Arizona Ballots Make Stop at Runbeck Printing Company to Scan Ballot Envelopes ...

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Lucidparadox

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Annee

Uh, I believe it's up to the witness to prove their claim.

Nope. The burden of proof is ALWAYS on government.

Preferably including the utmost transparency, if not absolute transparency.

Our ballots, our votes, our elections, intended to serve the people's best interests... NOT elected and unelected government officials.

That makes 0 sense.

The burden of proof is always on the acuser. Anyone can say they witnessed anything and be lying.

I can say Donald Trump humps baby dolphins in his Mar A Lago Aquarium... No matter how absolutely believable that is.. and how much sense it makes, I need more evidence than just my claim to make it true.

The only cases IMO where burden of proof ISNT on the Accuser, is in sexual assault situations where motive and circumstance are evident.

So by this logic, the gov't, more directly, our voting processes, shouldn't be questioned unless we have more proof?

Kind of defeats the purpose of transparent, free, open or insert any other synonym.

That's a great argument. Why bother with voter confidentiality in the first place, what do voters want to hide? If you're not committing a crime then let's vote in glass booths and glass walls, granting every eyeball in the building direct contact with your activities until your ballot has gone to the next custody checkpoint.

It's the only way to be absolutely sure NO ONE is frauding.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I think you can have transparent elections and keep specific information anonymous.

Look at it from the point of view from an abstainer. Wouldn't they want to verify that they didn't vote for anyone?

Well I guess the cheating is better than blowing something up and declaring martial law or as the dems call it plan B.


I personally wish desantis would start the secession ball rolling. If he or trump believes they will ever be allowed to be elected President they and anyone else that votes is stupid as hell. Keep waiting and there will be nobody left to leave. Start a convention to leave and do it.

It’s over, the republicans have lost the country and will never, repeat never be allowed to control anything of importance again. Each election in red states they fabricate more and more democratic votes to give the appearance of a slow move left until they steal the next state. Grab a secretary of state here a governor there some dominion here and there and one by one the remaining red states are gone. Better get while you can.

There is no reason that the votes are not already counted. None. They are the second largest voting block in the nation from what I have read and if they were not prepared it is because of one of the people who is running.

This is not right at all.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: TzarChasm

I think you can have transparent elections and keep specific information anonymous.

Look at it from the point of view from an abstainer. Wouldn't they want to verify that they didn't vote for anyone?

I've had a few minutes to think about it and frankly, I disagree with anonymous voting. Either elections are transparent or they're not. And if we can't have full unrestricted access to voter logs and the means to verify every ballot is authentic, how can you guarantee we know the truth? I do want to check my voting history and every other vote in the database to confirm real, living, consenting voters participated and no one else. It's the only way everyone in the nation can finally accept facts for what they are.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Correct. I still say one SSN/One Vote. If they are dead they are purged.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: TzarChasm

Correct. I still say one SSN/One Vote. If they are dead they are purged.

Why does any one discuss stuff like this? If they are stealing elections and they are then how the how do you think they will allow the rules to change?

Facts.

originally posted by: crayzeed
Eyewitness's, eyewitness's words not taken as evidence in election fraud?????? Yet eyewitness's in a murder trial can get you executed.

Watching from the UK it utterly amazes and shocks me how any American could vote for the Democrats for what they have done to your country since they got in. They have decimated the whole country yet some people vote for them. There must have been someone who voted for them as all the votes counted surely cannot all be fraudulent.

the charlie browns voted for them,

even tho lucy keeps moving the football.

a reply to: TzarChasm
It's really the only way. Voter ID and later being able to verify your vote, if it was properly casted. The problem arises when you get a guy like Hitler or even the US Dems to power. We already heard from the US Dems they like to make lists about who voted for Trump. To name one recent example.

What they are going to do with that list? Why need it? To destroy lives and careers, that was openly communicated. That's always the thing with lists. When they get into the wrong hands.... bad things happen.

originally posted by: godsovein
a reply to: Vetfather

You need to improve that OP if you want this thread to exist.

That's rich coming from someone who appears to have spelled their username incorrectly.

---------

S&F for the O.P. for bringing our attention to this, good to know the eyes and ears on the ground are still working hard to uncover the sly tactics possible in the rediculous sham that has become "voting". Not just in the USA but globally.

Nothing will probably come of this but it's continued momentum in the endless fight for truth gives hope to many I'm sure.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Vetfather

This was also the case in 2020, as revealed by an election worker witness in the AZ Senate hearings. She testified that more ballots kept coming for days from Runbeck -- not from the voting precincts directly. And then, as in now, with no observers or proper chain of custody.

One of those cases thrown out from lack of real evidence?

What do you mean by "real" evidence?

a reply to: nerbot

It was one sentence and a link at first. I was trying to help him out.

And my name is as play on words, as in the Bible god is vain, but god is to its users an addiction.

a reply to: nerbot

Now that's not very nice Nerbot. You couldn't have at least PM'd gods oven instead of calling him/her in front of the whole site.............



Bored so I'm crackin myself up for entertainment.

Well which is it? ☠️🚬

They Knew !!!! 🤣🤣


"We Will Hold The House" - Speaker Pelosi's Prediction For The Midterm Election


Joe Biden brags about having “the most extensive and inclusive VOTER FRAUD organization” in history.

a reply to: TzarChasm

If there were only two possible scenarios, that being absolute transparency and fraud, I'd choose absolute transparency.

I don't think those are the two absolute possibilities however.

a reply to: Annee

Uh, I believe it's up to the witness to prove their claim.

Wherever do you keep coming up with such ?
Eyewitness testimony carries a high preponderance of evidence in any court , be it local , state , or federal .

I know there will be no reply to this , at least I hope you read and learn .

Denying ignorance ,
Why ?
ATS

Crazy how these issues happen as predicted...

A printing shop with no observers? Uh huh...That is convenient when you're on the way to count the ballots.

Jiffy.

originally posted by: MykeNukem
Crazy how these issues happen as predicted...

A printing shop? That is convenient when you're on the way to count the ballots.

Jiffy.

No matter what happens, Hobbs will "win."

a reply to: MykeNukem

It is like a bad script for a WB TV show.