leftcoastaggie said:

---

webgem08 said:

---

Then what were the election officials' concerns related to Shapries? Why did she instruct the use of pens for early voting?

If Sharpies were better suited for the job, why recommend pens at all?

---

Maybe they had a limited supply of sharpies so they didn't want to waste them during early voting when using a ball point pen worked just as well? Or is that too logical for you? It doesn't matter, the case was thrown out. There were exactly zero witnesses who testified that their vote wasn't counted because they used a sharpie.

---

One problem with your blow-off explanation, she didn't say there were concerns and issues with the ballpoint pens not drying, she said there were concerns and issues about the MARKERS.

Because the instructions would have simply been "If you don't have enough Shapies, it's okay to use pen". Not "issues and concerns about Sharpies". That's ridiculous

leftcoastaggie said:

---

It was already explained in court. Stop with the BS conspiracies.

Sharpies were used on the day of election because the ink dried faster. The ballots were run through a tabulator right after the voter marked their ballot. Using a ball point pen would allow the sill wet ink to gum up the tabulator and make it inoperable. The bubbles on the ballot were intentionally printed so they did not line up so a bleed through would not interfere with a vote on the back. This was already thrown out of court. Ball point pens could be used for early voting because the ink had time to dry before being run through the machine.

---

Sharpie ink dries faster than ballpoint ink? Going to have to lie better than that.

What kind of ballpoint pen needs longer than a Sharpie to dry? Or more than a few seconds in general? Were these Ben Franklin's ballpoint pens?

I'm glad I could debunk this for you guys. Now on to that server in Germany.

leftcoastaggie said:

---

I'm glad I could debunk this for you guys. Now on to that server in Germany.

---

What's funny is how ridiculous you look up to your hips in all of the bullsh it you are shoveling. Joe is thankful for useful idiots like you

leftcoastaggie said:

---

I'm glad I could debunk this for you guys. Now on to that server in Germany.

---

But you haven't. So, sit down and quit pushing a false narrative to rush a legal process.

annie88 said:

---

No way, I've been assured by many posters here including BMX bandit that this is not possible and was debunked.

---

then why did you delete your post?

the republican attorney general of AZ has explained that sharpies can be read. This is after he launched an investigation because he was outraged that ballots were not being counted. He learned that was not the case.

Maybe The Cabal got to him. who knows?

this email is definitely suspicious. I have no idea why she said this. doesn't make any sense. But there is no evidence sharpie marked ballots were not counted. to the contrary, all were counted.

The instructions from above all along was to use sharpies because the ink didn't smear on the stuff inside the ballot scanning machines and cause issues, unlike with ballpoint pens. Sharpiegate people were complaining (hence poll workers "hearing issues and concerns" about the sharpies). So this person said fine just use pens for now so we don't have to deal with this nonsense but on election day (when they'd have to process a lot more ballots than any one day of early voting) they still NEEDED to use the sharpies because there would be no time to waste.

Keegan99 said:

---

We're electing the most powerful person on the planet and they can't spring for enough sharpies?! They have to cut corners and hope their ramshackle "sometimes we can get away with using pens, but sometimes we need to use our precious sharpies" process works?

That is supposed to inspire public trust and confidence?!

---

They can spring for the sharpies, it's just that our populace, like F16, is liable to latch on to ridiculous baseless conspiracies and whine about it so much that it becomes easier to pander to them than to try to make them understand something they don't want to understand.

Rendered Fat said:

---

leftcoastaggie said:

---

I'm glad I could debunk this for you guys. Now on to that server in Germany.

---

The smugness of these folks is astounding.

Can you imagine if this happened but the markers/pens screwed Biden and the Democrats rather than Trump?

---

For ****'s sake the markers didn't screw anyone or anything, and there has never been a shred of evidence that they did.

Pinche Abogado said:

---

leftcoastaggie said:

---

I'm glad I could debunk this for you guys. Now on to that server in Germany.

---

But you haven't. So, sit down and quit pushing a false narrative to rush a legal process.

---

The case was dropped by the Trump campaign. There is no legal process. The only process going on is you guys getting worked up over a de-bunked conspiracy.

Ragoo said:

---

leftcoastaggie said:

---

It was already explained in court. Stop with the BS conspiracies.

Sharpies were used on the day of election because the ink dried faster. The ballots were run through a tabulator right after the voter marked their ballot. Using a ball point pen would allow the sill wet ink to gum up the tabulator and make it inoperable. The bubbles on the ballot were intentionally printed so they did not line up so a bleed through would not interfere with a vote on the back. This was already thrown out of court. Ball point pens could be used for early voting because the ink had time to dry before being run through the machine.

---

what ball point pens are you using? And what sharpies are you using? The drying curve of these don't pass my bull**** meter.

---

drew some boxes and ran my finger over them

blue box 1 is a 5 second delay blue box 2 is immediate, black boxes are two different style Sharpie brand immediate

Conclusion: ball point does smear. But even waiting 5 seconds greatly reduces the effect. With ball point being completely dry at 10 seconds. Rejected.

Now I can't keep it straight.

I have one lefty telling me it was about a limited sharpie supply, and another lefty telling me that it had nothing to do with the supply of sharpies, but was only about minimizing complaints.

Can y'all please get together and figure out your explanation?

Fredd said:

---

Who wants to call her mobile phone and ask her?

---

We all should

Ag87H2O said:

---

leftcoastaggie said:

---

It was already explained in court. Stop with the BS conspiracies.

Sharpies were used on the day of election because the ink dried faster. The ballots were run through a tabulator right after the voter marked their ballot. Using a ball point pen would allow the sill wet ink to gum up the tabulator and make it inoperable. The bubbles on the ballot were intentionally printed so they did not line up so a bleed through would not interfere with a vote on the back. This was already thrown out of court. Ball point pens could be used for early voting because the ink had time to dry before being run through the machine.

---

Sharpie ink dries faster than ballpoint ink? Going to have to lie better than that.

---

You calling Clint Hickman (R) a liar?

Quote:

---

Clint Hickman, the Republican chairman of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, and Steve Gallardo, the board's only Democrat, published a letter to voters expressing concern about misinformation. They said officials tested a wide variety of pens with their vote-tabulation equipment and "Sharpies are recommended by the manufacturer because they provide the fastest-drying ink."

---

https://apnews.com/article/claim-sharpie-pens-ruin-arizona-ballots-f5287df8fdb2be101b2cdf9edd007746

leftcoastaggie said:

---

I'm glad I could debunk this for you guys. Now on to that server in Germany.

---

Explain this genius.

Pima County says no sharpies because they bleed, not because they aren't counted:

Ag87H2O said:

---

leftcoastaggie said:

---

I'm glad I could debunk this for you guys. Now on to that server in Germany.

---

Explain this genius.

---

I'd like to see the whole video. It was edited. Kind of like how aggiehawg cut off the quote of my post to create her false narrative. Looked like she was talking about mail-in ballots before the edit (which were fine to use a ball point pen), but it's hard to tell.

Explain then why there were "concerns and issues" with the Sharpies and she told them to switch to pens?

Come on. That's lame.

If the issue was "we are going to run out of Sharpies" then why didn't she say that on the email or place an order for more sharpies?

They lied then and they lied in court if it was actually asked about in court. What people say in private says a lot more about their intentions and the truth than what they say in public. You should know that as well.

EDIT: And as far as a politician in Maricopa saying the "manufacturer" recommended Sharpies that makes it WORSE not better. Isn't Maricopa using Dominion?

Just sayin.......

Quote:

---

I'd like to see the whole video. I was edited. Kind of like how aggiehawg cut off the quote of my post to create her false narrative. Looked like she was talking about mail-in ballots before the edit (which were fine to use a ball point pen), but it's hard to tell.

---

Okay genius, explain the difference between mail-in ballots and election day ballots?

leftcoastaggie said:

---

Ag87H2O said:

---

leftcoastaggie said:

---

It was already explained in court. Stop with the BS conspiracies.

Sharpies were used on the day of election because the ink dried faster. The ballots were run through a tabulator right after the voter marked their ballot. Using a ball point pen would allow the sill wet ink to gum up the tabulator and make it inoperable. The bubbles on the ballot were intentionally printed so they did not line up so a bleed through would not interfere with a vote on the back. This was already thrown out of court. Ball point pens could be used for early voting because the ink had time to dry before being run through the machine.

---

Sharpie ink dries faster than ballpoint ink? Going to have to lie better than that.

---

You calling Clint Hickman (R) a liar?

Quote:

---

Clint Hickman, the Republican chairman of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, and Steve Gallardo, the board's only Democrat, published a letter to voters expressing concern about misinformation. They said officials tested a wide variety of pens with their vote-tabulation equipment and "Sharpies are recommended by the manufacturer because they provide the fastest-drying ink."

---

https://apnews.com/article/claim-sharpie-pens-ruin-arizona-ballots-f5287df8fdb2be101b2cdf9edd007746

---

see experiment I conducted above.

If sharpies don't smear how come every time I use one I end up with sharpie on my hand if I rest it on the paper afterwards?

The smearing argument is a load of BS.

AZ didn't mention in the court case that they were aware of issues with the Sharpies like she admits in that e-mail. That would change quite a bit the courts proceedings. They'd want to know what the issues are specifically.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Pima County says no sharpies because they bleed, not because they aren't counted:

---

So if the ink bleeds through and looks like multiple votes in the same race, the ballot gets thrown out.

Trump vote not counted. And in a race this close, all it takes is a few thousand to make the difference.

The letter has them dead to rights. It should have been consistent, early voting and election day. The intent was clear.

Original Arizona guidance:



Updated Arizona guidance:



They changed their own guidance document regarding sharpies. They knew they were a problem from the start.

SLAM said:

---

Original Arizona guidance:



Updated Arizona guidance:



They changed their own guidance document regarding sharpies. They knew they were a problem from the start.

---

zgolfz85 said:

---

I called her cell....straight to voicemail

---

I like the cut of your jib

Why am I here? said:

---

Explain then why there were "concerns and issues" with the Sharpies and she told them to switch to pens?

Come on. That's lame.

If the issue was "we are going to run out of Sharpies" then why didn't she say that on the email or place an order for more sharpies?

They lied then and they lied in court if it was actually asked about in court. What people say in private says a lot more about their intentions and the truth than what they say in public. You should know that as well.

---

Why do I have to explain what their "concerns and issues" are? You're the one questioning it. This has already been litigated and the Trump campaign withdrew it. I told you it was explained in court why they used sharpies on the day of the election and why using ball point pens were ok to be used prior. You just choose not to believe it.

leftcoastaggie said:

---

American Hardwood said:

---

leftcoastaggie said:

---

It was already explained in court. Stop with the BS conspiracies.

Sharpies were used on the day of election because the ink dried faster. The ballots were run through a tabulator right after the voter marked their ballot. Using a ball point pen would allow the sill wet ink to gum up the tabulator and make it inoperable. The bubbles on the ballot were intentionally printed so they did not line up so a bleed through would not interfere with a vote on the back. This was already thrown out of court. Ball point pens could be used for early voting because the ink had time to dry before being run through the machine.

---

Show me the correspondence in this case that this was the issue.

---

It was in the court proceedings. Go look it up. I listened to the call when it was thrown out of court.

---

Sorry I can't accept your word about listening to the phone call. Nor do I have the time and resources to look up court transcripts for evidence that the poll troubleshooters expressed the concerns with ball point pens that you have claimed. That may be on me.

But, it doesn't matter if there is really a problem with the markers or not. She BELIEVES there is a problem and instructs her minions to take action based on that belief. I am not a lawyer so I don't know the legal implications of this, but the intent to me is quite clear unless it can be documented that the issue with the markers and not the ballpoints is something else that is unknown at this point.


Also, these machines have been around a long time. If there is a problem with ballpoint pens smearing, then this issue would have been known for along time. Surely the instructions for operating these machines would have been well established to say NOT to use a pen that would smear. Why hasn't this been an issue brought up before?

I did a quick search on Duck Duck for "ballot marking instructions" and in the top ten results, NO instructions said anything about not using ball point pens, but two results explicitly said to use ball point pens or not to use markers.

This ink smearing explanation is weak as hell. If it was a problem then it would have always been a problem and it would have been widely understood or accommodated by now. and AGAIN, she said the problem was with the markers NOT the pens.

Quote:

---

So if the ink bleeds through and looks like multiple votes in the same race, the ballot gets thrown out.

---

where are you getting that a bleed through would look like multiple votes in the same race?

Keegan99 said:

---

So why not use markers every day?

If markers are the most effective, then why the insistence on using pens before election day? Why should the method of marking a ballot be tied to the calendar?

Shouldn't a robust process use a single standard at all times?

---

Yeah, lets double the supplies we need so we can use two different writing instruments, even though we know one is suboptimal. Makes sense

leftcoastaggie said:

---

webgem08 said:

---

Then what were the election officials' concerns related to Shapries? Why did she instruct the use of pens for early voting?

If Sharpies were better suited for the job, why recommend pens at all?

---

Maybe they had a limited supply of sharpies so they didn't want to waste them during early voting when using a ball point pen worked just as well? Or is that too logical for you? It doesn't matter, the case was thrown out. There were exactly zero witnesses who testified that their vote wasn't counted because they used a sharpie.

---

LOL