Using the Election Results to Drive Us Further Apart

During the first debate, Joe Biden promised to wait until all votes were counted and certified before he would claim victory. He admitted then that there will be issues and concerns that would need to be addressed first. Immediately after the election he asked his supporters to be patient and to let the system work. Now he is accepting being called the President Elect. Violating his promise is not a good start.

People are letting their hate of Trump to cloud their commitment to doing what is right and truthful. There is a Rumi saying that goes something like "Give up your certainty and accept bewilderment". I say give up your misdirected certainty and arrogance and embrace truth. We humans have a natural tendency to celebrate when someone we dislike fails and we get our way. Even when this failure is not certain, just the probability of it sets us off. We vacate our loyalty to truth and justice and goodness. In our celebration of the downfall of what we consider evil we become that which we seek to end. Remember the last episode of Game of Thrones?

I recently viewed a TV program where an equal number of Trump supporters and Bidden supporters sat on a panel. They were asked the questions that if after all investigations into the election their side lost, would they feel the election was stolen. All members of the panel, regardless of side, said yes. Blue and Red, separated and divided, each side blaming the other.

How did we get here? The movement to increase mail in votes started way before the virus. The virus gave it impetus and momentum. We should also remember we have had concerns about voter fraud for years centered primarily around non-citizens voting and the lack of need around identification. A core difference is whether or not non-citizens or others who have negated their right to vote, should be allowed to vote. Fighting for ending the need to have identification or strong oversite serves the purpose of allowing non-legal votes as well as single individuals the ability to vote multiple times. The question we have to ask ourselves is how important is it to you that all legal and only legal votes be counted and does it rank higher than getting your agenda imposed.

When we implemented mass mail voting many concerns were brought up. Some of us scoffed. We said there was not evidence of wide spread fraud in the past absentee voting system. Wide-spread, it might be seen as correct there was not wide spread fraud, However, there was evidence of fraud, ballot harvesting, etc. Now with mass mail-in balloting it is common sense that there is more incentive for fraud and more ability to get the results we want. The second point and most important is the fact there does not need to be wide-spread systemic fraud to make difference. A small amount, strategically implemented, could alter results. Thirdly, just because only a relatively small amount has been discovered, it does not mean there was not a lot more undiscovered. Despite these concerns little if anything was done to address them. I would think that not only if we wanted a fair election, but also if we wanted one where people felt confident in the result, we would have gone to extremes to secure it. Shame on those in charge for not doing it and shame on us for not demanding it no matter what side we are on. The cherishment of the validity and value of each of our votes is one area where we could have found common ground.

What did we do instead of doing everything we could to secure the validity of the election? Did we simply do nothing and allow a system that already had cracks be implemented in this new environment of mass write-ins? No, we did even worse. We selectively blocked observers. While one may ask what were they hiding, the bigger issue is why create this suspicious environment at all. Should we not have enhanced observations especially of write-in votes to reduce suspicions? Also many states, especially the "swing" states, used a computer system that the democrats themselves expressed concerns about in 2019. A letter expressing this concern is signed by top democrats such as Elizabeth Warren. Do we have an understanding about how these concerns were addressed if at all? The answer is; all we have is a statement from a committee on voter security that the systems were secure, On that committee are representatives from the systems and software involved with no third party substantiated detail. Why were concerns not publicly addressed and verified before the election? True leaders would have done more than simply state in effect, 'nothing to see here. We have made this the most secure election in history. Trust us." The confidence of the American people and protection of the value of every person's vote, regardless of affiliation, should have been a top priority. It was not and that is why we are here fighting each other. None of us knows the truth so we are forced to cling to a faulty lens on each side that says we won

So what are the concerns:

1) Illegal ballots being counted.

a) People who have moved to other states either voting twice or having their mail-in ballots taking from their old location and filled out by someone else.

i) The signature checking was lax with limited observation and oversite in some areas.

ii) There was limited to no checking to see if a ballot has been cast in another state by the same person.

b) In some key counties the number of votes cast far exceeded the number of registered voters.

c) Proof of dead people voting. While the numbers are small it may be signs of bigger issues.

d) Claims by USPS and postal workers that they were ordered to change postmarks and/or received dates.

e) Videos and people admitting they collected ballots from mostly older people and convincing them to change their votes.

f) Tens of thousands of ballots coming in after counting was stopped and having statically impossible results.

g) Due to the inability to relate ballots to envelopes after they were opened there is an inability to double check authenticity now ( recounts serve little purpose).

2) Illegal counting of ballots

a) Concerns and issues with electronic machines and their software even before the election and by democrats.

b) Hundreds of affidavits saying people witnessed changing votes or entering the same ballot multiple times.

c) Votes being counted on servers in foreign countries.

d) Lack of observations and oversites.

e) Statistically impossible vertical climbs in voter results.

f) Suspicious political affiliations by people involved in physical counting as well as electronic counting.

I am not saying all the above is proof of fraud or that the outcome is not correct. What I am saying is that measures should have been put in to avoid any chance the concerns are valid. To get to purple we need to make sure all avenues are investigated by unbiased third parties and not by politicians and/or members of the press. We need to demand new protective measures be put in place for future elections. Instead, when two members of the committee charged with certifying elections in the Detroit area refused to certify the election until all avenues are investigated, they were harassed, called racist (calling their decision racist stretches the term so to undermine its seriousness), physically threatened, and even having the location of their children's schools released; All by people you claim to stand for truth and justice (Videos are available). We had peaceful election protesters in DC who in the evening when the protest was ending broke up into individual groups and headed back to their hotels only to be ambushed by people wearing BLM and ANTIFA clothing with hoods. They even almost severely injured a mother and her small child. Again Video is available.

This does not get us to purple. The truth is we will never really know, unless people come forward and admit to fraud, the real truth. If we clean our lenses of the bias of what we want the truth to be and investigate on our own versus listening to only our respective sides in the media, we will see that we would have never be in this position had the people involved had bringing us together as their top priority. It is up to us, both sides of the election together, to demand they do so now and in the future.