Public Safety Announcement: The 2020 Election is Not Over

I have been listening to my friends and family and am concerned that many are not aware of the election process. Having the presidential election flip from Democrat to Republican at this point can cause massive rioting, violence, etc.

We should all be aware of the current situation and the news outlets do not appear to be informing people.

Disclaimer: I’m am not pro-democrat or pro-republican. Personally, I believe neither party is fit to run the country.

I wanted to share what appears to be the Republican strategy and why it’s possible (though still unlikely) Trump could win.

At time of writing Trump the betting markets have 13% odds of winning the election (odds calculated average from Betfair and PredictIt).

PredictIt currently has 16% odds of Trump winning:

Biden is not Officially the President-Elect

The president elect is determined by the electoral college or the General Services Administration (aka Trump conceding). That did not occur.

This is not uncommon, from wikipedia:

The closest instance of there being no qualified person to take the presidential oath of office on Inauguration Day happened in 1877 when the disputed election between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel J. Tilden was decided and certified in Hayes’ favor just three days before the inauguration (then March 4).

Evidence, Pending Review

It takes time to build evidence. Last night on Fox News (Hannity, 11/10/2020) the Republicans discussed some of the election (video may be removed, not on Fox News website).

The Republicans claim 11,000+ incident reports of vote manipulation, currently being vetted by attorneys. 250+ affidavits already signed, many have corroborating physical evidence, photos or additional witnesses (unclear how much). In a section below, some specific claims are covered.

The Voting Recount Process

  1. Affidavit is necessary to challenge some ballots
  2. After canvassing, Republicans can request a recount
  3. A judges in each county can review evidence (aka affidavits, photos, etc)
  4. The judge can remove ballots (at random) based on evidence
  5. Judgements can be challenged to a higher court
  6. Recount occurs after ballots removed
  7. IF it’s so wide spread or there’s a major error. The house or senate decide (or special elections), it depends on the State.
  8. Electors vote on to December 14 and delivered December 23rd [1]

State Government Affiliation(s)

  • PA, MI, WI and GA have a fairly large republican majority of both houses
  • AZ has a slight republican majority of both houses
  • NV has a large Democrat majority in both houses

It’s also still possible the United States Supreme Court could still toss hundreds of thousands of ballots out of PA (Biden’s up by 40k)[2].

Affidavit Claims

Selected claims on Fox / Hannity (on 11/10/2020):

1. There was a “software bug” in one jurisdiction, the exact same software was used in half of Michigan and multiple states. Only the one county noted the fix. They want to re-evaluate and manually recount in said counties. Code reviews requested.

2. Pennsylvania USPS (more than one) said the postal service was backdating ballots AND collecting ballots after the date (prior to back dating, i.e. they knew)

3. Michigan had a lot of dead people vote >50 for one county, thus far that they’ve found.

4. All the states have laws enabling the voting process to be accessible to the public, due to COVID-19 they limited public observers, particularly from independents. Legal challenges can occur, as that is against many states laws.

5. Democrat poll watchers were handing out pamphlets on “how to distract GOP poll watchers”

6. Poll watchers claim to have seen ballots with the same or no signatures be counted in Michigan

Personal Opinion

Personally, I believe this is the correct course of action. I’m not sure I believe all the claims.

However, I think it’s very important we challenge the votes, see where it falls and improve the Republic. Even if we do it after the election, it’s important we identify fraud and / or improve the process so this doesn’t happen again.

Unfortunately, the news media is not presenting this very well. I am concerned this will lead to a civil war. The Democratic party knows they are not officially the president elect, yet hold press conferences, that look like this…

I’m not convinced this wont lead to violence. I’m concerned because it looks like if the Democrats lose the election. There will be a rival government setup. Several foreign powers have already acknowledged Biden as the victor, for instance.

Personally, I just want a safe environment for my friends and family. I think most of us do.

11 thoughts on “Public Safety Announcement: The 2020 Election is Not Over

  1. Horseshit. Explain to us all why Republicans are perfectly willing to state that the ballots cast for Republicans on the ballot are legitimate, but Biden’s choice ON THE SAME BALLOTS are being contested.

    At this point, you’re just fear mongering. Stop fear mongering.

    1. I’m not trying to explain away anything. I’m stating the current arguments.

      I think choosing to not listen to arguments is dangerous. The evidence is being collected and judges will decide and can be challenged to a higher court. They are trying to prove voter fraud (much easier than voter suppression). If they can prove it, then some votes will be thrown away.

      The Republican party is following the law and challenging particular cases they found. Personally, I think it’s disconcerting that the news isn’t covering this. The Democratic party can challenge each of these cases and should if they feel it’s reasonable. The judges are as close as we can get to “not bias” in this case.

      We shall see how the law works and this turns out.

      I don’t believe Trump has high odds of success (13% seems about right). I also think there’s a chance the Republican Party pushes back against Trump because they are concerned about a civil war that no one wants.

  2. As someone who is ok with Trump losing (as long as the GOP holds the Senate), I still think it’s vital to expose every single instance of voter and/or election irregularity. The mainstream media is pushing this absolute lie of “zero evidence of voter fraud” and it needs to be demonstratively exposed if we ever hope to get the election reform we desperately need. The media needs to be made to eat their words, and once and for all we need to acknowledge and address the rampant voting shenanigans that everyone knows goes on.

    As much as Trump irritates me, I would gladly deal with him for 4 more years to avoid the destruction of the country that will follow if the Senate doesn’t stay in GOP hands. This nation needs to prevent federal court packing, DC/Puerto Rico statehood (AKA Senate packing), abolishment of the Electoral college and other absurd structural damage being pushed by “progressives”. Things that will literally destroy the country within a decade.

    If they are allowed to get away with this in states that Trump will probably still lose (like Michigan) then it will be east to get away with it in states with razor thin margins like Georgia, where the two senate seats in runoff will literally decide the future of our country in January.

    The nation needs the recounts and the lawsuits and the fraud to be given full daylight, or we’re going to be in a very bad place.

  3. “i’m not a democrat or a republican”

    proceeds to parrot GOP talking points and cite Hannity and the Washington Examiner

    who did you think you would fool? lol

    1. Hello [email protected] – I approve every comment on my blog that doesn’t look like spam.

      I’m happy to discuss issues you find. I simply stated the case, personally I hope Trump concedes. A civil war if Trump wins is in no ones best interest. That’s also why I suspect even the Republicans wont necessarily stand with him, if push came to shove. Then again, do we really want it to come down to that? Where even if Trump legally won, we’d let him lose to avoid a war?

      Regardless, I’d also like an evaluation of voter fraud. I don’t see an issue with it. I suspect a better voting system is in everyone’s long-term interest.

  4. Hey, do you actually believe you have impartial, centrist perspective? I have strong suspicion you are not intellectually honest, but not sure if with other people only, or also yourself. You need to recognize there is consequence to everything you write, and your writing is a textbook example of fearmongering, which has already proven to have terrible consequences.

    Ask yourself, what is more likely:

    – Democrats possess incredible behind-the-scenes power, to the degree they can falsify hundreds of thousands of votes, in spite of the *blatant* attempts by the opposition at voter suppression, by trying to cripple USPS, to limit access to voting boxes, by delaying mailed votes counting, and so on. Oh, and Democrats don’t use that power for anything else whatsoever.

    or, perhaps instead

    – a president that is overtly anti-science, that recommends drinking bleach, that makes contradictory statements on a daily basis, that mocks disabled people, that says “we need to stop testing so we won’t show cases”, and so on, just continues to use dishonest, obstructionist attempts to undermine validity of legit results, to further his agenda?

    Think how your post reads to a reasonable person that values science, reason and personal conduct. Do you really sound like an actual concerned citizen, or will you end up immediately being labelled as the typical right-wing “I am just worried” shill, that tries to muddle the water of a really quite clear cut situation? Note that after reading this comment, you cannot honestly claim anymore you are being censored for having “reasonable, balanced views”. People recognize fearmongering and the “concerned citizen” template. They are not interested in rebutting it for the n-th time.

    1. What is a reasonable concern? I’m concerned about both outcomes.

      I think you need to ask yourself: “a president that is overtly anti-science, that recommends drinking bleach” is there a significant bias there? I watched the press conference in question. I generally watch them for both sides. I invest significantly in the stock market, I need to know the potential outcomes to make informed decisions. For reference, Trump never said “drink bleach” there was various therapies being discussed and frankly I’ll give him the benifit of the doubt. He DID say, we can “inject you with cleaner”, which again, not good advice. I wont debate it. I agree it was not good.

      Call it “fearmongering” sure, but take a step back. What can you do? Both arguments are “fair”. I don’t know what the outcome is, I’m just explaining the process and what’s being claimed (something very few people are covering.

      That’s why it’s important to be aware of possible outcomes, so you can prepare. Personally, I’m more scared if Trump takes the presidency (though what ever means).

      1. > What is a reasonable concern? I’m concerned about both outcomes.

        Hey, how about this:

        “I am concerned that if we won’t let pedophiles rape children, some of them will go on a murderous rage.” or “I am concerned that if we mandate wearing masks, there will be violence” or “I am concerned that if I won’t hit my girlfriend, she won’t stop misbehaving”.

        All of them are valid concerns! They need to be carefully analyzed and patiently proven or disproven! Do you see a problem with writing such stuff publicly?

        Re:

        > Both arguments are “fair”.

        Absolutely not. The same way flat earth argument is not “fair”. It is just ridiculous. You can make such argument *once* and plead ignorance, to allow somebody to patiently show you scientific experiments disproving it. But if you are an educated adult, and you have a track record of repeatedly refusing to accept reality, spewing bs like flat earth, covid is like flu, moon landing hoax, etc., then nobody is obliged to give you another “fair trial” anymore, especially if you have the power to cause great amount of harm.

        > and frankly I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt

        lol

        > That’s why it’s important to be aware of possible outcomes, so you can prepare

        People know that. It is more important to not write crap like:

        > Unfortunately, the news media is not presenting this very well. I am concerned this will lead to a civil war. The Democratic party knows they are not officially the president elect, yet hold press conferences, that look like this…

        What are you talking about? Civil war, because Democrats are behaving like every single winning party has behaved before them, being in the same position? No. Civil war would be caused by people confused and disinformed by people posting crap like you, because “both sides have fair arguments” and there are “valid concerns”.

        1. > No. Civil war would be caused by people confused and disinformed by people posting crap like you, because “both sides have fair arguments” and there are “valid concerns”.

          Frankly, this conversation is not civil. You came to my blog, I manually approve every comment that isn’t a bot. Seriously – what’s your problem? The visceral hatred is unbecoming.

          The data on this post is out of date at this point, but I’m fairly confident my comments and thoughts on this page will hold up well; regardless, of how any of us feel about it.

          The general point, is that there is evidence. It’s clear as day, it’s growing every day. It would be suspicious if there wasn’t voter fraud or irregularity. That being said, is it enough to overturn an election? I don’t know. I do know all the laws / policy changes due to COVID19 were not properly vetted (legally or otherwise). In addition, there are many as angry as you sound, which could lead to people committing fraud.

          So, best of luck! Nothing I said in here was inaccurate. There was only some concern. I think it’s telling how upset you are.

          1. (part 2)

            > Nothing I said in here was inaccurate. There was only some concern.

            That is not an excuse, and not a shield against being censored. Such supposed “neutrality” is used as political tool to further the agenda of bad actors. At some point people realize that, and stop allowing it. Again, by example: I could start posting publicly that I am concerned that because we don’t have slaves, the labor costs are higher. But nobody reasonable is interested in having this conversation anymore, except highly controlled academic settings with lots of disclaimers so that nobody takes it seriously without context. This is a done deal. World has moved on. If I am talking about such concerns, it is clear I am acting in bad faith, or I am unbelievably ignorant of political and historical context.

            > there are many as angry as you sound, which could lead to people committing fraud.

            If this is argument for voter fraud, then Trump votes require 2x stronger scrutiny than democratic voters. Unfortunately this is not a valid argument.

            > The visceral hatred is unbecoming
            > I think it’s telling how upset you are.

            Have you seen Rudy Giuliani press conference [1]? I am not amused that you can watch something like this, and claim with straight face those people are credible, deserve consideration, and you “don’t know” if they are right. I assume you also don’t know if earth is flat or round? In case you somehow managed to miss it – pretty much everything that was said there is either complete misdirection or outright, blatant lie, and was immediately dismissed by courts as unsubstantiated claims. The lady in tiger dress was fired from that group a couple of days letter, because apparently her unhinged conspiracy theories involving Chavez who is dead since 2013 were too much even for them.

            Thus, the hatred you are observing is directed at a person that either knowingly in a bad faith tries to give credibility to such people, or is genuinely unaware what they are doing, and need to use this hatred as a feedback to straighten up.

            [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8LiGZhK-bg

  5. > Seriously – what’s your problem?

    I came here from your Hacker News comment in which you were complaining you are being censored. Thus “my problem” is an attempt at explaining to you why you, perhaps unknowingly, are contributing to narratives that are harmful to society, and people are trying to limit the blast radius of what you do.

    I suspect that you think something like this about yourself:

    – My views are balanced
    – I am skeptical
    – I value civil discussion
    – I am open-minded

    But you need to understand: this is a trap. You are doing and thinking exactly what bad actors want for you to think and do. Imagine for a second that I am an authoritarian that tries to undermine democracy. What would I do? I cannot do it directly. I will obstruct and misinform. If I know my political opponents will gets votes by mail, I will undermine mail voting trustworthiness and defund it. If I will be losing election, I will undermine its trustworthiness by accusing of fraud. There other examples of this. Russia didn’t invade Crimea; they came in and did independence referendum. Black people were not massively incarcerated just because; it turns out the drugs that were being taken predominately by black people were most illegal and severely punished.

    > but I’m fairly confident my comments and thoughts on this page will hold up well

    As of this writing pretty much all court cases about voter fraud brought by Trump administration were dismissed by the courts, except extremely minor infractions amounting maybe to dozens of votes, which is to be expected.

    > The general point, is that there is evidence.

    That’s the thing: there is none. See above. But Trump administration wants for you to think that.

    > That being said, is it enough to overturn an election? I don’t know.

    It is not. See above.

    > I do know all the laws / policy changes due to COVID19 were not properly vetted

    Do you trust the courts?

    If you do, they were; otherwise somebody would sue and the court would force proper vetting.

    If you do not trust the courts, why not? What’s a better alternative?

    > (legally or otherwise)

    What do you mean by “otherwise” ?

    (part 2 coming)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

 characters available

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.