Say What You Like About Trump, But Something Isn't Right Here

Say What You Like About Trump, But Something Isn't Right Here

How did one of the least popular candidates in a primary gather the most votes in American history without campaigning? Democrats only win when they show up in large numbers and carry minority demographics.

When People Are Selling You A Story, Watch Out

Trump's been quite useful for other politicians. All the time the media and public have been focused on his latest madness, they've had their attention seized away from antics elsewhere. There's no doubt it is far more entertaining than tedious speeches about climate change and economic growth. And the man is a firestorm of impropriety; claiming an election win at 2.30am is the least of his incendiary behaviour over the previous four years.

The story here being advertised and forced down the throat of 70 million shocked Americans is people hated Donald Trump so effing much, they mailed in the most ballots in history to repudiate his 2016 victory and engage in a referendum of his character. And said victory has reduced him to a sore loser who will do anything to sabotage it.

The media have been desperate to declare him the unstoppable winner. Big Tech have gone to town to ensure the flow of information ensures he is.  Tens of millions of people agreed, and seem to be able to overlook or forgive absolutely anything as long as it gets rid of Trump.

What's interesting is the sudden choices all of the people in this affair seem to make. Perhaps it was the oncoming train of the upcoming election; perhaps it wasn't.

Wait, What Happened In Those Primaries?

Biden's early days didn't go well at all, after he "accidentally" announced his own run. Being chosen as someone's vice-president isn't on account of your charismatic appeal; rather the lack of threat you pose to taking your boss' job.

In fact, the Obamas were quite vocal about discouraging him from running:

The Iowa Caucuses were horrible. In the same races which picked all the eventual DNC candidates - as they indicate voter intent due to being the first - things looked dire. He was bottom. The least desired.

The New York Times, DNC cheerleader, was absolutely damning:

"Interviews with more than a dozen advisers, allies and Iowa strategists show that Mr. Biden was late in focusing on Iowa, put together an organization there that fell well short of his top rivals’ and that his core pitch about electability and experience wasn’t enough to persuade voters who wanted a fresh face or more boldly progressive ideas. Mr. Biden was also a less-than-inspiring presence on the trail, according to some voters, struggling at times in the homestretch to deliver crisp, energetic, on-message performances."

It was repeated in New Hampshire. Biden didn't even earn the means to go forward. Even CNN questioned whether he was electable:

"Roughly 1 in 4 people (27%) said Biden had the best chance of beating Trump as the Democratic nominee in November, while 24% said Bernie Sanders did and 17% named Michael Bloomberg. Now compare those with a January 28 Q poll, where 44% said Biden was the most electable against Trump as compared with 19% who named Sanders and 9% who chose Bloomberg."

In other words, the more people saw of Biden that year, the less favourably they thought of him, or his apparent ability to beat Donald Trump.

And they had a clear favourite: Bernie Sanders. Bernie was so big, he commanded the majority support of the largest state they wanted to flip blue: .

In February, House Majority Whip Jim Clynburn endorsed Biden, and suddenly 61% of South Carolina's black democratic voters declared their support.

Then, Covid. And riots.

What was interesting however, was what happened on "Super Tuesday" when he overtook Bernie Sanders:

"A key part of former Vice President Joe Biden’s success on Super Tuesday was his strong performance among voters who had only made up their minds in the last few days. According to exit poll data,1 Biden won at least 40 percent — if not more — of the late-deciding vote in every state except Sanders’s home state of Vermont."

In a domino sequences, all the other candidates dropped out. But not before Kamala Harris had torn him apart.

  1. For his involvement in "bussing" during school racial integration ("that girl was me");
  2. His support for the Hyde amendment (stopping the government from funding abortion);
  3. His opposition to single-payer healthcare;
  4. Potential allegations of inappropriate sexual behaviour;
  5. Use of the word "lynching" in regards to the Clinton impeachment;

Biden's own vice-presidential candidate all but condemned him.

In March, the sexual assault allegations appeared, and he switched campaign manager. A month later, Bernie gave in - for the second time.

The resurfaced 1993 sexual allegations disappeared from the media, although they were judged to have enough merit to be worth of coverage, e.g. And slightly after Pelosi made the bizarre remark she had a "great comfort-level with the situation."

The Facelift: The Most Obvious Giveaway

It took a few months, but Biden had cleared learned from his South Carolina result the cleverest choice would be a black woman as his running mate. Not to mention better to have a prosecutor on the inside of the tent, rather than on the outside pissing in.

He had enough delegates in June. The Washington Post noted:

"The milestone is largely symbolic, as all other major candidates stopped campaigning in April."

Only the energy of the base seemed to remain elsewhere. AOC, in particular, endorsed Bernie Sanders, angering the DNC:

"Ms. Ocasio-Cortez had recorded her remarks last Wednesday, a spokeswoman said, days before Mr. Kasich sought to minimize her place in the Democratic Party, suggesting that the “outsized publicity” she received had disproportionately magnified her views."

Clearly, Biden had not wooed over the Bernie people.

In July, keen commentators had noticed, on MSNBC, Harris had had facial surgery: . As, as it turns out had Biden: .

Now, surgery in and of itself is nothing, but it points to preparation in anticipation of public appearance. We knew who the running mate was going to be, a long time before it was announced.

Kamala Harris made a sudden about-turn in her criticisms of Joe Biden in March; from old racist sexual assaulter - in her own debate arguments, paraphrased - to angelic human Maker of Peace. In words so gushing it makes you feel slightly sick.

"Harris said of Biden: “You can see in his eyes how he takes to heart the experiences of mothers and fathers working to make ends meet and worrying about whether their children can be safe in their classroom, or young people who fight tirelessly to tackle climate change as they ask for a fair shot at the future in front of them. And with a lifetime in public service, Joe has a proven track record of getting things done."

It's possible to re-shape, forgive, and take a new perspective on people, of course. But Harris seemed to have little trouble evaded hers, which points to a disingenuousness few of us can muster.

The Nice Grandpa Monologue

It's entirely possible most Americans needed a milquetoast candidate to get things back to normal. It's entirely possible nobody cares about things said in error. But when even Wikipedia's entry on quotes from Biden himself are titled "perceived" gaffes, you know something is up.

The caring candidate's own words are distinctly at odds with the lovable character sold to the electorate. Everyone is allowed a bad day, and to be generous you could say he was a "grumpy" or "dismissive" pensioner, but even with their context, many things arriving from this man's heart are distinctly unsettling.

Whether they are unsettling or not also seems to depend on what you are willing to overlook on account of Trump. But in a world where Trump never ran, they would be enough to prompt serious reflection on a man's character and motivations.

To an Indian supporter on CSPAN, in 2006:

"In Delaware, the largest growth of population is Indian Americans, moving from India. You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent, I'm not joking.”

On Obama, in 2007:

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean [fresh] and a nice-looking guy," Biden once said of former President Barack Obama. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."

To a factory worker, about guns, in 2020:

"You’re full of sh*t!…Don’t be such a horse’s *ss.”

To a student, about Iowa, in 2020:

“You ever been to a caucus?…No you haven’t. You’re a lying dog-faced pony soldier.”

To an Iowa crowd, in 2020:

“Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids.”

To an Iowa crowd, in 2020:

“You’re a damn liar, man,”
“Look, fat.”

To a young staffer, asking about how many genders there are:

"Don’t play games with me, kid, By the way, the first one to come out for marriage was me.”

To a Virginia crowd, on Republicans, in 2020:

“They’re gonna put y’all back in chains.”

During the Democratic debates, on the US, in 2020:

"keep punching at it and punching at it"

In an interview with a black radio host:

“If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.”

At an event in Ohio, on Mitt Romney, in 2020:

"You may remember, I got in trouble when we were running against the senator who was a Mormon, the governor, OK? And I took him on,"

In an event video, on the DNC Election Protection Program, in 2020:

"We have put together, I think, the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud [protection] organization in the history of American politics,"

On political pressure against Ukrainian prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, in 2019:

"I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a b-tch. (Laughter.) He got fired."

No wonder the Iowa voters didn't like him much.

And then of course, there are the outright lies. Every politician tells them, but Biden's were absolute whoppers. Among them, claiming:

  1. To have been the first in his family to go to university (he had plagiarised the story from Neil Kinnock);
  2. To have succeeded in law school on an exclusive academic scholarship and graduated with three degrees (he was disciplined for cheating);
  3. To have been against the Iraq War from when it started (he had spoken in favour of it before and after);
  4. To have been arrested with the US ambassador on the way to visit Nelson Mandela in prison (he hadn't);
  5. To having been endorsed by the NAACP and International Brotherhood of Boilermakers (which they both deny);
  6. To having warned the country in advance about Covid (he had written a USA Today article in January 2020);
  7. To having the "most progressive record of any candidate" (he is considered a moderate);
  8. To deny the administration he was in had built immigration cages (they had);
  9. To having never said he would ban fracking (he had in a television interview);

Biden has regularly described himself as a "gaffe machine", and clearly being the oldest presidential candidate involves some confusion and lower mental agility. Bush was even worse.

That said, he doesn't seem to think much of voters. But does think a lot about black ones, after South Carolina.

All of these go some way as to why his very astute campaign manager kept him quietly away from the spotlight, with the helpful reasoning of Covid precautions. The initial projections were voters found him disagreeable.

The Fraud Hypothesis No Jury Wants

With 70% estimated turnout, 71.09 million Americans voted for someone the DNC had spent 4 years attempting to de-legitimize and ruin. To do that, they spent the most amount of money ever - $14 billion; double that of 2016.

Here's the crucial part: the Democratic party spent twice as much as the Republicans, and Biden was the first to break $1 billion in a single cycle:

"Democrats have nearly doubled the spending by Republican candidates up and down the ballot. Democratic contenders are going into the final week of the election spending $6.9 billion while Republicans have put in $3.8 billion into the 2020 fight."

What we know for certain is the least popular DNC candidate ended up receiving the most votes for any candidate in history. Two stories are told of the reason for that: rabid hatred of Donald Trump, and his fantastic popular appeal.

The latter is demonstrably shaky. It's abundantly clear it wasn't his political skill (although maybe, his campaign manager's), and he wasn't a popular choice. Say what you like about Trump, but he's fantastically popular among non-Democratic voters. The applause to Bernie's speeches was so loud it deafened you from the TV set.

Trump massively increased his share of black and latino voters, which even his enemies admitted. He took an estimated of 25% of non-white voters (from 21% in 2016); the highest of any Republican candidate since 1960.

"As Americans woke up Wednesday to a still-undecided presidential race, some were stunned by Trump's gains among Latino voters in the battleground states of Texas and Florida, which he won. Biden did win the Latino vote in those states. But in Texas, 41 percent to 47 percent of Hispanic voters backed Trump in several heavily Latino border counties in the Rio Grande Valley region, a Democratic stronghold. In Florida, Trump won 45 percent of the Latino vote, an 11-point improvement from his 2016 performance."

And the pattern had been growing since the RNC's events:

"President Trump's support among black voters rose 9 percentage points amid the Republican National Convention, a new Hill-HarrisX poll finds. "

"The survey found support among Hispanic voters also grew by 2 percentage points, from 30 percent in the last poll to 32 percent in this most recent survey."

No media organisation wants to offend their biggest customer; also the people they need access to for next week's material.

That Big Tech were "in the tank" for Biden is so clear it's undeniable. Nor is the historical bias on the media in America. The monstrous transformation of these institutions from passive influencers to totalitarians was alarming.

It didn't seem to do much. Left-wing rag The Guardian even pointed it out:

"So far, the picture appears to be strikingly similar to what it was in 2016, said the political science professor Charles H Stewart, founding director of MIT’s Election Data and Science Lab. “There were slight changes, but the changes in the electorate, at least the ones who showed up to vote on election day, are much less dramatic than we were being led to believe by the pre-election polls,” Stewart said."

The question remains: was Trump Hated, Covid, Big Money, Big Tech, and Big Media enough with Biden? What if you had to be absolutely certain of the outcome after the miserable gut punch you received last time, even if you were running the "decency" vote?

For that, we need to look at the numbers to see what all that financial and cultural capital got them.

But Joe Scarborough, rabid enemy of Donald Trump, had a different take.

"There is no way to put this other than to say ... Joe Biden winning looks like a one-off. This election for the most part was an absolute repudiation of the Democratic Party as a brand. Their brand doesn't work across most of America. It just doesn't,' he continued."

Are There Grounds For Suspicion?

Arguing from authority is a relentlessly foolish idea, and has always been the tactic of charlatans among many other fallacies. Claiming fraud didn't happen because a law enforcement agency says so isn't an argument; neither is attempting to argue from public opinion or smear campaigns to discredit ideas.

The winner always sets out to claim their victory was legitimate. Occasionally, the loser contests it.

Law is based on objective truth, not opinion. The facts of the matter.

Some of those facts are extremely strange.

  1. In the highest turnout since 1900, 160 million Americans (67%) cast votes.
  2. Trump received more votes than any other previous incumbent.
  3. Trump got 11 million more votes than 2016 (the 3rd largest rise in support for an incumbent ever - Obama was re-elected with 3.5 million less).
  4. 95% of Republicans voted for Trump. His rallies hosted 50,000+ people.
  5. Trump 's black vote grew 50% from 2016, and his Latino vote grew to 35%.
  6. Biden's black vote fell below 90% nationally, which is the threshold for Democratic victory.
  7. Bellwether states - Florida, Ohio, Iowa - all swung harder for Trump than 2016. But they weren't accompanied by Michigan, Penn or Wisconsin, as usual.
  8. Biden won 524 counties, a 17% record low. Obama won 873 in 2008.
  9. Republicans held the Senate, gained at least 12 seats in the House, and won all 27 contested seats.
  10. Trump lost despite comfortably winning Ohio and Florida, which have predicted the Presidential election as a mirror of the nation for half a century.

Even anecdotally, Trump's rallies delivered records on both Fox (  and YouTube ( Whether you believe it was a "rage-click", celebrity appeal,  or more engaged party faithful, the numbers don't lie: tens of thousands of people are on camera rallying for an incumbent running against an opponent whose own base aren't interested in.

Biden's apparent victory has depended on the black votes from Detroit, Philadelphia, and Milwaukee. His winning margin spiked almost entirely from the exact locations required to swing a victory.

And none of those crucial places reflected the same spread as other areas. They stick out.

This all happened where almost every major institution attempted to do their utmost, using every means at their disposal, to influence public opinion to vote against the incumbent.

Well, it seems the American people seem to think it's suspicious, as CNBC reported:

"only 3% of Trump voters surveyed said they accept Biden’s victory as legitimate, the survey released Monday found. A staggering 73% of respondents consider Trump the legitimate winner. Another 24% said they are not sure."

The often-cited Rasmussen poll from Nov 19 makes harrowing reading:

"Sixty-one percent (61%) of Republicans say it’s Very Likely the Democrats stole the election, but just as many Democrats (61%) say it’s Not At All Likely. Among unaffiliateds, 29% feel it’s a stolen election; 45% do not."

What is telling is what is cleverly omitted in the previous statement: if 61% of the winning party say it wasn't likely, that leaves a staggering 39% of Democrats who believe it was at least a possibility.

In what scenario where 40% of the winning population think the result might not be legitimate can you possibly claim concerns about the result are baseless?

At the heart of election security is one simple question: does the vote come from the person himself?

Election Tampering: As Old As Greece Herself

Elections are hotly-contested and give individuals power. Attempting to fraudulently skew the outcome is as old as democracy. Since the 7th Century, the democratic process has been subject to corruption and game-playing on a endemic basis.

There is a simple reason it is pointless to discuss individual incidences of fraud and misbehaviour.:

Every political party cheats. What matters is who gets caught.

Take, for example, the rather brazen - and unsuccessful attempt - of just 2 radicals in California to register 8,000 homeless people:

"Two California men have been charged with voter fraud for allegedly submitting voter registration applications on behalf of 8,000 homeless people during this year’s election cycle. [snip] The men were charged with conspiracy to commit voter fraud, eight counts of voter fraud, four counts of procuring and offering a false or forged instrument, and four misdemeanor counts of interference with a prompt transfer of a completed affidavit."

Perhaps the most illuminating expose on the entire methodology comes from the New York Post in April 2020.

It's a breathtaking article: .

In words which may come back to haunt us all:

"The whisteblower — whose identity, rap sheet and long history working as a consultant to various campaigns were confirmed by The Post — says he not only changed ballots himself over the years, but led teams of fraudsters and mentored at least 20 operatives in New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania — a critical 2020 swing state."

“There is no race in New Jersey — from city council to United States Senate — that we haven’t worked on,” the tipster said. “I worked on a fire commissioner’s race in Burlington County. The smaller the race, the easier it is to do.”

In his words, a mail-in ballot is delivered to a registered voter with a certificate which the voter must sign.

The techniques he describes include:

  1. Posting ballots on behalf of citizens, only to steam-unglue their envelope and replace it with a photocopy counterfeit next to their valid signature;
  2. Recruiting postal workers to sift ballots in the mail;
  3. Altering the ballots of nursing home residents;
  4. Impersonating absentee voters at polling stations;
  5. Straight-out bribery of voters with cash and gifts, or intimidation;
"The insider said any ballots offered up by him or his operation would come with a bent corner along the voter certificate — which contains the voter signature — so Democratic Board of Election counters would know the fix was in and not to object."

There is no possible doubt of the reality of election fraud in any election, anywhere.

Certificates attached to ballots might be secure, but as the NY Post's whistleblower makes clear, there are many, many ways of getting around it:

In 2016, the BBC helpfully provided a nice long list of 6 characteristic hallmarks of vote rigging, collated by an African correspondent who had seen it over and over on the continent:

  1. Too many voters
  2. High turnouts in specific areas
  3. Large numbers of invalid votes
  4. More votes than ballots
  5. Results that don't match
  6. Delays in announcing results

"Vote rigging: How to spot the tell-tale signs"

Sadly, claims of all these 6 are present in the 2020 election, at a greater volume than before, The dividing factor is the "explanation" given, according to the partisan source of the information.


This is far, far from the "overwhelming popularity" theory being constantly pushed by the media and partisan hacks. Republicans didn't cry foul in 2008, 2012, or 2016. And even the winning side admit their victory was due to mail-in voting, of which their side participated in the most.

Nor is is the "colossal unpopularity of Trump" theory, either.

Anyone who claims mail-in voting is "secure" is naive at best, and dishonest at worst.

So the question is: considering a) mail-in voting is the easiest to corrupt and abuse, b) it was the winners' means of victory, and c) all parties cheat, ...

... are either side going to get caught?

Man-In-The-Middle (MITM) Attack Theory

The other vector to consider in allegations of election fraud of course, is electronic counting (Electronic Voting Machines, or EVMs). Now, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever these machines are not secure enough for use in any Western country.

As early as March this year, even left-wing rag The Guardian was pointing to the extraordinary insecurity of election infrastructure:

"America’s current election infrastructure is, as Kill Chain explains, a prescription for disaster – an outdated, willfully naive system no more prepared for attack than four years ago."

Usage of counting machines is extremely limited, as witnessed by any source ( : Brazil, Estonia, India, Philippines, UAE, the US, and Venezuela.

They are banned in Germany, the Netherlands, the UK, Ireland, France, Italy - and that's just to start.  Elections Canada made it clear they don't even use the software made in their own country:

"We use paper ballots counted by hand in front of scrutineers and have never used voting machines or electronic tabulators to count votes in our 100-year history,”

Almost every major publication has warned of the unreliability of EVMs (e.g. . CNN themselves have reported on the fragility of these primitive systems:

The first indisputable problem surrounding electronic voting is one which has faced all cryptography software: its source code must be open so it can be reviewed by independent experts. It is now standard practice to "publish" code so it can be analyzed and verified in a 3rd party audit for backdoors and bugs.

An example of this is Signal, which powers almost every messaging app:

"The technology passed a major test Tuesday after an international team of security researchers gave the messaging platform’s security glowing reviews in its first ever formal security audit. Researchers from the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom, Queensland University of Technology in Australia and McMaster University in Canada gave the messaging application a fervent thumbs up."

Anyone who tries to claim we would somehow be better off with closed software is a charlatan attempting to use the STO fallacy in the tired way we all now dismiss: .

So how do these attacks work?

By many means, of course, but generally through a man-in-the-middle (MITM)  or proxy attack:

"A man-in-the-middle attack (MITM attack) is a cyber attack where an attacker relays and possibly alters communication between two parties who believe they are communicating directly."

Although it is traditionally an eavesdropping attack, In the context of a democratic election, conceptually-speaking, its meaning is to alter communication between the electorate and the counters by intercepting the transmission of votes.

The man in the middle is the harvester, the postal worker, or the election official. In electronic terms, it is the remote "head-end" the machine which should be air-gapped.

Russell Ramsland's company, Allied Security Operations, claims to have analysed traffic behaviour during the election period in detail, and its reports are alarming, to say the least: .

Why is this "age restricted", YouTube? 

What is most telling is the enormous Herculean effort the press and Big Tech have put in to undermining any claims de-legitimising  their preferred candidate. It's extraordinary to witness. If there is one group of people who understand how things can be "engineered" socially, it is those two opinion-creating industries who are deeply disingenuous about their alleged "impartiality".

Compare the content of these three:

One of these is not like the others and deliberately providing results it believes "should" be the ones to be seen by those searching.

What Is To Be Done?

As Lenin most famously said; although as always, we should listen to Shakespeare as he writes Marcellus' famous line about the state of Denmark. The lady doth also protest too much. Something is not right.

Postal voting is the least secure form of voting all across the world. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.

Electronic voting is almost universally banned or discredited, because it is so appallingly insecure. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.

The least popular candidate somehow got the most votes in history through fractional margins in key areas, even more than the first black president, despite not even campaigning and his party losing almost everything else. And despite all the indicators for a win by the incumbent being entirely exceeded and statistical dependencies (e.g. the Latino vote) being violated.

The Press and Big Tech are openly determined to discredit, derail, and smear any claim to the contrary, even before it has been elucidated.

The Democratic "overwhelming Biden popularity" theory doesn't pass the Smell Test. Neither does the "disgust with Trump" theory. At least two thirds of the country doubt the integrity of the process.

Yet neither does the "widespread fraud" test meet the marker.

Perhaps the foggy confusion of everything surrounding this election is the best "smoking gun" of all, rather than some manufactured perception campaign. Truth is often quite simple, in the Occam's Razor sense. If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's most likely a duck; the simplest answer is the most likely.

We have an extraordinarily painful 2-part question to ask.

Is it possible a major US political party became so panicked by their inability to unseat their ideological enemy that they resorted to recruiting and assisting black activists to intercept and tamper with the voting in 3 key black cities? And their allies agreed to run cover for them as apparatchiks?

If so, where on earth do we go from here? Michael Moore put it beautifully in 2016:

"They've essentially lost everything they had, except one thing -- the one thing that doesn't cost them a cent, and is guaranteed to them by the American constitution: the right to vote. They might be penniless, they might be homeless, they might be fucked over and fucked up it doesn't matter, because it's equalized on that day - a millionaire has the same number of votes as the person without a job: one."

in 2020, 80 million people feel like that one thing left has now been taken away from them. As the Bernie Bros and Yang fans do.

There is undoubtedly going to be a political reckoning in this country, but if you make it impossible to do that through legitimate, trusted means where  the sportsmanship of losers' content controls the game, there's only one other means left. And if the politicians don't grasp that soon, things move faster than we ever expect.