China Whistleblower Photos of Alleged Chinese Counterfeit Ballot Printing Operation

a reply to: RazorV66
What do you expect. That comes from the same people that spout gems like

Who cares if the protesters are destroying people's property, they only did it a little! And that's what insurance is for!

Already an existing ATS thread here

a reply to: Lumenari

You're repeating yourself.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Lumenari

You're repeating yourself.

Maybe if I said it twice you would realize that the thing you said was nowhere in the Constitution is spelled out pretty plainly in Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution.

Second paragraph...

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

You said you couldn't find it anywhere.

Maybe posting it a third time will help you.

a reply to: Lumenari

You said you couldn't find it anywhere.

Yes. Nowhere in the Constitution does is say that the president (or vice president) are to be elected by "the people."
That's what I said.

President on a public election ballot is totally extraneous to the Constitution.

Could a ballot be made to read a different vote or eliminate a legitimate vote if they had some sort of flaw built in? If you make it so that votes from certain districts show Trump but if they do the machine kicks them out. Technology can be hacked many ways, people must learn that it is not simple to identify fraud anymore. These ballots could have something built in to work in conjunction with the machine program to discount or alter the vote. Everything needs an alignment point. There could be a spot under Biden, then when Trump is colored in, the vote is discarded since you can only vote for one. You do not have to see the spot, hand sanitizer can screw up a ballot and then it is discarded, just touch the ballot in the right place and it will be rejected, even a person can do that when verifying votes. Or it could be built in the ballot, if right under the biden spot, if you vote for biden it will go through, but not under Trump. People will not even know their ballot is not working if they mail in or absentee ballots. More republicans use absentee ballots than mail in voting I think.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Lumenari

You said you couldn't find it anywhere.

Yes. Nowhere in the Constitution does is say that the president (or vice president) are to be elected by "the people."
That's what I said.

President on a public election ballot is totally extraneous to the Constitution.

Excuse me for taking your post in context with your other ones on this thread in order.

I'll let you wiggle out of it this time though.

Since you have at least admitted that the State Legislators have the final say on who the electors are, not the popular vote.

So we don't have to "rely on faithless electors", which was your first post on the topic.

The way forward is not through voter fraud....


The way forward is in those states where election laws and rules were changed unconstitutionally using COVID as an excuse.

Some states (Governors) made very questionable decisions about mail in balloting and what not at the midnight hour, without going through the state legislature to approve the changes.

a reply to: Lumenari

So we don't have to "rely on faithless electors", which was your first post on the topic.

I'll amend:
You can rely on legislators who will ignore the certified vote, or faithless electors.

It could happen.

a reply to: havok

Now all we need is someone that speaks chinese to verify what they are saying.

Then whoever brings this to court will have to show that the ballot printing building actually exists.
And that it printed ballots. And that those ballots made it into our election.

Oh and we need someone to test the video. Make sure its not a deep fake. Make sure those pieces of paper really have what we are seeing on them.

Tall order.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: havok

Now all we need is someone that speaks chinese to verify what they are saying.

Then whoever brings this to court will have to show that the ballot printing building actually exists.
And that it printed ballots. And that those ballots made it into our election.

Oh and we need someone to test the video. Make sure its not a deep fake. Make sure those pieces of paper really have what we are seeing on them.

Tall order.

I know a lot of people who speak Mandarin Chinese

This could be yet another red herring story to make people automatically disregard any real evidence 😏

originally posted by: xuenchen
This could be yet another red herring story to make people automatically disregard any real evidence 😏

Could be. But I say they already have all the evidence they need. Maybe not enough lawyers. As the Democrats have 25 working against America. Probably using our tax dollars.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

Yeah.

What this world needs is more lawyers.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Doctor Smith


The headline from your first source.

China Whistleblower with Royal Ancestry Steps Forward

Royal Ancestry?

The last dynasty of Imperial China lives on in a sense...they even have their own government in exile and issue their own passports, have an "emperor" who wears royal-looking uniforms, etc. The Qing Dynasty House of Aisin-Gyoru still takes itself kind of seriously, even if nobody else does.

The young current emperor:

originally posted by: xuenchen
This could be yet another red herring story to make people automatically disregard any real evidence 😏

Could be, but this isn't the first time it has been brought up, and there was a floor manager who said she saw ballots that looked and felt different from what she was used to. I think that was in GA.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Doctor Smith

And I have just as much authority to declare the winner of the election as MSM.

Right. It's the states. And they have done so. Or are you now going to rely on faithless electors?

If the states in question certified due to fraud does it count ? Does one side get the win because the other side couldn’t find the fraud or present it fast* enough before people who most likely are in on said fraud certify it? Is that how our country works ? Is that how you want it to work?

a reply to: WhereAreTheGoodguys

Does one side get the win because the other side couldn’t find the fraud

Yes.
"Trump should have won" doesn't cut it.

Gore should have won. McCain should have won. Hillary should have won.

Many would say.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: WhereAreTheGoodguys

Does one side get the win because the other side couldn’t find the fraud

Yes.
"Trump should have won" doesn't cut it.

You took my quote out of context
It was part of present it “fast enough”

Because it looks to me it’s been like pulling teeth even finding someone to look at the evidence and when they get to show a little none of it can be refuted but no one in power to do anything is helping.

As a citizen that frustrates me and if this doesn’t get cleared up, like crystal clear I think there’s going to be problems.