That’s right.
You initially only spoke of “observers at the polls”. The polling locations do not have observers, they have poll watchers. You only brought up the implication (but never actually said) that you were talking about during the counting. Which is it? And there is actually no video evidence of wrongdoing at counting locations, rather the claimed evidence actually supports the legality and fairness of the process.
Because all of them claimed have so far been shown to be either mistaken or outright fabricated.
I didn’t say that.
And you have personally read each and every affidavit, compared each to the actual facts, and been able to proclaim them all as false.
And when viewed by people who know what they are doing the behavior turned out to be perfectly normal for the situation. That is, not suspicious at all.
I listened at that point. No relevant details concerning evidence were spoken of, either fairly or unfairly.
Did I say I proclaimed anything? Doesn’t take a psychic to read what is there. One might be claiming psychic ability by asserting someone else’s meaning as opposed to their words. I simply referred to examinations by trustworthy sources. Did you examine them all and proclaim them valid? I don’t actually think you did; just relied on the reports of others. The trick is figuring out which source can be trusted, eh? Personally I use track record and analysis of results from third parties with no axe to grind.
BR-549. Should be worth every bit as much as Trump’s claims of a stolen election.
I actually read the sworn affidavit.
That isn’t even a number.
No. Try again. That wasn’t a proclamation on my part but a summary of trustworthy evidence.
You say sworn affidavit as if that makes it true per se. It doesn’t. Many sworn affidavits in these cases have been dismissed or retracted.
Are there any sword affidavits or testimony stating the one you read it false?
There is that absolutist language again. Good indicator or precognitive bias.vz71:
Because all of them claimed have so far been shown to be either mistaken or outright fabricated.
True, it is quite possible that a person can lie under oath.
None that I am aware of.
Yes, that is why I do so, as well as looking at reliable sources for those areas that I am not myself well-versed in for help with analysis. And no one “tells” me what to believe; I look at available evidence and decide, which is why I say what I say about DJT and his totally unsupported and dangerous claims.
Fair enough. Did you determine if counting locations are normally observable by the public through windows? If there are privacy concerns with such, and if there’s an explanation from the city/town where it occurred as to why windows were blocked?Dan123:
None that I am aware of.