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.
How much sewage water can you add to drinking water before it becomes undrinkable?
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.
Changing the rules was the first bit of fraud. The new rules allowed unsecured, no chain of custody ballots into the system. It allowed fake people, senile people, felons, illegals, etc to vote in the system.
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.
This presumes that all the different agents of the Democrat party knew how many they needed and where they needed them. I have no doubt that all the agents of the Democrat party were rigging votes in any state that allowed them to do it. Perhaps some of the higher level crooks knew exactly where they needed to concentrate their efforts, but the vast majority of the lower level crooks simply stuffed ballots into the system wherever they were.
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.
I think the 7% increase in votes is itself proof of fraud.