Why such limited analysis on Arizona in your Youtube video?
Offically Biden "won" by 0.3%. The 1500 audit found 9 mistakes. That's less than the 3/100 in the sample but 9 mistakes is 0.6% of 1.5K so twice what he would have needed to win.
You do not ask who's favour the "mistakes" were in. If they were in Biden's favour that is ample evidence to justify further checks - if they were not in his favour the media would have called it far and wide. So my guess is that this was further evidence of fr4ud.

There was a lot wrong with what Talon said.

I listened to your show yesterday. Talent's arguments are full of holes which is why I suspect you're not answering them.
After all your hype about latches, suddenly they're ok?
There was on-going litigation, so no sense in raising more until those matters were settled - and what about the last minute changes;
Does the state's distinction between absentee and mail-in ballots cover the lack of verification as to who sent the ballot?
Georgia's recounts did not include signature verification - so that is blatant falsehood;
It is everyone's business if cheating in one state affects everyone.
I stopped listening after that.
I hope you do better tomorrow.

Thank you for answering - I appreciate that it might be irksome that what began as a private comment has become a public conversation.

Thanks for answering.
I appreciate that it might be irksome that what began as a private comment has become a public conversation.
I do have questions and comments though and would appreciate further elucidation.
First, the matters that I know little about, and I do appreciate your time. Is State Supreme Court the proper place to raise matters of federal constitutionality? If the Act 77 suites had achieved redress then there would have been no point raising the point of constitutionality which at SCOTUS 4-4 cannot really be said to have been settled. Essentially that decision seems to say, “Sort it out amongst yourselves – and if you can’t, get back to us.” Or does it not?
You made the point about the state having made a distinction between absentee and mail-in ballots, but the pertinent distinction is not the technical standing of each category but what effective measures were in place to verify the authenticity of the ballots received of both kinds - or have I misunderstood.

To say that Pennsylvania officially verifies signatures is misdirection, I think. The question is whether and how well they apply their own rules – if the measure is that one letter should be the same, or as has been alleged elsewhere, that the machine that verified signatures was set at a level which makes no discernment between one squiggle and another, there is no point in such poor verification.
For example, was there verification of the boxes that were taken out from under the tables in the dead of night after observers were sent home, according to contemporary news reports and witnesses – if those ballots were verified elsewhere, then that part of the process needs to have been observed. The claim is that if this happened it occurred without observation, and while processes were applied to frustrate observation.
To say that signatures are never verified in recounts is also misdirection. What is necessary is a verification that the papers were sent by the people they were purported to have been sent by. This was no longer possible. However other details in a hand recount are possible and are being denied by the show process of running stacks of paper through a machine who's ability to count is not in dispute.
I am new to this forum and unfamiliar with how to navigate it. If you have discussed these in detail I would you please tell me where I can view the conversation.

How do you reconcile your assertion that PA verify signatures with the rule that they do not: https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/a-big-deal-for-voting-pennsylvania-relaxes-mail-in-ballot-rules-will-no-longer-match-voters-signatures/ ?

This goes to show that legitimate ballots would have been legally applied for, mailed out, received and returned since people had to go through a process to receive them. Good - but that does not address your FB friend's contention that others were mailed out since the signature verification was effectively eliminated - besides there having to be some sort of signature. And thanks to "voting rights" activists, and forensically destructive separation of envelope and ballot we do not know what proportion of those received were legitimate. Furthermore, Giuliani said that there was a 700 000 discrepancy between the number of these ballots received and the number counted. These things need to be looked at and it seems that so far the Dem side is doing all it can to oppose anyone looking seriously.

Do we know why duplicate applications were being sent out? Do we know how many duplicates were returned and rejected because that address had already received its quota? Without proper signature verification that is not possible.

That would require a court in the system that permitted this "flexibility" allowing the matter to go to trial. When a judge said she would hear it the state supreme court blocked that. None of this manoeuvring to NOT HEAR cases goes to quell the belief that there were shenanigans.

Thank you. That is helpful.... but without effective signature verification how do we know that those that were accepted were legit?

I mean what is referred to here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2020/11/17/pennsylvania-supreme-court-overturns-one-of-trump-campaigns-only-victories-election-observers/?sh=3513916d371e

So the headline would be: "State that relaxes certification rules, certifies ensuing vote. therefore vote is legal." - when I say "legit" I do not mean in a circular legalistic way, but in a way which people can trust.

And if that verification is removed there is no longer a way to show that you are. Why would they remove that condition in the name of "voter rights".

Which folks trusted the elimination of effective signature verification?

And signature comparison was no longer going to be a reason to reject, was it not? What are we discussing?

... the signature on the ballot application has to be the same as on the driver licence - if it is not the application should be rejected. If that verification is removed then the whole thing is fishy. This is the problem - the people need to have confidence in the system, whereas this system seems to have been set up to allow shenanigans without challenge.

It's not just me that does not trust a system that has set itself up not to be trusted. Signature verification is important otherwise why do we sign for anything?

Why?

That is absolutely correct. I do not believe that this would have made enough of a difference. I have said from the beginning (not here but in another circle) that if this election was decided illegitimately the bulk of the cheating mechanism would have been done by the IT systems. But what this signature business shows is a willingness to muddy the water, and to set aside integrity - people willing to cheat in minor dishonesties will turn a blind eye to the major. The best place to hide an effective conspiracy is behind one that is less effective ... debunk the one in front and all the energy is spent on that rather than on the one that worked. I could cite several examples of this, in other fields.

That is indeed what they decided - and that is what is wrong. There can be a stack of "doubtful" returns that are verified by a supervisor. Was there a history of worker bias rejecting good ballots?

Again, I think this is more smoke to get us looking away from the problem - the very notion of curing is a betrayal of the sanctity of the vote. It was encouraged in areas where politicians thought they had an advantage in doing so, and discouraged where politicians thought they did not. These should no more have been cured than election officials should check in-person ballots to make sure they have been completed correctly. You vote, you put the folded ballot in the box and that should be it. But let's play with the idea for a moment: given that this was only done to mail-in ballots, and that the preponderance of these would have come from Dem areas, the practice of curing is a de facto advantage to Dems. This would have been the case even if Reps had cooperated with this practice since a much lower proportion of their votes were cast in this way.

No I live in London, hence some of the delays in answering - we have to sleep and work too 😴 . The article I linked was not the one I wanted to link - when this came up originally several months ago I simply did not believe that a state would deliberately muddy the waters as to verification. I found a Pennsylvania law society review that was boasting about it as some sort of triumph. That is no longer available, or I cannot find it. I do not trust a system that does this sort of thing, and that system does not seem to care that I distrust it. And I am not alone in this. But as I said to Dedkraken, this is simply symptomatic of a lowering of integrity. It will not have made the bulk of the difference.

Was it the application or the ballot that was cured? If the application, ok (EDIT: maybe, because you should pay attention to this as you do it). But if it is the ballot itself, that is a gross infringement of the sanctity of the vote - and to the point, one which advantages one side over another. If you turn up in person and your signature is wrong - does not match the one on your i.d. or that which is officially held, they should say: please leave, as you are not who you claim to be, imo. But you would not presumably be allowed to practice it until you got it right - as you would in the privacy of your own home, as well s time to dig up whatever other information you had incorrectly completed. In the UK badly completed ballots are simply termed spoiled. In France these are also counted and that count is returned so you can spoil a ballot as political statement. The system you have has provoked the mess that you have. And part of that mess is an untrustworthy result (#signatures). Another part is a partisan inequitable system (#curing) - which, again, would have been inequitable even if Reps had cooperated in this bizarre practice.

Hasn't caught fraud - you would need trials to assert that. Disenfranchised - a man who did not campaign scored more votes than any in history ahead only of Trump and you care about the franchisement of voters. It seems that your approval of the elimination of effective signature verification and of curing you essentially favour of decisions that favour your own bias.

Legal votes should be counted. That is the problem.

When that happens that should be prosecuted - the solution is not to change the rules to favour the other side. "anything you can cheat, we can cheat better" to misquote a song.

Oh. Is that your only bias? - your bias is all over your name - not a dig at Powell?, your attributing to Trump contractor irregularities in the wall, your approval of the election of a man who did not campaign, who in practical terms has done huge harm to minorities, I could go on. The funny thing for me is that n 2016 I did not understand how the USA could have elected such a buffoon as I believed Trump to be. I have come to doubt that perspective because of the blatant bad faith and lack of self-awareness of those who cannot stand him.

Thanks for demonstrating your lack of bias. May I suggest camomile for your insomnia. I do love talking and funnily enough I think we could have a drink and some decent banter if we did not live thousands of miles apart, but I do have a day to get on with and I think you do need some sleep. I may check in again tomorrow. Over and out...

If you speak to someone long enough, the mask will drop. In your case it appears to be the mask of sanity. Strangely enough, I agree that Powell looks nuts... but now you are shooting QAnon at me??? I just want to know what happened - I really do. I am a police officer, I enquire, I prepare files for court... and nearly everyone pleads guilty or is found guilty. Investigation is compulsive with me - it is almost autistic. But when you say that the 600 000 discrepancy between mail-in votes received and counted was an "untruth"n (was it you?) pedalled by Giuliani I let it sit... then I remember that he was quoting from a state website that had been suddenly changed. Then I wonder what the hell these people are playing at. As I have said before, these discussions about signatures and curing are a distraction - if there was a steal it was by computers - wholesale quantities instead of retail. But you skid sideways into QAnon?!

WtW your icon shouts out the type of esoteric gnostic you are. I am happy to discuss with you, some of my best friends belong to similar groups. Really. But it also betrays why you backpedalled and published Talon's views without challenging them. Trump is not in the club, is he? - now, there is no plausibility in the belief that the most popular man in US election history was a man who did not campaign, just ahead of the man who worked his backside off. And you know it, and apparently you have been warned off showing yourself in his favour. I ask you: what is RIGHT?

Ded - you honestly make me wonder whether QAnon are legit. You do not answer any other point. Now, even crazy people can say true things. They are the best victims because no-one believes them - I worked in our MASH - liaison with social services, to help people who are not well. So put the pedo stuff to one side. I won't believe that this is a satanic cult - unless you continue to talk me into it. How can a man who did not campaign do better than a man who worked his arse off?... This is like you having a suitcase of money, and the loser next door turns up in a Ferrari and your realise your money has been stolen. And he laughs at you but says, no - I didn't steal your money. There is a big difference between knowing something and being able to prove it. But what happened is obvious.

I don't give a D about them. The point is : build an absurd bogey-man and destroy the straw-man. Answer the serious points.

It means you are saying things I don't want to answer.

Thank God everyone has not bought into this BS. I am not hopeful but I am gratified that some people can still think for themselves.

No. If you were honest I would want you to explain that the numbers Giuliani was quoting came from MY SIDE.

The question is : was the IT counting system secure? Answer: No it was not.

Since we are quoting from medical websites: www.c19study.com

I do not know what they gave him, but well done for evading the point. I'll check in again tomorrow.

Where did his information come from?

I do need to go to bed. Good. I am glad they gave the president of the USA something that worked. In the meantime, simple and cheap anti-malarials were also effective as he pointed out at the start. I think you called it the Zelenko protocal - in France it was associated with Pr. Raoult. The British media succeeded in hiding it altogether. The fact remains that a cheap and common treatment was available. The fact remains that the world economy has ground to a halt without good reason;

I mean the putative differences between mail-in ballots requested and counted. As I remember this came from a state website discrepancy that was subsequently corrected. Maybe I am wrong. And I do need to sleep. I will check in tomorrow.