American election.

[Immanuel Can]

Ansiktsburk,

Consider which account is convoluted, which account is simpler.

Ah, the old "Occam as Universal" fallacy. The account that's simpler is always true, eh? But two problems: which is really simpler -- that the senile, corrupt, very white and confused Joe Biden beat every mathematical, statistical odd in history, to become the most popular president in history, even above Obama? Or that somebody cheated? I'd opt for the latter. The second problem is that even when an explanation is more complex, it can actually turn out to be the right one.

So I wouldn't appeal to Occam, if I wanted to argue that the fraud didn't happen.

Did the election take place amid deception or was the election conducted legally?

The answer is in the link I sent you above. There's really no doubt left, I think you'll find.

[Skepdick]

The evidence the Left has been saying "doesn't exist" for the theft of the election.

It's aaaaaalll here. Have fun.

https://hereistheevidence.com

Why do you continue to call it "evidence" if multiple courts in multiple states have dismissed it as such?

Are you suggesting that there is a nation-wide conspiracy in the justice system?

[Immanuel Can]

The evidence the Left has been saying "doesn't exist" for the theft of the election.

It's aaaaaalll here. Have fun.

https://hereistheevidence.com

Why do you continue to call it "evidence" if multiple courts in multiple states have dismissed it as such?

Go and look, instead of just flapping your gums.

Are you suggesting that there is a nation-wide conspiracy in the justice system?

I don't have to. I just point you to the evidence. It's up to you to explain it.

[Skepdick]

Go and look, instead of just flapping your gums.

OK. Looked at it. Now what?

I don't have to. I just point you to the evidence. It's up to you to explain it.

Why does it require any explanation? Just assume that all of it is true - it still doesn't sway the election for Trump.

[Immanuel Can]

Why does it require any explanation?

Evidence always demands to be explained. But I know for certain you did not read that website. It takes at least 20 seconds even to download the masses of information it contains. It would take you hours to digest it.

You're just flapping your gums again.

[Skepdick]

Evidence always demands to be explained.

Says who?

But I know for certain you did not read that website. It takes at least 20 seconds even to download the masses of information it contains. It would take you hours to digest it.

And I know for certain that you are an idiot.

It takes about 0.5 second to work out that 1.2 million ALLEGED anomalous votes is not enough to close the 8 million gap.

You're just flapping your gums again.

Yeah. And I am making valid points while doing it. Try it some time.

[Immanuel Can]

Evidence always demands to be explained.

Says who?

Anyone who knows what "evidence" means.

[Skepdick]

Evidence always demands to be explained.

Says who?

Anyone who knows what "evidence" means.

Must be anyone but me then.

I know what "evidence" means (and we've been down the road where the statistics go over your head)

I am asking why "evidence" requires explanation.

[Immanuel Can]

Says who?

Anyone who knows what "evidence" means.

Must be anyone but me then.

That'd be about right.

[commonsense]

The evidence the Left has been saying "doesn't exist" for the theft of the election.

It's aaaaaalll here. Have fun.

https://hereistheevidence.com

Why do you continue to call it "evidence" if multiple courts in multiple states have dismissed it as such?

Are you suggesting that there is a nation-wide conspiracy in the justice system?

It isn’t evidence.

[commonsense]

Ansiktsburk,

Consider which account is convoluted, which account is simpler.

Ah, the old "Occam as Universal" fallacy. The account that's simpler is always true, eh? But two problems: which is really simpler -- that the senile, corrupt, very white and confused Joe Biden beat every mathematical, statistical odd in history, to become the most popular president in history, even above Obama? Or that somebody cheated? I'd opt for the latter. The second problem is that even when an explanation is more complex, it can actually turn out to be the right one.

So I wouldn't appeal to Occam, if I wanted to argue that the fraud didn't happen.

Did the election take place amid deception or was the election conducted legally?

The answer is in the link I sent you above. There's really no doubt left, I think you'll find.

Yours is a false dichotomy. Confused, etc., has nothing to do with cheating.

More voters turned out, and the most popular votes ever were cast for Biden, because of T****.

As for your straw man, Occam isn’t always right, as you are implying I said, but the majority of the time will a higher probability.

[Skepdick]

That'd be about right.

Great! Sounds like you are backtracking on this claim...

Anyone who knows what "evidence" means.

[Skepdick]

Ah, the old "Occam as Universal" fallacy. The account that's simpler is always true, eh? But two problems: which is really simpler -- that the senile, corrupt, very white and confused Joe Biden beat every mathematical, statistical odd in history, to become the most popular president in history, even above Obama? Or that somebody cheated? I'd opt for the latter.

Option C. You've presented a false dichotomy.

Remember how in 2016 people said they weren't voting for Trump but against Hillary?

The tables may have turned.

A conservative friend expressed it thus: "The last time I voted was for Bush Sr, but this time I'd crawl through a ditch full of razors, shit and dicks to vote against Trump."

[Immanuel Can]

More voters turned out, and the most popular votes ever were cast for Biden, because of T****.

You haven't looked at the evidence. There's enough there to keep you busy for a long time, and you're back far too quickly. You didn't even try.

Occam isn’t always right, as you are implying I said, but the majority of the time will a higher probability.

He's not just "not always right," but all-too-frequently, just wrong. His rule only serves as a very first-level guideline as to what might be worth paying attention to, and what might not...but Occam's no guarantee of anything.

Anyway, the bigger problem is being able to decide what "simpler" means. It's by no means "simple" that Biden lost every swing state and all the bellwether constituencies save one, or that the votes in some districts were 120% of the electorate. In such cases, to call a face-value belief "simple" would be wrong; it wouldn't even constitute an explanation at all. It would even be below being "simplistic." It would be "simple-minded" and uninformed.

There are far too many anomalies to the vote counts to say that taking them at face value is a "simpler" solution. It may be more instinctive, and perhaps more naive...but not in any positive sense, "simpler" than noting the facts.

[Immanuel Can]

Great! Sounds like you are backtracking on this claim...

I'm wasting my time.

I need somebody who knows what "evidence" means...or at least somebody who can read.