> didn't ignore it - was responding specifically to text/headline of one of the other articles
Why did you move on from the comment most relevant to the topic of the fact check? Fact check disputed evidence of absentee voter fraud, and firs link shows evidence.
I put the first link first to establish a common frame that the fact checkers were wrong, and the second-to-third are more advanced topics.
First link demonstrates the question we should ask: Who deserve the power of determining what is true or not? Does a committee at twitter deserve that power?
> What does "unaccounted for" mean?
That is the crux of the problem with the mail in ballot chain of trust, isn't it?
You wouldn't have to ask this question at a physical voting spot, where this would be irregular and systems are in place to document the chain-of-trust to the degree necessary for voting.
Why did you move on from the comment most relevant to the topic of the fact check? Fact check disputed evidence of absentee voter fraud, and firs link shows evidence.
I put the first link first to establish a common frame that the fact checkers were wrong, and the second-to-third are more advanced topics.
First link demonstrates the question we should ask: Who deserve the power of determining what is true or not? Does a committee at twitter deserve that power?
> What does "unaccounted for" mean?
That is the crux of the problem with the mail in ballot chain of trust, isn't it?
You wouldn't have to ask this question at a physical voting spot, where this would be irregular and systems are in place to document the chain-of-trust to the degree necessary for voting.