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
So now you admit it’s grounds to look deeper? You dismissed it before.
I dismissed it as evidence, which I still do.
Well, SCOTUS has ruled that statistical evidence is admissible. See the 1993 case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals.
I also linked a site detailing a lot more evidence, statistical or otherwise. You can choose to ignored all of this if you’d like, but again in doing so you have answered my original question, and the answer is “invincible ignorance fallacy”.
I was hoping for something that would give us all some more insight into the thought processes involved in taking up a position of election fraud denialism, but there we have it.
Lack of an election to fall into statistical patterns is not evidence though. It's possible that an election can be won despite certain results taking place on smaller scales.
Which of the evidence that you linked is NOT statistical?
I linked a site with tons. And you’re also on a site where plenty of evidence can be found. I don’t think you want to do the research as you’ve already made up your mind, or at least let the TV do that for you.