Anonymous ID: 90fda4 Aug. 12, 2021, 10:30 p.m. No.14342267   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2293 >>2302 >>2342 >>2354 >>2388 >>2461 >>2474 >>2512 >>2635 >>2825 >>2957 >>2992

US Media Goes FULL Pravda: NOT ONE SINGLE Mainstream Outlet Reports on President’s Naked Son with Hooker Complaining About Russians Stealing His Laptop for Blackmail

By Jim Hoft

Published August 12, 2021 at 11:57pm

 

Earlier this week video was released of President Biden’s son Hunter Biden naked with a hooker complaining about Russians stealing his laptop for blackmail purposes.

 

Hunter Biden filmed the whole thing and kept the video on his laptop that he later abandoned at a computer repair shop in Delaware.

 

This is a national scandal like NOTHING this country has ever seen before.

Certainly, dirtbag Chris Wray and the FBI are on top of this?

 

And yet NOT ONE mainstream liberal outlet even ran the story!

NOT ONE!

 

Only under Biden could breaking news of the president’s son naked with a hooker complaining that Russians stole his laptop to blackmail him be not a story at all in the main stream media.

 

Congratulations media, you completely suck.

 

— Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) August 12, 2021

 

Can you imagine the headlines and movies and books and harassing reporters if a Trump son or daughter ever did anything CLOSE to this?

This is really a defining moment in US history.

 

We no longer have anything that even resembles the fourth estate in America anymore.

 

A quick search on DuckDuckGo on “Hunter Biden prostitute Russia laptop” and you get this.

 

Google has this… Only Newsweek and FOX News reported on the incident. Newsweek plays it as a joke.

 

The mainstream media cannot be trusted at all anymore.

What else are they hiding from you?

 

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/08/us-media-goes-full-pravda-not-one-single-mainstream-outlet-reports-presidents-naked-son-hooker-complaining-russians-stealing-laptop-blackmail/

Anonymous ID: 90fda4 Aug. 12, 2021, 10:51 p.m. No.14342355   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2461 >>2512 >>2635 >>2825 >>2957 >>2992

Arizona Red Roots, [13.08.21 01:11]

[Forwarded from Red Roots Conservatives]

UPDATE ON $160 Million Class Action Law Suit Against Dominion (and Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, and other Elected Officials)

 

The corrupt District Court granted some of the Motions for Sanctions, which were brought against these brave attorneys. This is without ever even having an evidentiary hearing.

 

"No facts have been examined. If you read the Judge's opinion, it appears that he has accepted the MSM narrative and completely discounted all evidence that has come to light to date regarding election fraud." - Attorney Walker

 

"Many of our clients feel like they don't have a vote. You can go vote, but what matter is it if whatever you vote gets overridden by phantom votes or vote switching? Well now they feel like they don't have a voice. They don't have a vote, they don't have a voice. That's not a very comfortable feeling. Not only do they not have a vote or a voice, they don't have attorneys. Because when your attorney files a suit on your behalf, your attorney gets sanctioned and criticized, and defamed, and slandered all across the world. It hasn't been a pleasant experience for us, but we're not backing down and we're moving forward in the most positive way that we can." - Attorney Fielder

 

The Attorneys say they will not give up the fight and have already filed an Appeal which they are very confident in -it's Black Letter Law. They plan to file a Motion for Reconsideration regarding the sanctions.

 

They explain the importance of filing suit against individuals themselves, not individuals in their official capacity (in government).

 

Watch the Latest Update Here: https://youtu.be/Gip2BoSTR5o

 

Very informative update. Please consider donating to Attorney Gary Fielder & Attorney Ernie Walker's efforts against Dominion's violation of our Civil Rights.

Learn more by visiting their website:

https://www.dominionclassaction.com/

 

https://t.me/ArizonaRedRoots/1928

Anonymous ID: 90fda4 Aug. 12, 2021, 10:51 p.m. No.14342359   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2408 >>2461 >>2512 >>2635 >>2825 >>2957 >>2992

1/4

Zuckerberg Grant Allowed Outsider to Infiltrate Presidential Election in Wisconsin

 

MADISON, Wis.—When Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his wife handed out hundreds of millions of dollars last year for a national safe-voting initiative, the “donation” was heralded as vital support to “protect American elections” and to “bolster democracy during the pandemic.”

But what the grant money really purchased in battleground states such as Wisconsin was infiltration of the November presidential elections by liberal groups and Democratic activists, according to hundreds of pages of emails and other documents obtained by Wisconsin Spotlight.

In the city of Green Bay, which received a total of $1.6 million in grant funding from the Zuckerberg-funded Center for Tech and Civic Life, a “grant mentor” who has worked for several Democratic Party candidates, was given access to boxes of absentee ballots before the election.

Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein, Wisconsin state leader for the National Vote at Home Institute, in many ways became the de facto city elections chief.

The emails show Green Bay’s highly partisan Mayor Eric Genrich, a Democrat, and his staff usurping City Clerk Kris Teske’s authority and letting the Zuckerberg-funded “grant team” take over—a clear violation of Wisconsin election statutes, say election law experts.

And the liberal groups were improperly insinuating themselves into the election system and coordinating with what became known as the “Wisconsin 5,” the state’s five largest communities that split more than $6 million in Zuckerberg money.

The emails expose the dangers of handing over the administrative keys to private “fair election” groups with a clear political agenda.

In final official results in Wisconsin, Democrat nominee Joe Biden defeated President Donald Trump by 49.6% to 48.9% of the vote, flipping a state that Trump won in 2016.

State Rep. Janel Brandtjen, R-Menomonee Falls, who chairs the Wisconsin State Assembly’s Campaigns and Elections Committee, said the Green Bay emails, first obtained by state Rep. Shae Sortwell, R-Two Rivers, through an open records request, was to be front and center Wednesday at a hearing before the elections committee.

“Going forward, if we don’t address them, I think we have a breakdown in Wisconsin’s political system,” Brandtjen said.

 

Outside Help

In July, the Center for Tech and Civic Life announced it was awarding grants totaling $6.3 million to the state’s five largest cities. Green Bay received nearly $1.1 million, and then picked up another half-million dollars in a supplemental grant.

The money ostensibly was to be used to “support election administration in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.” The “Wisconsin 5,” heavy Democratic strongholds, worked together to secure the funding.

The grants were thanks to the $250 million “gift” from the CEO of Facebook, the social network giant that has silenced conservative speech. Zuckerberg would drop another $100 million on his “safe elections” agenda before the pivotal November presidential election.

It was clear early on that the grant would come with a side of politics.

“I’ve been reading things on Facebook about people complaining where the million [-dollar grant] is coming from. I think it might get political,” Teske, then-Green Bay city clerk, wrote in a July 14 email to Diana Ellenbecker, the city’s finance director and Teske’s boss.

Teske wrote that Celestine Jeffreys, the mayor’s chief of staff, “talked about having advisers from the organization giving the grant who will be ‘helping us’ with the election and I don’t know anything about that.”

Eventually, the advisers would play an extensive role in “helping” administer Green Bay’s election.

“We are really excited to put the funds to work to make sure that every Green Bay resident has the opportunity to vote safely and securely in August and November,” Genrich said in a press release announcing the grant.

The mayor championed the grant and the Green Bay City Council approved the funding—with conditions from the grant provider.

“CTCL said, if you don’t follow our requirements, we get the money back,” said Erick Kaardal, an appellate law attorney representing the Wisconsin Voters Alliance, which challenged the constitutionality of election procedures in Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin following the election. “The city had to report to CTCL how it was spending the grant money, then [CTCL] introduced all of the nonprofits.”

Anonymous ID: 90fda4 Aug. 12, 2021, 10:52 p.m. No.14342364   🗄️.is 🔗kun

2/4

‘Can We Help?‘

One of the key players involved was Spitzer-Rubenstein, the state leader for election security for the National Vote at Home Institute.

The institute, one of many left-leaning subcontractors in the “election support” network, is tied at the hip to the Center for Tech and Civil Life. CTCL’s founder and executive director is in the “Circle of Advisers” for the National Vote at Home Institute.

Spitzer-Rubenstein, who was tapped as point man for his organization’s efforts in Wisconsin, has a history of working for Democratic campaigns, according to his resume. In 2012, he interned for Melissa Mark-Viverito, a “fiercely liberal” Democrat and former speaker of the New York City Council.

Spitzer-Rubenstein sought to assist Green Bay elections officials correct or “cure” absentee ballots returned to the city clerk.

“Can we help with curing absentee ballots that are missing a signature or witness signature address?” he wrote to Teske, the city clerk, in an Oct. 7 email.

Although the Wisconsin Elections Commission permitted clerks to fix absentee ballot errors or omissions, it didn’t say former Democratic Party operatives could “help.”

The city clerk declined Spitzer-Rubenstein’s offer.

 

The mayor’s office applied pressure.

“The grant mentors would like to meet with you to discuss, further, the ballot curing process. Please let them know when you’re available,” Jeffreys, Genrich’s chief of staff, demanded of Teske.

Spitzer-Rubenstein assured the clerk that the National Vote at Home Institute had done the same for others.

“We have a process map that we’ve worked out with Milwaukee for their process,” he wrote. “We can also adapt the letter we’re sending out with rejected absentee ballots along with a call script alerting voters (We can also get people to make the calls, too, so you don’t need to worry about it.).”

Jeffreys told Wisconsin Spotlight that she hadn’t seen the emails (though she sent them), so she couldn’t comment on them. She said she probably wouldn’t have time to review them, even if they were sent to her.

 

Too Much ‘Help’

Teske was losing her patience—and control of her office. Several emails show the city clerk’s growing frustration with the mayor, his chief of staff, the city’s ad hoc elections committee, and the nonprofit interlopers who were making themselves at home in Green Bay election administration.

“As you know I am very frustrated, along with the Clerk’s Office. I don’t know what to do anymore,” the city clerk wrote in late August to Ellenbecker, her boss as finance director. “I am trying to explain the process but it isn’t heard. I don’t feel I can talk to the mayor after the last meeting you, me, Celestine, and the mayor had even though the door is supposedly open. I don’t understand how people who don’t have knowledge of the process can tell us how to manage the election.”

On Oct. 22, things apparently reached a boiling point. Teske told Ellenbecker that two members of the clerk’s staff wanted to quit, and another was looking for a new job. They were being ignored or bullied by the mayor’s office.

“They call me crying or they say they went home crying,” the clerk said.

Teske wondered if the grant team consultants understood Wisconsin election law.

“I also asked when these people from the grant give us advisers who is go [sic] to be determining if there [sic] opinion is legal or not,” she wrote July 9 in an email to Ellenbecker. “Every state has different election laws. And this group is from Illinois. They already should have pointed out that additional in-person early voting sites can’t happen because the deadline has passed.”

Eventually, Teske could take no more. On Oct. 22, she wrote in an email that she was taking a leave of absence. By the end of the year, she officially had resigned to take a similar position with the nearby community of Ashwaubenon.

Teske did not return Wisconsin Spotlight’s requests for comment.

Anonymous ID: 90fda4 Aug. 12, 2021, 10:52 p.m. No.14342368   🗄️.is 🔗kun

3/4

Keys to the Election

In Teske’s absence, it appears that Spitzer-Rubenstein and his team ramped up their involvement in the upcoming election. The state leader for the National Vote at Home Institute seemed to be everywhere, leading just about every aspect of Green Bay’s election administration.

“Are the ballots going to be in trays/boxes within the bin? I’m at KI now, trying to figure out whether we’ll need to move the bins throughout the day or if we can just stick them along the wall and use trays or something similar to move the ballots between stations,” Spitzer-Rubenstein wrote in an email to city liaison Amaad Rivera two days before the election.

The KI Convention Center at Green Bay’s Hyatt Regency was where the election team decided to locate the city’s Central Count and where the absentee ballots were stored, late in the game.

Central Count originally was to be at City Hall, but space limitations and COVID-19 concerns forced the move to the convention center. At one point, a city official, after talking with a representative from the National Vote at Home Institute, was “brainstorming” about how the city could livestream Central Count at City Hall “so that [election observers] do not enter the building.”

Spitzer-Rubenstein was given the keys to the room where the absentee ballots were stored. A Hyatt Regency checklist instructed staff: “DO NOT UNLOCK GRAND BALLROOM UNTIL Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein IS WITH SECURITY WHEN UNLOCKING THE GRAND BALLROOM DOORS.”

Sandy Juno, who retired from the post of Brown County clerk in early January, said the contract stipulated that Spitzer-Rubenstein would have four of the five keys to the KI Center’s ballroom “several days before the election.”

The city of Green Bay literally gave the keys to the election to a Democratic Party operative from New York.

Anonymous ID: 90fda4 Aug. 12, 2021, 10:53 p.m. No.14342369   🗄️.is 🔗kun

4/4

Green Bay Goes Rogue

Juno raised concerns about how the election was conducted in Green Bay. She told the Wisconsin Elections Commission that she believed the Central Count location was “tainted by the influence of a person working for an outside organization affecting the election.”

Nathan Judnic, Elections Commission staff attorney, said nothing prohibited the city from working with the groups, but “the inspectors and the absentee board of canvassers working the location are the individuals that are to be making decisions, not the consultants.”

It’s clear by the emails, though, that Spitzer-Rubenstein and crew were calling a lot of the shots.

Juno said Green Bay city officials, led by the mayor’s office, broke off communications with the Brown County clerk’s office long before the election.

“We had one municipality in Brown County that really went rogue,” she said. “In 2020, Green Bay was just on their own.”

Although the city may not have been communicating with the county, it was communicating and coordinating with the “WI-5,” particularly Milwaukee elections officials, the emails show.

Kaardal, the lawyer for the Wisconsin Voters Alliance, asserts that the liberal nonprofit groups worked with the mayor’s office, the Green Bay City Council, and the ad hoc election committee to usurp the city clerk’s authority.

Wisconsin election law clearly spells out that municipal clerks are in charge of administering elections. Kaardal said Center for Tech and Civic Life’s election security funding came with conditions that bound the city to give these left-leaning actors power they could not legally take.

The mayor and his team, as well as the City Council, had no legal right to limit the city clerk’s role in the elections, or take them over.

Kaardal said the question isn’t about election fraud; it’s about the laws broken by the third-party groups and the city, leaving doubt about the integrity of the election system.

“What’s critical to understand is how legally unauthorized all of this is,” said the lawyer, who also is special counsel for the Thomas More Society.

A top official for the Center for Tech and Civic Life did not return Wisconsin Spotlight’s request for comment.

Brandtjen, chairman of the Assembly’s Campaigns and Elections Committee, said liberal voters would have the same concerns if the shoe were on the other foot.

“I would liken it to if someone had the tea party running the elections in [Republican] Waukesha County,” the lawmaker said.

The Republican-controlled Legislature recently has introduced several reform bills, a response to myriad election integrity concerns leading up to and through the heated presidential election.

The package of bills includes legislation prohibiting clerks and election officials from curing ballots, returning to the original intent of the law that electors and witnesses for absentee voters fix mistakes or omissions.

Another reform measure would require private funding to go through the state, which would divide the money among more than just Wisconsin’s largest, most liberal cities.

“My constituents have had a lot of concerns about the 2020 elections. What we’ve seen in the back and forth of these emails in Green Bay legitimizes their concerns,” Brandtjen said.

 

https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/03/11/zuckerberg-grant-allowed-outsider-to-infiltrate-presidential-election-in-wisconsin/

Anonymous ID: 90fda4 Aug. 12, 2021, 10:59 p.m. No.14342394   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2402 >>2461 >>2512 >>2635 >>2825 >>2957 >>2992

1/2

Horowitz: New analysis shows Biden winning nearly impossible margins on mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania

Nov 30, 2020

Facts

DANIEL HOROWITZ

There has been a lot of focus on the number of mail-in ballots counted in Pennsylvania and the illegal state Supreme Court decisions that enabled them. But what is even more important to examine is the impossible margins Joe Biden would have achieved just among those mail-in ballots and just in Pennsylvania in order to obtain the unofficial lead he currently has.

Here are the facts. We know that 2.6 million mail-in ballots have been counted in the Pennsylvania election returns, in addition to nearly 4.2 million Election Day votes. We also know from the secretary of state that Trump won Election Day votes, 2.7 million to 1.4 million. But we are to believe that Biden won 76% of mail-in ballots.

Yes, mail-ins overwhelmingly skewed Democrat, like Election Day votes skewed Republican, but they were not all from Democrats. We know that 64.7% of those votes were from registered Democrats, 23.7% from Republicans, and 11.6% from nonpartisan or other party voters.

What does this mean in simple arithmetic? My friend (who goes by screen name Gummi Bear on Twitter) crunched the numbers and showed that had Biden won 95% of returned Democrat mail-in votes, 21% of returned Republican votes, and 80% of returned independent votes, he would still have come up short of his margin of victory reported in the unofficial tally.

We know those numbers alone are absurd. There is no way Biden won 21% of mail-in ballots from registered Republicans in this state. Exit polls showed Biden getting just 8% of the GOP vote overall. While the 95% number for Democrat mail-ins is more believable (exits showed him getting 92%), the notion that 80% of mail-ins from independents went to Biden is nearly impossible. Exit polls showed Biden winning 52% of the vote of independents overall. It would defy logic to think that there was such a qualitative gap between the type of independents who came out on Election Day and those who voted by mail.

Assuming the mail-ins broke down in accordance with the exit polls, Biden would be down by 213K votes, even if every one of the 2.6 million mail-ins were truly valid and had proper matching signatures.

 

But if we input WaPo's real exit poll data? Biden is -213K vote shy of his actual total https://t.co/8szgr95Blb

— Gummi Bear (@Gummi Bear)1606568693.0

 

And speaking of signature validation, this statistical anomaly should lend a lot of suspicion to the already questionably low rejection rate of mail-in ballots this year. According to the 2016 Election Administration and Voting Survey, the rejection rate last election was just a tad under 1% in the Keystone State, even though there were only 266K mail-in ballots, which are mainly those who have experience filling out absentee ballots. This year, with 2.6 million mail-ins, consisting primarily of first-timers, we are to believe that just 0.038% were invalid?

Some estimates show that mail-in ballots from first-timers are three times more likely to be rejected. Yet we are to believe the acceptance rate this year was 27 times higher than in 2016?

Can you imagine what we would find if there was an attempt to audit and match all 2.6 million ballots for valid signatures and other information? Even Barack Obama, during his March 2008 primary with Hillary Clinton, raised concerns about the need to verify signatures on mail-in ballots.

Anonymous ID: 90fda4 Aug. 12, 2021, 10:59 p.m. No.14342395   🗄️.is 🔗kun

2/2

The sheer number of perfectly completed absentee ballots and the shockingly lopsided margins for Biden seem to lie beyond our willing suspension of disbelief on numerous fronts. For example, as state Sen. Mike Jones (R) explained at the hearing in Gettysburg last Wednesday, just an apples-to-apples comparison between Republican Election Day vs. Republican mail-in ballots and then Democrat Election Day vs. Democrat mail-in ballots reveals an extremely anomalous and contradictory trend in down-ballot races as compared to the presidential race.

While Trump supposedly lost at the top of the ticket, Republican Stacy Garrity beat incumbent Democrat Joseph Torsella in the race for state treasurer, even though she garnered 91,000 fewer votes than Trump. That in itself is not surprising, because many people don't bother to complete the down-ballot votes, so it stands to reason that the total votes cast would be lower. What is interesting, however, is that while Trump got 170,000 more Election Day votes than Garrity, the obscure Republican running for the little-known state treasurer office got 41,000 more votes than Trump via mail-ins.

So again, mail-in voters seem to really dislike Trump, even compared to other Republicans.

The same dynamic played out in the state auditor's race, where the Republican ultimately won the election with fewer votes than Trump, but did better than Trump in mail-ins. Trump received 105,000 more votes that Republican Timothy Defoor on Election Day, but managed to receive 65,000 fewer votes among mail-ins.

 

Source: Pennsylvania Secretary of State

Now hold that thought for a moment.

We see that when comparing predominantly Republican voters to each other in both races, fewer people filled out the ballot for the obscure Republican treasurer and auditor candidates when voting in person. This makes sense, because more people would be in a rush after waiting in line for an hour and would be feeling pressured by the people and election officials around them, compared to those filling out ballots in the comfort of their homes. I'd certainly expect to find more "lazy ballots" among those voting on Election Day.

With this in mind, let's move on to the race for attorney general. Incumbent Democrat Joshua Shapiro is certainly more well known than either candidate for state treasurer or auditor, and he won by the largest margin of any statewide election candidate that night. If the obscure Republican victor for treasurer outpaced Trump's total for mail-in ballots (while garnering fewer votes than Trump overall), one would certainly expect Shapiro to outpace Biden among mostly Democrat voters in mail-in ballots.

 

Source: Pennsylvania Secretary of State

Well, as luck would have it, Shapiro got 52,000 more votes than Biden on Election Day, but 54,000 fewer votes than Biden among mail-ins. If people are lazy about filling out down-ballot races, wouldn't you expect to see that more among Election Day votes, as we saw with Republican candidates?

These are not conclusions or closing arguments, but these observations definitely warrant further investigation for one simple reason: The entire premise of having an election with one-third of the ballots cast through mail was built upon an illegal political decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which unilaterally overrode state laws, violating the federal Constitution, which vests state legislatures with the power over election procedures. It also violated the state constitution.

https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-new-analysis-shows-biden-winning-nearly-impossible-margins-on-mail-in-ballots-in-pennsylvania

Anonymous ID: 90fda4 Aug. 12, 2021, 11:05 p.m. No.14342417   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2451 >>2461 >>2512 >>2635 >>2825 >>2957 >>2992

1/2

Reasons why the 2020 presidential election is deeply puzzling

If only cranks find the tabulations strange, put me down as a crank

 

November 27, 2020 | 3:44 pm

 

o say out-loud that you find the results of the 2020 presidential election odd is to invite derision. You must be a crank or a conspiracy theorist. Mark me down as a crank, then. I am a pollster and I find this election to be deeply puzzling. I also think that the Trump campaign is still well within its rights to contest the tabulations. Something very strange happened in America’s democracy in the early hours of Wednesday November 4 and the days that followed. It’s reasonable for a lot of Americans to want to find out exactly what.

 

First, consider some facts. President Trump received more votes than any previous incumbent seeking reelection. He got 11 million more votes than in 2016, the third largest rise in support ever for an incumbent. By way of comparison, President Obama was comfortably reelected in 2012 with 3.5 million fewer votes than he received in 2008.

 

Trump’s vote increased so much because, according to exit polls, he performed far better with many key demographic groups. Ninety-five percent of Republicans voted for him. He did extraordinarily well with rural male working-class whites.

 

Trump grew his support among black voters by 50 percent over 2016. Nationally, Joe Biden’s black support fell well below 90 percent, the level below which Democratic presidential candidates usually lose.

 

Trump increased his share of the national Hispanic vote to 35 percent. With 60 percent or less of the national Hispanic vote, it is arithmetically impossible for a Democratic presidential candidate to win Florida, Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico. Bellwether states swung further in Trump’s direction than in 2016. Florida, Ohio and Iowa each defied America’s media polls with huge wins for Trump. Since 1852, only Richard Nixon has lost the Electoral College after winning this trio, and that 1960 defeat to John F. Kennedy is still the subject of great suspicion.

 

Midwestern states Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin always swing in the same direction as Ohio and Iowa, their regional peers. Ohio likewise swings with Florida. Current tallies show that, outside of a few cities, the Rust Belt swung in Trump’s direction. Yet, Biden leads in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin because of an apparent avalanche of black votes in Detroit, Philadelphia, and Milwaukee. Biden’s ‘winning’ margin was derived almost entirely from such voters in these cities, as coincidentally his black vote spiked only in exactly the locations necessary to secure victory. He did not receive comparable levels of support among comparable demographic groups in comparable states, which is highly unusual for the presidential victor.

 

We are told that Biden won more votes nationally than any presidential candidate in history. But he won a record low of 17 percent of counties; he only won 524 counties, as opposed to the 873 counties Obama won in 2008. Yet, Biden somehow outdid Obama in total votes.

 

Victorious presidential candidates, especially challengers, usually have down-ballot coattails; Biden did not. The Republicans held the Senate and enjoyed a ‘red wave’ in the House, where they gained a large number of seats while winning all 27 toss-up contests. Trump’s party did not lose a single state legislature and actually made gains at the state level.

 

Another anomaly is found in the comparison between the polls and non-polling metrics. The latter include: party registrations trends; the candidates’ respective primary votes; candidate enthusiasm; social media followings; broadcast and digital media ratings; online searches; the number of (especially small) donors; and the number of individuals betting on each candidate.

 

Despite poor recent performances, media and academic polls have an impressive 80 percent record predicting the winner during the modern era. But, when the polls err, non-polling metrics do not; the latter have a 100 percent record. Every non-polling metric forecast Trump’s reelection. For Trump to lose this election, the mainstream polls needed to be correct, which they were not. Furthermore, for Trump to lose, not only did one or more of these metrics have to be wrong for the first time ever, but every single one had to be wrong, and at the very same time; not an impossible outcome, but extremely unlikely nonetheless.

Anonymous ID: 90fda4 Aug. 12, 2021, 11:05 p.m. No.14342420   🗄️.is 🔗kun

2/2

Despite poor recent performances, media and academic polls have an impressive 80 percent record predicting the winner during the modern era. But, when the polls err, non-polling metrics do not; the latter have a 100 percent record. Every non-polling metric forecast Trump’s reelection. For Trump to lose this election, the mainstream polls needed to be correct, which they were not. Furthermore, for Trump to lose, not only did one or more of these metrics have to be wrong for the first time ever, but every single one had to be wrong, and at the very same time; not an impossible outcome, but extremely unlikely nonetheless.

 

Atypical voting patterns married with misses by polling and non-polling metrics should give observers pause for thought. Adding to the mystery is a cascade of information about the bizarre manner in which so many ballots were accumulated and counted.

 

The following peculiarities also lack compelling explanations:

 

  1. Late on election night, with Trump comfortably ahead, many swing states stopped counting ballots. In most cases, observers were removed from the counting facilities. Counting generally continued without the observers

 

  1. Statistically abnormal vote counts were the new normal when counting resumed. They were unusually large in size (hundreds of thousands) and had an unusually high (90 percent and above) Biden-to-Trump ratio

 

  1. Late arriving ballots were counted. In Pennsylvania, 23,000 absentee ballots have impossible postal return dates and another 86,000 have such extraordinary return dates they raise serious questions

 

  1. The failure to match signatures on mail-in ballots. The destruction of mail-in ballot envelopes, which must contain signatures

 

  1. Historically low absentee ballot rejection rates despite the massive expansion of mail voting. Such is Biden’s narrow margin that, as political analyst Robert Barnes observes, ‘If the states simply imposed the same absentee ballot rejection rate as recent cycles, then Trump wins the election’

 

  1. Missing votes. In Delaware County, Pennsylvania, 50,000 votes held on 47 USB cards are missing

 

  1. Non-resident voters. Matt Braynard’s Voter Integrity Project estimates that 20,312 people who no longer met residency requirements cast ballots in Georgia. Biden’s margin is 12,670 votes

 

https://spectatorworld.com/topic/reasons-why-the-2020-presidential-election-is-deeply-puzzling/