[Nursie]

The 'statistical' evidence presented has all been based on false premises.

Most of the rest of the evidence appears to be hearsay and nothing more.

> The sheer breadth of it all doesn't make you pause for a second?

Sure, I am stunned at the size of the misinformation campaign and the number of people willing to attempt to undermine democracy in such a blatantly partisan way. This stuff is basically all completely discredited at this point in time, gathering it together like this doesn't do anything other than show off just how huge an effort was put into discrediting the US election, absent any concrete evidence whatsoever.

I mean, you don't have to go that far down the list before you find high quality material like a youtube video tagged "EVIDENCE THAT ELECTRONIC MAILING IS FRADULENT".

It's laughable.

As is your line "The sheer breadth of it all doesn't make you pause". I've heard this a number of times now. What we had was some determined actors (including Powell) who appear to have engaged in a high-speed shit-spreading exercise, throwing out as much crap as fast as they possibly could, evidence be damned. Now concerned citizens gather it together and use the sheer volume of crap as if that in itself was some sort of evidence.

"Well, where there's smoke there's fire, and look at all this smoke!". Its hilariously self-referential and isn't really evidence of anything much more than motivated partisanship.

[nelsonmandela]

You haven't provided any evidence that the statistical evidence is all based on false premises or that most of it is hearsay. You yourself credited the impartiality of a few articles you must've read. I understand that its unreasonable to ask you to go through all the evidence (despite your claim all the statistical evidence is based on false premises) but what you see is what half the country thinks of when they see the election results. There were serious documented issues around the 2020 election and the site collates evidence of that.

Think for a second back to 2016 and disturbing claims of Russian interference. That is what Republican voters feel like today. The shoe is on the other foot and now is your chance to steelman them or gloat and cover your eyes.

[Nursie]

> You haven't provided any evidence that the statistical evidence is all based on false premises

Analyses on the web have shown this though, and often discredited the credentials of the folks making the claims as well. Worth looking into if you care about the facts of the matter at all, as you claim to. I'm explaining why it doesn't give me pause. I've looked into them, have you? Or are you basing your opinion that they're valid on what you wish was true?

> what you see is what half the country thinks of when they see the election results

Less than half of the US, and likely falling over time as the election falls into the rearview mirror. And this is just more smoke/fire noise.

> There were serious documented issues around the 2020 election and the site collates evidence of that.

No, that site documents allegations, none of it stands up to any analysis.

> Think for a second back to 2016 and disturbing claims of Russian interference. That is what Republican voters feel like today.

You mean the Russian interference that the Mueller report said almost certainly happened, but just couldn't be tied to Trump? And the investigations that several Trump allies actually went to jail over? I wouldn't be crowing about how great that looks if I were you.

> The shoe is on the other foot and now is your chance

It's not my chance to do anything. I'm not a democrat, I'm not even American. I'm just pointing out high-volume bullshit where I see it.

(edit - I mean come on - even in the article from the first "statistical" link on that site - https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/pennsylvania-republi...

It explains in the text that the data used to make the claim was not up to date.

That page is a collection of garbage, made to look like it has substance by sheer volume. It's awful.)