Discussion Random Discussion

[Ceanag]

Not trying to draw you into further discussion. Apologies if i'm being annoying. Just thought you might find this interesting.

These guys do a pretty good job of running through most of the examples that people give of voter fraud (the whole show is pretty good tbh and my favourite american politics podcast). Obviously, the courts are deciding and will decide these issues but there is are generally good explanations for the various issues (although charlie kirk and ben shapiro probably won't say that).

Those two idiots are just regurgitating info from CNN (unbiased) fact checking section ..again ..this could all be very well correct ...but there is just no balance in the reporting.

 

[George]

Not trying to draw you into further discussion. Apologies if i'm being annoying. Just thought you might find this interesting.

These guys do a pretty good job of running through most of the examples that people give of voter fraud (the whole show is pretty good tbh and my favourite american politics podcast). Obviously, the courts are deciding and will decide these issues but there is are generally good explanations for the various issues (although charlie kirk and ben shapiro probably won't say that).

Benford's Law

Edit: Interestingly, I read that all disputes must be resolved by December 8th. So we will soon find out, despite what the left have to say.

 

[flyingmagic]

Those two idiots are just regurgitating info from CNN (unbiased) fact checking section ..again ..this could all be very well correct ...but there is just no balance in the reporting.

Care to fill me in? What's the balance?

This is partly what I find frustrating. There is a claim of fraud. There are then reasonable explanations given. These are then disputed because "of course election officials (or cnn or insert other party) would say that. None of it is falsifiable.

Is there any evidence you would accept? What proof would you actually accept? Which credible person would you actually believe?

 

[Ceanag]

Care to fill me in? What's the balance?

This is partly what I find frustrating. There is a claim of fraud. There are then reasonable explanations given. These are then disputed because "of course election officials (or cnn or insert other party) would say that. None of it is falsifiable.

Is there any evidence you would accept? What proof would you actually accept? Which credible person would you actually believe?

In your opinion are there any credible people who are pro Trump ?

 

[George]

Care to fill me in? What's the balance?

This is partly what I find frustrating. There is a claim of fraud. There are then reasonable explanations given. These are then disputed because "of course election officials (or cnn or insert other party) would say that. None of it is falsifiable.

Is there any evidence you would accept? What proof would you actually accept? Which credible person would you actually believe?

We will find out through the courts. A sworn statement made under penalty is evidence. According to the Republicans they have many who are ready to testify in court. Lets see how it plays out.

 

[flyingmagic]

Benford's Law

Edit: Interestingly, I read that all disputes must be resolved by December 8th. So we will soon find out, despite what the left have to say.

They talk about this at 1:20:15. Jim Hoft and the gateway pundit are known for publishing conspiracy theories, I wouldn't say they are credible.

There are different dates for different states. For example Wisconsin certifies results on 1 December and the governor then names the presidential electors on December 14. In Georgia certification takes place on November 20.

 

[George]

There are different dates for different states. For example Wisconsin certifies results on 1 December and the governor then names the presidential electors on December 14. In Georgia certification takes place on November 20.

So you are saying that a statistical model used specifically to detect election fraud has not taken your point into account?

 

[flyingmagic]

So you are saying that a statistical model used specifically to detect election fraud has not taken your point into account?

Sorry, I'm not sure I follow. My comment about the dates was in relation to all disputes needing to be resolved by December 8.

 

[George]

Sorry, I'm not sure I follow. My comment about the dates was in relation to all disputes needing to be resolved by December 8.

Oh I getcha. I think what the December 8 date is referring to is the claims of fraud. I think that matter (and any other matters) need to be resolved by then. I'm thinking disputes, queries, etc. I would assume tabulation of votes and announcements can happen after that date as long as both parties agree they are legitimate legal votes.

 

[flyingmagic]

In your opinion are there any credible people who are pro Trump ?

It depends what you mean.

If by "pro Trump" you mean people supporting his claims post election that it was rigged, I would say no.

If by "pro Trump" you mean credible people supporting his candidacy prior to the election and endorsing him, I would say yes.

 

[Ceanag]

Let's say for the sake of argument you could force yourself to watch this video from a right leaning commentator and give some objective comment on the content and not just deride the commentator because of his political leanings.
It also alludes to Georges cryptic Benfords Law comment.

 

[flyingmagic]

Oh I getcha. I think what the December 8 date is referring to is the claims of fraud. I think that matter (and any other matters) need to be resolved by then. I'm thinking disputes, queries, etc. I would assume tabulation of votes and announcements can happen after that date as long as both parties agree they are legitimate legal votes.

Yeah it's the safe harbor for when electors are chosen who will then go to the Electoral College to formally cast votes for the president. It's pretty hard to change anything after that. It is such an archaic system!

 

[flyingmagic]

Let's say for the sake of argument you could force yourself to watch this video from a right leaning commentator and give some objective comment on the content and not just deride the commentator because of his political leanings.
It also alludes to Georges cryptic Benfords Law comment.

So this is the article that they are referring to:

Two Statistical Curiosities That Allowed Biden To Pull Ahead In PA: ONE CURIOSITY SOLVED: BAD DATA ENTRY

Important update 11 November 8:45 PM The missing votes appear to have been a data input error. The totals at the end of the early data I was given were correct. It was only the one time point that …

wmbriggs.com

I can't say I find it all that convincing. All he does it point out a few numbers, points to a graph and then says they are suspicious (in the article). He doesn't really provide evidence why they are suspicious. He even says that he isn't using Benford's law.

I would also point out that the republicans are in charge of counting votes in Philadelphia where the votes for Biden are meant to be suspicious. And that the lead is now almost 50,000 votes.

Also what is the allegation? Did someone hack the computer system? Were there fake ballots?

 

[Joffaboy]

In your opinion are there any credible people who are pro Trump ?

yes the Ferrettarse Project

 

[Ceanag]

So this is the article that they are referring to:

Two Statistical Curiosities That Allowed Biden To Pull Ahead In PA: ONE CURIOSITY SOLVED: BAD DATA ENTRY

Important update 11 November 8:45 PM The missing votes appear to have been a data input error. The totals at the end of the early data I was given were correct. It was only the one time point that …

wmbriggs.com

I can't say I find it all that convincing. All he does it point out a few numbers, points to a graph and then says they are suspicious (in the article). He doesn't really provide evidence why they are suspicious. He even says that he isn't using Benford's law.

I would also point out that the republicans are in charge of counting votes in Philadelphia where the votes for Biden are meant to be suspicious. And that the lead is now almost 50,000 votes.

Also what is the allegation? Did someone hack the computer system? Were there fake ballots?

And you still don't want to open your mind to the fact that there could be anomalies ... There are irregularities in this elections voting process and whether those will be enough to change the outcome is still to be determined.

 

[Joffaboy]

Ahh the final grift from the gullible

US braces for turbulent handover as Trump fires defence secretary

Mark Esper's firing comes as a key federal government agency refused to sign the paperwork permitting Joe Biden’s transition team to formally begin their work.

www.theage.com.au

 

[flyingmagic]

And you still don't want to open your mind to the fact that there could be anomalies ... There are irregularities in this elections voting process and whether those will be enough to change the outcome is still to be determined.

I'm open to the fact that there could be anomalies.

But I am yet to see any credible evidence of irregularities that point to fraud.

Here is his most recent post. If you think this is the work of a mathematical genius then that's fine. But I don't find it convincing. (eg. he states that the additions to the graph would reflect the underlying vote - but if mail-in ballots favour Biden 70-30 then it explains itself).

More Anomalies In Late Vote Additions In Pennsylvania

Thanks to all the people who responded to yesterday’s post. It’s been a busy few days, and getting busier, so I’ll be slow in answering emails and requests. It’s been said s…

wmbriggs.com

 

[flyingmagic]

And you still don't want to open your mind to the fact that there could be anomalies ... There are irregularities in this elections voting process and whether those will be enough to change the outcome is still to be determined.

Also this vote counting in Arizona looks very suspicious. Trump is catching Biden. It is fraudulent. The election is rigged.





(that was sarcasm, votes being counted and them favouring one candidate seems like a fairly normal part of an election).

 

[flyingmagic]

Such irony

 

[StCicatriz]

my god, how can't people see through their bullshit

 

[Joffaboy]

my god, how can't people see through their bullshit

Like my link above, the final grift.

 

[StCicatriz]

when even fox news see's through their bullshit

 

[Stewart66]

when even fox news see's through their bullshit

Recommend it .... watch it ....the last decade boy the AI World has effected things

Watch The Social Dilemma | Netflix Official Site

This documentary-drama hybrid explores the dangerous human impact of social networking, with tech experts sounding the alarm on their own creations.

www.netflix.com

 

[gringo2011]

And you still don't want to open your mind to the fact that there could be anomalies ... There are irregularities in this elections voting process and whether those will be enough to change the outcome is still to be determined.

There definitely could be some anomalies, it's hard to find any credible evidence of it though. You can't just call it fraud on a vibe. I guess we'll find out though, I doubt Trump supporters will let it slide. There are always potential issues, I remember Bush Jnr got in after Florida had malfunctioning machines that made a lot of votes go his way. It was a big controversy at the time.

 

[gringo2011]

Recommend it .... watch it ....the last decade boy the AI World has effected things

Watch The Social Dilemma | Netflix Official Site

This documentary-drama hybrid explores the dangerous human impact of social networking, with tech experts sounding the alarm on their own creations.

www.netflix.com

I think the Great Hack is better to be honest. The way social media has divided people and fed them biased political commentary. Got Trump in and Brexit done using Cambridge Analytica's system. I'm pretty sure people on the left are probably getting equally biased commentary, it's just hard to see it when it's your "own" viewpoint.