... no surprise. Alternate reality might work in the court of public opinion but it seldom holds up when facts are required.

https://apple.news/AtLLRzgDsQBK-aXPgovm3_A

It’s like I said before, once the vote and envelope are separated there is no way to prove fraud because there is no way to show where the vote originated to verify if its fraudulent or not. This is why you have to control the counting process and keep observers back if you want to cheat. You have to be able to discard the envelopes (if there even was one) before the vote can be challenged.

"The Campaign never alleges that any ballot was fraudulent or cast by an illegal voter," the judges wrote. "It never alleges that any defendant treated the Trump campaign or its votes worse than it treated the Biden campaign or its votes. Calling something discrimination does not make it so. The Second Amended Complaint still suffers from these core defects, so granting leave to amend would have been futile."

That’s why I posted what I did.

You own a grocery store and have a hundred customers throughout the day. When closing the register that night you find a counterfeit $20. When did you get it and who did it come from? No way of knowing at that point.

The difference with ballots is that the fraudulent ones aren’t counterfeit, only the means of delivery and proper verification are. Once it’s in the stack then it can no longer be proven fraudulent so how can you claim it’s fraudulent. You can receive a ballot from a dead person, you can prove that person was dead, but if you can separate the ballot from the envelope there is no way to know which ballot was cast by that dead person.

(11-27-2020 02:28 PM)banker Wrote:  That’s why I posted what I did.

You own a grocery store and have a hundred customers throughout the day. When closing the register that night you find a counterfeit $20. When did you get it and who did it come from? No way of knowing at that point.

The difference with ballots is that the fraudulent ones aren’t counterfeit, only the means of delivery and proper verification are. Once it’s in the stack then it can no longer be proven fraudulent so how can you claim it’s fraudulent. You can receive a ballot from a dead person, you can prove that person was dead, but if you can separate the ballot from the envelope there is no way to know which ballot was cast by that dead person.

Signature verification...

That's the point. Once the ballots are counted, it's too late. What are needed are better (or any) detection and prevention procedures up front--photo IDs, thumbprints, signature verification. The data can be stored electronically in a database and on the voter registration fairly cheaply with current technology. The only reason not to support this is a desire to utilize voter fraud.

(11-27-2020 02:34 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(11-27-2020 02:28 PM)banker Wrote:  That’s why I posted what I did.

You own a grocery store and have a hundred customers throughout the day. When closing the register that night you find a counterfeit $20. When did you get it and who did it come from? No way of knowing at that point.

The difference with ballots is that the fraudulent ones aren’t counterfeit, only the means of delivery and proper verification are. Once it’s in the stack then it can no longer be proven fraudulent so how can you claim it’s fraudulent. You can receive a ballot from a dead person, you can prove that person was dead, but if you can separate the ballot from the envelope there is no way to know which ballot was cast by that dead person.

Signature verification...

Which Democrats worked very hard to water down in the swing states prior to the election - was it Arizona or Nevada that went with the “40% standard”? Also, if you don’t let observers close enough to watch the verification and challenge, how do you know?

I know you are smart enough to know in your heart that the dems took many steps to make sure they could win regardless of how legit votes were cast- all in the false name of “ending voter suppression “. Mail in ballots, reduced signature verification, ballot harvesting, no voter ID, ballot drop boxes, etc. have nothing to do with voter suppression, they all have to do with making illegitimate votes impossible to distinguish from legitimate votes.

You don’t make accuracy impossible if your goal is accuracy.

The issue here isnt proof of fraud. Its that the Trump campaign was not allowed to amend the suit.

The ruling by this court isnt a surprise.

It now goes to Alito.

(11-27-2020 02:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  That's the point. Once the ballots are counted, it's too late. What are needed are better (or any) detection and prevention procedures up front--photo IDs, thumbprints, signature verification. The data can be stored electronically in a database and on the voter registration fairly cheaply with current technology. The only reason not to support this is a desire to utilize voter fraud.

Mail in ballots require signature verification and leave a traceable paper trail; so it’d be quite easy for voting precincts to identify thousands of fraudulent ballots and toss them.

If Trump can prove voter fraud then he needs to get to proving it, because, as of today, all he has trotted out is a traveling clown show that has continually been laughed out of court.

(11-27-2020 02:58 PM)banker Wrote:  

(11-27-2020 02:34 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(11-27-2020 02:28 PM)banker Wrote:  That’s why I posted what I did.

You own a grocery store and have a hundred customers throughout the day. When closing the register that night you find a counterfeit $20. When did you get it and who did it come from? No way of knowing at that point.

The difference with ballots is that the fraudulent ones aren’t counterfeit, only the means of delivery and proper verification are. Once it’s in the stack then it can no longer be proven fraudulent so how can you claim it’s fraudulent. You can receive a ballot from a dead person, you can prove that person was dead, but if you can separate the ballot from the envelope there is no way to know which ballot was cast by that dead person.

Signature verification...

Which Democrats worked very hard to water down in the swing states prior to the election - was it Arizona or Nevada that went with the “40% standard”? Also, if you don’t let observers close enough to watch the verification and challenge, how do you know?

I know you are smart enough to know in your heart that the dems took many steps to make sure they could win regardless of how legit votes were cast- all in the false name of “ending voter suppression “. Mail in ballots, reduced signature verification, ballot harvesting, no voter ID, ballot drop boxes, etc. have nothing to do with voter suppression, they all have to do with making illegitimate votes impossible to distinguish from legitimate votes.

You don’t make accuracy impossible if your goal is accuracy.

The role of election challengers isn't to challenge signatures on ballots. This is from the PA guide for election challengers :

Authorized representatives (which includes poll watchers that have been designated by a candidate or political party to serve as authorized representatives during the pre-canvass or canvass) may not challenge an absentee or mail-in ballot during the pre-canvass or canvass of the ballots. Absentee and mail-in ballot applications may only be challenged prior to 5:00 pm on the Friday prior to the election, and only on good faith grounds that the applicant was not a qualified elector. No other challenges are permitted. Authorized representatives may not engage in, attempt to intimidate, nor interfere with the pre-canvass or canvass of the absentee and mail-in ballots. Challenges to mail-in or absentee ballots, based on signature analysis, are not permitted at any time.

https://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/O...6-2020.pdf

Some of you are really slow about what's going on and where it's going.

Supreme Court of the United States

(11-27-2020 02:06 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  ... no surprise. Alternate reality might work in the court of public opinion but it seldom holds up when facts are required.

https://apple.news/AtLLRzgDsQBK-aXPgovm3_A

Are you tired of winning yet?

(11-27-2020 03:12 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(11-27-2020 02:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  That's the point. Once the ballots are counted, it's too late. What are needed are better (or any) detection and prevention procedures up front--photo IDs, thumbprints, signature verification. The data can be stored electronically in a database and on the voter registration fairly cheaply with current technology. The only reason not to support this is a desire to utilize voter fraud.

Mail in ballots require signature verification and leave a traceable paper trail; so it’d be quite easy for voting precincts to identify thousands of fraudulent ballots and toss them.

If Trump can prove voter fraud then he needs to get to proving it, because, as of today, all he has trotted out is a traveling clown show that has continually been laughed out of court.

Lol. Credit cards require signature verification as well. No fraud there right? And that’s before we even begin to discuss the 16 million cases of identity theft that occur every year in the United States.

(11-27-2020 04:08 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  

(11-27-2020 02:06 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  ... no surprise. Alternate reality might work in the court of public opinion but it seldom holds up when facts are required.

https://apple.news/AtLLRzgDsQBK-aXPgovm3_A

Are you tired of winning yet?

Winning ain’t hard when you’re backed up by facts...
These guys are trying to weave a silk purse from a sows ear.

(11-27-2020 04:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-27-2020 03:12 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(11-27-2020 02:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  That's the point. Once the ballots are counted, it's too late. What are needed are better (or any) detection and prevention procedures up front--photo IDs, thumbprints, signature verification. The data can be stored electronically in a database and on the voter registration fairly cheaply with current technology. The only reason not to support this is a desire to utilize voter fraud.

Mail in ballots require signature verification and leave a traceable paper trail; so it’d be quite easy for voting precincts to identify thousands of fraudulent ballots and toss them.

If Trump can prove voter fraud then he needs to get to proving it, because, as of today, all he has trotted out is a traveling clown show that has continually been laughed out of court.

Lol. Credit cards require signature verification as well. No fraud there right? And that’s before we even begin to discuss the 16 million cases of identity theft that occur every year in the United States.

The software that verifies and matches signatures on election ballots is not utilized by credit card companies. To my knowledge, there is no immediate electronic signature match used by credit card companies.

(11-27-2020 04:27 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(11-27-2020 04:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-27-2020 03:12 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(11-27-2020 02:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  That's the point. Once the ballots are counted, it's too late. What are needed are better (or any) detection and prevention procedures up front--photo IDs, thumbprints, signature verification. The data can be stored electronically in a database and on the voter registration fairly cheaply with current technology. The only reason not to support this is a desire to utilize voter fraud.

Mail in ballots require signature verification and leave a traceable paper trail; so it’d be quite easy for voting precincts to identify thousands of fraudulent ballots and toss them.

If Trump can prove voter fraud then he needs to get to proving it, because, as of today, all he has trotted out is a traveling clown show that has continually been laughed out of court.

Lol. Credit cards require signature verification as well. No fraud there right? And that’s before we even begin to discuss the 16 million cases of identity theft that occur every year in the United States.

The software that verifies and matches signatures on election ballots is not utilized by credit card companies. To my knowledge, there is no immediate electronic signature match used by credit card companies.

In some cases the software is turned down to just 40% if it’s capacity. In Nevada only 200k out of 600k were even checked by the sofware. In Georgia, the appicaltion for a ballot doesn’t have to even match the voter signature on file with the state—and the actual ballot doesn’t either—it just has to match the ballot request. The security guards in place were very easy to game this time around because things were loosened up so much to allow the existing systems to handle much higher than typical mail in ballot volume.

But it takes a crap load of time to chase down mail in fraud unless a bunch of people involved just flip. I have no doubt there is more fraud than normal due to the relaxed standards states put in place for Covid. Is it enough to make a difference—who knows? Either way—I suspect you can’t prove it in 3 weeks—at most you can maybe prove there is more than normal—likely using statistics.

Hope it goes to the Supreme Court and they shove the shakedown right up the collective liberal anus.

(11-27-2020 03:15 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(11-27-2020 02:58 PM)banker Wrote:  

(11-27-2020 02:34 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(11-27-2020 02:28 PM)banker Wrote:  That’s why I posted what I did.

You own a grocery store and have a hundred customers throughout the day. When closing the register that night you find a counterfeit $20. When did you get it and who did it come from? No way of knowing at that point.

The difference with ballots is that the fraudulent ones aren’t counterfeit, only the means of delivery and proper verification are. Once it’s in the stack then it can no longer be proven fraudulent so how can you claim it’s fraudulent. You can receive a ballot from a dead person, you can prove that person was dead, but if you can separate the ballot from the envelope there is no way to know which ballot was cast by that dead person.

Signature verification...

Which Democrats worked very hard to water down in the swing states prior to the election - was it Arizona or Nevada that went with the “40% standard”? Also, if you don’t let observers close enough to watch the verification and challenge, how do you know?

I know you are smart enough to know in your heart that the dems took many steps to make sure they could win regardless of how legit votes were cast- all in the false name of “ending voter suppression “. Mail in ballots, reduced signature verification, ballot harvesting, no voter ID, ballot drop boxes, etc. have nothing to do with voter suppression, they all have to do with making illegitimate votes impossible to distinguish from legitimate votes.

You don’t make accuracy impossible if your goal is accuracy.

The role of election challengers isn't to challenge signatures on ballots. This is from the PA guide for election challengers :

Authorized representatives (which includes poll watchers that have been designated by a candidate or political party to serve as authorized representatives during the pre-canvass or canvass) may not challenge an absentee or mail-in ballot during the pre-canvass or canvass of the ballots. Absentee and mail-in ballot applications may only be challenged prior to 5:00 pm on the Friday prior to the election, and only on good faith grounds that the applicant was not a qualified elector. No other challenges are permitted. Authorized representatives may not engage in, attempt to intimidate, nor interfere with the pre-canvass or canvass of the absentee and mail-in ballots. Challenges to mail-in or absentee ballots, based on signature analysis, are not permitted at any time.

https://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/O...6-2020.pdf

A "guide" is not the law. Show it to me in the law.

(11-27-2020 03:15 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(11-27-2020 02:58 PM)banker Wrote:  

(11-27-2020 02:34 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(11-27-2020 02:28 PM)banker Wrote:  That’s why I posted what I did.

You own a grocery store and have a hundred customers throughout the day. When closing the register that night you find a counterfeit $20. When did you get it and who did it come from? No way of knowing at that point.

The difference with ballots is that the fraudulent ones aren’t counterfeit, only the means of delivery and proper verification are. Once it’s in the stack then it can no longer be proven fraudulent so how can you claim it’s fraudulent. You can receive a ballot from a dead person, you can prove that person was dead, but if you can separate the ballot from the envelope there is no way to know which ballot was cast by that dead person.

Signature verification...

Which Democrats worked very hard to water down in the swing states prior to the election - was it Arizona or Nevada that went with the “40% standard”? Also, if you don’t let observers close enough to watch the verification and challenge, how do you know?

I know you are smart enough to know in your heart that the dems took many steps to make sure they could win regardless of how legit votes were cast- all in the false name of “ending voter suppression “. Mail in ballots, reduced signature verification, ballot harvesting, no voter ID, ballot drop boxes, etc. have nothing to do with voter suppression, they all have to do with making illegitimate votes impossible to distinguish from legitimate votes.

You don’t make accuracy impossible if your goal is accuracy.

The role of election challengers isn't to challenge signatures on ballots. This is from the PA guide for election challengers :

Authorized representatives (which includes poll watchers that have been designated by a candidate or political party to serve as authorized representatives during the pre-canvass or canvass) may not challenge an absentee or mail-in ballot during the pre-canvass or canvass of the ballots. Absentee and mail-in ballot applications may only be challenged prior to 5:00 pm on the Friday prior to the election, and only on good faith grounds that the applicant was not a qualified elector. No other challenges are permitted. Authorized representatives may not engage in, attempt to intimidate, nor interfere with the pre-canvass or canvass of the absentee and mail-in ballots. Challenges to mail-in or absentee ballots, based on signature analysis, are not permitted at any time.

https://www.dos.pa.gov/VotingElections/O...6-2020.pdf

Absolutely and positively without question a violation of the equal protection clause of the US constitution. If, and sadly it’s a big if, the SCOTUS will judge it so. The remedy, if there is one, is anyone’s guess. If the SCOTUS says all is well then next up is chaos the likes of which haven’t been seen in 165 years.

(11-27-2020 05:04 PM)450bench Wrote:  Hope it goes to the Supreme Court and they shove the shakedown right up the collective liberal anus.

An activist court?