How about something specific. “Take vitamin D.”

In New Mexico before seating you in a restaurant they give you a long laminated sheet of “I don’t have a fever. I haven’t failed a test. I’m not in contact with anyone who failed a test. I’m not from a state where anyone failed a test. etc.” then take your contact information before seating you.

Though I notice they don’t really check anything.

Only two of them had symptoms prevalent enough to comment on, and even they felt symptom free within two days.” – Rufus

Our family finally got hit this last week.
DiL (nurse) tested positive, said it felt like a normal cold, no medical intervention.
Husband and 1 kid felt sniffly, tested negative; other kid had nothing.
Today, a week later, she is up and doing mega-loads of laundry and house-cleaning.

My own Brother & Baby Sister were planning to drive over to Big Sister’s for her birthday Wednesday (too far for me to go). He felt sniffly, went to the doctor for something stronger than OTC meds because of the trip, tested positive. Baby Sis (in another town) decided that maybe her recent “allergies” were also suspect, tested positive.
Bummer for the birthday girl to miss the party, but better than the three of them quarantined in her apartment for two weeks.
Still, none of them had any of the “classic” Covid symptoms, still don’t feel really bad.
And they have no idea where they got it – no obvious candidates for transmission.
Very curious disease.

“Joe Biden’s votes violate Benford’s Law (Mathematics)”
https://gnews.org/534248/

I find this somewhat persuasive, though not something I’d want to try and win an argument with.

For more on Benford’s Law:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford's_law

Bloody Mary’s at night? Strictly an AM beverage. Get a grip, Man! We may be losing our Republic but that’s no reason to be uncivilized.

Bryan Lovely: Sure, but I’d like to see some meaty cases — like the 128K Biden votes showing up in Michigan, which turned out mistaken — for my eyebrows to raise. Some poll watchers here and there being excluded bothers me but unless one can claim thousands of such, that’s not ringing my bell either.

I want to be able to stake out a claim difficult to dismiss. So far I’m not seeing that. Mostly I find stuff that definitely smells but not much more.

As neo points out, a big question mark is all those mail-in ballots whose provenance is lost once they are out of their envelopes. But without evidence that won’t do much for a skeptic either.

Possibly there will be statistical analyses, and I understand there are people working on those, that can make the case.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-37243190

But in an election this contentious, it’s critical that every step of the process be conducted in a way that is above reproach. And every blocking of poll watchers, every late-night ballot drop, every unmarked box, every statistical anomaly irredeemably taints the process. And when the process is tainted, there is no reason to trust the results.

Elections should be considered guilty until proven innocent. Unless both sides say they can trust that it was fair, it presumptively wasn’t.

As I commented over at PJ Media, it flummoxes me that in a criminal trial, where only one person’s civil liberties are on the line, every action must be above board, and all evidence must conform to strict standards of provenance and custody.

But in an election, where millions of people’s civil liberties are on the line (by disenfranchisement of our civil liberty to vote in a democracy), all kinds of chicanery is winked at, and all the evidence — ballots — need conform to apparently no standards at all.

For instance, that 128K+ block of 100% Biden votes in Michigan turned out to be a typo — or so we are told — and the subsequent tweet (from a conservative) has been deleted.

https://twitter.com/MattMackowiak/status/1324041161321992192

I had a friend in California who kept telling me that he could prove massive fraud in CA based on statistics but he would just start talking really fast and I could never figure out what his argument was.

It may be, as neo says, that under the present system we can never know for sure.

But if you’ve found some strong cases, give it your best shot! My RSS feeds are usually pretty good but are letting me down here.

Actually, as much as I’ve liked some of the restaurants and some other things in that town, I can’t see myself visiting any time soon. Similar with Chicago, which breaks my heart particularly. I’ve wondered a couple of times lately if the photos that I took on my previous visit to the latter will be the last. I hope not, but fer cryin’ out loud….

Re: Big Maq’s question on why not target the Senate races simultaneously, I agree with Neo’s point about the relative simplicity of figuring out what would need to be done to bend the presidential vote in comparison. But also it seems to me that for many things on the Left’s wish list, control of the Senate is redundant. Look how much recent presidents have been able to accomplish in the way of bending society to their will with executive orders, foreign policy initiatives, use of the administrative/regulatory apparatus, etc. (And yes, Trump has done it, too.)

With all of that power already available – few or none of its uses requiring more than a perfunctory reference to Congress, so long as that body is unwilling to man up and take back its prerogatives – why bother rolling the dice on Senate races? (I was going to say something about the Roman Senate being effectively neutered in the Principate, but I’m not very studied up on that yet.)

McConnell can ‘gum up the works,’ yes, but that is basically a defensive function only. He and the rest of the Reps in the Senate may be able to curl up in a ball and defend their little corner of Washington, but everywhere else, Pelosi, Harris, etc. will have the run of the field. Okay, defense of that corner is not nothing, especially as it includes appropriation powers, but look how much our previous king was able to do even without that. Am I wrong?