How Democrats Stole the 2020 Election

I am a Democrat and know all about the stolen election.  I will explain the ways we thought about doing, why we rejected those, and how we ended up doing it.  There is also the issue of signs of fraud, which I will talk about as well.

There are three major categories of election fraud:

1. Add extra votes
2. Remove votes
3. 'Count' them incorrectly.

Adding votes is the hardest to do.   It requires a lot of work with lots of steps that can get you arrested.  The election workers get real suspicious when someone tries to vote that they have already checked off as voting.   Similarly they count the total number of ballots and compare with records for absentee requested and people that showed up.   

To do this properly you need a reliable list of registered voters that will definitely not vote.   Dead people is the old standby, but in the past 50 years it became very easy to discover this.  Computerized records work well.   The GOP keeps claiming to find them, but reporters keep proving it is just live people with similar ages and names to dead people.

Stealing ballots doesn't work either because when real voters ask for a ballot and it doesn't show up, you make a fuss.   In 2018 we even caught a Republican 'collecting' unused mail in ballots from people that said they did not want to vote.  Note the words "CAUGHT".   

Basically, the only way to do this now is to register non-existent people and have them vote.   And they have to be non-existent people, because you never know who will suddenly register to vote.   Illegals do not count because that gets ICE involved and ICE is good about looking for illegals.

This method was once popular in local politics, but it faded away.  It requires too many corrupt officials to get away with it.  One honest person spoils the game, there are a lot of written records for the 'registered voters' that lawyers and judges love..   Paperwork leaves a legal trail called "EVIDENCE" and people end up going to jail for trying this.  

All of this is way way too risky to try in a federal election.  You might be able to pull it off in once city, but to win an electoral college you need to win multiple states with multiple cities.   No way would we try this idiotic idea in 5-6 states with >10 cities with 1/2 million population each.   Talking 10-15 criminal cells, each with at least 5 people involved.  Fifty to a hundred criminals means one is going to get caught - either immediately or before January 20th and offer to turn state's evidence.  We are not the Mafia, these are 'new' criminals, not hardened offenders.  (Otherwise Trump would have lost in 2016.)

Removing Votes is much, much easier to do.  At one point in time the Democrats were the KING of removing votes.   We used poll taxes, 'intelligence' tests, and out right threats to keep all minorities (but black people in particular) from voting.  We made it illegal for women to vote.      Other variants including 'losing' ballots and pole watchers challenging perfectly legitimate votes.   But in 1964 President LBJ signed into law the Civil Rights Act and Democrats began to stop this tactic.

Now a days, the Republicans have become the masters of removing votes, mainly by putting obstacles in the way of poor and urban voters.  ID's, wait times, objections to students, are just a few of the ways. 

The main advantage of Removing Votes is that even if you get caught, chances are you still won't go to jail.   You can easily claim it was an accident. (I just forgot about that mail bag, I did not hide it.  I honestly thought that dark skinned guy was not a citizen.)   Still need hundreds of people involved to do this right, but even if you get caught you likely just fail to remove the votes rather than any real punishment.

Counting incorrectly is the newest method.  Altering ballots is hard - fairly easy to see where someone erased ink.  Easier to just ignore the ballots and have the 'counter' write what you want.    Add a 0 in the right place and you can claim a victory.    You can program it into computers and don't even have to have more than one person involved in the crime.  Again you can claim 'honest mistake' and not go to jail.   But then we started recounts.

You can't just do the counting incorrectly once, but multiple times and most importantly getting the SAME incorrect count.   Worse, lots of recounts are hand done.   No computers, checking actual paper ballots.   Now you have to bribe lots of people AND the people that make the computer software.

So we had our work cut out for us.   The real problem is that there were too many Republicans in charge of election monitoring.  They held both the federal AND the state governments in the swing states (Georgia, Florida are prime example, but Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada, Arizona are all basically GOP territory for state governments).  Those are a lot of people to fool or bribe.  Unless Trump and all the red states hired a bunch of total idiots in charge of election security, none of those ways would work for us.  

----------

 Which brings us to the clear signs of election fraud.

Anything unusual without a good explanation gets looked at hard.  People keep talking about the vote changing late but the explanation for that is that Republicans were in charge of how the votes were done in the swing states and they are the ones in control .   Some claim that the mail in ballots themselves were a sign of issues but this year was different because of the Covid scare.  

It doesn't matter if Covid is real or fake.  What matters is that Democrats were scared of Covid.  It might be fake, but the Democrats asked for a lot more mail in ballots than the Republicans so that is not a valid sign of fraud.  That is obvious that no judge has disputed - not even Trump appointed ones.  

Here are some real signs of fraud:

1. The number of new registered people skyrocketed.  But that was more Republicans, not Democrats.  If the Democrats were stealing votes, the Democrats should have had more new registered people.  This points the Republicans cheating, not the Democrats.
   
2. Popular vote not agreeing with the electoral vote.  Again, points to Republican fraud, not Democrats.   Makes little sense to do fraud in both the states you need to steal AND in the all the other states. Especially considering the Democrats won the popular vote by about 6 million votes.  That many votes can't be faked - not without some one finding out. It is a huge margin and practically screams 'fair election'.
   
3. The polls show the 'wrong' side winning.   That did not happen. Every major poll showed the Democrats winning.  More importantly , only 'swing' states swung, and most of them swung the way the polls said they would.  Yes, the Democrats won Georgia, but Stacey Abrham almost won it in 2018 and the Republicans won Florida.   No way that the Democrats got away with more fraud in Georgia than they did in Florida. 
   

You read all the way to the end, so I am going to tell you how the Democrats actually STOLE the election without leaving any evidence.

We let women, blacks, latinx, Chinese (pissed at Trump for "Kung Flu" and 'China Virus'), homosexuals, college educated and non-religious people vote.   For some reason, they mostly voted for Biden.  All of which is illegal.  Or well, it WAS illegal back in the 19th century.  But first we spent a century making it legal.   Then we spent decades recruiting them.

It's called democracy.  

I lived through Regan's >500 electoral vote landslide and voted for Bill Clinton's >400 electoral vote landslide.   This Presidential election may have been a squeaker (306 votes, either way compare the 2020 total to the 2019), but it basically did exactly what the polls said it would.

Is Government Healthcare Socialism?

This has become a standard plank of the 21st century Republican Party.    So lets look at what the GOP think the Government SHOULD fund without being called socialism:  

• The Military.
• The Police.
• The Fire Department.

The last two are particularly telling.   People generally call 911 if they want the police, the fire department, or an ambulance.  Why are the cop car and the fire engine paid for, but not the ambulance?

All of these essential government services have three things in common.   

1. When crisis happens, it is often time sensitive.   When you need these emergency services, most of the time, waiting even an hour will be a big mistake.  You don't want to delay dealing with a military invasion, a crime, or a fire.
2. They are often life threatening.  Invasions, criminals, and fires kill people.
3. They spread.  If the <sarcasm> dreaded Canadian scourge</sarcasm>  invades my neighbor's property, chances are those polite invaders will take my house next.   If my neighbor gets mugged, I could be next.  If my neighbor's house is on fire, might could be next.

These traits are pretty obvious.   They also directly impact capitalism, which is why the government pays.  The key feature of capitalism is a Free Market.  Free Markets require someone to think about something, not make a decision in a panic.  Free Markets require a free choice, not one done with a gun to your head.  Capitalism also do not work when your purchases or lack of purchases affects your neighbor.  That's not really private property, another requirement of capitalism.

 

So capitalism is ill suited in any situation that is an immediate crisis, deadly, or spreadable.  For those situations, capitalism  REQUIRES government intervention.   

 

Most of you can see where this is going.  The far majority of Healthcare falls in at least one of those three categories, if not all three.   Trauma, such as car crashes and bullets, is immediate.   The majority of health issues are potentially deadly, and infections are practically the definition of spreadable.

 

But not all healthcare qualifies.  Clearly cosmetic surgeries do not qualify for any of those three.   In addition, things like anti-anxiety treatment, impotence treatment, fertility treatment,  and unproven treatments (this is research, not healthcare).   Part of the issue is that private healthcare has taken to covering a lot of things that the government should not cover.  But there is no reason a government funded healthcare has to do the same. 

Government healthcare is not socialism, as long as it is restricted to covering: Emergencies, Life threatening issues, and infectious diseases.   

 

So why do people decry it?   Because they are not capitalists.  They are Plutocrats - people that believe in rule by the rich.   They WANT to abuse the rules of capitalism - to trick people into buying without taking the time to research, to buy when you have a gun to your head.  Most of the time an infection will be controlled and in times of plague you can issue 'emergency' orders to have the government pay for treating just that plague, rather than having your taxes give good health care for all.

 

Real capitalism has the government pay for all 911 services, including most healthcare.   Plutocrats hate real capitalism, so they lie and say government healthcare is socialism rather than capitalism.

7 Laws To Fix American Justice TODAY

As recent events (George Floyd is just the most recent)  have proven there are bad cops out there.   People keep asking for change, but we are not talking about what kind of change.    There are a lot of fairly well proven changes that need to be made to the US legal system.    So here are the known ways we can fix real systematic problems with the US legal system and how it deals with both cops and civilians.

1. All accusations of criminal conduct by police will be investigated by a state agency whose sole job will be to investigate and prosecute police misconduct.  Said employees will be judged on their conviction rate.  They must begin each case within 3 days of being reported and must provide an initial public report within 1 week, with at a minimum an estimate of when it will be finished.  At that date they must provide another report, and so on until the case is closed.
2. Union or other employment contracts can not limit the state agency investigations in any way.  You are entitle to a contract with your employer, not with other agencies.    Police officers shall receive no rights in this investigation not granted to the general population.
3. Bail will no longer be offered at all.  The judge may decided to release or not to release, and should they not release and the prosecutors asks for a single continuance, then the suspect must be released.  If you do not have enough evidence to charge, do not arrest them.   Prosecutors need to do their job on time and quickly.
4. The state may not sell or take possession of property unless the owner has been notified of the trial and is allowed to present a case against the taking.
5. When a judge declares any taking - whether it be a fine or any other taking of property,  the owner may decide to pay said penalty in community service rather than property.  Said penalty may not exceed 800 hours of community service per year.
6. The refusal to testify, attempt to destroy evidence or prevent evidence from being created or collected (including video evidence created by criminals) shall be grounds for immediate dismissal of any officer of the law, regardless of whether or not any crime occurred.  This specifically includes pleading the Fifth Amendment.  The state may not use that against you in court, but is not required to employ you as an officer of the law.
7. The intentional destruction of evidence or keeping evidence from a defense lawyer by a prosecutor shall be considered felony perjury. 

There are a lot of really bad arguments against these things that have been made.  But harsh experience has demonstrated why these legal changes are necessary.

The police union must stop pretending that police are likely to be unfairly targeted.  The honest truth is that cops give them special, advantageous treatment when investigating other cops, as do prosecutors and as do judges and juries.   Yes, there might be a one in a million cop that is falsely accused and goes to jail, but that happens to innocent civilians every day.   The cops have enough extra protection merely from the respect due the badge.

Bail has been thoroughly and repeatedly proven to not work.   People accused of minor offenses show up.  We have their ID, names, addresses, phone numbers, finger prints, and photos.    They know this.  Most importantly it is EASIER to arrest, charge and convict people for running from the law than it is to arrest them for minor offenses.  Except for major crimes, it saves the state cash, the innocent suspects time and money when they do not have to spend time in jail.   Yes, some times someone will end up on the street and do more crime.  That happens already.   And it will stop horrendous cases where innocent people are blackmailed by bad prosecutors to confessing to crimes they did not commit.  Which currently happens more often than people committing major crimes after they get out of jail.

The state has routinely abused Civil forfeiture laws.  They take money from people without proving their guilt.   This needs to stop.  If people have the right to demand payment in labor, it will end the major abuses WITHOUT causing real criminals to get away with it.   Honestly, anyone willing to trade community service for the money is not a criminal - they make (or think they make) more money doing their crimes than community service would give.

The outright lies and deception used by cops and prosecutors needs to stop.  It is illegal, but we look the other way.  We need to stop doing that and treat it like the serious criminal offense it is.

Algorithm Law

There are lots of laws again many types of discrimination.

In the USA, there are federal laws against discrimination based on:  race, color, religion, sex, and national origin,  pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition, people with disabilities, citizenship, familial status or age—includes families with children under the age of 18

But there is a new type of discrimination being done.   Algorithmic discrimination. 

Whether we are talking about advertisements (including housing and employment), loan applications (including mortgages), employment, or even criminal sentencing, people are very likely to be categorized by some algorithm.  These algorithms often incorporate bias.  Studies have shown that criminal sentencing algorithms are more likely to give white offenders probation.

The problem is that more and more often no one (not even the people that write them) know what data is being used in these algorithmic calculations.   They do not program the algorithm, instead they set it up to learn by itself.   Often they learn by looking at past practices.  If those past practices had any bias in them, the math learns that bias.

In effect, people are illegally discriminating and claiming "oops, I did not know it did that."


We need a law that makes it illegal to create, use, administer, apply, or help others to use an algorithm unless it has been tested and proven not to result in illegal discrimination.   This is SEPARATE from determining if the the algorithm works.

For example it is quite easy to create an algorithm that decides who will default on a mortgage that results is fewer defaults for black people.  All you have to do is to use stricter standards for people whose current address is in certain neighborhood.  Suddenly white people making 70k are given the same mortgages that black people making 80k.  The blacks default less than the whites, and the bank is HAPPY.  Despite the fact that they are illegally  discriminating against all the black people making 70k.

Algorithms need to not just make the people that apply them happy, they must also comply with the law.

Which means they have to be tested and approved by a government agency if they are used for any purpose that is regulated against discrimination by law.

The Democrats Game Plan for Impeachment and 2020 Election

A lot of people are wondering what the Democrats are doing.  The GOP clearly is still supporting President Trump and in order to remove the President, 20, yes, 20, out of 53 Republican Senators (more than one third) have to vote against him.

That is not going to happen.  Not unless a real surprise comes forth.  Maybe if  Rudy or Mulvaney or someone similar turns on Trump, admitting their crimes.

So why are the Democrats doing this?   To take the Senate back.

There is more then enough evidence to convict President Trump of multiple crimes - not just extorting/bribing (a technical legal distinction, and both require what is known as 'quid pro quo') the Ukrainians into an investigation of Biden's son.

Worse, most of the population has already realized this.   Look at polls based on impeachment (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/)

But don't look at the Democrats, they don't matter.  Nor do the Republicans matter.  What matters are the Independents.   Honestly, even they don't matter - not unless they are in the swing states. It doesn't matter what the people in Utah and California think, their states are solidly behind one party.

But there are 18 Senate seats up for election in swing states.(https://www.270towin.com/2020-senate-election/)

Twelve of those seats are currently held by a Republican.  Two of them are not running for re-election.  They are retiring, most probably because they have too much honor and ethics to stay in Donald Trump's Republican party.

If the ten that are running again vote to remove Trump from office, that would piss off their base.   They likely will lose without their base and still not be enough to remove Trump.  If they vote not to remove Trump it will piss of the majority of independents and 'crossover' democrats (People that vote for a Democrat for President but vote Republican in local elections.)   Once forced to vote, they are in a no-win situation.

They will have a much harder time staying in office this November.  If (as I suspect) we do not remove Trump from office, this will create enough outrage to help keep those six Democratic Senators in Swing States in office.  Which will push the independents to vote democratic.  Yes it will enliven both bases, but they cancel each other out.

Which means of the 45 Democrat Senators + 2 Independents vs 53 Republican Senators could become 55 Democrats + 2 Independents vs 43 Republican Senators.

Some people are saying a failed Impeachment helps the President's part, mainly because they looked at Clinton.  But That was a failed impeachment on sex, something most Americans dismissed as purely a partisan attack.  While the GOP has pushed hard on this idea, that does not mean they have convinced the country.  Yes, their base believes it, but that does not matter.  What matters is have they convinced the independents and the crossover Democrats that it was a partisan attack.

Their arguments have been really bad, so I believe they have failed to do this.  They  tried Cohn/Trump's tactics of deny, deny, then ADMIT but claim it is not wrong.   That works with the base, not the country as a whole.  Which means this failed impeachment will help Democrats, not the GOP.

Yeah, the GOP will likely win some of the swing seats.  We may not get it all, but I bet the DNC ends up with at least 51 Democrats in the Senate, on top of the two independents.

Giving the Democrat President (whoever he or she is) effective control over the country once again.

How to Predict the 2020 Presidential Election

People routinely attempt to predict the presidential election the wrong way.  They look at popular polls over the whole country.  Those are meaningless.  It also doesn't matter who all your friends are voting for.   Mainly because if all your friends are voting the same way, you live in a state that is already going 100% for one candidate, and all you have done is predicted how one single state will vote.

Nor is the economy the be all and end all.  Among other things it can turn on a dime.  And it isn't the best predictor.  Most importantly, President Trump is more divisive than most - some people want him impeached while others think he is god's gift to mankind.  


We use an electoral voting system.  As such, you need to look at polls by each state, except for the two states that split their vote.  For those two states, Maine and Nebraska, you need to look at polls by Congressional district.

Most states (and districts) are forgone conclusions.  Even if the the Democrats pick a dead horse, they are going to win New York, California, etc. etc.  Similarly, even if the Trump kills and eats a person on national TV, he will win Mississippi and every state that touches Mississippi.

There are only five states and one district that are "Swing States" - they are too hard to predict and could go either way.   There are also another six or seven states and one district that are "Long Shots".  The rest are already set in concrete and it will take a jackhammer to dislodge them.

The five real swing states are (in order of how many electoral votes they have):

1. Florida (29)
2. Pennsylvania (20)
3. Michigan (16)
4. Arizona (11)
5. Wisconsin (10)

If you win any 3 of them (even the bottom 3) you are almost certain to win the electoral election and take the Presidency.

The swing district is Omaha district 2 of Nebraska.  The Republicans are going to take the state of Nebraska, but either party can win that district for a single extra electoral vote.  Worth at least 1% of your total ad budget.  Probably 2% if it is close, and if it is not close, your ad budget doesn't matter.

The long shots are (some people think Ohio is set in stone, but I disagree):

1. Ohio (18) - most likely Republican
2. Georgia (16) - most likely Republican
3. North Carolina (15) - most likely Republican
4. Minnesota (10) - most likely Democrat
5. Iowa (6) - most likely Republican
6. Arizona (6) - most likely Democrat
7. New Hampshire (4) most likely Democrat

The long shot district is the rural district 2 of Maine.   The Democrats are going to take the state, but while the Republicans will likely win the rural district, it is not impossible for the Democrats to pull an upset and take all of Maine.

But the thing about the long shots is that usually they can not be won unless your candidate is strong enough to win the swing states.  In which case, they do not matter.  But not always.  The reasons the Democrats lost in 2016 was in part because they thought they had Michigan and Wisconsin in the bag.  They had them as Long shots, not swing states.  Granted, Donald Trump did win the 2016 swing states as well, but still.  The Democrats paid too much attention to national polls that correctly predicted Hillary winning the popular vote, and not enough to state polls.


For those reasons, if you want to predict the 2020 Presidential Election, you need to concentrate your data collection on the 5 swing states plus Omaha metropolitan area.

If you know what people in those areas are thinking, you know how the election will turn. Whoever wins three of the five swing states will almost certainly be the president. 


As a a side note, if I were running the a presidential election, I would spend more than 1/2 of my money and time in those five swing states (plus Omaha).  Probably less than a 1/4 of my money and time on the seven long shot states and rural Maine.  That leaves less than a 1/4 to be spent on the remaining 33 states (and territories) of the US.

Why spend any time or money on the foregone conclusions?  To help Congressman and Senators that have a chance of getting elected with your help.   You may lose a state but gain a seat in Congress.  Also, Puerto Ricans may not vote for the President, but they are citizens of the US (Citizens but no vote, is that not the vile?) and can move to the mainland US (Florida perhaps...), where they can vote.  Quite a few of them did that after the last horrible storm when President Trump failed to respond in sufficient force.  Those citizens will be voting, and I suspect few will vote Republican.

Quotes and the 2020 election.

There is a quote, which I don't quite remember the exact details or who first said it (Hard to be sure of any quote's authors in the age of the lying internet).  I will attempt to paraphrase it:

• Under normal circumstances, conservatives should outnumber liberals.

This is based on the real definition of political conservatism: "The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order."    If the government is not totally screwing up, then most people are complacent and will be more afraid of losing what they have than of gaining benefits.

(The rest of these bullet points are my statements, not paraphrased quotes.)

•   Liberal political parties will correctly identify a problem that needs fixing, that Conservative party is ignoring.  Their solution might not work, but they will identify the problem.

This is part of the definition of a liberal party - they are trying to fix things that a conservative party is willing to ignore because they are afraid a solution will mess up things that are working well.

• Conservative ideals of today are identical to liberal ideals 50 years ago.

This again is the result of the definitions.  Liberals try to solve problems, conservatives stick to tradition.  Once a liberal solves a problem, 50 years later their solution becomes a tradition.  The liberals may try to improve upon it, but the conservatives like their parent's solution.  Hence conservatives went from being for slavery to against it but in favor of separate but equal, etc. etc. etc.

Some people mistakenly think the first quote (conservatives outnumber liberals) means most Americans are Republicans. Not true.   

•  Under normal circumstances, a moderate political party will outnumber any extremist party.

That includes conservatives, liberals, greens, hawks, doves, libertarians, monarchists, communists, or authoritarian.   This is true because a moderate party has a greater pool of voters.  It can draw from all sides, and the independents in particular. Extremist party, can only draw from their own extreme and some of the independents.  How do the Extremists win?   enthusiasm.

Moderates tend toward apathy, extremists have enthusiasm.  The DNC has tried to be a moderate party since Bill Clinton, explaining why they lose the midterms (voter apathy) but do better in the presidential elections (Since 1992 there were seven  elections, and the Republicans won the popular vote only once - George Bush's 2004 re-election.   Democrats won the popular vote all six other times, despite losing the electoral college twice)

• The Republican party, while it was a conservative party with libertarian tendencies for most of the past 70 years , has moved to a rural party due to successful  gerrymandering policy pushed by Karl Rove.

They knew they could not win the popular vote against a moderate party, so they ignored it and concentrated on other methods - gerrymandering the vote to gain rural seats.

• The Democratic party, while it started as a liberal party, is being pushed into an urban party by gerrymandering.  

If you can't win the rural areas due to gerrymandering, the party leaders become all urban, pushing the party that direction.


Now back to the 2020 election.  Remember the Karl Rove Gerrymandering plan?

• Trump undermined the gerrymandering movement, first managing to steal a whole bunch of suburban voters via a social media plan, but new trends show him losing them.  (https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump/)

What is going to happen next?  Will the GOP return to it's rural based gerrymandering policy?  The Supreme Court could end that - they may be conservative but they are mostly honest and see the real undemocratic effects of gerrymandering. 

Will Trump leave a lasting mark on the GOP, turning it into a Social Media Party?  I don't think that will last.  It might work for him, but no one else seems to be able to duplicate his style of ignoring facts. 
 
I see the DNC regaining most of the electoral votes in the Great Lake States  (Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan).  When you lie (show his taxes, Mexico will pay for the wall, save the dreamers, etc.) you make short term gains but suffer in the long term.  That will give the Presidency to the DNC candidate.

The GOP may keep the Senate - though it is not certain.  They have enough seats up for re-election in states that are leaning against Trump.  They will almost certainly lose Arizona and Colorado.  The Democrats need to pick off at least one of Maine, Iowa, or North Carolina - all of whom dislike Trump. If the right presidential candidate brings out the voters and the Democrats pick good Senate Candidates for those three states, the GOP loses it's majority.


If the DNC gains three total, it's a tie.  Four and the DNC controls both the Presidency and Congress.  Ginsburg and Breyer will almost certainly be replaced by the next president.   If the Democrat does not screw up and get's re-elected, that means Alito and/or Thomas are likely to be replaced as well, giving the liberals a majority unless the GOP pulls some evil maneuver like they did to get Gorsuch into office.   (Obama should have had the choice, and the GOP got lucky Hillary - who won the popular vote - did not win the electoral vote)