DosXX
-
Posts
136 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Everything posted by DosXX
-
Yes I know... the spike in Biden votes he is talking about after "counting stopped" is referencing a drop of 169,000 *absentee* ballots that were escorted to the Clerk at 4am.
-
You've look through all US presidential elections to convince yourself of this? I'm sure in 2016 there was a similar absentee ballot jump for Clinton, just that it wasn't enough for Trump to lose and wasn't spread on social media since Trump won that election. Btw in Wisconsin and Michigan there were similar spikes in cumulative votes for Trump when several counties that were heavily Trump were reported simultaneously, but that doesn't fit the narrative now does it?
-
https://www.nvsos.gov/sos/elections/voters/election-turnout-statistics Here's an example. You can scroll down to 2016 and see 20,000 votes were counted on Nevada after week 1 had passed. They stop counting when there's nothing left to count and waiting for another batch of legally postmarked mail in ballots, or when they are counting votes and report them all at once as was the case in Michigan (giving the impression of a pause).
-
The onus is on the accusor. Also stopping counting in the middle of the night has happened in previous elections.
-
No, they would come to the conclusion that there is misinformation spreading like wildfire, and trust the courts to settle any serious cases of voter fraud. Source? https://twitter.com/aphilosophae/status/1325592112428163072?s=10 Source? The research is clear that they do work, but whether the economic/social cost is worth it is a matter of opinion/politics. They work, it's not a silver bullet. I'll agree here. Any actual evidence of fraud should absolutely go through the court system. But it's definitely the most unlikely case that there is massive voter fraud at the scale necessary to change the results and Trump is undermining the democratic process by implying otherwise (even though he is within his legal right to challenge).
-
That's not what I mean by independent choice. What I refer to is straight from Dr Shiva's video. There are straight party ballots (e.g. your ballot is all republican) and ballots where you can independently vote for every position (e.g. republican president but Democrat rep). That is what is meant by independent choice ballots, and the whole crux of his argument is based on the difference between how these two were reported. What you cited does not show what percentage of ballots were straight party votes, which again is the main premise of his video. If you want to shift to another fraud argument I am more than happy to do so but I am strictly addressing Dr Shiva's video since someone mentioned it was cause for concern and was not being discussed here.
-
That's DR. Shiva to you, inventor of email, grifter in chief, polymath genius with 800 on his SAT math who thinks vitamins will improve your immune defense against COVID contrary to double blind placebo studies. All jokes aside, I'll address his main argument. This does not "clearly" show anything and shows a poor demonstration of basic statistical understanding. The first point I'll make is that you cannot show two linear correlations on one chart comparing data in different portions of the same dataset. Either they thought the concept of a nonlinear correlation was too advanced for the general public, or they thought the general public was too stupid to realize this basic fact. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say it's the former and move on to the broader argument. I did not independentally verify the data they were using, since they did not publish it, but for the sake of the argument I will assume it is real. Quite hypocritical for him to bash on the government not releasing data to the public and not do so himself, but that's beside the main point here. The fact was that there were more Republican votes via straight ticket ballots than trump votes at an increasing rate the more republican the precinct got. That's undisputed if the data was correct. The error lies in his assumption that this implies a "weighted voter algorithm" of some sort. One possible explanation is that since the sample size of candidate choice ballots is correlated with republican precincts (which correlate to smaller the more republican it gets), more error is introduced to the difference between straight voting and choice ballots at an increasing rate. In other words, more republican precincts are smaller, which means an even smaller portions of ballots are not straight ticket ballots, which means the very few independent choice ballots that are counted have a much bigger swing on this effect. If he plotted precinct size vs republican share of votes you would get the same correlation, but he does not show otherwise or give access to the data to prove this. This is just one of several possible explanations, and without addressing them his conclusion would get rejected immediately by any statistician. TLDR: It's a classic case of isolating dependent variables to find a correlation that fits your narrative.
-
Absolutely, it's a way simplistic explanation to show how the mechanism works, I'm not going to go into all the caveats that make it fall somewhere in the middle in reality such as frictional unemployment, money velocity, experience levels, etc. The company would never hire the 100 more at $8 dollars in this simple example I gave, since that would lower the profit. It would simply leave it at $5 (or somewhere in between when you consider marginal revenue instead of fixed revenue) to maximize profit.
-
It's not that low skill employers are a textbook monopsony, rather that it explains market inefficiencies in the labor market when modeled as a monopsony/oligopsony. People who argue for free market principles in the economy usually agree with US antitrust law companies that were used against anticompetitive companies that were modeled as monopolies/oligopolies but usually have not heard of monopsony. In the same way they were not truly a monopoly (there were still competitors), the low skill wage labor market also is not a pure monopsony. Read more into it beyond 10 min, it's not intuitive at first but it will make sense from a market principles perspective. I'll try here to explain it best: You can't look at it individually, because the wage for the group determines the wage that gets offered. Say 100 people are willing to work for $5 an hour at Walmart or McDonald's at your local highway town. Now let's say 200 are willing to work for $8. The companies will not offer $5 to 100 employees and $8 to the rest, it must offer $8 to all 200 if it wants to hire all the employees. Let's say each employee makes them $8 dollars an hour. The competitive equilibrium in this case is 200 employees, but they actually make more profit hiring just 100 at $5 (+$300 excess profit). I'm using fixed revenue as apposed to marginal revenue for simplicity just to show how it works, hopefully that's clear enough. But the point is low skill labor markets would take advantage of the people willing to work for much less than minimum wage (which is even more true in immigration heavy country like US) to edge out a profit larger than they could have at the actual competitive equilibrium. The reason I preface this argument with a self destruct option when employment lowers more than 3% is because I don't expect the general public to understand monopsony theory to justify minimum wage increases, and also because the research is not certain where that minimum wage should be. It will obviously break down at some point; in my example if the minimum wage is set at $9 it would actually lower employment. There is a limit to where it would not affect employment depending on local conditions, but my main point is simply to reject the notion that any increase in minimum wage always decreases employment.
-
What're your thoughts on the monopsony theory of minimum wage for low skill labor? Would you consider a minimum wage increase law that self destructs if employment falls below 3% of what it was before law was passed? I fleshed this argument out in detail earlier if you do a search for "monopsony"
-
Of course, but at some point it becomes obvious with almost complete certainty. If the electoral votes somehow end up with Trump as the winner I'll be the first on here to accept that as the true result.
-
Not to mention Clinton lost by similarly close margins in key states in 2016. What happened there? One of the most powerful and corrupt politicians at the time couldn't pull it together to 'find ballots' overnight? That race was also not called on election night. She lost Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania by .2, .7, and .8 percent. Fair and square.
-
I just don't think this will happen. ANTIFA isn't gonna do shit now that their boogeyman is gone, and the right isn't gonna do anything either. Nothing was stolen if everything was legal. Outside of a few fringe cases there will not be any evidence of systemic voter fraud. Trump will complain for a few weeks, lose court challenges and recounts, and ultimately concede (assuming Biden wins of course, which is very likely at this point). If you want votes to stop counting right now in Nevada then Biden would be declared winner. I want Biden to win and don't even want that to happen, let the counting be finalized.
-
It makes sense if you consider the facts. In Nevada for example they continue to count votes if they were post marked by election day until Nov 10. Other states have similar rules but aren't being talked about because it isn't a close race and the state is called. You could also argue setting strict deadlines like no counts after election day erode free and fair election if the mail was delayed for reasons outside the voters control, so it's always going to be a political issue that gets set at the state level. Btw in Pennsylvania it was a Republican state legislature that blocked the counting of votes before election day in Pennsylvania. Is this another bold prediction you are confident in? What do you think is going to happen? I don't think anything is going to happen outside of fringe protests and Trump complaining on Twitter.
-
To be fair, there's a big difference between saying that 30% of pilot slots are reserved for minorities and implementing recruitment policies that try to close the gap.
-
Yeah Fox shouldn't have done that. If Nevada gets called Biden which is looking more likely than Arizona then Fox is going to have to be the first to declare Biden winner. In Florida they can start counting mail in ballots 22 days before election. Other states they have to wait until election day to start counting. They stop counting eventually to give the counters a break in these states, and one of many reasons it gets released in batches is because they get counted all together and then escorted to the clerk for the upload.
-
Do tell us more about this "landslide" you were so confident about
-
Yang vs Crenshaw. How nice would it be to vote for the greater of two goods for once.
-
It has predicted 4, not 25. You can't retroactively predict events with a statistical model and claim it as evidence of predictive power, that's classic overfitting. Even if Trump wins I doubt it's going to be with a landslide of that size.
-
KSPS 20-08 Eurofighter x4 - Germany F-35 x5 - Norway Eurofighter x2 - UK F-15C ANG F-35 ANG A-10 ANG T-6 FAIP A-10 B-1 F-15E F-16 x2 F-22 F-35
-
This is cringe 15 year old edgelord take on anonymous forums. We're just a bunch of bros trying to learn from each other's perspectives and spar a bit on our views, insulting people like you're doing hiding behind a screen is cowardly and embarrassing. Find one instance of this on this forum, I'll wait. Projecting is a common defense mechanism for an offended fragile ego though so not surprised.
-
Nothing is wrong with it? Did you honestly think someone on here would have a problem with that? You should read it too and learn how to express your views respectfully and with maturity. What are you implying here? Honestly.
-
And less than landscapers, roofers, fishermen, and truck drivers. The risk is exaggerated to support overly aggressive policing policies and unjust sentencing laws. In my opinion there are too many civilians killed to justify the current rate of risk. There should not be more unarmed civilians killed by cops than cops killed in the line of duty. The balance is way off when there are cases of children being killed. Training and policies need to change, even if that means an increase in risk of death/injury due to becoming a police officer.
-
I thought getting triggered was a lib thing? Look man, the only one name calling insults here is you, everyone else is either making fun of arrogant and denigrating parts of your post or responding to some of the things you said in good faith. If you ask genuine questions you will get genuine responses, as has been shown time and time again on this forum. Don't expect respect if you don't give it. Don't know how you haven't learned that one yet.
-
I try not to base my world view solely on my self interest, but on what I feel will make the world a better place. Sometimes they overlap, sometimes they don't. Really got it out for them HOAs. (Definitely not insecure about masculinity, now check out the muffler on my lifted truck) I'm genuinely glad you found what makes you happy, but it's confusing to me why you care so much about what makes other people happy being the independent pioneer you are. Very mature of you to follow up on your post with more insults.
