Here you go, a “real” source. He said there were more bullet ballots than there likely really are, but there’s still a really suspiciously high number of them. How is this not at least worth investigating?
Here you go, a “real” source. He said there were more bullet ballots than there likely really are, but there’s still a really suspiciously high number of them. How is this not at least worth investigating?
but it can’t be that off the margin. from 1% to 7.2% in the case of Arizona, thats highly suspicious. Also the theory shared by those computer scientists is too damn convincing so those ballots should be hand counted, imho.
https://www.planetcritical.com/p/cyber-security-experts-warn-election-hacked
Also I will never understand why USA insist on using Computers for voting.
Or how a winner-takes-it-all approach is in any way fair or reasonable to the people.
Their “theory” amounts to, “the Internet exists”. They make no specific claim of a breach in election security and have no evidence of a breach. It’s all purely, “somebody could have reprogrammed the machines at some unknown time and place.”
They have no theory for how such a reprogramming would be distributed. Just fear mongering about how computers can be programmed to do anything.
The source you linked is referencing the claims that snopes is partially debunking
“partially debunking” here basically means “correcting numbers that were slightly too large and clarifying the explanation given is a hypothesis”. This is still suspicious as heck, especially given all the other ways republican politicians and voters and funders have tried to influence and tamper with the election
I mean this puts a bad taste in my mouth for the credibility of the letter:
I welcome investigation & would fully believe if this is corroborated and true. I won’t believe it until then especially when there are crucial discrepancies in tallies that invalidate some (not all) claims from the letter