A "Fortified" Election

[End]

File this one under my proof/statement of a fundamental truth of the universe that Sin dims the Intellect and our current "rulers" have sinned for so long and so eagerly that they are literally this fucking dumb: https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/

Oh yeah, just come out and admit in pretty much any way that matters to anyone with half a functioning Brain Cell that the "conspiracy theorist" quote unquote "nutjobs" on the right were anything but. They just flat out rubbed it in our collective face that they rigged the election and, by extension, admit that Trump ought to be serving his second term instead of Beijing Biden.

If you disagree with this assessment by all means tell me why. I do relish exposing hardcore adherents to the Death Cult for all to see .

[squark]

Yeah, I posted a quote from that article yesterday. It's basically a confession letter/gloat all in one lol.

[WVBRY]

From the article:

The handshake between business and labor was just one component of a vast, cross-partisan campaign to protect the election–an extraordinary shadow effort dedicated not to winning the vote but to ensuring it would be free and fair, credible and uncorrupted.

So no, they aren't saying they rigged the election, quite the opposite.

[squark]

From the article:



So no, they aren't saying they rigged the election, quite the opposite.

Lol. When you define "free and fair" as "making sure our guy wins" then yeah, it's rigging. It's like anti-racists and anti-fascists, who are actually racist and fascist. The words used only reflect their perception of the event, not what the actions are. You have to understand where they're coming from, and they tell you right in the article where they're coming from. And you have to understand what they did to reach these means. For example, one thing they did was what they called fighting against "vote suppression" sounds good yes? Until you find out that in practice this means eliminating signature checks on mail-in ballots, and allowing people to cast votes with no identification at all. That's definitely not fairness, as there's nothing determining that only people who are supposed to be voting in a district actually are casting votes. Some districts ended up with more votes cast than registered voters due to this.

Good podcast with Tim Pool and Poso if anyone wants to watch it:

[WVBRY]

When you define "free and fair" as "making sure our guy wins" then yeah, it's rigging.

I agree, at least in theory.

I have yet to read the entire article, but this is actually what they are saying:

The scenario the shadow campaigners were desperate to stop was not a Trump victory. It was an election so calamitous that no result could be discerned at all, a failure of the central act of democratic self-governance that has been a hallmark of America since its founding.

They weren't trying to ensure a Biden victory, as per the article. You could argue that they in fact were trying to do so, but I was replying to End who was saying the article blatantly "rubs it in people's faces", because that isn't true, it's at best a question of interpretation.

[WVBRY]

Until you find out that in practice this means eliminating signature checks on mail-in ballots, and allowing people to cast votes with no identification at all. That's definitely not fairness, as there's nothing determining that only people who are supposed to be voting in a district actually are casting votes.

This might not be right, but why would this be rigging the election in favor of Biden? This could also just as easily play out in favor of Trump.

Some districts ended up with more votes cast than registered voters due to this.

Evidence?

[squark]

This might not be right, but why would this be rigging the election in favor of Biden? This could also just as easily play out in favor of Trump.



Evidence?

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-...-registration/

I misspoke - it's that there are more registered voters than people eligible to vote. Ballots in some places were sent to all registered voters, even if those voters had died or moved away, and with no signature check, anyone could gather those votes and mail them in for anybody.

There's fraud or attempted fraud in every election for all sides, which is why safeguards are necessary. This entire effort was directed at removing these safeguards, plus controlling and directing information. Those are the words they use, controlling and directing information and the flow of information.

The NY Post for example published a true story about Hunter Biden, and immediately other media outlets had people claim that it was "Russian disinformation" Twitter completely blocked the NY Post from using Twitter, and Facebook removed the stories and had them tagged as disinformation, even though it was completely true. A survey after the election among voters that was conducted by I believe Rasmussen, found that a large percentage (not recalling exact number now, you can look it up though) of Biden voters would not have voted for him if they would have known about Joe and Hunter's corruption.

Zuckerberg also paid for a huge democratic push (illegal for him to pay for I believe, but not illegal to do) having voters in Dem districts given more access to voting by mail, more transportation to voting locations on election day, more drop-off ballot locations, and more.

All negative information regarding Biden was immediately shut down, all negative information about Trump was amplified, and this was a large part of their successful campaign. You feed people lies about both candidates, positive ones about your guy, negative ones about the other, and you control, nearly completely what information people receive. If they do not have access to the information from mainstream sources, many people won't have any information at all, so the information flow was entirely one-sided and piped in from all directions. It's a propaganda campaign in other words. And they all worked together to make sure it would be effective.

They also had some fishy things happening in some poll locations where they were kicking out legal poll watchers, and so on. There's video evidence of this. Will Chamberlain for example captured this happening in one location if you want to look it up.

[xerx]

I only have time to quickly skim the article, so I'd really appreciate any correction.

According to that article, it sounds like the activists were fighting to prevent legal actions that would result in voter suppression. They were also trying to get more people to vote by mail, all the while ensuring that mail-in ballots were not plagiarized. That doesn't sound less democratic at all.

One potentially weird thing was getting social media companies to remove "disinformation". Well, that's the censorship debate all over again. But whether or not it was morally correct to remove content, it doesn't really qualify as voter suppression. It's still your business as a citizen to self-educate and to find alternative information channels (which exist, because there's more to the Internet than Twitter and Facebook).

[marooned]

From the article:

"The handshake between business and labor was just one component of a vast, cross-partisan campaign to protect the election–an extraordinary shadow effort dedicated not to winning the vote but to ensuring it would be free and fair, credible and uncorrupted."




So no, they aren't saying they rigged the election, quite the opposite.

well, although i don't think the election was rigged, i do think that corporations are taking way too much control of affairs and so it's great that one corporation has an article about what great heroes its corporate allies were in preserving the democracy corporations are buying out. they don't need to rig elections. they are well on their way to controlling everything anyway.

so forming conspiracies about the election being rigged seems a bit silly to me--all the money these corporations have invested in politics over the years shows where their control is. they don't need any puppet strings but the ones they already have.

[WVBRY]

well, although i don't think the election was rigged, i do think that corporations are taking way too much control of affairs and so it's great that one corporation has an article about what great heroes its corporate allies were in preserving the democracy corporations are buying out. they don't need to rig elections. they are well on their way to controlling everything anyway.

so forming conspiracies about the election being rigged seems a bit silly to me--all the money these corporations have invested in politics over the years shows where their control is. they don't need any puppet strings but the ones they already have.

Yeah, I agree