Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That does sound like an interesting, and potentially effective, way of catching fraud. Now we'll just have to see if:That is very interesting. Have you seen this video? Maybe it is evidence of the rumoured QFS code designed to catch those who are forging ballots. If you set the playback quality to maximum (720p), you can just make out some micro dots. Every ballot would have a different code, so forged ballots with missing, wrong, or duplicated codes could be identified.
I'll leave you all to your name-calling and "conspiracy" obsession. Goodnight!
I know, and I'm sorry, but it is just that, by that statement you have just made, and other statements, that it just seems like you just do not truly understand the "math" involved, etc, sorry though..."No offense", followed by such a statement
If it's really true, I'd guess that Trump is almost ready to slam the door on the trap shut, but before he does that, there's one last chance for anyone involved in election fraud to frantically back pedal, before the arrests, trials and jail time begin. It would be interesting to know how those micro dots look under UV light, as I think that is the most likely method of machine-reading them.That does sound like an interesting, and potentially effective, way of catching fraud. Now we'll just have to see if:
1. the dots were added intentionally
2. it catches any fraud
If it's really true, I'd guess that Trump is almost ready to slam the door on the trap shut, but before he does that, there's one last chance for anyone involved in election fraud to frantically back pedal, before the arrests, trials and jail time begin. It would be interesting to know how those micro dots look under UV light, as I think that is the most likely method of machine-reading them.
If it's really true, I'd guess that Trump is almost ready to slam the door on the trap shut, but before he does that, there's one last chance for anyone involved in election fraud to frantically back pedal, before the arrests, trials and jail time begin. It would be interesting to know how those micro dots look under UV light, as I think that is the most likely method of machine-reading them.
If he hasn't been the last few dozen times, then.....I think you are going to be incredibly disappointed when nothing happens.
Yeah, I remember various states were called for Trump super quick also.I witnessed with my own eyes Mississippi, Arkansas, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Kansas,and Nebraska go bright "Trump already won" RED with 0% of the vote - they were already colored in when I tuned in. I was flipping between ABC 7 in and NBC 4, both in NY City.
I am not going to cry or be upset about it because it's a given that those states were going to go to Trump. Just like it's a given that my state, New Jersey, was a lock for Biden.
Your memory is selective and it's likely due to your political bias.
It is consistent, just not by the metric that you want it to be. "Calling" an election is based on a whole host of factors - the number of votes counted for each candidate, the number of votes expected, historical voting patterns, exit polls, pre-election polls. In some cases, this means that an election can be called before any of the votes have been officially counted. It may seem strange from the perspective of someone who doesn't necessarily have all of that data, but the data is there. And more importantly, calling an election doesn't stop the count.Yes, I know. And my opinion is not that this is new. Only that it is an inconsistent way to report, to call one state with 0% votes reported, and not call another with 95% votes reported.
That's all. Inconsistent. Not new. Not conspiracy.
Just inconsistent.
Ah yes, must be 2-4-6-8D chess on Twitler's part
I think you are going to be incredibly disappointed when nothing happens.
Why put a unique identifier on every ballot, unless the objective is total traceability and total accountability for every single genuine vote, and positive identification of every single forgery. This type of micro-dot technology is probably quite expensive. On the other hand, Trump has known since before 2016 how much the opposition hated him, and once elected, he knew they would go to extreme lengths to try and prevent his re-election.
That is very interesting. Have you seen this video? Maybe it is evidence of the rumoured QFS code designed to catch those who are forging ballots. If you set the playback quality to maximum (720p), you can just make out some micro dots. Every ballot would have a different code, so forged ballots with missing, wrong, or duplicated codes could be identified.
Noone is forging ballots. But if they were this is an utterly useless way of catching anyone. If I forged a ballot with your microdots, how the heck does that ever get traced back to me? More importantly, what you are describing is turning a secret ballot into a public one. It means there is a way to identify exactly who every individual voted for. That's how "voting" used to work in the USSR. I am beginning to think your opinion of Trump is even lower than mine, either that or you hate the concepts of privacy and liberty.
Supposedly, the ballots were secretly watermarked to deter potential counterfeiting.
If there is anything to this, then Trump might win afterall:
Intelligence Insider: President Trump Setup Democrats In “Sting Operation” To Catch Them Stealing Election! | Zero Hedge | Zero Hedge
States were being called for Biden when they had 0% of their votes reported. Then you had states with 95% counted, with Trump winning, that refused to turn red.
Apparently, this is just fine.
Your response suggests that you don't understand how this type of traceability and cryptography works, and how it would be used to uncover fraud. The Feds would issue ballot materials to each state, so the Feds know which codes are valid and which state they went to, but not what code each voter got. They don't need to know how each citizen voted or what their code was, they only need to know whether each ballot was genuine by checking that it has a valid code. And I think it's being targeted anyway, so that only areas with suspected voting irregularities in 2016 (results that fell far outside the normal distribution) will receive uniquely identifiable ballots.Noone is forging ballots. But if they were this is an utterly useless way of catching anyone. If I forged a ballot with your microdots, how the heck does that ever get traced back to me? More importantly, what you are describing is turning a secret ballot into a public one. It means there is a way to identify exactly who every individual voted for. That's how "voting" used to work in the USSR. I am beginning to think your opinion of Trump is even lower than mine, either that or you hate the concepts of privacy and liberty.
I think this hinges on every state printing their own ballots using federally supplied materials (uniquely identifiable ballot papers and ballot printing machines). I can't really help you if you refuse to watch relevant media. If you do watch it you'll see micro dots clearly arranged in rows and columns, so it's definitely not specks of dust.You'll have to forgive me if I'm not willing to watch the video, largely because I find it preposterous. The issue here, each state runs their own elections -- which include their own "security features" for ballots.
There wouldn't be any swapping or interference. The traceability would already be there before any state started their own election procedures.Basically, if Trump somehow got people to "swap out" the ballots printed by various states with super-secret watermarked ballots, then he is guilty of ballot tampering -- it is that simple. The President and the Federal Government are not to interfere in the state's conducting their own vote.
Maybe you need to think about it a bit more. Feel free to take your time.Well I mean a few reasons to doubt all this
1. Not convinced it's actually a thing
2. Hard to believe that there is simultaneously a massive Dem/Derp State conspiracy that could potentially rig an entire election in a country as big as the US to persecute Daddy Donald, but he's also managed to get unique microdots on all of the ballots without them knowing (edit: oh and this would be a consistent pattern to all ballots in a country where each state can't agree with the next on whether it's a smart idea to have both postal votes and precounting)
This is a 4chan post that's gotten out of hand again
I was miffed when they did call the whole west coast blue without counting. But that has held true through the counting so I guess they were right to call it. I will note that most new organizations have taken back calling Arizona for Biden. The distance between Trump and Biden is less than the remaining votes and Biden is losing his lead. We will see if he keeps it.I saw Washington, Oregon, and California turn blue all at once at 11pm (when the west coast polls closed; I am on the east coast), all at 0% votes reported. Not "light" contested "we're still counting" blue, but dark "Biden wins these electoral votes" blue.
There. You can stop waiting now. You're welcome.
But we’ve explained to you why it occurs this way, and you don’t seem to acknowledge that or aren’t responding with a rebuttal. The “calls” are predictions. It should be obvious why a media source would be confident predicting Oregon to go blue or Mississippi to go red but wait until all votes are counted to predict the winner in a swing state. It’s all about probabilities. And they have been consistent, with the exception of Fox News calling AZ.Yes, I know. And my opinion is not that this is new. Only that it is an inconsistent way to report, to call one state with 0% votes reported, and not call another with 95% votes reported.
That's all. Inconsistent. Not new. Not conspiracy.
Just inconsistent.
The feds don’t produce ballots, the states do. So your theory ends there.Your response suggests that you don't understand how this type of traceability and cryptography works, and how it would be used to uncover fraud. The Feds would issue ballot materials to each state, so the Feds know which codes are valid and which state they went to, but not what code each voter got. They don't need to know how each citizen voted or what their code was, they only need to know whether each ballot was genuine by checking that it has a valid code. And I think it's being targeted anyway, so that only areas with suspected voting irregularities in 2016 (results that fell far outside the normal distribution) will receive uniquely identifiable ballots.
I think this hinges on every state printing their own ballots using federally supplied materials (uniquely identifiable ballot papers and ballot printing machines). I can't really help you if you refuse to watch relevant media. If you do watch it you'll see micro dots clearly arranged in rows and columns, so it's definitely not specks of dust.
There wouldn't be any swapping or interference. The traceability would already be there before any state started their own election procedures.
Maybe you need to think about it a bit more. Feel free to take your time.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?