What you aren't understanding is the internet is full of articles catering to certain people and your bias leads you to be attracted to them.
What you are saying works both ways, right?
One unfortunate aspect these days is many people think their Google abilities trumps professional ability. Doctors have to deal with this all the time.
True, but this is a result of justifiable mistrust of professionals. There has been a marked decline in professional ethics in the US after Bill Clinton lied before Congress. Granted Bill was set up over a minor issue for political reasons, but the effect of our President getting caught in a bald faced lie affected the psyche of professionals: “If POTUS can lie and gain popularity, why shouldn’t I” (For a little extra income)”?
More specifically, US doctors often give patients the “Medical runaround” for non serious complaints where insurance payments will be forthcoming. Too many dentists and oral hygenists recommend services that are not needed, sometimes marketed as “Deep cleaning” or “Preventative”. Do I even need mention US pharmaceutical commercials? Too often conflicts of interests are not disclosed, even professional to professional. Financial services, anyone?
It is mistrust of our professionals, including those in the media that causes people seek alternatives.
Honesty is everything. All professions must weed out the unethical because the unethical ultimately hurt us all, including any remaining honest professional.
My educational background and career is almost ideal for being qualified to do data analysis work and ideal when related computer systems are involved. I could get a paid job doing this. Yet you think you can understand the numbers better then I am or how computer systems work. There are even better experts out there on these voting systems; none of them think they facilitated election fraud.
Actually, in one of my linked sources, one security professional firm’s employees were from “Three letter US agencys”, making him a particularly active and credible source on the insecurity of US electronic voting systems.
Here is a hypothetical example of an event observed by a laymen and a professional opinion that seems to address the situation with my observations that I based this thread on:
I see a person point a gun to the back of someone’s head, the gun fires, there is blood splatter, and the person who is shot falls to the ground and lays still. I call 911, the police and ambulance arrives and transports the victim. I conclude a murder has taken place based upon my observations. Sure the victim could survive. The shooting may have even been legal because it was state sanctioned. A professional expert may be privy to such information. However, based on my observations, are not my conclusions reasonable? Is it not reasonable to demand compelling information by credible sources that an illegal act did not occur?
The above scenario is another way to describe the current situation. Many have seen and reported gross statistical anomalies concerning the election. Yet, instead of getting an explanation, we get “Election fraud is not possible”. Can you imagine the corrollary to the above scenario “Murder is not possible” would sound to me?
Until we get transparency that includes testimony specific to addressing the many election anomalies, people are going to believe our election was stolen.
The courts have ruled against you and your sources and supposed evidence many, many times. Not just by some thin margin; they dismissed the cases in very precise, harsh terms. Some of these lawyers are skimming the line on perjury, professional embarrassment, and being sued for libel or slander.
The characterization of “Harsh terms” is from Leftist media and posters. I don’t know the actual underlying cause of the court rulings or what evidence they considered. There is partisanship in the media, in Congressional investigations, and the courts as seen in the illegal effort in PA to “Legistlate from the bench” on an election law issue in favor of Democrats, against established election related procedures. Further, there was an intimidation campaign in the media against attorneys taking up the cause of concerns by the Trump Campaign. In addition, some potential witnesses may have been suppressed over media generated fears of legal repercussions of coming forward.
Severe media bias against Trump with alleged 95% negative reporting, extensive partisanship, media intimidation tactics, the observation of many election related irregularities by many people in several swing states suggest conspiracy, even including Trump appointed Republican judges, is possible. After all, the Bush family, formerly called NAZIs by the Left and a strong political opponent of Trump, have endorsed Biden.
We need to clear the air on these issues to ensure people believe the integrity of our election.
Bottom line, your ideas on this topic are NOT well thought out and supported. You may think they are, but they aren't. And you can dismiss opinions like this all you want it hardly matters. Biden is President, and a ton of people including many Republicans are just waiting to see him out the door trying to avoid the stench of some of his recent ideas.
While your post that I quoted above is of the high quality I appreciate you for, utimately, other readers will make their own determination of value, if any, that our posts possess.
As it should be.