If You Think The Cheating Was In Just 5 or 6 States, Consider This:

https://www.judicialwatch.org/new-jw-study-voter-registration/
https://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/judicial-watch-voter-roll-study-oct-2020/

Ok I'll look at the first 2 states mentioned in your source.

Alaska...... 5 to 7% of Alaskan population enters or leaves every year. It's freezing, it's secluded, I don't blame them. Apparently Alaska also had a program that automatically registered anyone applying for a Permanent Fund Dividend as well.. that program added 41,000 people to the voter rolls despite the population staying the same. And it generally takes 4 years (2 federal elections) for people there to get removed from voter registration rolls.

Colorado...... 250,000 people in CO got automatically registered to vote after applying for driver’s licenses and other government services.. Communications Director Betsy Hart said in a statement: "The claims made by [Judicial Watch] are based solely on a comparison between real-time voter registration information and outdated census data. The population of [Colorado] has grown considerably over the last several years and the number of registered voters has predictably increased as well." Makes sense. Apparently they got sued by Judicial Watch in 2020. The case was dismissed.

Seems like basically what's going on is people are getting registered to vote faster than they are getting removed from wherever they were previously registered.... And nothing about any of that proves that there was "cheating"... let alone a "coup"... as the OP claims. It's big fat nothingburger disguised as a smoking gun.

You cherry picked two states... There's 14.5 times more States and data in that report. What it also means is that the election couldn't have been the most secure ever like everyone said. For the very fact that theres that much problem in registration alone.

It's not a smoking gun no, but it's a chink in the armor of the integrity of the election and electoral processes.

"You cherry picked.."

False.
I did exactly what I said I did. I read the article that russian posted and looked into the first 2 states listed. If I wanted to actually "cherry pick", I would've began by looking at all the states and picking the states with the lowest % of apparent over-registration. (To be fair maybe Alaska and Colorado are those 2 states idk)

"What it means is the election couldn't have been the most secure ever"

False. It could still have been the most secure election ever. (I'm not necessarily saying that it was, but it is possible.) Depends how you define or measure that.

For example.... Let's say that overall in 2020 there was 110% registration on average across all states. If over-registration is the metric for measuring secure elections (which this conversation seems to imply that people think it is...or it's at least one of the factors..), then that still tells us literally nothing as far as how secure the election was historically. Because you could not know if 2020 was the most or least secure election ever without additional information. You would need to know statistics from previous elections. Maybe all elections before 2020 had higher than 110% over-registration across all states. If so, then 2020 would have been the most secure election ever.... even with 110% voter registration.

So you're saying you took the first two states in the list... Which would be the easiest to talk about... Which means they were what? Cherry Picked.

Congratulations - you just proved me right.

No, it's simply doing them in order.

I mean what exactly is it about the first 2 states in the list that you think makes them "easiest to talk about"?
Are you actually arguing the 2 seconds it takes to read the next 6 words/states make the first ones "easier" to research and talk about?
Or are you totally making an assumption that Judicial Watch listed states based on which is "easiest to talk about" ?

They are the first two. That makes them the easiest to do.

Not really.

Also.. for the record... Trump won Alaska by 10%.

muh stolen electionNnNn!!1
Lol

Lol at Snowist.

:P

That's because liberals hate the snow. It's white.

No they don't. That is snow-ist.

Secure election: one where voter registration and turn-out don't surpass the population of the area...

Which we know happened last election. There were lots of counties with too many registered voters to population. We also know that some counties - however many there were, had voter turn out go passed 100 percent.

Those things right there... Mean it was secure. It means there were something not right.

If you want to live in fantasy Land where people believe it was a secure election go ahead.

"those things right there... Mean it was secure."

Ok so you're clearly a somewhat sloppy writer... but I am now also wondering if you even bothered to read the article we're talking about (?)

This deep into the conversation, you should know that we're not talking about voter registration compared to the population.... We're talking about voter registration compared to the number of eligible voters within a population. Come on man... You know... The thing!

Also... Your other point about voter turn out exceeding the number of registered voters... sh*t was debunked a long time ago. But ok sure.. I'm in fantasy land.

Autocorrect happens lmao

Autocorrect changed "wasn't" into "was"..........?
iight I'ma head out.

Yes... When you have big thumbs and tiny buttons and are typing fast you can get autocorrected really easy.

W-a-s-n.... n is right next to the space bar

I simply provided sources you were too lazy to find yourself. I'm not the OP.

And I simply responded to your sources.

I didn't assume you were the OP. That's why when I was talking about claims being made I said "OP" instead of "you".

Since you're so willing to examine sources provided to you, why not put in the effort to find them yourself?

Ah.. right.. you're probably still operating under the guise that I'm lazy. I did not address that in my previous reply.

How many sources do you think were involved in my initial reply to you here? How long do you suppose it took me to get to the crux of your articles, and then to go look for information about those 2 states, read what I could find about them, find the most relevant information, assemble a response, and re-read what I wrote to check for obvious spelling/grammar errors? I'm going to say at least 20 minutes...

Now let's say I had added to that more time "putting in the effort" to Google the OP's claims myself. Maybe another couple minutes. Pretty soon I'm nearly a half hour into a response comment.

Then maybe it freezes up and I have to retype and try to remember everything I had just wrote. Finally I finish and post my comment. Then 2 minutes later the OP steps in and is like bro wtf are you talking about.....THIS is the article my meme was based on. Meaning I just wasted however much time commenting responding to data points from an article that nobody was talking about. So ya that would be one reason.

Also... Beyond this conversation, I have already looked into numerous claims about muh fraudDdDd / "stolen election" many, many times.... Whether it be about voter registration, voter turnout allegedly exceeding registration, preliminary vote counts suddenly gapping up, clerical errors allegedly only benefiting Joe Biden, counting late at night, millions allegedly dead people casting a vote, recounts, audits, and whatever other bullsh*t.

Often times the f*ckin meme was copied from Facebook, or Twitter or wherever anyway in the first place so the OP can't even tell you the source because they don't know it and THEY are too lazy to Google it for themselves... Then you end commenting to someone who was clueless about the facts or didn't even care all along. On more than one occasion I've actually had people try to send me articles they say support their claim.... Meanwhile their article had been retracted by it's own authors and/or publishers. So that would be another reason.

Anyways.... Hopefully that rant is sufficient. Let me know if you want more.
:P

Your banal comment is what prompted my reply with sources. I gave no indication as to their validity or utility rather, I merely supplied sources that appear to support the claim of the OP. It was really easy. Everything thereafter was a reinforcement of the sources you were looking for. A reasonable person would conclude that a pithy, "source" would indicate laziness. You can rant all you like; it doesn't concern me either way.

And your sources prompted my reply. Then you replied back. Are we just stating the obvious now or what kind of game is this?

In any case your sources do not support the meme's conclusion...and I was more concerned with a source which actually did that. Good effort though.

The meme that literally says, "according to judicial watch" that you requested sources for. Lol.

And as I literally just said,
I was more concerned with sources that actually support the meme's conclusion.