-
Kamala Harris has no idea how to react to question about whether she will visit the border, so she … laughs? https://www.foxnews.com/politics/kamala-harris-laughing-border-question-backlash-cornyn
-
Kamala’s racist niece tweets that the Colorado shooter was yet another violent white man, has to delete it when she learns he was Syrian https://www.foxnews.com/media/boulder-colorado-shooter-meena-harris-kamala-niece-tweet
-
Majority of Black and Hispanic voters support voter ID https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/03/23/poll-majority-of-black-and-hispanic-voters-support-voter-id/
-
Dem Rep Cuellar releases images of border crisis in effort to spur the Biden Admin to act https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrat-cuellar-migrants-released-without-notice-appear-court
-
Biden Admin withdraws candidate for Deputy Secretary of Interior under questions about her opposition to oil and gas https://www.foxnews.com/politics/white-house-pulls-biden-interior-nominee-elizabeth-klein
-
Alabama passes resolution to lower its flags in memory of 61 million babies killed through abortion https://www.lifenews.com/2021/03/22/alabama-passes-resolution-to-lower-its-flags-mourn-61-million-babies-killed-in-abortions/
-
Trump endorses and applauds Project Veritas and James O’Keefe for their efforts https://youtu.be/LBtWHVdl0CI
-
Dem handwriting analyst says 9% of absentee ballots in Arizona had signature issues, which would be 190,000 fake ballots https://www.thewashingtongazette.com/2021/03/9-of-absentee-ballots-in-arizona-could.html
-
Liberals came out of their shoes to pin the Boulder shooting on white extremism, now utterly silent after shooter is identified as Syrian-born Muslim who hated Trump https://nypost.com/2021/03/23/police-identify-ahmad-alyssa-21-as-suspect-in-boulder-shooting/
See you tomorrow.
I assume your first block of quoted text is from another source as I'm not seeing it in the article linked here...
I'm not quite on board with what you're conclusion is, although I do appreciate your skeptical eye towards reporters excluding facts from a piece to strengthen their case, regardless of which "side" they're on.
BUT to me, I'm reading the first quote as saying, simply, that poll workers are not necessarily as well trained to spot forgeries as handwriting experts would be. And further, they are under less supposition to be actively looking for fraud then an expert, called in to investigate, would be. Taken together, the first quote and the cited news article indicate simply that possible fraud is being discovered only due to the fact that experts are being called in to examine. In my eyes, this is to highlight the fact that expert analysis is critical to a claim of fraud.
I'm no lawyer though, in fact I'm pretty ignorant to the workings of these types of proceedings. I do think you raised a very good question, and would love to see some other opinions. ?
Oh hey! So yeah I definitely should have explained where I got that first quote from, for context.
So if you go to the article linked in #8, not very far down you'll see the words "9% of the signatures" as a clickable link. That'll take you to what they (and I) are referencing.
I used the ctrl+F find-in-page thing and searched....I think the word "handwriting" and found handwriting experts and where they got the 9% and all that. Maybe check that out and reply again? If you don't mind.
I super appreciate the reply though I felt like I was just being a party pooper. When really I just don't like the manipulation of the right and I don't like feeling like I'm stupid and will believe whatever I want to be true or something. I'm only suggesting that some of these sites think that way and use it for clicks. And that it shows through here when you read the thing they are referencing because it's written in a way that is clearly doubt and arguing against fraud claims and suggesting the claims were going nowhere, while the article written about it suggests the opposite it seems.
Unfortunately, I'm going to have to let this one go. Time's been very short here lately, and I'm checking this between laundry, dishes and dinner lol. Didn't want to leave you hanging, because I know how frustrating that can be on forums.
That said, I believe you posted the pertinent part of that 9% link, so I hopefully got the gist of it. And trust me, I'm as suspicious as you are about media (I worked in mass media as a journalist - pop culture mag out of NYC, and a few other outlets and I know first hand how journalists are typically left to their own devices at best, and encouraged to create and pitch their own leads... And it's shady. Hopefully not as content driven at Hard News outlets, but I'm skeptical) on any side of the political spectrum. My experience was that journalists only eat if they can create content. So stories get... Created. You dig?
Unfortunately, back to the grind for me. I'll say this though, you're not stupid lol. Anyone who actively reads the actual articles, much less follows embedded sources gets a healthy dose of respect from me.
Have a good night. Phew!