Evidence of Serious Election Fraud in the 2020 Election

[Joe Elliott]

What you have highlighted is that there was a statistical outlier in terms of the number of votes cast in the 2020 election.  Both Biden and Trump received more votes than any other candidate in history.  What is not answered is why?  Was there such great enthusiasm for Biden, an elderly white guy who hardly campaigned, that he received tens of millions more votes than Reagan, FDR, JFK, Obama, Clinton or any other candidate in history? That doesn't seem to add up.  What happened is that the political establishment changed the voting laws in the months leading up to the election and those changes affected the outcome in a significant way.  The vast majority of the votes cast using the alternative methods went to Biden whereas the votes for Trump were cast at the polls.  Trump overstates that as "stealing" the election but those changes certainly altered the outcome.  If the reverse had occurred, and Trump had won the election based on significant changes made in the election laws in the months preceding the election, the Dems would have revolted and the media would gone on an endless campaign to suggest that Trump's election was not legitimate.  Always hypocrisy.

I did answer "Why such a high percentage turnout?". The highest percentage since 1900. The great expansion of allowing mail-in ballots.

"Why the expansion of mail-in ballots?". Because of COVID-19. Going with in person ballots would have exposed more people to COVID-19, just a few months before COVID-19 vaccines first became available. There are thousands of people walking around today, and I might be one of them, who would be dead, if the mail-in ballot option was not available.

"Why did Biden get so many more mail-in ballots then Trump?" Because Biden encourage voters to choose the mail-in ballot option. While Trump told voters to go vote in person. So, naturally, Biden got a lot higher percentage of mail-in ballots.

"Why did Trump attract so many enthusiastic people to show up at his rallies? While Biden attracted so few, indeed, exactly zero?". Because Trump, as was the usual case for both Republican and Democratic Presidential candidates, organized large rallies to show their support for Trump. While, at the same time, Biden did not organized large rallies for himself, indeed, strongly advised people not to come together in large groups for any reason, including showing support for himself. Limiting the spread of COVID-19 was more important than getting a few more votes. No doubt Biden cost himself some votes, suppressed voter enthusiasm for himself, as large rallies have always generated for every candidate for over the last 100 years. But it was the right call. This is my favorite decision Biden has ever made.

Note, Biden was consistent. He choose not to allow large rallies for himself. Because this decision helped limit the spread of COVID-19. This decision also caused Biden to lose votes. Biden also encouraged voters to choose to vote using mail-in ballots. Because this decision helped limit the spread of COVID-19. This decision gained Biden votes. Biden always chose the option to limit the spread of COVID-19, whether it would gain or lose him votes. These decisions were correct.

Just as CTers pretend that certain question have never been answered, "How could the SBT be true? What could possibly have caused JFK's head to go backwards? Why don't LNers ever address these questions?" you try the same gambit and imply that these questions have never been answered. These questions about the 2020 election have been addressed.

The results of the Election of 2000 was altered because of changes in the Election rules implemented in the months leading up to the election. Florida changed the procedures (without any action taken by the Florida State Legislature) to allow an increase to a dozen Presidential candidates. This required changes in the ballots, which either involved using small print, multiple pages for the Presidential election, or butterfly ballots. This resulted in the invalidation of thousands of ballots, due to voter error, which proportionaly cost the Democrats . The Democrats complained a lot about this and took their case to the courts. And lose, which was the correct rulings. But Democrats certainly did not revolt, like storm the Capitol. They complained, but accepted the vote in the end. Gore announced that Bush had won the election and everyone should accept this. Which was the right thing to do. Stuff happens that can swing close elections. That caused the Democrats to lose in 2000, and the Republicans to lose in 2020.

 * * * * *

On a separate note, Trump's handling of COVID-19 did not lose him the election. A far greater issue, was Trump telling his supporters not to use mail-in ballots but to vote in person. This cost him millions of votes. Because, on election night, many people intending to vote for Trump decided that they were too tired. Just wanted to go home, get some dinner and go to bed. Or came down with a cold. Or had to take care of a sick child. Or had issues with their automobile. Or had to work late. Or some other issue came up that always costs millions of votes in each Presidential election. Trump would still have lost the popular vote. But just as in 2016, he would have just squeeked by in 2020 in the Electoral College.

Why did Trump do such a bone-headed decision of discouraging mail-in ballots? I am not a mind reader, but I think it was because Trump preferred to win with cleverness, and not to just get an honest win. He thought he would limit his voters from using mail-in ballots. Then, after the election, get the courts to throw out mail-in ballots. He thought he could get the Supreme Court to back this scheme 6-3, with three of the members appointed by him. This scheme did not work out too well. And cost him the election. Sometimes people can be too clever for their own good.

[Richard Smith]

I did answer "Why such a high percentage turnout?". The highest percentage since 1900. The great expansion of allowing mail-in ballots.

"Why the expansion of mail-in ballots?". Because of COVID-19. Going with in person ballots would have exposed more people to COVID-19, just a few months before COVID-19 vaccines first became available. There are thousands of people walking around today, and I might be one of them, who would be dead, if the mail-in ballot option was not available.

"Why did Biden get so many more mail-in ballots then Trump?" Because Biden encourage voters to choose the mail-in ballot option. While Trump told voters to go vote in person. So, naturally, Biden got a lot higher percentage of mail-in ballots.

"Why did Trump attract so many enthusiastic people to show up at his rallies? While Biden attracted so few, indeed, exactly zero?". Because Trump, as was the usual case for both Republican and Democratic Presidential candidates, organized large rallies to show their support for Trump. While, at the same time, Biden did not organized large rallies for himself, indeed, strongly advised people not to come together in large groups for any reason, including showing support for himself. Limiting the spread of COVID-19 was more important than getting a few more votes. No doubt Biden cost himself some votes, suppressed voter enthusiasm for himself, as large rallies have always generated for every candidate for over the last 100 years. But it was the right call. This is my favorite decision Biden has ever made.

Note, Biden was consistent. He choose not to allow large rallies for himself. Because this decision helped limit the spread of COVID-19. This decision also caused Biden to lose votes. Biden also encouraged voters to choose to vote using mail-in ballots. Because this decision helped limit the spread of COVID-19. This decision gained Biden votes. Biden always chose the option to limit the spread of COVID-19, whether it would gain or lose him votes. These decisions were correct.

Just as CTers pretend that certain question have never been answered, "How could the SBT be true? What could possibly have caused JFK's head to go backwards? Why don't LNers ever address these questions?" you try the same gambit and imply that these questions have never been answered. These questions about the 2020 election have been addressed.

The results of the Election of 2000 was altered because of changes in the Election rules implemented in the months leading up to the election. Florida changed the procedures (without any action taken by the Florida State Legislature) to allow an increase to a dozen Presidential candidates. This required changes in the ballots, which either involved using small print, multiple pages for the Presidential election, or butterfly ballots. This resulted in the invalidation of thousands of ballots, due to voter error, which proportionaly cost the Democrats . The Democrats complained a lot about this and took their case to the courts. And lose, which was the correct rulings. But Democrats certainly did not revolt, like storm the Capitol. They complained, but accepted the vote in the end. Gore announced that Bush had won the election and everyone should accept this. Which was the right thing to do. Stuff happens that can swing close elections. That caused the Democrats to lose in 2000, and the Republicans to lose in 2020.

 * * * * *

On a separate note, Trump's handling of COVID-19 did not lose him the election. A far greater issue, was Trump telling his supporters not to use mail-in ballots but to vote in person. This cost him millions of votes. Because, on election night, many people intending to vote for Trump decided that they were too tired. Just wanted to go home, get some dinner and go to bed. Or came down with a cold. Or had to take care of a sick child. Or had issues with their automobile. Or had to work late. Or some other issue came up that always costs millions of votes in each Presidential election. Trump would still have lost the popular vote. But just as in 2016, he would have just squeeked by in 2020 in the Electoral College.

Why did Trump do such a bone-headed decision of discouraging mail-in ballots? I am not a mind reader, but I think it was because Trump preferred to win with cleverness, and not to just get an honest win. He thought he would limit his voters from using mail-in ballots. Then, after the election, get the courts to throw out mail-in ballots. He thought he could get the Supreme Court to back this scheme 6-3, with three of the members appointed by him. This scheme did not work out too well. And cost him the election. Sometimes people can be too clever for their own good.

Trump never discouraged anyone from voting for him by mail.  He pointed out the obvious.  Changing the voting laws in the months leading up to the election created difficulties and risks of confirming who was voting. The election rules were changed in most every state in the months before the election using COVID as a pretext.  Even Fauci said it was safe to vote in person.  And we know that this significantly increased the number of voters.  And that the vast majority of those voters who used these alternative methods went for Biden.  Why?  There was obvious ballot harvesting among minorities and younger folks who vote in much smaller percentages.  If Trump had the election rules changed in such a way as to favor himself, resulting in 80-90% of turnout voting for him and deciding the election, there would have been widespread civil unrest among the leftists.  Folks such as yourself would be proclaiming the election to have been stolen much as Trump did.  The Dems and media would be proclaiming his election as not legitimate.  They would be doing and saying many of the same things as Trump after the election. 

[Joe Elliott]

Trump never discouraged anyone from voting for him by mail.  He pointed out the obvious.  Changing the voting laws in the months leading up to the election created difficulties and risks of confirming who was voting. The election rules were changed in most every state in the months before the election using COVID as a pretext.  Even Fauci said it was safe to vote in person.  And we know that this significantly increased the number of voters.  And that the vast majority of those voters who used these alternative methods went for Biden.  Why?  There was obvious ballot harvesting among minorities and younger folks who vote in much smaller percentages.  If Trump had the election rules changed in such a way as to favor himself, resulting in 80-90% of turnout voting for him and deciding the election, there would have been widespread civil unrest among the leftists.  Folks such as yourself would be proclaiming the election to have been stolen much as Trump did.  The Dems and media would be proclaiming his election as not legitimate.  They would be doing and saying many of the same things as Trump after the election.

Trump’s Attacks on Mail Voting Bolstered ‘Big Lie,’ Jan. 6 Panel Says

https://time.com/6187273/jan-6-hearing-mail-voting-trump/

The House panel presented evidence showing how Trump sowed the seeds for his efforts to overturn the election by waging a crusade against mail ballots. Despite expectations that the raging pandemic would depress in-person voter turnout in 2020, Trump rejected arguments from his own campaign staff to embrace voting by mail—choosing instead to discourage his supporters from voting absentee.

Trump did encourage his supporters to vote in person. Knowing full well he was going to try to get the courts to throw out mail-in ballots. Which was tried but failed when the courts asked "Why didn't you ask the courts to disallow mail-in ballots before the election instead of waiting until afterwards?". Trump's attorneys had no good answer to that question. This was a disaster for Trump, because the odds of a person actually voting go significantly down if they decide to vote in person instead of voting through the mail.

I don't see how voting in person would be just as safe as using mail-in ballots as far as avoiding COVID-19 is concerned. I don't care what Dr. Fauci or anyone else says. While the danger from in person voting was not overwhelming, the danger wasn't zero, either. Without a doubt, some people did avoid catching COVID-19 by deciding to vote through the mail rather than in person.

And, of course, you have not addressed the changes in voting procedures leading up to the 2000 election. Going from simple, one page, large print, non butterfly ballots to ballots that were more confusing to some voters. Changes in voting procedures are very common in elections, when the people running elections think there are valid reasons to do so. This does not invalidate an election. Just as CTers give no concrete example of showing why CE 399 could not have been the bullet that wounded JFK and Connally, no one has shown thousands of mail-in ballots that were fraudulent. They merely suggest that they might have been. I am not impressed with unfounded suggestions. Show me something!

[Richard Smith]

Trump’s Attacks on Mail Voting Bolstered ‘Big Lie,’ Jan. 6 Panel Says

https://time.com/6187273/jan-6-hearing-mail-voting-trump/

Trump did encourage his supporters to vote in person. Knowing full well he was going to try to get the courts to throw out mail-in ballots. Which was tried but failed when the courts asked "Why didn't you ask the courts to disallow mail-in ballots before the election instead of waiting until afterwards?". Trump's attorneys had no good answer to that question. This was a disaster for Trump, because the odds of a person actually voting go significantly down if they decide to vote in person instead of voting through the mail.

I don't see how voting in person would be just as safe as using mail-in ballots as far as avoiding COVID-19 is concerned. I don't care what Dr. Fauci or anyone else says. While the danger from in person voting was not overwhelming, the danger wasn't zero, either. Without a doubt, some people did avoid catching COVID-19 by deciding to vote through the mail rather than in person.

And, of course, you have not addressed the changes in voting procedures leading up to the 2000 election. Going from simple, one page, large print, non butterfly ballots to ballots that were more confusing to some voters. Changes in voting procedures are very common in elections, when the people running elections think there are valid reasons to do so. This does not invalidate an election. Just as CTers give no concrete example of showing why CE 399 could not have been the bullet that wounded JFK and Connally, no one has shown thousands of mail-in ballots that were fraudulent. They merely suggest that they might have been. I am not impressed with unfounded suggestions. Show me something!

Trump simply pointed out the risk of mail in voting.  That doesn't mean that he didn't want folks to vote for him whatever the means.  And suddenly Dr. Fauci's opinion doesn't matter?  LOL.  The entire country was almost destroyed based on his opinions but when it comes to voting he is suddenly not relevant?  Bottom line.  The pandemic was used as a pretext to change the voting laws in almost every state in the months leading up to the election.  The election was decided based upon those changes (i.e. most of the mail in vote went to Biden).  The sheer numbers of votes is a statistical outlier.  It points to ballet harvesting.  Maybe folks want 30-50 days of mail in ballots, but American elections were held for decades on election day with no issue.  There is good cause to do so.  Like PA voters not finding out that Fetterman was a vegetable only after voting for him.  In fact, the vote tallies were counted faster in some places when they used pencils than today where it takes weeks or months to count the votes for some reason.  It is a system fraught with risk of abuse. If the laws had been changed in such a way as to break the election to Trump, there would have been civil war and riots unleashed by radical Dems.

[Joe Elliott]

Trump simply pointed out the risk of mail in voting.  That doesn't mean that he didn't want folks to vote for him whatever the means.

The time to prevent mail-in ballots was to go to the courts before the November elections and convince the courts not to allow mail-in ballots. That way, people would know that if they wanted their votes to count, it would have to be in person voting.

Not to do what Trump did, wait until after the election before then telling the courts, for the first time, that mail-in ballots should not be counted. The judges, even judges appointed by Trump, pointed this out to Trump's lawyers. The time to do that was before November 7, not afterwards. Sometimes it does not pay to be sneaky.

And suddenly Dr. Fauci's opinion doesn't matter?  LOL.  The entire country was almost destroyed based on his opinions but when it comes to voting he is suddenly not relevant?  Bottom line.  The pandemic was used as a pretext to change the voting laws in almost every state in the months leading up to the election.  The election was decided based upon those changes (i.e. most of the mail in vote went to Biden).  The sheer numbers of votes is a statistical outlier.  It points to ballet harvesting.  Maybe folks want 30-50 days of mail in ballots, but American elections were held for decades on election day with no issue.  There is good cause to do so.  Like PA voters not finding out that Fetterman was a vegetable only after voting for him.  In fact, the vote tallies were counted faster in some places when they used pencils than today where it takes weeks or months to count the votes for some reason.  It is a system fraught with risk of abuse. If the laws had been changed in such a way as to break the election to Trump, there would have been civil war and riots unleashed by radical Dems.

In November 2020, before vaccines were made available to the public, any close contact between people had some danger. There was nothing magical about people getting together for the purpose of voting that would prevent the spread of COVID-19. You have not provided the exact Dr. Fauci quote but I imagine it would be something to the effect that the danger of getting COVID-19 while voting was not great enough to make it inadvisable for people to vote in person, if there was no other voting option, for that person. But I am certain that Dr. Fauci would have recommended voting by mail over voting in person, if one had a choice.

But if you have a quote from Dr. Fauci that says otherwise, that says voting person and voting by mail are both equally safe, let's hear it.

[Richard Smith]

The time to prevent mail-in ballots was to go to the courts before the November elections and convince the courts not to allow mail-in ballots. That way, people would know that if they wanted their votes to count, it would have to be in person voting.

Not to do what Trump did, wait until after the election before then telling the courts, for the first time, that mail-in ballots should not be counted. The judges, even judges appointed by Trump, pointed this out to Trump's lawyers. The time to do that was before November 7, not afterwards. Sometimes it does not pay to be sneaky.

In November 2020, before vaccines were made available to the public, any close contact between people had some danger. There was nothing magical about people getting together for the purpose of voting that would prevent the spread of COVID-19. You have not provided the exact Dr. Fauci quote but I imagine it would be something to the effect that the danger of getting COVID-19 while voting was not great enough to make it inadvisable for people to vote in person, if there was no other voting option, for that person. But I am certain that Dr. Fauci would have recommended voting by mail over voting in person, if one had a choice.

But if you have a quote from Dr. Fauci that says otherwise, that says voting person and voting by mail are both equally safe, let's hear it.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/16/dr-fauci-plans-to-vote-in-person-how-to-vote-safely-during-pandemic.html


But 79-year-old White House advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci said it’s safe to vote in person — in fact, he is going to try to vote in person, his schedule permitting, he told Yahoo! News Thursday.

“If one does the polling process carefully and prudently, I think it would be fine for people to go to the polls, who feel that that’s something that they want to do,” Fauci told Yahoo! News.

[Joe Elliott]

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/16/dr-fauci-plans-to-vote-in-person-how-to-vote-safely-during-pandemic.html


But 79-year-old White House advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci said it’s safe to vote in person — in fact, he is going to try to vote in person, his schedule permitting, he told Yahoo! News Thursday.

“If one does the polling process carefully and prudently, I think it would be fine for people to go to the polls, who feel that that’s something that they want to do,” Fauci told Yahoo! News.

Yes, but not everyone would end up doing this "as carefully and prudently" as Dr. Fauci would.

Would all voters know the proper type of mask to use, as Dr. Fauci would?
Would all voters know how to wear such a mask properly, with minimum gaps between the face and mask, as Dr. Fauci would?
Would all voters even be able to get ahold of the type of mask that Dr. Fauci would believe to be sufficient, as I assume Dr. Fauci did?
Would all voters carry disinfectant with them so they could immediately clear their hands after exchanging ballots with others?

Dr. Fauci said it would be find for him to vote in person, which I think it would be correct. But I don't hear him saying everyone should vote in person, whether they followed the proper procedures or not, or even knew the proper procedures sufficiently or not, or had the proper mask and disinfectant or not.

I think, that if pressed on the issue, Dr. Fauci would advise most voters to only vote in person:

* if they knew what sort of mask and disinfectant to bring
* was able to get ahold of these items
* knew exactly how to use these items, particularly the mask
* were really keen on voting the traditional way, in person.

otherwise, for God's sake, use a mail-in ballot. Don't needlessly give yourself an extra chance to catch the virus before the vaccine becomes generally available within a few months, and for the most vulnerable, within a few weeks.

 * * * * *

Yes, an expert rock climber might say "As long I am careful and prudent, I can safely scale this 100 foot cliff" doesn't mean that I can safely do so as well. Just because he can do so safely doesn't mean that everyone can do so. Or that he is advising everyone to give it a go.

[Richard Smith]

Yes, but not everyone would end up doing this "as carefully and prudently" as Dr. Fauci would.

Would all voters know the proper type of mask to use, as Dr. Fauci would?
Would all voters know how to wear such a mask properly, with minimum gaps between the face and mask, as Dr. Fauci would?
Would all voters even be able to get ahold of the type of mask that Dr. Fauci would believe to be sufficient, as I assume Dr. Fauci did?
Would all voters carry disinfectant with them so they could immediately clear their hands after exchanging ballots with others?

Dr. Fauci said it would be find for him to vote in person, which I think it would be correct. But I don't hear him saying everyone should vote in person, whether they followed the proper procedures or not, or even knew the proper procedures sufficiently or not, or had the proper mask and disinfectant or not.

I think, that if pressed on the issue, Dr. Fauci would advise most voters to only vote in person:

* if they knew what sort of mask and disinfectant to bring
* was able to get ahold of these items
* knew exactly how to use these items, particularly the mask
* were really keen on voting the traditional way, in person.

otherwise, for God's sake, use a mail-in ballot. Don't needlessly give yourself an extra chance to catch the virus before the vaccine becomes generally available within a few months, and for the most vulnerable, within a few weeks.

That is bizarre logic.  There are undoubtedly some risks from every human activity.   People going to the polls might be at risk of being struck by lightning if they leave their house to vote or be at risk of a traffic accident.  That is not justification for changing the voting laws in every state.  Fauci - who told Americans it was unsafe to do about anything else - indicated it was safe enough to vote in person.  Are we not to "listen to the science" when the science varies from a desired outcome?  As an octogenarian, Fauci found it safe enough to vote in person himself.  It was reasonably safe for others.

There was insufficient justification to use the pandemic as a pretext to change the voting laws in every state.  That was done strictly for political reasons to influence the outcome.  And the results confirm this.  The vast majority of votes that were cast using these alternative methods went to one candidate.  The changes not only allowed those who would normally have voted at the polls to do so by mail, but it increased by tens of millions the number of folks who voted.  A statistical outlier that changed the outcome of the election.  Why did tens of millions of new voters emerge in this election?  It wasn't because it was safer to vote by mail.  They didn't vote in previous election even before there was a pandemic.   Why did they vote in margins of 70-90% for the same candidate?  It was the result of ballot harvesting among young people and minority communities that was enable by the false pretext that voting in person was too risky.  That explains the statistical outliers of the 2020 election.  And it is good cause for concern.