It Doesn't Add Up
Donald Trump up HUGE on election night. But then mail-in ballots get dumped in the middle of the night. Poll watchers not allowed to observe the process. And suddenly Biden goes up in extreme numbers? No, that is not a fair election.
We have whistleblowers in the postal service saying they were postmarking with the wrong date intentionally, others saying they would give extra ballots to people Democrats changing rules against court rulings and legislature lawmaking.
Biden is a true illegitimate President if he takes office.
Comments
-
@reformed posted:
Donald Trump up HUGE on election night.
Yes, because many states, including Pennsylvania, for example, did not begin to process early- and mail-in ballots until election day, meaning they first reported in-person votes, which we all knew would lean heavily toward Mr Trump. Only when states began processing the 100 million early- and mail-in votes - which we knew would lean heavily toward Mr Biden - did Mr Trump's lead disappear.
But then mail-in ballots get dumped in the middle of the night.
If by "dumped" you mean processed, then yes, as I explained above. If by "dumped" you mean some nefarious, fraudulent event, then no; there is NO evidence of that.
Poll watchers not allowed to observe the process.
Poll watchers? I think you mean vote count observers. Polling places are where people vote, not where votes are counted.
I've asked you twice, without your response, to identify a single vote counting location in which the number of GOP poll watchers required by applicable law was not permitted. I ask yet again.
And suddenly Biden goes up in extreme numbers? No, that is not a fair election.
It was the widely-shared expectation that early- and mail-in votes would lean clearly toward Mr Biden since Democrats were MUCH, MUCH more open to such forms of voting, and during the campaign Mr Trump told his followers again and again to vote in-person. Hence, there is NOTHING unusual about the fact that Mr Biden made "extreme" gains as early and mail-in votes were counted.
We have whistleblowers in the postal service saying they were postmarking with the wrong date intentionally,
How many did this? Proof?
others saying they would give extra ballots to people
Who and how many did this? The "whistleblowers in the postal service"? Proof?
Democrats changing rules against court rulings and legislature lawmaking.
Examples? The Pennsylvania change to allow additional days after election day to receive mail-in ballots was approved by the state's supreme court and allowed to stand by the U.S. Supreme Court. Did those court rulings grant legitimacy to the state's practice?
Biden is a true illegitimate President if he takes office.
I accept and respect this as your opinion.
I won't play the whack-a-mole game with you any more than I'm going to play it with Wolfgang, in part because you also have a long history of refusing to mention, let alone directly address, the questions and observations I raise to you (I'll always cherish the season when I had to ask you the same question TEN times before you would even mention it in a post). But I ask you to remember that single-sentence declarations have little if any ability to prove anything. If you want to prove the illegitimacy of this election, present objectively true information. If your claim is true - spoiler alert: it's not - you'll be heard.
-
Bill you are a liberal hack. Philadelphia was not allowing observers in until a court forced them to and even then they did not comply. That's just one AND A BIG ONE.
Ballots delivered in the middle of the night, not processed, delivered.
If even one ballot was postmarked illegally for the wrong day that means we should have a runoff.
The example is in PA the SoS saying they could "cure" ballots against state law. They were also supposed to separate late ballots, they did not. Postmarks were not observed, signatures were separated from the ballots for comparison.
I'ts not an opinion. If The Democrats cheated, and they obviously are, then Biden is illegitimate.
-
@reformed posted:
Bill you are a liberal hack.
I know I am, but what are you?
Philadelphia was not allowing observers in until a court forced them to and even then they did not comply. That's just one AND A BIG ONE.
False. The Pennsylvania court ordered that GOP observers had to be allowed to stand closer to vote counting stations - six feet away from rather than ten feet. The court DID NOT compel vote counting locations to let GOP observers in BECAUSE THOSE OBSERVERS ALREADY WERE IN. The ONLY change the court ordered was in the distance observers stood from counting stations.
So YET AGAIN I ask you to identify a single vote counting location in which the number of GOP observers (NOT how far they stood from counting stations) was less than required by applicable law.
Ballots delivered in the middle of the night, not processed, delivered.
Where did that happen that it was illegal? Remember, several states have laws that ballots postmarked by election day and received within a given number of days after the election WILL BE counted. Where did these alleged late night drops take place, and how were they illegal or evidence of fraud?
If even one ballot was postmarked illegally for the wrong day that means we should have a runoff.
You're welcome to this view, but it is NOT AT ALL in accordance with established election law. Your claim would be laughed out of every court in the land.
The example is in PA the SoS saying they could "cure" ballots against state law.
This matter is before the courts. It's an example of state authorities trying to help people cast their ballots, not an example of fraud or deceit. I encourage you to read the legislative and implementation history of this "curing" process. No one involved thinks this is nefarious. People disagree as to whether curing is permitted. One federal judge - a Bush43 appointee - said he thought the intention of the state laws was to enfranchise people, not disenfranchise them. In the one ruling I saw, those "cured" ballots were ordered set aside pending further court orders.
They were also supposed to separate late ballots, they did not.
The PA Secretary of State has stated that late ballots HAVE been separated. Please provide a link to proof that they have not been.
Postmarks were not observed, signatures were separated from the ballots for comparison.
I can find no evidence to support these claims. But then again, I shouldn't have to find evidence. They're YOUR claims, YOU should provide the evidence... which, per usual, you don't. In my view, the usual reason you don't provide evidence is that your claims are false, and hence no supporting evidence exists. Perhaps this time will be different.
I'ts not an opinion. If The Democrats cheated, and they obviously are, then Biden is illegitimate.
Your claims are false, misleading, or, at best, as yet unsupported. If your claims are true - and I'm confident they're not - then the courts will hear them, inspect the evidence, and order proper relief. If I were you, I would pray that the lawyers who try to convince judges that election fraud is happening have better evidence than you've presented in these these threads.
-
A matter of them helping people vote? That's bull crap and you know it. THEY DO NOT HAVE THAT AUTHORITY TO MAKE THAT DECISION.
Bill it is everywhere. You ignore evidence.
No my claims are not false, nor misleading, nor unsupported.
-
@reformed posted:
A matter of them helping people vote? That's bull crap and you know it. THEY DO NOT HAVE THAT AUTHORITY TO MAKE THAT DECISION.
According to at least one Federal judge, they may well have the authority to make that decision. It's a call the courts will make, not you and I.
No my claims are not false, nor misleading, nor unsupported.
My goodness, you Trumpsters will not acknowledge ANY mistakes!!!!
You claimed "Philadelphia was not allowing observers in until a court forced them to and even then they did not comply." THAT'S FALSE! The judge ONLY ordered that observers could stand closer to the vote counting stations. The observers didn't have to be let in because THEY WERE ALREADY IN!!!! Your claim was false.
Want more proof? How about this exchange from Fox News....
-
The law is plain, they do not have that authority, the legislature does. And the law says it is not permittedl.
Being let in and being allowed to OBSERVE are two totally different things Bill. If you can't see what is actually going on you are not observing.
-
@reformed posted:
The law is plain, they do not have that authority, the legislature does. And the law says it is not permittedl
The issue is before the courts. The courts will decide.
Being let in and being allowed to OBSERVE are two totally different things Bill. If you can't see what is actually going on you are not observing.
Your complaint that I replied to WASN'T that the observers weren't observing; it was that they weren't LET IN: (emphasis added)
"Philadelphia was not allowing observers in until a court forced them to and even then they did not comply."
The judge directed that the observers could stand closer to the vote counting stations, but DID NOT let them "in" because he didn't have to let them "in." THEY ALREADY WERE "IN," just farther from the counting stations.
Plus, I know of no evidence that GOP observers were treated any differently than their Democratic counterparts. Before the court order, were Democratic observers allowed to stand closer to vote counting stations than GOP observers? If not, the entire complaint loses lots of steam, in my view.
-
Yes if they are not let in to a position to actually observe, guess what, they aren't let in.
-
@reformed posted:
Yes if they are not let in to a position to actually observe, guess what, they aren't let in.
BY THIS SAME LOGIC: Yes, the burglar is physically in our house, but because he's not a position to actually steal anything, the burglar isn't in our house. So, no need to call 911!
-
Bill that's not an equal comparison and you know it.
-
@reformed posted:
Bill that's not an equal comparison and you know it.
Of course my analogy is appropriate (and something of a playful distraction from the central focus of our exchange!):
- You claimed in Philadelphia they didn't let Republican observers "in" until a judge ordered them to. When I pointed out that in fact Republican observers WERE "in" the room, and that the judge had simply ordered they be allowed to stand closer to the vote counting stations, you changed the definition of "in" to "in a position to observe," that is, the observers hadn't be "in" a position to do what they went to that room to do.
- Well, a burglar who is "in" a house, but not in a position to steal something in that house - i.e. not in a position to do what the burglar went into the house to do - by your changed definition of the word "in" is not actually "in" the house, which means there's no reason to call 911.
-
No Bill, it's not the same thing. If I have a legal right to be in the Oval office but I am only let in to the outer hallway, I am in the building but not in where I am supposed to be allowed.
-
@reformed, earlier in this thread, you asserted that "whistleblowers in the postal service" had admitted to all sorts of electoral mischief, including "postmarking with the wrong date intentionally, others saying they would give extra ballots to people." According to multiple news outlets and a Congressional committee, one of those "whistleblowers" has now signed an affidavit formally recanting all of his allegations.
From what I read in the Washington Post, it seems the Erie, PA, postal worker Richard Hopkins had gained quite a following among supporters of the president's accusations voter fraud et al, including Sen. Lindsey Graham, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and James O'Keefe, founder of Project Veritas, the "documentary" filmmaker who included Hopkins in a recent production. As the Post puts it,
"Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe on Saturday hailed Hopkins as “an American hero” on Twitter. A GoFundMe page created under Hopkins’s name had raised more than $136,000 by Tuesday evening, with donors praising him as a patriot and whistleblower. The fundraising page was removed by GoFundMe after this story was published Tuesday, a spokesman for the platform said.
So one "whistleblower in the Postal Service" - seemingly the star of the show - down. But you claimed there were others - "whistleblowers," you posted. How many others have made allegations? How long do you suppose it will be before they too recant their allegations?
-
Yeah, interestingly enough it looks like he was coerced to recant. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2020/11/10/leaked-audio-shows-usps-ig-attempting-to-twist-a-whistleblowers-complaint-of-a-n2579867
-
Let's face it folks, there is a coordinated effort to discredit the whistleblowers and Bill Coley bought it hook, line, and sinker.
-
I guess the only think that can be done to be fair to everone it is to:
hold a new election, and disqualify both Biden and Trump as candidates equally before the start of the new election.
-
@reformed posted:
Yeah, interestingly enough it looks like he was coerced to recant. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2020/11/10/leaked-audio-shows-usps-ig-attempting-to-twist-a-whistleblowers-complaint-of-a-n2579867
The guy tells one thing to eminent "documentarian" James O'Keefe, and then says something else when talking to Federal authorities. Hmmm. I wonder whether most people would be more willing to tell the truth to Federal authorities or to James O'Keefe?
If Mr. Hopkins REALLY thinks he was "played" (what in the world does that even mean?) why isn't he calling the FBI, or going over the head of the IG to file a formal complaint, his secret "recording" in hand? Why is on with James O'Keefe, who has the reputation of snake oil salesperson? If he was actually pressured to lie about election fraud at the United States Postal Service, why doesn't he hire an attorney to get him on 60 Minutes this weekend? Short of that, why doesn't he hold a press conference to tell his story to the nation, or make himself available to a Trump-friendly Senate committee to play that entire tape, and to answer questions under oath, along with the USPS agent(s) who "played" him? He possesses HUGE, election-shaking news, and yet he shares it with James O'Keefe, but not the FBI, or Lindsey Graham, or Bill Barr? On Monday, Bill Barr authorized Federal prosecutors to pursue investigations of election crimes in the various states. Mr Hopkins has EVIDENCE of just such a thing, and yet he chooses instead to make another video with James O'Keefe?
But you might say, James O'Keefe has SUCH a sterling reputation!! If you want a glimpse at some of his "greatest hits," click HERE. The man's one of our generation's great hucksters.
You're right, @reformed, it was I who "bought it hook, line, and sinker."
-
@Mitchell, I'm still hoping you will share with us how you define when an election is "over," a term you used in THIS POST, in which you said a candidate who "gives a victory speech, makes announcements of victory, or even claims to have won before the election is over is [an] irresponsible individual." In your view, when is an election "over" in such a way that a candidate may responsibly give a victory speech, etc.?
-
@Mitchell wrote:
I guess the only think that can be done to be fair to everone it is to:
hold a new election, and disqualify both Biden and Trump as candidates equally before the start of the new election.
Fair to "everyone" who?
Why should the party committing fraud get the benefit of getting away with such while the party likely having actually won being punished ?
-
As far as when is an election over ....how about this: When the official result is announced, which normally happens after any irregularities and disputes have been investigated, settled and cleared up and correct counting of votes has been established and then the final figure is officially declared.
To an observer from outside with no further interests other than my desire for truth, it looks very much like this USA presidential election looked in danger of huge fraud manipulation by the Biden campaign as all information (aside from the Democrats owned main stream media propaganda stations and papers indicated ... and it more and more comes to light that these indications were no hoax but correct.
-
@Wolfgang posted:
As far as when is an election over ....how about this: When the official result is announced, which normally happens after any irregularities and disputes have been investigated, settled and cleared up and correct counting of votes has been established and then the final figure is officially declared.
As you will note on THIS PAGE, Wolfgang, the dates on which the various American states certified ("officially declared") their "final figure[s]" for the November 8, 2016, general election, won by Donald Trump, ranged from November 10 (Delaware) to December 13 (Maryland and Missouri), with 36 states that did not "officially declar[e]" their results until at least two weeks after election day, 18 of which did not declare their official results until the month of December.
Yet Donald Trump claimed his victory at around 3:00 a.m. on November 9, the day following his victory. Most every presidential election winner in history has declared victory on election night, or early in the day following, LONG, LONG, LONG before there were any opportunities to "[investigate], [settle,] and [clear] up and correct counting of votes" via investigations of "any irregularities and disputes." By YOUR definition of when elections are "over," then, nearly every presidential election winner in American history - certainly nearly every election winner in the modern era, including Donald Trump - has claimed victory before the election was "over." I assume you're okay with that? Or now that you know when official results were declared, do you object to Mr. Trump's action in 2016?
Of course, the first cover you might run for is, Hillary Clinton conceded. Which means, of course, that in your view, investigations of voting "irregularities and disputes," which merit delay of final election results until perhaps December, can be cancelled as long as one candidate concedes. AND it means that going forward, all losing candidates have to do to delay their elections' ends is refuse to concede, and Americans will have to wait until December to know who won, when the last state officially declares its winner.
BUT THERE'S MORE! you say: This time there are allegations of widespread voter fraud!!! Yes, there are. Allegations for which there is no evidence; none. So in future elections, all losing candidates have to do to delay their elections' ends is refuse to concede and accuse the winners of election fraud. They won't have to prove it!!!!! They won't have to have a bit of evidence! They simply have to claim it, and energize their supporters to repeat the charge. The result? The election won't be "over"... until somebody investigates it, or the last state declares its official resuilts... and we know how long that will take.
In a front page story today, The New York Times reports the results of its contacts with the secretaries of state of all 50 American states to ask "whether they suspected or had evidence of illegal voting." 45 secretaries of state responded to The Times directly. The paper spoke with other officials in four of the other five states. According to the article, "none reported any major voting issues."
Interestingly, the Times noted this about the most recent confirmed example of illegal voting activity in the U.S. - conducted in favor of a Republican candidate for Congress in the state of North Carolina:
"Voting fraud in the United States is extremely rare. The irregularities that do occur are often inconsequential, isolated in nature, and unlikely to alter the outcome of an election. The most significant episode of election fraud over the past several years involved an alleged effort to manipulate ballots to benefit a Republican candidate for Congress in North Carolina, Mark Harris, in 2018. The scheme forced a new election and an operative who worked for Mr. Harris, L. McCrae Dowless, is under indictment. Mr. Harris was not charged with wrongdoing, and denied any role."
There is NO evidence of significant, widespread, consequential voter fraud in this election. NONE. Anyone who says there is, is either sorely misinformed or is lying. There is NO other other option. Think I'm wrong? Then do what NO ONE has yet done in the national debate about this: PROVE IT. Don't criticize me, my politics, my intelligence, or my naivete. PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF VOTER FRAUD OF A MAGNITUDE LARGE ENOUGH TO MATTER IN ANY STATE'S ELECTORAL OUTCOME. DON'T DISTRACT. DON'T EVADE. DON'T MAKE CLAIMS YOU CAN'T PROVE. PROVE THE FRAUD. SHOW YOUR EVIDENCE. OR STOP CLAIMING IT EXISTS.
And while you're at it, tell us why those election fraudsters, who you apparently claim stole or illegally created tens of thousands of votes and got Joe Biden elected, didn't do squat for Democrats down ticket? If there was SO MUCH FRAUD, why did Republicans pick up House seats and state legislature houses? Is it your claim that the fraudsters ONLY cheated on the presidential ballot, but left all other Democratic candidates to fend for themselves?
And this fraud that you claim but will never prove because it doesn't exist, how is it that you don't fear and demand investigations of election fraud in any of the states Trump won? Is it your claim that only Democrats commit election fraud, like they did in North Carolina... excuse me, that was a Republican candidate's election, wasn't it?
You Trumpsters have NO EVIDENCE because none exists. If it did, you would have presented it by now. What DO you have? One guy who made a claim to James O'Keefe, recanted that claim under oath, and has since recanted his racantation, but won't go to the FBI or Congress or any other authority to tell his story under oath and under the scrutiny of seasoned investigators. That's all you have, and it's nothing.
We all know what you're trying to do. You want to delegitimize Mr Biden's election. Donald Trump tried for more than five years to delegitimize Barack Obama by claiming, falsely, that Obama was not born in the United States. But that deceitful, fraudulent, despicable lie barely raised a peep from you Trumpsters because delegitimization is all you have. You don't have ideas. You have conspiracy theories. You don't have issue positions Americans support. You have collections of falsehoods that you speak loudly and frequently enough to garner the support of other Trumpsters. And the result is a bitterly divided nation.
You should be ashamed of yourselves, you who believe, WITHOUT EVIDENCE, that Biden's election victory was tainted. But you won't be. The political figure you embrace - Mr Trump - would not be happy were you to show such character.
-
@Bill_Coley, I am trying to perhaps help some see what one can see when looking on from the outside with no personal interest whatever either political "donkey" or "elephant" and one who has realized that the main stream media are bought propaganda brainwashing instruments.
And I grant anyone the right to be as informed or as stupidly ignorant ("brainwashed") as they want to be ...
-
I guess you should ask Democrats. They've been continuing the 2016 election for Trump's entire term.
-
@Wolfgang posted:
@Bill_Coley, I am trying to perhaps help some see what one can see when looking on from the outside with no personal interest whatever either political "donkey" or "elephant" and one who has realized that the main stream media are bought propaganda brainwashing instruments.
And I grant anyone the right to be as informed or as stupidly ignorant ("brainwashed") as they want to be ...
This response of yours to my call that you prove your claims of voter fraud demonstrates the core emptiness of your view, Wolfgang. You have NO EVIDENCE. NONE. You have unsubstantiated claims and meaningless attestations of "outside-looking-in" objectivity, but you have NO evidence. None. Because it doesn't exist. If you had evidence - if there WERE evidence - you'd show it. You wouldn't cast around adolescent epithets such as "stupidly ignorant," you'd let the evidence speak for you. But you can't do that because there is no evidence. None.
Review your post, Wolfgang. Identify a single phrase, clause, or sentence in it that provides ANYTHING of substance in response to my post:
- The questions I asked you about YOUR definition of when an election's "over"
- The observations I made about the consequences for the length of an election's resolution of a belief that a candidate's refusal to concede or assertions of fraud are sufficient to place the process on hold
- Or The New York Times's contacts with nearly every American state's election officials, who to a person said they had NO evidence of significant voting issues.
Your response here doesn't even MENTION any of the substance of my previous post... because you've got no response except for some inconsequential slogans and a bit of oft-expressed but faux concern for another nation's election security.
My post and your response to it reflect the basic structure of this current debate: My "side" has facts and evidence. Your side has empty slogans and baseless accusations. So it is, and so, apparently, it ever shall be.
-
Bill says there is no evidence yet we have been providing evidence all week.... #liberalslie
-
@reformed posted:
Bill says there is no evidence yet we have been providing evidence all week.... #liberalslie
No. What you've been providing all week have been single-sentence assertions and accusations, NONE of which has withstood the gauntlet of objective inspection or made a meaningful contribution to the cause of proving the fraudulent foundation of literally tens of thousands of votes cast in and counted by states whose election processes are run by Republicans (Georgia) as well as Democrats. Instead, you've provided an anecdotal (or was that "concrete," Mr. Lewandowsky?!) moment here or there - the kind of microscopic-impact incidents that happen in EVERY election (dead people voting, for example).
But you have not shown - because it's not true - that tens of thousands of votes - all for Joe Biden - were cast illegally. Don't feel too bad, however. You're in good company. Donald Trump and company claimed but did not prove - because it wasn't true - that he lost the 2016 national popular vote because three million illegals voted, all for Hillary Clinton. (Isn't it statistically awe-inspiring that, at least in the GOP's view, basically EVERY fraudulent vote ever cast is cast for a Democrat?)
Moral of the Story: Simply because you CLAIM something doesn't make it true.
#liberalslie
Oh, I forgot. You've also provided a bunch of juvenile cat calls this week.
-
In Pennsylvania courtroom yesterday, the following exchange took place between the judge and a Trump campaign attorney:
THE COURT: In your petition, which is right before me -- and I read it several times -- you don't claim that any electors or the Board of the County were guilty of fraud, correct? That's correct?
MR. GOLDSTEIN: Your Honor, accusing people of fraud is a pretty big step. And it is rare that I call somebody a liar, and I am not calling the Board of the DNC or anybody else involved in this a liar. Everybody is coming to this with good faith. The DNC is coming with good faith. We're all just trying to get an election done. We think these were a mistake, but we think they are a fatal mistake, and these ballots ought not be counted.
THE COURT: I understand. I am asking you a specific question, and I am looking for a specific answer. Are you claiming that there is any fraud in connection with these 592 disputed ballots?
MR. GOLDSTEIN: To my knowledge at present, no.
THE COURT: Are you claiming that there is any undue or improper influence upon the elector with respect to these 592 ballots?
MR. GOLDSTEIN: To my knowledge at present, no.
THAT'S what happens when those who CLAIM fraud tell the TRUTH about their claims. Exchanges like that one explain why the Trump campaign is 0-for-12 (or perhaps 10) in its election results court challenges to-date.
-
At least 10,000 are now being challenged in PA as missing the voting deadline. More to come.
There are over 100 counts of election fraud currently being prosecuted in one Texas county
-
@reformed posted:
At least 10,000 are now being challenged in PA as missing the voting deadline. More to come.
I'm confident that this is the case of the decision to move back three days the deadline for the receipt of mail-in ballots in the state due to the pandemic. The PA Supreme Court ruled that ballots could be accepted past election's date. The U.S. Supreme Court allowed ballots to be accepted, but ordered them segregated - set aside - in case further judicial review resulted in their being banned.
At issue is whether officials had the legal right to change the date which had been set by the legislature. THAT IS, this case has NOTHING to do with voter fraud; it has to do with a dispute about official government actions.
There are over 100 counts of election fraud currently being prosecuted in one Texas county
As I noted, that you CLAIM something DOES NOT make it true.
And for context: State records show that since 2004, 150 people - total - have been charged with voter fraud in Texas; 138 of them were subsequently convicted. That's 150 people in 16 years - rounding up, that's 10 people per year, nine of whom were convicted. Ten cases of voter fraud a year is NOT "widespread" fraud in a state the size of Texas, where between eight and nine million people cast ballots in general elections.... But then again, if 10 people per year commit voter fraud in all 50 states, well then, that would produce 500 cases of voter fraud a year!... in a nation that casts 140-160 million ballots in general elections. That's not "widespread" voter fraud either, and wouldn't change a single state result, even if all 500 votes were fraudulently cast in the same state (which they weren't).
And by the way, which political party controls the election machinery in the state of Texas? Those darned red states!
-
Bill ballot dumps in the middle of the night, you don't find that suspicious? Joe magically getting enough votes after the election to just edge out. You don't find that suspicious? Observers not being allowed to observe you don't think that is suspicious? Democrats crying about legal challenges when it is Trump's right just as it was Gore's in 2000, you don't find that odd?
What are you people trying to hide? What are you so afraid of? If your candidate legitimately won then we will lose all of the legal battles and it won't matter so why are you so upset?
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)