DosXX
-
Posts
136 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by DosXX
-
-
It's Parler, you have to register and validate with an ID
-
A nonpartisan documentary shedding light on election security vulnerabilities is not the same as partisan hacks conveniently showing spotty evidence as "PROOF" of fraud in specific battleground states following an election defeat with the intent of undermining the credibility of said outcome.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, torqued said:
Not only do you create fake statistics, you create fake awards too!
Well done. Way to be consistent!
Uh oh the F bombs are coming. Sorry for the trigger
-
1
-
-
31 minutes ago, torqued said:
You want a math problem? 😆
What is 300,000 COVID deaths minus 200,000 COVID deaths? Think you can wrap your head around that one, Capt Calculator?
You get the award for most cringe deflection
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, torqued said:
Did you happen to look up the results for the states you listed?
It seems like you're suggesting 10% is a "tight" race.
Did you happen to look up the numbers for Pennsylvania mail in votes?
It seems like you didn't because you replied by saying it's a "math problem" with no explanation.
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, GoodSplash9 said:
I’m honestly surprised at how many supposed critical thinkers and skeptics on here clearly haven’t put any real effort into seeing if there is any evidence of widespread fraud. If your using google, good luck finding anything besides the official mainstream narrative (recommend DuckDuckGo.com as an unbiased search engine).
I challenge anyone actually interested in data to do your own research on official absentee ballot numbers in Pennsylvania (hint...1.8 million mailed/1.4 million returned in the mail/2.4 million counted) or the four vote spikes that occurred after midnight (the largest was 330k+...97% for one candidate) with over 600k votes instantly showing up. The vote spikes are easy to find in graphs or live on any news station after midnight.
Read my earlier posts, I pulled the actual data to address some of the concerns that have been raised, and actually looked at the code they made for their analysis. Either tell me what you disagree with there or tell me what I missed and I will try to address it if possible.
I hope you're just trolling, because if you were actually a critical thinker it would have taken you a few seconds to look outside of twitter/FB and go to the official source that shows the actual mail in ballots requested and returned were 3 & 2.6 million... The 1.8/1.4 million numbers you posted were from the primary election (check source below), which you then compared to 2.4 million totals for the general election...
I saw this on Twitter so I'm assuming you just copied it from there and are now accusing us of not "doing your own research" and "thinking critically" when you failed to do so yourself in the most basic way.
It is laughable to suggest somehow thousands of people would overlook such a basic number if they were actually trying to commit fraud.
Here are the table summaries for the actual data from 2020 general election, not the primary.
https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/PA.html
Another table summary showing total mail in votes (2.6 million NOT 1.4 million) from official PA gov website:
-
35 minutes ago, FLEA said:
That's fine, but to me you are the one making the outrageous claim. Here are 1300 proven allegations of voter fraud:
Do you believe the fraud is only on one side? If most people are fundamentally cheaters/evil then wouldn't it amount to random noise in the result since you would expect it on both sides? What do you suppose we do with the outcome of any election with your world view?
-
9 hours ago, torqued said:
All scientific conclusions herein are made to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty in my fields of expertise. I received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Engineering in May of 2004, a Master of Science in Circuit Design in May of 2006, and a Doctorate in Computer Arithmetic in May of 2007, all from The University of Texas at Austin.
Biggest red flag is that he only did it for Michigan. In fact if you do this for Texas you will find statistical anomolies far greater than those reported here.
Example:
On point 18 he boldfaces that in Oakland county New Dem/New GOP were at a ratio of 2.52 in 2020; in 2016 it was 1.19. Implying that somehow much more of the new votes went to Biden outside of the expected range based on 2016 numbers.
Now let's do this for Starr county in TX, the county that experienced the biggest "statistical anomaly" in 2020, except it was for Trump. The ratio of New GOP Votes to New Dem votes was 6000/189 or 31.7 whereas in 2016 the ratio was 2200/9100 or 0.25. He mentions that all new Biden votes in Troy outpaced new registered votes by 109%, in Starr county it was 103% of new votes to Trump. Trump gained all 6000 new votes. Starr county experienced at 56 percentage point swing towards Trump compared to 2016. This "statistical anomaly" was only apparent in South Texas. Strange? Yes, but with a benign explanation. Biden ignored south TX, Trump dropped the ball on protests in Michigan.
Sources:
2016 election: https://elections.sos.state.tx.us/elchist319_race62.htm
Margin vote swing by county: https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/texas/
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, torqued said:
Please humor me and CRTL-F this page for the word "evidence". Care to count how many times you've used it on this page alone? How many times have I asked what types of evidence you would find acceptable and how many times have you specified what constitutes "evidence"? Empirically speaking, the answer is "lots" and "zero".
I think we're talking past each other. But I will try to be more clear. Affidavits are evidence. Convicted cases are evidence. Like I said in my post, I am not denying evidence exists, I am rejecting the validity of evidence of systematic fraud and what that means for the election. You ignored the part again where I said evidence does exist (in isolated cases) but it is insufficient to make claims about a systemic rigging or about the outcome of the election. Evidence of bigfoot also exists. Doesn't mean the evidence is not baseless or has much more obvious explanations. I listed what I believe to be acceptable forms of evidence of systematic fraud down below.
1 hour ago, torqued said:Are we disagreeing? Likewise, poll watchers and law enforcement have a responsibility to respond to every reported case of fraud. If someone breaks the law and fires a weapon in the park, we don't advocate that everyone's right to own a firearm be violated. As such, if someone commits fraud, we don't disenfranchise the right to vote of others. Investigation of the allegation and prosecution of the offense of either serves as a deterrent and reduces the probability of it happening again. If we decide to do neither because it won't make a substantial difference, are we not inviting it to happen even moreso?
We agree on the resolution regarding isolated instances, we are disagreeing on the "100% integrity" and what we should do to meet that end. I do not believe we should, by whatever means possible, obtain 100% election integrity. I would not be in favor of requiring a passport, social security card, drivers license, and signed witness form in order to vote, because that would do more damage disenfranchising voters than the benefit it would provide in the few isolated cases of fraud it might prevent. Likewise, I do not think the government should mandate annual psychological evaluations, a national gun registry, and monitor our text messages, because that would do more damage to our freedoms than the benefit of the lives saved from preventing shootings. Investigations of fraud or gun crimes should be done to the maximum extent possible to deter and prevent/fix crimes, but we should not attempt to reach idealistic goals that in the end would do much more harm than good. Everyone here has said all individual cases should be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible. CTRL-F that and you'll see it said time and time again. What we disagree about on this forum are the justification of tactics being employed by those in power with baseless accusations of systematic fraud, and whether that should justify delaying certification of the results. IF there was proof that fraud was committed in the hundreds of thousands as has been implied, then I would be in favor of measures such as requiring multiple forms of ID. IF the election was decided by only a few hundred votes and not tens of thousands, then I would be in favor of delaying certification until investigations conclude.
1 hour ago, torqued said:I don't know if I can provide the evidence, but I'd like to try. What would you consider as acceptable forms of evidence?
Some examples, but feel free to post anything and I will tell you if I consider it acceptable in terms of systematic fraud or potentially change election outcome:
- DHS cybersecurity agency (or any other similar institution) providing a statement that there were significant discrepancies detected in this election that merit further investigation
- A credible leak to the press and/or WikiLeaks of communication between powerful figures in politics describing how they will rig the election
- A single court case successfully prosecuting fraud at a clandestine systematic level
- Any election security expert detailing how one of their machines was hacked this election with potentially thousands of votes compromised
- A peer reviewed research paper describing voting anomalies at a large scale in any recent American election
- A reputable source describing the rates of detection for election fraud to the level appropriate to change the outcome of any state based on data we have.
Some examples of unacceptable evidence that I have debunked on here:
- Dr Shiva's video on election anomalies in 2020
- Blurry tik tok video of random excel sheet with no access to data
- NYT Edison Data web scrape analysis from this site that gained a lot of traction: https://thedonald.win/p/11Q8O2wesk/happening-calling-every-pede-to-/
Famous Cristopher Hitchens quote to close it off: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
-
4 hours ago, torqued said:
Is the Heritage Foundation your sole source of data? The title of the page you're referencing is: A Sampling of Recent Election Fraud Cases from Across the United States. "Sampling" being an important word.
No, I intentionally picked the reputable source that had the most cases (again to find an upper limit, Prozac already added other sources so I won't do the same). I even attributed them all to the current year. It's an empirical analysis for an empirical claim, you can always dismiss these types of claims as having insufficient data. It's a useful way of understanding the scale of fraud necessary to justify claims of a "landslide" victory. All of the research and proven cases paint a picture that the amount of fraud in 2020 is less than the cumulative number of fraud cases on Heritage. This is only true until it's not (like any other empirical claim), but always resorting to "is it a low probability or zero" is not a useful conversation to have. Either show evidence to the contrary or move on. A fuzzy picture of Bigfoot from '69 is "evidence" of Bigfoot, and there is a nonzero chance it exists, but there is insufficient evidence to take that claim seriously. I know, apples and oranges when one is a complex system underpinning American society; analogies are flawed, it's easier to show the logic of empirical claims from extreme examples.
4 hours ago, torqued said:Not a fair comparison. Apples and oranges, but I'll play. Say you report gunfire in your neighborhood park where your kids are playing, does your sheriff have a duty to investigate? He asks how many shots. You say 5. He says that's not enough to worry about.
That's actually a great extension to the analogy. Sheriff's absolutely have a responsibility to respond in every case possible (resource permitting), as should the courts in convicting fraudsters. Isolated instances in neighborhood parks do not justify impacting the legal right to own arms across the country; isolated instances of voter fraud in neighborhood polling stations do not justify impacting the legal right to vote across the country.
4 hours ago, torqued said:What would be 5? I would agree that blind implicit trust in election integrity is as damaging to our process as unsubstantiated allegations that the whole thing is rigged. Is that fair to say? You keep saying there is no evidence. Are you familiar with the legal definition and types of evidence? Before we get there, I just want to know we're on the same page when you say there is "no" evidence
What follows "5." in my post is the fifth point. Also just to clarify since you've neglected the second half of statements in the past, what I said was "There is no evidence currently to delay certification of results". I did not claim there is no evidence at all, I claimed there was no evidence currently existing that would justify delaying certification of results. All current evidence should be heard in court and prosecuted to the maximum extent. If you think you have an example of sufficient evidence then I'm all ears; the Trump base is definitely claiming there already exists enough evidence to claim definitively it was fraudulent in the hundreds of thousands.
I would add only one of those is happening depending on how you define it, there is no blind trust since our system of checks and balances through various institutions has been developed to protect election integrity, whereas claiming the whole thing is rigged is actually happening as we speak. But I'm glad at least we can agree it's a bad thing.
-
31 minutes ago, torqued said:
DosXX speculates 100 times more fraud could exist than convictions, but not sure what that's based on.
To be clear I'd wager it's much less, those fraud numbers were an estimation of what the upper limit could be with the data we have. Worth noting those heritage cases are from throughout past few decades, not a single election year so I was generous in that assumption as well. I was steel manning the argument to show why it would not be anywhere near enough to change the outcome of election and justify a delay of certification.
56 minutes ago, torqued said:4. We're not debating whether or not it exists. You believe the probability is low. I believe the probability isn't known, and could be low or high.
Trying to get you to 5. The amount required for the Trump team to claim it was a landslide victory is eroding trust in the democratic process and the rhetoric is damaging. There is no evidence currently to justify a delay of certification, even if we agree to fully prosecute cases of fraud as they appear. If this was 2000 then that would be a different conversation to have.
45 minutes ago, torqued said:Call me idealistic, but I'd like 100% security. However, given that you will dismiss any allegation of fraud, you seem perfectly willing to accept an amount.
Same logic as thinking we should ban assault rifles, or register guns, and continue to pass restrictive legislation until we get 100% gun safety. In the same way we run the risk of eroding 2nd amendment with some measures that could potentially prevent a shooting, we run the risk of eroding 24th amendment or disenfranchising voters with some of the measures that would get us closer to 100% security, and it will never happen in either case.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, torqued said:
That's entirely possible. Honest question: When can the state of Nevada start and stop tabulating votes? I don't know.
The deadline to receive absentee ballots in NV is Nov 10 at 7:00pm, but they must be postmarked by election day. They start counting on Oct 19. They stop counting when all legal votes received before the deadline are counted.
-
1 hour ago, torqued said:
Here's a fun one. Nothing is mentioned about party affiliation, Trump, or Biden. Perhaps it's a hoax.
What is the probability there be shenanigans? Is it low, or is it zero?
https://twitter.com/i/status/1329720449127780354
It's never zero, but it is very low.
If you look around the 7 second mark of this video you linked for the first row (name is Adams in that row) you can see it has a ballot return date on it on his data source. I found the data source from the PA gov website from Nov 13 and it does not have a return date on this row, or on many other rows in the first page. Seems like the data was faked in this twitter video. I'm using the web archive of the official gov website he says he used so not sure what other explanation there could be for his excel sheet not reflecting the same data.
Additionally, even if it were true that all these suspiciously dated ballots were for Biden, it would not be enough to make up the deficit in PA. Certainly not saying that's not enough of a reason to look into this as a fraud case if it were true, but this video is not very convincing.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, torqued said:
Bear with me: Would you say that, generally speaking, crimes do not occur outside of those that are convicted?
No they for sure happen outside. For corporate fraud about half of cases go undetected according to a source I found, not sure what the rate would be for election fraud if you have any sources for what that could be. The important thing to note is that it would go in both ways, so even in the extreme case it was only 1% of real election fraud cases get convictions it would not be enough to flip any states.
Let's do a best case scenario for trump using a 1% detection/conviction rate and the 1000 number from heritage foundation.
NV: 3,000,000/328,000,000=x/1000
x= 9 expected fraud convicted in NV, which is about what they have on the site. Now dividing by .01 we get 900 expected fraudulent votes based on a 1% detection rate. They would need a .02% detection rate for Trump to catch up, and that's assuming all fraudulent votes are against Trump.
PN: 2000 fraudulent cases with 1% detection
MI: 1600 ... ""
GA: 1500 ... ""
WI: 980 ... ""
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, torqued said:
Nevada Secretary of State homepage says the Cumulative Election Turnout for the election was 1,327,394 ballots.
https://www.nvsos.gov/sos/home/showdocument?id=9054
Nevada Secretary of State also says 1,406,006 ballots were cast for President.
https://silverstateelection.nv.gov/USPresidential/#race1
Biden leads by 33,000 votes.
There were 1,241,000 on the last update before the absentee ballots were counted after Nov 10 at 7:00pm.
The secretary of state has not updated those numbers since Nov 10 at 3:37 pm according to your link, so the missing absentee ballots explains the discrepancy. The silver state election source you posted is cumulative votes until today, not Nov 10. Match the dates either way and you won't find a discrepancy.
-
19 hours ago, torqued said:
I believe you're saying evidence of fraud is... a court case that alleges fraud.
Not sure if intentional or not but you forgot to add the most important second part. He would disagree that a court case alone is evidence of fraud.
19 hours ago, Pooter said:A court case that actually alleges fraud, which is then successfully prosecuted to completion.
The heritage foundation, one of the most reputable conservative think thanks, has a running list of successfully prosecuted fraud cases with sources. Running tally is at roughly 1000 across the country. These are examples of fraud everyone here would agree with, that should be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible. They are isolated instances that don't change the outcome, with no evidence of systemic conspiracy to change the results, though of course we should remain open to that possibility. The Trump team is undermining democratic process by claiming a priori that there is systemic fraud and that he won in a landslide. Take it to the courts, win your case, and then say it was a fraudulent election.
https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud
Does this answer your question @torqued? If you want more specifics I can pick out some random ones out from in there.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Guardian said:
Anyone have any thoughts on Dominion?
https://www.instagram.com/tv/CHjQSiMHOUd/?igshid=1kdytsuqa6pxiShe said "I'm going to release the kraken" and "this is a new American Revolution". Almost beyond parody levels of cringe.
I wrote a post here recently on the 'millions of shifted votes' from Dominion and how to debunk it yourself. Believing this means you would even have to believe that DHS cyber security agency is corrupt at all levels as well. If you're past that point I don't think much can be said to change your mind but you can respond to what I posted earlier if you're open to discussing it seriously.
-
3 hours ago, torqued said:
Looks like I posted the link to the page right after you. We’ll see what the results are.
Update on this: DHS Cyber Security Agency released a statement:
“There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.”
-
3
-
-
1 minute ago, torqued said:
Why did the President say this? Is he making it up?
It fits his narrative.
2 minutes ago, torqued said:The nerd writes a script that combs through the entirety of the data and finds the code embedded in the voting system that either switches Trump votes to Biden or throws them out altogether.
It's NOT code from the voting system, it's code web scraped straight from the NYT page. That is absolutely an important distinction to make. He says so himself on what I linked.
2 minutes ago, torqued said:Now this data will need to be verified by an independent unbiased third party, but there's enough evidence to warrant further review.
I welcome it, my worry is when they come to the conclusion us nerds have nobody is going to believe it was bs because of what the President is saying so conclusively.
-
4 minutes ago, Seadogs said:
Why can't he say that?
He can say what he wants, and Biden can choose not to say whatever he wants too. M2 took the liberty to suggest what Biden should do, and I am doing the same for Trump. It's creating millions of cynical citizens who will deny court decisions on this for something and has already been discredited. You can do it yourself if you have some programming knowledge.
Here is the source of data and script:
https://thedonald.win/p/11Q8O2wesk/happening-calling-every-pede-to-/
The "stolen votes" were a rounding error since the percentages were scraped to the first decimal place. So if the true count was 49.94% the script read it as 49.9%. For a million votes that's 40,000 votes, and across multiple updates in multiple states you get to the 2.7 million number. And of course, if you do this yourself with the file you will find just as many Trump round off errors as Biden ones.
-
1 hour ago, M2 said:
Honestly, I can't understand why any side wouldn't want to ensure the election was as fair as possible!
Biden is missing out on a perfect opportunity to demonstrate his integrity by joining the call to look at possible irregularities in the voting.Agreed, and I think most people want that. Video was great, and a calm and rational look at the voting process through the court system should absolutely be welcomed, but that's not what we're getting.The president is not only using the court system to handle claims of irregularities, he is going on Twitter and claiming with certainty that fraud has happened in the hundreds of thousands. I will agree Biden should absolutely welcome all legitimate legal challenges to exemplify integrity, but will you also agree that the president needs to stop actively undermining the democratic process by convincing millions the election will never be valid by saying things like this?
A great article on the current state of fraud from a leading conservative publisher (unless you think OAN is the only valid disseminator of conservative thought left) which also addresses the 254 pages of affidavits.
-
4 hours ago, SurelySerious said:
His answer was provided anecdotally after he criticized someone of the same, quit being dramatic one of science and facts. Maybe he should have provided a controlled experiment where this one spreads differently amongst humans with masks than without instead of being so self assuredly arrogant about his knowledge.
Interesting definition of anecdotal, I think a more fair criticism would have been if I said I don't need to post anything to know masks work. I also said it was the research that said so in the post before the one you replied to. After all, I was criticizing where he said he "needs no source". I do need sources to know they work, and am open to research that says otherwise to be clear. In fact, the first randomized control trial for mask usage is due to be published soon in Denmark with 6000 participants, if that research says they don't work I'll come on here and say I was wrong about masks. The only reason I didn't post anything was because it seems he's made up his mind no matter what research says. My personal experience/thoughts on the issue are meaningless to the science. But since you're accusing me of being hypocritical here's some research:
Challenging humans with COVID with or without masks is something only Nazi Germany would experiment, but they've done so on animals and shown they work.
https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa644/5848814
Here is an observational case with no known confirmed cases out of 140 with mask usage in a hair salon.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6928e2.htm?s_cid=mm6928e2_w
At a larger policy scale, here is a natural experiment that controlled for other factors such as social distancing to try to isolate the effect of mask usage.
https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, SurelySerious said:
Ironic use of your own anecdotal knowledge second half given first half.
How exactly is that anecdotal? Do you really think I would lack the self awareness to say that without having research to back that up after just criticizing it?
-
43 minutes ago, MooseAg03 said:
I need no source that lockdowns don’t work.
The research is useless and my experience trumps all sources is the height of arrogance. Facts don't care about your feelings.
45 minutes ago, MooseAg03 said:Same with mask use, if a high percentage of people are wearing masks, then why the spiking case numbers months after they were implemented?
I'll repeat, not a silver bullet, they are spiking less than they would have without mask usage.
The Next President is...
in Squadron Bar
Posted
Not a big surprise considering there is no constitutional clause preventing them from suppressing registrations as they please