Breaking: Georgia Judge Calls for Forensic Audit

[Moonglow]

and it may not unless someone shells out a hell of a lot of dough.

Whenever "may" is used to express a possibility, "may not" is tacitly implied. It's just a short way of saying "may or may not".

Where did you go to school?

Stop data mining.

I'm working from my memory bank. I paid attention to my teachers decades ago.

How much interest do you earn at the memory bank?

 

[meaner gene]

This time they want enlarge the signatures on the mail in ballots to see if humans did it or a machine. These people are misguided and I wish I had their money to throw away..

And what would that do? Even if they find rejected signatures, there is no way to match the signatures to a ballot. Ballots don't have identification marks to trace them to the voter.

 

[Moonglow]

This time they want enlarge the signatures on the mail in ballots to see if humans did it or a machine. These people are misguided and I wish I had their money to throw away..

And what would that do? Even if they find rejected signatures, there is no way to match the signatures to a ballot. Ballots don't have identification marks to trace them to the voter.

They are claiming that the fraud is due to mail in ballots that were mass produced by devious people in another nation, signed and then shipped...That is why the Arizona auditors are looking for bamboo paper, they claim the Chinese were in on it.....I am waiting for the Martian angle on this next..

 

[asaratis]

and it may not unless someone shells out a hell of a lot of dough.

Whenever "may" is used to express a possibility, "may not" is tacitly implied. It's just a short way of saying "may or may not".

Where did you go to school?

His point stands. Georgia already spent a bunch of money to count, recount, and hand recount the votes. For this sort of "audit" to expand beyond it's current small sampling, would require somebody to post a bond to pay for it.

His point is moot. Verification of election integrity always costs money. The initial audits were partial recounts of the same possibly illegal ballots. A forensic audit requires examination of individual ballots to weed out those deemed illegally cast. I was addressing his wasted insertion of "may not". As I said, it was tacitly implied.

 

[Moonglow]

and it may not unless someone shells out a hell of a lot of dough.

Whenever "may" is used to express a possibility, "may not" is tacitly implied. It's just a short way of saying "may or may not".

Where did you go to school?

His point stands. Georgia already spent a bunch of money to count, recount, and hand recount the votes. For this sort of "audit" to expand beyond it's current small sampling, would require somebody to post a bond to pay for it.

His point is moot. Verification of election integrity always costs money. The initial audits were partial recounts of the same possibly illegal ballots. A forensic audit requires examination of individual ballots to weed out those deemed illegally cast. I was addressing his wasted insertion of "may not". As I said, it was tacitly implied.

We can split hairs all day.

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

One falls, they all fall.

You mean all trump ballots got thrown out when they found that someone was committing voter fraud for trump?

Feel free to collate and post the evidence, Butch.

I see a lot of the, "Uhhh Ooh" feeling, mommy used to tell me I'd feel when something was amiss.

Same feeling I got on election night at 11:59

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

One falls, they all fall.

Cobb county next. Those forensics will need to be done at all the area cemeteries

 

[Oddball]

One falls, they all fall.

Cobb county next. Those forensics will need to be done at all the area cemeteries

Fulton County is where the bulk of the cheatery occurred.

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

One falls, they all fall.

Cobb county next. Those forensics will need to be done at all the area cemeteries

Fulton County is where the bulk of the cheatery occurred.

Thanks. It is off to Philly now, once the Capital. Now the Capital of voter fraud. Wait until they even try and figure out those. Auditors will be throwing their hands up all over the place in disbelief.....................You watch

This is so much fun isn't it??.Not only did we see the disasters of the lefturd policies in 4 months, they had to cheat to do it.....LOLOL..Getting total election reform and watching dead brain fools govern. True Daily Double win.

There will be so many pissed off people over this stunt. Watching the board retards from this point on will be so precious.

 

[asaratis]

This time they want enlarge the signatures on the mail in ballots to see if humans did it or a machine. These people are misguided and I wish I had their money to throw away..

And what would that do? Even if they find rejected signatures, there is no way to match the signatures to a ballot. Ballots don't have identification marks to trace them to the voter.

At this stage, it would do nothing more than provide evidence that election fraud occurred. Signature verification should occur before the envelop is opened.

 

[meaner gene]

They are claiming that the fraud is due to mail in ballots that were mass produced by devious people in another nation, signed and then shipped...That is why the Arizona auditors are looking for bamboo paper, they claim the Chinese were in on it.....I am waiting for the Martian angle on this next..

This is where what they're doing doesn't make sense. I checked Pennsylvania, and there were 203 different state house districts, each requiring a different names on the ballot.

Any mass creation of ballots would require not just printing up thousands of different ballots, but matching them to a voter in the district, and returning them to the right election board.

The logistics behind such a fraud would be enormous.

 

[meaner gene]

A forensic audit requires examination of individual ballots to weed out those deemed illegally cast. I was addressing his wasted insertion of "may not". As I said, it was tacitly implied.

If they're comparing signatures, they auditing the ballot envelopes, not the ballots.

 

[asaratis]

and it may not unless someone shells out a hell of a lot of dough.

Whenever "may" is used to express a possibility, "may not" is tacitly implied. It's just a short way of saying "may or may not".

Where did you go to school?

His point stands. Georgia already spent a bunch of money to count, recount, and hand recount the votes. For this sort of "audit" to expand beyond it's current small sampling, would require somebody to post a bond to pay for it.

His point is moot. Verification of election integrity always costs money. The initial audits were partial recounts of the same possibly illegal ballots. A forensic audit requires examination of individual ballots to weed out those deemed illegally cast. I was addressing his wasted insertion of "may not". As I said, it was tacitly implied.

We can split hairs all day.

Stay here long enough and you may learn how to comprehend written English.

 

[Moonglow]

They are claiming that the fraud is due to mail in ballots that were mass produced by devious people in another nation, signed and then shipped...That is why the Arizona auditors are looking for bamboo paper, they claim the Chinese were in on it.....I am waiting for the Martian angle on this next..

This is where what they're doing doesn't make sense. I checked Pennsylvania, and there were 203 different state house districts, each requiring a different names on the ballot.

Any mass creation of ballots would require not just printing up thousands of different ballots, but matching them to a voter in the district, and returning them to the right election board.

The logistics behind such a fraud would be enormous.

Reasonable people are well aware of that, these people who claim this are not reasonable they have an agenda against the system.

 

[Moonglow]

and it may not unless someone shells out a hell of a lot of dough.

Whenever "may" is used to express a possibility, "may not" is tacitly implied. It's just a short way of saying "may or may not".

Where did you go to school?

His point stands. Georgia already spent a bunch of money to count, recount, and hand recount the votes. For this sort of "audit" to expand beyond it's current small sampling, would require somebody to post a bond to pay for it.

His point is moot. Verification of election integrity always costs money. The initial audits were partial recounts of the same possibly illegal ballots. A forensic audit requires examination of individual ballots to weed out those deemed illegally cast. I was addressing his wasted insertion of "may not". As I said, it was tacitly implied.

We can split hairs all day.

Stay here long enough and you may learn how to comprehend written English.

Ahhhh now, sour grapes.

 

[asaratis]

A forensic audit requires examination of individual ballots to weed out those deemed illegally cast. I was addressing his wasted insertion of "may not". As I said, it was tacitly implied.

If they're comparing signatures, they auditing the ballot envelopes, not the ballots.

It still may reveal election fraud. That is the point. If there's enough of it, the rules regarding signature verification might be changed.

 

[meaner gene]

At this stage, it would do nothing more than provide evidence that election fraud occurred. Signature verification should occur before the envelop is opened.

Actually they could ask each fraudulent voter who they voted for, and nullify that vote. But if the vote was fraudulent, there would be no voter to ask.

 

[meaner gene]

It still may reveal election fraud. That is the point. If there's enough of it, the rules regarding signature verification might be changed.

That would be interesting. If they increased voter signature match requirements, it would apply to in person voting too.

 

[asaratis]

and it may not unless someone shells out a hell of a lot of dough.

Whenever "may" is used to express a possibility, "may not" is tacitly implied. It's just a short way of saying "may or may not".

Where did you go to school?

His point stands. Georgia already spent a bunch of money to count, recount, and hand recount the votes. For this sort of "audit" to expand beyond it's current small sampling, would require somebody to post a bond to pay for it.

His point is moot. Verification of election integrity always costs money. The initial audits were partial recounts of the same possibly illegal ballots. A forensic audit requires examination of individual ballots to weed out those deemed illegally cast. I was addressing his wasted insertion of "may not". As I said, it was tacitly implied.

We can split hairs all day.

Stay here long enough and you may learn how to comprehend written English.

Ahhhh now, sour grapes.

 

[asaratis]

Actually they could ask each fraudulent voter who they voted for, and nullify that vote. But if the vote was fraudulent, there would be no voter to ask.

Actually, there were instances in one state where voters were convicted for submitting mail-in ballots with forged signatures of their dead parents.

That would be interesting. If they increased voter signature match requirements, it would apply to in person voting too.

....as it should. Signature verification should be consistent regardless of the method of voting.