They say the statistics prove election fraud. . . Where are the stats?
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
There is no proof, never was any proof
Yes, voter fraud does exist, has existed, but voter fraud to the extent it has any effect on the outcome of an election, nothing, no evidence, never was, just pure innuendo and fabrication
“Fraud” is hard to prove.
But illegal or legally dubious election administration is much easier to show — and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin both give real examples.
So no, I would not say the statistics alone prove fraud. I would say 2020 was an emergency-rule election where some states changed or stretched the rules, then acted shocked when people did not trust the result.
Biden getting the most votes in American history while running a low-energy bunker campaign against another historically unpopular candidate who got the second most votes is suspicious as hell politically — but suspicion is not proof of fraud.
The better argument is not “81 million votes proves fraud.”
The better argument is that 2020 was legally messy, procedurally abnormal, and conducted under emergency rule changes that damaged public trust and continue to damage our trust.
But illegal or legally dubious election administration is much easier to show — and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin both give real examples.
So no, I would not say the statistics alone prove fraud. I would say 2020 was an emergency-rule election where some states changed or stretched the rules, then acted shocked when people did not trust the result.
Biden getting the most votes in American history while running a low-energy bunker campaign against another historically unpopular candidate who got the second most votes is suspicious as hell politically — but suspicion is not proof of fraud.
The better argument is not “81 million votes proves fraud.”
The better argument is that 2020 was legally messy, procedurally abnormal, and conducted under emergency rule changes that damaged public trust and continue to damage our trust.
No comprehensive national forensic audit of every ballot cast exists; therefore, the precise rate of undetected fraud remains unknown and cannot be quantified from prosecuted cases alone.
Detection depends on complaints, audits, statistical red flags, or whistleblowers, mechanisms that vary by jurisdiction and are weaker in low-competition areas.
Mail-heavy systems (California reports roughly 80% mail voting in recent cycles) are inherently less observable than in-person voting and rely on post-election investigation for certain fraud types (coercion, improper assistance). California's privacy-protection statute and chain-of-custody rules limit access to raw ballot images or voter-level data.
Cross-state comparisons are confounded by differing laws on data release, audit mandates, and prosecutorial powers. Deeply one-party areas, especially urban Democrat strongholds, show historical examples of machine-style irregularities. High mail-in volume correlates with fraud vectors in numerous studies, but documented conviction rates remain low in states line California with expanded mail access for the reasons outlined above.
Legalized ballot harvesting in places like California, with its reduced identification requirements, and same-day registration, creates expanded opportunities for certain fraud types (ineligible registrations, improper collection, coercion outside public view). In jurisdictions with long-term single-party control of election administration, district attorneys, and legislatures, incentives for rigorous cross-partisan audits or aggressive prosecution of aligned actors are proactively attenuated.
The decentralized administration of elections across jurisdictions, combined with the secret ballot, privacy rules, varying technology and training, and reliance on self-reported eligibility, creates detection and proof gaps.
Circumstantial evidence is applicable in matters involving election fraud, both in criminal prosecutions and in civil election contests, but its practical weight and sufficiency are governed by jurisdiction-specific rules.
Circumstantial evidence is proof of facts from which a fact-finder may reasonably infer the existence of another fact (e.g., a pattern of absentee ballots requested from a single address combined with mismatched signatures or false registrations infers fraudulent use or harvesting). It contrasts with direct evidence (eyewitness testimony of ballot stuffing or a confession). Federal Rules of Evidence and equivalent state rules do not categorically exclude it.
Detection depends on complaints, audits, statistical red flags, or whistleblowers, mechanisms that vary by jurisdiction and are weaker in low-competition areas.
Mail-heavy systems (California reports roughly 80% mail voting in recent cycles) are inherently less observable than in-person voting and rely on post-election investigation for certain fraud types (coercion, improper assistance). California's privacy-protection statute and chain-of-custody rules limit access to raw ballot images or voter-level data.
Cross-state comparisons are confounded by differing laws on data release, audit mandates, and prosecutorial powers. Deeply one-party areas, especially urban Democrat strongholds, show historical examples of machine-style irregularities. High mail-in volume correlates with fraud vectors in numerous studies, but documented conviction rates remain low in states line California with expanded mail access for the reasons outlined above.
Legalized ballot harvesting in places like California, with its reduced identification requirements, and same-day registration, creates expanded opportunities for certain fraud types (ineligible registrations, improper collection, coercion outside public view). In jurisdictions with long-term single-party control of election administration, district attorneys, and legislatures, incentives for rigorous cross-partisan audits or aggressive prosecution of aligned actors are proactively attenuated.
The decentralized administration of elections across jurisdictions, combined with the secret ballot, privacy rules, varying technology and training, and reliance on self-reported eligibility, creates detection and proof gaps.
Circumstantial evidence is applicable in matters involving election fraud, both in criminal prosecutions and in civil election contests, but its practical weight and sufficiency are governed by jurisdiction-specific rules.
Circumstantial evidence is proof of facts from which a fact-finder may reasonably infer the existence of another fact (e.g., a pattern of absentee ballots requested from a single address combined with mismatched signatures or false registrations infers fraudulent use or harvesting). It contrasts with direct evidence (eyewitness testimony of ballot stuffing or a confession). Federal Rules of Evidence and equivalent state rules do not categorically exclude it.
Yakuda
Verified User
Who is is "they"? Your imaginary friends? Cite evidence for your claim dildo brain.
They are those who believe the elections were rigged.
They include you and Trump, laser brain.
DACHSHUND DAWG
Verified User
IF you are referring to the system campaign of electoral fraud that saw "Blow-Hole" Joe Biden elected President in the Nov 2-20 race, you do not need statistics or mathematical proofs (even if, hypothetically speaking such data were available - which it is NOT) that the Democrats cheated and stole the election.
All you need is common sense and enough faith in democracy (which I must admit I am increasingly tending to lack) to believe that the average voter was not SO stupid or ignorant that they failed to see that Biden was already a demented fool in 2020, who was being hidden from the public. Or that Kamala Harris was a chuckle -headed, low-IQ, Black, woman.
I think the American electorate were able to see that Biden was clearly "non compos mentis" throughout the 2020 election campaign cycle. I also believe that the average American voter could see that Harris was brainless dildo, and furthermore the idea of a Black woman being made Vice President was a turn-ff. Because women are too stupid to handle that kind of responsibility, and Blacls are not known for their high IQ. As well the experiment with a Black POTUS in Obama, didn't turn out very well, DID IT.
In short, I just can't believe that the American electorate was so complaisant; so dumb; so easily brain-washed and so fucking pig-ignorant that they legitimately chose to vote Bidem into the White House.
If Biden was legitimately elected President in 2020, then the consequences proved DIABOLICAL, didn't they.?? Biden's Presidency was the VERY WORST in American history
DD
Noking
Fight authoritarianism support Noking
Plenty of moronic tripe, but no objective proof.
Show us proof, deliver actual evidence of effective voter fraud, not your hatred of Biden, but facts, until then, put up or …….
Biden was running against a buffoon and nearly lost. Fraud is the only way he could lose.
Fraud is easy to prove. You find someone who should not have voted, but did vote. Republicans always promise us they have thousands or even millions of suspected cases of fraud, and then can prove none of them.
I wonder why DonOld didn’t form another election fraud committee?
DACHSHUND DAWG
Verified User
Joe Biden was already "non compos mentis" on the day he was inaugurated as President 0 the 20th of Jan 2021.He was afflicted with Vascular Dementia which is a neurodegenerative disorder. This means that it gets progressively worse over time, i.e. your brains increasingly turn into shit over time. You saw fir yourself in his Candidate's debate against Trump in June of 2024. Biden spouted pure inapprehensible, babbling, sputtering gibberish in front pf a national audience. It was clear that he was mentally incompetent.
Je had been like this, basically, for the past 4 years. buy the Democrats has used underhanded tactics to conceal his dementia from the public and FRAUDULENTLY present him as having sound mental acuity.
But in high=stakes politics, fraud can be very hard to expose and prove/. For example, most of Biden's cabinet would have known for a long time that Biden's mind had gone - that he was, as they say: "off with the fucking Pixies - BIG TIME! His own Vice President, Kamala Harris, met with him weekly for lunch. Do tell me she didn't know full well he was a burbling ninny. Given this she OUGHT to have invoked the 25th amendment (according to the US Constitution). This was the RIGHT thing to do/ This is who she was supposed to do, but did she? No, because she was a corrupt, lying low life who was told not to reveal the fraudulent cover-up of Biden's rapidly worsening cognitive decline.
Biden's personal physician (a horrible, little 5-foot-tall oink with a bad haircut who brought to mind a weasel) played a key role in the fraud as well, refusing to reveal Biden's dementia and writing happy-crappy, sun-shiny, medical reports for the public about Biden' jolly good state of general health. This doctor - Kevin O'Connor - was also mixed up in Joe Biden's crooked business dealings - rubbing shoulders with charming individuals like Hunter Biden.
Si. my point is that fraud in any sector of nation politics can be hard to expose and prove in an objective manner. - when that fraud involves successfully deceiving the American public into believing that their President is mentally (quote)"as sharp as a tack" and not at all a bumbling, inept, semi-comatose, blithering, cognitive zombie.
Dachshund the Wonder Hound
DLM _ DACHSHUND LIVES MATTER !!
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
You do have a penchant for taking a long time to blow a lot of smoke that repeats a stubborn belief you cannot factually prove, and that has been debunked 6 ways to Sunday a few years ago by numerous courts and even Dump's former A.G.
That you throw in your usual nazi tropes just makes you even more a preposterous figure.
Bark on, my little Nazi Dog from Down Under (allegedly).
They might publish the reality.
it is not easy to prove when you make us wear blind folds
Iowa had an illegal serving as the superintendent of schools in their capital city. should of been easy to prevent, but here we are.
trump did well in Iowa, or so we are led to believe. If Iowa is overwhelmingly corrupt, maybe he did not.
the system is so corrupt that a supposedly leading pollster predicted Trump would lose right before she sailed (selled) off into the sunset