2000 Mules

[Kinnakeet]

I don't remember that, but as addle-brained as he is, it wouldn't surprise me. And then an Easter Bunny would jump in to keep him from saying more.

Before anyone even brought up specific cases that have been brought up - my primary skepticism arose from THIS - one of my favorite spots on the Web is David Leip's Presidential Atlas. https://uselectionatlas.org/ No opinion, just easy to access facts in easy to read tables and charts.

What I notice is a pattern for decades that voter turnout and voter increase from presidential election to the next tends to fall into a rather predictable pattern.

Total Votes Winner
1976 81 million 40 million
1980 86 million 44 million
1984 92 million 54 million
1988 91 million 49 million
1992 104 million 45 million
1996 96 million 47 million
2000 105 million 50 million
2004 122 million 62 million
2008 131 million 69 million
2012 129 million 65 million
2016 137 million 63 million

2020 158 million 81 million (Loser: 74 million).


You'll notice that, from year to year, voter participation may vary, but it's usually predictable, and the winner's total increases slightly over time (as does the total vote, because more voters come of age, for one thing).

A couple years buck the trend, and for good reason - in '92, the first third party candidate with ANY shot became popular and at one point - before he tempoarily dropped out - it was believed he could WIN. Why do I think the Perot effect? Because four years later, it went back down, along with Perot's votes. While 2004 befuddles me somewhat, it is no surprise at all that 2008 sticks out - it was the first time a Black man ran for President atop one of the two major parties. Of COURSE there would be huge voter turnout.

But you will also notice that the WINNER doesn't change an awful lot. It's still pretty amazing that it took twenty years for a candidate to beat Reagan's re-election total.

But there's somethign AWFULLY WEIRD about 2020. In 2020, a man without much of a message, zero charisma, barely campaigned and who could not draw an audience of more than a few hundred OBLITERATED Obama's previous record of 69 million votes, which he HIMSELF did not beat in 2012. Nor did Hillary, the first WOMAN to head a ticket.

No, it isn't statistically logical that that sort of man would totally annihilate every previous presidential vote record. The ONLY case that could be made is, they made it so abundantly easy to vote, that millions more decided to do it, without the excuse of "Couldn't make it to the polls" or "Lines were too long" and so on.

But I also have to mention that the more opportunities and more means to vote, at more locations and times also translates into much LESS secure elections, especially when you have places like drop boxes with virtually zero security. It is illogical to assume that you can make an election MORE secure with less security and more options for voting.

 

[SamSpade]

Gotcha - I remember that. I don't think he was confessing, I think the old idiot couldn't figure out what he was saying, because he was likely TRYING to say that they had the "most secure election in history"(in another way), the phrase they loved to use for the first few months after the election, an exaggeration so obtuse it borders on ABSURD - FAR too many states made up so very many rules for voting, it would have been completely impossible to validate anything with certainty.

 

[Kyle]

Gotcha - I remember that. I don't think he was confessing, I think the old idiot couldn't figure out what he was saying, because he was likely TRYING to say that they had the "most secure election in history"(in another way), the phrase they loved to use for the first few months after the election, an exaggeration so obtuse it borders on ABSURD - FAR too many states made up so very many rules for voting, it would have been completely impossible to validate anything with certainty.

Freudian slip.

 

[SamSpade]

Freudian slip.

Nomrally, I'd think so. If it had been Obama. I think Biden is SO FAR OUT OF IT, he has no idea how secure the elections were, or weren't.

 

[Monello]

Total Votes Winner

2000 105 million 50 million
2004 122 million 62 million

2016 137 million 63 million
2020 158 million 81 million (Loser: 74 million).


While 2004 befuddles me somewhat,

This is the only consecutive election vote totals that could explain the enormous increase in total votes in 2020. I did not research the vote totals, so I'm going with what you posted as factual.

1 period shows a 17 million vote increase 4 years later('00 to '04). The 2020 increase was +/- 21 million. Trump increased his vote totals by 11.3 million. I have no doubt that a good percentage of that increase is from people that didn't vote in 2016.

Follow this logic closely. Of the 17 million vote increase in '04, 12 million of those votes went to the winner over the previous election's winner. Or 70% of the increase. In 2020 the 21 million vote increase ends up being 85.7% of the votes going to the winner over the previous election's vote leader. The 85% would be a valid percent if the election was a landslide. But 2020 was neck & neck close. You could argue with such a close race, the percentage should have been less than the 70% in the first example. It should have been closer to 50%, 60% tops. Yet somehow it's almost 86%???

It shouldn't surprise anyone that Trump increased his vote totals. Absent the plandemic, imagine what his numbers could have been.

 

[SamSpade]

This is the only consecutive election vote totals that could explain the enormous increase in total votes in 2020. I did not research the vote totals, so I'm going with what you posted as factual.

Check out the site I linked. It's really interesting.

 

[SamSpade]

Actually they didn't need central planning. Every democrat that got into the election process knows their role without instruction.

They only need reach out when something happens beyond their small groups ability.

You know what didn't makes sense? That SO VERY MANY of the offices down ballot did NOT go to Democrats.
How many people would make the effort to cast a vote for Biden - but still vote for so many Repubicans on the rest of the ticket?

Answer - they didn't. There were an ENORMOUS number of ballots that just had a Biden vote. Nothing else.

 

[GURPS]

Actually they didn't need central planning.

Nope, many small groups of like minded activists



WE MUST DO EVERYTHING TO DEFEAT TRUMP

 

[SamSpade]

Has anyone watched 2000 Mules? No matter how I feel about the election - yeah, I think there was a LOT of cheating and in at least a few areas, I think it made a difference - specifically Arizona and Georgia -

But I don't know if I want to watch this thing. I just get tired of the fact that I think the election was stolen and there's nothign anyone can do and no one is going to jail for it.

 

[Hijinx]

Of course they act on their own, b

Ok.

Not gonna argue with you.

I believe, from 60+ years of practice, they are ideologically motivated and capable enough to act on their own.

But this thing took planning especially the voting machines, and although many would act on their own I feel those who did the ballot box stuffing were instructed.

It doesn't really matter the thing is we have to stop the cheat or the country is gone.

 

[Hijinx]

Has anyone watched 2000 Mules? No matter how I feel about the election - yeah, I think there was a LOT of cheating and in at least a few areas, I think it made a difference - specifically Arizona and Georgia -

But I don't know if I want to watch this thing. I just get tired of the fact that I think the election was stolen and there's nothign anyone can do and no one is going to jail for it.

My point is that although there was a lot of cheating it was obvious that in the states where it really counted is where it showed up the greatest. If it was individuals it would have shown up in every State.

 

[vraiblonde]

I just get tired of the fact that I think the election was stolen and there's nothign anyone can do and no one is going to jail for it.

Well, that's what an opposition Party is supposed to be for but the Republicans not only don't want to look into it, they want to punish anyone who DOES want to look into it.

Which is why I get worn out with Republican voters who are all like, "At least this dirtbag is better than his Democrat opponent!"

Is he? Is he really?

 

[RoseRed]

Is there a way to watch for free? If not, I'll pay the 30$.

 

[PJay]

Is there a way to watch for free? If not, I'll pay the 30$.

NM..not working...

 

[RoseRed]

NM..not working...

?

 

[PJay]

?

Video posted was not working..looking for another...

 

[Hijinx]

Well, that's what an opposition Party is supposed to be for but the Republicans not only don't want to look into it, they want to punish anyone who DOES want to look into it.

Which is why I get worn out with Republican voters who are all like, "At least this dirtbag is better than his Democrat opponent!"

Is he? Is he really?

Biden isn't enough proof for you?

 

[Louise]

 

[Louise]

Y’all are welcome. I got the video off of Bitchute. God bless the USA.

 

[PJay]

Thank you!