That's all I can assume, because I had literally no activity on their platform. The only information they had about the account was the username, the email address, the IP address (Tor), and the signup date. They must not have liked one of these.
I registered the account out of an abundance of caution, and never posted or commented with it.
Reddit seems to now proactively ban users without any actual activity, let alone violation on their platform, based on usernames that are on their radar.
To fight back, help spread the word about election fraud.
Thank you for reporting this. Would you be able to tell me what platform and browser you're on? I've received similar reports, but not enough for troubleshooting.
I want nothing from Joe Biden except a guilty plea, but thank you for your appreciative feedback nonetheless.
Thank you.
I cannot speak for other sites, but I have a number of reasons not to include Mike Lindell's documentary on 2020evidence.org.
One reason is indeed the concerning source and lack of actual evidence provided with the last claim regarding foreign interference. I left out stronger claims just for not being able to find and include their original sources. And since the documentary is one unit, the low standard of evidence applied to this claim reflects badly on the rest of the claims and testimonies, even if those are otherwise true and correct. I did include sources overlapping in factual content with these claims and testimonies.
Another reason not to include the documentary as an entry at least is that, functionally, it is at the same level with the site itself in being a compilation of evidence, as opposed to a standalone source of it. This is exactly why I didn't include The Epoch Times's excellent documentary Who's Stealing America? either, despite its higher standard of evidence than that of Absolute Proof. On the basis of journalistic value, it would have belonged at the top of the list, but I ended up carving out its own section in the footer in the end for the same reason.
None of the above means that I don't appreciate Mike's documentary, I think it's a very important piece of work, and I'm deeply grateful for it. It has done a lot of good for getting the truth out to the public. It just doesn't meet the criteria of 2020evidence.org per se.
I hope this explains my position well, regardless of whether you find yourself agreeing or not.
Thank you for your kind feedback, and kudos for taking action.
I don't have the actual documents, but I would recommend a look at the source of those documents before taking claims related to them at face value.
I did, and thank you for the generous offer. I will DM you.
Thank you, I really appreciate it.
https://2020evidence.org/ · 66 entries · 165 sources · 138 archives
Spread this everywhere, we need to be the media now.
I need allies in this fight.
If you want to help, please see this post—the primary message is, spread this everywhere, we need to be the media now.
To everyone who has already helped or given feedback, a heartfelt thank you.
There is no time to get apathetic. Do your part. Make an effort.
Follow me on Gab for updates.
Thank you! There are some good ones among these I didn't have, I saved them.
That is interesting, and I wouldn't rule out the possibility, though there may be other explanations. Have you tried loading it on another device, or through another internet connection?
Thanks!
Thank you.
Archiving evidence in general is always a good idea. With regard to the website, I cannot tell without knowing what you have if I would end up using it. If you think any of your sources are particularly persuasive and of high quality, then there is no harm in sending them my way, and I will see if I can use them.
Thank you for offering help!
I don't assume you're trolling at all, clearly you have good intentions, and thank you for your concern. I certainly see where you're coming from, and have gone through a few variations again. Unfortunately, longer words don't work: the visual weight is not just a "look" thing, it affects how one scans the page for information, and the heavy repetition of a particular word that is not as idiomatic as "N/A" draws the eye to the wrong place. I also tried a simple "?", but it doesn't read well. Additionally, something like "multiple" cannot always be interpreted: for example, a claim of hostile treatment toward Republican observers doesn't automatically imply that any ballots have been affected in the process, even if it raises the concerns. "N/A" can be interpreted either as "not applicable" or "not available," and I really cannot think of a better alternative that checks all the boxes.
It does stand for "not applicable." In the case of these entries, a ballot count is not applicable due to not being clearly indicated by the sources. Leaving it out unfortunately breaks the visual rhythm and consistency, and a longer word has too much visual weight. I have experimented with both in the design process.
Thank you, I really appreciate the thought. I completely understand, cryptocurrency is not a convenient method for many people, but unfortunately the only method for projects like this. I really wouldn't inconvenience you with it if you were to do it just for this one donation. However, I'm happy to help you if it's something you would like to learn to use, because it's a wonderful tool for freedom, let me know in a DM.
Also, I'm happy to expand it to states less known for fraud. Please feel free to send solid, high-quality evidence my way if you come across it. So far, I have only found one compelling one for Virginia in particular, but have added that.
Thank you for your contribution. I will need some time to process these links, but have put them in my own chipmunk stash.
Thank you for this. I'm admittedly not the best at hustling, but will keep pushing.
That is true, and what happened here as well. The post went to "Hot" so early that it would never make it from there.
Thank you for your recommendation. Unfortunately I cannot think of a more succinct and idiomatic label that gets out of the way visually for ease of scanning with the eye. What alternative would you suggest?
Thank you for your clever suggestion. Unfortunately I have no capacity to carry out such a strategy. I didn't intend to publicize the site on Reddit, I merely registered the username so that nobody else could.