I'm open to considering the facts, although I'm not open to "the facts" being dumped on me as an anonymous glob of God knows what, that may take days to work through. If you have moderate familiarity with the documents, which I consider requisite to affirming what the documents intend, then you can write a couple paragraphs summarizing an example of the facts presented in your repository and link to an image of the document summarized. Res Ipsa does hundreds of times the work you are requested to do; you are not being asked to do something anybody here (save Ajax or faqs) wouldn't do themselves. If that's still too much for you, then link to the Res Ipsa GOP equivalent who has analyzed your materials on their blog.subs wrote: If you won't admit that much then you can understand how i an easily dismissing your refusal to even consider the facts before you determine what they may be evidence of.
To understand why the court of reason has rejected your claims to evidence in the past, recall that you presented two studies from alleged data scientists that show anomalies. If you knew anything about data science, then you'd know it's a far cry to suggest something is an anomaly and something is evidence for a theory. I get that the authors were likely themselves Trump supporters, and likely just fine if not hoping that innuendo would follow, but that's not the same as putting their professional reputations on the line and asserting the anomaly as evidence for fraud. For one, a reasonable theory regarding the fraud would need to follow, which could make them look like idiots really fast.
As Canpakes has said, it doesn't appear that you yourself believe that there was fraud. Ajax doesn't either, in fact, he posted as if Trump had lost and how sad that was, until it sunk in that he's supposed to baselessly join the chorus and cry, "Fraud! Fraud!" in the hopes that if enough people say it, it will make for a revolution.
You don't believe there was fraud. What you believe is there is the possibility of fraud, and that the burden of proof is on everyone else to rigorously prove that there wasn't, and until then, Trump should be consider the winner. Or to really get to the heart of it: Trump should just be considered the winner, no matter what.
Do you believe the reports of the Scytl servers changing Trump votes to Biden votes is evidence of fraud? You won't answer that because it puts you in a fork: If you say "yes", then you must admit partiality to a conspiracy that even NewsMax has firmly rejected. If you say "no", then you must explain why the witnesses to the FBI raid are less valid as evidence than the witnesses to "vans of fake Biden votes", which you can't do.
