1,559 words
One question I ask myself when considering whether a conspiracy theory is true is how many coincidences the supposed conspiracy eliminates. The more coincidences, the more believable the theory. On the day after the 2020 Presidential Election, even without looking at any evidence, I already understood that an extensive fraud operation (i.e., a conspiracy) had taken place, one that was attempting to shift the tallies in favor of Joe Biden. Why? Too many unlikely coincidences. Count ‘em:
- All vote counting stopped at roughly the same time on Election Day.
- Republican poll watchers were then removed from the polls.
- Large numbers of ballots arrived in the dead of night, and later.
- The majority of these late ballots were for Biden.
These four coincidence are enough to make the election results highly suspect, but the fact that they occurred only in the battleground states Biden was losing and needed to win should convince anyone that a conspiracy was afoot. If these were all natural coincidences, then why didn’t something similar occur in non-competitive states such as Massachusetts, New Jersey, or California? Seriously, anyone who wishes to convince when claiming that the 2020 presidential was fair and clean needs to answer this question. And since no one can possibly do this, the conspiracy theory will always be more persuasive to me than the alternative.
But this is a far cry from proof. What makes Dinesh D’Souza’s recent documentary 2000 Mules so crucial to our understanding of the recent past is that it attempts to prove, as if in a court of law, that systematic fraud (i.e., a conspiracy) did indeed give Joe Biden the election in 2020.
It does this by revealing information that Catherine Engelbrecht’s True the Vote organization compiled under the direction of election intelligence expert Gregg Phillips. They started out by hypothesizing that trafficking in absentee ballots would not only be the easiest way to cheat, but also the easiest method of cheating for them to trace. After all, this has been done many times in the past, and in all cases it involves a partisan non-profit organization providing ballots to a mule, which is a term borrowed from drug or human trafficking describing the person who carries out the actual trafficking. The mule then delivers the ballots to voting drop boxes in exchange for cash from the non-profits.
To cover the 2020 election, Phillips and Engelbrecht purchased a tremendous amount of geo-tracking data in key areas of battleground states that use cell phone signals to track a user’s latitude, longitude, elevation, and the time of each emission from the user’s phone. They then sifted through this data until they could identify individuals (i.e., mules) who met their high bar for being actors in perpetrating election fraud. They defined a mule as a person who visited ten or more voting drop boxes and five or more non-profit organizations during the month leading up to the election.
You can buy Spencer J. Quinn’s novel Charity’s Blade here.
You can guess how many mules they found in all. Breaking it down: 200+ in Arizona, 100 in Wisconsin, 500+ in Michigan, 1,100 in Pennsylvania, and 250 in Georgia. Many of these visits occurred in the wee hours of the morning, and within several hours of each other. They could electronically track an individual as he went from drop box to drop box, town to town, county to county, all on a single day. One person visited 27 drop boxes in six counties in one evening. On average, the 2,000 mules visited 38 drop boxes in the time leading up to the election, delivering anywhere from three to ten ballots per visit. This amounts to an estimated 380,000 fraudulent votes.
To ensure that this data was sound, Engelbrecht had the brilliant idea of using it to solve a cold case murder in Georgia. A nine-year-old black girl had been murdered by unknown persons in a drive-by shooting, yet, through geo-tracking, she and Phillips were able to pinpoint the only two people who were in the vicinity when she died. This resulted in the arrest of two black thugs. They also cross-examined their data with similar data collected on violent protests and discovered that dozens of their mules in Georgia had also taken part in violent Black Lives Matter and antifa riots the previous summer.
Phillips and Engelbrecht then obtained about four million minutes of drop box surveillance footage to corroborate their electronic data, and lo and behold, we have our evidence. The rest is simple math:
According to this data, the Electoral College’s swing, after factoring in fraud, amounts to 47 votes — enough to change the electoral count from 306-232 in favor of Joe Biden to 279-259 in favor of Donald Trump.
Case closed? Maybe. But writer/director D’Souza reminds us that this data was compiled using a rather high bar for what constitutes a mule. “No one thinks that our 2,000 mules were the only mules trafficking illegal votes,” he tells us. What if the bar were lowered a bit? What if we cast a wider net, so to speak? After lowering their mule standards to ten or more drop box visits to five or more, Phillips and Engelbrecht discovered that this revealed 54,000 mules who had trafficked illegal votes in these key areas of battleground states alone! And after raising their algorithmic standards by estimating only three ballots — the minimum — being delivered per visit instead of five, the team estimated that over 810,000 illegal votes had been trafficked during the 2020 presidential election.
Breaking it down: 226,590 illegal votes in Michigan, 83,565 in Wisconsin, 92,670 in Georgia, 207,435 in Arizona, and 209,505 in Pennsylvania. These were clearly enough for Trump to have crushed Biden in the Electoral College, 305 to 233.
After making his case, D’Souza then presents his findings to his conservative pundit friends in the Salem Media Group: Larry Elder, Sebastian Gorka, Charlie Kirk, Eric Mataxas, and Dennis Prager. Here D’Souza lets the cameras roll as the men, rather entertainingly, discuss the details of Phillips’ and Engelbrecht’s findings and argue with one another about the validity of D’Souza’s claims. It should come as no surprise that, however skeptical they were going in, all five were fully onboard with D’Souza coming out.
D’Souza could have ended his documentary here, but didn’t. With some deft exposition and several whistleblower interviews, he shares with us how these non-profit agencies obtained so many illegal ballots. (In Arizona, according to one whistleblower, this had everything to do with what she called “the Mexican Mafia,” which preys upon uneducated and often elderly Hispanics.) He then investigates where these organizations got their funding.
And here’s where things get interesting, and bring us back to my coincidence criterion above. Although many sources of funding are listed in the documentary, three men are listed by name: Mark Zuckerberg, George Soros, and Warren Buffet. In particular, Zuckerberg donated around $470 million. An organization called The Voter Registration Project donated another $120 million. Their basic goal, in the words of the Capital Research Center’s Scott Walker, was “increasing in the eight target states over two million voters who are overwhelmingly expected to vote for the Democratic Party.” One very large string attached to all this money was the installation of lots and lots of voter drop boxes.
What a coincidence. Or not. According to my criterion, probably not.
2000 Mules is a slick, well-made, and convincing documentary. D’Souza, as we all know, is well-spoken, and his to-the-point narration serves his purpose well. Overall, this documentary is a useful thing, despite Ann Coulter’s superficial analysis of it.
To see how good 2000 Mules is, we must first consider its intended audience. If you’re as jaded about Blumpft as Coulter is, then the documentary is probably not for you. The same goes if you’re frustrated by how D’Souza and his pundit friends naïvely reject all racial identity for a much flimsier American or conservative identity. If civil liberties are a major thing for you, then the way Engelbrecht and Phillips obtained geo-tracking information on huge numbers of unsuspecting individuals would probably concern you more than the stolen election. And if you’re a dissident who knows damn well that the 2020 election was stolen and still holds a grudge over D’Souza’s shabby treatment of Sam Francis in the early 1990s, then you should probably avoid this one as well.
But if you’re a principled, mainstream conservative who’s willing to give Joe Biden the benefit of the doubt because proof of fraud doesn’t meet a certain standard, then 2000 Mules is, as Charlie Kirk proclaims, an Overton window moment. If the film reaches this audience, then it will shift it to the right. Kirk, Prager, and the others have a lot of pull with such people. In the face of all of D’Souza’s evidence, there is no other direction in which they could go.
D’Souza’s case in the documentary isn’t airtight — and I’m presuming he didn’t reveal the identities of individual mules or non-profit organizations for legal reasons (and will do so for law enforcement if called upon; a big if, I know). We should understand that the value of 2000 Mules is more metapolitical than political, however. Its point is not necessarily to overturn the election or send people to jail, but to cement in the minds of millions who don’t already acknowledge it that the Democrats’ elites and their nefarious far-Left donors are essentially oppressors and criminals. Because of this D’Souza deserves credit for producing a full-length documentary on one of the most important issues of our time — and he did so by relying on evidence, not coincidence.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Paywall Gift Subscriptions
If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:
- your payment
- the recipient’s name
- the recipient’s email address
- your name
- your email address
To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.
39 comments
Good news about the two black thugs.
A rather more informative and balanced article on this documentary than the other one.
Here’s hoping it’ll push more Republicans in our direction.
Thanks for the review. How can we see this documentary, is it still in theatres?
It’s done in theaters. You can stream it here: https://2000mules.com/
Thankee much!
Epic black crime rates continue across the country. The democratic party that is supported overwhelmingly by that demographic is a party that seeks to replace the electorate and uselessly vaccinate children with dangerous mRNA vaccines. So they are an illigitimate and rogue party regardless of what fraud went on.
The fraud was pretty much a “in your face” fraud. No one with more than one sane neuron really thinks Biden won fairly…..and meanwhile the pissed off trumpian army broke into the Capitol in January 6 to take selfies and videos, and post them on instagram.
You americans deserve your own destiny.
Odd considering no fraud has been proven in 19 months.
No murder of Nicole Brown Simpson by OJ Simpson has been proven in 26 years. That makes people who think he’s guilty crackpot conspiracy theorists.
“enough to change the electoral count from 306 to 232 for Joe Biden, and from 279 to 259 for Donald Trump.”
These numbers are jumbled. They should be “from 306 to 259 for Joe Biden, and from 232 to 279 for Donald Trump.”
The numbers are right. Biden ‘won’ 306 to 232. Subtract 47 from his tally and add 47 to Trump’s and you get 279 for Trump and 259 for Biden.
You just confirmed my math / exactly what I said. The ordering of the numbers in your article are jumbled and it undermines the integrity of the piece.
I thought the same thing but he is accurate. He just words it in an unusual way.
“According to this data, the Electoral College’s swing, after factoring in fraud, amounts to 47 votes — enough to change the electoral vote count from 306 to 232 for Joe Biden, and from 279 to 259 for Donald Trump.”
If you replace “from 306 to 232 for Joe Biden, and from 279 to 259 for Donald Trump.” with “from 306 to 232 in favor of Joe Biden, to 279 to 259 in favor of Donald Trump.” it makes more sense.
I apologize for the confusion, gents (and thank you for the save, Bob). I should have realized there was some ambiguity in my language there.
Bob,
It’s not letting me respond to your other comment, so I am doing so here. I believe you are holding DD’s film to higher standards than it was intended. This isn’t proof in the scientific sense, but enough proof in my opinion to warrant further investigation. Also, I should point out that the high standards of rigor you wish the film adhered to are astronomically high compared to the standards of rigor then Democrats and the MSM adhered to when trying to impeach Trump and sabotaging his presidency for 4 years, to say nothing of their spying on him as a candidate. Compared to that, 2000 Mules is a paragon of rigor. We on the right should welcome this movie for its valiant effort to shake the faith many mainstream conservatives still have in the system and in the current administration. The outcome of this in a metapolitical sense can only be good. We shouldn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good when it comes to 2000 Mules.
Your suggested wording is correct AND unambiguous. The author’s wording is plain incorrect due to the ‘and from’ text after the comma. Good column otherwise.
The confusing passage has been updated to
“enough to change the electoral count from 306-232 in favor of Joe Biden to 279-259 in favor of Donald Trump.”
Thanks everyone. I will be clearer next time.
If they only acquired and analyzed data from the 5 battleground states then there is no control data. That would be a problem.
In my state they had a ballot drop off near the post office where I keep my PO Box. I go there several times a week. Would I have been considered a “mule” if I were in a battleground state?
No, because they would have to also track your visiting multiple non profits, presumably either to pick up ballots or get paid. Visiting drop boxes alone wouldn’t be enough to call one a Mule, according to DD’s criteria.
What if I happen to live or work near a non-profit? Or drive by one every day? Or stop by a coffee shop near one every day?
It seems to me that without knowing anything about the exact individuals except their movements it’s near impossible to interpret the patterns.
As stated before, if they have a control group they can make a stronger case. They could still do it by getting data from a neutral state and comparing it to the data from the battleground states. If the patterns are different it would make for a more convincing case.
Hi Bob. I agree that a control state would have helped. As for your concern about not being able to draw conclusions from the data, consider that their 2000 mules went to dropboxes on average 38 times. That’s a lot; maybe not enough to warrant immediate arrests, but enough to warrant further investigation by law enforcement. Especially considering that similar patterns were discovered in multiple states. Anyone can see that something stinks here.
It may have been fraud but it doesn’t seem that D’Souza has proven it.
“…consider that their 2000 mules went to dropboxes on average 38 times. “
That actually supports the case that the “mules” may have been in the area for a different reason…like work.
The drop boxes in Georgia were rolled out on June 9th of 2020:
https://www.gpb.org/news/2020/09/24/drop-boxes-roll-out-ahead-of-nov-3-elections
“First rolled out for the June 9 primaries, the secure drop boxes have been installed in roughly three-fourths of Georgia’s 159 counties over the past few months.”
The article is dated Sept. 24th, 2020 so the drop boxes were opened at least from that date through Jan 6th.
That’s about 44 days minimum the drop boxes were open. Plenty of time to get 38 pings near a drop box.
Another way to check the data would be to get the tracking data for the “mules” for, say, a 30 day period BEFORE the drop boxes opened and see if the pattern was different. If you see a sudden change in their movements when the drop boxes opened that might be compelling enough to get law enforcement to act.
“Especially considering that similar patterns were discovered in multiple states.”
You can’t tell what those patterns mean because you have no control group.
“That’s a lot; maybe not enough to warrant immediate arrests, but enough to warrant further investigation by law enforcement. “
Apparently not:
“As it exists, the data, while curious, does not rise to the level of probable cause that a crime has been committed,” [GBI Director Vic] Reynolds wrote, adding that for the GBI to get the same cellphone data they would need probable cause. “We cannot make that showing with what has been provided.”
https://www.gpb.org/news/2021/10/22/gbi-says-gops-cellphone-data-lacks-enough-evidence-prove-ballot-harvesting
The following might be the most compelling fact I’ve read yet, but it still proves nothing:
“The drop boxes are anchored to the ground, monitored by constant surveillance video and can only be opened by a team of two poll workers.”
https://www.gpb.org/news/2020/09/24/drop-boxes-roll-out-ahead-of-nov-3-elections
“But notably, none of the video footage used in the movie shows any individual depositing ballots at multiple drop boxes — a shortcoming D’Souza attributes to the fact that many jurisdictions did not capture surveillance video of drop boxes as required by law, or that in many cases the video was too grainy to definitively identify people.”
https://www.factcheck.org/2022/06/evidence-gaps-in-2000-mules/
Perhaps it shows pre-planning but maybe it’s just Hanlon’s razor.
Also, from what I know about geotracking it is accurate to within inches. Just passing my a drop box or a nonprofit on the way to the coffee shop wouldn’t qualify for the D’Souza team. Anyway, the 10 drop box visits and five nonprofit visits pretty much weeds everybody put except bona fide mules.
D’Souza’s agitprop has been thoroughly debunked and all four items on your list above are false. When you have no facts invent straw men to knock down.
Yes, it’s all been debunked by the same media that tells us that “white privilege” is a legitimate idea, that mRNA vaccines are safe and truly prevent you from getting Coronavirus, and that the January 6th ordeal was almost the end of our democracy, but that the Antifa ordeal in cities throughout America in 2020 was nothing to worry about and is not worth discussing. Thank you for setting us straight.
Could you walk us through the debunk of D Souza? I’ve read every article I can find, and they are lacking. They pretty much consist of declarations. I’m not so convinced Dinesh has the goods, but am confident Joe Biden’s election was the result of fraud
see my comment around #13.
Not only are Phillips and Engelbright partisan hacks like D’Souza, they allowed D’Souza to lie about them solving a case of a murdered child, and Phillips lied about what kind of data they used. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation refused to investigate because Phillips’ data was cell cite location, not GPS as he lies about constantly.
So far three people in Distort’s agitprop have been cleared and not one has been proven to have done anything illegal.
I would like more information on the 3 people in the movie who were cleared. I’m surprised that hasn’t had more attention, if true
D’Souza seems mostly a novelty brown griftyish goofball appealing to hwhite sentiments and I haven’t watched this film yet, but it seems an interesting presentation in theory and least worth examining.
I didn’t know private individuals could just buy this data from cell phone companies.
A strong case? It seems more circumstantial. I find the non-profit thing a bit hazy. Which non profits ? What if we tracked people who visited their doctor regularly, or were a member of a gym or something. It seems you could find anything in this data if you are looking for it.
But I guess it does lend some speculative weight to the other stuff like irregular voting waves and unexpected regional results in that election. One would think the masterminds would have thought to not use cellphones if they are this vulnerable to analysis.
For a while during peak covid, and where there were quite harsh lockdowns where I was, I didn’t take my cell phone out with me for a while. Paranoid ? Not so much I expected to be singled out, but it seemed clear authorities could monitor this data to see at least general compliance with lockdowns.
Anyhow, there’s no special reason to think America’s elections are not corrupted. We think of corrupt elections as something that only happens in banana republics and stinking poc countries, while the West prides itself on ‘transparent democracy’ and free and fair elections. That’s just an obfuscating meme to cover the rotting carcass of our systems these days.
But of course the center/left claimed Trump was in cahoots with Russia who were trying to debase the election in 2016. False about Trump, but these claims are going to be the norm from now on.
This documentary has some utility as a means to get your average normie to question the legitimacy of the Regime. It’s message is simple enough for most people to understand and throws the other side on the defensive. But it has to be used as a wedge to open up wider issues regarding elections in the US, like;
_The de-platforming of dissidents. Denial of online services, the cancellation of crowdsourcing, shadow banning, and etc., all rig elections in favor of Regime candidates.
_The influence of Big Money contributors in buying candidates. Elections are being de facto sold to the highest bidders.
_And related…NGOs have financed leftist DAs into office who proceed to unleash criminals against society.
_The lack of viable third parties. The American two-party system makes it very difficult for upstart parties to gain traction. Often ballot access for third parties is denied by skulduggery.
_The corporate media. The consolidation of media into a small number of cartels which promote Regime interests means that politics will be limited to an approved range of candidates and issues.
_The flooding of the Homeland with third worlders. Even if they do not vote, the migrants-refugees provide more clients for the public schools, welfare system and race hustling fronts which bring in money and influence for the Democrats.
_Political violence. The leftist attacks on Trump rallies in 2016 are one example. Might also look at the influences of the 2020 BLM rioting, the massive rise in crime, the recent attacks on Supreme Court justices, and etc., on the electoral process. There were, apparently, people who voted for Biden as they thought this would end the (Democrat inspired) violence.
_The growth in power of un-elected bureaucracies, three letter agencies, Wall Street, Silicon Valley and globalist NGOs. Do Americans get to vote for the people who run the World Economic Forum?
_The end of the secret ballot. If ballots can be mailed in or harvested, what’s to stop, say, one’s employer from dictating who is to be voted for (or else, no more bonus or job!)? Or the muscle for the local politico knocking on your door and marking the ballot for you? And we have to toss in the mundane possibilities of ballots being lost or otherwise altered in the mails.
Is all this “Our Democracy?”
Let’s not limit the debate to the stuffing of ballot boxes. There’s a much bigger picture to be considered.
There were so many differences between 2016 and 2020 Election Day. The fraud was so obvious because they telegraphed it literally since the day after Trump won the first time how they would conspire to never allow him to win again, whereas the candidates refused to drop out against Trump until the very end. They claimed Russia hacked the election and our brains, which resulted in millions of dollars of recounts, and attempts to abolish the electoral college leading up to Inauguration Day. Remember Vice President Biden even said, ‘It is over’ and slammed the gavel. But months in until Jake Tapper said, ‘Mr. Trump, we know you won. You are president now,’ as all the newspapers kept questioning the legitimacy of the election because of endless Russian spies, bots and traitors. Turnabout is fair play.
Then we had election *season* in 2020, with mail-in ballots and the strange dropouts during the Democrat primaries to let Biden win. Another trick I noticed was how Trump was winning every single moment of 2016. Never once were they tied. But Trump never once led in 2020, until he was poised to capture 5 states and the entire count shut down for the night and until 3 weeks later. Totally normal.
This argument is like 9/11 Truth. We all know now 20+ years later something different happened than what we were propagandized to believe, but the false-flag narrative on it varies widely (no-planes theory, controlled demolition, stand-down) precisely because of cognitive dissonance (FBI operation) to obfuscate plausible explanations and to make the ‘conspiracy theorists’ look unhinged to normies.
Regardless, this brown grifter has at least adapted to being a white whisperer rather than making Aliyah to the Democrat Party like his neocon DR3 confederates did in 2016. Boomers are losing faith in democracy and capitalism on both sides. 18 million tuned into the sham opening Jan 6 hearings last week, and 16.5 million were aged 55+, and the number has halved each day.
Overall, this stolen election has turned out to be a nice consolation prize for accelerationism because the regime has to govern this collapsing globalist ZOG without its masterful propaganda reaching record eyeballs (Republican political junkies are evergreen, Democrat political junkies are only oppositional). So the rotation of these two-party dichotomies really do not matter in Brazil, UK, Australia, USA, Germany etc because rightist hegemony (antiwar, Eurosceptic, xenophobic etc) is becoming solidified regardless of who is in power to the point that it is almost beneficial for the neoliberals to be holding the bag right now.
Taki Magazine has a good article by Ann Coulter refuting many of these points. Some of the points were that he {Trump} failed to appeal to one minor demographic group in 2020 that he did in 2016.
This group is white men.
After running on a campaign to “Build the Wall”, by the end of his administration he completed 47 miles of wall on a 2,000 mile border. A lot of the money sought for contributions went to enrich Trump and his associates. If I may plagiarize a paragraph:
“And let’s not forget Steve Bannon’s “We Build the Wall” swindle; Trump sending out a fundraising appeal to raise funds for his new private plane; and a Trump-affiliated organization paying Kimberly Guilfoyle $60,000 to give a two-minute speech on Jan. 6 (introducing her fiance, Don Jr.). Every time you think you have your arms fully around Trump’s con, you realize it’s unfathomably more cynical and far-reaching than you could have imagined.” — Ann Coulter, Taki Magazine, 6/16/2022.
With all due respect to Ann Coulter, Trump appealed to the white male demographic even more in 2020 than he did in 2016.
Trump GAINED 5 million white male votes in 2020 compared to 2016. He even gained 700,000 white male votes in the 5 battleground states he lost.
It looks like all the lefty and moderate white men who protest voted or stayed home in 2016, refusing to vote for Clinton, came out in droves to vote for Biden.
The white men who voted for Trump in 2016 didn’t switch from Trump to Biden. Both candidates gained white male votes in 2020, it’s just that Biden gained a lot more than Trump did.
Assuming the exit polls were correct—a huge assumption—he lost eight percentage points in his margin of the white male vote in 2020. He was up 31 points with white males in 2016 and by 23 points in 2020.
That’s possible to do while gaining overall voters if there’s a much bigger turnout. Again, this is assuming there was a much bigger turnout.
Apparently this is another case there the difference between raw numbers and per-capita percentages needs to be emphasized.
I see that exit poll was reported by CNN. The thing CNN and Ann Coulter have in common is their mutual hatred of Donald J. Trump. I’m not saying they don’t have good reason to hate him but I think their feelings about Trump may be subjectifying their reporting of the data.
I believe CNN is using the same exit polls listed on the wiker-paidia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election#Voter_demographics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election#Exit_polling
I know Ann’s source, Fabrizio, is also using the same polls:
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/read-the-exit-poll-analysis-report/30b2cfd9b9488cf2/full.pdf
My previous comments were in response to Nicolas Bourbaki’s paraphrase of Ann Coulter that “…he {Trump} failed to appeal to one minor demographic group in 2020 that he did in 2016. This group is white men.”
I understand that Trump’s margins fell but that doesn’t equate to Trump losing the white male demographic or even failing to appeal to it.
The polls show that Trump lost just 1% of the white male vote in 2020 compared to 2016. He went from 62% of the WMV to 61% of the WMV and, of the approximately 9 million increase in WMV cast in 2020, Trump got the lions share at 5 million. Winning 61% of a demographic does not equal a loss of that demographic or a failure to appeal to it.
Trump clearly DID appeal to that demographic (to the tune of $250 million I hear). Good work if you can get it.
I agree with you. Who knows how accurate these polls really are. But I’m using the same polls as everyone else in this argument so you can’t cuss me for that.
EPILOGUE:
Total votes cast in 2016 were 136,669,237. Total votes cast in 2020 were 158,383,403. An increase of 21,714,166 votes.
The polls show the margin for Republican voters increased 5 points in Trump’s favor, the margin for Democrats increased 9 points in Biden’s favor, and the margin for Independents increased a whopping 19 points in Biden’s favor.
The polls show the margin for conservative voters increased 5 points in Trump’s favor, the margin for liberals increased 5 points in Biden’s favor, and the margin for moderates increased, again, a whopping 19 points in Biden’s favor.
It looks to me like many of the moderates who stayed home in 2016 showed up to vote against Trump in 2020.
Trump clearly failed to appeal to moderates or women he personally pissed-off.
Excellent point. Trump didn’t fail to appeal to white men in 2020, he just dropped in % support from 2016. And this could very well be due to men who were not ‘I’m with her’ in 2016 and stayed home, but came out for uncle Joe in 2020.
It would be great to know the numbers of people who voted in 2020 but didn’t vote in 2016. I would say most of these would go to Biden.
In my opinion, Trump’s weak and lame indulgence of Fauci and other covidians as well as his inaction during the BLM-antifa mayhem made him deserving of his one term. But that doesn’t mean the fraud against him shouldn’t be investigated and punished.
That paragraph from Ann does nothing to debunk DSousa’s film. She just trashes him for doing what every rich person does in shaking loose easy money for son’s girlfriends. I found the film unconvincing, but even Ann’s entire piece debunks nothing, only raises reasonable doubts. I did watch the film, and maybe I should watch it again to see if I missed something, but to mind mind they did not make an airtight case. I would have liked to see it more clearly laid out, like:
[Mule] goes to drop box, signal stays within x feet of drop box for 3 minutes, goes directly to next Dropbox for 2 minutes, next Dropbox, etc.
I need more detail, and didn’t see it in 2000 mules. I didn’t see anything that completely broke plausible deniability, much as it pains me to say.
I believed by 2019 that 2020 would be stolen (brazenly and in the open, if necessary) if the global conspiracy could not produce conditions necessary for Trump to lose legitimately. I also believe that in 2016 Trump beat Hillary so badly that he overcame millions of fraud votes.
Unfortunately, there is no standard of proof that can be achieved. The media will declare everything “debunked” till the end of time. The steal was as obvious from day one as a man in his underwear climbing out a back window, clothes under his arm, as a husband pulls up in the driveway. That, too, proves nothing
A defense of Trump from “Way of the World” from November 12, 2020. Starting at the 5:18 time mark, he acknowledges Trumps shortcomings, but defends what he sees as Trump’s positive qualities.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/GwbTRmt8jDo/
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.