The author expressed hope for the “watermark” buffoonery...
The author expressed hope for the “watermark” buffoonery...
I spent some time researching some of the larger companies process for printing ballots and all of them recommend or use a security paper with some type of watermark.
The “Watermark” Nuts are the same “Trust Sessions” Nuts.
The author expressed hope for the “watermark” buffoonery...
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From the article:
‘When the news continued to be ugly, I even checked in on ridiculous bloggers promising that ballots were watermarked and..’.
You consider that expressing hope? Pretty clear he’s mocking it.
No they didn’t.
Every printwr is watermarked.
Every valid ballot is numbered.
Ballot printing is contracted with a printer whose printer automatically watermarks.
An intelligence officer and Sidney Powel both said the ballots are watermarked.
Therefore, every ballot can be traced.
It’s simple logic.
Did you read it? Here’s what he wrote:
“I even checked in on ridiculous bloggers promising that ballots were watermarked and D.J. (our household name for a president we love) was actually launching a sting on the Deep State.
Enough already. Stop the madness.”
No evidence it’s ‘buffoonery’.
Evidence exists it’s real:
https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/403148-dhs-chief-calls-on-election-officials-in-all-50-states-to-have
Plenty more evidence exists.
Does that mean it will be impactful in what comes? Not necessarily.
Should we call it a ‘hoax’? No, because it’s not.
What should we do then with this information?
We should say “This is interesting, maybe something will come of it, we’ll see”.
Sound reasonable? Yes.
Much smarter to adopt that neutral position than follow a herd of know-nothings rushing to judgment.
“We’ll see.” So easy.
Be smart.