Reply #216: they're completely compatible

[OnTheOtherHand]

As you know, there's no contradiction between saying that there isn't sufficient evidence to conclude that the election was stolen, and saying that there isn't sufficient evidence to conclude that it wasn't stolen. I think they're both true. I probably say it with a different valence than you do, but that doesn't bother me if it doesn't bother you.

I don't think it's a 50:50 proposition. Even in Warren, I don't have direct evidence, and I don't see indirect evidence, to persuade me that the Democratic members of the county board were in any sense complicit in election-night ballot tampering. We can conjecture punch card tampering throughout the state, but it seems tenuous to me.