I don’t have to make anything up. You did the deflecting on your own. You’re being too emotional right now to have a conversation like normal human. Weak IMO.
I'll get in the pool with ya. I never got into the dominion or dead voter stuff. I simply disagree on the integrity of mail in ballots, who filled them out, who mailed them, etc.
Jesus, your opening salvo was for us not to criticize those for only wanting verification. You went there. It was the whole point of you starting this discussion. But, do you even know how mail in votes are verified, at all? Do you know the process and why it works just fine? I mean, five entire states vote solely by mail in voting, Republican and Democratic ones. Are you coming from any position of knowledge or are you just going on "it seems like..." as a reason?
I care a lot about a ballot matching the full intent of the voter it is assigned to. I care a little less about who fills it out (but if I fill it out for grandpa because he doesn’t see well, should anyone care?). And I care a lot less who mails it in.
Georgia is an interesting case study for all of this. They have signature matching. They have voter ID laws. They upgraded their election security and they included paper ballot backups. They audited the electronic count. Then they did a recount. Then they did a signature verification audit on a random sample to test that process. But the SOS is getting death threats.
I think faking mail-ins would be pretty difficult, even on a small scale. You have to match the signature on file by the state. So you need to find someone you KNOW won't vote, be able to duplicate their signature, know their relevant personal information (that part isn't hard in isolation but would lead to mistakes if part of a larger effort), and send it in-- all within the appropriate window of time for every fake. And in many cases find someone to witness, who obviously can't be reused a bunch of times. Completely impractical to fake all that.
Then at some point, either before or after, you have to believe that a human or humans will be able to keep their mouth shut about it. They can’t.
I don't believe people should be attacked for wanting voter verification. Personally, I don't give a shit and have been ready for this shitshow to be over for awhile. Do you not have the ability to understand other opinions and stances, even though they may not be ones you are 100% behind? When did i post over the last few weeks or months anything about verification. I didn't. And yes i know how mail ins are verified. First of all, if a checker is staunch supporter of dem or rep, I'm not confident in their ability for them to be unbiased. For instance if dooz was one, I wouldn't trust him. If a lifelong down the line republican voter was one, I wouldn't trust them, especially with a hated Clinton or Trump involved. 2nd, I have questions as to what is given in exchange for some mail in ballot sigs, as they are at times collected door to door and mailed for the voter. If you choose to believe every urban voter in the country voted dem due to policy, signed and mailed their ballot in, that is your right. I disagree.
The same person doesn't count the same ballots on a recount. So if someone was fudging the numbers, the numbers would swing wildly on recount. So, if that was happening, why didn't the numbers swing?
OK, so you don't know how mail in voting is verified then. It doesn't come down to a possibly partisan hack determining if it is verified or not, for one. This isn't an opinion, these are merely functions of the process, not subjective concepts. But, you don't have a problem with people pursuing verification, but you aren't saying it isn't verified? If you aren't saying it isn't verified, then why wouldn't you be critical of those who are obviously using obviously dubious reasoning to challenge a determined election?
Seems i recall many states do it differently, so no im not a pro at knowing each and every facet. A couple of weeks ago you agreed about some of the unethical practices involved in collecging votes. Called it unethical, but not fraudulant. Did you change your mind and now going with everything is straight?
I haven't the faintest idea what you are referring to here. Otherwise, there are some differences in the procedure between states, but none involve leaving verification to a single partisan observer.
I don't really see the problem here. He probably could have worded it a bit better and put the words "equal access" more towards the beginning of his statement to make it clear that they were just trying to level the playing field, not give anyone an advantage over anyone else. But, still, no real issue with what he's saying.
2nd round of PPP, banks who cater to minority owned and smaller businesses were given a head start on dolling out forgiveable loans, as is the case with the latest PPP, as Regions and others are in a holding pattern. There were also other loans, and a 2nd round of stimulus checks. He pandered to his demographic of voters and the PC crowd and you bit, as he decided to skip the facts as in 2020 there was equal access and steps to give the folks he mentioned a chance ahead of time in some cases. Wouldve been more unifying if he mentioned various jobs and services, vs going by race or gender as to where his focus will be. I wonder if Biden said he was gonna focus on first rebuilding white male age 30-60 and jewish owned businesses, if people would have had a problem. I would have..
You keep saying this, and I think it's great. But, I gotta know... since banks aren't supposed to track customer demographics such as race, and not consider race when making loans... how do we know which banks cater to minority owned businesses?
