Oh, so now your objection isn't to who conducted the audit, but how they conducted it. In fact, as I post this I see you're editing your prior comments herein to specify you want a signature audit. Of course, disregard the fact that you were previously concerned about:
bias or big tech manipulation
And that the:
audit was created and funded by big tech and the Soros foundation
Lol, no of course you weren't really concerned about those — just as you're not really concerned about a signature audit. In reality, you're just latching on to whatever remaining branch you can to falsely claim election fraud. Bear in mind, that everything has been settled within Georgia — the results have been certified my guy. There is no fraud to debunk, as the Trump campaign routinely fails to allege any. Even when presented with direct evidence (i.e., this post) that a statistically insignificant amount of signatures did not match within a sample, you still cling to your cope-driven narrative.
Ultimately, you have no evidence to support your position. Even if a signature audit was conducted in Fulton County, you would still find a way to cry wolf when it comes back showing no fraud. To this point, you (and your other TD.W shills) will continue complaining after January 6th, after January 20th, and all the way up until 2024. You lost. With all due respect, grow a pair, get out of your safe space, and get over it.
See you on the 20th <3
Yup, just another security theatre.
Yeah, I totally concede that. However, the nurse is part of an alleged conspiracy, notwithstanding how founded or unfounded that conspiracy is. I don't see a valid analogy that allows the extension of that example to a mere user on this site.
OP could have an argument with the Tweet he posted. Of course, it will come down to how much discretion is afforded to the clerk — but an argument can be made in OP's favor nonetheless. For the record, and as I have pointed out to you before, you're wrong.
VotingWorks indeed did assist with an audit in Georgia, however it for the Democratic primary. The Presidential election, on the other hand, was subject to a fully manual, hand-sorting audit. This audit was completed by county election officials, not VotingWorks.
Regardless of whether this is true or not, we shouldn't be doxxing or attempting to dox on this platform, it will chill free speech. This post should be deleted.
Happy to! I see you're still not a fan of challenging any of my points head on.
As I pointed out in my other comment, you're wrong here as well. Please check your sources and conduct your due diligence before posting disinformation, it makes legitimate conspiracy theories look bad.
I'm sorry to be rude, but do you seriously do any sort of due diligence on the things you post? I'll respond in kind, for anyone else to see — but this time with the correct information, not MAGA propaganda.
VotingWorks indeed did assist with an audit in Georgia, however it for the Democratic primary. The Presidential election, on the other hand, was subject to a fully manual, hand-sorting audit. This audit was completed by county election officials, not VotingWorks.
Further, the fact that you think anyone would seriously pay someone to shill on this hundred-member website — let alone in response to someone who apparently can't even check their sources — is downright laughable. I post and comment on here when I want to take a break from work. I couldn't care less about whether you think I'm morally superior, it's just cathartic to see how pathetic these election fraud conspiracies are.
I know right, thanks!
See my other response to you, there's already been an audit. Observers are not required to be in the room, as my link makes clear. Of course, there's also this, this, this, and this — but sure, they're wrong too, there couldn't possibly be any acceptable explanation other than fraud.
This obviously has nothing to do with you being too committed to your position to admit you're wrong. It's not like this view is so rejected that it's literally had to escape to an eco-chamber website to be heard. News publishers definitely aren't retracting stories supporting election fraud out of fear of defamation lawsuits. The U.S. judiciary writ large totally hasn't categorically rejected election fraud claims.
Not sure about the MSM, but here's the primary right-aligned, local newspaper debunking the suitcase claim.
r/politics is a fucking mess, I wouldn't be surprised if they just independently banned you lol
Yeah. Unless you were running those accounts on different IPs, you've probably been shadow banned for shilling.
Cue salty MAGA boys that wanted more election fraud.
you f***ing can opener
That's definitely a new insult, thanks!
HIPPA doesn't really cover this. A school might be considered a "covered entity" under HIPPA if it renders healthcare services to the student, but this is usually directed towards colleges and not primary education. Even if you could make that argument, it would still probably be preempted by FERPA, as these would be considered education records.
Not "banned" from school, but "transitioned" to remote learning. Interesting to see how this will be challenged in court. Students don't really have much of a Fourth Amendment interest against randomized drug testing post-Earls. See, Bd. of Ed. Ind. Sch. Dist. Pottawatomie Cty. v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822 (2002) (holding that a universal drug testing policy that all students in competitive extracurriculars randomly submit to drug testing does not violate the Fourth Amendment). You could maybe mount Fourteenth Amendment due process challenge against it, but I'm not versed enough in that field to speculate how it would turn out.
Interesting theory. It seems to be supported by the fact that most of the violence has come from decentralized movements, e.g., BLM.
The mass mediation stuff reminds me of the Global Consciousness Project. Cool stuff, give it a read sometime if you get bored. Here's a good secondary source on the matter.
You straight copied a post from TDW onto CW to promote it. That is literally the definition of shilling...
The consequence of the two-party system. When you dislike both candidates, you vote for the best of the two evils.
Thanks!
Unfortunately, it's now gone. Dismissed for lack of diversity jurisdiction, I didn't realize this was a Delaware-on-Delaware suit.
Seems to be a valid prima facie claim of defamation, it's about time that social media to be held accountable. The trick will be overcoming the Section 230 barrier.
Typically, the passive nature of a website bars defamation lawsuits. The plaintiff will have to show that Twitter stepped outside of the traditional editorial function of removing user-submitted content. The plaintiff will accordingly argue that Twitter's publishing of its reasoning, i.e., the defendant is a hacker, constituted a second, non-traditional function, more akin to a user function, and thus outside of the scope of 230. It'll be interesting to see how this turns out, it could open the door to more lawsuits against Twitter.
Bear in mind, your initial objection herein was to who conducted the audit. Having seen you're wrong, you're now objecting to how the audit was conducted. In trial advocacy, this is what we call inconsistency and bias. It looks really bad to a jury.
In my personal opinion, I would totally support a signature audit. However, there is no warrant to delay the transition of power to do so, as we do not presume regularly conducted elections to be fraudulent until proven valid. Likewise, I fully expect to hear another round of complaints from the MAGA crowd about "undue exercise of discretion" when a signature with an extra squiggle is not rejected in the audit. Because — at the end of the day — members of that crowd are concerned primarily with winning, not with whether the election was valid.