Well, concerning 2020 Election fraud, irregularities, and corruption--what is the point in me, personally, arguing it here? People either already understand that fraud and corruption occurred, and is present. People that do not agree that there has been fraud and corruption are not going to be suddenly swayed into seeing the light now because of anything I have said.
Well, what's the point of any of us talking here on this forum about any topic? If we're going to discuss anything, I think the evidence of election fraud is the most critical thing to discuss. Sure, there are a lot of people utterly fixed and unwilling to even entertain changing their preconceptions, but there are at least a few posters who won't change their whole outlook, but are willing to concede or modify some points.
As a Racap--
Testimonies and Affidavits--you either believe they are on the whole worthy and should be investigated thoroughly, or not. Several hundred, perhaps more than 1,000 witnesses signing affidavits supporting their testimonies of witnessing fraud and corruption.
What's telling here is that you paint this as black and white - either believe all the witnesses, or don't. This is an exact parallel to the liberal mantra "believe all women" -- as "believe all fraud". But I don't buy either of these. Witnesses can potentially lie, and their credibility needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Having corroborating evidence is crucial as well. I believe they should be investigated, and indeed they *have* been investigated. Their testimony has been given in court, and in some cases repeated their testimony in front of special legislative committee sessions.
Just citing the *number* of witnesses isn't convincing, especially when you don't even know that number. What matters is how believable any of them are. The eyewitness I have seen the most of is Melissa Carone, though I've scanned a number of others. If there is a more credible witness than her, then I'd be open to look up more about it. What I've seen is even less credible witnesses, including an *anonymous email* read in court.
Mathematical Analysis--Experts have claimed that Biden's win is impossible. Some here disagree with that assessment.
Computer Analysis--Lots of problems have been identified with algorithms and programs, etc. Not my wheelhouse, but people are screaming that there were lots of problems.
The three I'm most familiar with are Keshavarz-Nia, Ramsland, and Cicchetti. The first two, though, had blatant errors that one doesn't need to be an expert at all in to break. They referred to fraud in *non-existent places* like Edison County MI (for Keshavarz-Nia) and many townships like Audubon or Monticello in Michigan (for Ramsland). You can easily confirm those yourself by reading the testimony. Cicchetti's at least doesn't make that blatant an error, but it is still based on unsupportable assumptions.
Are you backing any of these three? Or is there some other expert that you think is convincing?
Math and science aren't successful because experts are personally infallible. They are convincing because the *process* of academic investigation means having peer review, publishing a full account of your sources and data, and having independent confirmation.
Legal and Constitutional Violations--Various lawyers and experts have pointed out how governors, secretaries of state, attorney generals, in various states have violated their own Constitutions and the US Constitution by changing voting laws and procedures--when it has been stipulated that ONLY a state legislature has such authority.
Election Analysis--bellweather counties being historically won--states like Ohio and Florida being predictors of victory--downballot voting, coattails, all of that supports Trump being the victor. Biden couldn't fill a bus with supporters, while Trump attracted stadiums full of people, even in the fucking rain! Campaign enthusiasm, and so on. According to Biden supporters, none of that matters. Really? Biden is the greatest political genius of American history, winning the Presidency by never leaving his fucking basement.
On election analysis, that's not analysis - that's feeling. I've heard much the same from many liberal friends. "How could *anyone* vote for Trump? He's so horrible!" I think people get so locked into their own partisan viewpoint, they can't hear anything else. Trump is a highly divisive candidate. He has some extreme die-hard supporters, but he also has a lot of haters. I don't think Biden is a genius - I think overwhelmingly, Biden voters were voting *against* Trump rather than *for* Biden.
The election was by an extremely close margin - far closer than anyone could predict simply by feel. And in both 2016 and 2020, the popular vote has gone against Trump by a greater margin.
Election Events--the whole six states stopping their voting procedures in the night, only to continue later on, and experience massive voting dumps where Biden who was behind Trump by hundreds and hundreds of thousands of votes--somehow, in the morning, Biden comes out as the winner. In each and every battleground state that he needed to win the election. How convenient!
I don't even see the logic here. If there were fraud going on, why would they wait until a day later to start committing fraud? The most *convenient* thing would be to have those hundreds of thousands of votes distributed throughout the process. To intentionally wait seems like some sort of Riddler type supervillain move, where they deliberately wanted to leave a clue for others to notice.