Comey is excrement.

Okay, why is no one making any distinction between sharpie pens and sharpie markers. They are different, you know. Every "debunking" talks about sharpie pens, while the people sayimg their votes weren't counted were given sharpie markers. Why is no one pointing that out and seeing if it makes a difference. Why do they not run a test on camera?

Also, if the ballpoint pens ink gumming up the machines was a real issue, why do other states use them. Why is Arizona the only state talking about sharpies? Are they the only ones using them? There arguments to "debunk" are very weak.

It was posted on another thread (so this not my info, just sharing):

The sharpie typically colors outside the bubble and the machine can be set to discard the ballots where this occurs AND fake ballots which are printed with perfect circles in the bubble would all be counted.

If that is true, it might also explain why they wanted sharpies on Election Day. Dominion is as corrupt as they come so I wouldn't put any theory to bed until it has been tested and vetted through a court of law with experts.

Right now all we have is: why?

What we need: Truthful answers!

ActualTalkingThermos said:

---

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.

---

Nope. Not buying this for several reasons.

How is it that they were still counting ballots last week? If you are truly concerned with the "timing" of the election, then Arizona should have been completed on the night of, instead of this slow drip of votes that has been happening. If having to wait for ball point ink to dry really was going to impact the speed of which Arizona is decided, they have done a crappy job.

I also don't buy the "drying faster" than a freaking Bic ball point pen. We had bubble scantrons here in NC. By the time I finished bubbling all of my answers on the back, all of my answers were dry on the front. By the time I walked to the tabulation machine, all of my answers were dry.

Whatever reason they give they will have to prove and argue it in court. However, this email plus the fact that they were utilizing different ballot practices on the day of voting compared to early smells fishy.

That is like a company using two different processes for the same transaction, due to timing and volume. If you are not utilizing the most efficient method throughout the entire year, an auditor is going to crawl up your ass to determine why and speculate to what reason a company would not be streamlining the same process all of the time.

This is why people look at what is going on in Arizona and saying it doesn't pass the smell test.

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.

---

Whaaa... ball point pens dry faster than a sharpie.

TAMU1990 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.

---

Whaaa... ball point pens dry faster than a sharpie.

---

It depends on the paper. I use pens of all types all the time on different paper. In any case, the idea that there is an issue with ink drying is bogus. I don't believe it and that isn't what the email said. That is just a made up speculation as an excuse to provide cover.

For those insisting on "proof", or insisting on having people testify that their votes were not counted: How would you get that proof? How would you "know" if your vote didn't get counted?

You have to investigate. So, show me the investigation before you say there's nothing here to see.

Oh my god a sharpie stole my vote!!!!



Can we move on to the CIA server that was seized in Germany. That's some James Bond stuff.

No. I, for one, never claimed there was an issue with sharpies. In fact, I warned that this was not a good argument to make on a technical basis. But, what I believe isn't important. What Kelly Dixon believed is. She believed there was a problem with markers and told her people to act on it in such a way that raises questions,