Like, not even certifying these are US citizens. That they have some sort of connection to elections work.

but mail in votes are ok? you realize this is the exact same logic and line of thinking that is putting mail in votes in question?

Also listening to Robert Barnes talk about how the judges are unfair or whatever carries less weight to me after learning he is involved in some trump fraud cases

??? Why would you bring up mail in ballots when we're talking about overturning election results.

In a legal sense.

I believe that has already been done in GA and in WI. Hand recounts - comparing contemporaneous paper ballots - to tabulated results are the exact way that one would verify that there was no vote flipping taking place. The problem is that it doesn't fit the narrative that people want to be true. But scientifically, it's pretty absolute. Also, keep in mind that most states have implemented Risk limiting audits where they look at random lots of tabulated votes and hand count them and compare it to the tabulated votes. There is a formula for how many votes need to be included in the audit depending on the margin of victory and the number of votes cast. In the case of GA, this would have been 1.5m random lots. Raffensberger decided that it was simpler to just do a complete hand recount, which is the most comprehensive way to ensure that votes are being tabulated correctly.

At least ballots try to determine via a database if you're a resident of the US.

there was not an actual hand recount in GA that compared tabulated data to hand counted ballots

there process for collecting affidavits was inherently flawed and prone to abuse. just like the voting systems in question.

It was done under the guise of an "audit" because that is what was required and how they paid for it, but it was factually a hand recount.

Then why do you claim bias when the affidavits are rejected on the basis that there is no fundamental process of reasonable validation taking place?

because the bias is selectively choosing when to apply logic to fit a personal agenda

... how?

Because you say so?

I think it's completely reasonable.

You just contradicted yourself.

@AdvanceManExtraordinaire It takes standards of merit to make it to court. The gish galloping filings thus far are pr stunts...and apparently they are hitting their mark. No offense. Just piling in a bunch of claims doesn't qualify on its own.

You can make the argument that judges have an agenda or don't know what they're doing but they have judicial boards to answer to as well. These suits are designed specifically to get the responses you are giving, not legal ones.

because a case was rightfully dismissed for inherently being prone to error. the case was about a system being prone to error \

i'm not the one doublethinking here

Therefore we can't even determine if the system is prone to error because the evidence of the system being prone to error is in error.

What would need the standard of merit in your opinion?

@AdvanceManExtraordinaire Being established in a court of law. That's what we have.

yes. the statements of this judge are being used to discredit the people who are challenging a system claimed to be full of errors, because the system the people used to bring the case was inherently prone to error

@AdvanceManExtraordinaire whatever that is. I don't know and, frankly, I don't think you do either. We have people for that.

Yes, this happens ALL THE TIME in law.

Arizona just certified? Good for them

And rightfully so.

Now just lose the senate

"EPIC SMACKDOWN OF RETARDED HILLYBILLY INBREED TRUMP SUPPORTERS WHO LITERALLY HAVE THEIR HEADS UP THEIR ASSES"

And it happens for people defending themselves from the state.

James, you just showed your bias lol.

@yetiCodes, you just advanced to level 5!

@yetiCodes I’m very anti conservatives

We completely dismiss evidence which is improperly done and cannot be vetted.

That has been gathered illegally, etc.

The conservative people of 2020 more so than the conservative ideology itself @yetiCodes

Conservatives of 2012 were ok

That we cannot validate with any level of certainty.

@Maw True. Robert spelled that out last week.

yes of course

Oh snap. James outed himself on political bias. Had the opposite idea the whole time. Damn bro.