the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Vote Fraud Money Admission

Posted by Jeff Id on September 14, 2022

33 Responses to “Vote Fraud Money Admission”

  1. Pouncer said

    A likable, hard-working mule. When he’s not harvesting ballots, he’s pulling weeds from cracks in the curbs and sidewalks, and planting flower seeds in the street median.

  2. Joshua said

    Just to make sure I understand.

    So this guy confessed to election fraud – for which he was sometimes paid $1k a day. There were investigations, including by “the attorney General.” He named specific people who were also involved in the fraud (in fact who orchestrated the massive fraud).


    Were there any other “mules” uncovered in this investigation, or was he the only one being paid $200 per ballot? Seems like there’d be a lot of people who’d take $1k per day for relatively easy work.

    Why did he only make $1k per day if he was paid $200 per ballot – were 5 or 6 ballots per day all he could get?

    Were the people orchestrating this voter fraud prosecuted by the investigators who heard thus guy’s confession (that lead to his earlier conviction)?

    Did the officer who heard this confession do any follow-up regarding this illegal activity?

    In the summary, they say Jackson was indicted, arrested, jailed, and found guilty but they don’t say of what. What was the charge he was convicted of? What is the typical sentence for that crime?

    Just how many investigators, judges, etc., were involved in this conspiracy? Is this the first time you’ve heard about the overwhelming and irrefutable evidence regarding this investigation and conviction of voter fraud? If so, what is the reason why you were unaware of it? What’s the history of this tape?
    Was it previously surpressed?

    Inquiring minds want to know.

  3. Joshua said

    Of course you don’t. You just swallow that video hook, line, and sinker. As expected.

    Meanwhile, don’t worry. You’re boy’s going to straighten it all out.

    • Jeff Id said

      Hey dumbass. I just posted the video, after I posted statistical evidence of a more recent election that I CREATED MYSELF. This video is consistent with the cheating in the 2020 election where $10 per ballot was paid to ballot mules who were tracked on cell phone and video traveling back and forth between Democrat 501C’s as well as Stacy Abram.s campaign office thousands of times to ballot boxes. 400,000 new, 100% Democrat voters showed up in Atlanta area from that alone.

      These events are highly consistent and spatially correlated.

      You are the one babbling on unable to disaggregate and process. Pretending that I just accept information is nothing but lies.

  4. Joshua said

    Jeff –

    You say you have stone cold statistical proof of massive election fraud – fraud so significant that it changed the results of major U.S. election races.

    There are very powerful entities in the U.S. who have vested interest in proving that there has been widespread election fraud on the part of Democrats. They have enormous resources at their disposal. And unless you’re a full-on conspiracy theorist, there are also significant law-enforcement entities that have a stake in investigating, and prosecuting election fraud.

    So if you have such proof, you could get it out there and not only see that information widely disseminated to the public, but also followed up on by law enforcement. The implications are enormous, and could effectively alter the trajectory of U.S. history, perhaps world history.

    I have suggested a way that you could take a step in that direction. Ask a community of statisticians, who are widely accepted in mainstream society, at a fairly high profile blog, to look at your proof, in a public forum. It would take minimal effort on your part, and potentially have a significant effect with regard to letting the world know about this deeply troubling criminal event.

    And your response? A juvenile “Nanny, nanny, boo boo. I don’t have to do what you tell me to do” that I might expect from a 5 year-old.

    When I wasn’t even telling you to do anything – just suggesting a minimal cost, potentially significantly beneficial step.

    Of course, it’s your prerogative to stamp your feet and call me names. But given the significant implications of your claim, I certainly hope that if you’re not taking that step it’s because you’re taking other steps to make sure that the world finds out about your rock solid “proof” of massive election fraud. Election fraud on that scale should certainly be exposed, and I’m sure that it wouldn’t be that hard to make sure that rich and powerful entities can take your work and enlighten the world.

    As such, I look forward to hearing soon about your work on a much larger platform than your blog.

    • Jeff Id said

      This little blog had 35,000 daily views at one point. Now I’m a successful businessman with lots of employees. I really don’t need validation. I’ve put the information out there for folks who think on their own. Have at it, explain why it is incorrect.

      It isn’t t btw.

  5. Pouncer said

    Mr Id may speak for himself. But anyone who refuses to consider the well-documented problems with the election procedures of our states and cities might be labeled a “denier” of the very first order.

    Mr Trump appointed a commission, headed by Kris Kobach, to attempt to address known problems with the front end — registration — of the process. We KNOW old people die and their names are not reliably removed from the roles. We KNOW young people register at college during “tabling events” but don’t as often re-register after graduation at new addresses near their new jobs. We know ineligible persons register to vote when they obtain drivers’ licenses. Kobach, in the first part of the effort, was charged to determine HOW BIG those problems were. (This, chartered by the WINNER of the election Hillary and many Democrats are recorded on video claiming to have been illegitimate.)

    Organized efforts to prevent Kobach and the commission from obtaining quantification was led by Democrats. Can that effort be fairly labeled “a conspiracy”?

    Next we might discuss Diebold and Dominion voting machines and software … Does concern over the near-monopoly of a few giant multi-national corporations controlling our elections count as a “conspiracy”?
    Or do those who would dismiss all such concerns count as “deniers”?

    Josh, do you accept that there are problems with registration and problems with voting machines but deny that there are problems with mail ballot security? Are you selective and discriminating in finding and labeling criticisms?

    • Joshua said

      Pouncer –

      > But anyone who refuses to consider the well-documented problems with the election procedures of our states and cities might be labeled a “denier” of the very first order.

      I’m not sure if this is a reference to me, in particular? If so, I don’t “refuse” to “consider” anything about this.

      > Josh, do you accept that there are problems with registration and problems with voting machines but deny that there are problems with mail ballot security? Are you selective and discriminating in finding and labeling criticisms?

      I haven’t looked thoroughly at any of this. While I think it’s unlikely that there aren’t any “problems,” I have no idea whether any problems that might exist are significant enough in magnitude to alter election outcomes, particularly in one direction relative to the other (favoring one party, significantly, in balance).

      My assumption is that if there were fraud of the magnitude that Jeff claims there to have been, and indeed his “proof” stands up to scrutiny to be as lock solid as he claims, (1) he could easily get by-in from a large number of highly credible statisticians and people who study election fraud extensively, (2) he would be able to get wide backing from powerful entities with enormous resources, so as to publicize this proof extensively and, (3) he would be able to get the interest in a large body of law enforcement to pursue investigations into this putative widespread illegal activity.

      So I say it would be beneficial for him to take one small step that I suggest. Of course, he could take many, many other steps as well – that would likely result in this whole thing becoming enormous news, e.g., contacting powerful politicians who have a vested interest in proving widespread election fraud by Democrats, for example.

      But regarding that one small step I suggested, instead he stomps his feet like a 5 year-old and says “Nanny, nanny, boo, boo, I don’t have to do what you tell me to do.” In the very least he might give an explanation as to why he doesn’t do what I suggest (other than merely he’s not going to do it because he’s not going to do it), and describe his efforts to let the nation and the world know about this massive election fraud with enormous consequences. Or not. Entirely up to him.

      • Jeff Id said

        You assume that someone smarter than you would put it somewhere but can’t read the data yourself. It’s a shame really. People are meant to think.

        It’s right in front of you. I have little respect for those who won’t try. Life is hard. Learning is like lifting weights. Just do it.

      • Jeff Id said

        At over 15 sigma off the bell curve, EVERYONE should know

        • Joshua said

          Jeff –

          Surely, if your methodology is air tight, and you have absolute proof as you say, you will be able to getn competent statisticians in your side as soon as they see your work. The nod of approval from a community of statisticians would only enhance your ability to put these criminal fraudster Democrats behind bars like they belong, and to restore Trump to his rightful position as our president.

          So go for it.

          • Joshua said

            And Jeff –

            ’cause it seems you’re a touchy fella, just wanted to meke sure you know I wasn’t telling you what to do (when u I said “go for it”). Just trying to offer come encouragement. It seems for some reason you’re shy about promoting your earth-shattering findings, I assume out of extreme modesty? But really, it’s OK, let the world know about your earth-shattering findings.

          • Jeff Id said

            I put my findings in public. Just not where you keep TELLING me to. YOU do it big dog. You literally have the ability right now.

          • Jeff Id said

            ” The nod of approval from a community of statisticians ”

            Argument by authority is a leftist hallmark. It’s the mark of a lazy stupid mind. No thanks.

          • Joshua said

            Jeff –

            > Argument by authority is a leftist hallmark. It’s the mark of a lazy stupid mind.

            Jesus. It’s hard to believe you’re really this thick.

            I’m not making an appeal to authority. I haven’t said their view would be correct because they’re credentialed experts. I’m saying that getting a nod of approval from credentialed experts would help you to get your message out.

            How it is that you keep misunderstanding that, is actually pretty hard for me to understand.

            Second, you are the only one who has made an appeal to authority, by listing your own expertise and deep knowledge and experience as reasons your view should be believed.

            That’s really quite a remarkable trick – to repeatedly, falsely, accuse me of appealing to authority even as you appeal to your own authority.

            By your logic, I guess you must be a leftist. Eh? Lol.

            I just also want to note – this kind of nonsense that you keep spewing about how certain (of course always negative) characteristics are the “hallmark” of the left is totally unsupported by any evidence other than your gathering of anecdotes from personal observation, obviously filtered through the very human and ubiquitous process of confirmation bias.

            It’s truly amazing to watch how often people (from the left, the right, and the center) convince themselves of the superiority of the group to which they identify, in an evidence-free process. Basically, it’s the fundamental attribution error.

            Show me any evidence at all, that with something like appealing to authority, there’s a signal when comparing the right against the left that overwhelms the diversity within each group, respectively. It’s rather sad and quite pathetic that people don’t have better control over their emotions, and don’t just so easily fall into the biased thinking of “them bad, us good.”

            You’d think that with the many ways that the human enterprise has improved over time, there would be progress with such a basic and obviously fallacious mode of thinking. Maybe there has, actually (after all, I haven’t really looked at any evidence), and your tendency in that direction isn’t representative of some overall trend – but it sure doesn’t seem that way when I look around the blogospere.

          • Joshua said

            > Just not where you keep TELLING me to.

            Lol. “Nanny,nanny boo boo, I won’t do what you tell me to do.”

            You’d fit right in on any kindergarten playground.

          • Joshua said

            Really Jeff –

            Your seeming inability to understand simple concepts is bizarre. Are you doing a Poe?

          • Jeff Id said

            I like easy shortcuts.
            Evidence of a leftist: You voted for Biden.

            I’ve shown you repeatedly that you want me to get approval from these folks at what is apparently your favorite blog in the world. I don’t care what they think, really truly don’t care. Why? Because I don’t need affirmation. I like to post things so people know what is reality. I’ve done it throughout the entire history of this blog.

            Eric Steig put a paper in Nature which happened to show Amundsen Scott with a warming trend- right on the cover of Nature. I knew damned well that the south pole had no warming trend so I had to look deeper. Several smart folks figured it out and jumped in and we published a paper which refuted that claim. The IPCC recognized it, first time out and the paper was referenced in a primary light to great resistance and chagrin, and then in the second time, they reduced it to a secondary paper putting the bad paper first. I don’t care what those morons think, we were correct and we always will be. It made me no happier or less happy than before.

            I believe this so thoroughly, that after thousands of hours of work I never went to look to the latest “UN IPCC assessment report” whether they even bothered to reference the correct paper this time. The United Nations validation means nothing either.

            They know the truth dude. That’s how it works. You have a younger style to you. I hope you can figure it out someday.

          • Joshua said

            Jeff –

            > I’ve shown you repeatedly that you want me to get approval

            Jesus you’re thick. I’m not suggesting it so that ypu can get “approval.” I’ve made it clear, numerous times, the reason for making that suggestion and that’s not it. I know that you’re so incredibly full of yourself that you can’t conceive that there could be any error in your analysis, and that you don’t need “approval” to gain any reassurance that you’ve got rock+solid proof of massive election fraud. You’ve stated over and over that you think your “proof” is being question.

            Because I don’t need affirmation.

            Of course you don’t! You’ve made that clear.

            And I’ve spelled out numerous times what that’s not what I’m suggesting. And you still can’t get it.

            It’s just bizarre. But it seems clear your just incapable (or unwilling, or just pretending for some kind of Poe) of comprehending simple English.

            Here – let me try all caps. Maybe that will help.



            There. Did all caps help?

          • Jeff Id said

            The UN IPCC gave me a STAMP of approval.

            Did it matter either?

          • Jeff Id said

            Look Josh. I know you feel this blogger is some big deal. It makes zero difference to the public. I think in 15 years of blogging and MILLIONS of visitors, I’ve changed approximately zero minds. United Nations — nutin. Obvious fraud in paleoclimatology. Nothing. Stuipidity in ‘green’ science, nothing.


            It’s a small number.

            What this information does is to make folks understand that there is science behind their understanding of the election. There is actual statistical proof that the elections in the united states are massively fraudulent. Had you asked me in 2019, my opinion was that the elections had fraud but not huge fraud — I WAS 100% WRONG.

            well there it is.

            I was wrong that elections had minor fraud, but at the time I was very comfortable with that. Not many people admit that they were wrong in my experience, but that is how I run my life. I was in the freaking dark, but the graphs I’ve shown are PROOF, that I was wrong. Election fraud is massive, beyond words massive.

          • Joshua said

            Jeff –

            Well, at least we agree that most people don’t acknowledge when they’re wrong, especially with regard to polarized issues where people are highly identified ideologically (or otherwise) to their position. No doubt.

            In fact, not acknowledging error is something that Gelman blogs about a lot. It’s one of his main themes (along with, basically commonly found statistics errors in popular research – mostly along the lines of a critique of NHST, and a lack of incorporation of Baysean statistics).

            But since you believe that your proof is so irrefutable, there’s a good likelihood that Gelman, and a good % of his readers, will agree with your analysis, not that you will have to get anyone to acknowledge an error. That is, unless there’s an error in there that you refuse to even accept as a possibility.

            They haven’t seen your analysis so they have no opinion on it as of yet.

            But if you’re so entirely sure that there’s no possibility that they won’t reject an obviously correct analysis, that’s your prerogative (btw, there is a not negligible % of conservatives and libertarian types who post there). There’s no way I could convince you otherwise if you’re willing to pre-judge people in that fashion, without any basis in actual evidence. Of course I have to agee that it’s theoretically possible that you’d be right in such a belief. I can’t rule it out. But after resting his blog a lot over a fairly extended period, such a belief looks tribalistic and paranoid and conspiratorial to me – but it’s certainly your right.

            So then do any of the myriad other things you could do with this lock tight “proof” of massive voter fraud. As I’ve said, there is no doubt a large number of wealthy and powerful people who would be more than willing to support a widespread dissemination of such “proof.”

            I’d tell you to go for it, but then you’d whine “Nanny, many, boo, boo, I won’t do what you tell me to do,” so I won’t do that.

          • Jeff Id said

            Perhaps you are right, is Gelman bigger than the United Nations?

  6. Joshua said

    Jeff –

    > Perhaps you are right, is Gelman bigger than the United Nations?

    Help me understand your logic. Is this it: “the UN did X, so Gelman would do X also, unless he is bigger than the UN?”

    For someone who explains he has an extraordinarily high IQ readership, you make some of the lamest arguments I’ve ever seen in the blogosphere.

    Although that seems to have long been the case (btw. note – great example in that thread where you appeal to authority).

    You’re looking more and more like a credentialist lefty by the minute.

    • Jeff Id said

      I do have a high IQ readership. The commenters are lacking these days.

      My point is obvious. I don’t need to call up your friend for validation. I’m perfectly fine where I am. You can call him if you like.

  7. Joshua said

    Jeff –

    > I don’t need to call up your friend for validation

    Why did you keep repeating this? I never even remotely implied that you do “need” to.

    Just bizarre.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: