2020 Election Commentary

[Shasarak]

Do you even read your own sources?

That is true, not even one of them. And have I talked about how Trump is our savior?

It does make it easier to believe those conspiracy theories.

[oggsmash]

This is how it is easy to reach the conclusion not enough evidence to counter the election results....but I am sure that stuff was tossed for good reasons, despite this being a MONUMENTAL increase in the number of mail in ballots.

As far as I know, in cases where the envelopes were tossed -- they were tossed because that has *always* been the procedure. Yes, there was a big increase in mail-in ballots this election, but we've seen increasing mail-in ballots for the past two decades, and that's been happening in both conservative and liberal states. The 2016 election had over 20% of its votes as mail-in, plus 17% early voting.

To be clear, I'm in favor of increased security election procedures. I dislike especially electronic-only (DRE) voting machines, and I would consider it reasonable to change the process to require filing and keeping all ballot envelopes.

But in general, these are the same procedures that we've had in place for years. These election procedures were set up and kept in place by *Republican* state administrations in many cases. It's not a mark of suspicion that elections have followed the same procedures as 2016.

You do realize absentee ballots and this year's mail in are not the same thing, I know you do, so you are intentionally comparing things as the same, when you know they are not.  As for what a "republican" does, who fucking cares?  Why on earth would I care?

[rawma]

You're making up fantasies about me.

No, that's jeff37923's thing.

You're irrational and insane.

Projection from a right-winger like Pat? Nobody could have anticipated such a thing.

Addressing your less bugfuck crazy shit: The President-elect is not defined by the press, the GSA has no authority over who becomes president, Trump's tweet was ambiguous and he clarified it was not a concession, and just because something is almost certain to happen doesn't mean that it's already happened. Using President-elect to refer to Biden without a caveat like "presumptive" is simply incorrect. It may be acceptable in casual situations, as a shortcut, as long as everyone knows the presumptive is implied. But in professional works were precision is important, like the news, it's just wrong.

The title President-elect states an expectation as to who will become president after the election but before they are sworn in; it would be wrong to use it before Election Day, of course, no matter how certain you are. Ascertaining who the President-elect is, is certainly a function of the GSA administrator, as assigned by federal law. Ascertaining anyone but Biden to be President-elect would have no effect on who becomes President but would have gotten Emily Murphy in a lot of trouble; she was already subpoenaed over the delay (because it is bad for the country to delay presidential transition activities, not because anyone was peeved like you are).

I doubt you were as pedantic in 2016.

[Pat]

You're making up fantasies about me.

No, that's jeff37923's thing.

Far as I can tell, the two of you are the same person. Your posts are exactly the same in every way.

You're irrational and insane.

Projection from a right-winger like Pat? Nobody could have anticipated such a thing.

You should talk to your doppelganger Jeff, he thinks I'm a left-winger. You're both idiots.

Addressing your less bugfuck crazy shit: The President-elect is not defined by the press, the GSA has no authority over who becomes president, Trump's tweet was ambiguous and he clarified it was not a concession, and just because something is almost certain to happen doesn't mean that it's already happened. Using President-elect to refer to Biden without a caveat like "presumptive" is simply incorrect. It may be acceptable in casual situations, as a shortcut, as long as everyone knows the presumptive is implied. But in professional works were precision is important, like the news, it's just wrong.

The title President-elect states an expectation as to who will become president after the election but before they are sworn in; it would be wrong to use it before Election Day, of course, no matter how certain you are. Ascertaining who the President-elect is, is certainly a function of the GSA administrator, as assigned by federal law. Ascertaining anyone but Biden to be President-elect would have no effect on who becomes President but would have gotten Emily Murphy in a lot of trouble; she was already subpoenaed over the delay (because it is bad for the country to delay presidential transition activities, not because anyone was peeved like you are).

I doubt you were as pedantic in 2016.

I think the way we use and words and how we argue matter, more than the positions we take. That's why I rarely state a position, and merely correct an error or provide some information. I think people can make up their own minds, and what I believe isn't relevant to that decision. So if Hillary Clinton contested the results in 2016, and there was a similar level of ambiguity, then absolutely yes I would have made the same arguments.

And if President-elect was just an expectation, then we'd use the term before the election, based on what the polls were saying. It's more than an expectation, it requires confirmation.

[rawma]

As far as I know, in cases where the envelopes were tossed -- they were tossed because that has *always* been the procedure. Yes, there was a big increase in mail-in ballots this election, but we've seen increasing mail-in ballots for the past two decades, and that's been happening in both conservative and liberal states. The 2016 election had over 20% of its votes as mail-in, plus 17% early voting.

To be clear, I'm in favor of increased security election procedures. I dislike especially electronic-only (DRE) voting machines, and I would consider it reasonable to change the process to require filing and keeping all ballot envelopes.

But in general, these are the same procedures that we've had in place for years. These election procedures were set up and kept in place by *Republican* state administrations in many cases. It's not a mark of suspicion that elections have followed the same procedures as 2016.

Keeping ballot envelopes is probably harmless and would allow the verification process to be audited, I don't know how widely that was done. but they cannot be linked with actual ballots once verified if you want a secret ballot. That's also part of the tension with election observers; they cannot be allowed to see the name on the envelope and the ballot or they will know how somebody voted, but if they're not that close then the Republicans sue over it.

In Georgia, they don't throw out the envelopes but they don't repeat the verification in a recount; from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/17/technology/georgia-recount-signature-match.html

When absentee ballots are received by Georgia's election officials, the signature on the envelope is matched to other signatures that are part of the voter's record. Once that is verified, the envelope containing the signature is separated from the ballot to protect the secrecy of the voter's choice. Voters whose signatures do not match those on record are notified and asked for clarification.

The envelopes and ballots are retained for two years. But because they have been separated to protect voters' privacy, there is no longer a way to match ballots to envelopes. As such, rechecking signatures in a recount would be meaningless.

Republicans are in some cases calling for proportional reductions (i.e., reduce the vote totals of each candidate in proportion to their original vote total based on envelopes challenged - if half the votes were from envelopes that were thrown out, both candidates lose half their votes), going by county level or other subdivision (it would be meaningless on a statewide basis, as the margin would be reduced but the winner would remain the same). But that could lead to gaming the system: if your candidate has minority support in your county or whatever subdivision then you should try to have your signature just good enough to pass the initial verification but to contain a hidden flaw that can be challenged later and statistically remove more votes from your candidate's opponent. More likely they'll just look harder for envelopes to challenge where the votes favor the other candidate, as they tried in Wisconsin by choosing to recount only the largest and most Democratic counties.

Many election challenges are being thrown out by judges because they were brought over a variety of long-standing procedures which are apparently only being challenged because the plaintiff didn't like the election outcome. Any accommodation that might have been made would not suffice because it's just an excuse to challenge the result that they dislike. They show little interest in pursuing any of these cases with respect to future elections, and no concern for these things that were known well before the election. So any changes should be made to improve the process, not to mollify the sore losers in this election.

[Pat]

Republicans are in some cases calling for proportional reductions (i.e., reduce the vote totals of each candidate in proportion to their original vote total based on envelopes challenged - if half the votes were from envelopes that were thrown out, both candidates lose half their votes), going by county level or other subdivision (it would be meaningless on a statewide basis, as the margin would be reduced but the winner would remain the same). But that could lead to gaming the system: if your candidate has minority support in your county or whatever subdivision then you should try to have your signature just good enough to pass the initial verification but to contain a hidden flaw that can be challenged later and statistically remove more votes from your candidate's opponent.

That's a terrible idea. Piecemeal solutions give the judges too much discretion. That's exactly how cronyism/regulatory capture works, and in situations like this would give them an infinite variety of ways to subtly influence the election with impenetrable rationales. Even if we assume most judges try to be fair and impartial, that would create a near irresistible temptation, as well as an avenue for unconscious biases.

As I argued before, the only real solution to voting improprieties like that is the nuclear option of throwing out all ballots that don't meet the auditing standard. It's a damn shame they're so hesitant to do so, because the threat of having your vote thrown away is the strongest possible deterrent, and would ensure that all precincts have every possible incentive to ensure every possible procedure is followed to the letter, or the elected officials will face the wrath of the voters.

Many election challenges are being thrown out by judges because they were brought over a variety of long-standing procedures which are apparently only being challenged because the plaintiff didn't like the election outcome.

That's irrelevant. The only people who contest elections are those with skin in the game, and you need to have standing to bring a suit, so anyone who does is going to have an investment in changing the outcome. It's an inherent feature of an adversarial legal system. What's needed are clear standards that allow consistent rulings, regardless of who brings the suit.

[Ratman_tf]

This is nothing like 2000, which was driven by actual uncertainty of the outcome; this is entirely driven by Trump's ego and narcissism.

Hyperbole. Many people aside from Trump are suspicious and have questions about the election results. I am suspicious and have questions about the election results. I have the luxury of being patient and seeing how this all shakes out, because I'm not the one who ran for President.

The people who are suspicious and have questions about the election results are either coddling Trump (to avoid getting fired, attacked, or losing votes in their next election) or are part of the grift, either as perpetrators, unwitting collaborators or marks. Bill Barr says no evidence of sufficient fraud to change anything; Chris Krebs got fired for saying as much. Numerous Republicans stand by the integrity of the election they ran in their state. Many Congressional Republicans privately want Trump to give it up, but won't say so in public.

I'm not employed by Trump or getting any 'grift' from his administration. Neither are all the people polled by Reuters who suspect fraud of some sort.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/526464-half-of-republicans-in-new-poll-say-rigged-election-was-stolen-from-trump

And I can just as easily assert that Biden voters who believe the election was fair are 'marks'. Barr or Krebs aren't arbiters of whether the lawsuits can go forward.
Lot's of Republican politicians hated Trump, that's no news. They'd like to sweep him under the rug and go back to business as usual. I think it's far too late for that. Nearly 50% of Americans voted for Trump. And that's not going away during a Biden Presidency.

[rawma]

You're making up fantasies about me.

No, that's jeff37923's thing.

Far as I can tell, the two of you are the same person.

Oh. That is the cruelest thing anyone has ever said to me at this site.

Posted from the burn ward. Thoughts and prayers to jeff37923 at whatever burn ward he might be in.

You're irrational and insane.

Projection from a right-winger like Pat? Nobody could have anticipated such a thing.

You should talk to your doppelganger Jeff, he thinks I'm a left-winger. You're both idiots.

Your only objection to the current President-elect declaration that wouldn't have applied in all the elections since 2000 is that Trump hasn't formally conceded to your satisfaction. And you declared that every news medium daring to use the term as it's always been used is lying. You are very concerned over the voting irregularities in the current election but apparently no other. You've posted questionable stuff from conservative sources in this thread. And yet you are surprised to be thought a right-winger?

Just in this back and forth, you asserted that the media are lying, big and small, from Fox News to the New York Times. Not mistaken, not self-aggrandizing, not following each other sheep-like, not sincerely convinced by the Presidential Transition Act. You said lying. Discrediting the media so universally is very right-wing, and of course the lie they are telling is exactly what Republicans want to be considered a lie.

I think the way we use and words and how we argue matter, more than the positions we take. That's why I rarely state a position, and merely correct an error or provide some information.

Luckily all my nerve endings have been destroyed by previous burns, or the irony would be very painful.

Your position-less posts just coincidentally support right-wing positions.

"I think the way we use and words and how we argue" (sic) makes me laugh. Edit your post, Pat, if your words matter that much.

And if President-elect was just an expectation, then we'd use the term before the election, based on what the polls were saying. It's more than an expectation, it requires confirmation.

You can't be anything-elect unless there's actually been an election.


Moving on to a less hostile exchange:

Republicans are in some cases calling for proportional reductions (i.e., reduce the vote totals of each candidate in proportion to their original vote total based on envelopes challenged - if half the votes were from envelopes that were thrown out, both candidates lose half their votes), going by county level or other subdivision (it would be meaningless on a statewide basis, as the margin would be reduced but the winner would remain the same). But that could lead to gaming the system: if your candidate has minority support in your county or whatever subdivision then you should try to have your signature just good enough to pass the initial verification but to contain a hidden flaw that can be challenged later and statistically remove more votes from your candidate's opponent.

That's a terrible idea. Piecemeal solutions give the judges too much discretion. That's exactly how cronyism/regulatory capture works, and in situations like this would give them an infinite variety of ways to subtly influence the election with impenetrable rationales. Even if we assume most judges try to be fair and impartial, that would create a near irresistible temptation, as well as an avenue for unconscious biases.

What's a terrible idea--what the Republicans request, or the consequence I imagine if it became a common remedy? I'm not advocating either, just pointing out a possible consequence, that it could become another dirty trick if challenges to envelopes succeed when the ballots are no longer associated and so remove effectively random ballots.

As I argued before, the only real solution to voting improprieties like that is the nuclear option of throwing out all ballots that don't meet the auditing standard. It's a damn shame they're so hesitant to do so, because the threat of having your vote thrown away is the strongest possible deterrent, and would ensure that all precincts have every possible incentive to ensure every possible procedures is followed to the letter, or the elected officials would face the wrath of the voters.

That means throwing out all ballots, if you don't care for the proportional method that is being requested; the envelopes are no longer associated with known ballots, in order to have a secret ballot. (It might also apply in cases not tied to envelopes, where the same absentee ballots arrive in different manners - mailed in, dropped off with the clerk, dropped off additional sites which is at issue in one of the Wisconsin challenges. Once the ballots are counted, we don't know which ones went through what process.)

Bottom line for "throw the whole thing out"? Trump has a tantrum and gets a new election. No thank you!

It is the correct solution for ballots that are observably defective without tracing back to identifying information, like the hanging chads in 2000.

Many election challenges are being thrown out by judges because they were brought over a variety of long-standing procedures which are apparently only being challenged because the plaintiff didn't like the election outcome.

That's irrelevant. The only people who contest elections are those with skin the game, and you need to have standing to bring a suit, so anyone who does is going to have an investment in changing the outcome. It's an inherent feature of an adversarial legal system. What's needed are clear standards that allow consistent rulings, regardless of who brings the suit.

Um, laches and unclean hands and other forms of sleeping on your rights are highly relevant. Contest an election process you don't like before you find out how the election comes out. The appropriate remedy to ask for and possibly grant is to modify the policy for future elections; that probably doesn't require a judge (except where something is unconstitutional), since the changes can be made by the legislatures or rule-making entities. (Might be particularly difficult if a constitutional requirement blocks a desired reform; the challenge then is to amend the constitution.)

Republicans and the Trump campaign had skin in the game before the election, but didn't challenge many things that were known in advance. They got tossed repeatedly in Pennsylvania for contesting, after this election, something that was voted in a year earlier and used in elections before the general election. Don't reward insincere election challenges brought because they lost. (If you really could find enough fraud to call into question the outcome, then throwing out the election would be appropriate; e.g., that North Carolina congressional district in 2018.)

Reminder: so far, the election challenges have NOT asserted fraud in court, no matter what the trash talk is in press conferences or social media.

[rawma]

The people who are suspicious and have questions about the election results are either coddling Trump (to avoid getting fired, attacked, or losing votes in their next election) or are part of the grift, either as perpetrators, unwitting collaborators or marks. Bill Barr says no evidence of sufficient fraud to change anything; Chris Krebs got fired for saying as much. Numerous Republicans stand by the integrity of the election they ran in their state. Many Congressional Republicans privately want Trump to give it up, but won't say so in public.

I'm not employed by Trump or getting any 'grift' from his administration. Neither are all the people polled by Reuters who suspect fraud of some sort.

That makes you one of the unwitting collaborators. Trump spends $3 million in Wisconsin on a recount but pulls in $170 million, mostly not to contest the election but going to whatever Trump's PAC will do next. The lawyers filing the same allegations over and over again are among the grifters, but if any are true believers they may be sacrificing their reputations and bar membership and thus number among the marks. Some of them, like Giuliani, are probably grifting Trump.

In 2016, anyone who gave money to Jill Stein for any recounts were the marks; people who believed there was something to it and encouraged the marks were the unwitting collaborators.

[Ratman_tf]

The people who are suspicious and have questions about the election results are either coddling Trump (to avoid getting fired, attacked, or losing votes in their next election) or are part of the grift, either as perpetrators, unwitting collaborators or marks. Bill Barr says no evidence of sufficient fraud to change anything; Chris Krebs got fired for saying as much. Numerous Republicans stand by the integrity of the election they ran in their state. Many Congressional Republicans privately want Trump to give it up, but won't say so in public.

I'm not employed by Trump or getting any 'grift' from his administration. Neither are all the people polled by Reuters who suspect fraud of some sort.

That makes you one of the unwitting collaborators. Trump spends $3 million in Wisconsin on a recount but pulls in $170 million, mostly not to contest the election but going to whatever Trump's PAC will do next. The lawyers filing the same allegations over and over again are among the grifters, but if any are true believers they may be sacrificing their reputations and bar membership and thus number among the marks. Some of them, like Giuliani, are probably grifting Trump.

In 2016, anyone who gave money to Jill Stein for any recounts were the marks; people who believed there was something to it and encouraged the marks were the unwitting collaborators.

And Biden was grifting people to donate to his illegitimate "transition team". Lotta unwitting collaborators around.

[Pat]

Your only objection to the current President-elect declaration that wouldn't have applied in all the elections since 2000 is that Trump hasn't formally conceded to your satisfaction. And you declared that every news medium daring to use the term as it's always been used is lying. You are very concerned over the voting irregularities in the current election but apparently no other. You've posted questionable stuff from conservative sources in this thread. And yet you are surprised to be thought a right-winger?

Just in this back and forth, you asserted that the media are lying, big and small, from Fox News to the New York Times. Not mistaken, not self-aggrandizing, not following each other sheep-like, not sincerely convinced by the Presidential Transition Act. You said lying. Discrediting the media so universally is very right-wing, and of course the lie they are telling is exactly what Republicans want to be considered a lie.

No Jeff, that's not the only difference. The key difference is the election in 2016 wasn't contested, so none of this came to light. They were wrong then, and they're wrong now. But now they know better, so they're not just mistaken, they're actively lying. Which you should know, since I explicitly made that point the first time I said the media were lying.

And the media lie, that's not fake news. The trend started in the 1990s when many papers shifted to activist reporting, in an attempt to revitalize dwindling circulations. The line between opinion and news was erased and it became even more sensationalized with the move online, and the demands of clickbait journalism. The rise of hyperpartisanship made it even worse, but it's only been the last year or two that I've noticed blatant lies from respectable news sources, like NPR, and the election has made it worse.

And I post stuff from many difference sources, because unlike partisan extremists like you, I actively search out many different perspectives. For instance, look at the sars2 thread, where I've posted links to dozens of <pause for you to gasp in horror> scientific papers.

Your position-less posts just coincidentally support right-wing positions.

No, they really don't. One point contradicted something you believe, and you immediately jumped to the conclusion that I'm right-wing, cherry-picked a few superficial examples you could stretch to support that conclusion, and ignored everything that contradicted it. For instance, have you missed how I said that Biden will almost certainly become President-elect, literally every single time I replied to you? It's not a huge step from that to realizing that I don't care much about this election. It looks like we'll end up with a split Congress. Which we've had under Trump, and would still have even if Trump somehow managed to win a legal victory. Either way, gridlock. And realistically, that's the most I could ever hope for in an election. What I do care about is the election process, which badly needs the attention it's been getting.

Stop being Jeff.

"I think the way we use and words and how we argue" (sic) makes me laugh. Edit your post, Pat, if your words matter that much.

That's just sad.

Republicans are in some cases calling for proportional reductions (i.e., reduce the vote totals of each candidate in proportion to their original vote total based on envelopes challenged - if half the votes were from envelopes that were thrown out, both candidates lose half their votes), going by county level or other subdivision (it would be meaningless on a statewide basis, as the margin would be reduced but the winner would remain the same). But that could lead to gaming the system: if your candidate has minority support in your county or whatever subdivision then you should try to have your signature just good enough to pass the initial verification but to contain a hidden flaw that can be challenged later and statistically remove more votes from your candidate's opponent.

That's a terrible idea. Piecemeal solutions give the judges too much discretion. That's exactly how cronyism/regulatory capture works, and in situations like this would give them an infinite variety of ways to subtly influence the election with impenetrable rationales. Even if we assume most judges try to be fair and impartial, that would create a near irresistible temptation, as well as an avenue for unconscious biases.

What's a terrible idea--what the Republicans request, or the consequence I imagine if it became a common remedy? I'm not advocating either, just pointing out a possible consequence, that it could become another dirty trick if challenges to envelopes succeed when the ballots are no longer associated and so remove effectively random ballots.

"Piecemeal" is a reference to the proportional solutions. Judges should rule on the law, not invent creative new processes.

And I never said you advocated either, I just said it was a terrible idea.

Many election challenges are being thrown out by judges because they were brought over a variety of long-standing procedures which are apparently only being challenged because the plaintiff didn't like the election outcome.

That's irrelevant. The only people who contest elections are those with skin the game, and you need to have standing to bring a suit, so anyone who does is going to have an investment in changing the outcome. It's an inherent feature of an adversarial legal system. What's needed are clear standards that allow consistent rulings, regardless of who brings the suit.

Um, laches and unclean hands and other forms of sleeping on your rights are highly relevant. Contest an election process you don't like before you find out how the election comes out. The appropriate remedy to ask for and possibly grant is to modify the policy for future elections; that probably doesn't require a judge (except where something is unconstitutional), since the changes can be made by the legislatures or rule-making entities. (Might be particularly difficult if a constitutional requirement blocks a desired reform; the challenge then is to amend the constitution.)

Republicans and the Trump campaign had skin in the game before the election, but didn't challenge many things that were known in advance. They got tossed repeatedly in Pennsylvania for contesting, after this election, something that was voted in a year earlier and used in elections before the general election. Don't reward insincere election challenges brought because they lost. (If you really could find enough fraud to call into question the outcome, then throwing out the election would be appropriate; e.g., that North Carolina congressional district in 2018.)

Reminder: so far, the election challenges have NOT asserted fraud in court, no matter what the trash talk is in press conferences or social media.

Laches may be relevant in some of the cases, but not in others. There were some suits that were thrown out before the election, because no harm had occurred yet. You can't argue that you have to wait until after, and then afterwards argue that should have raised the issue before. If it's about changing the rules, then of course that should happen between elections. There are plenty of examples that should be addressed.

But many cases, it's about violating their own rules. Changing election laws by executive fiat, when that's reserved to the legislators. Not giving observers full access. Those kinds of things can't be addressed by procedural changes, because they're violations of existing procedures.

And I've pointed out to many people that none of the lawsuits allege fraud. It's the people who get distracted by Trump's tweets and don't pay attention to the actual cases that get that wrong. Curiously, that's one thing both the left and right seem to have in common: It's the partisans who are fooled, because they hang on Trump's every word in adoration or with rage. It's the people who aren't strongly aligned with one of the two sides who are less likely to be tricked.

[SHARK]

Greetings!

President Donald J. Trump speaks to America from the White House.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[SHARK]

Greetings!

I stand with our President. President Trump should have all of the traitors, all of the corrupt poll workers, election officials, politicians--have them all arrested and sent to Guantanamo. Dominion servers need to be seized everywhere, in every state. Suspicious elections need to be fully audited--not merely "recounted." Justice needs to prevail, and a terrible wrath and judgment needs to be poured out without mercy on those that have drank deeply from the wine of treason!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[Pat]

Greetings!

I stand with our President. President Trump should have all of the traitors, all of the corrupt poll workers, election officials, politicians--have them all arrested and sent to Guantanamo. Dominion servers need to be seized everywhere, in every state. Suspicious elections need to be fully audited--not merely "recounted." Justice needs to prevail, and a terrible wrath and judgment needs to be poured out without mercy on those that have drank deeply from the wine of treason!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Justice is rarely a unitary executive unilaterally declaring people traitors, and then shipping them off to indefinite detention.

Agree on the audits, though. The recounts were utterly pointless.

[consolcwby]

First they said there was no proof.
We found some proof.
Then they said the proof was fud.
We found more proof.
Then they said 'gimme the numbers'.
We found some numbers.
Now they say: TOO MUCH! TOO MUCH! INFORMATION OVERLOAD!
My reply: Welcome to 2020, where 20/20 is debated!
~~OPTICS~~
===========================================
Since the last post, I've noticed more people here are past debating it, or even RESEARCHING IT! If I've the time to dredge this stuff up from the interwebs, the least an intellectual can do is at least post a counter. AH! No counter to what I'm posting, but still good reactions! The SILENCE is deafening! Must be difficult when potential evidence showing fraud, with actual proofs, to gaslight anyone now. HAH!

Links: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/12/driving-completed-ballots-ny-pennsylvania-decided-speak-update-usps-contract-truck-driver-transferred-288000-fraudulent-ballots-ny-pa-speaks-presser/
                    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/12/02/ex-usps-subcontractor-says-colleagues-ordered-to-backdate-ballots/

Synopsis: The Amistad Project said that they have sworn declarations that state over 300,000 ballots are at issue in Arizona, 548,000 in Michigan, 204,000 in Georgia, and over 121,000 in Pennsylvania. They claim that their evidence reveals multi-state illegal efforts by USPS workers to influence the election in at least three of six swing states. This new information was made public at a press conference by the Amistad Project of the Thomas More Society, a national constitutional litigation organization. (Not a Neo-Naht-See organization! Honest!)

What it means: If true, then everyone screaming this was the MOST HONEST ELECTION EVER has been proven wrong. I say, let's see the evidence when it's presented in court!

Link: https://twitter.com/CodeMonkeyZ/status/1333999521383079936
                  https://twitter.com/SidneyPowell1/status/1334164586245873666
                  https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/judge-allows-trump-campaign-attorneys-review-tests-clark-county-voting

Synopsis: Dominion Techs were copying data from the voting machines in order to audit (get the current numbers) of the election by using 3rd party software (like Excel) in violation of the law. Dominion machines are also being removed and possibly evidence of fraud destroyed. On Monday, Judge James T. Russell granted a motion from President Trump's reelect campaign that will allow attorneys for the campaign to inspect a sealed container of test results for the equipment used in the Nov. 3 election. It is unclear whether the attorneys will have access to the actual equipment or just the test results inside the sealed container.

What It means: If a widespread voter fraud scheme is true, then this points to one of the methods used in that scheme. Destruction of  possible evidence is a crime, even if it is circumstantial. This scheme could be uncovered by observing and testing votes and equipment. If there is evidence of fraud here, it is likely it will be assumed elsewhere.

Link: https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2020/12/02/official-doj-will-continue-pursue-all-specific-credible-allegations-2020-election-fraud/
                 https://twitter.com/CBS_Herridge/status/1333937356185997312

Synopsis: Some media outlets have incorrectly reported that the Department has concluded its investigation of election fraud and announced an affirmative finding of no fraud in the election. That is not what the Associated Press reported nor what the Attorney General stated. The Department will continue to receive and vigorously pursue all specific and credible allegations of fraud as expeditiously as possible.

What It means: The media is not being entirely honest, but may instead operating under MOCKINGBIRD ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird ) conditions. This would be logical, considering the ABSOLUTE control needed during the 'Great (Economic) Reset' - read Agenda 21/2030. The goal is a complete Corporatocracy combined with Technocracy (for the Elites) in which a Communist-Fascist social order is created with every NON-ELITE being tracked and working for Social Credit (the sci-fi CREDITS we heard so much about in fiction). By using the media (controlled by only a few Corporations and Banks) to pit various sides against each other, they can 'ALTER REALITY' as per their magic system beliefs. This would allow foreign operatives under U.N. Peacekeeping guise to round up Conservatives, Traditionalists, Free Thinkers, Christians and Jews for American CONCENTRATION CAMPS without the general population being aware or being shamed into silence/compliance - see BLM/ANTIFA aquiescence by poliice/politicos/retailers/et al. This is the goal of some of the people here who: A) Despise Free Thinking, B) Despise Free Speech, C) Despise Free People, D) Have some sort of fetish for LARPing their love for RPGs, in particular OSR RPGs.

I don't expect people to believe what I say, BUT - I can assure you, those in the know want me dead. Why? Answer is obvious: I've got a big mouth and I REFUSE TO SHUT IT!

Note: Commentary on this thread (as well as others): As we see in this thread about lack of evidence equating to Conspiracy Theories and Covid-19 questions as 'unscientific heresy' by 'TERRORISTS' -- which should throw up a red flag to anyone being honest, since THAT IS THE START OF THE NEW ORDER'S GENOCIDE!) The links provided show circumstancial evidence of this - remember the 'Free Speech Zones' under Obama, and the initial reporting of beatings and rapes? A telltale sign - we are in this together, we are fighting WWIII but because the Mainstream News will not speak the truth... It apparently will not exist until Trump orders REX-84/86 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rex_84 ), AKA JADE HELM, which he WILL DO ( https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-declares-national-emergency-coronavirus || https://iotwreport.com/2020-election-took-place-under-a-trump-declared-national-emergency/ || https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/11/whats_kraken.html ) - the 'party-hardy' period is OVER guys, and over for good. Therefore, it is imperative to know WHOSE SIDE ARE YOU ON? Choose wisely, either way the camps are all set and ready to go! If you think this isn't about a 'HOSTILE TAKEOVER', then I feel sorry for you. Trump is the closer - the one who is the last President.

So, CHOOSE: A Constitutional North American Republic --OR-- A Stratified Slave-Labor Commu-Facsist Global Governing Council On HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL.

Unfortunately, I've chosen the THIRD OPTION. But I'm not ready to discuss that here yet.