You may want to look into the word petulant some.

" (of a person or their manner) childishly sulky or bad-tempered:
"he was moody and petulant" "

Oxford Dictionary (behind a pay wall so no link provided)

I do not show ill temperament, at least most of the time and I am fairly sure the very unpatriotic "pat riot" has NEVER caused me to become "bad tempered", not even once so... And I am not one to "sulk" either.


" 1. : insolent or rude in speech or behavior
2 : characterized by temporary or capricious ill humor : PEEVISH "

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/petulant

#2, since I rarely if EVER succumb to "ill humor" and can't recall if I have or not here on OPP, but do KNOW for a fact that not EVER with pat riot, does not apply AT ALL. #1 would apply to nearly EVERYONE here on OPP so since that definition is far too loose in context, it loses meaning.


" 1. moved to or showing sudden, impatient irritation, especially over some trifling annoyance:
a petulant toss of the head. "

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/petulant

Again, this definition fails on temperament.


" disapproving "

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/petulant

If the definition of petulant is nothing more than "disapproving" there would be absolutely no need for another word being created to mean EXACTLY the same thing as another with NO discernible difference in meaning or context. This definition lacks ANY context whatsoever so it fails entirely. If this is how we define petulant, EVERYONE would be petulant unless they agreed and approved of EVERYTHING.


" 1
adj easily irritated or annoyed "

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/petulant

Again, fails on temperament.


" Someone who is petulant is unreasonably angry and upset in a childish way. "

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/petulant

Again, fails on temperament.



It seems the ONLY way to make "petulant" fit me is to so loosely define petulant that it fits EVERYONE here on OPP as well as elsewhere. To do so makes you just as "petulant" as I would be. In that case, I would have to say, enjoy being petulant then.

You may want to look into the word petulant some.

" (of a person or their manner) childishly sulky or bad-tempered:
"he was moody and petulant" "

Oxford Dictionary (behind a pay wall so no link provided)

I do not show ill temperament, at least most of the time and I am fairly sure the very unpatriotic "pat riot" has NEVER caused me to become "bad tempered", not even once so... And I am not one to "sulk" either.


" 1. : insolent or rude in speech or behavior
2 : characterized by temporary or capricious ill humor : PEEVISH "

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/petulant

#2, since I rarely if EVER succumb to "ill humor" and can't recall if I have or not here on OPP, but do KNOW for a fact that not EVER with pat riot, does not apply AT ALL. #1 would apply to nearly EVERYONE here on OPP so since that definition is far too loose in context, it loses meaning.


" 1. moved to or showing sudden, impatient irritation, especially over some trifling annoyance:
a petulant toss of the head. "

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/petulant

Again, this definition fails on temperament.


" disapproving "

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/petulant

If the definition of petulant is nothing more than "disapproving" there would be absolutely no need for another word being created to mean EXACTLY the same thing as another with NO discernible difference in meaning or context. This definition lacks ANY context whatsoever so it fails entirely. If this is how we define petulant, EVERYONE would be petulant unless they agreed and approved of EVERYTHING.


" 1
adj easily irritated or annoyed "

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/petulant

Again, fails on temperament.


" Someone who is petulant is unreasonably angry and upset in a childish way. "

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/petulant

Again, fails on temperament.



It seems the ONLY way to make "petulant" fit me is to so loosely define petulant that it fits EVERYONE here on OPP as well as elsewhere. To do so makes you just as "petulant" as I would be. In that case, I would have to say, enjoy being petulant then.

Curtesy of Slatten49...


So far, there isn’t one.

Which is strange, because the amount of evidence generated by fraud large enough to change an election, would be massive. There would be thousands of people involved in this conspiracy in order to make it happen.

And I’m not talking about the evidence that Trump and his people have come up with. I mean large amounts of smoking gun, red-handed, obvious instances of voter fraud.

And there would be a lot of it to find.

So, there are a lot of different allegations of fraud, but I’ll go with the big ones here. Algorithms changing votes, dead people/ineligible people voting, and ballots being brought into voting stations to be counted late at night.

Dead/ineligible people voting.

So I’ve already covered why dead/ineligible voters would require thousands of conspirators in my answer below:

John Blackstock's answer to Is the ‘election fraud’ Trump claims won Joe Biden the 2020 election even logistically possible?

The gist is, that in order to use dead people’s names to vote, you’d have thousands of conspirators across polling locations, board of elections, and even the DMV, all complicit on the fraud without saying a word.

If this were the case, it’s almost inevitable some of them would have gotten caught. Voter rolls are purged regularly, and if you try to vote using a dead person’s name that’s been removed from the rolls, you bet your ass that you’d be caught. From there the house of cards would fall, and the resulting investigation by the authorities would uncover either the whole conspiracy, or at least a large chunk of it.

Would some people be able to successfully gain a vote via a dead person’s name? Probably. Would thousands of them do it without a single person getting caught? No way.

Machines changing votes.

Chris Kreb’s the former Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency in the United States. He’s a lifelong Republican, and was appointed by Trump to this position, specifically to ensure the integrity of our elections.

Well, before he was fired for reporting that there’s no evidence of any voter fraud, his main project as director when it came to elections was to ensure that a vast majority (95%) of voting machines in the United States have some sort of paper backup.

This makes it extremely easy to verify if there’s some sort of algorithm improperly counting votes.

The main target of these conspiracy theories is a company called Dominion Voting Systems. It was one of the main voting machine systems used in the state for this most recent election. In order to audit the process, Georgia conducted a hand recount.

And lo and behold! The recount tally matched almost exactly the original count. The main difference was a batch of ballots that were mistakenly not counted in a Republican county that narrowed Biden’s win slightly. This had nothing to do with the voting machines.

Huge batches of ballots coming in the dead of night.

This is by far the easiest to debunk.

Polling locations keep a record of how many people check in to vote, and then compare it to the amount of votes cast. For in person votes, you’re checked in to ensure that you’re an eligible voter, and then you anonymously fill out your ballot and then turn it in.

For mail ballots, the envelope is checked to verify that it’s coming from an eligible voter, and then is separated before it’s counted to ensure that the vote can’t be associated with a specific voter. This is by design to ensure the concept of a secret ballot.

If there were thousands of votes being brought in the dead of night, there would be thousands of votes more than people that actually voted. It would be extremely easy to catch people trying to do this.

Trump claims to have found this, but the people actually qualified to report this kind of discrepancy haven’t seen anything like this. It’s also something that is easily verifiable by government officials, and they haven’t found anything either.

... John Blackstock

Curtesy of Slatten49...


So far, there isn’t one.

Which is strange, because the amount of evidence generated by fraud large enough to change an election, would be massive. There would be thousands of people involved in this conspiracy in order to make it happen.

And I’m not talking about the evidence that Trump and his people have come up with. I mean large amounts of smoking gun, red-handed, obvious instances of voter fraud.

And there would be a lot of it to find.

So, there are a lot of different allegations of fraud, but I’ll go with the big ones here. Algorithms changing votes, dead people/ineligible people voting, and ballots being brought into voting stations to be counted late at night.

Dead/ineligible people voting.

So I’ve already covered why dead/ineligible voters would require thousands of conspirators in my answer below:

John Blackstock's answer to Is the ‘election fraud’ Trump claims won Joe Biden the 2020 election even logistically possible?

The gist is, that in order to use dead people’s names to vote, you’d have thousands of conspirators across polling locations, board of elections, and even the DMV, all complicit on the fraud without saying a word.

If this were the case, it’s almost inevitable some of them would have gotten caught. Voter rolls are purged regularly, and if you try to vote using a dead person’s name that’s been removed from the rolls, you bet your ass that you’d be caught. From there the house of cards would fall, and the resulting investigation by the authorities would uncover either the whole conspiracy, or at least a large chunk of it.

Would some people be able to successfully gain a vote via a dead person’s name? Probably. Would thousands of them do it without a single person getting caught? No way.

Machines changing votes.

Chris Kreb’s the former Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency in the United States. He’s a lifelong Republican, and was appointed by Trump to this position, specifically to ensure the integrity of our elections.

Well, before he was fired for reporting that there’s no evidence of any voter fraud, his main project as director when it came to elections was to ensure that a vast majority (95%) of voting machines in the United States have some sort of paper backup.

This makes it extremely easy to verify if there’s some sort of algorithm improperly counting votes.

The main target of these conspiracy theories is a company called Dominion Voting Systems. It was one of the main voting machine systems used in the state for this most recent election. In order to audit the process, Georgia conducted a hand recount.

And lo and behold! The recount tally matched almost exactly the original count. The main difference was a batch of ballots that were mistakenly not counted in a Republican county that narrowed Biden’s win slightly. This had nothing to do with the voting machines.

Huge batches of ballots coming in the dead of night.

This is by far the easiest to debunk.

Polling locations keep a record of how many people check in to vote, and then compare it to the amount of votes cast. For in person votes, you’re checked in to ensure that you’re an eligible voter, and then you anonymously fill out your ballot and then turn it in.

For mail ballots, the envelope is checked to verify that it’s coming from an eligible voter, and then is separated before it’s counted to ensure that the vote can’t be associated with a specific voter. This is by design to ensure the concept of a secret ballot.

If there were thousands of votes being brought in the dead of night, there would be thousands of votes more than people that actually voted. It would be extremely easy to catch people trying to do this.

Trump claims to have found this, but the people actually qualified to report this kind of discrepancy haven’t seen anything like this. It’s also something that is easily verifiable by government officials, and they haven’t found anything either.

... John Blackstock