It is from various dialects. Mostly neaplitan and sicilian, but all mixed up once it got to the US.
Italy was a lot of independent city states until fairly recently, with a lot of linguistic variation, but after the war it got very standardized over there, but a lot of the quirks survive in the US.
Good video. At the end, he says the voted ballots are then sent from the county to them, where they are stored in a "vault" (a locked room with a vault decal.)
It sounds like they scan the ballot envelopes and send the images back to the county to match signatures. Then the sealed ballots are shipped to the country to be opened, and counted.
Signature matching is electronic. My understanding is that most states have three envelopes, with the signature on the second. But Arizona (or just Maricopa) has two, and the signature is on the outer one. (this was discussed in the hearing.)
So the process kind-of makes sense - (aside from the fact that they are doing a lot of duplicated effort to make the whole process electronic - I guess more contracts = more graft.)
What does not make sense is that if they are receiving the ballots, sending them to this company, and then doing the electronic signature match,... how the hell do they not know how many they have?
My theory is that Biden has been planning a Vincent Gigante defense for the past year.
(he was the mob boss who used to wander around the Village in his pajamas so he could claim he was to senile to go to court.)
He is a chicken shit child molesting empty suit. Barry talked him into this scheme and he has played senile out of fear of being hanged for treason.
Man, I either need to do more crack, or less, since I am still confused.
(Jackson Browne warned me about this.)
I understand your comments, and agree, but I was commenting on that nasty note they left at the end. The one I quoted. That note bothers me.
And so I wondered what Robert Barnes was saying based on what it says.
OK, maybe Barnes is saying that the legislature can tell the court to pound sand and that they will come up with their own relief (as per the constitution.)
That could work.
The order is only a preliminary injunction pending an expedited emergency evidentiary hearing.
The Court agrees it would be untenable for the legislature to appoint the electors where an election has already occurred, if the majority of voters who did not vote by mail entered their votes in accord with a constitutionally recognized method, as such action would result in the disenfranchisement of every voter in the Commonwealth who voted in this election – not only those whose ballots are being challenged due to the constitutionality of Act 77.
So, they appear to be saying there is slim chance of what Barnes claimed in the tweet, unless they can show that the non-mail voters also suffered some unconstitutional procedures.
But the note on page 12 makes it sound like they are also unlikely to toss all the mail in votes.
In that event, the sheer magnitude of the number of mail-in ballots would not be a basis to disregard not only this provision of the Pennsylvania Constitution but also the “one person, one vote” doctrine established by Reynolds, one of the bedrock decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.
So what other remedies are left? It sounds like a set up to say that the only solution is a new vote, but no time so, oh well. We don't want to disenfranchise all those legal voters who's will is the exact opposite of the result we are going to force on them thanks to fraud.
What am I missing?
In his intro at today's hearing he quoted Adams, Lincoln, Franklin, and Jesus.
The higher the position, the higher the standard and greater the penalty should be for treason.
I suggest hanging four star generals who say "American not first."
Mine was a quote in the NYT after 9/11 when the governor, bloomberg, activists and silverstein were fighting over what to do with the WTC site.
Trump said we should rebuild the towers exactly as they were. except TALLER and reclaim the world's tallest building title.
From Andrea Widburg article at American Thinker
Alexander Macris found Donohue v. Board of Elections of State of New York, 435 F.Supp. 957 (E.D.N.Y. 1976), a case with close parallels to 2020's election. After President Ford lost in 1976, Republican voters sued New York, alleging that systematic fraud deprived them of their voting rights. The district court allowed the suit and stated the following legal test: (1) plaintiffs had to prove specific acts of misconduct that (2) involved "willful or knowing" ballot fraud (3) by state officials or private persons acting jointly with state officials that (4) changed the outcome of the election.
She is arguing that statistical analysis is admissible, but I think it is a challenge to meet requirement #3 - involvement of state officials - for any fraud using electronic vote manipulation since they will have cutouts. State officials will all claim ignorance.
So, I suspect that there is an understanding by the Trump legal team that they have to show significant absentee fraud (dead voters, etc.) and willful allowance of those fraudulent ballots in order to get to the next phase.
This phase is basically showing enough proof that the elections are not certified and two things happen:
-
Audit of the counts. (NOT a recount, but a hand count of ballots) this will show if the software was diddling the numbers, so any origin story for the software is irrelevant.
-
Audit of the ballots, including absentee signatures. This will show if there was massive absentee fraud, pallets of ballots, etc.
This is not to say the Sidney's efforts are not vital - mostly this is a political fight to let the system (judges and legislatures) know that WE know that there was fraud and this can not be allowed to stand. Her line of inquiry is dramatic and makes people pay attention.
To A Louse, On Seeing One on Lady Justice.
Ye ugly, creepin, blastit wonner,
Detested, shunn'd by saunt an' sinner,
How daur ye set your fit upon her -
Sae fine a lady?
Gae somewhere else and seek your dinner
On some poor body.
The easy solution here is once they are done, to have a pair of checkers (R and D) inspect the sorted ballots. There should be no Trump ballots in the Biden pile (and visa versa,) and if there are the whole recount was a waste of time and needs to be done over. Maybe by hired auditors and with a video feed above each table.
Yeah, I can see gropey joe going to the window a few months from now and yelling "Peace for our time" while waiving a chinese menu.
Think about this. That site was set up as a refuge during the dark days of the last administration. I was never a frequenter, but just from the name you can see it was a place for conservatives to hang out, weather the storm, and build strength to come back after the progressives did their damage.
This deplatforming is the Left telling us that they will deprive us of every refuge, every comfort that they can. Like Winston Smith, but we can not even have that little spot in the corner of the room where the screen on the wall does not see.
Now how do I get rid of those people waving their arms around in the little box in the corner of the screen whenever a politician is giving a speech?
I agree with the Shiva analysis, and have spent 2 days trying to find a weakness, and I think he is right (or Jeff, the guy that made the graphs. he deserves credit too.)
But that is a different issue. That would affect the number of votes added, and steals by adding less, not subtracting.
The Minn. data has other problems, but I added the third party comment because of that. First, he has to look at more sig. digits. It may look like an algorithm because excell has a rounding algorithm.
We may be seeing evidence that there were large updates that gave large percentages to Biden. That would make it look like subtraction with the coherency problem, but this is not PROOF of a cheat since it is NOT subtraction. It is proof that there were large piles of mostly Biden votes added to the database.
OK, signed up to post this.
I think what everyone is seeing has an explanation. I have done years of real time coding and this looks to me like a data coherency issue. Let me explain.
All this analysis is based on three derived data elements. Total, percent B, and percent T. We can assume that they are derived from some data set that has votes_T and votes _B as the starting point. (There is probably a lot more going on, including third party and district details as well)
Now what is sent to NYT is derived. At some point they calculate the total, and at some point the calculate the percentages. If the data sent at any point in time is not all derived from the same starting point, this is what happens.
And example.
if I have 50 biden votes, and 50 Trump votes, the total is 100, and the percentages are both 0.50
Now if I do an update and give 10 votes to Biden, the total is 110. using the old percentages, it looks like Biden has 55, and Trump has 55.
Now I update the percentages, and it looks like I stole 5 votes from Trump.
This will be amplified for third party just because their totals will be more affected by small changes in percentage. What we are seeing with "only Trump votes get subtracted" may be because there are more Biden votes in the FAKE votes they feed into the tabulators and it knocks the percentages more out of sync. But this is not proof of anything.
Also, there might be corrections or other things going on to further confuse things, but I don't know about that stuff.
I would recommend she contact the nearest KFC. I think they have a pipeline right into Barr's office.