Sleepy Joe and Lyin` Lester...

I pray you`re right, but I also have to pray that we still have a republic by then...

The election is over yet. The servers will change everything.

Guess you’re still wishing in one hand.....

We can have a split (win one and lose one) and still keep control.

I can not imagine Schumer running the Senate.

Schumer: If Democrats Win Georgia Senate Races, ‘Then We Change America !'

This is above my head but some of you statisticians might be able to figure it all out..

www.scribd.com/document/484579782/PA-2020-Voter-Analysis-Report?fbclid=IwAR2xzl5Y29TEVxps77L_qhP3QkrrA_tWMyoAXV8l2WnVHlD23ZFNLZssbJM

My thought is there is no way that Biden can legally get more votes than Hillary or Obama in ANY election.

In 2016 there were 231,000,000 eligible voters and roughly 60% voted in the presidential election.

In 2020 there were 239,000,000 eligible voters and roughly 66% voted in the presidential election.

That's what the stats say that I've found...

I've always enjoyed math, but not so much when it gets into statistical analysis and such murky pools of mystery.

My mind runs for cover and ends up hiding in the bushes and recalling the study about the statistics that revealed that more than 90% of death row inmates had been fed mashed potatoes as children, offering an undeniable argument that such a diet has a terrible effect on a child's social development.

A lot of what might appear to be "proof" of suspicious tampering in vote totals in some counties seems to me could also be explained by an unusual amount of resistance to voting for the individual at the top of the ticket because of a personal reluctance that did not carry down to the rest of the ticket, and that tendency was so prevalent with many of the people I heard talking about the election beforehand that I find it easy to accept as probably truth. The folks who were tuned in to the actual issues and the policy changes likely with the change of leadership were often saying they would vote while holding their noses, but also saying things like they they would vote for a third party or leave the top of the ticket blank out of a personal aversion to Trump while still supporting the policies of the GOP.

I don't know how much of the personal rejection of trump is the result of the non-stop attack of the media pretty much since his primary victory in 2016, and how much might be well deserved. I know, he accomplished many of his stated objectives, and at least landed three SCOTUS seats that promise some protection from the lib attacks, unless they succeed
in their expected attempt to stack the court.

I was also very slow to warm up to his personal charm, and figured since the primaries four years ago that he was probably the worst mistake we could be making, but voted for him that time in the fall, and would have this time if it hadn't been quite so obvious that he was going to carry IN easily without me, so I was free to support the Libertarian party that much more fully supports my views. I still get the feeling that we'd have been further ahead in the long run with a candidate with a more acceptable personal demeanor and a history of successful compromise across the aisle in the House, like Paul Ryan. Can't imagine that friendly bowhunter not gathering more support for his reelection than the guy we had representing us.

As far as finding real proof of enough voter fraud or ballot stuffing to overturn the results, I doubt it will happen. It has always been very hard to prove voter fraud, due primarily to the fact that we value the secrecy of our votes above all else. That basic tenet of a free election is also what makes it extremely difficult to police, especially in city districts with tens of thousands of voters. Heck, I went to a couple of meetings at our local union and saw firsthand how difficult it could be to undo even some blatant "ballot box stuffing" that was done right out in the open and without a secret ballot. Does it exist? Of course it does, and both sides know it. Even the liberal media which has little respect for truth in their versions of "news", always couches their commentary by saying there's "absolutely no evidence" or more often, "zero proof" of any misdoing. Weasel words to disguise that they know there is some, but we can't prove how much or where. The above studies do seem to show some impressive evidence toward the existence of highly suspicious voting, but if it's not clear enough for us to figure out, I wouldn't expect it change many minds.

So what happened with the servers?

O great it’s just “rumors” now.... go figure!