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
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.
No, it isn't. It's grounds to look deeper, but it's not evidence. It's circumstantial at best.
So now you admit it’s grounds to look deeper? You dismissed it before.