You're still making things up
Deflection, pointing out a possibility is not "making things up".
"making things up" is like saying that "only 35 ballots were questionable" in an audit and not giving a shit if a source can be found for that.
Ok, so we're just going to ignore the fact that you are so uninformed and have so little intellectual curiosity that you actually thought there were only three candidates.
I will ignore your petty red herring beyond pointing out the fact that it is a red herring yes.
There is no technical or logical reason for data updates to be limited to any particular candidate even if there were a thousand.
As the article blurb noted, and Trump's Justice department confirmed, it was a glitch.
Normally all updates go at once.
Oh, so it just happened the one time huh?
No wonder it stood out, and for good reason. Those mysterious computers *shrug* who can tell what goes on in them. Please return to your scheduled slavery citizens, nothing to see here.
That's the question.
You don't trust anything because you're a conspiracy theorist
I don't even think I need to deny that anymore. Too many conspiracies confirmed. The question isn't whether someone is a conspiracy theorist, it's whose analysis is better.
An example of a downright absurd analysis is the alleged conspiracy that Trump tried to cheat an election by paying off stormy daniels but forgot to buy bookkeeping software that had "scandal bribe money" in a dropdown menu.
who, even if every state got rid of all mail-in voting and required a government issued ID, would still distrust election results in blue states.
Maybe, there a million ways to have a vulnerable election just like there are a million ways to have a fraudulent financial exchange system. They need to be designed carefully to be invulnerable to fraud to such an extent that ordinary rational citizens don't have serious doubts.
Honest rational people have known that since 400BC.
Nope. As the blurb noted, the first vote was counted and the second wasn't.
Even if that was true, she made a public post about it before the 2nd election. A fact in contradiction with your statement.
Nothing.... really nothing....will sway your beliefs.
You can't know that till you try a strong argument.
Right...again...you will accept ANY source that tells you what you want to believe, including some random person on Twitter questioning a drugged up homeless person.
You'll dismiss any source that tells you what you don't want to believe.
A analyze all claims, and what I know for certain because of the motivations and dynamics of the situation that IF someone could pay homeless people for ballots, and they would themselves get paid per ballot, they WOULD absolutely do so en masse.
If they did so en masse, the evidence that would present to the public would be videos and stories just like this.
I have already established the intentional blindness of left-tribe leadership in terms of election integrity.
The question then isn't "how do I prove this happened" it's "what could possibly have prevented it?"
Nothing. That's why I believe it.
You call that "want to believe" but it's "have to believe" to be consistent with all other facts. Reality is consistent, and I absolutely reject propositions that don't fit. It's called rationality, try it sometime.
