Trans athletes in women’s sports – the hill that progressives keep dying on despite affecting only 0.1% of athletes. Governor Mills risks her legacy and faces recall threats over this microscopic issue. Meanwhile – conservative backlash grows – threatening to undo decades of LGBTQ+ progress. Is it worth it?
Read MoreBlog
The Impact of COVID-19 on IQ and Its Potential Influence on Political Decisions Among the Unvaccinated
COVID doesn’t just attack your lungs – it rewires your brain. Oxford researchers found survivors lost up to 10 IQ points – like aging seven years overnight. For the unvaccinated making political choices with diminished cognitive capacity – it’s like navigating a complex chess game while missing critical pieces.
Read MoreTrillions Down the Drain and Lives Torn Apart: Trump’s Ukraine-Russia Stance Pisses on America’s Sacrifice
For generations, the United States has been the world’s self-appointed hall monitor. It has spent trillions of dollars. Military bases have been scattered like confetti. The Pentagon counts 750 in 80 countries, all to keep the playground bullies in line. Why? To stand against aggressors who think “might makes right” is a foreign policy. It’s not some noble crusade. It’s survival. Since World War II, we’ve given blood and sweat. We’ve spent about $30 trillion on defense since 2000 (thanks, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute). This was to stop Nazis, Soviets, and every other tin-pot dictator from turning the world into their personal fiefdom. And it’s cost us way more than money.
Think about the toll – over 400,000 American lives lost in World War II, 36,000 in Korea, 58,000 in Vietnam, and 7,000-plus in the post-9/11 wars, according to official counts. That’s not just numbers. That’s kids who never came home, parents who spent years staring at empty chairs, and spouses who got a flag instead of a hug. Soldiers missed birthdays, first steps, and Christmases, deployed to dusty hellholes or frozen outposts, all so some jerk with a tank wouldn’t redraw the map. Then there’s the veterans. Millions came back broken, haunted by PTSD, missing limbs, or fighting VA red tape for decades. The Department of Veterans Affairs says 20 vets die by suicide daily, a gut-punch reminder that the war doesn’t end when the shooting stops. Families crumbled under the strain, kids grew up with ghosts for parents, and communities patched themselves together while the brass counted medals. All of that happened just to keep the world from sliding into chaos.
Now here comes Donald Trump, strutting in like a reality TV reject, ready to piss all over it with his Ukraine-Russia nonsense. Putin, the border-ignoring poster boy, snags Crimea in 2014 and invaded Ukraine full-tilt in 2022. So, we stepped up with $175 billion in aid (Council on Foreign Relations tally) and NATO muscle to keep Putin from turning Eastern Europe into his nostalgia project. This wasn’t a handout. It’s strategy. Let Russia win, and it’s not just Ukraine’s funeral. It’s a domino effect. Poland, the Baltics, whoever’s next on Putin’s list could follow, and suddenly we’re back in a world where every thug with a missile calls the shots. Deterrence costs less than cleanup. Ask the ghosts of the Cold War.
But Trump? He’s picking fights with our allies, kicking the President of Ukraine out of the White House, and fawning over Putin like a groupie. He’s muttering about letting Russia “do whatever the hell they want.” Trump acts like NATO must pay up like it’s his casino’s protection money. This isn’t him “putting America First.” It’s him spitting on every American who died, every family that shattered, every vet who still wakes up screaming. We’ve spent decades and trillions. Brown University pegs $6.4 trillion on the “War on Terror” alone, building a global web to stop this exact kind of power grab. Trump’s acting like it’s all a big “who cares,” unraveling the sacrifices of people who gave everything because they believed in democracy and that we shouldn’t bow down to bullies. Now, he, and by proxy we, ARE the bully.
Let’s make it really simple for the “America First” geniuses: Russia taking Ukraine isn’t some far-off soap opera. It’s a breadbasket, energy leverage, and a new NATO border that’ll cost us more lives and dollars later. That’s way more than arming Ukraine now. Strategy’s about stopping the fire before it hits your house, not shrugging while it burns. Trump’s too busy polishing Putin’s boots to see that. He’s not just clueless. He’s a middle finger to every soldier who fought, every family that grieved, every vet who suffered long after the guns went quiet. All that pain, all that loss, happened just for him to play dealmaker with a dictator. What a guy.
Voter Suppression Law Blocked by 9th Circuit Court
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals just dealt a blow to Arizona’s voter laws. They ruled against provisions requiring documentary proof of citizenship for presidential elections. The three-judge panel didn’t mince words, calling these measures “unlawful voter suppression.” Like a Pavement song that seemed straightforward until you really listened to the lyrics, this ruling has layers beneath its surface.
Arizona Republican leaders aren’t taking this lying down. State Senate President Warren Peterson is already eyeing the Supreme Court while asking the Justice Department to back off.
The 9th Circuit also criticized the district court for claiming one of the laws wasn’t meant to discriminate. They remanded that decision for a second look, which is basically judicial speak for “try again.”
Both laws – HB 2492 and HB 2243 – came from former Governor Doug Ducey’s desk in 2022. The official line was preventing noncitizen voting – a problem about as common as a two-dollar bill. HB 2492 demanded citizenship proof for presidential elections even from people using the federal registration form that doesn’t require it. HB 2243 told county officials to cancel registrations if there was any hint someone might not be a citizen.
The Biden administration, DNC, and voting rights groups sued immediately. A district court blocked the laws during the 2022 midterms. The Supreme Court partially stepped in, allowing some requirements for new voters while the case continued.
The fight isn’t over – but for now, the 9th Circuit is keeping these measures blocked.
The 88 County Problem: Comparing Nixon, Reagan, and Trump’s Election Numbers
In U.S. presidential history, landslide victories are rare but unforgettable. Richard Nixon in 1972 and Ronald Reagan in 1984 didn’t just win – they dominated, and these Republicans flipped A LOT of counties to their respective party – but their opponents still were able to flip some to theirs. Fast forward to 2024, and this election has an anomaly that sticks out like a sore thumb: Trump flipped 88 counties from blue to red, while Kamala Harris flipped zero from red to blue. What are the odds?
Read MoreWhy Repitition is More Important than Authority
The mere exposure effect – where we develop preferences for things we’ve seen repeatedly – could be harnessed for accuracy. Research shows that even initial skepticism can be overcome through strategic repetition. The key isn’t convincing someone to trust MSNBC over Fox – it’s making sure accurate information reaches them repeatedly from multiple directions.
Read MoreHow Trump is Using “America First” For Personal Gain
Back in January, Trump Media launched Truth.Fi – a financial services arm designed to build investment vehicles with Charles Schwab and Yorkville Advisors, a registered investment adviser. Their stated goal? Strengthening the so-called “Patriot Economy” by funneling money into American businesses that align with their ideological and political vision.
Now, could this be tied to the tariffs? Absolutely. Truth.Fi’s entire pitch is wrapped up in an “America First” investment strategy, and the timing here is just a little too perfect.
This isn’t just another investment platform – it’s a financial tool that doubles as a political statement. The premise is straightforward: invest in American companies, promote economic nationalism, and reap the benefits of policies that make foreign goods more expensive. Tariffs do exactly that – forcing businesses and consumers to either buy American or pay more for imports. And guess what? That means Truth.Fi’s investment strategy suddenly looks a whole lot more profitable.
Take a closer look at where they’re directing their money: U.S. manufacturing, energy, and other domestic-heavy industries. These are the exact sectors that stand to gain the most when foreign competition gets priced out of the market. Whether or not they had insider knowledge, the alignment is suspiciously convenient.
But the real shift here isn’t just economic – it’s cultural. Truth.Fi is selling more than investment products; they’re selling a belief system. This is “patriotic investing” at its core – the idea that where you put your money is not just a financial choice, but a political one. The messaging writes itself: “Why support companies in Canada or Mexico when you can pay a premium to prove your loyalty to America?” It’s less about smart financial decisions and more about reinforcing an identity.
And let’s not ignore the regulatory implications. Whenever investment platforms start aligning themselves with political movements, the SEC and other watchdogs tend to perk up. Securities laws exist to keep financial institutions from misleading investors or creating unstable markets, and Truth.Fi is walking a tightrope – trying to play to its base while staying within the legal lines.
But let’s be honest – does anyone really think Trump is worried about that? If history has taught us anything, it’s that rules are more of a suggestion when it comes to his business dealings. And with the right people in power, oversight becomes a formality at best.
Obviously, this is all just my own speculation – but COME ON!
Trump’s Trans Policy is Dangerous and Dumb
The Trump administration decided that trans people must list their birth gender on passports and other official documents. At first glance, it might seem like just another bureaucratic rule – annoying but not catastrophic. But in reality, it’s absurd, impractical, and dangerous. This policy serves no legitimate purpose other than to make life harder for trans people.
Read MoreWhat are Drop Off Votes And Why Do They Point to Vote Manipulation?
Let’s talk about drop-off voting – a pattern that broke all the rules in 2024.
Sometimes, the way ballots are cast and counted reveals patterns that don’t add up. One of those patterns is drop-off voting. The term isn’t official election jargon, but it describes something very real – the difference between the number of votes cast for president versus those cast for down-ballot races like Senate or House. In other words, it is a measure of how many voters bother to fill out the entire ballot versus stopping at the top. Normally, this follows predictable patterns.
But it didn’t in 2024.
What makes this interesting is how drop-off voting is skewed in ways that don’t follow historical trends. When that happens, it raises questions about voter behavior, election integrity, or whether something shady was going on.
In 2024, the numbers went sideways. Drop-off rates tend to be fairly predictable, with small shifts based on how competitive races are, how much attention candidates get, and state-specific voting laws. But in 2024, the drop-off didn’t follow the usual script. Republican drop-off hit 10 percent in swing states, meaning one in ten Trump voters skipped Senate or House races. Meanwhile, Democrats showed a minimal drop-off—sometimes a negative drop-off, with more votes for Senate candidates than for Harris. That means people filled out their ballot for a Democratic Senator – but didn’t vote for anyone as president.
That’s really bizarre, right?
SMART Elections analyzed data from states like Arizona, North Carolina, and Ohio, highlighting major discrepancies between presidential and Senate votes. Either voters suddenly decided to become highly selective, or something about the way votes were recorded or counted was off.
State Laws and Policies
Election laws certainly played a role in how people voted, and there were plenty of big changes that impacted participation:
- Florida reduced the number of ballot drop boxes and restricted where they could be placed, making them less accessible.
- Ohio implemented stricter voter ID laws and changed how ballots were processed, which the Brennan Center for Justice warned could depress turnout.
- Pennsylvania and California allowed drop boxes but enforced strict deadlines that made voting harder for some people.
Election security was the justification, but critics argued that these measures disproportionately affected Democratic-leaning voters. That should have meant Democrats would show higher drop-off rates, but that’s not what happened. Instead, Republicans saw a higher drop-off. If voter suppression were the main factor, both parties should have seen similar trends. They didn’t.
Make it make sense.
Impact on Election Outcomes
Drop-off voting can shift power in Congress and state legislatures. In 2024, the Seattle Times pointed to lower-than-expected Democratic turnout as a factor in Kamala Harris’s loss. Yet, in some states, down-ballot Democrats performed better than their own party’s presidential candidate. That makes no sense in a hyper-partisan election.
This kind of split-ticket voting happens occasionally, but not at this scale. The idea that large numbers of voters backed Trump for president but then turned around and voted for Democratic Governors or Senators in the same states doesn’t align with past elections. Either voter ideology shifted in a way that no pollster saw coming and makes very little sense, or something else was at play.
Drop Off Voting and Signs of Manipulation
Anomalies in Voting Patterns
Major drop-off discrepancies are red flags. When a presidential candidate gets significantly more votes than their party’s Senate or House candidate in the same state, something is off. Why would anyone take the time to vote for a Republican president but skip voting for the other Republicans on the ticket? If these patterns were spread evenly across both parties, that would be one thing, but that’s not what happened.
If similar states with similar political leanings but different voting laws show different drop-off rates, that suggests localized interference.
If one candidate receives way more votes than their party’s down-ballot candidates, it raises the question of ballot stuffing, where fraudulent votes are added to inflate the numbers for a single race.
Cybersecurity and Election Integrity
The stakes in 2024 were high, and election security was a major concern. Reports pointed to:
- Increased cyber threats targeting voter databases and election systems.
- Electronic voting glitches where down-ballot votes weren’t recorded correctly.
- Ballot harvesting issues where mass collection of ballots led to selective submission.
Why This Matters
Drop-off voting isn’t just a technical statistic – it is a signal. When patterns don’t align with past elections, it means something changed. The question is, what? Voter behavior? New laws? Or something more deliberate?
Some drop-offs are normal. But when the numbers defy logic, they demand scrutiny. Did voters suddenly change their habits, or were external forces at play? If the answer isn’t obvious, then it is worth taking a closer look at how votes were cast, counted, and reported. Until those questions are answered, the drop-off voting patterns of 2024 remain a red flag in an election that was already under the microscope.
Sources:
https://votingrightslab.org/2024/11/25/how-state-election-laws-shaped-voting-patterns-in-2024
https://smartelections.us/dropoff
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-2024-review
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy9j8r8gg0do
https://www.npr.org/2024/10/25/nx-s1-5163635/ballot-drop-boxes-explainer
https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/10/politics/trump-voter-shifts-nationwide/index.html
But what about the 2020 Election?
Before I even start to talk about the 2024 election, I think it’s important to talk about the 2020 election – after all, election fraud was MAGA’s calling card – so why is this different?
Well, let’s look at the claims made after the 2020 Election.
With 158.4 million ballots cast in 2020 – marking the highest voter turnout in U.S. history – exhaustive investigations found virtually no evidence of widespread fraud. The Heritage Foundation’s database – after years of research – documented only 1,365 proven instances of voter fraud across all elections since 1982.
We were assured that our elections were safe and our systems were proven remarkably resilient under historic levels of scrutiny. Multiple audits and recounts – including Georgia’s hand count – demonstrated no evidence of vote manipulation. The machines’ accuracy rates consistently matched paper ballot counts – effectively disproving claims of algorithmic vote switching.
Then there was stuff like the dead voter theory, which collapsed under scrutiny. Michigan conducted a comprehensive audit of 250 allegedly deceased voters – finding zero cases of fraudulent voting. The few legitimate cases typically involved clerical errors or isolated incidents of relatives using a deceased person’s ballot. The handful of actual cases usually involved widows using their late husband’s name – which is touching but illegal.
Mail-in voting – despite unprecedented scrutiny – showed remarkably low fraud rates. States with established mail-in voting systems provided compelling data. Oregon – which implemented universal mail-in voting in 1998 – reported just 14 attempted fraudulent votes out of millions cast over two decades.
The Dominion voting machine conspiracy proved equally baseless. Multiple audits and recounts – including Georgia’s hand count – demonstrated no evidence of vote manipulation. The machines’ accuracy rates consistently matched paper ballot counts – effectively disproving claims of algorithmic vote switching.
But where did these claims originally come from?
After the election, as results showed, Joe Biden was in the lead, and claims began circulating on social media and some conservative news platforms. One of the earliest and most prominent proponents of this theory was Sidney Powell, a lawyer associated with the Trump campaign at the time. Powell made sensational claims during media appearances and in legal filings that there was an algorithm designed to switch votes from Trump to Biden, particularly focusing on Dominion Voting Systems.
Powell appeared on Fox News in November 2020, alleging that Dominion Voting Systems was created to produce altered voting results in Venezuela for Hugo Chávez and that it had been used to rig the U.S. election for Biden. She mentioned specific algorithms and vote-switching mechanisms without providing substantial evidence.
The claim was amplified by various figures, including Rudy Giuliani, another Trump attorney, and through social media, where it was shared widely by Trump supporters and conspiracy theorists.
But here’s the thing – the IMPORTANT THING – the THING to remember:
There was no evidence of this. None.
So, where did this idea come from?
Sidney Powell’s claim about algorithmic vote switching in the 2020 election primarily seems to have been influenced by a mix of conspiracy theories, misinformation, and a few specific sources:
Powell was deeply embedded in the right-wing conspiracy theory ecosystem. Her claims resonate with long-standing myths about electronic voting systems, including those that surfaced after previous elections where similar accusations were made but never substantiated.
Powell’s association with QAnon, a far-right conspiracy theory group, also played a significant role. QAnon followers had been promoting narratives about election fraud and secret algorithms long before Powell’s statements. Her engagement with this community likely influenced her rhetoric.
Powell referenced claims from the controversial audit in Maricopa County, Arizona, which was influenced by conspiracy theories about voting machines. This audit, however, did not find evidence of algorithmic vote switching. Powell also cited affidavits from individuals like Navid Keshavarz-Nia, who claimed to have knowledge of voting machine manipulations. However, these affidavits were largely dismissed due to a lack of verifiable evidence or because the claims were based on speculation rather than concrete proof.
During interviews, Powell often spoke about having “evidence” but never produced it publicly in a way that could stand up to legal or scientific scrutiny. She appeared on conservative media outlets like Fox News, where she made these claims without providing detailed sources. Powell’s legal filings in various states included allegations of vote-switching algorithms, but these were based on hearsay, speculative theories, and affidavits from individuals who often had no direct connection to the actual voting systems or were discredited. There was also confusion or misrepresentation around patents related to voting technology. Powell and others cited patents as if they were evidence of nefarious capabilities, but these patents actually dealt with security features or were unrelated to vote-switching.
In the end, numerous courts rejected her claims, noting a lack of evidence, which indirectly illuminates the baselessness of her assertions.
The many other legal challenges tell the same story. Trump’s campaign and supporters filed 62 lawsuits challenging the election results. They lost 61, often facing dismissal due to a lack of evidence. Many of these cases collapsed when lawyers – required to present actual evidence in court – couldn’t substantiate their public claims of fraud.
But let’s think this through.
Someone had to be pretty convincing to get all of these lawyers to file these lawsuits without evidence, and many people ended up being punished for doing it. Nine lawyers were sanctioned for a lawsuit filed in Michigan. They were required to pay $175,000 in legal fees and undertake 12 hours of mandatory legal education. In Colorado, two lawyers, Ernest Walker and Gary Fielder, were sanctioned with a penalty of $187,000 for a frivolous lawsuit. In Arizona, three attorneys, Andrew Parker, Kurt Olsen, and Alan Dershowitz, faced sanctions for challenging the election results.
The 65 Project, a group aiming to hold attorneys accountable for trying to overturn the election, targeted at least 111 lawyers for potential disbarment and other disciplinary actions. While not all of these lawyers have been confirmed to have been punished as of the latest information, it indicates a broader scope of legal professionals potentially facing consequences.
Then there’s what happened to Rudy Guiliani and Sydney Powell. In June 2021, Giuliani’s law license was suspended by a New York state appellate court for making “demonstrably false and misleading statements” about voter fraud in the 2020 election. In July 2024, he was officially disbarred in New York State. His license was also suspended in Washington, D.C., for similar reasons.
Giuliani was also found liable for defamation in a lawsuit by Georgia election workers Ruby Freeman and Wandrea’ ArShaye Moss, whom he falsely accused of election fraud. In August 2023, he was ordered to pay nearly $133,000 in sanctions for non-compliance with discovery requests. In December 2023, a jury awarded Freeman and Moss $148 million in damages. Giuliani subsequently filed for bankruptcy, but the case was recently dismissed, allowing creditors to pursue his assets.
And there’s a lot more – just google it.
Then there’s Sydney Powell, who was sanctioned by U.S. District Judge Linda Parker in August 2021 for a frivolous lawsuit filed in Michigan. She and other lawyers involved were ordered to pay over $175,000 in attorney fees and undergo legal education. Powell is also a defendant in Dominion’s ongoing $1.3 billion defamation lawsuit and Smartmatic’s $2.7 billion defamation lawsuit.
Similar to Giuliani, Powell was indicted in August 2023 in Georgia for her alleged role in attempting to overturn the 2020 election, charged with racketeering and conspiracy.
All of this due to a baseless theory?
It seems far-fetched to me.
Unless…
Someone embedded in that Q-Anon / Right-Wing movement targeted them…
BUT WAIT!
Am I about to go down some deep, dark hole to uncover another conspiratorial theory?
Absolutely Fucking Not.
I’m not going to waste your time with any of that nonsense.
Instead, my aim is to show you the evidence that Powell and Rudy could not produce – and that’s the data.
You see, you might have a good night at the casino, get lucky on a few games of Blackjack, and maybe even win a few games of three-card poker. But if you walk around that casino floor and hit on the Roulette table, then win at craps, baccarat, and pai gow – the pit boss will be walking you out of that casino. Because no one is that lucky. And the voting data shows that Trump somehow hit the jackpot over and over and over again.
So, I hope I have established 2 things.
- In my previous post about election integrity, I discussed why examining how these numbers happened in 2024 is extremely important – even if it turns out it isn’t a long-tail play by the Russians.
- The claims about the 2020 election and the 2024 election are not the same. The 2020 election fraud claims were based on unsubstantiated theories about how the election might have been rigged. These 2024 claims don’t attempt to establish a theory about how anomalies in the data happened. No one knows how they happened – it’s just an attempt to show people that they do factually exist. And hopefully, if enough people are convinced, then it will build up enough pressure to convince people that it’s something that needs to be figured out – one way or another.
Now that I’ve said all that, I’ll let you ruminate on how these two different issues might correlate on your own. Next up for me will be to start talking about the numbers.
Sources:
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_interest/election_law/litigation