3 ms·

> You needed to provide your signature which was matched against voting records. This is not correct in many cases. > “We conclude that the Election Code does

> You needed to provide your signature which was matched against voting records. This is not correct in many cases. > “We conclude that the Election Code does not authorize or require county election boards to reject absentee or mail-in ballots during the canvassing process based on an analysis of a voter’s signature,” the state Supreme Court wrote in an opinion https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/23/pennsylvania-court-ballot-signatures-431794 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/23/pennsylvania-court-... > it's very difficult to exploit it in the volumes you need to swing an election When the margins of victory in several states are so small, this seems to be merely conjecture.

rualca 6y ago
> When the margins of victory in several states are so small, this seems to be merely conjecture. Your conspiracy theory is based on the assumption that tens of thousands of votes can be cast fraudulently and matching records without anyone noticing, let alone leaving any trail, and that this can be pulled off on such a massive global scale and so uniformly and stealthily that it just resembles real votes cast by real people. Isn't that a little bit incredible? I mean, the only objective statement behind that conspiracy theory is that you feel the wrong candidate won the elections. That's the whole basis of this whole election dispute. The rest of your argument derives from there. As the wrong candidate won then there must have been a conspiracy to get votes for that candidate. What really boggles the mind is that these absurd and totally idiotic conspiracy theories sprang up after we saw an incumbent openly sabotaging elections by barring people from voting, by putting up barriers to mail voting, by purposely degrading postal delivery services to force votes from being shipped, let alone counted, forcing votes out because of technicalities such as delays in delivery and counting, and more eggregiously arguing in public that votes on his competitor, and only those, should be simply thrown out. But somehow that doesn't raise questions. What raises questions is if voting normally could be trusted.
- onecommentman 6y ago
  1. You sure like the phrase “conspiracy theory”. You must use it a lot. Its overuse doesn’t help your argument. Writers used to get paid by the word, but they had the chance to choose their own words. Perhaps that has changed. 2. Phrases like “absurd and totally idiotic” do not help you make your argument with this audience. 3. I don’t think the phrase “massive global scale” means what you think it means in the context of a US election. 4. This audience builds global IT systems that have improved in performance by several orders of magnitude over the last few decades. Other than 0-1 technologies like the birth of human flight, no other tech evolution compares. The minds of the audience are almost immune to boggling. The black hatters especially. Suggesting your mind is so easily boggled only generates pity. Address systematically the individual voting irregularities post-election as they arise and people will listen to you. As has been par for the course for US elections for over 250 years...
  - rualca 6y ago
    > You sure like the phrase “conspiracy theory”. That's exactly what you're pushing: a theory of how some people have conspired to do something. Is this not true? Is this not the essence of all these outlandish and baseless theories on how there were people conspiring to rig the US presidential elections? If you disagree, please do point out exactly which part of your argument does not involve neither a conspiracy nor theories.

rualca 6y ago

> When the margins of victory in several states are so small, this seems to be merely conjecture. Your conspiracy theory is based on the assumption that tens of thousands of votes can be cast fraudulently and matching records without anyone noticing, let alone leaving any trail, and that this can be pulled off on such a massive global scale and so uniformly and stealthily that it just resembles real votes cast by real people. Isn't that a little bit incredible? I mean, the only objective statement behind that conspiracy theory is that you feel the wrong candidate won the elections. That's the whole basis of this whole election dispute. The rest of your argument derives from there. As the wrong candidate won then there must have been a conspiracy to get votes for that candidate. What really boggles the mind is that these absurd and totally idiotic conspiracy theories sprang up after we saw an incumbent openly sabotaging elections by barring people from voting, by putting up barriers to mail voting, by purposely degrading postal delivery services to force votes from being shipped, let alone counted, forcing votes out because of technicalities such as delays in delivery and counting, and more eggregiously arguing in public that votes on his competitor, and only those, should be simply thrown out. But somehow that doesn't raise questions. What raises questions is if voting normally could be trusted.

onecommentman 6y ago
1. You sure like the phrase “conspiracy theory”. You must use it a lot. Its overuse doesn’t help your argument. Writers used to get paid by the word, but they had the chance to choose their own words. Perhaps that has changed. 2. Phrases like “absurd and totally idiotic” do not help you make your argument with this audience. 3. I don’t think the phrase “massive global scale” means what you think it means in the context of a US election. 4. This audience builds global IT systems that have improved in performance by several orders of magnitude over the last few decades. Other than 0-1 technologies like the birth of human flight, no other tech evolution compares. The minds of the audience are almost immune to boggling. The black hatters especially. Suggesting your mind is so easily boggled only generates pity. Address systematically the individual voting irregularities post-election as they arise and people will listen to you. As has been par for the course for US elections for over 250 years...
- rualca 6y ago
  > You sure like the phrase “conspiracy theory”. That's exactly what you're pushing: a theory of how some people have conspired to do something. Is this not true? Is this not the essence of all these outlandish and baseless theories on how there were people conspiring to rig the US presidential elections? If you disagree, please do point out exactly which part of your argument does not involve neither a conspiracy nor theories.