Id Was Right Again — Part #2

It’s probably part 20 of the same thing because statistics do not lie. They simply don’t. You can make statistics appear to lie but when you have voting ratio’s 20 sigma off the bell distribution, you don’t care if it is a slightly non-normal distribution anymore.


The goose is cooked.

The reason I’m linking this is because I’ve talked to people from TTV behind the scenes and if you check the areas with the most mules found, they correlate PERFECTLY with my country wide vote fraud work.

I should publish more of that in the future. In the meantime, YOU HAVE LOST YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE. AND YOU ACT LIKE SHEEP.

In Atlanta, 242 mules, identified by going to drop boxes over 20 times each. Many went less than 20, this number were chosen by True the Vote to avoid implicating innocent folks instead of blatant fraudsters – 20 is a very safe number. They went from leftist 501C corporations and Stacy Abrams campaign headquarters directly to these drop boxes. They were paid $10 per ballot and one mule claimed to have made $46,000 between the presidential and senate elections in Georgia alone.

He also claimed that was typical.

242 mules in the Atlanta area X 24 times to drop boxes X 10 ballots == 58,080 VOTES

That is about 6X the margin of victory in Georgia, and it is PROVEN 100 percent fraudulent.

We know how those ballots voted because ONE HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE NEW VOTERS IN ATLANTA SINCE 2012 VOTED BIDEN.

ONE HUNDRED PERCENT

YOU DUMFUX STILL DON’T GET IT??? REALLY???

I AM SERIOUSLY UN-SORRY FOR CALLING SOME OF MY READERS DUMFUX. BE BETTER.

Biden set a record for the most votes gained in any state, anywhere, while simultaneously losing votes in 40 percent of the state.

28 thoughts on “Id Was Right Again — Part #2

  1. It’s really remakable just how there’s so much rock solid evidence, confirmed by experts (as explained at the beginning of thst clip), and not one successful legal validation of this massive fraud – despite that so many powerful and well-resourced people have a great interest in pursuing this fraud.

    I mean that clip explained – EXPERTS CONFIRMED THIS MASSIVE FRAUD! JUST LOOL AT THE VIDEO. THE EXPERT SAID SO!

    What will get through this librul wall of lefty appeal to authority people?

    Such a massive conspiracy between so, so many people!

    Build your bunker now!

    1. Hi Joshua, I failed to notice any response to my comment, on another thread, about Trump-ist’s increasing frustration with courts that denied them opportunity to present evidence. Courts — understandably — prefer to avoid politicizing their power, and seemingly look for excuses not to exercise that power in political situations. Of course, failing to act is a kind of act, too. But which court legally “validated” — your term — Biden’s win, as opposed to closing the complaints for lack of standing, or mootness, or timeliness, or incorrect venue, or other procedural reason? Which court actually admitted (what I presume you would consider “invalid”) evidence, subjected it to a normal adversarial process, and then rejected that evidence?

      1. Pouncer –

        You may well have a legitimate point – that there may have been actual evidence of voter fraud that was never gathered or presented in court in a way that crossed enough legal bars to result in further consideration. Where effectively, legal technicalities prevented evidence that would have been adjudicated as voter fraud from being fully evaluated.

        Generally, I think that legal technicalities and judicial regulations and rules of evidence exist for valid reasons – but I have little doubt that sometimes in the end those technicalities result not in justice or end results I think are most fair, but instead unjust or unfair results that reflect little other than beurocratic SNAFU.

        So I don’t know whether there were any cases where there was evidence of actual fraud that simply didn’t get a full airing in judicial proceedings (whether because the courts didn’t want to be serving political agendas or for other reasons) but…

        Trump and Republicans had plenty of money and plenty of reason to prove fraud, and generally law enforcement takes voter fraud seriously. Even if the lawyers and law enforcement were largely incompetent, if the fraud really was that massive as is asserted, just by accident totally incompetent lawyers, let alone competent ones, should have been able to work through the legal system to net at least a few solid legal findings of significant fraud.

        From what I’ve seen, many claims of rock solid evidence of massive fraud made by diehard partials was completely laughable and in itself fraudulent.

        So in the end the claims of rock solid proof of massive voter fraud look implausible to me, as the existence of such evidence could only fly under the radar of the level of incompetence was so high as to be, imo, implausible, or, it would require a conspiracy on such a massive scale that it seems highly unlikely to me to have occurred.

        Unlikely things happen and conspiracies occur. But when I see claims that I think are highly implausible, being championed by cooks or conspiracy nuts or drooling partisans or people who make as many ridiculously obvious errors in reasoning as my friend Jeff, I just do not find those claims terribly convincing.

        1. generally law enforcement takes voter fraud seriously.

          I’m not familiar with any such case.

          In my experience with contested elections in Texas, law enforcement — much like courts and for much the same reasons — seriously ignore what they perceive to be political disputes. Complaints, if any, must rise through administrative procedures set up under the state’s “Secretary of State” and county level “Commissioners” — none of whom have the sorts of power or expertise usual with law enforcement. Complaints, once validated, result in proposals to change the rules for next election. For example, the kinds of “mules” and couriers prevalent in Dallas in 2000 have been regulated under new rules (and replaced with new kinds of “mules”) in the 2016 and 2020 and upcoming elections.

          Again, I’m not aware of any case where ballot fraud, massive or otherwise, or mishandling of ballot boxes was ever treated as a felony, worthy of criminal investigation, and leading to rejection or reversal of election results.

          There HAVE been certified results reversed — after complaints to the Texas Sec of State and various legislators:

          https://www.texastribune.org/2020/01/17/lost-midland-ballot-box-flips-569-million-school-bond-election/

          Ballot-counting shenanigans and procedural breakdowns are actually common. What’s uncommon is a national election in which many such breakdowns all seem to break in the same direction.

      2. In direct answer to your question, I don’t know whether any courts validated Biden’s victory. I assume maybe not. Most likely because no compelling evidence was presented of massive fraud, but also likely to some degree legal i’s were not dotted and t’s were not crossed. To some degree that may have been because of incompetence. Or it may have been to some degree because the legal standards were overly burdensome.

        But again, I think based on probabilities, if there were such massive fraud on the scale that had been claimed, those obstacles would have been overcome to at least some extent.

        That didn’t happen. I can’t rule out massive conspiracies or total legal incompetence or total indifference by law enforcement, but given the wackos like Sidney Powell and Lin Wood and “release the Kraken” and Rudy Giuliani, and the nonsense abiurbfhe voting machines and Venezuela? etc., etc., and crooks like Roger Stone who explicitly talked about the whole massive voter fraud thing way back in 2016,and who have a track record of actually saying that the way to win is to lie and repeatedly keep lying (going back to Roy Cohn and Mccarthy) and never admit that you’re lying…

        Well, you’re entitled to your belief, but while I won’t exactly rule anything out, I think the claims of massive voter fraud aren’t very plausible.

        And when people like Jeff make such geejvke arguments on such a regular basiszif doesn’t exactly make their claims seem more plausible to me.

        1. Well, you’re entitled to your belief, but while I won’t exactly rule anything out, I think the claims of massive voter fraud aren’t very plausible.

          Thank you. That’s a much more reasonable position than is generally offered by the hosts of NPR or CNN or other news media; where what you characterize as “implausible claims” are instead characterized as deliberate and malicious lies about already adjudicated, debunked, and incontrovertible facts.

          Disputes of political opinion are common. And cops and courts are, I think, wise to try to stay out of these disputes. The traditional precautions against, and solutions to, disputes — going back to the Federal Papers and the notion of “factions” — is to establish processes where at least two interested participants each scrupulously watch the other. It’s uncommon for poll-watchers to be removed from the room where counting is going on. It’s unusual to change the dates during which ballots will be accepted; for the convenience of one faction’s constituency. It’s novel to have agents of one faction acting, after election day and unobserved by representatives of another faction, to take flawed ballots back to voters for “curing” administrative errors. Whether or not the cumulative effect of all these new and different procedures amounted to “fraud” is more a matter of rhetoric than logic or law. But then, calling rhetoric a “lie” is novel and uncommon as well.

        2. Pouncer –

          > . That’s a much more reasonable position than is generally offered by the hosts of NPR or CNN

          Well, when people get emotionally engage they express themselves emotionally.

          For some it’s “Trump is lying about the election” and for others, like Jeff, it’s “About 1/2 my fellow Americans are shit-stained morons.”

          1. Hahaha.

            I do believe what I write. Don’t know how people deny reality. I have been so miserable I stopped researching the data. I spent 1 week after my January 2020 posts doing no analysis and collecting vote history.

            Saved it all and formatted it for analysis and I stopped.

            People just don’t understand stats. They have zero feel for it. Like tying a knot that you just know rather than thinking about it. For some, math has to feel right to work.

            20 sigma off the curve. Nobody needs to have a feel anymore. Sucker’s cooked.

  2. Jeff –

    I’m curious. Bill Bart reportedly calked 200 Mules “indefensible” Is that because:

    (1) What he said is mis-reportred?

    (2) He made a good faith investigation into voter fraud but never saw evidence that is as foolproof as yours (although apparently he was foliar with 2000 Mules)?

    (3) He’s in on the conspiracy? or

    (4) Some other explanation?

    1. How do I know what Bill Barr thinks. He’s never impressed me with hia iq but perhaps you could give a little more context?

      1. What more context to you need?

        He was Trump’s AG. His job, as a Trump appointee, was to investigate things like voter fraud. He told Trump the claims about voter fraud were nonsense. He had vast resources at his disposal to investigate the claims, as a member of the Trump administration. Apparently he thinks 2000 Mules is a joke.

        1. So you think that Barr did anything? You may be the only one. Do you have any evidence that something was checked into?

          FOIA requests recently came back stating that there were zero investigations by the FBI. To this date even names, tracking data and video aren’t enough for the 93% leftist Washington group.

          This is exactly what I mean by argument by authority. 2000 mules presents data, you reject it and say what about Barr. Barr is a person, who I believe is 100 percent dishonest but either way, Barr is not data. That type of thinking is a leftist trait and is faulty logic.

          1. > This is exactly what I mean by argument by authority. 2000 mules presents data, you reject it and say what about Barr. Barr is a person, who I believe is 100 percent dishonest but either way, Barr is not data. That type of thinking is a leftist trait and is faulty logic.

            You’re just fantasizing. I haven’t “rejected” anything.

            Barr had the responsibility of investigating criminal voter fraud, as a Trump appointee, and as AG. As a Trump appointee, it would stand to reason that in his role of being responsible for the investigation of criminal voter fraud, he would do so, bringing to the investigation considerable resources (which aren’t available to you or anyone associated with 2,000 mules).

            I have no idea whether he actually conducted any investigation, but simple logic suggests that he would do so before just dismissing the possibility of massive voter fraud, that would have changed the outcome of an American presidential election – in particular massive criminal voter fraud that would have deprived the candidate who appointed him as AG, from victory. Now, in fact he may NOT have done so, although the possibility of him not having done so, given his responsibilities and his likely professional and political motivations, seems low – but sure, it’s theoretically possible.

            So anyway, I asked you for your view.

            1) Are the reports that *he* rejected the possibility of massive criminal voter fraud false? (In which case, why wouldn’t he have investigated, or claimed that he investigated or not done so)

            2) Did he investigate but failed to find evidence similar that you and 2000 mules found of absolute proof?

            3) Is he in on the massive conspiracy?

            4) Do you have an other explanation?

            I’ve never said, or even remotely suggested, that his opinion on the matter is dispositive. You can fantasize about that all you want – but each time you do you will just be adding to the long list of times that you were completely wrong about something.

          2. And btw –

            > Barr is a person, who I believe is 100 percent dishonest

            That’s fascinating. So you are judging a man who you have never met, as being 100% dishonest – and yet, you think he wouldn’t support the assertion that there was massive voter fraud against Trump, massive crime committed against his party, against the man who appointed him AG, whether there really was or not. So he wouldn’t tell the truth if there was massive voter fraud. And he wouldn’t lie about whether there was massive voter fraud, even though he’s 100% dishonest.

            Your logic is truly a work of art.

            What makes it even more fascinating is that you think that Trump is enough of a idiot that he would appoint a man to be his AG, he wouldn’t tell the truth if there was massive voter fraud committed against him, and although that man is “100% dishonest,” also wouldn’t lie and say there was massive voter fraud committed against him even if there weren’t.

            I’m curious as to why you think Trump was such a dope (not to mention, for appointing a long list of other 100% liars, like Wray, Sessions, etc.)? What do you think would make Trump such a poor judge of character?

          3. You are ridiculous. You make all these claims of investigations being done, yet none were. Where is your evidence that barr did something?

          4. > You make all these claims of investigations being done,

            Lol. You just make stuff up. No matter how many times doing so results in you being wrong.

            Here’s what I said:

            Barr had the responsibility of investigating criminal voter fraud, as a Trump appointee, and as AG. As a Trump appointee, it would stand to reason that in his role of being responsible for the investigation of criminal voter fraud, he would do so, bringing to the investigation considerable resources (which aren’t available to you or anyone associated with 2,000 mules).

            I never “claimed” that he conducted an investigation.

            But since you’re so sure he didn’t, could you explain your thinking on why he wouldn’t have done so, seeing as how conducting an investigation would have turned up a massive criminal conspiracy to deprive the man who appointed him as AG, the presidency? What do you think the reason is, that he didn’t conduct an investigation?

          5. “it would stand to reason that in his role of being responsible for the investigation of criminal voter fraud, he would do so,”

            You aren’t very good at this Joshua. I know you think you are, but you are not.

            Even if Barr had done an investigation, which he did not, he has explained NONE of the evidence. You are using it as an argument against evidence. In fact, among the thousands of words you have written so far, you have been unable to address ANY of the claims.

            Not one.

  3. Jeff –

    I get that you think there’s absolute proof of massive voter fraud. You keep repeating that over and over.

    It’s not my job to investigate those claims. Nor do I have resources to do so comprehensively.

    Barr’s job was to investigate such claims. He had enormous resources to bring to that task. He had all the motivation in the world to investigate such claims. There are many, many other powerful and highly motivated political actors and many, many law enforcement entities who likewise had resources and motivation to investigate massive voter fraud depriving Trump and Republicans of electoral victory.

    And there are a bunch of cooks and frauds who have been making claims of massive voter fraud.

    Now maybe you’re not a cook, even though you do make some of the lamest arguments I’ve ever seen on the Interwenbs. But I think that most probably, if there were such absolute proof of massive voter fraud as you claim, Barr would have investigated it enough to ascertain whether it existed, and then found it. He says he investigated it enough to assess the veracity of the claims, and found the claims laughable.

    Maybe he’s lying. Maybe all those powerful and well-resourced people are in on the conspiracy. Maybe all the huge number of legal and election officials, many of them Republicans, are in on the conspiracy as well. Maybe this massive fraud exists, but Trump can’t find any lawyers or legal officials competent and/or honest enough to get one judge, even those Trump appointed, to support appropriate legal proceedings. And maybe the moon is made of green cheese.

    I can’t say with absolute certainty all of that isn’t true.

    Just doesn’t seem very plausible to me. But I get that you find it all extremely plausible, in fact absolutely proven – and given some of the arguments you’ve made, that doesn’t surprise me in the least.

    1. “if there were such absolute proof of massive voter fraud as you claim, Barr would have investigated it ”

      There you go again.

      Do you have any evidence that Barr did anything at all.

      I provide video and statistics and links to others that have done the same. On your side, you keep talking about people, not facts.

    2. And just to follow up, it is hardly my fault that math is not your thing. Video should still be in your skillset however as I imagine the reason you don’t have time is that you spend hours a day watching TV.

    3. Jeff –

      I can only assume you left the first clause off…

      > *But I think that most probably,* if there were such absolute proof of massive voter fraud as you claim, Barr would have investigated it…

      ’cause given your expert sleuthing skills you think no one could notice?

      1. Dude, look at the data if you wish to discuss this. I give zero f’s what blatantly political barr says or thinks.

        Clearly you don’t care about data.

        We are at an impasse.

        1. Jeff –

          I don’t particularly care about what he saya or thinks either.

          But given his political orientation, I can’t think of a reason he would investigate if there was such massive voter fraud.

          And why would Trump pick him for AG if he’s not politically aligned with Trump? Since he’s lying all the time, seems it would be to his political benefit to say there was massive voter fraud even if there wasn’t.

          Your theory makes no sense.

          Unless maybe Trump’s an idiot who had no idea what he was doing. Do you think that’s it?

          1. Again, not capable of answering simple questions about the plausibility of your massive conspiracy theory.

            You say Barr’s political and 100% a liar – so then it stands to reason he’d say there was voter fraud by Demz whether it existed or not.

            Sorry, Jeff, but your theory makes no sense.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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