OK, then. Lets get to the crux of your argument.
The suspicious spikes that occurred in the dark are documented for US to analyze.Here is an analysis of that:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...sconsin-overnight-vote-spike/6167188002/(You'll adopt an ad hominem argument - "lens of media organizations with behind-the-scenes agendas far removed from our purview" also known as, "That's fake news". For those reading this not across Latin, "ad hominem" is the idea that you play the man not the ball. You attack the source, and not the substance of what the source is saying. It appears to be a fundamental principle for Trump supporters - "fake news!". But, let's set that aside because we plainly don't have a lot of common ground - some, but not a lot - on that.)
Phew. And I was afraid I was going to be reductive. The irony here is that the lefty paradigm is the source of the "fake news" label and was later appropriated by Trump to combat their narrative--and the narrative is exactly what I'm attacking. The source is just a casualty of war if you wish. In which case, criticizing the source of the phenomenon that seeks to centralize public perception in an effort to conduct and control the premises of discussion is not ad hominem. Pointing out the Baudrillardian nature of corporate news broadcasts as a hyper reality, into which we are supposed to be assimilated, is just a statement of fact. And incidentally, I don't much care for the Simulacra.
"We are not finding ballots," Julietta Henry, director of elections for Milwaukee County, told PolitiFact. "Ballots are being counted."
I understand that your "common sense" argument presupposes evenly split mail votes: that, statistically, as a matter of common sense, 50% should be GOP, 50% should be Dem: that is is counterintuitive beyond belief to think that the split in mail votes should so overwhelmingly favour Biden, and so that is "suspicious" or fraudulent. It doesn't pass the sniff test. That's how I understand the essence of your argument. Feel free to correct me.
But an even split isn't supported by demographics and geography. That article notes that that particular surge came from vote counts concluding in Milwaukee. Milwaukee (which I only know otherwise from Laverne and Shirley) has always been a Democrat stronghold.
Trump was ahead by 100000 votes. Then there were 170000 mail ballots. It shifted Biden's vote up by less than a percentage ahead of Trump.
I will post these again:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/El-4WeYVoAAiPxW?format=jpg&name=largehttps://twitter.com/theeternalright/status/1323979515735912448/photo/2Now we know what "flattening the curve" really meant.
Not 50/50. A mixture. Trump
has support in Milwaukee. His support in New York increased for crying out loud. And yet we are to believe that a box of votes was found that ONLY had ballots for Biden, and not Trump or Jorgenson, solely on the virtue of the media's ability to explain it within a given set of parameters that leave out fraud. Those graphs constitute a statistical impossibility that warrant investigation. Not a head nod with the media. Especially when observed in preponderance with these developments:
They are relying on the incredulity surrounding the concept of voter fraud or media misdirection to ignore any instances of it on the virtue that they've spent so long constructing a narrative saying it's not possible--even as its going on right in front of our eyes.
Seriously, 89% "turnout" is 'what-the-flying motherfuck-is-this-fuckery!?!" territory.
I called it in the first post:
Democrats managed to take advantage of the liberal plant, Justice Roberts, who has allowed them to keep votes flowing into the states three days past the election. Trump will cry fowl--as well he should. As counties that were clearly turned red gradually metamorphasize to blue over a long enough timeline, the rules of the game will be clear cut to everyone. And that spark will risk a conflagration.
You know about Occam's Razor. That, for those who don't know about it, is the idea of finding the least complicated answer to a question. Who killed Abraham Lincoln? Well, it wasn't a global 19th century Illuminati conspiracy. it was the John Wilkes Booth, with the gun, in the theatre. Occam's Razor says that's the easiest answer to the question of who killed Lincoln.
So here, why did the ballots cause the number to Biden to jump overnight? Was it crafty Democrats, operating en masse without being found out, having corrupted electoral officials, stuffing up ballot boxes, avoiding the scrutiny of GOP observers by asking them to stand a few feet away? Or is it that Milwaukee's mail votes were counted in full and reported in full? Occam's Razor says it is the latter.
The
simplest explanation is oft times the most correct. I'm not certain if "easiest" is interchangeable.
Motives for implementation of a plan are simple. Results of a plan's execution are simple. But plans themselves are complex.
You can't use Occam's Razor to identify the simplicity of the result to avoid the complexity of the apparent plan, which identifies a motive in turn.
If anything, Occam's Razor speaks against your contention on account of the complexity of explaining how a batch of votes exclusively goes to one person without even a handful to anyone else.
To break it down into
simpler terms - MOTIVE: Get Biden into office at all costs. PLAN: Employ voter fraud. RESULT: Biden gets into office.
And, yes, of course let there be a recount. I strongly advocate that because the process should be beyond reproach. Or at least beyond reasonable suspicion.
And, as I noted, it goes the other way. Arizona is starting to lean Trump's way because of the vagaries of the Arizona GOP, who tend to use absentee ballots. someone on Twitter has noted that GOP supporters are trying to storm counting offices in Michigan, and are publicly protesting that all absentee votes be counted in Arizona. No to the first, and of course yes to the second.
Why would you say no to the first? Ballot watching is not only legal but also a means to keep the ballot tabulating process beyond reasonable suspicion.
Philadelphia and Detroit have not only expelled ballot watchers using intimidation tactics (because they certainly don't have the authority), but they've actually cordoned them off a certain distance from the building. Highly illegal and suspicious behavior.
