Clerk: “Here’s your change.”

First Customer: “Hey, you shorted me.”

Clerk: “Sorry, my mistake, here you go.”

Clerk: “Here is your change.”

Second, Third, Fourth Customers: “Hey, you shorted me.”

Clerk: “Sorry, my mistake. Here you go.”

All Customers: “There is something going on here.”

Store Manager: “No, we just make a lot of innocent errors, always in our favor.”

Policeman: “Nothing to see here. Move along.”

Reporter: “Haters claimed without evidence that the store systematically short changes people.”

Joe Doakes

When you bring an allegation, they say “bring it to court”.

When you bring it to court, they say “it doesn’t meet the standard set in a law that was written by the party that benefits from the corruption”.

I suspect when and if that gets fixed, it’ll morph to “it wasn’t peer-reviewed”.

Whenever we discuss election fraud, Liberals are quick to point out the lack of convictions.  No convictions = no fraud.  They are using the wrong measurement and therefore reach an incorrect conclusion.

To obtain a conviction for voter fraud, the County Attorney must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a specific individual cast a specific ballot with full knowledge that it was against the law to do so.  That’s a high burden and in cases of massive fraud, would take years to clear up all the trials plus it would cost a fortune. No prosecutor wants to spend time and money on paper crimes over violent crimes.
In contrast, to find election fraud, we look for evidence that not all of the ballots were legitimate. A ballot cast by a person who’s been dead for years, cannot be legitimate, and there were lots of them cast.  A normal voter marks most of the races.  A ballot that only marks one race, a highly contested race, is not normal.  Is it possible that it’s a valid vote?  Sure, but when you get tens of thousands of them, all voting for a single race, all voting for the same candidate, the candidate who was losing until those ballots showed up . . . you begin to wonder.

Further evidence that not all ballots were legitimate comes when we see the supposedly neutral election officials violating established procedural safeguards. Election judges count ballots while poll watchers observe. Both sides having poll watchers is a quality control measure to ensure fairness.  But when the election officials kick out poll watchers but only one side’s watchers are expelled, that increases the likelihood of fraud.   

Ballots delivered to the polling place in an unusual manner, at unusual times, raises doubt about the legitimacy of those ballots.  Backdated ballots cannot be legitimate.  When the voting software incorrectly assigns votes to one candidate, always to the losing candidate, across several states, that’s an indication of fraud. 

Ridiculously high voter turnout (in some cases 200%) but only in select counties, is a red flag. 

Finally, the distribution of tallied votes can be mathematically analyzed using established formulas which have been used to detect election fraud in other elections.  The science shows likely fraud in key places.

Does this prove there was serious and widespread election fraud?  It does for me.  There’s just too much evidence to ignore.  If I had a Facebook account, I’d be changing my background.

Joe Doakes

The hard part, of course, is proving it in court, in blue states where the election laws were written to protect ballot-stuffing.

The real answer, of course, will be to take the Presidency in 2024, and clean out the leadership at the DOJ, and then go after Blue city election authorities the same way they went after Klan-run boards in the sixties and seventies.

More infants voting.

This comes up every couple of years. It usually founders when people remember how ghastly young people are – why “we” have raised age limits for drinking, buying tobacco and renting cars.

But determining the future of a democracy most of them don’t understand and many have been indoctrinated to hate?

Why, it’s almost like there’s a malicious plan…

I joke, fairly often, that satire is more like the news than the news is, these days – and that’s not necessarily a good thing.

But sometimes, actual journalism is the best journalism there is.

The latest from Project Veritas:

And it’s in Minneapolis.

This is what Republicans face in the Metro.

If this were a Republican plot to stuff ballot boxes, the Justice Department would have both Cities wrapped up in a consent decree faster than you can say “l’etat c’es mon mére“

#ShockedFace

Any bets on whether the Strib can be shamed out of its smug indolence?

I know, I know – there is no voter fraud.

All those phony registrations that election integrity groups uncovered between 2009 today? Just random demographic fuzz.

Nine people registred in a single small-town laundromat? What are you – paranoid?

Secretary of State Simon defying three court orders to turn over dox related to irregularities? Nah, nothing to see here.

It’s downright unpatriotic to question the election system.

Perish the thought:

A top Democratic operative says voter fraud, especially with mail-in ballots, is no myth. And he knows this because he’s been doing it, on a grand scale, for decades.

Mail-in ballots have become the latest flashpoint in the 2020 elections. While President Trump and the GOP warn of widespread manipulation of the absentee vote that will swell with COVID polling restrictions, many Democrats and their media allies have dismissed such concerns as unfounded.

But the political insider, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he fears prosecution, said fraud is more the rule than the exception. His dirty work has taken him through the weeds of municipal and federal elections in Paterson, Atlantic City, Camden, Newark, Hoboken and Hudson County and his fingerprints can be found in local legislative, mayoral and congressional races across the Garden State. Some of the biggest names and highest office holders in New Jersey have benefited from his tricks, according to campaign records The Post reviewed.

I know – anonymous source, NYPost, yadda yadda.

But at some point, even the undecided have to decide there’s “smoke”, here…

A friend of the blog writes:

I worked briefly in a nursing home. Election judges would come around with absentee ballots and nursing home residents had the opportunity to vote. That was good, I thought. Then, I saw children “helping” their parents vote. Parents that couldn’t tell you where they are, what they had for breakfast, etc. They had no idea they were voting. Even if those children tried to vote the way they thought their parents would want, they were only guessing. Is that right?

So, I thought of that experience when I read this tweet.
There are so many responses that imply the Texas Senator does not want people to vote. To me, it sounds like he doesn’t want activists driving people to vote and influencing their vote. It sounds like you can still ask your friend, neighbor, son, brother to drive you. And if you are cognizant enough to ask someone to get you to the polls, then you probably are not going to allow someone else to make the choice for you. Seems fair enough, given the gravity of the right to vote.

Jamming uninformed, or push-informed, people to the polls is a feature, not a bug, for at least one major political party.

When Richard Nixon’s re-election team wanted to know what the opposition was up to, and needed some dirt, they broke into a psychiatrist office in the Watergate apartment complex. The subsequent investigation brought down the president and tainted the Republican party for decades
When Hillary Clinton’s election campaign wanted to know what Trump was up to and needed some dirt, they laundered some money through their Law Firm to pay for a phony dossier, which they shopped to friendly agents in the FBI who used it to get a warrant to wiretap the candidate. The wiretap transcripts were given to the White House, where Susan Rice unmasked the participants in campaign discussions. Everyone who believes that she scrupulously kept that information away from Hillary’s campaign, raise your hands.
Everyone involved knew they were using the national security cover story as a fig leaf to hide their attempt tp play dirty pool in the election. When they got caught, they had no choice but to continue running with it, and got some cover from Never Trumpers to get a special investigator appointed. But it was always a lie, from the very beginning, And everybody knew it except the voting public.
They shouldn’t get away with it.

Joe Doakes

Modern “progressive” politics is always about telling the low-information emotion-driven voter whatever it takes to give you power.

House Democrats can’t bring themselves to oppose illegal immigrant voting, even in the most meaningless way possible:

Nearly every House Democrat on Friday opposed a measure condemning voting in U.S. elections by illegal immigrants, as part of a sweeping election reform bill.
The GOP-backed measure would have added language to the “H.R. 1” election proposal stating that “allowing illegal immigrants the right to vote devalues the franchise and diminishes the voting power of United States citizens.”
Federal law already prohibits non-citizens from voting in elections for federal office. But the GOP motion referenced how San Francisco is allowing non-citizens, including illegal immigrants, to register to vote in school board elections.

Oh nooo, Fox News

Bear in mind – it’s the same language that passed without controversy six months ago.

The entire Democrat conference seems to think the entire nation suffers from Pauline Kael syndrome.

A friend of the blog writes:

I don’t necessarily think it should be easier to vote. I think people should respect their right and make informed decisions. But, I do think it would be beneficial if more people did take their right seriously and voted.
With that, I laugh every time someone declares that voting day as a holiday will make it easier for people to vote. Easier for whom? Most poor people working for minimum wage in service industries will still be working. Healthcare workers will still be working. The list could go on.
Let’s look at the announcement by the city of Sandusky, Ohio, who will be making voting day a holiday. They’re swapping out Columbus Day.   (I don’t think that I have ever had Columbus Day off let alone holiday pay for working it, so is this going to be helpful for people?) Some decision makers were concerned that they were losing a 3 day holiday, but we’re swayed because this would be for the greater good. Of note, per this article, this would only affect 250 residents out of 26,000. The city manager admits it is “a small gesture, but an important one.”
Not sure if it is even a gesture of any import. How many of these 250 were already voting?

It might be a cheap shot to say “Progressives benefit by driving lots of ill-informed people to the polls”.

It really might.

I’m not sure “cheap shot” and “accurate” are mutually exclusive.