You can’t make the hypocrisy up

Now signature verifications are a good thing again?

The democrat party should be renamed to the “political expediency” party.

1 Like

Here comes 51 with a “I really feel bad for you GSC, trump lost accept it TrumpU” (I.e. contributes nothing and fucking embarrasses himself)

And 305 with an attempt at either explaining what Cali is “really doing” or justifying it…Both more productive and at least a more honest effort than the idiot 51…But neither worth a shit and both grossly biased.

1 Like

Kevin Sorbo is a complete dumbass who rarely knows what he’s talking about. Case in point, California DID perform signature verification on 2020 ballots, as is required by law.

In all 58 counties, election officials are required to verify signatures by comparing the one on the outside of each ballot envelope with the voter’s signature on file, which is the one provided when a person registers to vote.
https://www.capradio.org/articles/2020/06/02/answering-questions-about-vote-by-mail-in-california-amid-covid-19-attacks-by-trump/

Yeah, because who cares what’s “really” happening, right? Let’s just take the word of UPN’s Hercules.

Once again you guys get owned by believing a tweet whole cloth without doing a shred of research.

Welllllllllll. Not exactly.

The state changed the signature verification process right before the election. How convenient!

:point_up_2:announcement of change.

https://www.sos.ca.gov/administration/regulations/current-regulations/elections/signature-verification-ballot-processing-and-ballot-counting-emergency-regulations#20960

:point_up_2:actual regulation. Look at article 6. Particularly clauses (b)

  1. The comparison of a signature shall begin with the basic presumption that the signature on the petition or ballot envelope is the voter’s signature.

(g)

  1. In comparing signatures of vote-by-mail identification envelopes and provisional ballot envelopes, elections officials shall consider as explanations for the following discrepancies in signatures:
  1. Evidence of trembling or shaking in a signature could be health-related or the result of aging.
  2. The voter may have used a diminutive of their full legal name, including, but not limited to the use of initials, or the rearrangement of components of their full legal name, such as a reversal of first and last names, use of a middle name in place of a first name, or omitting a second last name.
  3. The voter’s signature style may have changed over time.
  4. The signature on the vote-by-mail identification envelope or provisional ballot envelope may have been written in haste.
  5. A signature in the voter’s registration file may have been written with a stylus pen or other electronic signature tool that may result in a thick or fuzzy quality.
  6. The surface of the location where the signature was made may have been hard, soft, uneven, or unstable.

And (I, J)

  1. Only a signature possessing multiple, significant, and obvious differing characteristics with all signatures in the voter’s registration record will be subject to additional review by the elections official.
  1. A signature that the initial reviewer identifies as possessing multiple, significant, and obvious distinctive differing characteristics from the signature(s) in the voter’s registration record shall only be rejected if two different elections officials unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt that the signature differs in multiple, significant, and obvious respects from all signatures in the voter’s registration record.

So basically there’s enough here to never throw out a signature.

I’ll bet you this regulation suddenly goes back to what it was before the change. And I’ll bet these clauses will be modified to be much stricter.

So you’ve just proved that I was right and Kevin Sorbo was wrong. Which is what I said to begin with.

Now, if you want to discuss the effectiveness of signature verification, I’m open to that as well. Personally, signature verification is useless, because it won’t catch an attempted forgery.

But the fact remains that the 2020 elections did use signature verification. In fact, these same guidelines are in effect for another 6 months and probably apply to Mr. Newsom’s recall signatures.

So don’t try to shift the goalposts and change the argument.
Sorbo = Dumbass who lied.
You = Dumbass who believed him.
Skeeter = Dumbass who is so hysterical for an argument that he pounces on any blood in the water, even when it’s his own.

Thank you, I’ll be here all week.

More like the signature verification was altered to effectively make it useless = Sorbo was accurate, but semantically wrong. I’ll take it.

It’s not easy to take an L but you admit to it once in a while.

I didn’t read the tweet. Just predicting the outcome. And I was correct.

And we all know you distort/downplay/exaggerate what is really happening for your little lefty bias. Just how you roll.

I see you bowed out of the HCL exchange…You all straightened out there.

Of course you didn’t read it. So good on you, then, if you predicted the outcome would be GSC was wrong and I was right. That means you’re learning.

Nice change of subject. What did I bow out of, though? I was never one of the people demonizing HCQ.

He was not at all wrong.

He was 100% wrong, stating the opposite of what actually happened, and it took 1 minute of Googling to provide the evidence. This is what happens when you don’t read tweets.

Oh god knock it off.

If I change the murder law to exclude all deaths by bullets, knives, bombs, blunt objects, and and any other physical objects then I effectively remove the law. It’s semantics.

California absolutely did not verify signatures. It’s there in black and white. Just read the regulation. All it requires is for the signature to be looked at. Lol.

That’s all signature verification is though.

Sorbo’s tweet said California DIDN’T include verification for 2020 but they ARE including it for Newsom. The fact is both elections are likely going through a similar process. Ergo, he’s wrong.

You knock it off trying to squirm your way out of this.

Actually, never mind. It’s amusing as hell. Carry on.

Absolutely not. It’s not just looking at signatures. It’s disqualifying signatures based off of matching criteria. But when you give every conceivable exception it renders it useless.

I meant they’re just looking at signatures as opposed to, say, running them through an AI algorithm.

What you call are exceptions are merely valid reasons for signatures to not match exactly. Reading the list, is there anything you find especially unreasonable?

Like, let’s be real here. You can’t toss a signature that looks mostly the same but was written on a bumpy surface. I know I can sign my name three times and they all look different, and the guidelines mentioning that some sigs could be digital or done with a stylus, etc. is absolutely correct.

I stand by my original statement that signature verification is absolutely useless, but with that in mind Sorbo was 100% incorrect.