is maintained. These extra precautions include extra training for people verifying signatures and "curing" laws that allow voters the opportunity to verify their identify in the event that their ballot is flagged and rejected. Here are a few quotes from your articles:

"a 2019 lawsuit filed by Democrats complained that the state offered no training or procedures for officials assessing signatures, “resulting in processes that are demonstrably standardless, inconsistent, and unreliable.” Under a new law, the state must offer standardized training"

"curing isn’t merely a way to help get votes counted, as its detractors claim—it’s also an important anti-fraud tool, because there’s no way to know whether a rejected signature is malfeasance or just messiness unless officials contact voters."

These measures seem perfectly reasonable to me. Additionally, they were passed by state legislatures, so it's really up to them anyway.

All together, the rules had been laid out. Whether you like the rules or not is your problem. Biden won by those rules and as this process finalizes, Biden will be your president.

Well ofcourse they’re going to say that based on the bias of the outlets...the original point stands though. The DNC sent teams of attorneys to states to relax their vote Integrity measures....

So you're arguing from a position that your own articles disagree with. Got it.

The measures they have taken are perfectly reasonable to me. You just don't like the outcome. It's foolish to complain about the rules after the game has been played.

Biden will be the president.

If you say so...But even if that’s the case, he will be considered an illegitimate president by half the country with no mandate, and an opposition senate....IOW, a lame duck from the jump.

People are free to think whatever they want. They have no basis for it. Just being sore losers.

They can pout all they want. Biden will still be the president.

Yep we are...Empty victory if that’s what happens.

Ok, well we're at an agreement. You will think that it's an empty victory, and I couldn't care less about your baseless opinion.

Biden will still be your president.

Nice talking to you.

Nor I, yours....

If you're an American, then he will be your president. Your approval of his position does not change that fact.

Are you not aware of this? It's not complicated.

 

[XponentialChaos]

It is over. The victory will be so big our children will believe it to be a fairy tale.

Thank you for playing.

Turns out it was a fairy tale.

 

[j-mac]

I do...Obviously the articles are going to downplay the problems with signatures, especially in terms of millions of mail in ballots where there is NO matching of signatures on the ballots, with signatures on file with the registration...It's a recipe for fraud, and that's just one of the problems I see in this election with the states that went along with doing away with this protection....

Ok. Well you articles disagree with you. They indicate that signature fraud is very rare. Here are a few quotes from your own articles:

"Vote-by-mail fraud is also very rare, but signatures are intended to add an extra layer of security"

"But the number resulting in fraud is 'exceedingly small.' He said one study showed nine instances over seven years where someone other than the voter signed -- and that's out of 16 million votes cast."

It's so rare that the numbers indicate that they're much more likely to throw out several valid ballots when trying to identify the invalid ones. Here are a few quotes from your own articles:

"Fraud is exceedingly rare; the much greater danger is that legitimate ballots will be thrown out."

"97 percent of rejected signatures are likely to be authentic—or, for every invalid ballot, 32 valid ones are thrown out."

I'm not sure why you would push articles that disagree with your assertion. It kind of makes it really easy to refute your argument.

Furthermore, as small as a problem as this is, it looks like they're taking extra precautions to ensure that the integrity of the election is maintained. These extra precautions include extra training for people verifying signatures and "curing" laws that allow voters the opportunity to verify their identify in the event that their ballot is flagged and rejected. Here are a few quotes from your articles:

"a 2019 lawsuit filed by Democrats complained that the state offered no training or procedures for officials assessing signatures, “resulting in processes that are demonstrably standardless, inconsistent, and unreliable.” Under a new law, the state must offer standardized training"

"curing isn’t merely a way to help get votes counted, as its detractors claim—it’s also an important anti-fraud tool, because there’s no way to know whether a rejected signature is malfeasance or just messiness unless officials contact voters."

These measures seem perfectly reasonable to me. Additionally, they were passed by state legislatures, so it's really up to them anyway.

All together, the rules had been laid out. Whether you like the rules or not is your problem. Biden won by those rules and as this process finalizes, Biden will be your president.

Well ofcourse they’re going to say that based on the bias of the outlets...the original point stands though. The DNC sent teams of attorneys to states to relax their vote Integrity measures....

So you're arguing from a position that your own articles disagree with. Got it.

The measures they have taken are perfectly reasonable to me. You just don't like the outcome. It's foolish to complain about the rules after the game has been played.

Biden will be the president.

If you say so...But even if that’s the case, he will be considered an illegitimate president by half the country with no mandate, and an opposition senate....IOW, a lame duck from the jump.

People are free to think whatever they want. They have no basis for it. Just being sore losers.

They can pout all they want. Biden will still be the president.

Yep we are...Empty victory if that’s what happens.

Ok, well we're at an agreement. You will think that it's an empty victory, and I couldn't care less about your baseless opinion.

Biden will still be your president.

Nice talking to you.

Nor I, yours....

If you're an American, then he will be your president. Your approval of his position does not change that fact.

Are you not aware of this? It's not complicated.

Did you give the current President that consideration? I don’t think you did...However, just as I did with Barrack Obama, if Joe Biden actually is certified, then he is the President. Now, whether he governs for me is yet to be seen.

It seems though that you should tell some of your more radical cohorts in here that message though.