2016:
H - 288,822 (65%)
T - 126,069 (28%)
2020:
B - 317,251 (69%)
T - 134,355 (29%)
That's a 9.8% increase of ballots for Biden over Hillary
28,429 more ballots
ЁЯЪиTHREADЁЯЪи
Unusual turnout in Democrat-controlled areas where we have also uncovered serious allegations of fraud
President Trump performed about the same in these counties as in 2016
Yet Joe Biden's totals surged where the counting was paused and Democrats were way behind
2016:
H - 288,822 (65%)
T - 126,069 (28%)
2020:
B - 317,251 (69%)
T - 134,355 (29%)
That's a 9.8% increase of ballots for Biden over Hillary
28,429 more ballots
2016:
H - 519,444 (66%)
T - 228,993 (29%)
2020:
B - 587,074 (68%)
T - 264,149 (30%)
That's a 13.0% increase of ballots for Biden over Hillary
67,630 more ballots
2016:
H - 251,370 (79%)
T - 51,468 (16%)
2020:
B - 308,102 (83%)
T - 58,361 (15%)
That's a 22% increase of ballots for Biden over Hillary
56,732 more ballots
2016:
H - 297,051 (67%)
T - 117,783 (26%)
2020:
B - 379,095 (72%)
T - 136,716 (26%)
That's a 27.6% increase of ballots for Biden over Hillary
82,044 more ballots
2016:
H - 160,121 (47%)
T - 152,912 (45%)
2020:
B - 221,839 (56%)
T - 165,455 (42%)
That's a 38% increase of ballots for Biden over Hillary
61,718 more ballots
Anomalies occurred in surrounding Chester (26.3%), Montgomery (22.4%), Bucks (19.5%), and Allegheny (13.1%) counties
Biden did not get this type of surge in ballots in other liberal areas
2016:
H - 367,617 (55%)
T - 259,480 (39%)
2020:
B - 415,861 (59%)
T - 274,348 (39%)
13.1% increase of ballots for Biden over Hillary
48,244 more ballots
тАЬDuring that period of time, at least 135,000 ballots were counted, none of which were watched by any Republican observer, as the law requires."
https://t.co/ZlRIsIT7Y1
https://t.co/bMFUn8BqQK
Cook County
2016:
H - 1,611,946 (73%)
T - 453,287 (20%)
2020:
B - 1,383,316 (73%)
T - 485,861 (25%)
Biden LOST 228,630 votes
2016:
H - 579,013 (86%)
T - 64,929 (9%)
2020:
B - 377,605 (84%)
T - 65,001 (14%)
Biden LOST 201,408 votes
2016:
H - 517,229 (75%)
T - 149,341 (21%)
2020:
B - 412,393 (69%)
T - 181,225 (30%)
Biden LOST 104,827 votes
2016:
H - 398,271 (65%)
T - 184,211 (30%)
2020:
B - 402,315 (66%)
T - 195,089 (32%)
No irregularity: Biden gained 4,044 votes
2016:
H - 245,751 (78%)
T - 50,421 (16%)
2020:
B - 252,661 (80%)
T - 55,699 (17%)
No irregularity: Biden gained 6,910 votes, statistically insignificant 2.8% change
More from Politics
Trump is gonna let the Mueller investigation end all on it's own. It's obvious. All the hysteria of the past 2 weeks about his supposed impending firing of Mueller was a distraction. He was never going to fire Mueller and he's not going to
Mueller's officially end his investigation all on his own and he's gonna say he found no evidence of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election.
Democrats & DNC Media are going to LITERALLY have nothing coherent to say in response to that.
Mueller's team was 100% partisan.
That's why it's brilliant. NOBODY will be able to claim this team of partisan Democrats didn't go the EXTRA 20 MILES looking for ANY evidence they could find of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election
They looked high.
They looked low.
They looked underneath every rock, behind every tree, into every bush.
And they found...NOTHING.
Those saying Mueller will file obstruction charges against Trump: laughable.
What documents did Trump tell the Mueller team it couldn't have? What witnesses were withheld and never interviewed?
THERE WEREN'T ANY.
Mueller got full 100% cooperation as the record will show.
BREAKING: President Donald Trump has submitted his answers to questions from special counsel Robert Mueller
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) November 20, 2018
Mueller's officially end his investigation all on his own and he's gonna say he found no evidence of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election.
Democrats & DNC Media are going to LITERALLY have nothing coherent to say in response to that.
Mueller's team was 100% partisan.
That's why it's brilliant. NOBODY will be able to claim this team of partisan Democrats didn't go the EXTRA 20 MILES looking for ANY evidence they could find of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election
They looked high.
They looked low.
They looked underneath every rock, behind every tree, into every bush.
And they found...NOTHING.
Those saying Mueller will file obstruction charges against Trump: laughable.
What documents did Trump tell the Mueller team it couldn't have? What witnesses were withheld and never interviewed?
THERE WEREN'T ANY.
Mueller got full 100% cooperation as the record will show.
Ruben Verastigui is (allegedly) a horrifying pedo monster and has been on the digital teams for the @SenateGOP, National @GOP and the Trump campaign. I didn't want to talk about him, but I think it's important.
The allegations against RV are among the most horrifying I have read. It involves possessing and sharing images of rape of infants and plans to take action in the real world of that nature. I don't really recommend reading the details, but they are here.
These allegations were first brought to light by @jaredlholt who has an excellent thread. He warns people that they may want to avoid the end of the thread because it includes shots of the specific allegations. I make the same warning.
RV was a main stage speaker at the 2013 March For Life.
RV did a headshot for Ronna McDaniel, GOP Chairwoman
The allegations against RV are among the most horrifying I have read. It involves possessing and sharing images of rape of infants and plans to take action in the real world of that nature. I don't really recommend reading the details, but they are here.
These allegations were first brought to light by @jaredlholt who has an excellent thread. He warns people that they may want to avoid the end of the thread because it includes shots of the specific allegations. I make the same warning.
NEW: D.C. Police arrested Ruben Verastigui -- a former "senior digital strategist" for the Senate Republican Conference -- on charges of distribution of child pornography resulting from a time span that allegedly included his time at the SRC. How I confirmed ID in thread (1/?) pic.twitter.com/AcZ7c2sBKb
— Jared Holt (@jaredlholt) February 6, 2021
RV was a main stage speaker at the 2013 March For Life.
RV did a headshot for Ronna McDaniel, GOP Chairwoman
You May Also Like
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
