Our problem here is that you’re reading too much into my posts, with the result that you’re disagreeing with things I never said.
A revealing exchange:
Me: “I addressed that point, too. It’s in my post if you trouble to read it. You’ll see that my post didn’t even try to look at types of fraud.”
You: “Yes, I noticed, and it now has me wondering why I should engage in a discussion with someone who has *NOT* looked at the evidence, and who shows no inclination to do so.”
I think you’re assuming that I’m arguing there was no fraud. I never said that. There are many, many allegations of fraud out there. I couldn’t address all of them without writing a book – and my posts were already very long. If you look at the other posts in this thread, nobody else tries to assess all the evidence about all the allegations, either.
With my limited mental capacity (plus not having the time to write a book), I chose to address one particular argument – the claim that the overall numbers are evidence of fraud. That argument fails. That’s why I wrote that “You have to look at the specific cases.” I reject the argument that “Biden got more votes than Obama nationwide so there must have been fraud.” The obvious next step is to go on to look at specific cases, like the points you make about Maricopa County and Georgia.
Here’s the key point: You can believe that there was fraud without accepting every single allegation that anyone anywhere makes.
Well then I misunderstood what you meant. Having kept up with the various articles I read here and on other sites regarding the various types of fraud, it makes me think the only people who would question it are the ones who haven't bothered to learn about it.
I reject the argument that “Biden got more votes than Obama nationwide so there must have been fraud.”
But your foundation for rejecting it is acceptance of the numbers produced by the very entity who's own interests coincide with the result. They have a self interest in asserting the election was fair and proper, and therefore they cannot necessarily be trusted in what they claim. Your argument is based on circular reasoning. (The Numbers must be fair because they say so. They say so because this protects their own interests. Therefore the numbers must be fair because they say so. )
Whenever someone is in control of the outcome, it will tend to reflect their own self interest.