[lstodd]

To "get coverage from a news network" is ignorance bordering on pure madness.

They are almost exclusively propaganda and manipulation and as such the only useful signal that can be extracted is something like "how those people chose to frame certain events they feel they can't ignore in hopes of them going unnoticed". Note I'm talking about our local ones, in my opinion yours do not differ materially in this aspect.

So no. I'm not parroting after a talking head on some network or other (the thought itself is mildly insulting). For an interesting incident (and election-related stuff was interesting enough) what one does is gather as much coverage as possible and then try to reconstruct what event could have lead to this set of framings.

What I wrote is somewhat of a consensus between us old hands of many years experience resisting election fraud, with hands-on knowledge of how it's done, how to fight it, how attempts at covering it up look like and how people that prefer to believe it never happens behave.

[dangus]

I just respectfully disagree with your view in a whole lot of ways.

I don't know how you can be aware of things like the January 6 insurrection and the fake electors scheme and believe that election fraud is "mostly dems."

We have a recorded phone call of Donald Trump asking the Georgia secretary of state to "find 11,780 votes" for him.