I'm... actually okay with this. So that's hardly horrible. It would encourage every single state to have the most rigorous standards possible for their elections. Short term, an absolute mess. long term, beautiful.
It could be abused like patent trolls by states with cash to burn (or AGs with ulterior motives) to try to contest other states simply for having results they dislike. This opens up the door to a lot of money being wasted on pointless suits. The exception is if Texas either brings forth something wholly new or makes a legal argument so compelling and specific that the precedent set isn't something that can be easily imitated or abused in this manner.
I'm not saying the official is lying, i'm saying his anecdotal statements aren't evidence of anything. Why don't you believe trump when he says the election was rigged and that it was done by getting dead people to vote? Its the other side of the same coin. Without objective evidence, I have no reason to believe the official as you have no reason to believe trump.
now you've resorted to misconstruing the debate.
I said there was video of suitcases of ballots being pulled at night.
you rebutted the suitcase video with another one where the state explains that suitcases.
I found that video and pointed out how the video evidence doesn't correspond to the statements of the state.
we both agree that your evidence is shoddy, "clearly incomplete" as you said.
we're back to the video of the suitcases.
The assumption has be proven true, we don't start the debate holding the assumption to be true. As the person saying the assumption is true has the onus to provide proof. you start at 0% and work your way to 100%, not you start at 100% and i have to chip it away to 0%. if I wanted to do it your way, i'd point to signature match audits, dead people and non residents voting and then play the "2019 NOrth Carolina special election ruling" and "signature matches used to kick Greens and Kanye off the ballots" and "bank tellers do signature matches every day".
...? The anecdotal? Dude, that's what the official testified and explained to investigators. That's not fucking anecdotal. The objective evidence is not the statement of that official - it's the
statement of that official plus the footage of the event in question. You don't have that second one. Important people who matter have that second one. You can FOIA for that second one. All I can conclude lacking that second one is that these snippets are useless and anything "determined" by them is conjecture.
We're not back to the video of the suitcases. It's incomplete and impermissible as evidence BECAUSE everything you conclude about it is conjecture. You cannot in the video explain what those ballots are doing there, how they got there, why anything is happening, or what is happening between obvious cuts in the footage and between the various cameras - you need the full and unedited footage to contradict the claims made by the election officials. Election official makes a claim, references the
full footage. Unable to rebut that, we return to the state before the video - claims about the video have not been proven demonstrably true.
If Trump said FRAUD FRAUD FRAUD and then he provided conclusive evidence for which there was no counterargument of fraud, based on no conjecture, then I would believe him. There has also been some evidence of dead SSNs voting, for which I fully believe small-scale fraud has happened. Not to the tune of even tens of thousands of votes, much less hundreds in a single state. Furthermore, if ANY of the damn cases went anywhere in the courts, I would fully give them more credence. The cases NOT going anywhere in the courts, by contrast, gives more credibility to their counter; IE, that the claims were frivolous.
So how was that assumption, that elections are neither secure nor fraudulent, proven true in 2016? in 2012? in 2008? Who went out there and proved that everything was true? Why do we even host elections if the assumption is that they are not necessarily secure?
To prove that you're a dumbass - how many states have verified? How could they possibly verify if the inherent assumption was that the election was not secure?
do you even know what a remand fucking is? when these fraud claims get thrown the fuck out, it isn't defaulting to "maybe there's problems, we can't conclude anything," it's "there are no demonstrable problems"
Also, fun thing about signature audits. Do you remember putting your SSN on the envelope? Does anyone else share your name? Ah, shite, now we've got to find a way to match up the envelopes with the individual ballots themselves, verify signatures on the envelopes based on potentially outdated-ass signature databases, hire thousands of people to cross-reference every single person with the given name put on an envelope, and we've got to do this all within the realm of safe harbor without any legal case which has suggested that states need to be compelled to do so. To ameliorate the feelings of a lot of sore losers who have yet to make any wins in court.
