SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: i-node who wrote (1380049)11/14/2022 6:52:36 PM
From: Tenchusatsu  Read Replies (1) of 1577131
 
Inode, here are the problems I have with your argument.

1) You point to a reduction in the percentage of absentee ballots rejected as "proof" that the election was OMGSTOLEN. But that's not a steal at all. The only thing that proves is that the new rules, which were agreed upon, were having the intended effects. Just because YOU don't like the results of that rule doesn't prove that any stealing occurred whatsoever.

2) You claim that only one person had to sign off on this new rule, and that was due to political pressure from Stacy Abrams. If that's really the case, then Georgia should change the sign-off rules. Still no proof of a "steal."

3) You don't present any proof that these ballots, which would have been rejected under the old rules, would have changed the results of the election. And no, lack of proof isn't proof of a cover-up.

4) I don't see anything blatantly wrong with matching the ballot signature with any signature on file vs. the signature in the voter registration database. Unless you can prove to me that such a change can lead to widespread voter fraud, I don't see any evidence of a steal.

Bottom line is that you don't like the new rules, and the new rules were written by a few Democrats. Therefore the new rules MUST be corrupt by default.

And the reason why the GQP is losing isn't because Trump sucks. Noooooooo. Instead, it's because of a slightly looser standard for signature verification. Yeah, that must be it.

Tenchusatsu
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News