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.
In the official counts, the increase in turnout from 2016 to 2020 was more than 20 million votes. Do you have an opinion as to how much of that increase was caused by fraud, versus how much represented legitimate voters (who voted because of the widespread easing of voting procedures adopted in many states)? My opinion is that the increase was almost entirely legitimate, and is what we would have seen with or without fraud.
You and I are in agreement that a shift of a very small number of votes in a few key states would have swung the 2020 election. So what I’m saying is:
1) If you assume hypothetically that there was a complete absence of fraud, then you would expect that the changed rules would have produced a significant increase in turnout, with the additional votes being divided between the two major parties.
2) If instead you assume that the Democrats were ready, willing, and able to commit fraud so as to steal the election, but you know they didn’t need to steal millions of votes to accomplish that, then you would expect that the changed rules would have produced a significant increase in legitimate turnout, with the additional votes being divided between the two major parties, but with a comparatively small overlay of fraud so as to oust Trump.
In other words, the observable data (namely, the official counts) are perfectly consistent with either hypothesis. Therefore, looking at the totals doesn’t prove or disprove fraud.