Update
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

FYI, The 2020 Election was fraudulent.

[b]Heartland Institute and Rasmussen Reports[/b] found one-in-five voters who cast mail-in ballots during the 2020 presidential election admit to participating in at least one kind of voter fraud.

“The results of this survey are nothing short of stunning. For the past three years, Americans have repeatedly been told that the 2020 election was the most secure in history. But if this poll’s findings are reflective of reality, the exact opposite is true. This conclusion isn’t based on conspiracy theories or suspect evidence, but rather from the responses made directly by the voters themselves.

“This survey emphatically suggests that the 2020 presidential election results were contaminated by widespread voter fraud, despite the mainstream media’s constant attempts to gaslight the American public into believing the opposite. Of the 30 percent of Americans claiming they voted by mail in this survey, at least one in every five engaged in one or more kinds of voter fraud.

The poll of 1,085 likely voters was conducted from November 30 to December 6, 2023. Among those surveyed in the poll, 33% were Republicans, 36% were Democrats, and 31% were “other”; 32% were 18-39 years old, 46% were 40-64 years old, and 22% were 65 or older.

[b]17% of mail-in voters admit that in 2020 they voted in a state where they are “no longer a permanent resident”

21% of mail-in voters admitted that they filled out a ballot for a friend or family member

17% of mail-in voters said they signed a ballot for a friend or family member “with or without his or her permission”

8% of likely voters say they were offered “pay” or a “reward” for voting in 2020
[/b]
Taken together, the results of these survey questions appear to show that voter fraud was widespread in the 2020 election, especially among those who cast mail-in ballots.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Zeuro · 26-30, F
anyone with 2 braincells to rub together is able to see how outrageously flawed this “poll” is.

But let me break it down for those of you who are struggling.

First, the credibility of the two organizations in charge of this poll is questionable at best.
The Heartland Institute is a conservative think tank that denies both climate change and the negative health effects of smoking.
Rasmussen is maybe a little bit better, but they are know for their excessive polling errors, for example in 2018 when they polled the national generic ballot and were 10% points off, the largest polling error of any major polling firm in that category. Overall Rasmussen has been shown to have a 1.5 point bias in favor of republicans, according to to FiveThirtyEight.

But let’s move on from the questionable credibility of the conductors of this poll and look at the results itself.

So what’s the sample size? 1,085 “likely US voters”. A bit small if you ask me but okay.

So 17% of mail in voters say they voted in a state where they’re no longer a permanent resident. That’s pretty odd, considering about 3/5 of Americans have never moved out of the state they were born in. So literally half of the rest were supposed to believe committed election fraud?

So 1/4 of republicans interviewed said they voted by absentee ballot. The % of republicans admitting to fraud was roughly the same as the democrats. So supposedly a lot of this illegal voting was for Trump. Even so, according to Rasmussen only ~80% of republicans voted for Trump, much lower than Pew’s heavily fact checked assessment.

So supposedly both dems and repubs committed voter fraud at equal rates. Doesn’t really give evidence that Trump got more votes now does it.

Also, 8% of absentee voters say they were offered money for their votes? Don’t you think if millions of people were actually monetarily bribed for their votes there’d be some kind of, idk, evidence? A paper trail? Saved emails? Recorded conversations? Screenshots. And I don’t mean a few random, unverifiable pieces of “evidence,” 8% of voters is literally millions of people, so the evidence would have to be overwhelming.

I might be able to think of other reasons this poll is bullshit, but I’m tire of typing so I’ll leave it at that for now.

Feel free to fact check me using verified, credible sources.
@Zeuro Show your proof, your "verified credible sources'" are most likely leftist to the core.
trollslayer · 46-50, M
@Zeuro would also mean the millions spent by maga folks such as pillow guy and rudie and kari fake couldnt produce squat, yet a simple poll uncovered the truth.
WalterF · 70-79, M
@Zeuro Ooh I smell the stink of the so-called "fact-checkers", as well as a whiff of the haughtiness we have come to expect from very young know-it-alls.
Zeuro · 26-30, F
@NativePortlander1970 actually, it’s called knowing the difference between a blog post and an actual credible source. Whether it’s WaPo or WSJ I don’t care, both or those are more credible than your neighbor’s post on Facebook quoting the daily stormer
Zeuro · 26-30, F
@WalterF wow, you smell like someone who has a weird aversion to facts.
Zeuro · 26-30, F
@WalterF but feel free to debate any of what I said. I’ll wait.
@Zeuro Thanks for the thorough debunking, you deserve[big] BEST ANSWER!!![/big]
WalterF · 70-79, M
@Zeuro "Facts" for you are simply what is pumped out 24/7 by the media you depend on for your thinking.

These media "facts" are powerfully upheld by all front line websites.

Why such a coordinated onslaught on the unthinking follower? Because of the MONEY. Both media and " fact-checkers" are handsomely financed by the likes of the Gates Foundation. Were they to go off-narrative, they would lose a large percentage of their funding. So they keep plugging the same tired old rubbish (which you no doubt constantly find refreshingly novel and fascinating).

People I go along with read OTHER points of view, and arrive at their own conclusions. That, to me, sounds like a much more solid way to proceed through the jungle of The Science, etc.

(Of course I may be wrong in supporting this independent way of thinking - maybe I should bow to your juniority)

As regards the debate that you are seeking, my reply to you is contained in the original post. Any idiot, remotely controlled by the "fact-checkers", could say stuff like "This website is unreliable because its founder was found smoking in the toilets when he was a schoolboy, so his input is obviously warped."

Let me just add that, as a non-American, I took the time to listen to all of Trump's speech on Jan 6th, and I found not a single word that was reprehensible, and certainly nothing that could even faintly resemble a call to insurrection.
Zeuro · 26-30, F
@WalterF just because you’re deaf to horrible speech doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

Also, you still have not even attempted to debunk any of the facts I have laid forth. If you don’t care about the pollsters questionable credibility then fine, but at least address my main arguments about the actual contents of the poll and how they don’t add up.

And the fact that no one is asking what methodology they used to find respondents… I mean seriously?
@Zeuro We'll tell you what doesn't add up, BinBiden getting 81 million votes winning only 476 counties with an estimated 74% voter turnout, ballot harvesting legal only in blue states, republican poll workers locked out of counting rooms, and so many other complaints the establishment mass media and courts have ignored.
Zeuro · 26-30, F
@NativePortlander1970 so you circle my ask to address my actual points and then continue to evade addressing my points??? Are you that daft?

Also where is your evidence for any of that? Provide links at least
@Zeuro Why post links, you all have ignore them in the past, accuse them of being biased, we have presented them in numerous court affidavits, only for judges to dismiss them. Why bother showing an brainwashed establishment puppet like yourself, you all believe everything the mass media and the government tells you to.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
@Zeuro [quote]If it is credible I will regard it[/quote] 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Such bullshit when you only accept leftist bias 🤣
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
WalterF · 70-79, M
@Zeuro The Sorbonne medical faculty where I have a Master II class apparently doesn't consider me dumb enough to be without toolboxes. However, you know best.

Quite frankly, this particular subject (the post) doesn't interest me, so I don't have any specific arguments to bring. I have believed since the election that it was falsified, as evidence - well-known to all - came out little by little.

The reason I intervened in answer to your remarks was the appearance of the attitude which I so dislike - that of depending on the media message backed up by your "fact- checkers", to trot out the tired old tropes I've already referred to.

So do continue your defence of The Narrative, continue to swallow the propaganda; but on this one, I will not be following up. Make of that what you like. Your expected ridiculing of such a position will make no difference. I will not be reading it.
Zeuro · 26-30, F
@WalterF I really don’t understand why you are so against fact checking. You know there’s a method to it, right? People don’t just pull the check out their ass
@Zeuro Ah, fact checking 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 When those who run the establishment decides what's real and not, to them 🙄
Zeuro · 26-30, F
@NativePortlander1970 so you literally accuse me of only believing left wing sources when you rely on the fucking WASHINGTON EXAMINER???

I’ll keep my promise, say the word and I will tell you exactly what is wrong with them. God it’s almost like any source with actual credibility just automatically equals “lEftIsT” to you people
@Zeuro I am an old school Liberal Socialist, grew up in a paternal family of staunch democrats in the 70's and 80's, had Hippy Kids as classmates and knew their parents, most of them lived on a commune in the late 60's and early 70's. My Grandfather, a died in the wool FDR Democrat had a father that owned and operated two newspapers before the great depression dried up his advertisers, forcing him to shut down his presses. My Grandfather taught me how to read between the lines and listen between the words, he saw how the modern press ignored Bill Clinton's scandals and endorsed him, while they eviscerated Gary Hart four years earlier for less. He wanted to vote for Ross Perot but died of cancer before he had the chance, so I put in my vote for Perot in my Grandfather's honor. During the 90's I watched how the neoliberal left gained popularity and strength, how the establishment press became less and less credible while editorializing more and more, news stories became subjective, political correctness was becoming more enforced, the government was rewriting history to suit their visions and agendas. Like I said, I was taught by the son of a newspaperman how to discern what's being said and written. I will trust the Washington Examiner long before Huffpost, Vox, Buzzfeed, MSNBC, etc.
Slade · 56-60, M
@Zeuro you gave the gall to question the source's validity while you consider MSNBC infallible

Got Earth shattering news for you NOBODY is infallible (not Bidet, O'zulu, Hillary or even Stalin) except God Almighty. Who has a very hot place for all your heroes to end up🔥🔥🔥
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
This comment is hidden. Show Comment