Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> 2020 Election Audit, Is there evidence of a rigged election?
post Dec 13 2020, 02:34 PM
Post #1

Group Icon

Thaaaaanks for noticin' me

February 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 2,498
Member No.: 365
Joined: December-28-02

From: Nashville
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat

In the Biden political advisor thread, Trouble posited that the Biden administration will need to contend with an election audit.

Among the listed items were:

Reciprocation of the allegations of electoral irregularities that democrats brought up in 2016.
Flaws with electronic voting.
Constitutionality of mail-in ballots.

Additionally, President Trump has asserted that widespread fraud gave the election to Biden and that he is the true winner in the 2020 presidential election.

My position is that no credible evidence has been offered despite scores of filed court cases. And that irregularities fall in the category of lower than average.

So the questions for debate are:

Is there credible evidence of fraud in this election that took a victory from Trump and gave it to Biden?
Is there credible evidence of irregularities in this election that impacted the results of the election?

Stay safe out there folks!
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 5)
post Jan 3 2021, 02:31 AM
Post #2

Group Icon

Thaaaaanks for noticin' me

February 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 2,498
Member No.: 365
Joined: December-28-02

From: Nashville
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat

I honestly am afraid at the assaults on democracy. I don't understand how you can play political theater with attacks on our central institution and not be held to account.

Ted Cruise as exhibit number 142

My only solace is that there has been a divide between Republicans in positions of authority and Republicans on the sidelines swinging wrecking balls.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Feb 8 2021, 05:36 AM
Post #3

Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,253
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican

Just giving you guys the heads up that I'm still working on a reply for this thread as I have time. This one will cover a lot and will be the last deep dive post I can do before the baby comes so I wanted to do it right and make sure that I'm doing proper research. Ill have many sources to share and information that may be new to some members. Very few of the links I share will come from a conservative outlet, it'll mainly be either left leaning news outlets or non biased sources that I share. I want to look at some of the reasons that many journalist are saying that allegations of voter fraud are baseless or debunked and provide some raw data as well.

I think its a safe assumption that some members who read this upcoming reply will disagee so let me know if I make a mistake or there's something important to add. 👍

I'm terrible at giving timelines for when posts will be completed but I will say that I've worked on this off and on for almost a month and I'm well over halfway finished. I'm probably about 2/3rds of the way through this one so if all goes well it shouldn't be more than another couple of weeks.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Mar 17 2021, 04:42 AM
Post #4

Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,253
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican

To update everyone, I'm still working on the election fraud overview and it should be up very soon unless our baby is born early. This has become the most difficult thing I've ever written and has taken much longer than I would have thought due to a busier than normal schedule and how I decided to do research on this one. I'm extremely close to being done writing this though. Soon all that will be left to do is to make sure my text formatting was done correctly.

This post has been edited by net2007: Mar 17 2021, 04:44 AM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Mar 19 2021, 07:26 PM
Post #5

Group Icon

No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,343
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent

QUOTE(Eeyore @ Jan 2 2021, 08:31 PM) *
I honestly am afraid at the assaults on democracy. I don't understand how you can play political theater with attacks on our central institution and not be held to account.


Eeyore, the Democrats have been doing just exactly that for more than four years...have you been holding them to account?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Mar 22 2021, 03:30 AM
Post #6

Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,253
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican


We may disagree on some of this but I'll share many of the things I've learned about fraud allegations and 2020 statistical anomalies with some added details that aren't being discussed. This will be the last detailed reply that I can do before our baby is born but if there was only one post of mine that I'd recommend reading, it'd be this one. This will be quite long but I can't think of anything that's more important in politics than whether or not we can have trust in our government and institutions.

To help with the fact that many people are concerned about right-wing conspiracy theories, the majority of the substantiation I share here will come from left-leaning or centrists news sources. A lot of what I'm going to claim here can be substantiated without going to sources that favor Trump or Republicans and I welcome anyone here to fact-check the claims I make. If I get something wrong, let me know because I'll eventually be uploading a lot of this to other platforms to get the word out.

Given the length of this, I'd recommend reading this on a laptop or PC and increasing the size of the text in your browser to make this an easier read. This can be done in both Chrome and Firefox by holding Ctrl and then pressing the += button that's near backspace.

To answer your questions...

Is there credible evidence of fraud in this election that took a victory from Trump and gave it to Biden?
Is there credible evidence of irregularities in this election that impacted the results of the election?

There is abundant evidence of voter fraud, impropriety, and irregularities. The big question in my mind is, were things bad enough to hand Joe Biden the presidency? I'll address evidence credibility further down but, at a minimum, it's clear to me that the amount of evidence in this case far exceeds the amount of evidence that was used in both impeachments against Trump. Additionally, A LOT people are not being informed. We're currently in an information crisis in this country and many people don't trust others enough to take a serious look at the information they're presenting. This is especially true in political discussions.

The mainstream media bears a huge amount of responsibility for the information crisis we're in. That may very well still sound like a typical right-wing talking point to some but when it comes to politics, there are few things that are so easy to prove. The evidence for a biased and corrupt media is overwhelming, ongoing, and highly relevant to the 2020 election. So with that said, I want to address the question you asked with 3 main subsections, starting with how the media and many politicians framed election fraud because this will clear up some of the confusion we're seeing.

Section 1: How Election Fraud was Charaterized by Mainstream News Outlets

Journalists and pundits are skilled at framing the argument in way that can tell a convincing story and excellent at redirecting focus to where they want it to be. Even when what they're saying is lacking in substance or facts, they can be very compelling. Ask yourself how many journalists have repeated statements like this...

"There's no evidence of voter fraud"


"There's no evidence of widespread voter fraud"


"Baseless allegations of voter fraud"

Here's one such example...


"No evidence of voter fraud in most secure US election in history"

"US officials have said they have found no evidence votes in the presidential election were compromised in any way, rejecting baseless claims from Donald Trump that the result was in doubt due to widespread voter fraud."

You can find many other examples by typing this in a google search bar... "no evidence of voter fraud" after:2020-11-3 before:2020-12-3"

Next, consider how many of these same news outlets characterized the Trump/Russia collusion narrative. There were pundits and journalists depicting Trump as an agent of Russia long before the Mueller report was released. There were also members of the media letting on as if Trump was guilty of a Quid Pro Quo with the Ukraine in the first few weeks after that story broke when all we had to go on was the claims of an anonymous whistleblower. I'm talking about people who condemned Trump before the impeachment hearings started and who gave a massive amount of attention to the first hearsay whistleblower in that case without knowing who this person was or many of the details about the claims they were making.

In contrast, when it comes to the 2020 election, we had 100's of whistleblowers, many of whom have publically and voluntarily testified that they witnessed election fraud or abnormalities. Yet in this case, even though many of these witnesses signed affidavits that made them legally liable, numerous journalists, anchors, and media pundits have ignored or minimized their concerns almost from the start.

More importantly, although some journalists and politicians have claimed that there's no evidence of voter fraud, proving that there was "evidence" of fraud is extremely easy. We just have to think for ourselves and start with the basics. That's largely been forgotten about so I can't stress enough how important it is to break down what we hear from those who are in positions of power or influence.

So, here's the very first definition of "evidence" from Merriam Webster....

QUOTE "An outward sign: Indication"

I think a lot of the evidence of voter fraud and impropriety in this election has been extremely compelling but if we're going by the definition above then a lot of information could easily be considered evidence. Consider lie detector tests, they're usually good at revealing if someone is lying but not 100% reliable. Lie detector test results are typically not the kind of evidence that's admissible in courts but either way, the results from lie detectors are considered evidence; they're a "sign" or "indication" that someone is lying.

With that said, videos and polling data can easily be considered evidence and so can affidavits and eyewitness testimonies which are actually more commonly admissible in courts than lie detector tests. There are other definitions of the word "evidence" but based on the following source alone, it's clear to me that courts are willing to entertain definitions, such as the one I shared...

"The testimony of a witness that he saw the accused commit or participate in the commission of the crime for which the accused is being tried shall be admissible in evidence in a criminal prosecution in any trial court ordained and established under article III of the Constitution of the United States."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3502# 18 U.S. Code 3502 - Admissibility in evidence of eye witness testimony

If a simple testimony is admissible in evidence in a court of law, that fits with the definition I provided. Additionally, even outside of the courts, Democrats have relied on a similar, if not broader, definition of the word "evidence". For example, during the Trump/Ukraine impeachment, Democrats were relying heavily on hearsay evidence. Congressman Mike Quigley went as far as to say....

"I think the American public needs to be reminded that countless people have been convicted on hearsay because the courts have routinely allowed and created needed exceptions to hearsay. Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct"


I'm not sure why hearsay evidence would be "better" than direct evidence but the implications of this are profound because it puts the double standards on display even further and proves that many journalists and politicians either don't have a basic understanding of definitions, the law, or they simply don't care. I believe it's the latter but either way, they were misleading millions when they claimed that there was "no evidence" or even "no widespread evidence" because despite the controversial nature of some of the evidence, it came out of numerous states and involved hundreds of thousands of votes.

I wanted to start with this because our news media and politicians are half the reason why millions of Americans don't look into certain topics. In this case, I don't believe that many of these people wanted us entertaining the idea that there was evidence worth reviewing. The credibility of any given evidence is certainly worth discussing so it would have been different more journalists had just said...

"We're not convinced that the evidence proves that there was widespread voter fraud"


"The evidence is too weak so we're going to reserve judgment for now"

That would have been a perfectly understandable reaction to claims of widespread voter fraud because extraordinary claims should be substantiated with an extraordinary amount of evidence but as with many topics there were those who jumped to conclusions and set a narrative very early in this process. Not everything that the MSM is doing is so easy to spot. What they do the most is simply leave out or minimize important facts. That's where our news media is the most dangerous because a lie or misstatement is much easier to expose.

To illustrate this problem, I want to look at the most compelling evidence that would indicate that allegations of voter fraud and impropriety are either false or inconsequential. In numerous conversations I've seen on this topic, the number of failed court cases is being mentioned. That makes sense, I can see how it'd be very easy to dismiss the idea of widespread voter fraud/impropriety when numerous court cases that allege fraud or impropriety have failed. This would probably be the most understandable reason for some skepticism.

However, even in regards to this, there was manipulation in how this fact was presented to the public. The fact of the matter is that a decent portion of these election lawsuits were dismissed on the basis of procedure rather than merit. There was no shortage of cases that were dismissed outright before the evidence could get a thorough review. For example, Sydney Powell's lawsuit in Georgia was dismissed in large part because Judge Timothy Batten felt that the case was brought too late and sought too much relief. To Quote Judge Batten....

"In their complaint, the plaintiffs essentially ask the court for perhaps the most extraordinary relief ever sought in any federal court in connection with an election."

"They want this court to substitute its judgment for that of 2.5 million Georgia voters who voted for Joe Biden, and this I am unwilling to do."


I take issue with the way that judge framed this case because he's lumping 2.5 million voters together, many of whom wanted this lawsuit to be thoroughly reviewed. The larger point is that the reasons Batten gave here for dismissing this case had nothing to do with whether or not the allegations in the lawsuit were creditable.

To get into this a bit further, I want to take a look at how these failures in court were framed by mainstream and often respected news outlets...


These are just a handful of articles that aren't engaging in bombastic or insulting behavior, yet even when they're taking a calm tone they aren't balancing their coverage. None of these articles put emphasis on the fact that numerous court cases were dismissed on procedural grounds which meant that a substantial amount of evidence wasn't reviewed by the courts.

To briefly look at the news sources above individually...

  • Starting with the NBC News article

It doesn't even mention the fact that several lawsuits were dismissed on the basis of procedure but they do take the time to say that Trump is...

QUOTE "tweeting dozens of debunked theories"

Although NBC provides a source, they never go over the debunked Trump theories in this article so that seems far less relevant to the subject they're covering than the fact that numerous lawsuits weren't being dismissed because they had no merit. I say that because it's clear that their article is about dismissed court cases.
  • To look at the USA Today article.
It briefly mentions that there were court cases that were dismissed on procedural grounds but they don't emphasize it. However, they do take the time to say...

QUOTE "Despite all the lawsuits, recounts and false voter fraud allegations the Electoral College on Dec. 14 elected Biden the next president by a margin of 306 to 232"
  • Lastly, to address The Associated Press news article.

It was specifically addressing the Texas lawsuit that was dismissed by the Supreme Court. It's a little hard to avoid the fact that the evidence, in that case, wasn't reviewed but to look at how they're framing this one, I'll give them a little more credit. At a minimum, I found this quote in the AP article...

"The Supreme Court dismissed the case without addressing most of the lawsuit's allegations."

[The AP expands on this by quoting a brief statement that was released by the Supreme Court...]

"The Supreme Court dismissed the case on this issue. It said in a brief order that Texas "has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections."

Legal experts said Texas had no right to bring this lawsuit in the first place because it doesn't get a say in how other states run their elections and has not suffered any real harm. And even if it did have a legitimate case, it was brought too late, experts say.

So in this article, The AP is basically admitting that one of the most prominent election lawsuits was dismissed without "most" of the evidence getting reviewed yet despite this fact, the headline of this article reads...

QUOTE "Dismissed Election Case Pushed Debunked Claims"

There's a fair amount of research that suggests the headlines and first couple of paragraphs of news articles are what's most commonly read. That's where the biggest impression is made on the reader and not every article is read from start to finish. Journalists and editors know this and use it to their advantage.

To look at the headline above, how many voter fraud claims was The AP alleging were debunked? All of them? Including the majority of the claims that, according to them, weren't reviewed by the Supreme Court? Also, who debunked them if not the Supreme Court? They do at least go over four of the claims that were made in the Texas lawsuit and give a couple of sources for substantiation but they leave a lot out and group numerous things together. For example, take a look at the following quote from their article...

"THE LAWSUIT CLAIMS: There are "facts for which no independently verified reasonable explanation yet exists."

THE FACTS: Each of the listed "facts" has an independently verified explanation."

The AP follows this up with three paragraphs that address a couple of the listed "facts" that were in the lawsuit but the "facts" section of the lawsuit goes on for 17 pages and raises a lot more than what The AP covers in their article so we're basically left with taking The AP at their word that the rest of the stated facts in the lawsuit were indeed debunked...


If it's a political matter, you can find lawyers and media pundits who will go after the merits and specific charges that are made in any lawsuit that they disagree with. In fact, our law is set up in a fashion that criminal defense lawyers and prosecutors often need to disagree on the merits in order to properly represent their clients. My primary point here is that in numerous election lawsuits, the merits often weren't getting thoroughly reviewed by the courts that were directly involved. Court hearings would have offered the best opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses.

To the credit of skeptics it wasn't just liberal dominate courts that were responsible for several of these election lawsuits getting blocked before the evidence was thoroughly reviewed. It's obvious that the Supreme Court didn't want to look deeply into these cases either but I think this highlights something interesting. For all of the talk about how conservatives justices were going to overturn Roe VS. Wade or hand Trump the election, they really don't want to get involved. They're prone to interpret election interference by the courts as a separation of powers issue and didn't want to get involved in our election in 2000 either...


"Bush v. Gore, case in which, on December 12, 2000, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed a Florida Supreme Court request for a selective manual recount of that state's U.S. presidential election ballots. The 5-4 decision effectively awarded Florida's 25 votes in the electoral college-and thus the election itself-to Republican candidate George W. Bush."

To wrap this section up, when I say that the MSM is very good at framing the argument in a way that pushes their preferred narrative, the 2020 election is one good example of many. The Associated Press article could have just as easily been titled...

"Texas Lawsuit dismissed without a review of key evidence, will evidence of voter fraud and impropriety be heard by our courts?"

Instead of...

"Dismissed Election Case Pushed Debunked Claims"

The headline shouldn't have to be phrased the way I did either but what's revealing is that all of these sources were selective in what they highlighted and in such a way that it allowed for a similar characterization of the evidence. There are news sources and articles that are much more bombastic than the ones I shared here but the sources that are more subtle and simply omit or minimize crucial facts are probably more effective at swaying public opinion. I'll touch on the media a bit more in this reply when it's relevant but want to dive into the next section...

Section 2: How The 2020 Election Broke Multiple Trends

Before I share some of the direct evidence of fraud and impropriety, I want to go over a few things that, at a minimum, should raise some eyebrows. In large part, this is the kind of data that prompted me to do more research on this. None of what I'm going to say in this section is proof of widespread voter fraud or impropriety but it is the kind of information that you'd expect to see if there was either widespread fraud or errors in the last election.

  • Bellwether States and Counties

Many have heard about Trump's Bellwether victories but numerous details on this topic are quite revealing.

I'll start with Ohio as a bellwether state. Historically speaking, the president who wins Ohio usually wins the election. In fact, this happened in 29 out of the last 31 presidential elections, including in 2016. The last time a presidential candidate won Ohio but didn't win or maintain the presidency was in 1960 when John F. Kennedy went up against Richard Nixon. Some analysts, especially following the 2020 election, have called into question Ohio's status as a bellwether state and are suggesting that trends are changing.

I'm not sure if that's true but even if I were to assume that they're right and Ohio's status as a bellwether state is slipping, there's a lot more to consider. For starters, the race in Ohio wasn't close, not only did Trump win in Ohio, he won that state by 8 points...


A lot of people would look at this and ask...

A president won Ohio but lost the election, it's happened before so why is this important?

For me this underlines the importance of doing more digging so that it can be determined if there's a deeper body of data to go on. With that said, when it comes to bellwethers, not only did Trump win Ohio And Florida, which no Republican since Nixon has won without winning the election, Trump also won 18 out of 19 bellwether counties and he didn't win them by a little either, he won them by an average of double digits.

To quote The Associated Press...

"Of the 19 counties that had a perfect record between 1980 and 2016, all but one voted to reelect President Donald Trump, who lost to Joe Biden in both the national popular vote and in nearly every battleground state."


One of these bellwether counties has even accurately voted with the president who wins dating back to 1956, that's Indiana's Vigo County and Trump won that one as well. Of course, just as with Trump's Ohio win, there are members of the media who are dismissive of this fact. My suspicion is that papers like The Associated Press cover stories like this to get ahead of those who are willing to entertain the possibility of voter fraud/impropriety, but that's me. To quote The AP again...

"The country's tribalized politics seem to have finally reached these places that used to routinely swing from one party to the other. The only county that maintained its place as a bellwether is Clallam County, in Washington state.

The ones in the middle all crumbled, leaving many here wondering whether this was merely a Trump-fueled fluke or whether the country has cleaved itself so firmly into two opposing camps that these old political standard-bearers are obsolete."

At no point does The AP entertain the possibility that these bellwethers were off because the election itself was off. In their minds, it's either a "Trump-fueled fluke" or these bellwethers are obsolete because people are more polarized now and committed to either political party. The idea goes that bellwethers only work if there are a lot of impartial swing voters. The problem I have with this theory is that Americans have been polarized for years already. I'd argue that in 2016 we had plenty of Americans who were dug into their political parties. Things may have gotten more heated in the last few years but in 2016, millions of Americans would either oppose or support Trump no matter what happened.

If what The Associated Press is claiming is true, I'd expect for the number of independent voters to drop between 2016 and 2020, but it didn't...


In 2020...

QUOTE "Around a third of registered voters in the U.S. (34%) identify as independents, while 33% identify as Democrats and 29% identify as Republicans"

And according to the other PEW Research article, in 2016 34% identified as independents, so virtually no change between 2016 and 2020. I took a deeper look into this and discovered that not only does this trend hold up in swing states, apparently the number of registered independents in swing states has gone up since 2016...

https://truthout.org/articles/critical-swin...pendent-voters/ (This is a news source that I haven't heard of before but it's a left-leaning source and this article has numerous substantiating links.)

Perhaps there are other factors at play but if America's bellwether states and counties are reliant on impartial swing voters and the number of independent voters in America hasn't dropped, it stands to reason that bellwethers could still be viable.

Much more importantly, Trump not only maintained his margin for victory in Ohio between 2016 and 2020 but in the bellwether counties as well. The AP addressed one such example very briefly in this quote...

"Trump won in Terre Haute by 15 percentage points, holding his margin of victory in 2016."

I researched several other bellwether counties and came up with similar results. In fact, Trump slightly increased his margin for victory in some bellwether counties since 2016. As an example, if you look at Virginia's Westmorland County, in 2016 Trump got 52.2% of the vote to Hillary Clintons 44.9% and in 2020 Trump got 53.7% to Bidens 45.4%...


Here's why this is important. These Bellwether states and counties accurately predicted that Trump would win in 2016 so essentially mainstream news outlets are suggesting that the dynamics of America's bellwethers dramatically changed in a matter of 4 years without it affecting Trump's margin of victory in these same bellwether counties and states. The fact that this revelation slips by The AP calls into question whether or not they're taking a truly objective look into the very information that they're presenting.

This doesn't mean that Trump winning all of these bellwethers is impossible to explain unless there was widespread fraud or impropriety but it does mean that the theories that news outlets like The AP are giving us for why these bellwethers were wrong are questionable. Winning Ohio and the vast majority of the bellwether counties is simply consistent with a successful presidential election. Given some of the details on this topic alone, I'd call this rather strange but if weren't for other peculiar trends in 2020 I'd have no problem calling this a coincidence.

To move on...

  • Usually, the party that picks up seats down-ballot during a presidential election is the same party that wins the presidency.

To get into this, consider that in the 2020 election, Republicans flipped 14 seats in the House for a net gain of 11 seats, they picked up a Governor's seat and had a net gain of 141 seats in the State Legislature. Republicans did lose 1 seat in the Senate in November but given that they were defending more seats in the Senate, State Legislature, and Gubernatorial races, the amount of gains Republicans made was impressive, especially given the outcome of the presidential race. Democrats had a favorable layout to gain seats in every type of race that was held in the fall of 2020. Even in the House where Democrats and Republicans were defending an equal amount of seats, over half of those seats either leaned blue or were solid blue. 229 out of 435 seats to be exact.

To quote the Washington Examiner...

"Before the election, the Cook Political Report listed 229 seats as either "solid Democrat," "likely Democrat," or "lean Democrat" to go along with the 26 toss-ups. As of Thursday, the party's best hope is for 226 seats, though the Cook Political Report rates 223 as the most likely outcome"


News was even worse for Democrats further down the ballot where the "blue wave" was supposed to help loosen control of the Republican grip on state legislative chambers ahead of next year's redistricting process. Yet, according to FiveThirtyEight statistician Nate Silver, Republicans won "almost every election where redistricting was at stake."

When the dust settled, Democrats did not flip a single state legislative chamber, while Republicans surprisingly flipped both the Senate and the House in New Hampshire."


Other sources...


Republicans did eventually lose the Georgia runoff elections in January which cost them two additional Senate seats but the dynamics of the race had changed since the presidential election. Several polls reveal that a majority of Republicans believe that there was widespread voter fraud, 77% of them according to Quinnipiac...


2020 was very demoralizing for Republicans so between that and Mitch McConnell deciding to play some of the same games that Nancy Pelosi did for months by stalling Covid-19 relief, the dynamics of the race had changed by the time January rolled around, not to mention the fact that Trump was no longer on the ballot. With that said, I'm looking strictly at the results of the November election because at that time Senators Perdue and Loeffler had a plurality of votes.

Putting aside the wins in the State Legislature and Gubernatorial races, the party that gains seats in the House alone won the presidential race 10 out of the last 14 times and at least one of the exceptions to this rule was very close. In 2000 Bush Jr. won the presidency yet Republicans lost ground in the House, but only by 1 seat...


Overall, this isn't as strange or unlikely as Trump winning the bellwethers by a hefty margin yet losing but the results Republicans saw in the House still tend to be consistent with a successful presidential run especially with so many other down-ballot wins for Republicans Again, this doesn't prove that there was widespread voter fraud. Similar to Trump's bellwether wins, picking up numerous seats down-ballot is simply consistent with the same party winning the presidential race.

  • In well over a century, no incumbent president has increased the number of votes that they gained in the previous election without being re-elected

Here again, it's not as if Trump gained a few more votes than he did in 2016, he increased his vote total by 10 million votes and still managed to lose and that has never happened throughout all of American history. It's mainly right-wing sources that have reported on this one. For example...


"Not since President Grover Cleveland's re-election campaign in 1888 has a sitting president won more votes the second time around and still lost, which is one reason he successfully ran again four years later."

I will say that media bias fact-checking sites tend not to like sources like The Federalist and rate them as extreme right. For those who don't like or trust conservative news sources, it's easy enough to fact-check the claims that any news outlet makes. I did my own fact check on this particular claim by using 270towin.com which is a more recognizable source...


Anyone here is welcome to compare the electoral and popular vote counts for any president. It's set on 1988 in the link above but it's easy to hit back and forth to compare any elections. For example in 1988 George Bush Sr. got 48,886,597 votes but in 1992 he only got 39,104,545 votes and not surprisingly, he lost re-election. The same thing happened to Jimmy Carter, in 1976 he got 40,825,839 votes but in 1980 he only got 35,483,820 votes and lost reelection. It should be obvious that when a president loses support in his first term, it can significantly hurt their chances of getting reelected.

This usually works in the other direction as well, a president who picks up support during their first term usually gets reelected. Obama was one of the exceptions to this rule but he didn't shed anywhere near the number of votes that Trump gained between 2016 and 2020. 10 million votes is a significant change in support for any president. If Obama had shed 10 million votes he would have lost to Mitt Romney.

Considering history, Trump gaining 10 million votes is not what you'd expect for a failed presidential run but certainly not impossible.

  • In contrast Joe Biden managed to get 10 million more votes than Obama while simultaneously winning fewer counties nationwide than Obama did.

To be more specific, for a winning presidential candidate, Biden picked up a record low number of counties nationwide period yet he managed to get the highest popular vote total in history. This one is just bizarre and would mark another thing that's never happened before. In fact, it's two things that have never happened before occurring together, a record low and a record high for the same candidate occurring in the same election. These are two records that shouldn't go together and for this to be possible at all it would mean that Joe Biden would have had to dramatically increase his vote totals in highly populated counties. Contrary to this debunked claim by The Gateway Pundit and Townhall...

QUOTE "Biden underperformed Hillary Clinton in every major metro area around the country, save for Milwaukee, Detroit, Atlanta and Philadelphia"

Biden appears to have actually done well in many cities. The reason I'm bringing this up is that coincidently America's populated counties tend to be blue counties where Democrats have more political power. Again, this doesn't prove that widespread voter fraud occurred but logically speaking, those who would have the most motive to commit or encourage election fraud against Trump would be his political opponents.

USA Today is one of the left-leaning sources that acknowledged Joe Biden won a record low number of counties...


"On Dec. 8, the think tank updated its report with new data. The updated report showed that Biden won 509 counties, while Trump won 2,547 counties. Results from 28 counties have still not been finalized, per Brookings Institution.

But according to the updated data, Biden won 16.7% of counties with finalized results. That represents a record-low proportion for a winning presidential candidate.

Obama set the previous record in 2012 - with 689 counties, equal to 22%. Before that, he also set a record in 2008 with just 28% of counties, per NBC News."

As the link suggests, at the time of their article, there were still 28 counties without finalized results but even if Biden has picked up every one of those 28 counties (extremely unlikely), Biden's record low was 180 counties lower than the previous record low. Regardless, USA Today finishes their fact check by saying that this claim is "MISSING CONTEXT" but If you read the whole article it's for the reason I already mentioned. They're suggesting that Biden could still get more votes than any other president if he did very well in the counties where he won.

"We rate memes that call into question whether Joe Biden won the most ever votes based on the fact that he won a record-low number of counties as MISSING CONTEXT, because without additional context they could be misleading."

I've found that left-leaning sources and fact-checkers often characterize things that are true as "missing context" but the way that they present information often misses important context, that's the irony. USA Today used a context that was dismissive of the fact that they were reviewing. They could have used a sentence like the next one as context...

Biden not only lost a record amount of counties for any successful presidential run, he managed to perform at least 152 counties worse than the previous low record yet despite this, he got more votes than any president in American history!

However this is framed, it's clear that Bidens win was almost entirely dependant on areas where Democrats tend to have more control of the local governments and more influence over voting locations That's not true in every case but whether they like it or not this is a statistical fact that is highly consistent with a fraudulent election. I don't think that these types of things should be taken as proof of widespread fraud but if these sources were doing their job, they would be looking into things like this with more journalistic curiosity.


  • In swing states, Republicans narrowed the margin of newly registered voters...


To quote Time.com...

"How many voters are registered with each party in a state is hardly predictive of a race's outcome, but it can show you how close of a mark you're starting with. While Democrats appear to be dominating Republicans in early-vote numbers nationally by 13 percentage points, they had roughly the same lead four years ago and it proved insufficient. Republicans say they've made improvements on the margins to make it even tougher for Democrats now."

As this article is pointing out, the number of new voters a party registers isn't necessarily reflective of who's going to win but this shows that Trump had an advantage over his numbers in 2016 with registering new voters. In short, it was a positive sign for Trump and is something that should improve a candidate's chances of winning.

To wrap this section up, while none of this proves that there was widespread voter fraud in 2020, consider everything in this section in its totality.

Things like increasing vote totals by 10 million votes are, on their own, consistent with a successful presidential run. I'm sure it's possible for something like to happen for a candidate who loses an election but is it statistically probable for all of these things to happen together in the same election for a candidate who doesn't win? Personally, I think this is reason enough to at least investigate the 2020 election but anyone here is free to judge that for themselves.

For time purposes, I didn't cover every 2020 election anomaly in this section. Some have gone as to say that it's impossible for there not to have been widespread voter fraud or errors in this election based on how many statistical norms have been broken. I don't hold that view, I think elections are too complicated for this to be 100% conclusive. Also, not everything pointed to a Trump win. For example, the national polling clearly favored Biden although the national polls are getting a reputation for being unreliable in presidential elections. The national polls in the 2020 election were off by a larger margin than they were in 2016 in some states so I keep that in mind as well.

Whether or not there was widespread voter fraud and impropriety in 2020, what's been most revealing for me in all of this is how popular news outlets are covering these types of statistical anomalies. A portrayal of skepticism or dismissiveness is almost always the common denominator no matter how bizarre the facts are that are being covered and this trend is especially true when the media has covered evidence in the form of affidavits, security footage, etc. etc. So to move on to the next section...

Section 3: Direct Evidence of Voter Fraud and Impropriety.

When I say direct evidence I'm talking about evidence that isn't hearsay. This section will cover 1st hand testimonies, affidavits, and video evidence. There's more of that than I could possibly cover in one reply so I'm just going to go over a few of the more obvious signs of fraud and impropriety here and then leave an important link where hundreds of sources are shared, including additional affidavits.

  • The Georgia State Farm Arena Security Footage.

We can start with the most obvious controversy that came out of Georgia which was the security footage that proved that a very small group of election workers resumed counting ballots late at night after nearly everyone left including poll observers and the media. I classify this as a case of impropriety. Quite possibly outright fraud as well but I want to start with what's obvious.

First I want to share a left-leaning fact-checker and a source that's skeptical of this video evidence just to help anyone who may think that this is doctored footage. Additionally, I want to look at how they're framing this because it'll help explain why this video has been forgotten about with time.

Here's WSB-TV's take on this video evidence, (a local news station that airs in Atlanta)....


Here's a fact check from Lead Stories regarding the video evidence....


Numerous fact-checkers presented this story in a misleading fashion. One of several approaches that were used by fact-checkers was to cover this story by emphasizing the following misstatement by Trump's legal team...

QUOTE "Video from GA shows suitcases filled with ballots pulled from under a table after poll workers left"

Many fact-checkers have rated this as false and correct the record by pointing out that the ballots were actually pulled out from under a table in ballot boxes rather than in suitcases. Personally, I don't care if they pulled ballots out from under a table in happy meal boxes or when these covered ballots were brought back out. The whole point of the video evidence is that it proves that ballots were being counted in the middle of the night without observers present. There were election workers who had the responsibility of ensuring that ballots were being counted fairly and properly. You can't have a small handful of people counting ballots late at night after the media and observers had already left and expect for that to go over well. Especially when a number of election workers were testifying to numerous other questionable occurrences.

So fact-checkers generally approached this story by focusing on statements that they felt they could debunk. To give another example, instead of trying to fact check the specific claims that were made by whistleblowers about why nearly everybody left State Farm Arena on election night, some fact-checkers took the approach of trying to fact check what others had to say about these whistleblowers claims...



"Their affidavits filed in support of President Donald Trump's lawsuit aimed at overturning Joe Biden's Georgia win both said a supervisor "yelled" to the election workers who were prepping ballots for scanning to "stop working" and return the next morning. The observers said they eventually followed those workers out, but they never claimed they were told to go, prevented from staying, or banned from returning"

My concern with these fact-checkers is that important underlying facts are being overshadowed by semantics. Here again, the common denominator is that many sources in our news media are highlighting facts and opinions that cast doubts on any possibility that there was fraud or impropriety in 2020.

So to take a more direct approach let's look at one of the affidavits that Lead Stories references to see if what they're saying is creditable...


"Sometime after 10 o'clock P.M., the counting activity slowed. Shortly afterward, a younger lady with long braided but blond hair yelled out to all of them they should stop working and come back tomorrow (the next day, Wednesday, November 4th) at 8:30 A.M.. Thereafter, all but 4 election employees left State Farm, leaving just the blond haired lady (who Michelle and I assumed was the supervisor), two older ladies and Regina Waller at the location."

The claim he's making here is consistent with the evidence, there's no doubt about it. For starters, it was quite clear that election workers in Fulton County were told that they were done for the night based on election night reporting alone...


I trust this local news report, the article, and even ABC News in this case based on the simple fact that these reports were all released on election night, long before the State Farm Arena video was publicized and long before Georgia became a hotspot for controversy. In other words, there was no motive for these sources to embellish or use diversionary semantics.

The State Farm Arena Security footage is further corroboration because it's clear that only a handful of people were present late into the night when counting resumed. The following New York Times article also acknowledges that there was an instruction for election workers to leave...

"Late on Nov. 3, election workers in Fulton County, Georgia, heard that they would be allowed to go home for the night. So they packed uncounted ballots into suitcases and prepared to lock up for the evening."


So this lends credibility to whistleblowers like Mitchell Harrison. There are a couple of claims made in his affidavit that would be hard to check on, especially now given that we're not going to have court hearings but if whistleblowers are telling the truth on this point, at a minimum it becomes a lot easier to entertain other claims that they're making. However, our media decided to focus in on misstatements made by Trump's legal team instead.

There's a lot more to unpack about the approach that fact-checkers are using, for anyone interested in considering a conservative source you can go here...


This is a well-sourced article and effectively counters several points that fact-checking sites are making, it's useful if you want to get both sides of the story. Our news media is far from the only American institution where trust has become a factor. There were politicians using very broad language by claiming that this video evidence was debunked. This claim of a "debunked" video was made very early on, as in the very first time the video was shown in Georgia.

Here's the full Georgia election hearing that shows the State Farm Arena security footage, as it was being presented for the first time...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRCXUNOwOjw (There were many testimonies in this hearing so skip ahead to the 52:15 mark to see the relevant part.)

Senator Elena Parent had this to say about the evidence she had just observed...

QUOTE "Frankly, this has been debunked for weeks by our secretary of states office"

What does she mean the video evidence had been debunked for weeks? That hearing took place on December 3rd and the video evidence was being presented for the first time...


"Thursday, a Georgia Senate Judiciary subcommittee heard new jaw-dropping allegations of alleged election fraud in the state from several people including President Donald Trump's attorney, Rudy Giuliani.

The supposed video tape evidence alleges proof of ballots being counted without oversight."

It was also stated clearly in the hearing and in the NYT article that I shared earlier that the video was being presented for the first time so I don't understand. Was the video evidence debunked weeks before it was even presented? How many weeks exactly? Was it debunked before the election took place?

In regards to many of these cases, the problem I have is that the counterarguments that are being made are often not nearly as detailed as the evidence and testimonies that were provided by the whistleblowers themselves. There are clear exceptions to this rule but a decent portion of the counterarguments are either nondescriptive or aimed at very specific claims or misstatements that can be debunked. Beyond that, numerous allegations have been ignored.

This tendency to downplay critical evidence has not only been the case with numerous journalists and politicians but with some of our elected officials and managers as well...


QUOTE "Fact: Election officials have said the surveillance video shows normal ballot processing."

A few people counting ballots alone in the middle of the night in a city as large as Atlanta isn't normal but let's look at the substantiation that The New York Times presented in their article to make that specific claim...


"Fulton County is committed to serving voters with free, fair and transparent elections conducted in compliance with state and federal laws. Elections this year have faced a number of unprecedented challenges. One of the most serious of these challenges has been rampant misinformation.

During the last week, false claims about Fulton County's elections have been widely circulated. One specific claim involves the counting of absentee ballots, and security footage presented out of context.

Fulton County has cooperated fully with the Secretary of State's investigation of the events that occurred, which concluded that there was no fraud or any unusual behavior.

Voter fraud is a serious matter and any credible incidents will be investigated and handled as provided by law.

We are also concerned about the safety of our employees and are working with the Fulton County Police Department. In addition, we are reviewing all security protocols as we prepare for the January 5 Election."

This statement has very little in the way of substance and absolutely no sources so here again, I feel obligated to ask for details. Exactly who debunked the video evidence and what did they say specifically? Did they debunk everything or just some misstatement by Trump's legal team? I believe that this specific NYT article is referencing comments made by voting implementation manager Gabriel Sterling who said that the security footage shows "normal ballot processing". Both of the fact-checking sites I shared along with the prior NYT article above all use Sterling as one of only a couple of direct sources.

Lastly, this NYT article actually says that it was "suitcases" that were pulled out from under a table...

"Background: As reported by The New York Times, late on Nov. 3, election workers in Fulton County, Ga., heard that they would be allowed to stop the vote-counting and retire for the evening. So they packed uncounted ballots into suitcases and prepared to lock up. When word came that they couldn't leave yet, they dragged the suitcases back out and began counting the ballots again."

So were these ballots in suitcases or ballot boxes? I think that any source that's doing a "fact" check should have their story straight because one of these fact checks is wrong.

For me, this research basically cemented the idea that many fact-checkers are as narrative driven as they are fact driven. In this case, I believe these types of fact-checkers found a couple of people who framed this security footage in a dismissive fashion and they took what they said as fact. Either way, none of these sources dispute the fact that State Farm Arena was nearly empty when ballot counting continued and that's what's key.

I consider this a case of election impropriety for some of the same reasons that I imagine many people would. Here's how a center-left news source emphasized the importance of election observers prior to the 2018 midterms...

"Georgia's high-profile election on Tuesday will be closely watched, not just to see who wins, but to ensure that voter's rights are protected and their ballots are counted.

Election observers from several nonprofits are fanning out across the state to assist voters and report problems with long lines, voter registration and the state's 16-year-old electronic voting machines."


"The Democratic Party of Georgia is also sending many poll watchers across Georgia"


"voters need to also be protected from "suppression and last-minute intimidation."


To move on, I want to share one of the most convincing testimonies I've heard...

  • The Voyles Testimony

To focus on Georgia again, I want to share a testimony that Suzi Voyles gave and then address the credibility and temperament of those who are handling our elections.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynNiJQNg-wk (If this video goes down, Suzi's testimony, along with others, can be found in the full election hearing video that I shared earlier.)

I highly recommend looking into this if you haven't already. Suzi Voyles has worked as a poll manager for over 20 years. Anyone here is welcome to do research to see if she has a history of lying or other questionable behavior that would call into question her sincerity but I found nothing. She was also very detailed in her descriptions and had good answers when she was questioned, including when she was being pressed by Senator Elena Parent, the politician that I mentioned earlier. If anything, Elena Parent came across as agitated and nervous, as if she was worried that these testimonies could hurt Democrats but you're free to judge that for yourselves...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efqUE_E_ZuE (This is a body language reading of Elena Parent that shows how she handled a couple of different testimonies during the Georgia hearing. This body language reader has a bit of a bias but makes a number of good points about Elena Parent's temperament.)

As far as Suzi Voyles is concerned, watch the testimony if you can. I don't have a transcript for this so for time purposes, I can't repeat everything Voyles said but her Affidavit can be read here...

https://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/show_temp-7.pdf (This affidavit isn't long but given it's in PDF format I can't copy text from this either.)

As part of yet another article that USA Today wrote where they're framing election fraud/impropriety in a dismissive fashion, they did give a paraphrasing of some of the claims Voyles made...

"Voyles said she observed a box of 800 suspicious ballots, mostly for Biden, during the hand audit Nov. 14. The voting cards were "pristine", she said, with no folds or bent edges. They were "unusually uniform", she said in her affidavit which she believed was a sign they were fraudulent."

They didn't go into much detail on this or other claims Voyles made so to elaborate, Suzi's testimony is in reference to one of the election audits that took place when election workers were being tasked with verifying that ballots were accurately counted. The testimony she gave suggests that there was a box of ballots that wasn't properly sealed and it contained ballots that had identical flaws to other ballots as if one ballot was photocopied and then printed out many times over.

Additionally, Voyles claims what many poll observers have, that there was a difference in how some election workers were being treated. To rewrite part of her affidavit, this is what Voyles testified happened the day after they discovered this box of suspicious ballots...

"Interestingly, we were told to go back to our original table. Even though the room was sparsely occupied, we were surrounded with two auditors immediately in front of us and two auditors immediately behind us. We began to notice a greater disparity in the distribution of workloads. Although the auditing tables surrounding us arrived later, they were assigned large boxes of ballots before we were given. When our box arrived - after a 45 minute wait - I opened the box to find only 60 ballots....."

Voyles goes on to say that when they requested more ballots, they were told that their assistance was no longer needed and asked to go home despite offering to help other counters who still had a workload of thousands of ballots. On this point, Voyles also testified that they were told "not to have drinks or food of any kind on the table" but that there was food on other tables provided by Fulton County Board of Elections ("BOE").

The USA Today article didn't attempt to debunk Suzi's testimony. They simply ended her segment of their article by saying...

"The Georgia lawsuit, like most others, failed in court. Since the November hearing, a YouTube video of Voyles describing what she saw has amassed 350,000 views."


I don't consider evidence in the form of a testimony as proof of fraud but Democrats have gone after Trump aggressively for less than a testimony like this one alone. Again, look back on the comments of media pundits and politicians in the first couple of weeks after the Russia/Ukraine Quid Pro Quo story broke. As mentioned previously, Trump was condemned very early based on the allegations of an anonymous whistleblower whose claims were largely unknown at the time. If that was enough to get the ball rolling on an impeachment, there should have been a lot more focus on these kinds of testimonies, especially given the fact that whistleblowers like Voyles found what they were saying important enough to show their face despite the risk of facing consequences.

I doubt that most Americans have seen the Voyles testimony because it went on to become part of another lawsuit that was dismissed on the basis of procedure.

As before, Judge Timothy Batten spoke in rather broad terms about this lawsuit when he dismissed it although I don't doubt that's standard for lawsuits that are dismissed on procedural grounds, "Lack of Standing" in this case, to be specific. This case, like several others, didn't get hearings. To quote the dismissal...

"Wood lacks standing to pursue his claims. Accordingly, the Court need not reach the merits of Wood's TRO argument, and this case will be dismissed."

I saw only a couple of vague references to the actual merits of the case and nothing on the Voyles testimony and affidavit. The Order for dismal by the judge was directed largely at Lin Wood himself...


To shift focus, interestingly enough Suzi Voyles predicted that she'd get fired for speaking out...

QUOTE "Voyles said she expects to lose her position as a poll manager now that she's a whistleblower, as she put it." (This quote is from the last USA Today article that I shared.)

Although Georgia's Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, was very critical of the effort to investigate voter fraud in Georgia, at a minimum he did denounce poll workers like Voyles getting fired...

"I condemn in the strongest terms the decision by Fulton County elections officials to fire two poll managers purely for raising concerns about the November elections," said Raffensperger."


I don't know what establishment Republicans like Raffensperger expected would happen. When it comes to politics, it's been clear for many years that some people will unjustly target their opposition if they feel their beliefs are being threatened. I'm mentioning this because if someone like Voyles can get fired for simply raising some concerns then it's going to raise questions about those who deal with our elections, just as many other things have. The firing of whistleblowers also lends credibility to the observers who testified that they were bullied or kept from getting close enough to the ballot counting process to do their jobs. That's not to say that election officials and managers are untrustworthy by nature but they're human. Just as in any other line of work there are going to be those who break the rules or let their bias affect their work.

To further address the credibility and temperament of some election workers, here's a video of one of them apparently flipping off the ballots he's counting...


The Youtuber who's commenting on this is obviously trying to make sense of what's happening here and jumps to the conclusion that this poll worker is throwing ballots away. I'm not convinced that's the case but it's clear that this poll worker is hot-tempered, at one point he kicks back and throws his fist forward, he flips off the table in front of him where he's counting ballots, and then he crumbles something up and discards it.

The way I'm verifying that clips like this are real is largely by running into left-leaning news sources that are acknowledging but minimizing them...


"CLAIM: A video showing the ballot count in Fulton County, Georgia, shows fraud because a poll worker processing absentee ballots crumples one up.

THE FACTS: Election officials say the poll worker in the video did not crumple or discard a ballot.

"It's been questioned whether the poll worker featured in the video was discarding one of those ballots. The answer is no, undeniably no," Barron told reporters at a Friday evening news conference at the Fulton County elections warehouse in Atlanta. "At no time was the poll worker able to extract a ballot."

Later, this article does briefly address the behavior of this particular poll worker...

QUOTE "The poll worker appears to gesture in an animated way, and then crumple up a small piece of paper."

Here again, our media is taking evidence that should raise concerns and focusing almost entirely on aspects that can reassure the public that there was virtually nothing wrong with the 2020 election. Suzi Voyles got fired for calmly and respectfully giving a testimony. On the other hand, this election worker threw a temper tantrum while counting sensitive ballots and gets turned into a martyr by ABC News.

To move on...

  • Pennsylvania Election Fraud Hearing


Just as with the Georgia hearing there are several individual whistleblowers who testify here. To be brief about this hearing, one of the whistleblowers, (Kim Peterson), talks about how she and other election workers were kept at a distance from where ballots were being counted, which is consistent with what other whistleblowers in PA were claiming. In this case, Peterson testified that observers and canvassers were kept about 15 -20 feet away from where the closest ballots were being counted and as far away as 50 to 100 feet from others. That testimony begins in the video at the 46:40 mark, I'd recommend looking at that testimony and the two that follow it. They're very short, only a couple of minutes per testimony.

  • Lastly, here's a compiled list of affidavits, testimonies, statistics, and historical references that either cover evidence of voter fraud, abnormalities, or something related closely related to it. There are over 1600 examples compiled in this list.


Airtable isn't a political website, it's basically an online spreadsheet that was utilized to compile a list. Not everything listed here is direct evidence so to explain what I meant by "historical references" some of the links are simply educational or meant to provide context. For example, there's a link to a piece that the New York Times did in 2018...


This is a video series where The New York Times brought in computer scientist Alex Halderman who demonstrated that electronic voting machines can be hacked. He went as far as to say that "these machines have got to go" After looking at this, I did some digging of my own and found out that a number of left-wing and center-left news outlets have covered the vulnerability of our electronic voting machines. Here's a CNBC report where it's being demonstrated that voting machines can be hacked...


The New York Times link was likely shared in that compiled list as a historical reference, not only because it can inform the public that hacking voting machines is possible, but to expose the change in tone on display by our news media. The NYT video series was mentioning Russia as a potential threat prior to the 2018 midterms, however, now that there's a threat that could have been posed by Trump's political opponents in deep blue counties, the news media has either gone silent on this issue or have given the impression that there's little to be concerned about with electronic voting machines.

As for the compiled list of over 1600 irregularities, affidavits, testimonies, etc. etc. I haven't had the time to go through many of the sources that are shared in that list so I'd expect by now that there's going to be a few dead links or links to affidavits that are questionable or have been debunked. Also, many of the sources in that list are very conservative so here's what I suggest. If you don't like one of the sources that are shared in the list, it's easy to just copy the text for one of the links as I've done here...

QUOTE "Polling place illegally handed out gift cards for absentee ballots"

and search for it online. If I remember right the claim above is another one that has video evidence. Very early on I saw a news report that covered a young lady who was offering gift cards to get people to vote which I'm pretty sure is a federal crime. If anyone here wants to do research on that, I'd be curious to know what you can come up with.

I haven't had the time in this reply to cover most of the evidence that I've looked at but I will say that some of the problems with our elections aren't unique to 2020 and have been going on for decades. The controversy surrounding ballot harvesting is one good example. As for election safeguards like signature verification, they're imperfect but I believe they should be worked on rather than abolished so that voter fraud can be reduced but with a minimal impact on legitimate ballots. In 2020 we saw a loosening of certain safeguards for mail-in ballots and a massive increase in the amount of mail-in voting which was another reason many people have been concerned about fraud.

For those who decide to do more research on this, I'd recommend not relying solely on Google for political research but anyone who's willing to look into the 2020 election with sincerity is already going further than what many are willing to do. All I can do here is recommend not only taking a look at what the media is covering but also consider what they're leaving out because sometimes that reveals a lot about their intentions and introduces important facts into a topic. On this topic, there were hundreds of whistleblowers who testified to election fraud and irregularities and while the media has managed to pick apart some of the testimonies and affidavits, the majority of them have gotten little or no attention.

To wrap this section up, the Time.com article below is certainly worth a mention


This article is titled...

QUOTE "The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election"

Again, Time.com is not a conservative source and it's a mainstream source. For me, the honesty in this article is actually breathtaking. Time.com is not admitting to a fraudulent election and it's clear that this article wasn't written in defense of Trump. If anything, this is an anti-Trump article that's clearly suggesting there was a conspiracy to defeat Trump and that fundamental changes were made to our institutions and laws to ensure "the proper outcome" of the 2020 election...

"Every attempt to interfere with the proper outcome of the election was defeated,"


"To the President, something felt amiss. "It was all very, very strange," Trump said on Dec. 2. "Within days after the election, we witnessed an orchestrated effort to anoint the winner, even while many key states were still being counted."

In a way, Trump was right.

There was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes, one that both curtailed the protests and coordinated the resistance from CEOs. Both surprises were the result of an informal alliance between left-wing activists and business titans."


"Their work touched every aspect of the election. They got states to change voting systems and laws and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding. They fended off voter-suppression lawsuits, recruited armies of poll workers and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time. They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears."

The tone-deafness in this article is also astonishing to me. They're characterizing Trump and his allies as conspiratorial in this article while suggesting there was a conspiracy to encourage a specific outcome in 2020. They're talking about achieving "the right outcome" in the 2020 election and repeatedly target Trump in this article which shows their bias and calls into question whether or not they understand the difference between "the right outcome" and "our preferred outcome". There's so much in this article that should raise alarm bells.

They provided documents and testimonies to support the idea that there was a coordinated shadow effort to defeat Trump, so it's clear that they believe in what they're saying but it's also clear that they believe that this conspiracy was a righteous thing. Several of the things that are said in this article about Trump and the nature of the 2020 election were opinions and whoever wrote this article has conflated "fact" and "opinion", to such a degree that they believe a conspiracy to defeat Trump was justifiable on the basis of their subjective opinion.

Conclusion and Aftermath of the 2020 Election.

The conclusion of this reply has been shortened a great deal but for anyone who has gotten this far, this will go over few final points that offer some context.

Eeyore, I want to pull in a quote from your other recent thread which is part of the letter that you wrote to Senator Blackburn...

"Your statement in regards to your reasoning for challenging the legitimacy of the election results of 2020 is filled with hasty generalizations and equivocations. Simply put you were undermining faith in American democracy by asserting you were defending it. And the result was that you were clearly part of the chain of events that led to the violence at your place of business on January 6th, 2021."

As far as what you were saying here, I think it's great that you're willing to speak out. I'm now staying here in Tennessee myself on most days. I'm not sure what all of the details are in Senator Blackburns case but by and large, politicians have undermined faith and confidence in themselves and our democracy is struggling because of it. Personally, I think there's always hope and Americans still come together in many ways but that's often despite the things that our politicians and media are doing. This isn't just about election fraud or impropriety, whether or not that was widespread...

When Democrats and journalists say "believe all women" when it comes to Brett Kavanaugh but then minimize or ignore allegations of abuse regarding Democrats like Joe Biden or Keith Ellison, they undermine confidence in themselves. Even in relation to Andrew Cuomo, who is starting to get some backlash, he still managed to win an Emmy and get held up as a powerful voice in the fight against Covid-19 despite months of controversy.

To the credit of many Democrats, when Trump says things that are factually inaccurate, he undermines confidence in himself. There are many fair and accurate examples of lies told on behalf of Republicans. I probably have about 10% more faith in the Republican party over their opposition so in my mind this isn't strictly a Republican VS. Democrat issue. Our government and news media are broken in more ways than one.

In my mind, it'd be a miracle if there weren't people cheating in the 2020 election especially with how much smoke there was and how many witnesses came forward. With that said, I don't know with 100% certainty that election fraud and impropriety was severe enough to hand Biden a victory that he wouldn't have achieved otherwise. I try to leave for the possibility that I could have missed something important or am reading too much into the data I've discovered but for a decent chunk of our politicians, playing things straight would be an oddity.

So if it's between putting my trust in a dysfunctional government and media or taking a serious look at the testimonies and data presented by hundreds of whistleblowers, I'll choose those who don't have a proven track record of lies and manipulation. When looking at the testimonies of women like Susan Voyles, I ask myself the following question. Where is the evidence of a checkered history, anything that demonstrates that whistleblowers like her are untrustworthy?

Last I checked, there were over 900 witnesses in this case so some of them are bound to be wrong but when it comes to our politicians and journalist, I have a much better understanding of where the problems lie. They're constantly in the spotlight so they've revealed a lot about who they are over the years. It's sad what has happened within our government and certain institutions because there are clear exceptions, individuals who try to do well on both sides of the aisle but they're up against those who have been corrupted by power. Most Americans know this already, it's just that a lot of them tend to believe that their favored political movement doesn't contribute to the dysfunction and chaos that's we're seeing.

To paraphrase what I told Droop a while back. I'm doing this on my own, I don't have a research team to help me figure all of this out which is part of why it takes me time to do larger threads and replies. On the other hand, politicians and our news media have the resources and staff necessary to do proper research and the responsibility of being honest and forthcoming with the public.

America is in a lot more trouble than many are realizing. So much corruption is occurring in plain sight that it really speaks to how skilled propagandists have become that so many people are in the dark. The 2020 election had major consequences as well. I don't say that because I'm positive that election fraud overturned the results of the 2020 election but concerns over the 2020 election were effectively silenced and this had a snowball effect in America because of how it was done. I'm not talking primarily about the minimizing of fraud allegations by our news media and politicians.

Slowly but surely it essentially became taboo to suggest that there was widespread fraud and impropriety in 2020. In large part, that's because it's being portrayed as misinformation and the kind of talk that helped to incite "an insurrection". Despite all of the protest, riots, and violence that we've seen over the years, and all of the politicians who have either dismissed their behavior or encouraged them, the protest in Washington on January 6th has been exploited to shut others down on a scale that really should make the hair on the back of anyone's neck stand up.

Cancel culture has been an ongoing phenomenon for many years but this is different and not as simple as a few conservatives getting banned on social media. This is impacting far more than conservatives or Trump supporters.

I'll end with this... As dreary as some of this reply may have sounded, I still have a great deal of optimism left but that comes despite what many politicians and journalists are doing. Examples of dysfunction in government impacting America are nearly endless. The condition of NASA's human space flight program is worth a mention. With every new administration has come a change in NASA's priorities and funding. NASA has been stuck in Low Earth Orbit for decades because they've had no clear direction. However, SpaceX is proof that Americans can overcome the challenges posed by dysfunctional institutions and government. This applies to many things, America has gotten through rough periods before, including a Civil War that was by most measures worse than what we're going through now.

I think we'll get through this as long as Americans are willing to inform themselves enough to recognize when they're being manipulated. Right now I think that's proving to be a struggle for many people, some of whom have difficult and complicated lives. Exercising the mind can be as challenging and time consuming as exercising the body but when I look at history, movements that exploit and manipulate others tend to have an expiration date so we'll see what happens.

The ending of this reply was initially longer and covered some of the fallout of the 2020 election but I decided that belongs in its own thread. My life is getting busier by the day with our baby due any day now but if I can finish writing it, I'll let you guys know and post a new thread. In the meantime give me some feedback on other topics anytime. smile.gif

This post has been edited by net2007: Mar 22 2021, 06:34 AM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:


Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: April 22nd, 2021 - 05:24 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.