Americans reject election deniers

he claims to be an "expert" in chain of custody!
all i have to say to that is:
:okjen:

Worked in a crime lab for over a decade. Pretty much everything we touched was chain of custody. Then, 20 years in the environmental field. Enforcement actions. You know, legal samples.

Now, buford, tell us what you know about chain of custody.
 
Worked in a crime lab for over a decade. Pretty much everything we touched was chain of custody. Then, 20 years in the environmental field. Enforcement actions. You know, legal samples.

Now, buford, tell us what you know about chain of custody.

if it's an anonymous drop box, there's no way to tell.

:truestory:
 
ah, so now you think there's a difference......

Not just now. An endorsement is not something you can talk about very much in a campaign speech. But a candidate telling his audience he believes in election fraud is boring, repetitive, and shows the candidate is willing to believe lies with no evidence.
 
you have to have laws to enforce and look for it before you can find it.......Dems are the party of no identification and ballot harvesting......what could go wrong?......

He is trying to force a negative proof. That's a fallacy. In response to your question, he will again try for a negative proof fallacy.
 
Worked in a crime lab for over a decade. Pretty much everything we touched was chain of custody. Then, 20 years in the environmental field. Enforcement actions. You know, legal samples.

Now, buford, tell us what you know about chain of custody.

Making up shit and pivoting isn't going to help you. You know nothing about chain of custody.
 
An anonymous ballot does not get counted.

No need for any chain of custody on ballots. That’s irrelevant and unnecessary. Only verification by signature that the person voted and voted once.

Argument of the Stone fallacy. Chain of custody matters, dude.
 
Not just now. An endorsement is not something you can talk about very much in a campaign speech. But a candidate telling his audience he believes in election fraud is boring, repetitive, and shows the candidate is willing to believe lies with no evidence.

Argument of the Stone fallacy. I have already shown you some of the evidence. You can't make it go away by denying it, dude.
 
Back
Top