@coldjoint,
Quote:You seem to have a comprehension problem. Did you see the fact that the top cybersecurity and fraud expert, in probably the world, said the election was stole by manipulating software and that the proof of that is overwhelming and incontrovertible?
I prefer making up my own mind:
- Experts are often enough wrong
- other experts have a personal agenda
- some expert opinions are paid for by corporations or organisations with an agenda
- we should all think, and practice thinking, for ourselves
I've asked plenty of times for evidence, and the only evidence that gets presented is irregularities - and your systems is so large and convoluted I would expect perhaps 0.5 - 1% irregularities, which is still a large physical number. What I haven't seen is much evidence of any of those irregularities favouring one party or the other (I've some related to a computer program - which may be a rogue programmer, or a glitch - I haven't seen any explanation for it). And I haven't seen any evidence at all that it was orchestrated (ie fraudulent)
That said - I haven't followed this whole thread. And I read in bits and pieces. I just know the times I've asked, nothing of actual substance (that shows fraud) has been produced by anyone.
It seems to me , given the 'evidence' produced by people, that they want to read into what they see as evidence 'proof of fraud'...where all I see is irregularities, and then ask myself the only logical questions to see if fraud exists:
- is it localised or widespread (ie. is there any evidence of the specific issue showing up elsewhere)
- what are the possible explanation for this irregularity
- what is the most likely explanation
- are there vested interests at work (in either direction, both in the reporting and in the irregularity)
Too often - I don't come to any belief (or even suspicion) of anything widespread, and can't see actual fraud (occasionly the possibility that one rogue person may have somewhat affected an outcome)