"...for me the most significant thing in the original article - ignored by you is the huge difference between the proportion of votes between the postal ones and the in person ones between different states..."

Your comment here is pretty vague. Are you talking about the NBC News polls showing the percentage of mail-in and in-person ballots with the Republican lead for states like MI, WI, AZ, and GA? I'm not seeing anything else there that really looks at those figures, so I'll assume so. But if this is the case, I'm confused why you say I ignore it when it's right in the third paragraph. Maybe you can explain where you think the discrepancy really is, because to me those polls don't reveal anything "huge" or concerning given that three of the four states had at least 20% of each kind of vote listed with Other affiliation. It's reasonable to believe this category could have easily lost the Republicans their lead if enough of these ballots were pro-Biden.

"When you couple this with the huge historic turnout claimed in PA - the cesation of the count and the huge unexplained one sided vote dump at 4am I can only see fraud as a reasonable expalnation ."

I think it takes some severe leaps in logic to see anything this flimsy as evidence of fraud. Why is a historic turnout a red flag? We had historic turnout here in Texas where I live, but strangely no conservatives are worried about Texas' election integrity. A cessation of the count is also not a sound indicator of fraud when there are numerous reasons such a thing could happen. Some of those delays were even caused over accommodating the president's own campaign observers.

The alleged 4 am vote dump is largely the mythical invention of Trump supporters. I and many other people watched vote counts come in over multiple hours, and in PA it was more like over the course of midnight to 3 or 4 am. It was not sudden, and there were actually plenty of votes that went to Trump during that time, too. One of the president's own lawyers admitted to a PA judge that even the measly 592 ballots they're contesting in Montgomery county are not being claimed as election fraud: https://www.newsweek.com/trump-campaign-lawyer-tells-pa-judge-he-has-no-knowledge-voter-fraud-related-ongoing-ballot-1546699

I'd contend that even if the arguments you're making are accurate (a big if), there are more reasonable explanations for all of them than fraud. This is why I said I wasn't going to bother with absolutely everything in the Red Elephants piece. Your claims suffer from the same issues many of theirs do. And once you've called out speculation for what it is, there's little need to keep pointing out why speculation is not the same thing as hard evidence. Some people will never be satisfied, but that shouldn't be seen as anything other than a reflection of their own biases.

"Well if Joe wins and you live long enough I fully expect you will regret doing so ."

Joe has won. It's not a question at this point, despite what some would like to believe. He won the popular vote overwhelmingly, and won more states than was needed to defeat Trump. I know plenty of people who regret voting for the man who currently sits in office. I'm quite confident I won't be regretting voting out the worst president of my lifetime, and quite possibly the history of this country.

Thanks for your comment.