Precincts that went for Trump in 2016, and had INCREASED the percentage of GOP in them — magically went for Biden?

Seriously? On a routine basis?

“Bellweather” counties who had reliably predicted winners for decades magically FAILED this time?

Trump got MORE VOTES than ANY CANDIDATE IN this nation’s HISTORY…

And lost to someone who barely even CAMPAIGNED successfully — he had few rallies and his rallies could be counted accurately by senile old JOE HIMSELF… Yet by some magical means he managed to get 10 MILLION more votes than Trump’s RECORD TALLY?

No. FUCK YOU, NO. That dog don’t hunt. Given all the improprieties which occurred, given all the failures in key states to FOLLOW THEIR OWN LEGAL PROCESSES, No one in their right mind should have accepted that result. Anyone who did was IDIOT or an unprincipled partisan HACK.

Then, to top it off, they fucking BRAGGED about what they did:

https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/

Opening of absentee ballots cannot be observed by the general public or allowed to be photographed; otherwise, you could determine how individual people voted.

Sure they can. The actual face of the ballots should not be visible, but the ACTIVITY of the process CAN be videotaped, making things like pulling unaccounted for boxes into the process.

Moreover, you claim that watchers were present at all times, but this is an overt lie and anyone paying attention knows this. In multiple cases, the counting was “closed” and the watchers SENT HOME — only to be restarted an hour or more later… most conveniently in those regions where the numbers did not seem to add up.

}}} Rules are reviewable *before* the election.

Really? Then why were those challenging improprieties told they HAD to wait until AFTER the election was completed to bring challenges in court?

…Only to be told, once the election was over — in many, if not most cases — that now they were “too late” to challenge the improprieties…?

}}} Whether those rules were followed is reviewable *after* the election.

Not when the claim is made and the court supports that those making challenges “don’t have standing”, which was the case with something akin to 95% of the cases brought before the courts.

I’m sorry, if the actual STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL don’t have “standing” to challenge improprieties in another state’s OPEN VIOLATION OF THEIR OWN PROCESSES — ON BEHALF of their own residents, WHO THE FUCK DOES?

No, you do not have to be a resident of a state to challenge a state failing to follow its own legally defined processes, it is clear that any serious improprieties — and there were FUCKING MANY OPENLY DOCUMENTED — that could result in a substantial alteration of a single state’s final results — affects EVERY SINGLE FRANCHISEE IN THIS COUNTRY.

Q.E.D. —
You’re either an ignorant parrot or a lying charlatan. Or both.

My money is on BOTH.

Your argument is a red herring. No clear evidence in a court of law is possible ex post facto, when the rules have been changed to enable fraud and make it impossible to trace it, especially through a huge increase in ballots by mail that are untraceable once removed from their envelopes. I have detailed this and many other problems in many many posts here, such as this, this, this, and this, as well as many many more. Here’s a post that describes how Great Britain handles voting integrity in the case of mail-in ballots; it’s a very different and far more secure system.

I put those links here – not for you, because you are here to troll – but for others who are interested in learning why fraud was highly possible but cannot be proven.

Of course there’s oversight. That’s part of the process. For instance, in Georgia, oversight was provided by a Republican secretary of state under laws enacted by a Republican legislature, and he was overseen by the courts, state and federal. Nothing is new about any of this. ETA: If there’s a weak link, it’s having a partisan in charge of the election process. But he was a Republican with a vested interest in Republicans winning the election.

Jester Naybor: That means every discrepancy is addressed

Discrepancies have been addressed. You even inadvertantly point it out yourself with your previous link, where multiple allegations were made, then found lacking merit.

miguel cervantes: why did they kick the observers out why did they block them in philadelphia

There were too many observers per the rules. At no time were there no observers from both parties.

miguel cervantes: why did they make the practices unreviewable

Rules are reviewable *before* the election. Whether those rules were followed is reviewable *after* the election. More particularly, multiple investigations and court cases found no evidence of any significant irregularity that could have affected the result.

“there is no clear evidence of massive absentee-ballot fraud or forgery. On the contrary, at oral argument in the District Court, the Campaign specifically disavowed any claim of fraud.”

You are way too trusting … or complicit. They need oversight – not blind trust.

Proactive proof that they did their jobs right, is required of those who have the monopoly on the use of coercive force. They do not get a presumption of innocence.

That means every discrepancy is addressed that could compromise the integrity of votes and their tabulation, accounting for every avenue of potential fraud and how they closed those avenues.

Is that an impossible standard to meet? In the name of panic-demic and “racism” several states opened the door to breaks in the chain-of-custody, shifted deadlines, and played fast-and-loose with tabulation procedures that likely made it impossible to meet that standard.

Those you trust, made this mess.

The election should have been thrown into the House … but that would have meant Trump winning, and self-righteous socialists like you just couldn’t have him getting in the way of your Utopian neo-feudalism,

You don’t seem to have idea how any of this works. Only election workers and official observers, who have been trained and agree to maintain the secret ballot, are allowed to handle ballots, including absentee ballots.

Jester Naybor: And the ability of someone with access to voter-registration info – including signature images – and the “secret sauce” of those barcodes, makes forgery possible with some effort.

There would be multiple problems with such a scheme. There would be no record of the delivery of such ballots, and it would likely result in a large number of duplicate ballots. There is no evidence of this.

Jester Naybor: https://www.newsmax.com/politics/mail-ballots-trump-nevada-arizona/2020/12/06/id/1000299/

From your link (October 25, 2020): “Now, Trump campaign lawyers have primarily concentrated their efforts on six states”

None of those efforts ever demonstrated evidence of significant fraud. For instance, the article claims there was a problem with signature matching in Georgia; however, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation oversaw an audit of signatures, and found no noteworthy discrepancies.

And there goes the confidentiality of the ballot you are saying it was necessary to “protect” by covering windows during tabulation, shooting a hole in your second argument.

And the ability of someone with access to voter-registration info – including signature images – and the “secret sauce” of those barcodes, makes forgery possible with some effort. All it takes is enough of these “votes” from people who don’t show up on Election Day – without a cross-check on who didn’t vote – and you can change the results of the election, complete with the cover of ballots with names of registered voters.

That’s less secure than handing an in-person vote an anonymized ballot – or a notarized absentee ballot returned by trackable means like registered mail or FedEx – where the ballot is submitted securely one-by-one into the custody of election officials.

But at least your state doesn’t mass-mail out ballots. But you do allow ballot harvesting by third parties, which is also a threat to the chain-of-custody.

Now, fulfill your burden of proof, and tell me CONCLUSIVELY how each state in this article effectively protects that chain of custody – and complied with the CONSTITUTIONAL requirement that STATE LEGISLATURES define voting rules … not judges, not election officials, not after-the-fact. Pay particular attention to PA and NV … AZ also was a hot mess in 2020 as well from the looks of post-election investigations that the Powers That Be there continue to ignore, even though they looked as secure as WI.

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/mail-ballots-trump-nevada-arizona/2020/12/06/id/1000299/

“Because we say so” or dismissal on technicalities does not count. Neither does your selective assertions to date.

The burden of proof, is yours and the election officials you trust.

It’s not as if you can make photocopies then stuff them in the ballot box. It doesn’t work that way. In Wisconsin, for instance, outgoing ballots have intelligent mail barcodes to detect abnormalities in delivery. Each ballot is then tracked and has a paper trail. If you were to create a fake ballot, it would be detected and lead to an investigation.

Jester Naybor: Covering windows

Opening of absentee ballots cannot be observed by the general public or allowed to be photographed; otherwise, you could determine how individual people voted.

Jester Naybor: And procedures are to be approved by STATE LEGISLATURES, BEFORE-THE-FACT – not changed by judges and election officials in haste, in the name of panic-demic.

Most state legislatures have given significant discretion to election officials. But if election officials exceed their authority, the campaigns can take the issue to court before the election. It’s part of the process.

Jester Naybor: Process matters.

Of course, which is why we repeatedly pointed to the process.

“One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption. . . That has not happened.”

Government has to satisfy the people with the burden of proof, not the other way around.

And some procedures are more reliable than others. Junk-mail ballot distribution is a far cry from the absentee ballots you describe. Covering windows, leaky water pipes, and stopping counting on a whim is not assuring adequate oversight.

And procedures are to be approved by STATE LEGISLATURES, BEFORE-THE-FACT – not changed by judges and election officials in haste, in the name of panic-demic.

Why is this all so important? Because once bad ballots get into the count, it is much harder to find them and much easier for fraudsters to get their way. Audits are not foolproof, especially when some of the auditors are inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to one party over another. Not even signature matching is foolproof, if the original signatures are stored as images by election officials and fraudsters can gain access to them to print them on fake ballots.

Process matters. Your faction ignored that. Had they adhered to established-as-reliable election procedures, they would have met their burden of proof.

They did not. Instead, they compromised those procedures in a manner reminiscent of allowing ATM access to our bank accounts without a PIN, in the name of “convenience”.

They made this mess. Not their critics, including President Trump.

And as a result, your man is a Pseudodent.