Courts Squash Democrats’ ‘Most Secure Election’ Lie:

[meaner gene]

We're not talking banks, dufus.

You're talking about how we handle votes, and i'm equating it to how we handle money. Things like chain of custody has nothing to do with the ballot (like a dollar bill) being real or counterfeit. That's something done by independent determination, without regard to how it came into the persons possession.

You don't have to show chain of custody to prove a dollar bill is legitimate.

 

[Lastamender]

Nope, if 2020 was not valid, no election after it can ever be valid. If 2020 is not valid nobody in Congress should be running for reelection, all should be out. Those in the Senate that won in 2020 have to be kicked out and theri seats voted for again, or any election cannot be valid.

Oh, and this goes for the state level as well since they were all on the same ballots

They cheated to get the presidency and the Senate. It was the only way to pull the shit they are pulling. The deliberate destruction of this country.

 

[Lastamender]

You're talking about how we handle votes, and i'm equating it to how we handle money. Things like chain of custody has nothing to do with the ballot (like a dollar bill) being real or counterfeit. That's something done by independent determination, without regard to how it came into the persons possession.

You don't have to show chain of custody to prove a dollar bill is legitimate.

Chain of custody is law for a reason. It is there to insure the votes validity. And insured ballots were not added or removed. Dumbass.

 

[Leo123]

You're talking about how we handle votes, and i'm equating it to how we handle money. Things like chain of custody has nothing to do with the ballot (like a dollar bill) being real or counterfeit. That's something done by independent determination, without regard to how it came into the persons possession.

You don't have to show chain of custody to prove a dollar bill is legitimate.

You seem pretty dense.

 

[bodecea]

No, just a confirmation that the election was anything but secure and had 0 integrity.

In red states.

 

[Lastamender]

In red states.

In swing states. 71 electoral votes stolen.

 

[meaner gene]

Chain of custody is law for a reaason. It is there to insure the votes validity. Dumbass.

Actually it's there to make drop boxes harder to implement. Not to secure the vote. Since remember, before COVID the "drop boxes" aka mail boxes authorized to handle ballots, had no chain of custody, no cameras watching them. They were in unsecured locations, and no paperwork to show collection or delivery.

Yet they were legal drop boxes.

 

[meaner gene]

In swing states. 71 electoral votes stolen.

In red states, as bodcea said

 

[Lastamender]

Actually it's there to make drop boxes harder to implement. Not to secure the vote. Since remember, before COVID the "drop boxes" aka mail boxes authorized to handle ballots, had no chain of custody, no cameras watching them. They were in unsecured locations, and no paperwork to show collection or delivery.

Yet they were legal drop boxes.

Nowhere near that kind of volume. What a shitty excuse to justify fraud.

 

[meaner gene]

Nowhere near that kind of volume. What a shitty excuse to justify fraud.

Volume has nothing to do with it. Whether it's 1,000 votes or 1,000,000 votes, why would the two types of drop boxes be treated completely differently?

Why would the new scheme, require much more security than the old scheme, which was still in full effect.

 

[Lastamender]

Volume has nothing to do with it. Whether it's 1,000 votes or 1,000,000 votes, why would the two types of drop boxes be treated completely differently?

Why would the new scheme, require much more security than the old scheme, which was still in full effect.

Because people cheat. You are an idiot if you do not think they would take advantage of the opportunity. It has probably been in the works since Trump became president.

 

[meaner gene]

Because people cheat.

The old scheme (post office mailboxes) ballots could be dropped off by ANYONE. Friends, neighbors, or even complete strangers, could collect ballots en mass and drop them off into the unmonitored, postal drop boxs, and that was perfectly legal.

The new scheme (election board drop boxes) had dozens of requirements, they didn't require of (or update to) the old scheme.

 

[Lastamender]

The old scheme (post office mailboxes) ballots could be dropped off by ANYONE. Friends, neighbors, or even complete strangers, could collect ballots en mass and drop them off into the unmonitored, postal drop boxs, and that was perfectly legal.

The new scheme (election board drop boxes) had dozens of requirements, they didn't require of (or update to) the old scheme.

What are you on? How many times have you taken a friends ballot to a mailbox? Ridiculous. An even shittier excuse than the first one.

 

[meaner gene]

What are you on? How many times have you taken a friends ballot to a mailbox? Ridiculous. An even shittier excuse than the first one.

In all those drop box states, I could go around harvesting ballots, and drop them into the unmonitored post office box, and that was perfectly legal.

The difference is that the election collection boxes didn't lose ballots like the post office does.

 

[konradv]

We're not talking banks, dufus.

But the logic is the same.

 

[meaner gene]

But the logic is the same.

Exactly. We've been securing the money for far longer than securing the vote.

 

[scruffy]

An unfounded accusation.

See, this is what hyperpartisanism will get you. THIS. ^^^

No, Blind one, it's not unfounded, it's not even an accusation.

You see, lemmings in their ignorance perceive this as a partisan issue. Because they're frightened little snowflakes. "Oh no, another stolen election accusation".

But no, it's not an accusation. And it has nothing to do with stolen elections. (Or at least I hope it doesn't).

Among other things, I have a background in "corporate" security, and in that world, there are standards and tests to measure "how" secure an operation is. There are standardized and measurable "levels" of security.

Our elections, are Level 0. They don't even meet the MOST basic security requirements.

I'll tell you a story. One of my clients was a big ("big") medical provider (the second biggest one in the country, next to the VA), and they needed help with security. When I got there they didn't even know what a virus was, I had to run around from one desk to another with a floppy disk remediating PC's. Their security problem was not so much hackers, but rather the paparazzi - both physical and cyber - for instance when Lindsay Lohan goes to rehab these guys want her medical records. The PROBLEM is, this is a huge operation, at the time they had like 50 hospitals and 5000 clinics and 4000 engineers in the field at any given time, and these guys would go jack into other peoples' networks and come back and plug in at home .. y'know... So we set them up, when I left there they had managed intrusion detection worldwide, and the guy at HQ could just look at a screen and see the entire network and it's status, and zoom in and localize any given machine and etc

This is security, it's what corporate security looks like, it's driven by need. Do you see or hear anything like this being discussed about election security? By either Democrats or Republicans? Are there Congressional hearings about it?

As long as our elections aren't secure, any old con man like the Donald or worse yet any commie or Mussolini or Hitler, can exploit the vulnerability because the vulnerability remains

They only became an issue after the loss.

There are professional certifications in security. In cyber security there are things like CISSP. Go ask the professionals, they'll tell you the truth. If you don't like the answer, it's only your own partisan demons confounding your perceptions

 

[konradv]

In swing states. 71 electoral votes stolen.

The steal was averted by identifying bogus slates of electors put forth by Trump loyalists and by the steadfast loyalty of the VP who refused to go along with the coup.

 

[meaner gene]

If things like chain of custody are needed to secure the integrity of the mail-in ballots. Why don't they require chain of custody to secure the integrity of MONEY?

 

[Toro]

Because people cheat. You are an idiot if you do not think they would take advantage of the opportunity. It has probably been in the works since Trump became president.

LOL

Poor Lastdeadender, the clinging snowflake

LOL