Trump urged to consider declaring martial law

[Whorty]

“ after a court-ordered inspection of 100 duplicated ballots on Tuesday found two instances in which votes cast for Trump were cancelled in the duplication process.”

It’s not difficult. You click the link and then read the text that comes up. It’s not 100 ballots with fraud, it’s fraud found in the 100 ballots they looked at.

They had videos of a woman writing out duplicated votes for Biden. Some people said where’s the evidence, so they checked some ballots and found proof.

You're calling it fraud, but the courts in the US are not. With all the millions of votes cast there are bound to be errors, both for and against Trump. The count is by humans, humans are not perfect - you're evidence of that.

Now run along and see if you can find some evidence of fraud

[AtW]

“ after a court-ordered inspection of 100 duplicated ballots on Tuesday found two instances in which votes cast for Trump were cancelled in the duplication process.”

It’s not difficult. You click the link and then read the text that comes up. It’s not 100 ballots with fraud, it’s fraud found in the 100 ballots they looked at.

Technical errors are not fraud, with large amount of tedious paperwork counted in a short period of time such errors are inevitable. The only question if they are material - ie can affect outcome, the answer is no.

How old are you and what is your IQ, imbecile?

[hugebrain]

Technical errors are not fraud, with large amount of tedious paperwork counted in a short period of time such errors are inevitable. The only question if they are material - ie can affect outcome, the answer is no.

How old are you and what is your IQ, imbecile?

If you’re asking me whether a vote where one candidate is ahead by 0.3% can be affected by a 6% swing in the votes (assuming these 100 votes are typical), then I’m going to have to go with yes.

[DealorNoDeal]

Just because you've got a huge brain...

[AtW]

If you’re asking me whether a vote where one candidate is ahead by 0.3% can be affected by a 6% swing in the votes (assuming these 100 votes are typical), then I’m going to have to go with yes.

But they are not typical, they were called "duplicated ballots" for a reason

[SueEllen]

If you’re asking me whether a vote where one candidate is ahead by 0.3% can be affected by a 6% swing in the votes (assuming these 100 votes are typical), then I’m going to have to go with yes.

You are wasting your time.

Due to how the vote is done in each state it rarely matters who has the popular vote.

[Whorty]

You are wasting your time.

Due to how the vote is done in each state it rarely matters who has the popular vote.

He's also wasting his time because he's wrong

He's clearly very confused too, but I say we keep him busy on here because then he isn't upsetting people in the real world

[AtW]

Well, I've got more time to waste (doing backups) ...

[hugebrain]

You are wasting your time.

Due to how the vote is done in each state it rarely matters who has the popular vote.

The 0.3% lead is for the Arizona, so the popular vote isn’t really relevant.

And ATW, why are they called Duplicated Votes? Wouldn’t Changed Votes be a more accurate label?

You also seem to be saying it’s ok if trump lost because the votes were miscounted by accident. Shouldn’t the guy with the most legal votes win regardless of whether it was fraudulent or accidental?

[AtW]

You also seem to be saying it’s ok if trump lost because the votes were miscounted by accident. Shouldn’t the guy with the most legal votes win regardless of whether it was fraudulent or accidental?

That's not what I am saying at all.

What I saying is that imbecile like you is clearly incapable to work out one simple thing that change in 100 "some special status votes" isn't necesserily going to be repeated in all votes (far bigger number).

Anyway, it's going to lower my IQ to continue argueing with an imbecile like yourself.