Message from @WatchingYouDaily
Discord ID: 774984676624302123
Glitch will just be a mechanical failure and no one will be blamed for it without proving intent
@leftingfighter33 i wish that were true. But dont see any evidence
> @leftingfighter33 i wish that were true. But dont see any evidence
@Elias Diaz evidence for it being an operation? Or for it happening
I don't see any evidence that it was planned or intentional. We have just heard about one glitch that happened.
> I don't see any evidence that it was planned or intentional. We have just heard about one glitch that happened.
@Elias Diaz I think it was very much intentional. You don't write a bug into your software tha randomly swaps votes.
It isn't just "one glitch", the executable for the software comes from the source code. All executables that are the same version were compiled down to binary from the same source code and have the same glitch.
This is literally one of the simplest pieces of software to write and you're going to tell me some dumb dev just swaped two arrays by mistake? No that doesn't happen.
If the same software was used in multiple places then they should do a re-count by hand in all of the places.
I work in a very sensitive field and if a mistake like this happened somebody is getting fired and heads are rolling, we would have to report it to the FDA and there would be accountability. An entire investigation would be open and a root cause analysis would be done.
A CAPA would be open detailing the corrective action that was taken and everything would be recorded. If the medical field can do this why the hell are our elections a free for all? When they are just as important?
Zero accountaility
@leftingfighter33 i wish that were true. And maybe after additional investigation it is determined that something like what you described is true.
But I believe they mentioned that the glitch was actually a clerical error
But maybe im wrong? I just want them to do an investigation and confirm that there isnt any funny business going on and i can have a little (only a little) faith in the system
from what I read it was just the live vote counting software
not official vote counts
`unofficial results`
Short version, just specific anomalous data
I suspect all the counties that use Clearvote and Dominion software or machines are being recounted and supervised by the National Guard from people I know in my state responsible for installation and updating.
> I suspect all the counties that use Clearvote and Dominion software or machines are being recounted and supervised by the National Guard from people I know in my state responsible for installation and updating.
@WatchingYouDaily nice
@realz They left my county board of elections Friday.
> But maybe im wrong? I just want them to do an investigation and confirm that there isnt any funny business going on and i can have a little (only a little) faith in the system
@Elias Diaz Your not wrong because the clerks are not suppose to be doing any software updating.
Here's something I heard the other day about these lawsuits; what if Trump and his legal team don't pursue voter fraud as intensely as we've seen, but instead shift direction to voter impropriety? Attempt to prove that the accuracy of votes counted is in question due to the change in state laws prior to this election.
Think that will be easier to prove or be easier to legally pursue?
What would be the remedy?
I would assume the remedy would be votes received after election day either don't count or must be separated in the future, and there must be clear, concise, and reasonable procedure sin place for observers/watchers.
I came across an argument made on FB that I'll share here when I find it. Sites federal law too. Wait one.
Crypto voting and open-source counting.
"What is your assessment of this analysis?👇🏻
This is NOT a “voter fraud” issue as much as it is a “voting fraud” issue perpetuated by Democrat-controlled states to circumvent the requirements of USC 3 Sec 1 - Appointing Electors.
USC 3 Sec 1 requires Electors to be appointed ON Election Day. For Electors to be appointed ON Election Day, votes must be RECEIVED (NOT MERELY POSTMARKED) BY Election Day.
This is codified in FEDERAL LAW!
USC 3 Sec 2 provides that a State which has HELD such an election (for the appointment of Electors ON Election Day) can subsequently count votes that are RECEIVED (not merely postmarked) BY Election Day if they cannot count them on Election Day.
The states have the prerogative to run their own elections (procedural issue) and have their citizens waste their votes by allowing votes to be POSTMARKED BY Election Day - but the only ones that count (substantive issue) are the ones RECEIVED BY Election Day!
The State can run its elections procedurally however it likes as long as it does not conflict with the federal requirement that Electors be appointed ON Election Day.
Classic Federalism /Federal Preemption.
There is no articulable way that an Elector can be appointed ON Election Day on the basis of votes RECEIVED AFTER Election Day.
NET RESULT:
Any votes RECEIVED after the polls close on Election Day are NOT COMPLIANT for the purpose of appointing Electors under FEDERAL LAW (USC 3 SEC 1) EVEN IF the they are’s compliant under applicable STATE LAW - REGARDLESS of whether the State Legislature legislatively extended the deadline or not.
Disqualify ALL mail-in ballots received AFTER Election Day - (1) regardless of its postmark date and (2) regardless of whether the State Legislatire extended the deadline or not.
Either one is violative of the governing FEDERAL statute (USC 3 Sec 1) regarding the appointment of Electors for the purpose of electing the President of the United States."
Votes archived on-line with anonymous identifiers so EVERY person can check and do their own recounts.
It uses law.cornell.edu as the source for federal law cited
Republicans "dominated" almost everything except POTUS. It is easy to narrative that away, but it is certainly sketchy.
So they are now admitting they sent ballots to the dead
https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/verify/no-evidence-widespread-dead-voting/507-84e1561d-0d38-49eb-889f-3d3012a88a2c
>Politifact reached out to that William Bradley and found out it was the deceased Bradley’s son. He said he received two absentee ballots, one for himself and one for his deceased father. He threw out his father’s and mailed his own ballot in. He said an error incorrectly attributed the vote to the elder Bradley rather than him.
Am I supposed to believe everyone is a good samaritan and threw their deceased relative ballot away?
You're supposed to believe people are innocent until proven guilty, yes.
That's how our legal system works.
And it works both ways in politics.
> You're supposed to believe people are innocent until proven guilty, yes.
@Maw our legal system is not like that and to my knowledge when someone has gone to trial they’re only found either not-guilty or guilty. They are never found innocent. When the state nolle prosequi’s a case against someone I.e. dismisses the charges there is nothing entered as an actual finding of innocent.
It is true that rarely people are exonerated of crimes to my knowledge, we still work with the presumption of innocence however.