GDT: 11/3/20, Election Day, Donald J. Trump vs. Joseph R. Biden

[thethe]

heck if i know what's best for their business...i would sue...but it is plausible they just don't want to give this any more oxygen

Nonsense. Tens of millions of people and maybe even hundreds of million around the world saw that press conference yesterday (or through replays). The damage done if the allegations are false would absolutely merit a very public and embarassing lawsuit that would prop Dominion up and allow other countries to use their software in perpetuity.

You know exactly why they aren't suing.

The question is why would Sydney Powell completely throw away her reputation on this?

[Jaw]

This why you need true audits and not recounts. Trump legal team is filing a lawsuit today in Georgia.

If a true audit is done that either shows lack of signature verification or complete loss of chain of custody then I think you could persuade a judge that the final results are not reliable and actually throwing the case out would be what really disenfranchises the will of the people of that state.

https://www.11alive.com/mobile/artic...b-ae6b89957770

The thing with the signature matching process, though, is it's already been done - and it can't be done again.

Here's the deal: Georgia's laws require county election workers to check the signature when they first get an absentee ballot in the mail or from a drop box.

The actual law itself reads: "The registrar or clerk shall then compare the identifying information on the oath with the information on file in his or her office, shall compare the signature or mark on the oath with the signature or mark on the absentee elector's application for absentee ballot."

Basically, you request an absentee ballot, and you sign an oath affirming you are who you say you are on the envelope you put that ballot in, and then you send it to the county election office. The worker there takes it, checks your signature to verify you are who you say you are, and then sends it along to be counted. That's how signature matching happens in Georgia in its most basic form.

Now, the Georgia Secretary of State's Office actually added a signature matching step this year: When you requested an absentee ballot, they required a signature on your absentee ballot request form (or, if you requested it online, made you submit your driver's license number when you made the request through the Secretary of State's online portal).

So they checked your signature before even sending you a ballot, and then checked it again when they received your ballot.

Here's why they can't do that again, during the current hand-count audit

When President Trump says something like "Georgia won’t let us look at the all important signature match," what he is asking for - to look at the signatures again - is literally impossible.

The reason for that lies inside the Georgia state constitution itself: It clearly stipulates that, "Elections by the people shall be by secret ballot and shall be conducted in accordance with procedures provided by law." (emphasis added)

To comply with that, the only place your signature appears is on the envelope you sent it in. Once an election worker counting votes opens your envelope and takes out your ballot, there is no way to re-connect them.

Counties do keep the envelopes for records purposes, according to Gabriel Sterling in the Secretary of State's Office, but, again - there's no way to connect an envelope with your signature back to your ballot. It simply can't be done.

So when the president says the audit is "meaningless" without going back and looking at signature matching, please understand: It's already been done twice, and there is just no humanly possible way to do it again.

[thethe]

Weird formatting on that post.

This all goes back to the Democrats startegy of comingling the fraudalent ballots. I'm well past the idea of identifying vote totals that are fraudalent. This is not about winning a state through a vote total. You can still validate the signatures on the envelope and if you can say, "This was isn't close but it was accepted".

The audit is about building a case to prove fraud and have the states not certify.

[thethe]

Is this real?

If so, why would they back out?

[Dalyn]

Weird formatting on that post.

This all goes back to the Democrats startegy of comingling the fraudalent ballots. I'm well past the idea of identifying vote totals that are fraudalent. This is not about winning a state through a vote total. You can still validate the signatures on the envelope and if you can say, "This was isn't close but it was accepted".

The audit is about building a case to prove fraud and have the states not certify.

If you are going to try this ****, every person connected to an envelope signature that is questionable has to be contacted to see if they signed it. You can't just get a look at it and decide it shouldn't have been accepted because it serves your purpose to cast doubt on the election. No longer about the vote total? What happened to "the will of the people?" You all never cared about that. This is just a Trump tantrum that you are allowing to twist you in some rather sad ways. How you can make all these assumptions that shady crap happened based on "data analysis," and yet ignore the actual shady crap Trump and his cronies are doing right out in the open, no assumptions needed, is some grade A level bull****.

[zbhargrove]

If you are going to try this ****, every person connected to an envelope signature that is questionable has to be contacted to see if they signed it. You can't just get a look at it and decide it shouldn't have been accepted because it serves your purpose to cast doubt on the election. No longer about the vote total? What happened to "the will of the people?" You all never cared about that. This is just a Trump tantrum that you are allowing to twist you in some rather sad ways. How you can make all these assumptions that shady crap happened based on "data analysis," and yet ignore the actual shady crap Trump and his cronies are doing right out in the open, no assumptions needed, is some grade A level bull****.

thethe doesn't care about the will of the people.

[thethe]

If you are going to try this ****, every person connected to an envelope signature that is questionable has to be contacted to see if they signed it. You can't just get a look at it and decide it shouldn't have been accepted because it serves your purpose to cast doubt on the election. No longer about the vote total? What happened to "the will of the people?" You all never cared about that. This is just a Trump tantrum that you are allowing to twist you in some rather sad ways. How you can make all these assumptions that shady crap happened based on "data analysis," and yet ignore the actual shady crap Trump and his cronies are doing right out in the open, no assumptions needed, is some grade A level bull****.

Thats fantastic. Do a statistical sample of the envelopes.

Assess a questionable signature match rate and if it exceeds a rejection threshold then start contacting voters.

I'd LOVE THIS APPROACH

[Jaw]

Thats fantastic. Do a statistical sample of the envelopes.

Assess a questionable signature match rate and if it exceeds a rejection threshold then start contacting voters.

I'd LOVE THIS APPROACH

I saw some statistics about signature rejections that gave me pause a few days ago. They were deceptive.

https://www.11alive.com/mobile/artic...4-18d9bf79e365

The Secretary of State's Office has argued it made signature matching even stronger, by adding it as a requirement at the ballot request stage.

"On that one he's just wrong, and it's just confusing to people," Sterling said. "I wish they would understand what the consent decree action did, and what our law actually says, and the practices that our office actually does."

He also noted how allies of the president have also confused the matter by claiming a 3% figure for ballot rejections in 2018, and noting that it was much lower this year.

That, Sterling said, was comparing apples and oranges - the 3% figure was the total number of rejections ("the vast majority of that 3% is the ballots that show up late," he said) versus the number specifically rejected for a signature issue.

The percentage of ballots rejected for signature issues in 2020 has been reported by the Secretary of State's Office at 0.15%.

In 2018, Sterling said, it was also 0.15%.

[Carp]

I agree 100% but the whole strategy from the Democrats was to comingle as many fraudalent ballots as fast as possible. Does that mean we should just sit back and accept it after we have had one of hte most successful presidencies of our lifetime?

We have to fight until we exhaust every legal avenue. The States can still not certify the vote if enough evidence is presented to them that proves the whole election process was compromised.

I'm not going to feel guilty if the house gives Trump a second term. Its the best thing for the country moving forward.

The fact that you believe this shows how out of touch of you are.

[thethe]

The fact that you believe this shows how out of touch of you are.

I'd love for you to argue against the foreign policy and economy prior to the CCP virus as not resounding successes.

And then tell me which president of our lifetime was better and why.

[thethe]

I saw some statistics about signature rejections that gave me pause a few days ago. They were deceptive.

https://www.11alive.com/mobile/artic...4-18d9bf79e365

The Secretary of State's Office has argued it made signature matching even stronger, by adding it as a requirement at the ballot request stage.

"On that one he's just wrong, and it's just confusing to people," Sterling said. "I wish they would understand what the consent decree action did, and what our law actually says, and the practices that our office actually does."

He also noted how allies of the president have also confused the matter by claiming a 3% figure for ballot rejections in 2018, and noting that it was much lower this year.

That, Sterling said, was comparing apples and oranges - the 3% figure was the total number of rejections ("the vast majority of that 3% is the ballots that show up late," he said) versus the number specifically rejected for a signature issue.

The percentage of ballots rejected for signature issues in 2020 has been reported by the Secretary of State's Office at 0.15%.

In 2018, Sterling said, it was also 0.15%.

Is there a database that holds this information?

I'd love to know the trendline. Comparing it to just 2 years prior might not be informative but maybe it will prove to be.

Does the rejection rate vary by county?

[thethe]

Is this real?

If so, why would they back out?

Looks like this is real. Now why would someone back out of testimony before a governmental body?

Hmm...

[Jaw]

I'd love for you to argue against the foreign policy and economy prior to the CCP virus as not resounding successes.

And then tell me which president of our lifetime was better and why.

It really is a shame that no one was able to take away his Twitter account or convince him to only say what was on a teleprompter in public. He had amazing successes that people don't see because they can't look past his mean words.

[thethe]

It really is a shame that no one was able to take away his Twitter account or convince him to only say what was on a teleprompter in public. He had amazing successes that people don't see because they can't look past his mean words.

I think the real shame is that people get distracted by these things and can't see whats happening in reality.

But based on how unfocussed people are in real life Trump may have been better served listening to what you advocate.

[thethe]

Can anyone also explain why Trump did better in metro areas in non-competitive states but not in swing states?

Can anyone explain why Trump won almost all the traditional bell weather counties but somehow 'lost' the election?

[thethe]

Super technical but I have faith a few will understand. I'd be lying if I said I 100% understand this as well but using this coupled with dominion doing a complete about face on showing up to PA House meeting today and you can start putting the pieces together.

There is absolutely no way that Sydney Powell would throw away her whole career if she didn't have evidence.

So why are DVS techs deleting profiles and attachment to DVS?

[msstate7]

Super technical but I have faith a few will understand. I'd be lying to say if I said I 100% understand this as well but using this coupled with dominion doing a complete about face on showing up to PA House meeting today and you can start putting the pieces together.

There is absolutely no way that Sydney Powell would throw away her whole career if she didn't have evidence.

So why are DVS techs deleting profiles and attachment to DVS?

Maybe. I watched tucker Carlson last night, and he was pretty critical of her. Said he pressed her for some actual evidence for some of her claims. Tucker said she got mad, and told him to not contact her again. Seems odd she wouldn't share something with what should be a strong ally

[thethe]

Maybe. I watched tucker Carlson last night, and he was pretty critical of her. Said he pressed her for some actual evidence for some of her claims. Tucker said she got mad, and told him to not contact her again. Seems odd she wouldn't share something with what should be a strong ally

I saw that and I love Tucker. Want him to be president one day but because Sydney Powell is not ready to divulge information does not mean she doesn't have it.

This getting so into the weeds with all the conspiracy theories I espouse but lets assume the deep state/globalists theories are accurate and that there are agents all throughout the government (including the Trump senior team) as well as the media. It would make sense to play this as close to the cuff as it gets and then once all your ducks are in a row then you strike. The thread I linked is a convincing one and I think more and more will follow,

Math is life. Math is showing this election was stolen.

[nsacpi]

[thethe]

So in their rush, while extremely sloppy, they still identified massive irregularities within the voting process that should be investigated?