3 Poll workers fired for calling attention to stacks of photocopied Ballots 98% for Biden

a reply to: DBCowboy

Who knows.

Not you, apparently. So what was your point?

Ask the folks who got fired.

They are welcome to their opinions.

originally posted by: Byrd
Those ballots appear to have bar coding on them.

One or more counting machine would have pitched an electronic fit if it was photocopied.

See, it's things like that which should be looked at on camera. Show that the machines, which would be randomly selected, would throw out a duplicate ballot and a good portion of the fraud claims would be cleared up. I think if everyone was concerned with the truth and not so much about being correct, this could all clear itself up rather quickly.

a reply to: Phage

I just asked a question.

Everyone was saying that the copied ballots could not be counted electronically.

I just asked if they could be manually counted.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: mtnshredder

You know that we're talking about paper ballots, right?

Yep, and.......

You know paper ballots can go through the adjudication process, right?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DBCowboy

Who knows.

Not you, apparently. So what was your point?

Ask the folks who got fired.

They are welcome to their opinions.

The poll worker with 20 yrs of polling experience who was fired knows for sure.

And that poll workers " opinion " is a little more than opinion , I would call it expert insight . Which begs the question why were they so quick to fire them.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Who is "everyone?"

I think Byrd seemed to being saying that there would be a problem with duplicated bar codes. That doesn't mean the ballot was unreadable.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

The poll worker with 20 yrs of polling experience who was fired knows for sure.

This year has seen more mail in ballots than anyone has seen. This is not like the past 20 years.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: asabuvsobelow

The poll worker with 20 yrs of polling experience who was fired knows for sure.

This year has seen more mail in ballots than anyone has seen. This is not like the past 20 years.

Around 35,000,000 mail in votes were cast in 2016 , 65,000,000 were cast in 2020.

There were more this year yes , but none the less Mail in Ballots are not as new as you might think nor is it new to have problems with them which is why Mail in Ballots are illegal in many countries .

Also Voting Machines are illegal in many countries including the very country where Dominion voting machines come from ... Canada .

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

These poll workers were not accustomed to the volume of mail in ballots? Perhaps "pristine" ballots (probably a subjective call) are not as unusual as they think.

People's perceptions are subject to a variety of influences. People can see what they are looking for.

These poll workers were not accustomed to the volume of mail in ballots?

a reply to: Phage

I'm sure the people in charge were counting on that.

Perhaps "pristine" ballots (probably a subjective call) are not as unusual as they think.

People's perceptions are subject to a variety of influences. People can see what they are looking for.

Perhaps not , but these pristine ballots being 98% for Joe Biden is subject and unusual .

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Perhaps not , but these pristine ballots being 98% for Joe Biden is subject and unusual .

Sometimes people see what they are looking for.

Sometimes people see an airplane and think it's spaceship.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DBCowboy

Who is "everyone?"

I think Byrd seemed to being saying that there would be a problem with duplicated bar codes. That doesn't mean the ballot was unreadable.

since you are the answer man here, can ballots be manually counted?

a reply to: network dude

Georgia did so. So, that would be a "yes."

Wasn’t there a big push to remove older poll workers because of COVID.


I am guessing the older workers had more integrity. The younger crowd is probably more from the by any means necessary school.

Never let a crisis go to waste.

a reply to: Phage

that kind of make this story a bit interesting then doesn't it? Not saying it's true, but shoots the machine thing in the foot a bit.

a reply to: network dude

No idea what point you're trying to make.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Byrd
Those ballots appear to have bar coding on them.

One or more counting machine would have pitched an electronic fit if it was photocopied.

See, it's things like that which should be looked at on camera. Show that the machines, which would be randomly selected, would throw out a duplicate ballot and a good portion of the fraud claims would be cleared up. I think if everyone was concerned with the truth and not so much about being correct, this could all clear itself up rather quickly.

Actually, what needs to be done (and WAS done) is have people who are familiar with the system (from both parties) look at it.

I said I *thought* there could be bar codes. I can't tell. I *do* know that balloting systems like this mark individual ballots so that they can't be counted twice (I know that from working elections)

People who don't and haven't worked elections are the ones ragging on and on about this. How do we know that they're seeing something real... and why isn't there a national howl of thousands of poll workers from BOTH sides (three people are not "proof") screaming about this? The gods know I've made a fuss when things went wonky (had a machine that wasn't working right) and got fixed on election day.

And here's the thing... when the states certified and re-certified the votes, that's what they looked at... reports and data and so forth from the ones (both parties) working this.

P.S. I also find it weak that "suddenly" only the machines in the swing states that went Democrat were questioned. Every other place that used the very same machines and went for Trump suddenly were not reported as problematical.

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: Byrd

Do you having the coding info from these machines that can substantiate that claim?

No. That's why the people FROM THE GEORGIA ELECTIONS COMMISSION WHO KNOW WHAT THE BALLOTS REALLY LOOK LIKE should be the ones making this determination.

Not me. Not Youtube warriors. Not "scam hunters." I want people who know what they should look like and how they should feel.

BTW, Photocopies feel a little different from regular ballots (at least they do here in Texas and I would assume this is true elsewhere.)

a reply to: Byrd

No. That's why the people FROM THE GEORGIA ELECTIONS COMMISSION WHO KNOW WHAT THE BALLOTS REALLY LOOK LIKE should be the ones making this determination.

They did. They found fraud. They were let go. The ballots didn't even have creases in them. Which indicates they were never in an envelope (another indicator of fraud).

Barcode software is available for free just look it up your self you can generated as many different sequences in barcodes at any momentba reply to: Gnawledge