In a recent discussion we had with a friend, the topic of integrity in the electoral process came up.

Some believe there was no fraud and that our elections are honest and fair. This is increasingly becoming a minority opinion.

Some people believe that fraud is rare, but will admit that governments and large corporations have manipulated the system. They are more likely to say the election was “rigged” than “stolen.”

Evidence of this collusion is now everywhere. Just recently, Congressional investigators discovered emails from the White House that Amazon requested and subsequently received. A ban on the publication of books that are negative about the government's response to the new coronavirus. Individuals have been “shadowbanned” and permanently banned from major social media. Before Elon Musk, Twitter was one of the worst offenders, even employing former government officials. Looks like something out of communist China. Former intelligence officials said Hunter Biden's laptop was “Russian disinformation,” but the FBI recently confirmed that the laptop and its contents are real. The entire “Russiagate” scandal was fabricated and paid for by Democratic Party operatives and Hillary Clinton. Mark Zuckerberg has donated nearly $500 million to pay local election officials. The J6 committee hearings, as we now know, were orchestrated by former ABC News executives, and evidence on a number of important issues (such as the extent to which federal agents were involved in crowd manipulation) is hidden.

There is no longer any doubt about the collusion argument. All of these irregularities affected the election outcome, but the extent of that impact is difficult to quantify. Obviously, the perpetrator believes it will be done and would not engage in it otherwise.

I think it's beautiful It's clear by now that our elections are not “fair” and that the government itself uses tax dollars and influence over pet companies to tilt the game in favor of Democrats.

In addition to direct government involvement, politicians have learned how to tap into big business interests and return some of their ill-gotten gains in the form of campaign contributions. Green companies are just the latest combination of this practice. Still, it's basically being effectively “laundered” through private companies to funnel taxpayer money into campaigns.

Proving outright fraud is becoming more difficult as courts are reluctant to get involved., therefore, convincing evidence to the public is not widely disseminated. It's a little funny that the people most resistant to the idea of ​​fraud are the very people who want to hang Donald Trump for election interference in states like Georgia. That is, they believe it could exist.

And we also admit that There is a fine line between collusion and fraud. Wasn't Hunter's laptop suppression “cheating” in some way, especially since polls show it shifted about 15% of voters? He denied voters important information about presidential candidates that authorities knew to be true. This act is particularly serious because it was carried out by law enforcement agencies who are well aware and can infer that public trust will be adversely affected if this act is discovered.

but Fraud appears to mean actually tampering with votes.. Introducing fake ballots, miscounting ballots, allowing illegal aliens to vote on flimsy documents such as electricity bills, destroying valid ballots, and allowing non-citizens to vote. And of course, even though such legal changes are the job of Congress, local officials can sometimes suddenly change the rules before an election.

Some people are independent Think tanks like the Heartland Institute I'm doing a good job, We uncover different types of scams and incidents.

Heartland also recently conducted a poll. One in five mail-in voters admitted fraud. But it seems like it's slowly happening, There is emerging evidence in legal proceedings of significant wrongdoing, at least at the local level.. The Heritage Foundation is tracking local cases You've probably never heard of it.They even have a database Just about the fraud in Arizona.

When you mention fraud, people are likely looking for more specific examples than proof of collusion. We think that's fair. No one should accept an opinion without both evidence and a healthy argument. As the convictions increase, will it not count as evidence?

In addition to the aforementioned mentions and links, the following videos are also informative: I hope you open these up and study them.