Jump to content

The Next President is...


disgruntledemployee

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Guardian said:

I missed it man. What’s benfords law in your words?

Quote

Benford's law, also called the Newcomb–Benford law, the law of anomalous numbers, or the first-digit law, is an observation about the frequency distribution of leading digits in many real-life sets of numerical data. The law states that in many naturally occurring collections of numbers, the leading digit is likely to be small. In sets that obey the law, the number 1 appears as the leading significant digit about 30% of the time, while 9 appears as the leading significant digit less than 5% of the time.

It isn't to be used as a standalone to dispute fraud, but an initial tool to dig deeper. As shown in Dr. Shiva's video that I posted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And one more point... the video I’m referencing (the previously linked MIT professor’s analysis of Michigan election tampering) should be a concern to all citizens. Regardless of which side you support. We expect fair elections as part of our democratic process and it is apparently not happening. That is a major concern beyond the outcome of this election


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So much fraud!!1!

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/lawyers-litigating-for-trump-suddenly-remember-their-licenses-are-on-the-line-if-they-lie-to-a-judge/

"On Tuesday, Judge Haaz promptly put Trump campaign attorney Jonathan Goldstein on the spot. The judge asked him point-blank if the campaign was actually alleging any fraud. Goldstein went to bat for President Trump while admitting that he was not alleging fraud, uttering the phrase (twice): “To my knowledge at present, no.” Legal experts said that Goldstein’s remarks were typical of a lawyer unwilling to risk sanctions or bar discipline in service of a client."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Guardian said:

What’s wrong with investigating the red flags? Regardless of if something is found or not?

Nothing. They should be investigated. That's a long ways away from refusing to concede in the face of a multi-state loss and no actual evidence of any fraud, while continuously eroding faith in the democratic process. 

Let's not forget that Hillary lost Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin by less than a point. Obama was welcoming Trump into the white house by this point in 2016. 

History will not be kind to Mr. Trump's actions between November 3rd and January. 

 

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of votes have changed places since it was declared for Biden. Currently two states called for him AZ and GA are less than 13,000 split. And AZ still has, I think I heard, 50,000 military votes to count?

And maybe history won’t be kind to his actions but your vote is worth the legal investigation. It’s worth it to answer the red flags produced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Guardian said:

A lot of votes have changed places since it was declared for Biden. Currently two states called for him AZ and GA are less than 13,000 split. And AZ still has, I think I heard, 50,000 military votes to count?

And maybe history won’t be kind to his actions but your vote is worth the legal investigation. It’s worth it to answer the red flags produced.

No disagreement. I'm personally skeptical that the military vote will add much to either candidate, I suspect it's pretty even, or at least within 10% on either side. 

The numbers you're talking about are pretty sizable leads, in the grand scheme. And in multiple states. It's not a handful of ballots in a few precincts like in 2000. 

Yes for sure investigate problems. But shotgunning blind lawsuits without any basis (then admitting in court there is no real basis) is a very different thing than investigating discrepancies. 

You and I may be adult enough to know that this is just a preamble to Trump being able to claim he never really lost, once he's out of office. A lot of the population doesn't understand his bluster and will continue to propagate mistrust about the electoral process for many years. Win or lose, his actions today are a stain on our democracy. 

Edited by Waingro
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pcola said:

So you informed individuals...please enlighten me on what I’m apparently missing wrr the aforementioned MIT Professor’s video which clearly establishes election fraud occurred in MI. Why is this not a topic of debates here? The case they presented seems overwhelming to me. Am I missing something?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

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.

 

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DosXX said:

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.

 

AKA, cherrypicking.  Thanks for the explanation.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, DosXX said:

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.

 

But, but but...it’s so much easier and more fun to make a grand conspiracy claim than to admit things are rarely as simple as they appear on the surface (or on Sean Hannity’s show). 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, DosXX said:

This is just one of several possible explanations

And all can be easily checked. Visit that top heavy GOP small precinct and do a hand recount.  There is no "independent" choice. Only Trump Vs Biden. 

Mont.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Homestar said:

Yes. 
 

.....and I’m not a liberal. 

One of the frustrating things is that you are immediately labeled a liberal, which is now somehow an insult/cussword in this incredibly divided environment (started with Obama, or you could go all the way back to Gingrich).  You're not just of a different political camp anymore, you're somehow the enemy if you don't give Trump your unwavering support.  That may be slightly hyperbolic, but the point is fairly strong.  What is also hyperbolic are the charges (made by some of the very people on this forum) of the immediate destruction of the US and its identity if a Democrat is sitting in the WH.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Sim said:

And all can be easily checked. Visit that top heavy GOP small precinct and do a hand recount.  There is no "independent" choice. Only Trump Vs Biden. 

Mont.jpg

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.

Edited by DosXX
Spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don’t worry. The person that doesn’t label himself as liberal will be quick to get upset about what he assumes (I assume it’s a he/him not she/her) you are saying.

This just in...... https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/breaking-exclusive-analysis-election-night-data-states-shows-millions-votes-either-switched-president-trump-biden-lost/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone looks at the situation from a purely objective standpoint, then they will come to the conclusion that something weird happened. You can put me in the category who voted the way I did only because I wanted to stop what I see as harmful policies from the other side - but I am no huge Trump fan and I think his never ending merry go round in DOD with regards to leadership and policy hasn't been the most stabilizing force for my life or my mission.  But as we reflect on Veteran's Day today, what does it mean to serve this nation?  We all swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign, and domestic.  The two sides here probably have different views of who that domestic enemy might be, some believe Trump himself is a domestic threat.  Others may think a huge conspiracy that seems to have undermined his presidency from the beginning is the domestic threat (Comey, Brenan, etc.).

I stayed up until 3 am on election night because I was adjusting my sleep schedule for work.  Nobody can deny that something completely unprecedented happened.  I was switching between all different news channels: CNN, FOX, FOX Business, and even Newsmax.  It was quite strange that early projections all favored Biden while the same people refused to call states for Trump in which he clearly had a large lead.  We were conditioned in the weeks prior to the election that mail in votes would sway results as time went on. Then the unprecedented thing occurred - counting in many battleground states ceased unexplainably somewhere around 1 AM EST (best I can recall).  These are the key states to victory by either side, why on earth would the election officials decide to throw in the towel for the night and stop counting ballots?  I've heard one counting location told the Republicans they stopped counting at 10:30 pm, only to continue counting without oversight until 1 am.  Now we have affidavits from people who participated in the process that oversight wasn't permitted to view what was actually going on.  Imagine if the roles were reversed and Republicans controlled county commissioner positions and vote counting in these major urban counties.  If the Republicans refused Democrat oversight of the counting process, we would be hearing that on the media 24/7 non-stop.  There is data that suggests large dumps of mail in ballots were counted late at night that heavily favored Biden - this illustrates that they were not actually sent through the mail but were delivered to counting locations by other means.  If they had been mailed, then they would have been more randomized and they tend to favor Republican candidates as time goes on since rural areas take longer for ballots to be shipped and processed. https://twitter.com/aphilosophae/status/1325592112428163072?s=10

Now you have Biden standing out there in front of a sign that reads "Office of the President-Elect" (which doesn't exist) giving speeches about how he is already engaging in talks with foreign leaders.  This is the same activity that the Trump administration was targeted for during the transition process last time.  Biden doesn't answer any reporter's questions, and then is escorted off the stage, shuffling like an elderly dementia patient.  I've had 3 grandparents die suffering from dementia and other diseases similar to Alzheimer's, the guy is not well.  If the election is certified with Biden as the winner, I fear for his future and what turmoil may come down the road.  Remember he stated during the first debate that he would not claim victory until the election was independently certified.  I'm not sure he remembers saying that.

I have no idea what will happen, I am just a dumb military pilot that has sacrificed a lot for this country.  It pains me on Veteran's Day to see our Constitution being trampled throughout our country.  From new draconian coronavirus lockdowns that obviously haven't worked, additional mandates to only breathe air filtered by a mask (which also hasn't worked the past 6 months), now our election system is being brought into question either by people hell bent on taking down Trump or his craziness in refusing to accept the results.  It's a sad time for our country.

Edited by MooseAg03
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys are really going hard in the paint about Biden’s cognitive abilities, 25th Amendment, etc. This must be 2020 Parler version of Hillary’s emails. 
 

How many voting lawsuits has Trump’s legal team been successful with? How many have been dismissed?

Edited by Sua Sponte
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DosXX said:

I am strictly addressing Dr Shiva's video

Honestly, I do not trust anything and anyone unless there is a long track of being factual and correct.  

I just suggested an easy test to prove and disprove his theory (maybe increase sample size a bit too). The suggested scale of fraud seems just insane. But we've seen insane things in last 4 years. 

Here's more conspiracy theories. 

https://rumble.com/vayug5-description-of-hammer-and-scorecard.html 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to polling data, a majority of democrats thought the 2016 election was fraudulent while a majority of republicans thought it was fair.  Now a majority of republicans think the 2020 election was fraudulent and democrats think it was fair. 

So you tell me what's more likely:

Option A: Widespread fraud exists and did a perfect 180 pivot in 4 years.

Option B: people tend to bitch, moan, and complain when they lose.


 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...