Message from @English Remi
Discord ID: 787560398429224990
Here's Giuliani's claims. I don't understand what he's saying with respect to the numbers posted on PA election website. https://www.insidesources.com/in-pa-hearing-giuliani-makes-his-case-for-voter-fraud-gone-wild/
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.
@English Remi so I guess you could request a mail-in ballot when you voted in the primary and not know it but seemed that the system was set up to catch that ... "ne out of every five requests for mail ballots is being rejected in Pennsylvania"
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.
@English Remi, you just advanced to level 2!
I'm lost as to what you mean? Guiliani said this in public to trick people. Even though he made some crazy claims in court he didnt make this claim it never hinged on anything. The total number of requested ballots explained the results.
Long live the PLA.
courts are setup a certain way to prevent abuse, things like you have to have standing, you have to file in the court that has jurisdiction, etc. are all there for a reason ... multiple duplicate cases were filed, some 50 in total .... the court filings are all available to the public along with the rulings and folks can go and read them ... problem is that there are rumors flying about and folks are believing these rumors rather than going to look the court cases up for themselves
Thank you. That is helpful.... but without effective signature verification how do we know that those that were accepted were legit?
We don't...
There's actually no way to tell what went on sanctity of the vote...
Never mind that....
You have to prove who you are to get a ballot and then your identity gets checked again when you turn it in. Signature verification was never a top notch method to identify folks but rather used as a way to remove legal votes.
Perhaps someone can explain why they would trust the media that lied about Hunter Biden... Before the election but now...
Signature verification isn't s***... Pardon my English.
You can believe whatever you like...
how do we know they aren't ... PA and other states have their rules regarding ensuring the ballots cast are legit and the federal system allows a great latitude in those rules, so if the PA election officials followed those rules and the state certifies those ballots then they are legit in the eyes of the state and the federal government
Will part of a power structure allow it frame work to be attacked? This would undermine the power of the persons in the power structure.
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.
Yes goodness is this can go one of two ways but both ways civil war.
signatures are required to affirm you are who you say you are and a legal voter ... you have to sign to vote in person or by mail ... that signature can be used to prosecute you if you did something illegal like lied about your status
Anyone who thinks differently could be naive.
That's me because I have Indian company and I have to sign a piece of paper about 10 times before they accept my name, verification.
Copy the email will be provided upon request...
So...
Not free worldly
folks trusted it right up until the Nov 2020 elections where in the run up to the election Trump claimed that if he lost it would be because of voter fraud ... note by these same rules Trump was selected in PA to be the Republican nominee in the primary
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?
they keep the signatures ... just separated from the ballot so that the ballot (i.e., who you voted for) remains a secret
Perhaps people in America don't understand happens the tools of empire creation come back home.
And signature comparison was no longer going to be a reason to reject, was it not? What are we discussing?
Consider this. John Smith presents his birth certificate, social security card, utility bills proving address to get a photo ID. He then uses photo ID and verifies his signature matches to obtain a ballot and mails it in where they check his identity and address matches where the ballot was sent and he lives. But somehow if another signature verification is required to make sure his identity is correct?
no longer a sole reason to reject as per the article you linked
Picture this... A mail in ballot can be requested with only a driver's license number in a name and a county... So anybody know those three things can have a ballot sent anywhere...
That verified the state of Georgia
I mean you cant just like walk into a BMV and say heres this dead guys ID I would like to change his address to mine and update his voter registration please
... 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.
@English Remi not sure what we're discussing ... I'm telling what happened best I can decipher ... you seem not to want to trust it, fine that's your call but it's the call of the court to determine whether it was legal or not and so far they've determined it was