3 Poll workers fired for calling attention to stacks of photocopied Ballots 98% for Biden

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: Gnawledge

originally posted by: Nodrak

originally posted by: Gnawledge
Why just 98%?

Also photocopies wouldn't work, they are barcoded. That stack of ballots is as legit as McEnany's stack of blank papers she touts as proof of fraud.

Security features only matter if they are checked with rigor or purpose...

It's fed into a machine that reads barcodes. Machines read the same barcode, machine rejects a duplicate. It's a pretty good security feature.

Then you’d have no problem with a full on forensic investigations into DVS; machines, USB’s and anything else linked to the integrity of our elections?

Sure wouldn't.


ETA: Matter of fact...get on with the proof already, do these forensic investigations, do them quick! Time's running out. I'd love to see any tangible proof of voter fraud. Key word though: PROVEN.

originally posted by: Gnawledge

originally posted by: Nodrak

originally posted by: Gnawledge
Why just 98%?

Also photocopies wouldn't work, they are barcoded. That stack of ballots is as legit as McEnany's stack of blank papers she touts as proof of fraud.

Security features only matter if they are checked with rigor or purpose...

It's fed into a machine that reads barcodes. Machines read the same barcode, machine rejects a duplicate. It's a pretty good security feature.

Things that are supposed to happen , yet don't PT. 1

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Gnawledge

originally posted by: Nodrak

originally posted by: Gnawledge
Why just 98%?

Also photocopies wouldn't work, they are barcoded. That stack of ballots is as legit as McEnany's stack of blank papers she touts as proof of fraud.

Security features only matter if they are checked with rigor or purpose...

It's fed into a machine that reads barcodes. Machines read the same barcode, machine rejects a duplicate. It's a pretty good security feature.

Things that are supposed to happen , yet don't PT. 1

According to who? You? A blog? A tweet? The media?

Nevermind. It doesn't matter.

originally posted by: Gnawledge

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Gnawledge

originally posted by: Nodrak

originally posted by: Gnawledge
Why just 98%?

Also photocopies wouldn't work, they are barcoded. That stack of ballots is as legit as McEnany's stack of blank papers she touts as proof of fraud.

Security features only matter if they are checked with rigor or purpose...

It's fed into a machine that reads barcodes. Machines read the same barcode, machine rejects a duplicate. It's a pretty good security feature.

Things that are supposed to happen , yet don't PT. 1

According to who? You? A blog? A tweet? The media?

Nevermind. It doesn't matter.

What don't you understand? They can instantly make a new barcode for a new fake ballot.

You have to prove that Biden was able to come from way behind in the dead of night with legitimate voters. Their isn't enough ignorant people for that.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Byrd
Those ballots appear to have bar coding on them.

One or more counting machine would have pitched an electronic fit if it was photocopied.

See, it's things like that which should be looked at on camera. Show that the machines, which would be randomly selected, would throw out a duplicate ballot and a good portion of the fraud claims would be cleared up. I think if everyone was concerned with the truth and not so much about being correct, this could all clear itself up rather quickly.

Actually, what needs to be done (and WAS done) is have people who are familiar with the system (from both parties) look at it.

I said I *thought* there could be bar codes. I can't tell. I *do* know that balloting systems like this mark individual ballots so that they can't be counted twice (I know that from working elections)

People who don't and haven't worked elections are the ones ragging on and on about this. How do we know that they're seeing something real... and why isn't there a national howl of thousands of poll workers from BOTH sides (three people are not "proof") screaming about this? The gods know I've made a fuss when things went wonky (had a machine that wasn't working right) and got fixed on election day.

And here's the thing... when the states certified and re-certified the votes, that's what they looked at... reports and data and so forth from the ones (both parties) working this.

P.S. I also find it weak that "suddenly" only the machines in the swing states that went Democrat were questioned. Every other place that used the very same machines and went for Trump suddenly were not reported as problematical.

what was the process for signature verification in the Georgia recount?

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

originally posted by: Gnawledge

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Gnawledge

originally posted by: Nodrak

originally posted by: Gnawledge
Why just 98%?

Also photocopies wouldn't work, they are barcoded. That stack of ballots is as legit as McEnany's stack of blank papers she touts as proof of fraud.

Security features only matter if they are checked with rigor or purpose...

It's fed into a machine that reads barcodes. Machines read the same barcode, machine rejects a duplicate. It's a pretty good security feature.

Things that are supposed to happen , yet don't PT. 1

According to who? You? A blog? A tweet? The media?

Nevermind. It doesn't matter.

What don't you understand? They can instantly make a new barcode for a new fake ballot.

You have to prove that Biden was able to come from way behind in the dead of night with legitimate voters. Their isn't enough ignorant people for that.

They can instantly make a new barcode on a photocopied document? Tell me how that works.

The burden of proof isn't on me. The results are in. I can't prove what isn't there.

The big late swing came because many states aren't allowed to count mail-in ballots until after polls are closed. Many dems voted by mail this year. Many more than Trump voters, apparently. But again, that's not for me to prove one way or another. The results are there, they are real. If there is fraud - prove it in court.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

You see this senile old goof, Usurper Joe pretending to be legally elected and how can you not just punch his lights out and throw all of his staff and cabinet into the hoosegow?

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Byrd
Those ballots appear to have bar coding on them.

One or more counting machine would have pitched an electronic fit if it was photocopied.

See, it's things like that which should be looked at on camera. Show that the machines, which would be randomly selected, would throw out a duplicate ballot and a good portion of the fraud claims would be cleared up. I think if everyone was concerned with the truth and not so much about being correct, this could all clear itself up rather quickly.

Actually, what needs to be done (and WAS done) is have people who are familiar with the system (from both parties) look at it.

I said I *thought* there could be bar codes. I can't tell. I *do* know that balloting systems like this mark individual ballots so that they can't be counted twice (I know that from working elections)

People who don't and haven't worked elections are the ones ragging on and on about this. How do we know that they're seeing something real... and why isn't there a national howl of thousands of poll workers from BOTH sides (three people are not "proof") screaming about this? The gods know I've made a fuss when things went wonky (had a machine that wasn't working right) and got fixed on election day.

And here's the thing... when the states certified and re-certified the votes, that's what they looked at... reports and data and so forth from the ones (both parties) working this.

P.S. I also find it weak that "suddenly" only the machines in the swing states that went Democrat were questioned. Every other place that used the very same machines and went for Trump suddenly were not reported as problematical.

what was the process for signature verification in the Georgia recount?

I replied to this elsewhere. By law in Georgia any absentee/mail-in ballots are signature verified at the time of the first count, when the envelope is opened.

At that time the envelope is separated from the ballot (but kept on file). Under Georgia's laws about ballots being kept private (as exists in most states) these envelopes cannot be "reunited" with their ballots after having been opened.

So, the signature verification happened (by law). But it cannot happen again in any of the recounts they did or will do again because that would compromise ballot privacy laws.

originally posted by: network dude

what was the process for signature verification in the Georgia recount?

No clue. I work Texas elections, not Georgia elections.

The point is, people who work Georgia elections and people who are involved in Georgia elections are members of both parties. They verified the signatures. In order for there to be a large number of frauds, EVERY SINGLE PERSON in that chain has to be in on it.

Why aren't there thousands of election workers screaming 'foul!' about this? Not two. Not three. Not 'alleged'... why aren't there hundreds or thousands of them protesting with court-acceptable evidence?

a reply to: Gnawledge

So there is no signature on the ballot, just the envelope?
I ask this, as someone who isn't from Georgia, and isn't an election worker. If I worked in elections, I suppose I would have a network of others I could get this information from.

The question as I understand it, is there was a large number of mail in ballots. Much more than anytime in the past. And there was a really low rejection rate. Much lower than anytime in the past. Couple that with claims that ballots were harvested and filled out by someone other than the individual, and we have what I see as a problem. If it's all good and nothing needs to change, then all is good, and I'd suspect that in the future, this will be a regular thing. For both parties.

It was my understanding that the ballots had a signature, and that could be checked against the signature on file for that voter. And in the interest of total transparency, having that checked by both sides would end much speculation.

Leaving this ambiguous seems like a dangerous thing for the integrity of the vote as a whole. But perhaps integrity isn't as important as some once thought.

a reply to: Byrd

I suppose that's why I'm asking and not telling.
It just seems like the truth shouldn't be anyone's enemy here. But it seems to sure upset some folks.

Im turning more cynical the older I get or something...

The Gov will probably issue in a new voting system. They will back it up and claim it is the safest and most secure ever........It will be honest and hackproof.


But, in reality, our votes still won't count. They probably never have and never will.

a reply to: Gnawledge

They can instantly make a new barcode on a photocopied document? Tell me how that works.

The whistle blowers with something like 20 years experience have been removed. Why aren't you asking them?????????

Here's one way. Have the barcodes previously printed on empty ballot paper. Put them back into the blank paper supply in the copy machine. Copy the fake ballots onto the previously barcoded ballot paper.

The bottom line. I don't know exactly what they witnessed but whistle blowers are still not convinced that it was a legitimate election.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Gnawledge

So there is no signature on the ballot, just the envelope?
I ask this, as someone who isn't from Georgia, and isn't an election worker. If I worked in elections, I suppose I would have a network of others I could get this information from.

The question as I understand it, is there was a large number of mail in ballots. Much more than anytime in the past. And there was a really low rejection rate. Much lower than anytime in the past. Couple that with claims that ballots were harvested and filled out by someone other than the individual, and we have what I see as a problem. If it's all good and nothing needs to change, then all is good, and I'd suspect that in the future, this will be a regular thing. For both parties.

It was my understanding that the ballots had a signature, and that could be checked against the signature on file for that voter. And in the interest of total transparency, having that checked by both sides would end much speculation.

Leaving this ambiguous seems like a dangerous thing for the integrity of the vote as a whole. But perhaps integrity isn't as important as some once thought.

I'm not from Georgia either. I know that my mail-in ballot in Minnesota had 3 separate envelopes, one had my signature.

What I read of Georgia is that these signatures are verified, by law, at the time the envelope is sent in is opened. It is checked against signature on registration file. As Byrd said, the people checking these signatures are from both parties. And "other" parties, I imagine.

For it to be fraudulent on any large scale would require these checkers to be all on the same page and that's a whole lot of people and a whole lot of just not possible.

ETA: To be clear (I hope) the envelope it's mailed back in has no signature. Inside the sent envelope is a privacy envelope which has signature and other info, and inside that envelope is the actual ballot. At least that is how it was here in Minnesota...

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
a reply to: Gnawledge

They can instantly make a new barcode on a photocopied document? Tell me how that works.

The whistle blowers with something like 20 years experience have been removed. Why aren't you asking them?????????

Here's one way. Have the barcodes previously printed on empty ballot paper. Put them back into the blank paper supply in the copy machine. Copy the fake ballots onto the previously barcoded ballot paper.

The bottom line. I don't know exactly what they witnessed but whistle blowers are still not convinced that it was a legitimate election.

Whistleblowers removed from what? Were they killed? Or did they just come out, say some stuff and disappear so as not to be asked further questions or provide proof?

My vote is on the latter.

ETA: Those machines won't accept just any old barcodes - you can't just make them up. Also, that would take a huge operation.

originally posted by: Gnawledge

originally posted by: Nodrak

originally posted by: Gnawledge
Why just 98%?

Also photocopies wouldn't work, they are barcoded. That stack of ballots is as legit as McEnany's stack of blank papers she touts as proof of fraud.

Security features only matter if they are checked with rigor or purpose...

It's fed into a machine that reads barcodes. Machines read the same barcode, machine rejects a duplicate. It's a pretty good security feature.

Combined with the ability for the scanning software running on the machine to "error out" requiring a rescan, you feed in the duplicate ballot that has Biden checked instead of the original Trump ballot.

Yeah, really secure.

a reply to: Gnawledge

there were stories of ballots being run several times, and "adjudicating" the batch to allow them through. I don't know if that's true or can be done, but it was claimed. That would eliminate the safety of the bar code.

And please don't misunderstand my position in all this. I like Trump, but only want to see a truthful election. If Biden won fair and square, then all it good. there just seemed to be a whole lot of ambiguity and strangeness. the truth isn't subjective.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Perhaps not , but these pristine ballots being 98% for Joe Biden is subject and unusual .

Sometimes people see what they are looking for.

Sometimes people see an airplane and think it's spaceship.

Sometimes people see the most fraudulent election in American history and look the other way.

They sent me 2 ballots to my house? One was my long dead Grandma's name??????? The other had the correct name on it.

So I filled out the correct ballot and sent it too be counted. I kept the other ballot for evidence. I also kept the outer envelope on the correct ballot that I sent in. A typical leftist nut job would have more than likely, sent in both to vote twice!

When I check online..........It shows that the one I didn't send in was counted. The correct ballot with my true name was not counted???????????????????????????

Plus I am unable to see how my votes for the candidates were recorded. I don't trust today's $hit people to begin with. If I can't verify my vote somehow...... I'm sure some fraud group of criminals will surely take advantage.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: network dude

what was the process for signature verification in the Georgia recount?

No clue. I work Texas elections, not Georgia elections.

The point is, people who work Georgia elections and people who are involved in Georgia elections are members of both parties. They verified the signatures. In order for there to be a large number of frauds, EVERY SINGLE PERSON in that chain has to be in on it.

Why aren't there thousands of election workers screaming 'foul!' about this? Not two. Not three. Not 'alleged'... why aren't there hundreds or thousands of them protesting with court-acceptable evidence?

What's wrong with two or three people? At least we know who they are. The media hears a minor piece of dirt on Trump from an anonymous source and runs the story constantly until another one comes up. Now suddenly more than one eye witness is not enough?