Real Evidence of Voter fraud in 2020?

[ApexerER]

Yup, and now we are giving all these Illegals smart phones as they enter the country. Can't believe this is what a few of you people voted for......It just gets more unbelievable every day.....

[Northcountryman]

13 hours ago, cas said:

I don't think there's ever been a fair, honest election in the history of this country. But in the last 3/4 of a century, one party has made such an art form to it that it's not even a secret. "Vote early and often", it's so well known it's openly joked about. Computer and mail in voting has just made it so much easier.

I still say the reason Hilary, her campaign and that side in general were so shocked when she lost wasn't because she thought she would win. It was because she thought shouldn't have been able to lose. But they underestimated to turn out Trump would get and didn't build in a big enough margin of error. THAT'S why she was so shocked. They didn't make that mistake twice. 

 I seriously doubt we will ever have honest elections "again" (meaning at least a little on the up and up)  Nothing ever comes of any of this "breaking news", it gets buried and ignored. Look back to the one Obama election, where they reported a bunch of voting blocks in Philly with him getting a statistically impossible 100% of the vote (even if everyone wanted to vote for him, someone would make a mistake). What came of it? Nothing, just like the countless other examples of voter fraud. When the news media is a willing accomplice, you don't stand a chance.

Nevr been a fair and honest election ?? I dont know about that; guess it depends how you define "fair and honest".  If it requires absolutely no cheating at all (i.e. votinf twice, throwing away votes, dead people voting, etc. ) to qualify as a fair and honest election, then I agree. Realistically, though, I'd move for a more realistic def. with a lower bar or standard. To me, if the amount of fraud is significant enough to impact the outsome, then the election is certainly fraudulent; if not, though, then I would say it was at least "Fair" , if not honest- problem is, how does one know if the amount of fraud was significant enough to impact the outcome?

[virgil]

To me, if the amount of fraud is significant enough to impact the outsome, then the election is certainly fraudulent; if not, though, then I would say it was at least "Fair" , if not honest- problem is, how does one know if the amount of fraud was significant enough to impact the outcome?

And, if dozens of audits, lawsuits, and recounts prove that there was not nearly enough to effect the results of an election, you wouldn't continue to doubt the results?  

[Northcountryman]

1 minute ago, virgil said:

To me, if the amount of fraud is significant enough to impact the outsome, then the election is certainly fraudulent; if not, though, then I would say it was at least "Fair" , if not honest- problem is, how does one know if the amount of fraud was significant enough to impact the outcome?

And, if dozens of audits, lawsuits, and recounts prove that there was not nearly enough to effect the results of an election, you wouldn't continue to doubt the results?  

Already answered- no. And if the situation were reversed and significant fraud was, ultimately uncovered and apparent, would you admit that the election was illegitmate ?

[virgil]

21 minutes ago, Northcountryman said:

Already answered- no. And if the situation were reversed and significant fraud was, ultimately uncovered and apparent, would you admit that the election was illegitmate ?

You're trying so hard to play both sides of the fence that you're contradicting yourself.  You just stated that you would consider an election fair if it were determined that there was not enough fraud to effect the results.  Now, you're saying 'no'?  There's nothing that can convince you that an election is fair if you don't like the results?  Is that what you're actually trying to not say?

As to your question, i have no trouble answering that if dozens of lawsuits, recounts, and audits determine that there was not enough fraud to effect the results, the election was fair.  If significant enough fraud to effect the results were found- not merely suggested by a bunch of wingnuts-  I'd have no problem accepting that.

[Northcountryman]

1 hour ago, virgil said:

You're trying so hard to play both sides of the fence that you're contradicting yourself.  You just stated that you would consider an election fair if it were determined that there was not enough fraud to effect the results.  Now, you're saying 'no'?  There's nothing that can convince you that an election is fair if you don't like the results?  Is that what you're actually trying to not say?

As to your question, i have no trouble answering that if dozens of lawsuits, recounts, and audits determine that there was not enough fraud to effect the results, the election was fair.  If significant enough fraud to effect the results were found- not merely suggested by a bunch of wingnuts-  I'd have no problem accepting that.

Wrong- you asked me if I would contnue to doubt the results and I said no.  How is that a contradiction?

 

I'm glad to see your response and it appears then, that we both agree.

[virgil]

1 hour ago, Northcountryman said:

Wrong- you asked me if I would contnue to doubt the results and I said no.  How is that a contradiction?

 

I'm glad to see your response and it appears then, that we both agree.

Do you read your own posts?  You have clearly stated on this thread that you still believe the election was stolen- in spite of the 60+ lawsuits that have failed as well as the audits and recounts that have proven the fraud claims were nonsense. 

[Northcountryman]

28 minutes ago, virgil said:

Do you read your own posts?  You have clearly stated on this thread that you still believe the election was stolen- in spite of the 60+ lawsuits that have failed as well as the audits and recounts that have proven the fraud claims were nonsense. 

Again, youre wrong- do you read yours?  This is the query from you that I responded to:

 

3 hours ago, virgil said:

And, if dozens of audits, lawsuits, and recounts prove that there was not nearly enough to effect the results of an election, you wouldn't continue to doubt the results?  

I said no , did I not? Youre trying to overgeneralize here my friend, arguing that because I believe the election was fraudulent , that I am unwavering in that position and could never be convinced otherwise- NOT!! Thats why I responded to your post, because I absolutely could be convinced otherwise IF the evidence is there!! To date, it is not and I would argue that the reverse -as it stand right now- is actually true. 

 

Read your own post Virgil!! I dont think that you do!! Im saying no to your query , not yes- youre wrong!! No, I would NOT continue to doubt the results!!!!

[airedale]

It is always said that there was not enough voter fraud found to change the election so case closed move on. Personally I have little doubt that there was fraud and more than what is being let on, while maybe not enough to change the Presidential election there were plenty of House seats also on those ballets that were very close races and where any fraud could have easily affected outcomes in those races.

There needs to be zero fraud period.

Al

[virgil]

4 minutes ago, Northcountryman said:

Again, youre wrong- do you read yours?  This is the query from you that I responded to:

 

I said no , did I not? Youre trying to overgeneralize here my friend, arguing that because I believe the election was fraudulent , that I am unwavering in that position and could never be convinced otherwise- NOT!! Thats why I responded to your post, because I absolutely could be convinced otherwise IF the evidence is there!! To date, it is not and I would argue that the reverse -as it stand right now- is actually true. 

 

Read your own post Virgil!! I dont think that you do!! Im saying no to your query , not yes- youre wrong!! No, I would NOT continue to doubt the results!!!!

Ok, I don’t want to keep going round and round on this. Just so I understand- you posted on this thread that you’re still convinced  the election was stolen.   Are you not aware of the 60+ failed lawsuits, the numerous audits and recounts that debunked those claims?  
Assuming you are aware of them, what would it actually take to convince you?  

[Northcountryman]

5 minutes ago, virgil said:

Ok, I don’t want to keep going round and round on this. Just so I understand- you posted on this thread that you’re still convinced  the election was stolen.   Are you not aware of the 60+ failed lawsuits, the numerous audits and recounts that debunked those claims?  
Assuming you are aware of them, what would it actually take to convince you?  

Apparently, youre a late-comer to this thread, then cuz Ive posted some evidence/issues that -to many- are serious red flags.  The "audits" that you repeatedly cite as definitive proof of no voter fraud WOULD NOT CATCH the mass paper mail in ballot fraud  used enmasse in '20; nor would they catch a computer program designed to switch votes if it were internalized.     Now, I'm not saying that happened , but it COULD have happened .  You need to google some of the ways voting machines can- and are- hacked to obtain different results.  Youd be surprised at how easy it is to do for someone who knows what theyre doing.  And would a guy like Coomer be capable of such an enterprise? YUP.  That doesnt mean he did, of course, but considering his CLEAR bias and intensely strong dislike for the former PREZ, would I put it past him, or others of a similar bent? NOPE. 

[virgil]

3 minutes ago, Northcountryman said:

Apparently, youre a late-comer to this thread, then cuz Ive posted some evidence/issues that -to many- are serious red flags.  The "audits" that you repeatedly cite as definitive proof of no voter fraud WOULD NOT CATCH the mass paper mail in ballot fraud  used enmasse in '20; nor would they catch a computer program designed to switch votes if it were internalized.     Now, I'm not saying that happened , but it COULD have happened .  You need to google some of the ways voting machines can- and are- hacked to obtain different results.  Youd be surprised at how easy it is to do for someone who knows what theyre doing.  And would a guy like Coomer be capable of such an enterprise? YUP.  That doesnt mean he did, of course, but considering his CLEAR bias and intensely strong dislike for the former PREZ, would I put it past him, or others of a similar bent? NOPE. 

Ok, got it. Since every single possibility can’t be eliminated, that’s enough for you. You forgot to include martians in your list of possibilities- nobody has ever definitively proven that they don’t exist. They could be the perpetrators of fraud that you’re looking for. 

[Northcountryman]

1 minute ago, virgil said:

Ok, got it. Since every single possibility can’t be eliminated, that’s enough for you. You forgot to include martians in your list of possibilities- nobody has ever definitively proven that they don’t exist. They could be the perpetrators of fraud that you’re looking for. 

I'm afraid its just a wee bit more beleieveable than Martians.

[CapDistPatriot]

On 3/21/2022 at 11:11 AM, Belo said:

do you have some evidence that it wasn't safe and effective? 

The government's own data, below is a link (about a week behind) that is easy to read boiled down version.

https://openvaers.com/

 

If you are more inclined to go to the government website (very clunky but I have been in there, the data is all there), here is the link below.

 

https://wonder.cdc.gov/vaers.html

[Shoots100]

The voting machines only count what's put into them.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, how many words is a video worth ?

Ga "Secret " Ballots

Yeah, no voter fraud here.

[virgil]

13 minutes ago, Shoots100 said:

The voting machines only count what's put into them.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, how many words is a video worth ?

Ga "Secret " Ballots

Yeah, no voter fraud here.

Ha. That video was debunked long ago. Even Fox News stated that it was nonsense. A small clip purposely cherry picked and without context. The full video shows nothing nefarious. 

[wolc123]

1 hour ago, virgil said:

Ha. That video was debunked long ago. Even Fox News stated that it was nonsense. A small clip purposely cherry picked and without context. The full video shows nothing nefarious. 

Do you regret your Biden vote at all right now ?

[Five Seasons]

16 hours ago, CapDistPatriot said:

The government's own data, below is a link (about a week behind) that is easy to read boiled down version.

https://openvaers.com/

 

If you are more inclined to go to the government website (very clunky but I have been in there, the data is all there), here is the link below.

 

https://wonder.cdc.gov/vaers.html

always read the fine print. This is where those of us with actual training in education in science and reports separate from the internet conspiracy theorists. 

 

VAERS accepts reports of adverse events and reactions that occur following vaccination. Healthcare providers, vaccine manufacturers, and the public can submit reports to VAERS. While very important in monitoring vaccine safety, VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness. The reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. Most reports to VAERS are voluntary, which means they are subject to biases. This creates specific limitations on how the data can be used scientifically. Data from VAERS reports should always be interpreted with these limitations in mind.

[Grouse]

So what is the scientifically accepted data source for adverse vaccine reactions, or isn't there one?

[Grouse]

I believe this is why some people don't believe the 2020 election was full of fraud.

 

 

[Shoots100]

 $350 million dollar election grant from Fecebooks CEO saves 2020 election.

Honesty

[Grouse]

[Northcountryman]

Did a little more digging and reading this am about voter fraud and how easy it is to perpetrate it via mail-in.  Check out this article written by a woman in florida who did it, like 10 yrs ago, as an experiment just to see if she could get away with it- answer was YUP!! Imagine what they can get away with now!!  And the thing is, ina closely contested election in a battleground state , this CAN affect the outcome AND it wont be detected in an election audit !! (directed at my man Virgil who is, seemingly so derisive about the suggestion that election fraud affected the '20 election- likening its espousal to be the equivalent of "belief in the involvement of martians" lol).

 

 

On the contrary, I do believe its very real: check it!!

 

.https://www.sun-sentinel.com/opinion/commentary/fl-op-com-menge-mail-in-ballots-fraud-florida-20200416-hanmbneuendpbaftyktpactlga-story.html

 

[Northcountryman]

Here is another article I found concerning a practice called "Voter Trafficking"- ever heard of it  (I have not until now)? Apparently, its a form of coordinated voter fraud involving paid operatives - all for the Democrats, of course- that were stuffing ballot boxes in the few weeks leading up to the '20 election.  All of it appears to take place in the swing states where the election was pretty much decided (i.e., PA, AZ, WI , etc.).  If true and accurate , it may be the "smoking gun" evidence required to prove that the massive election fraud claims are true-check it!!

 

https://www.survivethenews.com/true-the-vote-finds-107-ballot-trafficking-suspects-in-wisconsin-visited-the-ballot-drop-boxes-over-2000-times-in-the-two-weeks-before-the-2020-election-audio/

 

Edited April 9, 2022 by Northcountryman

[Northcountryman]

And another :

https://crimeofthecentury2020.com/exclusive-democrats-implicated-georgia-ballot-traffickers-were-using-democrat-officials-offices-as-stopping-points-during-ballot-drop-runs