Here you go, a “real” source. He said there were more bullet ballots than there likely really are, but there’s still a really suspiciously high number of them. How is this not at least worth investigating?
Here you go, a “real” source. He said there were more bullet ballots than there likely really are, but there’s still a really suspiciously high number of them. How is this not at least worth investigating?
Within every election, there is a certain number of bullet ballots to be expected. The norm falls around 1-2% or so, with an expected margin of error. Every swing state (and ONLY swing states). Hit around 5-12%.
There were 57 bomb threats that targeted ballot counting stations. All in swing states.
In pretty much every swing states, Trump won the Presidency, but Democrats won pretty much every other down ballot race?
The polls were pretty much correct for the swing states… except for the Presidency?
There’s coincidences and then there’s fucking Looney Toons levels of improbability.
I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but considering all that, you don’t think a single investigation should occur?
Didn’t you know? If dems called out trump for stealing the election, they’d be no better than him 😇
/s yall need to get your heads out of your asses, the election was clearly stolen and pretending otherwise won’t save you from trump or make you a superior person
Wow, impressive! You managed to showcase at least five of the psychological traits we discussed in record time. I also love how you accuse me of not reading the article, while cozying up to someone who actually didn’t read it and is throwing out numbers that flat-out contradict the data in the very article you shared. But hey, they’re feeding your paranoid conspiracy, so I guess that’s all that matters, right? If only there were a term for this kind of behavior—oh wait, there is: “confirmation bias.”
Honestly, you really speedran those psychological traits. Bravo. 🤣
Does it feel good putting this much effort into defending Donnie? Do you feel superior to everyone else bc you ignore obvious signs of election fraud and tampering? Or are you under the impression if you start kissing ass now he won’t deport or kill you?
I’ve come to understand that you are open about grappling with a way of thinking that makes it hard to let go, take accountability, and engage with reality as it is. It seems that you’ve created a kind of mental framework—almost a dreamworld—where everyone and everything is aligned against you. This tendency to assign blame outwardly, to view others through the lens of imagined hostility or hidden agendas, mirrors the patterns we often see in conspiratorial thinking. I can only imagine how exhausting it must be to live with such constant anger and frustration, feeling perpetually under siege by the world around you. This way of thinking doesn’t just keep you trapped—it compounds your sense of helplessness, fostering isolation and perpetuating the very struggles you’re trying to escape.
What makes this even harder is how these feelings trap you in a vicious cycle. Anger and helplessness often lead to assigning blame or constructing theories that rationalize the world in negative ways. This mindset, in turn, fosters behaviors and patterns that reinforce those same feelings, perpetuating a feedback loop that’s hard to escape. The effects on your relationships must be profound. I can imagine how isolating and disheartening that must feel.
I hadn’t realized until now just how long this has been a part of your life, consuming so much of your energy. It’s clear that these challenges have been significant for you. With that said, I’m going to step back and block you. I imagine this won’t be the first time this has happened to you, and I’m not talking about Lemmy. However, I do genuinely wish you well, and I hope that one day you can confront and overcome the struggles that have held you back. Breaking free from this cycle will require immense effort and readiness, but I believe it’s possible for you to wrestle with those demons.
When you’re ready, I suspect you’ll find you have more support around you than you might realize.
My demons are trump and assholes like you who endlessly defend him and his fascism. I hope I get to do some wrestling too :3
He lost. Get over it :3
Right, you’re not a conspiracy theorist—you’re just “asking questions” and urging people to “do their own research.” Where have we heard that before? While you throw around baseless accusations about the Harris-Trump election, the reality is this: there’s no credible evidence to support claims of widespread fraud. Swing states have robust systems for verifying results, and the election process is overseen by bipartisan officials, including both Democrats and Republicans who vouched for its integrity. Demanding “just one investigation” isn’t about seeking the truth; it’s about refusing to accept the outcome.
I know you you’re unlikely to read let alone comprehend this post—just like you didn’t read the article you’re twisting—but for anyone else stumbling across your nonsense, this is the reality: your claims are bullshit. They’re not just wrong, they’re embarrassingly, demonstrably wrong based on the very data provided for you in the article to which you are responding. Let’s go through the numbers you’ve clearly ignored.
You say there were “5-12% bullet ballots” in swing states, but the data in no way supports that claim. Take North Carolina: out of 5,722,556 ballots cast, 5,592,243 included votes in the governor’s race. That means just 130,313 ballots didn’t—a mere 2.3%, not your laughable “5-12%.” Arizona? Of 3.4 million ballots cast, only 81,673 didn’t include votes for the Senate race—about 2.4%, again miles below your inflated, made-up conspiracy numbers. Nevada? The difference was 23,159 ballots out of nearly 1.5 million—a negligible 1.6%. Interesting. On average that’s… basically right where you said it should “normally” be.
Bullet ballots in battleground states are rare, but they’ve always existed, especially in contentious elections. And they’ve always been higher in battleground states. Swing-state voters tend to focus on the presidency when the stakes are high, which is common knowledge to anyone who understands voting behavior. Your numbers? They don’t exist.
As for your implication that it’s “improbable” for Trump to win the presidency while Democrats do better down-ballot, I hate to break it to you, but racism and sexism is a much simpler, proven explanation with data to support it. Polling had consistently shown that Harris faced deep resistance, even among Democrats, with much of it rooted in gender and racial bias. Voters who rejected Harris while supporting other Democrats weren’t casting “impossible” ballots—they were reflecting prejudices that have been documented for decades. You don’t need a vast conspiracy to explain why Kamala Harris lost; you need to look at exit polls and confront the ugly reality of American history and culture
The bomb threats on Election Day, which you seem desperate to weave into your narrative, were investigated by the FBI and found to largely be hoaxes originating from Russian email domains. These threats, while reprehensible, had no impact on the election’s integrity and were not linked to any domestic conspiracy. The idea that they were part of a grand scheme to disrupt the “chain of custody” or facilitate hacking is pure fantasy, unsupported by a shred of evidence. If anything, they reflect an attempt to intimidate voters and officials, not to alter outcomes. Clinging to this as proof of fraud is the hallmark of conspiracy theorists: taking unrelated incidents and spinning them into a baseless, implausible story when reality doesn’t fit their worldview.
And this is exactly where your conspiratorial thinking falls apart. Rather than accept straightforward, evidence-backed explanations—strategic voting in swing states, voter sexism, or even the simple fact that Trump remains popular among many, indeed a majority of, voters in this country—you leap to shadowy plots and grand conspiracies. This is textbook conspiracy logic: inflate normal patterns into anomalies, ignore the data that contradicts you, and demand investigations into “questions” you’ve invented yourself. It’s bad-faith reasoning at its worst.
Your entire argument isn’t skepticism; it’s denial. You’re not interested in the facts—if you were, you’d see how consistently they dismantle your claims. This isn’t about election fraud. It’s about your refusal to reckon with reality.
She lost. Get over it.