Study the numbers below for a minute. (Don't worry about the details because *official sources* have number differing by Millions from the numbers below.)
Democrat Republican
65,788,564 2016 62,984,828 (Trump-Hilly)
81,283,501 2020 74,223,975 (Trump-bribem)
75,019,682 2024 77,303,568 (Trump-Cackles)
To say there are "anomalies" in the above claimed numbers is a vast understatement: Hilliary was far more popular than the moronic serial liar Joe bribem, and Joe's VP, Cackles, was a total nutter compared to Hilliary's not-quite-as-moronic Tim Kaine. So you'd think just considering candidate attractiveness, the Dems should have gotten fewer votes in 2020 than in 2016, eh?
Instead the official tally shows the Dems got 23.6% MORE votes with the moronic duo of bribem/Cackles than with Hilliary/Kaine. So a good question is, How likely is it that bribem/Cackles got 23.6% MORE legitimate votes in 2020 than Hilly/Kaine got four years earlier?
Yeah, I know, the fucking Media began lying about Trump on Day 1 of his first term: first it was the total fiction that "Trump colluded with Putin to steal the election frum ouah beloved Hilliary!"
The whole notion of "Trump-Russia collusion" was utterly absurd: Trump was pro-military and pro-capitalism. Seemingly a big supporter of free markets, thus anti-communist. By sharp contrast, Hilliary was thoroughly, astonishingly corrupt and hated the military (as did her pussy-obsessed husband). If you were Putin, would you rather have Hilly or Trump as commander-in-chief of your only rival power?
Obviously you'd want the corrupt, military-hating Hill-beast.
So now let's look at some numbers that show something about the official number is WAY off.
Note the total votes for R and D combined for 2020: 155,500,000. Compare this to the National Conference of State Legislatures, which reported (estimated) 159 million total votes. Wiki [yeah, I know] reports 159,738,337 votes cast. How can there be a difference of 4,238,000 between the two reported total votes cast--numbers that should be specific, verifiable, unequivocal?
No one has ever tried to explain. No member of the Lying Mainstream Media has ever even asked that question! That alone should tell you something.
Now consider Statista, which claims that in 2020 (bribem v. Trump) there were 168.31 million registered voters in the U.S. If we accept that 155,500,000 total votes were cast in 2020, out of 168.31 million registered voters, that would mean that in 2020, 92.39 percent of registered voters voted. That seems to be unbelievably high.
(But then you have websites like the "U.S. Election Assistance Commission"--which has a dot-gov URL--claiming "In 2016 states reported 214,109,360 million citizens as registered to vote." This is SO far off the consensus number from other sources that it's hard to take 'em seriously. But these sorts of discrepancies are everywhere in voting data. I note this because this is supposedly a government agency, and yet this supposed "federal agency" has a figure for registered U.S. voters that disagrees with other sites by roughly 46 MILLION people! This is outrageous--but typical.)
To compare: Wiki [yeah, I know] says that in 2020 (bribem v. Trump), about 161 million people were registered to vote and 158,427,986 ballots were counted. Wiki says that was 96.3% of registered voters--much higher that the 92.39% shown above by Statista's numbers. But even more unbelievably, if we take Wiki's claim of "about" 161 million registered voters in 2020, and 158,427,986 total votes counted, that would mean 98.4% of those registered supposedly voted.
Horseshit. You couldn't get 98.4% of any big group of Americans to get off their asses to collect a free Lexus (or other luxury car of their choice). It's not just horseshit, it's brazen, screaming, obvious horseshit. And yet no one in the Democrat-fellating Mainstream Media batted an eye--because they wanted bribem to win.
Wiki and Statista differ by 2.9 MILLION in the number of votes actually counted, and by about 7 million in the number of registered voters:Wiki says "about" 161 million while Statista says 168.31 million. Obviously both those are huge differences, in a figure that should be a matter of unequivocal public record.
In 2016--the VERY hotly contested race between Hilliary and Trump--136,669,237 ballots were officially totaled, out of 157,596,000 registered voters (86.72% of registered voters). By comparison, in 2020 a total of 155,500,000 votes were counted, out of 168,308,000 registered voters--92.39%. So the percentage of votes counted compared to registered voters rose 5.67%. This can be seen as an indication of voter enthusiasm--though there are other possible explanations.
Now consider that in 2016 (Trump-Hilly) the total, official Dem vote was 65,788,564. But just four years later (2020, Trump-bribem) the Dems were officially credited with a staggering 81,283,501 votes--23.6% MORE votes than just four years earlier.
Given how high Democrat enthusiasm was for Hilliary in 2016, how reasonable is it for the Dems to have actually gotten 23.5% MORE votes in 2020 than just four years earlier--especially since the faaabulous Hilliary was cruising to be the first female prezzy and was far more popular than the totally undistinguished bribem?
Now consider that in 2024 (Trump v. Harris/Walz), despite a record number of anti-Trump, pro-Harris articles in the Mainstream Media, and 3% more Americans of voting age, and record Dem spending, the official total Dem vote dropped by 6.2 MILLION votes from just 4 years earlier.
That huge drop from the claimed 2020 Democrat vote is extremely curious. Many Democrats have bleated that the reason was that in 2024 minorities who voted in 2020 were prevented from voting in 2024 due to "voter suppression," caused by GOP states purging their voter rolls close to election day, preventing would-be Dem voters from voting. That claim is total horseshit.
A far more plausible explanation is that even Democrats realized Cackles was a horrible person--and that her insurance policy, Tampon Timmy Walz, was equally bad. But even so, after four years of non-stop anti-Trump stories in the Media ("Trump colluded with Putin to steal the 2020 election!" "Trump and Epstein were close friends!" "Trump hates immigrants!" etc) you'd think everyone who'd voted Dem in 2020 would have done the same four years later, eh?
After four years of a non-stop barrage of anti-Trump stories, and a chance to vote for the party's hand-picked, historic "first black female" presidential nominee, you'd think everyone who voted Democrat in 2020 would have done the same in 2024, eh?
And with 3% more registered voters, you'd think the total Dem vote would be *roughly* 3% higher than four years earlier, eh? Yet in 2024 the total Dem vote *dropped* 7.7% from 2020.
The only way such a huge drop makes sense is if bribem didn't get nearly the 81,283,501 votes officially reported in 2020. A far more plausible number of Dem votes in 2020 would be 75,000,000, which would be 14% higher than 2016 (due to the huge wave of anti-Trump Media stories for four years). Then the fact that in 2024 Cackles got virtually the same number--75,020,000--also makes more sense, because the 3% increase in registered Dem voters would be offset by the slight drop in voter enthusiasm, NOT because Dem voters didn't love Cackles and Timmy but because some were angered by the fact that Cackles was handed the nomination by Pelosi, without winning (or even entering) a single primary.
So apparently in 2024 the Democrat party didn't attempt the massive vote fraud that gave the utterly corrupt bribem the presidency in 2020.
Given the foregoing the logical question is, Since the past obviously can't be changed, why bother to cite evidence suggesting the Democrats engaged in truly massive, brazen vote fraud in 2020, eh? After all, after six years it's obvious no one will be charged, any more than Obozo will be charged for the infamous Oval Office meeting in which he directed his FBI to spend the next four years of undermining Trump.
The reason is to prevent this from happening again.
Turns out there are *at least* a dozen easy ways to rig an election in the U.S.
1. Scanning the same stack of known 99% Dem ballots multiple times.
2. Mail carriers (99% Democrat) trashing mail-in ballots addressed to high-income neighborhoods (likely to vote GOP). This was proven;
3. Dem operatives paying up to $50 apiece for blank mail-in ballots. Proven;
4. Dem operatives "harvesting" ballots from nursing-home residents, filling 'em out for Democrat candidates and submitting em without a matching sig, or witness sigs. Proven;
5. Democrat poll workers telling voters their scanners were broken, so "to help workers," GOP voters were instructed to put their ballots in bag #1, while Democrats are told to put their ballots in bag #2. One of those bags doesn't make it to the counting center. Since polling places don't publish the number of votes cast (even though that number is known) no one ever compares it to the number of votes totaled by the counting center, so the discrepancy is never detected.
6. Printing thousands more ballots than the number of registered voters, for the stated purpose of having extras in the central warehous in case unusually high turnout occurs at a few precincts, causing poll workers to ask the central authority for more ballots. Ballots sent to a precinct are logged, but tens of thousands of the "reserve ballots" aren't logged in at the central warehouse since they haven't been sent to a precinct yet. Thousands can be stolen by election workers.
7. Fake mail-in ballots: For the elections office to mail ballots to voters, those ballots must be folded to fit in the envelope. But surveillance cameras in counting centers show stacks of supposed mail-in ballots with no creases. If they were mailed to voters, then back to the state, how can they not show any creases (folds)?
8. Democrat-owned and -staffed commercial printing companies are paid by Dem state govts to print millions of mail-in ballots--legitimate contracts. But after the "state run," they print an extra 50,000 or so that are never given to the state and never show up on any inventory.
Some election workers claim that these extra ballots are sometimes printed on thinner, lighter-weight paper that lacks the authenticating "watermark" on the official ballots. Experienced paper experts claim they can tell the weight difference at a touch, but poll workers aren't told to check this, or look for watermarks.
9. Voter impersonation: this was always the easy/obvious way: Someone shows up to vote claiming to be [name]. If there's no record that the person they claim to be has voted, they're waved right thru. But if the precinct received a mail-in ballot from person X, the fake who shows up in person is allowed to cast a "provisional ballot" which is only counted after an investigation to verify that the person who showed up in person was who they claimed to be.
And in some Dem-ruled shithole states like Minnesomalia, provisional ballots are scanned and counted right away, so can never be removed from the total count even if the person is found to have lied about being eligible to vote.
But in practice, few such investigations are made. *At worst* for the fraudsters, both legal and fraudulent ballots are accepted, meaning either 2 Dem votes, or 1 of each, in which case the imposter has offset a GOP vote. Win-win.
10. Drop boxes: If you show up to vote in person, workers can't (and don't) ask for photo ID, since duh Dems haz sed dat wud be raaaaacis'! But in most states you still have to sign in on some type of log book.
In theory the precinct has the signature of the real voter on file, and in theory the two can be compared to determine if the person showing up to vote was who he or she claimed to be. Problem is, by the time that can be done, that person's ballot has already been anonymized and scanned, so it's been counted.
Further, the Democrats DEMANDED hundreds of unattended, unguarded "drop boxes," so obviously there's no sign-in sig that can be compared.
Of course ballots in drop-boxes are identical to mail-in ballots, and in theory workers at the counting center are supposed to check that signatures on mail-in ballots match the sig voters gave when registering. But surveillance videos of the computer screens of the workers supposedly comparing sigs show that thousands of sigs were okayed even if they didn't remotely match the one on file.
This is how you wind up with ten or 20% more votes counted in a precinct than registered voters.
The Dem-fellating Media never ask Dems how that happened.
11: In Fulton County, Georgia, officials said they were halting vote counting, and everyone was to go home. The alleged reason was a "water main" broke in a bathroom of the counting center.
Three problems with this: first, the alleged "water main" was actually a leaking 3/8ths-inch line feeding a single urinal, so wouldn't have been a threat in any case. Second, maintenance logs show the leak was reported at around 8 a.m. and fixed by 9 a.m, so wouldn't have been causing any problem at 8 p.m. that night.
The third problem is that after Democrat election officials supposedly stopped counting and told everyone to leave, surveillance video shows at least three workers kept scanning ballots for several more hours. Two of these workers were Ruby Freeman and her adult daughter. The latter was a supervisor at the counting center, and the two were seen feeding stack after stack of ballots into scanners for another hour or so after everyone else had been ordered to leave. One of the two was seen feeding the same stack into a scanner at least three times, without making any new control inputs.
All of the above points are why simply re-adding counted votes is useless to detect fraud: The problem is that if ballots themselves are fraudulent, simply counting 'em won't reveal the fraud. Only a "forensic examination" of counted ballots will have any hope of identifying fraud--which is why Democrats have fought any attempt to do such examinations.
The Dems bleat that examining ballots will "violate voter privacy," and that they're heroically fighting to "protect the secret ballot!" Horseshit. The identifying info used to authenticate mail-in ballots is separate from the ballot itself, and once the voter info is supposedly authenticated it's separated from the ballot, in which case there's NO way to identify who cast that ballot.
So by lying, Democrats are able to pose as heroically defending ouah sacred right to a secret ballot, when in fact they're using the claim to defeat efforts to discover vote fraud!
