Election Do-Over!!!

[Isaac]

Isnt it nice to be able to close your office door and not have to go outside?

It is at first, until it leads to vaping every 90 seconds for a 16 hour day, at which point I realized just how incredibly hard it is to quit.
Perhaps one could say "harder than quitting smoking", b/c there are fewer obstacles to vaping in the first place (such as the benefit you quoted).
It's a tough one, but I'm getting there. I'm on try # 50 and feeling pretty good about it, as they say

 

[moke123]

What Nic level?

 

[Pat Hartman]

Wow. First time I've seen one this bad.

I didn't say it was reliable. But since the site that does the ratings is itself biased, it's ratings are also biased. - my comment was

Who knows about the rest

The servers our election data went to are on foreign soil.

Facts are under assault in 2020.​

You bet your sweet bippy they are and this site is leading the attack. Don't believe your lyin' eyes. Don't believe the news reports that said that reporters and observers were kicked out. The REPORTERS themselves reported being told to leave!!! You are living in a bubble of disinformation. I keep trying to throw you a lifeline but you keep throwing it back.

 

[moke123]

The REPORTERS themselves reported being told to leave!!!

Got a link?

the state investigator told Lead Stories that partisan election observers were never told to leave the counting room on election night, but instead left voluntarily after some staff members went home — and although Democratic and Republican observers are allowed to watch vote-counting in Georgia, they are not required to be present (the Secretary of State’s office told Forbes it is investigating why partisan observers left before ballot-scanning ended).

But investigators who reviewed the entire surveillance tape confirmed it showed “normal ballot processing,” according to Gabriel Sterling, a top official in the secretary of state’s office.

The ballot bags taken from under the table were empty. The ballots were already on the scanner tables.

I keep trying to throw you a lifeline but you keep throwing it back.

I'm not the one drowning in the kool-aid.

 

[Vassago]

I love hope people post blatantly false articles and think by just paying a disclaimer that "hey, this might not be true," they are absolved for spreading false information.

Of, sorry. "Alternative facts."

 

[AccessBlaster]

I love hope people post blatantly false articles and think by just paying a disclaimer that "hey, this might not be true," they are absolved for spreading false information.

Ever hear of the clean hands doctrine?

Clean hands, sometimes called the clean hands doctrine, unclean hands doctrine, or dirty hands doctrine,[1] is an equitable defense in which the defendant argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain an equitable remedy because the plaintiff is acting unethically or has acted in bad faith with respect to the subject of the complaint—that is, with "unclean hands".[2] The defendant has the burden of proof to show the plaintiff is not acting in good faith. The doctrine is often stated as "those seeking equity must do equity" or "equity must come with clean hands". This is a matter of protocol, characterised by A. P. Herbert in Uncommon Law by his fictional Judge Mildew saying (as Herbert says, "less elegantly"), "A dirty dog will not have justice by the court".[3]

The last four years of the Hillary / Steele dirty dossier was a dozy. Glad all the "hypocrites" stepped up to help Trump.

 

[Vassago]

We are not in a courtroom. That's where Trump is losing all his cases.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Nice dodge!

 

[moke123]

Clean hands, sometimes called the clean hands doctrine, unclean hands doctrine, or dirty hands doctrine,[1] is an equitable defense in which the defendant argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain an equitable remedy because the plaintiff is acting unethically or has acted in bad faith with respect to the subject of the complaint—that is, with "unclean hands".[2] The defendant has the burden of proof to show the plaintiff is not acting in good faith. The doctrine is often stated as "those seeking equity must do equity" or "equity must come with clean hands". This is a matter of protocol, characterised by A. P. Herbert in Uncommon Law by his fictional Judge Mildew saying (as Herbert says, "less elegantly"), "A dirty dog will not have justice by the court".[3]

Like Sidney Powell?

 

[AccessBlaster]

Like Sidney Powell?

Sidney Powell is nothing compared to Hillary and the DNC dirty dossier, basically a failed coup. Like I said your side has "dirty hands" and should be embarrassed at the very least. But your not and you will continue to deflect like good party loyalist.

 

[Pat Hartman]

I don't have a Twitter account or access to local GA newspapers but these seem to corroborate the official stoppage.

Also found these:

It’s Complicated: The “Burst Pipe” in Fulton County, GA

We all remember hearing on election night that ballot counting in Fulton County, GA had suddenly come to a screeching halt due to a burst pipe in the Atlanta Hawks State Farm Arena. The incident seemed significant—and very confusing. <div class=

uncoverdc.com

About Atlanta’s Election Day Pipe Dream - The American Spectator | USA News and PoliticsThe American Spectator | USA News and Politics

Election Day 2020 was unusual for several predictable reasons involving high in-person turnout and veritable avalanches of mail-in ballots. One exceptionally

spectator.org

Regarding the mistake you pointed out in one of Powell's filings:
You do realize that the team is under enormous time pressure. I would be surprised if that were the only mistake.

So, you've never made a similar mistake? Do you suppose that Sydney actually did the scanning of the documents herself? Cutting off the date could have easily happened when the originals were scanned and the person writing that it was undated thought it was undated because he was looking at the scanned version. Personally if I were to examine any of your writings and found any kind of error at all, I would recommend that YOU be cancelled You really need to lighten up. Take a deep breath. Smoke em' if you've got em', especially the funny stuff. Remember some of the things you learned growing up such as - Judge not lest you be judged. This type of error would need to be a pattern and occur under less stressful situations for it to be a problem.

 

[Vassago]

Nice dodge!

Not a Dodge. I don't have to probe obviously false information false. Not a courtroom ergo not my job.

Hell, I could call objection for conjecture with most of the things Trump worshippers spread.

 

[Steve R.]

Ever hear of the clean hands doctrine?

Not a Dodge. I don't have to probe obviously false information false. Not a courtroom ergo not my job.

Hell, I could call objection for conjecture with most of the things Trump worshippers spread.

An unbelievably arrogant closed minded viewpoint. To say that one does not have to probe "obviously false information" just reeks of dismissing anything that is contrary to your viewpoint. A definition from the "Ministry of Truth"? How would one know "false" information unless one examines it? Those who adhere to the scientific method would recommend investigating.

I am reminded of an "old" joke. A person was accused of murder when that person shot someone. The murder charge was dismissed as the stated cause of death, for the victim, was "blood loss". Obviously, this person murdered someone, but the use of selective facts to the exclusion of other facts can lead to erroneous conclusions. The teaching lesson of this joke, supposed "facts" may not tell the whole story and need to be examined.

 

[Jon]

I notice that the PolitiFact site quoted earlier in this thread has a left leaning bias: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/politifact

It cites Facebook's fact checkers putting warnings on some of the videos shown of the poll workers working into the night. I wonder how independent Facebook's fact checkers are?

I watched about 3 hours of that Georgia hearing, or however long the YouTube video went on. Did anyone else watch it in its entirety? All the people (senators?) seemed quite level headed, stating that they should look into the facts to try to establish the truth. There was a Democrat senator lady who became hysterical near the end, saying that they shouldn't even be giving oxygen to this stuff. She really lost it near the end, getting highly emotional and almost shouting. Is this another case of irrationality and also the desire for censorship from the left? To me, it seems that the left just want to shut down the conversion when people present something they don't like.

I heard a lot of evidence that seemed quite convincing to me that there were numerous irregularities. The unsupervised ballot counting during the night might be a "normal process", but when something is unsupervised, how can you tell if it is being conducted ethically?

What seems to be disputed is if the lady told them to leave or not. But why would all the film crew and observers leave at the same time when it looked like the counters were packing up, only for the balloting process to resume again once all the observers were gone? Why come back at 2pm to check, or did they just take a 3 hour nap on the job? It fits the story that they were told the counting was carrying on. Doesn't pass the smell test to me.

Can someone tell me what the scanners do? Do they take a photocopy of each ballot?

Edit: The quoting by Giuliani of the disparity between ratios of rejected ballots in 2016 and 2020 is a bit silly if indeed the law had changed regarding the curation of ballots. It may give a good headline, but is easily disproven. Or is there more to it than the Democrats claim on this? Would like to hear why the Democrats may be wrong on the counter-claim, if indeed they are.

 

[moke123]

Not that twitter is a news source but it helps to see the whole thread.

he was there at 10:59

And

Here's his follow up story

Georgia election officials show frame-by-frame what happened in Fulton surveillance video

For the third time, counties across Georgia have certified votes from November's presidential election.

www.wsbtv.com

 

[Jon]

Exactly. He was there at 10:59. But then they were told to leave and so there was 3 hours of no observers. That is what was claimed in the testimony.

Bit confused by the relevance of the tweets where Matt says they are wrapping up at 10:30. Surely that suggests they were told they were finishing early? Or have I missed the point of those Tweets?

 

[moke123]

What seems to be disputed is if the lady told them to leave or not. But why would all the film crew and observers leave at the same time when it looked like the counters were packing up, only for the balloting process to resume again once all the observers were gone? Why come back at 2pm to check, or did they just take a 3 hour nap on the job? It fits the story that they were told the counting was carrying on. Doesn't pass the smell test to me.

From what I've read is when the people who were processing the ballots were done they were going home and the media and other people thought it was done and left also. The scanners were not done and stayed to finish. Looks to me from his twitter is that he tweeted at 10:30
and again at 10:59.

So what about the time gap between when the media and observers left and then the observers returned about an hour later? Employees scanned ballots.
“These are just typical everyday election workers are just doing their jobs,” Sterling said. “This is not some Ocean’s Eleven-level scheme being put together in the middle of the night.”

Here’s where the confusion comes in:
Media and observers left as employees packed up. But Fulton’s election director called a supervisor at State Farm a few minutes later, telling them to keep counting after the Secretary of State’s office called and said they shouldn’t stop counting for the night so early.
After that call, employees pulled the containers of ballots back out and went back to work.
“No magically-appearing ballots,” Gabriel Sterling with the Secretary of State’s office said. “These were ballots that were processed in front of the monitors, processed in front of the monitors and placed there in front of the monitors.”

Can someone tell me what the scanners do? Do they take a photocopy of each ballot?

The voting machines spit out a paper ballot which is human readable meaning you can look at it and see that it is actually the selections you made. Those ballots are then scanned at the polling place. Note that you can then check the count of paper ballots vs, the count of the voting machine vs the count of the scanner.

With the mail in ballots, they have one team that unseals the ballots, does whatever checks on them and places them in piles. Those piles are then run through the scanners which count the votes. They do audits to makes sure the numbers are right.

It was the people who unseal the ballots who were leaving that night.

Why does everyone assume that the people left in the room scanning ballots are all democrats? Do republicans not participate?
It would seem to me that whoever hires all these workers would tow the HR line of diversity and inclusion. Or is everything a conspiracy against Trump the victim?

 

[Jon]

So do the scanners determine if there vote is Republican or Democrat? Do they store a photocopy? What happens to ballets after they are scanned? Do they destroy them so no one can check anything?

Why does everyone assume that the people left in the room scanning ballots are all democrats?

This was addressed in part of the evidence. I can't quite remember the details, but I think the lady running the place shouted out "This is what democracy looks like!", and nearly everybody cheered. I presume it was referring to a Biden win. Also, there was lots of talk of intimidation of Republican poll watchers. One lady who had a neutral badge said she was treated far differently when she didn't have her Republican badge. It seems like it was Democrats who were running the place. In the UK, local councils are all left wing echo chambers. A friend of mine works in one and she says it is all left wingers there.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Most if not all "mistakes" in the counting benefited only one side, it's a statistical improbability.

 

[Jon]

Can you point to these mistakes?