ttu_85 said:John Maplethorpe said:
In you example a voter votes Trump but the paper ballot prints Biden correct? The BMDs don't record any votes, they aren't connected to anything.
We understand what you're saying, nobody denies code can be malicious, we're saying it doesn't work that way. The paper ballot is the official record and gets counted by another machine.
Given a Ga voter FIRST creates their vote on computer generated form probably HTML/JS . That loaded form can be processed or manipulated Before its printed locally or after
Show me an example where we can be sure, without the source code, that vote hasn't been tampered with. The state of Texas and others sure had concerns regarding Dominion.
where is the room for tampering?ttu_85 said:Was it a count or an audit ?schmendeler said:the printed form has who the voter selected written in english on it. they did a manual hand recount of these printed forms. the vote tally was essentially identical across the entire state. where is the room for tampering?ttu_85 said:John Maplethorpe said:
In you example a voter votes Trump but the paper ballot prints Biden correct? The BMDs don't record any votes, they aren't connected to anything.
We understand what you're saying, nobody denies code can be malicious, we're saying it doesn't work that way. The paper ballot is the official record and gets counted by another machine.
Given a Ga voter FIRST creates their vote on computer generated form probably HTML/JS . That loaded form can be processed or manipulated Before its printed locally or after
Show me an example where we can be sure, without the source code, that vote hasn't been tampered with. The state of Texas and others sure had concerns regarding Dominion.
Georgia Recount fraud affidavitsschmendeler said:the printed form has who the voter selected written in english on it. they did a manual hand recount of these printed forms. the vote tally was essentially identical across the entire state. where is the room for tampering?ttu_85 said:John Maplethorpe said:
In you example a voter votes Trump but the paper ballot prints Biden correct? The BMDs don't record any votes, they aren't connected to anything.
We understand what you're saying, nobody denies code can be malicious, we're saying it doesn't work that way. The paper ballot is the official record and gets counted by another machine.
Given a Ga voter FIRST creates their vote on computer generated form probably HTML/JS . That loaded form can be processed or manipulated Before its printed locally or after
Show me an example where we can be sure, without the source code, that vote hasn't been tampered with. The state of Texas and others sure had concerns regarding Dominion.
Well was it a count or an audit ?schmendeler said:where is the room for tampering?ttu_85 said:Was it a count or an audit ?schmendeler said:the printed form has who the voter selected written in english on it. they did a manual hand recount of these printed forms. the vote tally was essentially identical across the entire state. where is the room for tampering?ttu_85 said:John Maplethorpe said:
In you example a voter votes Trump but the paper ballot prints Biden correct? The BMDs don't record any votes, they aren't connected to anything.
We understand what you're saying, nobody denies code can be malicious, we're saying it doesn't work that way. The paper ballot is the official record and gets counted by another machine.
Given a Ga voter FIRST creates their vote on computer generated form probably HTML/JS . That loaded form can be processed or manipulated Before its printed locally or after
Show me an example where we can be sure, without the source code, that vote hasn't been tampered with. The state of Texas and others sure had concerns regarding Dominion.
WHOOP!'91 said:pacecar02 said:
I predicted this, will Texas be the only one?
Look up 2016 Presidential Election, as well as "Dominion Voting Machines." All four States went Red for Trump and yet, all four States are using them fancy machines that witnesses say flip votes.JCRebel13 said:XpressAg09 said:
Also, interesting;
This is telling to me. If you'd have said that four red states would ALL have voted blue, all in the same election, you'd be laughed out the door. And yet, that's exactly what Democrats want you to believe.
Look up gerrymandering.
"we don't trust these people so they MUST be doing bad stuff!!!"richardag said:Georgia Recount fraud affidavitsschmendeler said:the printed form has who the voter selected written in english on it. they did a manual hand recount of these printed forms. the vote tally was essentially identical across the entire state. where is the room for tampering?ttu_85 said:John Maplethorpe said:
In you example a voter votes Trump but the paper ballot prints Biden correct? The BMDs don't record any votes, they aren't connected to anything.
We understand what you're saying, nobody denies code can be malicious, we're saying it doesn't work that way. The paper ballot is the official record and gets counted by another machine.
Given a Ga voter FIRST creates their vote on computer generated form probably HTML/JS . That loaded form can be processed or manipulated Before its printed locally or after
Show me an example where we can be sure, without the source code, that vote hasn't been tampered with. The state of Texas and others sure had concerns regarding Dominion.
https://nationalfile.com/sworn-affidavits-georgia-recount-plagued-by-potential-voter-fraud-ballot-tampering/
Georgia recount may be as corrupt as the election itself
SWORN AFFIDAVITS: Georgia Recount Plagued by Potential Voter Fraud, Ballot Tampering
schmendeler said:
embarrassing for our state.
schmendeler said:
embarrassing for our state.
LOL, are you aware of how 'gerrymandering' works, and who it is designed to benefit in late 20th/early 21st century America? This is a graphical illustration of both the state houses in the pertinent states by party.JCRebel13 said:XpressAg09 said:
Also, interesting;
This is telling to me. If you'd have said that four red states would ALL have voted blue, all in the same election, you'd be laughed out the door. And yet, that's exactly what Democrats want you to believe.
Look up gerrymandering.
South Dakota next to join the lawsuit.Ag87H2O said:WHOOP!'91 said:pacecar02 said:
I predicted this, will Texas be the only one?
God Bless Texas. Glad we are in the fight, I hope every Republican state follows suit.
This does not jive the with computerized adjudication part of the process.GeorgiAg said:
the voter gets the printed ballot. If they voted "Trump" and see "Biden" on their printed ballot, they don't have to put it in the ballot box.
If the software had been changing votes by the thousands, this would have been all over the news and in thousands of affidavits.
no i'd like texas to be great again.thirdcoast said:schmendeler said:
embarrassing for our state.
Please stop complaining and leave Texas for a liberal utopia like Portland.
Its in the suitcasesschmendeler said:the printed form has who the voter selected written in english on it. they did a manual hand recount of these printed forms. the vote tally was essentially identical across the entire state. where is the room for tampering?ttu_85 said:John Maplethorpe said:
In you example a voter votes Trump but the paper ballot prints Biden correct? The BMDs don't record any votes, they aren't connected to anything.
We understand what you're saying, nobody denies code can be malicious, we're saying it doesn't work that way. The paper ballot is the official record and gets counted by another machine.
Given a Ga voter FIRST creates their vote on computer generated form probably HTML/JS . That loaded form can be processed or manipulated Before its printed locally or after
Show me an example where we can be sure, without the source code, that vote hasn't been tampered with. The state of Texas and others sure had concerns regarding Dominion.
Presidential elections are state-wide. Meaning, regardless of districts' shapes, the state's population, as a whole, makes up that states' votes.notex said:LOL, are you aware of how 'gerrymandering' works, and who it is designed to benefit in late 20th/early 21st century America? This is a graphical illustration of both the state houses in the pertinent states by party.JCRebel13 said:XpressAg09 said:
Also, interesting;
This is telling to me. If you'd have said that four red states would ALL have voted blue, all in the same election, you'd be laughed out the door. And yet, that's exactly what Democrats want you to believe.
Look up gerrymandering.
You think MI/PA/WI/GA somehow drew their maps at a state level in favor of Republicans? Have a cite for that?
Really? So this is fine?John Maplethorpe said:
You blog links are garbage. The whole process was video recorded with Republican poll watchers observing.
I always care, but feel free to create another strawman if you'd likeRGLAG85 said:Since when do you actually care about taxpayers and their money except to screw them over?CondensedFoggyAggie said:
Well, now I know 5 states that will spend additional taxpayer money on lawyers.
You didn't even read one of the articles, I can tell by your ridiculous statement. Carry on with your delusional denials.schmendeler said:"we don't trust these people so they MUST be doing bad stuff!!!"richardag said:Georgia Recount fraud affidavitsschmendeler said:the printed form has who the voter selected written in english on it. they did a manual hand recount of these printed forms. the vote tally was essentially identical across the entire state. where is the room for tampering?ttu_85 said:John Maplethorpe said:
In you example a voter votes Trump but the paper ballot prints Biden correct? The BMDs don't record any votes, they aren't connected to anything.
We understand what you're saying, nobody denies code can be malicious, we're saying it doesn't work that way. The paper ballot is the official record and gets counted by another machine.
Given a Ga voter FIRST creates their vote on computer generated form probably HTML/JS . That loaded form can be processed or manipulated Before its printed locally or after
Show me an example where we can be sure, without the source code, that vote hasn't been tampered with. The state of Texas and others sure had concerns regarding Dominion.
https://nationalfile.com/sworn-affidavits-georgia-recount-plagued-by-potential-voter-fraud-ballot-tampering/
Georgia recount may be as corrupt as the election itself
SWORN AFFIDAVITS: Georgia Recount Plagued by Potential Voter Fraud, Ballot Tampering
i read through them. it's a bunch of people that claim bad stuff happened because they don't understand what they are looking at. these claims have been around for a while. they are trash.richardag said:You didn't even read one of the articles, I can tell by your ridiculous statement. Carry on with your delusional denials.schmendeler said:"we don't trust these people so they MUST be doing bad stuff!!!"richardag said:Georgia Recount fraud affidavitsschmendeler said:the printed form has who the voter selected written in english on it. they did a manual hand recount of these printed forms. the vote tally was essentially identical across the entire state. where is the room for tampering?ttu_85 said:John Maplethorpe said:
In you example a voter votes Trump but the paper ballot prints Biden correct? The BMDs don't record any votes, they aren't connected to anything.
We understand what you're saying, nobody denies code can be malicious, we're saying it doesn't work that way. The paper ballot is the official record and gets counted by another machine.
Given a Ga voter FIRST creates their vote on computer generated form probably HTML/JS . That loaded form can be processed or manipulated Before its printed locally or after
Show me an example where we can be sure, without the source code, that vote hasn't been tampered with. The state of Texas and others sure had concerns regarding Dominion.
https://nationalfile.com/sworn-affidavits-georgia-recount-plagued-by-potential-voter-fraud-ballot-tampering/
Georgia recount may be as corrupt as the election itself
SWORN AFFIDAVITS: Georgia Recount Plagued by Potential Voter Fraud, Ballot Tampering
notex said:Really? So this is fine?John Maplethorpe said:
You blog links are garbage. The whole process was video recorded with Republican poll watchers observing.
My lying eyes see Ruby Freeman counting a ballot stack several times thru a scanner with no poll watchers present, after her daughter brought them to her.
Now, she's lawyered up, I know, but your post is a flat/blatant lie.
The links don't reference the video evidence of counters not following procedures and their suspicious activity. If you weren't so delusional you might actually take the time to read some of the sworn affidavits by some very reputable people.John Maplethorpe said:
You blog links are garbage. The whole process was video recorded with Republican poll watchers observing.
Hardly dumb and pointless...unless you are for cheating and discarding the Constitution when it suits your ends.. Maybe you should move to California.... I am sure they would welcome you with open arms.schmendeler said:do something! even if it's really dumb and pointless! the base will love it!M-K-TAG said:schmendeler said:
embarrassing for our state.
Nope.
Proud of our state for actually having the balls to do something. Instead of looking the other way like so many choose to do.
John Maplethorpe said:
This would be a great precedent - states go around reversing other states elections based on narrow legal technicalities in how they were operated.
richardag said:The links don't reference the video evidence of counters not following procedures and their suspicious activity. If you weren't so delusional you might actually take the time to read some of the sworn affidavits by some very reputable people.John Maplethorpe said:
You blog links are garbage. The whole process was video recorded with Republican poll watchers observing.
But go ahead continue your delusional denials.
And he posts a communist. Funnypeacedude said:
So what Cruz was saying was 'Hey! You know, we left this United States place because it was bogus. So if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too.