The New York Times sets the table for The Steal 2.0
(archive.is)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (21)
sorted by:
You are misunderstanding me. There is a limitation to their capabilities, this doesn't have anything to do with "normies". They only have so much ammo to shoot.
They can't print 20 million ballots to swing Ohio blue. They can only print X number of ballots, and only in specific counties with corrupt officials.
Yes, you can get wider spread ballot fraud, but not enough to actually fully swing a state that Trump wins by 7 points in.
You're looking at a range of 3-5 point swings is what they can achieve. That means as bad as Arizona is, they might not even be able to pull off the cheating there. Wisconsin might actually be entirely lost to them.
I see what you mean now, thanks. I hope you're right.
But the fraud isn't just in one area.
Sure you've got your ballot printing in specific counties, you've also got google and facebook witholding and censoring information, that's a few more points overall. There's the army of "urban volunteers" who get paid per ballot they "source" that's a huge number in all inner city urban areas, there's all the "bugs and glitches" that will happen in red counties, that's a few more counties gone.
That's all part of the same industrial-fraud system. It has a limited capacity is my point, and it stops at about 5%.
You're wrong. There is no limit. When they print more ballots than voters exist, they just alter the records to add more fake people.
2020 told them they could get away with anything. Just stop the counting and add more votes until you win. The courts are no redress, so what is going to stop them?
No, the Law of Diminishing Returns always exists.
The courts did act in some cases of smaller scale. Adjustments were at state levels. Only so many people can be hired. Only so much paper exists.