trump true story

I understand my mistake now. Delaware PASSED the early voting law in 2019. I "assumed" (always a bad idea) that they implemented it in 2020. They didn't. It was delayed until 2022. It matters little. Delaware was never a state in contention. I mentioned it only an example of States changing election laws in violation of their own constitutions, and the US constitution.

LOTS of that was happening in 2020, even BEFORE Election Day. Too many courts were 'making law', rather than 'interpreting law'. Allowing drop boxes? Who needs a dropbox? Who cannot put an envelope in the mail? Allowing people to register to vote AFTER state legislature required deadlines? For what purpose? There IS a reason to have a deadline. State officials need time to verify registrations. When you get 35,000 in 10 days, just days before the election as Arizona did, there's little chance of checking them all. When the MOV is only 10,450? It naturally raises concerns.

As for Zuckerbucks: They were highly effective in turning out more votes for Democrats. In Georgia, there was no such increase in the counties that didn't get the money. There sure was in the ones who did get the money. There are now 27 States who have passed laws banning this kind of outside interference.

To directly address your premise, I say YES. I do think Trump was more than justified in saying he had won the election and it was stolen by fraud. The results defied all precedent from previous elections. Candidates who basically do not campaign, and if they do make an appearance can't gather 50 people, simply do not generate the kind of record turnout that supposedly happened. "Bell-weather Counties" that had correctly predicted elections for multiple decades nearly all went for Trump. I believed it then; I believe it today. And I'm very glad Trump didn't just meekly concede and fade away. It's important to let the other side know that WE KNOW they cheated. Maybe, we didn't know exactly HOW in the 8 weeks after the election. We did know that proper, normal, election procedures were NOT followed.

As to the phone call with Raffensberger, I'm 100% sure that Trump is not the ONLY elected official who ever called other elected officials of his own Party and encouraged them to "find votes". He's just the only one who's call was illegally recorded and then released. He's probably also the only one who's "Fellow Party member" didn't want him to win anyway. Trump NEVER ask for anything illegal to be done. He didn't tell them to "fake some ballots", "change some numbers". He spent most of the call detailing problems with the way the election was run. Democrats were "finding votes" for days after the election. Trump was just frustrated by the minute margin of victory and wanted to make sure that ALL potential votes were found and counted. Especially, Trump votes.

There was also nothing wrong, or illegal about asking State Legislators to consider naming "Alternate Electors". There actually is historical precedent for this. There were only 4 weeks between the election and the certification of electors. Only another 4 weeks until the Senate confirmation. There were many efforts underway to find hard evidence of election fraud. HAD this evidence been found, it would have important to have a new slate of elector readily available. ASKING, is not illegal. PREPARING, is not illegal. If anyone tried to pass off the alternates as being State Legislature certified, THAT would be illegal. I'm not aware of Trump ever doing that.

Unfortunately for Trump (And our country), the way the fraud was most likely done left no easily discernable evidence. All they could prove immediately after the elections was: election procedures were violated. The ONLY cure for that would have been, re-do state elections. NO COURT anywhere was ever going to order that.

I believe ballots were falsely submitted for people were actually registered, but never voted. The big tech companies could easily generate such lists. All that would be needed to do this was: money, time, and an easy way to submit ballots without facing scrutiny. ALL of these were in place in 2020.  Given what's at stake, I presume: IF there IS a way to cheat, someone will do it.   There are easy procedural changes that would make this virtually impossible. Democrats adamantly OPPOSE them ALL. So, we will continue having elections that no one trusts.

Winners will be pleased. Losers will be left to ponder what they can do about it. It's no way to run a country.

Once again, I must call you out on your misinformation. Using county results for 2016 and 2020, as well as the data provided in your link:

-counties that did not receive grants had 31% more democrat votes in 2020 compared to 2016

-counties that did receive grants had 36% more democrat votes in 2020 compared to 2016



Feel free to look at Bryan, Paulding, Effingham, Oconee, Hall, Colombia, Walton, Long, Gilmer, Coweta, Catoosa, or White county results. Those are 12 of the top 20 by democrat vote growth percent. All grew by 40%+. None received grants per your data source.

So once again you repeat a talking point that is verifiably false.



On your point about soliciting ballots from election officials:

The justification is that others have done it, he is the only one to get caught. Alright then.


On your point about the “alternative” electors:



The falsified certificates are public record. Just glancing at the one from Arizona, it reads “…being the duly elected and qualified Electors…” I think they were trying to pass them off as being certified. We have a trial to determine if this was illegal and whether Trump was involved and to what extent.


Finally, you made two remarkable statements:





If I am reading this correctly, you knew then and you know now there was cheating but don’t have any discernible evidence of how. You base this on a multitude of points - but under scrutiny multiple points have to be redacted, though credit to you for redacting them.




Your belief that Trump was justified in his rhetoric or actions is based on faith, using talking points you must redact or are verifiably false, and “everybody does it” logic. At risk of being “hyper-partisan”, “brainwashed” or suffering from a “derangement syndrome”, I can’t say I agree with these justifications.

I have not denied the correlation.

I was disputing your false statement:



This statement in bold is very false. I did my analysis using the data from your source, and this repository of county level results:


github.com/tonmcg/US_County_Level_Election_Results_08-20?search=1

I am having fun with the analysis of these Zuckerbucks, but first we have to clear the air about the false statements about the Zuckerbucks. Then I’ll gladly debate about the pros and cons of using correlation to show causation.




I fixed this for you. The part that’s underlined, is the part in the middle of my quote that was deleted, is the part where I state the evidence.


On soliciting votes from an election official, I don’t know if it was or was not illegal. The recording might not even be legal. My point still remains, I don’t think it’s justified thing for the president to do. I don’t think we will agree on this.

Bevo, take off your political hat and put on your engineering one. If this were an experiment, the analysis you are providing is only on the experimental group and not the control group. We have free and open access to the control group but it is ignored. You’re only looking at correlations within the experimental data, yet you made an absolute (and verifiably false) statement specifically about the control group!

Imagine if one of your engineers said “this catalyst is definitely better than the control”, but when you asked him for the control group data, he says that he didn’t even look at it! This is exactly what you are doing.

[

Anyways, when actually looking at the data including the “control groups”:

I took the 6 states they provided clean county data: AZ, GA, NC, PA, TX, VA. Totaled up the 2016 and 2020 votes based on whether they were a funded or not funded county. The results:

Democrat vote growth from 2016 to 2020, funded vs not:
25.5% vs. 22.5%

Republican vote growth from 2016 to 2020, funded vs. not:
20.6% vs. 16.2%


WHOOPS! Republicans actually got better bang for their Zuckerbucks from a percent growth perspective.





(Also on the fake electors, the evidence is right on the certificates. We will see via trial how involved Trump was.)

Come on, put on your engineering hat. You made an absolute comment about counties without Zuckerbucks, without even looking at data from counties without Zuckerbucks.

Now that I look at that data from counties without Zuckerbucks, you call it a trick? Looking at the control group to determine the influence of a variable is a trick? You’re smarter than that.

I didn’t do this specific analysis for Georgia, I only decided to expand the dataset because I had it.


And based on your comment, I don’t think you understand so I can better explain the analysis. The percents were based on total votes. It was not an average percent of each county. So republicans getting more growth than democrats in Zuckerbucks counties is benefiting them more, since Zuckerbucks counties strongly correlated with population. Zuckerbucks resulted in more NET votes for republicans than democrats, if you assume the Zuckerbucks counties would have instead grown at the percent of the non-Zuckerbucks counties.

No matter how you slice it, if Zuckerbucks was some grand scheme to rig the election toward democrats, they failed.

You say that based on what, have you looked at the non-Zuckerbucks data for Georgia? Your claim about Georgia is still false, non-Zuckerbucks counties saw significant gains in democrat votes.

But hopefully by now you understand that you have to look at the non-Zuckerbucks counties to draw any meaningful conclusion? Something the people drumming up fear about Zuckerbucks didn’t bother doing?





And why ignore Texas? Is the Zuckerbucks conspiracy Georgia specific now?

For Texas, was the $38 million or over 10% of the funds there was a waste or diversion? What about California, New York or New Jersey? Throw them in and that’s over $100 million, and almost a third of the funds.

I have zero problem banning billionaires from funding elections (or from existing, but that’s another topic). But the math doesn’t show a grand conspiracy. This is just the most recent grasp at election fraud, as everything else has been debunked.


And the best part about this, the apparent mechanism in which the “fraud” occurred is that……it increased voter participation?

Zuckerbucks efforts were highly focused on to increase votes Democrats. This was done by focusing on efforts in locations that had a vast majority Democrats. So let's take a look at the top 4 counties that Dekalb, Cobb, Gwinnett, and Fulton that all have a democrat majority when in comes to voting. From those counties alone

Democrat votes increased by 49% from 2016 to 2020
Republican votes increased by 14% from 2016 to 2020

Demcrat votes increased by 306,000 votes from 2016 to 2020
Republican votes increased by 67,000 votes from 2016 to 2020

Keep in mind that Zuckerbucks efforts were focused primarily on the Democrat pockets within each county. These are also the same counties where there is video evidence of individuals dropping off multiple ballots at a time in the wee hours of the night.