Hope this is allowed! I've browsed on this site for a while, even had another username where I engaged in some fairly civil debates with other users before I was banned due to not being a Q follower.
Interested in having a friendly discussion with anyone who's up for it!
A bit about me:
I'm a mechanical engineer working in product marketing I live in a major city, Chicago, and have pretty much only voted democrat I am a homeowner I have followed conspiracies for a while based solely on my own curiosity, and by and large found that a lot of the major ones (pizzagate, Q) don't make a ton of sense, but I'm not here to argue that. I think we're just gonna have different opinions on it.
All said, happy to have a casual AMA! Not interested in flamebaiting or arguing
Let's see...
From 1986-2016, 19 bellwether counties voted for the candidate that won the election every time, apart from this year when 18 of the 19 chose Trump.
Biden supposedly received the most votes of any candidate in history, yet also won the fewest counties in history.
Weakest house coattails since JFK 1960. A net 13 seats flipped red.
Vote tallies that violate Benford's law. Not evidence of fraud, but can be an indicator and has led to discovery of fraud in other nations. Trump tallies were far more in line with Benford.
Biden's margin of victory in 4 states is only supported by vote dumps that came between 1:34-6:31 AM.
In Georgia, Biden led Trump 50.05 to 49.95% in 53 consecutive batches of votes.
Norpoth model. Since 1916, 13 out of 13 candidates who won their party primary by a 60% margin or higher went on to win the election. Trump won the republican primary by 85.6%.
There are many more, those are just some that I remember off the top of my head. I have not taken a deep dive into it since last November/December. One or two anomalies might happen, randomness is clumpy. When more and more are found, one must really consider Occam's razor. What is a simpler answer? Biden won by miracle, defying basically every known historical trend, statistical model, etc. Or vote manipulation occurred?
He never answered this one
I hope he answers this. It's good
I really would love the insight into the thinking of those who can rationalize all this as normal, and I mean that. I'm not holding my breath, though.
In my opinion, just because an election didn't turn out as the models predicted, doesn't mean it was fraudulent. Hell, Hillary was supposed to win 2016 too.
You either missed the point or selectively parsed what I wrote. Read the last paragraph again... Also, polls may have predicted a Clinton win, but Norpoth model correctly predicted that Trump would win in 2016, with 87% confidence.
Something that "looks fishy" isn't proof, though, even if several things "look fishy" to you. I get that it might not look right, but that's when you have to dig and find the actual evidence. Going against predicted models and trends isn't evidence.
Yes, it is. See also what is currently going on in AZ. Also hereistheevidence.com. There is plenty of evidence, and the cases that were dismissed were not based on evidence or lack thereof.
So, I guess the answer to my original question regarding how you rationalize the election as legitimate seems to be through liberal (pun intended) application of the invincible ignorance fallacy.
Because more votes were cast for trump, and she ran a shitty campaign.
Biden didn’t run a shitty campaign?