Did Trump you post on youtube?

[Father Heathen]

Not saying it is, but some might be deep fakes.

Losing faith in your Orange Messiah?

 

[Twilight Hue]

No, he will leave on January 20, but not accept defeat. He considers the election a nationally organized fraud.

Way I see it, every man is entitled to his opinion.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Exactly. We're going to have hordes of drunken, angry rednecks itching for disorderly conduct and even domestic terrorism.

Don't forget the monster pickup and the confederate flags. I figured I'd help ya out a bit.

 

[shunyadragon]

Way I see it, every man is entitled to his opinion.

So did Hitler have an opinion. The greatest non-answer you could make.

 

[shunyadragon]

Don't forget the monster pickup and the confederate flags. I figured I'd help ya out a bit.

Herds of monster pickup(s) with Confederate flags.

 

[Ponder This]

By simple signature check, do you mean a recount? Several states/counties have done that, I believe.

In the video Trump specifically calls out that they did not check signatures on the recounts, making the recounts pointless.

That is not possible. In fact it is illegal.

For mail in ballots the envelope is separated from the vote once it is verified. They have to be since the vote is anonymous. One cannot know who a particular individual voted for.

The signature check would be evidence that real people voted. If real people voted, then it's a simple thing. If fake people voted, then there was fraud.

The poll workers check the signature when the ballots are opened and separated from the ballot. By law this protects the confidentiality of the ballot. Audits and recounts no longer have a signature on the ballot

You don't have to look at ballots to check if signatures are faulty. One does not look at a ballot to see that someone voted for, say, Biden and then say, it must be good and look at a ballot and see that it was a vote for Trump and say it must be bad. One looks at the process by which you verify that real people voted. You know who voted, their names, their residency, their citizenship... It's a very basic thing he's talking about. And because it's so basic, it's compelling.

 

[Left Coast]

In the video Trump specifically calls out that they did not check signatures on the recounts, making the recounts pointless.

Do we have any evidence for that claim? I don't trust basically anything Trump says, he's demonstrably wrong on a regular basis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In the video Trump specifically calls out that they did not check signatures on the recounts, making the recounts pointless.



The signature check would be evidence that real people voted. If real people voted, then it's a simple thing. If fake people voted, then there was fraud.



You don't have to look at ballots to check if signatures are faulty. One does not look at a ballot to see that someone voted for, say, Biden and then say, it must be good and look at a ballot and see that it was a vote for Trump and say it must be bad. One looks at the process by which you verify that real people voted. You know who voted, their names, their residency, their citizenship... It's a very basic thing he's talking about. And because it's so basic, it's compelling.

Yes, Trump says idiotic things all of the time. So what?

 

[shunyadragon]

In the video Trump specifically calls out that they did not check signatures on the recounts, making the recounts pointless. The signature check would be evidence that real people voted. If real people voted, then it's a simple thing. If fake people voted, then there was fraud.

By law in the recent history of elections they cannot check signatures on recounts nor audits. The audits and recounts have found and recovered missing ballots, and errors. which they have always served this purpose.

You don't have to look at ballots to check if signatures are faulty. One does not look at a ballot to see that someone voted for, say, Biden and then say, it must be good and look at a ballot and see that it was a vote for Trump and say it must be bad. One looks at the process by which you verify that real people voted. You know who voted, their names, their residency, their citizenship... It's a very basic thing he's talking about. And because it's so basic, it's compelling.

Nothing here is compelling by law. By law the signatures are checked when the ballots are opened. By law the signed enveloped is separated from the ballot in all elections in recent history. Residency and citizenship has nothing to do with the signatures. It is verified in voter registration and the initial recording of the ballot.

 

[metis]

This is the first time in American history that there's an attempted coup in progress.

 

[Father Heathen]

Way I see it, every man is entitled to his opinion.

But they aren't entitled to their own facts or reality.

 

[Ponder This]

Do we have any evidence for that claim? I don't trust basically anything Trump says, he's demonstrably wrong on a regular basis.

I think that regardless of whether or not you believe Trump, the fact that Trump said that all you would have to do is run legitimate signature checks means that a refusal to run the signature checks is, practically speaking, tantamount to a confession. You can't argue there is no evidence simply because you refuse to check.
43:38

"Every reasonable American should be able to agree based on what we've already documented, that we need a systematic analysis of the mail-in ballots to review the envelopes. It's about the signature and if they are on the envelopes. We can only review the envelopes, and that will tell us everything. This is the absolute minimum we should expect."​

Trump makes a lot of other claims in the video. I have no reason to believe they are false, but if you have any evidence that they are false, then please do present it.

By law in the recent history of elections they cannot check signatures on recounts nor audits. The audits and recounts have found and recovered missing ballots, and errors. which they have always served this purpose.



Nothing here is compelling by law. By law the signatures are checked when the ballots are opened. By law the signed enveloped is separated from the ballot in all elections in recent history. Residency and citizenship has nothing to do with the signatures. It is verified in voter registration and the initial recording of the ballot.

All states establish mechanisms for verifying the validity of absentee ballots.
All 50 states require a valid signature for an absentee/mail-in ballot to be counted.

Voter Verification Without ID Documents
How do states protect and verify absentee/mail-in ballots? (2020) - Ballotpedia
Post-Election Audits

I find it interesting that you say the law disallows the audit of signatures.
There has been a call in Georgia, for example, to check signatures and Secretary of State has refused. Can you substantiate your claim that auditing signatures is against the law in any state?

 

[Left Coast]

I think that regardless of whether or not you believe Trump, the fact that Trump said that all you would have to do is run legitimate signature checks means that a refusal to run the signature checks is, practically speaking, tantamount to a confession. You can't argue there is no evidence simply because you refuse to check.
43:38

"Every reasonable American should be able to agree based on what we've already documented, that we need a systematic analysis of the mail-in ballots to review the envelopes. It's about the signature and if they are on the envelopes. We can only review the envelopes, and that will tell us everything. This is the absolute minimum we should expect."​

Trump makes a lot of other claims in the video. I have no reason to believe they are false, but if you have any evidence that they are false, then please do present it.

That is not how burden of proof works. The time to believe something is when we have evidence for it, not merely when it can't be disproven.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think that regardless of whether or not you believe Trump, the fact that Trump said that all you would have to do is run legitimate signature checks means that a refusal to run the signature checks is, practically speaking, tantamount to a confession. You can't argue there is no evidence simply because you refuse to check.
43:38

"Every reasonable American should be able to agree based on what we've already documented, that we need a systematic analysis of the mail-in ballots to review the envelopes. It's about the signature and if they are on the envelopes. We can only review the envelopes, and that will tell us everything. This is the absolute minimum we should expect."​

Trump makes a lot of other claims in the video. I have no reason to believe they are false, but if you have any evidence that they are false, then please do present it.



All states establish mechanisms for verifying the validity of absentee ballots.
All 50 states require a valid signature for an absentee/mail-in ballot to be counted.

Voter Verification Without ID Documents
How do states protect and verify absentee/mail-in ballots? (2020) - Ballotpedia
Post-Election Audits

I find it interesting that you say the law disallows the audit of signatures.
There has been a call in Georgia, for example, to check signatures and Secretary of State has refused. Can you substantiate your claim that auditing signatures is against the law in any state?

What good would checking signatures again do?

 

[shunyadragon]

I think that regardless of whether or not you believe Trump, the fact that Trump said that all you would have to do is run legitimate signature checks means that a refusal to run the signature checks is, practically speaking, tantamount to a confession. You can't argue there is no evidence simply because you refuse to check.
43:38

"Every reasonable American should be able to agree based on what we've already documented, that we need a systematic analysis of the mail-in ballots to review the envelopes. It's about the signature and if they are on the envelopes. We can only review the envelopes, and that will tell us everything. This is the absolute minimum we should expect."​

Trump makes a lot of other claims in the video. I have no reason to believe they are false, but if you have any evidence that they are false, then please do present it.

No I do not believe Trump any more than I believe Putin. They are birds of a feather.

Then change the laws. I can only respond to what the existing laws dictate as far as today

All states establish mechanisms for verifying the validity of absentee ballots.
All 50 states require a valid signature for an absentee/mail-in ballot to be counted.

Voter Verification Without ID Documents
How do states protect and verify absentee/mail-in ballots? (2020) - Ballotpedia
Post-Election Audits

True, at the time the ballots are opened signature and voter registration is verified based on the reference you cited. Your reference is specifically clear, audits and paper ballot recounts do not involve verification of signatures.

I find it interesting that you say the law disallows the audit of signatures.
There has been a call in Georgia, for example, to check signatures and Secretary of State has refused. Can you substantiate your claim that auditing signatures is against the law in any state?

Change the law. Interesting?!?!?! At present all the procedures in every state follow the letter of the current law including Georgia.

Trump did not complain when he won, and the same laws applied in that election.

 

[Ponder This]

That is not how burden of proof works. The time to believe something is when we have evidence for it, not merely when it can't be disproven.

You'll have to explain what you mean about "burden of proof"? I've noticed a tendency on these forums recently for people to not have a clue what they are talking about when they use that phrase.

I agree that if you look and you see a thing, then you have evidence for it. If you look and you don't see a thing, then you have evidence against it. And if you don't look at all, then you are ignorant.

What good would checking signatures again do?

Watch the video. Trump says that if the signatures are checked properly, then the discrepancy will be evident. Well, if that's all it takes... then what's the big deal? If the signatures don't check out, then it means that the law was broken.

No I do not believe Trump any more than I believe Putin. They are birds of a feather.

Then change the laws. I can only respond to what the existing laws dictate as far as today

It is good that the election outcome is not dependent on whether or not you believe Putin.

What laws exactly would have to "change"? What are you talking about?

True, at the time the ballots are opened signature and voter registration is verified based on the reference you cited. Your reference is specifically clear, audits and paper ballot recounts do not involve verification of signatures.

Isn't that the point? Recounts don't look at signatures, but signatures would (or would not) show a discrepancy if checked?

Change the law. Interesting?!?!?! At present all the procedures in every state follow the letter of the current law including Georgia.

Trump did not complain when he won, and the same laws applied in that election.

Why do you keep talking about changing laws? Not that I'm opposed to making better laws if the current ones are insufficient, but isn't it the point (according to Trump) that there are places where process was not entirely legal?
If there were fraudulent signatures, then by law, the corresponding ballots should not have been counted. Do you disagree?

I don't understand the relevance of Trump's complaint (or lack of complaint) in the previous election. Are you referring to any laws that were broken in the 2016 election?
If Biden doesn't complain in this election does it mean Biden can't complain in the next election?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Watch the video. Trump says that if the signatures are checked properly, then the discrepancy will be evident. Well, if that's all it takes... then what's the big deal? If the signatures don't check out, then it means that the law was broken.

Sorry, Trump is an idiot.

What good would it do to check the signatures again?

You do realize that they were already checked once, don't you?

 

[Left Coast]

You'll have to explain what you mean about "burden of proof"? I've noticed a tendency on these forums recently for people to not have a clue what they are talking about when they use that phrase.

Put simply: if you make a claim, it's on you to demonstrate it. It's not on other people to disprove it.

 

[shunyadragon]

It is good that the election outcome is not dependent on whether or not you believe Putin.

You asked about believing Trump. I do not believe Trump any more than beleive Putin.

What laws exactly would have to "change"? What are you talking about?

As far as I am concerned nothing, but ALL the states abided by the current laws. It is you that is complaining about the current laws. So what's up????

Isn't that the point? Recounts don't look at signatures, but signatures would (or would not) show a discrepancy if checked?

Recounts do not look at signatures, because that is how the laws and regulations for elections are written. By the present laws and regulations the signatures are checked and voter eligibility is determined when the ballots are counted, and they are separated from the ballot. Audits and paper ballots are for verifying the count THAT IS THE LAW.

[qotee] Why do you keep talking about changing laws? Not that I'm opposed to making better laws if the current ones are insufficient, but isn't it the point (according to Trump) that there are places where process was not entirely legal?
If there were fraudulent signatures, then by law, the corresponding ballots should not have been counted. Do you disagree? [/quote]

The current laws make no allowance for checking signatures in audits and paper recounts. ALL states have followed current laws and regulations. It is you that have a problem as to how the elections are confirmed based on current laws.

I don't understand the relevance of Trump's complaint (or lack of complaint) in the previous election. Are you referring to any laws that were broken in the 2016 election? If Biden doesn't complain in this election does it mean Biden can't complain in the next election?

The previous election was based on the current laws and regulations WITHOUT an allowance to check signatures in audits and paper recounts. Why is there a problem now with the laws and regulations in this election?

You're the on citing the good site that described the laws and regulations for audits and recounts, and there is no allowance for checking signatures in audits and recounts as described. What is your problem unless you want to change the laws?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Sorry, Trump is an idiot.

What good would it do to check the signatures again?

You do realize that they were already checked once, don't you?

Didn't your school teacher always tell you to double check your work?