Evidence of 2020 Election Violations

Will anyone be held accountable for violations?

  • Yea

    Votes: 24 32.4%
  • No

    Votes: 50 67.6%

  • Total voters
    74

Philosopher

Kingfisher
Do not listen to fake news, report them as misleading to youtube - send them a message. Here are more details about the legal process. Keep getting in touch with congressmen and local GOP offices. I am in touch with the Atlanta GOP and a legal challenge has been filed and rallies are planned.
 

Dr Mantis Toboggan

Kingfisher
Gold Member
Here's some data on the margin gap (Trump vs his democratic opponent) in 2016 vs 2020 in red states:

The gap between Trump and Biden is smaller than the gap between Trump and Clinton was in the following 2016 red states:

Alabama (28% margin in 2016 to 26% margin now)
Arizona (4% to -1%)
Georgia (5% to 0%)
Idaho (32% to 31%)
Indiana (19% to 16%)
Iowa (9% to 8%)
Kansas (21% Trump margin in 2016 to 16% Trump margin now)
Kentucky (30% to 26%)
Louisiana (20% to 19%)
Michigan (0% to -3%)
Missouri (19% to 16%)
Montana (20% to 16%)
Nebraska (25% to 19%)
North Carolina (4% to 1%)
North Dakota (36% to 33%)
Ohio (8.13% to 8%)
Oklahoma (37% 2016 Trump margin to 33% Trump margin now)
Pennsylvania (1% to -1%)
South Carolina (14% to 12%)
South Dakota (30% to 26%)
Tennessee (26% to 23%)
Texas (9% to 6%)
West Virginia (42% to 39%)
Wisconsin (1% to -1%)
Wyoming (46% to 43%)

Now, not even the most rosy-eyed Democrat would think they have a chance to win in WV, TN, SD, or ND for example. Yet even in those states, Biden gained territory against Trump compared to Clinton. It's just a few percentage points, but that's enough to make the difference in battleground states where the margins are much closer.

So how is Trump performing worse than in 2016 even in the reddest of red states? Did the Democrats try to rig the elections in states they had no chance of winning... or perhaps some voters really did vote for the Democrat more this time compared to 2016? And if they did so in red states, why not the same pattern in battleground states?

Most of those are not statistically significant and one of them (Texas) is likely to mostly or completely go away--as of last night the state was still only about 85% counted with mostly rural areas remaining, Trump will likely end up winning there by 8-9%.
 

DeusLuxMeaEst

Pelican
Gold Member
So how is Trump performing worse than in 2016 even in the reddest of red states? Did the Democrats try to rig the elections in states they had no chance of winning... or perhaps some voters really did vote for the Democrat more this time compared to 2016? And if they did so in red states, why not the same pattern in battleground states?

My first reaction to the numbers was to call BS, but I checked some of the percentages from the tweet and they do check out. Seem small and possibly not statistically significant, but I didn't run any tests.

But it is a good point. If he was underperforming in every state, the swings don't have to be that large in the swing states to change the outcome.

With that said, there still seems to be lots of evidence of fraud in multiple states.
 

paninaro

Pelican
My first reaction to the numbers was to call BS, but I checked some of the percentages from the tweet and they do check out. Seem small and possibly not statistically significant, but I didn't run any tests.

But it is a good point. If he was underperforming in every state, the swings don't have to be that large in the swing states to change the outcome.

With that said, there still seems to be lots of evidence of fraud in multiple states.

In 2016, Trump won MN, FL, NH, WI, PA, MI all by less than 2 percent. There were no allegations of fraud. Why is it so hard to believe that he may have lost some states in 2020 by less than 2 percent?
 

godfather dust

Hummingbird
Gold Member
In 2016, Trump won MN, FL, NH, WI, PA, MI all by less than 2 percent. There were no allegations of fraud. Why is it so hard to believe that he may have lost some states in 2020 by less than 2 percent?
Get out of here man.
We have posted why it's hard to believe. Read this thread. Read a few random pages of the election results thread.
And stop posting until you do so. Or after if you, and I assume you are, being disingenuous.
 

tractor

Woodpecker


Election changes by Wisconsin election supervisors potentially put tens of thousands of ballots into question.

According to reports on Sunday, supervisors made three substantial changes to the ballots.

This included allowing local county election clerks to fill in missing addresses, exempting 200,000 citizens from voter ID rules due to the pandemic, and failing to purge 130,000 names from outdated voter rolls.

The changes could open the door for the courts to intervene on behalf of President Trump.

Wisconsin’s attorney general dismissed claims of voting irregularities late last week however, the Speaker of the House has called for an investigation into concerns of voter fraud.
 

godfather dust

Hummingbird
Gold Member
Unfortunately, the vast of these poll watchers seem to have been caught off guard and there is not a lot of video (which would be huge.) Please post more if available.

As of now the biggest evidence is the crazy abnormalities statistically, and huge batches of Biden only votes.
This is good, convincing, almost smoking gun type evidence for men who think independently, but not the blue pill hordes.
 

Handsome Creepy Eel

Owl
Gold Member
In 2016, Trump won MN, FL, NH, WI, PA, MI all by less than 2 percent. There were no allegations of fraud. Why is it so hard to believe that he may have lost some states in 2020 by less than 2 percent?
Because he lost them after counting was mysteriously paused in all of them simultaneously for reasons that were never explained, and because of votes that were counted without his poll observers present.
 

Bacchus

Ostrich
Democratic Iowa Caucus 2020 was dry run for the big show. Delays, glitches, inconsistencies, and the establishment candidate taking a narrow lead over the outsider.


President Donald Trump's adult sons and campaign suggested the Iowa caucuses were "rigged" as the state Democratic Party said it found "inconsistencies" and delayed releasing the results, leading to widespread confusion in the Hawkeye State.

"Mark my words, they are rigging this thing ... what a mess," Eric Trump, one of the president's sons, tweeted. "This is why people don’t want the #Dems running our county."


"The fix is in... AGAIN," tweeted Trump's eldest son, Donald Trump Jr. "And we get to watch it play out on live TV. Incredible."


There was no evidence that the state Democratic Party, which is overseeing the election, was "rigging" the results, although the confusion that followed Monday's caucusing was met with a steady flow of conspiracy theories online as to what exactly was going on.

Early Tuesday, the state party said it would release results from the Democratic caucuses later in the day after "manually verifying all precinct results."

Mandy McClure, the communications director for the Iowa Democrats, said Monday night there were "inconsistencies" in reporting the three sets of results.

"In addition to the tech systems being used to tabulate results, we are also using photos of results and a paper trail to validate that all results match and ensure that we have confidence and accuracy in the numbers we report," McClure said, adding, "This is simply a reporting issue. The app did not go down, and this is not a hack or an intrusion. The underlying data and paper trail is sound and will simply take time to further report the results."

The state party had said earlier it was conducting "quality control checks, making sure the numbers are accurate."

"Quality control = rigged?" Trump's campaign manager Brad Parscale tweeted, adding in a later statement, "It would be natural for people to doubt the fairness of the process."

The malfunction in the reporting system gave the Trump campaign an opportunity to try to create division between the establishment and the anti-establishment wings of the Democratic Party. And if the results are viewed as suspect, that could lessen the impact of the victory for the candidate who emerges on top.

Such division could further two of the Trump team's goals: prolonging the Democratic primary process so the candidates spend more time and resources fighting among themselves, and trying to discourage Democratic turnout by fueling the perception that the process wasn’t fair — similar to what was done in 2016 during the contest between Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

In a Fox News interview Tuesday, Kayleigh McEnany, a spokesperson for the Trump campaign, questioned whether the results were "being rigged against Bernie Sanders."

In recent weeks, Trump and his allies have echoed the claims from 2016 of a "rigged" process and suggested the Democratic Party is currently conspiring against Sanders, who was leading in the RealClearPolitics polling average of Iowa surveys heading into the caucuses.

Those intraparty wounds from 2016 still remain. Just last summer, Sanders told MSNBC of the 2016 race that "some people say that if maybe the system was not rigged against me, I would have won the nomination and defeated Donald Trump." But, pushing back on Trump's claims about the 2020 primary, senior Sanders campaign adviser Jeff Weaver told MSNBC ahead of the caucuses Monday the process "is not currently rigged."

Speaking at his Iowa election headquarters following Monday's vote, Sanders said he had a "a good feeling" the Iowa results, once announced, will be favorable to his candidacy.

Difference is with Trump, he fights back. Bernie just took the loss. And that's why he lost. They didn't just rig it in the general. They did the primaries for Joe too.

edit: I know Bootyjudge won Iowa, so it may be more accurate to say that they rigged the primaries against Bernie more than for any one of the many establishment types
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member

Cross-posting from the main thread, this also belongs here...

Visual proof of MASSIVE FRAUD IN PENNSYLVANIA, from the Bannon show, relayed by the SGT report:

this below is a heat map of all the absentee mail-in ballots cast, it shows the whole state of PA lit up, including the Trump-voting rural areas, in a pattern that doesn't exist in any other state. Only in PA are the rural areas totally filled with mail-in ballots, this tells you that Trump won that state by a large margin; in order to make up for the difference, they had to literally cover in the entire state in fake mail-in ballots!


1606882903476.png


Watch the entire 7min video excerpt here:


We're winning, this is vindication. Even if, somehow, they do manage to push their pedo globalist puppet through, that rotten house will be built on very rotten foundations and will not stand, one way or the other!

Logos will rise.
 
Last edited:
Top