Yes if only there were this outside elements, these firm factual things that don't change based on your opinion of them... hmmm but there I go living in my fantasy land again.
Allegations of Fraud in 2020 US Election
- Thread starter Meadmaker
- Start date
- Status
Yes if only there were this outside elements, these firm factual things that don't change based on your opinion of them... hmmm but there I go living in my fantasy land again.
The only way to find out would be to go look. Somebody should go look, with witnesses representing the stakeholders close enough to witness the checks.
WE DID THAT AND THE OTHER SIDE STILL JUST GO "LOL NO, STILL DON'T BELIEVE IT."
Both sides have poll watchers! NOTHING HAPPENED!
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
Do you have any evidence that they did not "look" by using the same approach that was used to detect the 6000 vote error?
We seem to be in a time where there is disagreement and lack of trust, hence it is a political question.
Because one side literally will sit there and deny reality.
No. If they did, then the way it was checked needs to be explained, and possibly audited to clear the air.
MinnesotaBrant
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2011
- Messages
- 5,827
I fired an employee at my store but never followed through on the paperwork after he refused to leave so I let him stay which was a disaster. I wonder if we are gonna end up with two presidents come Jan 20. The fact that so many countries aren't calling Biden is telling; they must know something that we don't.
Talking politics is now literally indistinguishable from arguing Woo.
Scene. There is a red ball on the table.
Ted: There's a red ball on the table.
Bill: There's a blue cube on the table.
Ted: What... no that's a red ball. We're both looking at it.
Bill: Agree to disagree.
Ted: That's not how this works.
Bill: Well that's just your opinion.
Ted: It... is... a.... red... ball.
Bill: Why are you sowing such distrust?
Ted: It's a red ball.
Bill: Meet me halfway, it's a red cube.
Ted: No it's still a red ball.
Why are so many people looking at that discussion and somehow coming to the conclusion that Ted is the problem?
Scene. There is a red ball on the table.
Ted: There's a red ball on the table.
Bill: There's a blue cube on the table.
Ted: What... no that's a red ball. We're both looking at it.
Bill: Agree to disagree.
Ted: That's not how this works.
Bill: Well that's just your opinion.
Ted: It... is... a.... red... ball.
Bill: Why are you sowing such distrust?
Ted: It's a red ball.
Bill: Meet me halfway, it's a red cube.
Ted: No it's still a red ball.
Why are so many people looking at that discussion and somehow coming to the conclusion that Ted is the problem?
Last edited:
malbui
Beauf
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2004
- Messages
- 4,688
It reminds me of the Dreyfus Affair. It was clear that the evidence that convicted him at his first trial had been forged, so at his retrial the prosecution argued that they now had even stronger evidence but it was so top secret that nobody was allowed to see it.
I Am The Scum
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 5,796
Joe, I sincerely enjoy how one minute you're all "Why are we even feeding the troll?" into the hard swing of vomiting bile directly into the troll's gullet. It really is something.
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
This Benford's Law stuff is really funny. I did a news search to see what was coming up. Here's one article:
https://www.truthorfiction.com/does-benfords-law-prove-election-fraud-in-biden-votes/
It basically describes some of the claims going about, showing how they are wrong, but the site itself does a terrible job, starting with their description of Benford's Law.
"[Benford’s Law is] the principle that in any large, randomly produced set of natural numbers, such as tables of logarithms or corporate sales statistics, around 30 percent will begin with the digit 1, 18 percent with 2, and so on, with the smallest percentage beginning with 9. The law is applied in analyzing the validity of statistics and financial records."
No. Just no. First of all, "tables of logarithms", are not "a randomly produced set of natural numbers". Second, it isn't in "any randomly produced set of natural numbers". It's just not. Not even close. Whoever wrote that line, presumably the truthorfiction.com authors cribbed it from somewhere, just didn't understand Benford's Law, or nature.
If I have a Gaussian distributed random variable (and those of you who know what that means probably also know that they occur a lot in nature - curse you Central Limit Theorem), the numbers recorded for it won't follow Benford's law. If you have a uniform distribution, which is much rarer in nature, but common in games and probability, it won't follow Benford's Law. If you have any distribution that doesn't span at least one order of magnitude it can't possibly follow Benford's Law.
On the other hand, if you have something that follows an exponential pattern, it will follow Benford's Law. As many of you know, lots of natural processes are described by differential equations, and those have a lot of exponentials in them, so lots of natural processes work with Benford's Law.
And, it turns out, that while a gaussian distribution does not follow Benford's law, the product of two gaussians will....some restrictions apply. The product of many gaussians also will. So will the product of uniform distributions. That's why the product of dice rolls will follow Benford's Law, but the sum of dice rolls will not. And this is related to why you can make use of Benford's Law to catch accounting fraud.
But, the cool think is seeing all these people talk about it, and just getting it wrong from every angle. It's not some magic formula that roots out fraud. The misinformation is flowing fast and furious about it.
https://www.truthorfiction.com/does-benfords-law-prove-election-fraud-in-biden-votes/
It basically describes some of the claims going about, showing how they are wrong, but the site itself does a terrible job, starting with their description of Benford's Law.
"[Benford’s Law is] the principle that in any large, randomly produced set of natural numbers, such as tables of logarithms or corporate sales statistics, around 30 percent will begin with the digit 1, 18 percent with 2, and so on, with the smallest percentage beginning with 9. The law is applied in analyzing the validity of statistics and financial records."
No. Just no. First of all, "tables of logarithms", are not "a randomly produced set of natural numbers". Second, it isn't in "any randomly produced set of natural numbers". It's just not. Not even close. Whoever wrote that line, presumably the truthorfiction.com authors cribbed it from somewhere, just didn't understand Benford's Law, or nature.
If I have a Gaussian distributed random variable (and those of you who know what that means probably also know that they occur a lot in nature - curse you Central Limit Theorem), the numbers recorded for it won't follow Benford's law. If you have a uniform distribution, which is much rarer in nature, but common in games and probability, it won't follow Benford's Law. If you have any distribution that doesn't span at least one order of magnitude it can't possibly follow Benford's Law.
On the other hand, if you have something that follows an exponential pattern, it will follow Benford's Law. As many of you know, lots of natural processes are described by differential equations, and those have a lot of exponentials in them, so lots of natural processes work with Benford's Law.
And, it turns out, that while a gaussian distribution does not follow Benford's law, the product of two gaussians will....some restrictions apply. The product of many gaussians also will. So will the product of uniform distributions. That's why the product of dice rolls will follow Benford's Law, but the sum of dice rolls will not. And this is related to why you can make use of Benford's Law to catch accounting fraud.
But, the cool think is seeing all these people talk about it, and just getting it wrong from every angle. It's not some magic formula that roots out fraud. The misinformation is flowing fast and furious about it.
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
As JoeMorgue hints, this is pure sophistry.
It goes like this
"Who watches the watchers?"
"Who watches them?"
"And who watches them?"
and it ends with
"How do you know reality exists and we aren't all just part of simulation?"
No one cares.
I have literally never once advocated ignoring trolls, and actively fight against the very concept. Ignoring trolls is literally why discourse is why it is the way it is now.
We let people just be wrong for so long and we're all shocked and appalled that lo' and behold a lot of people are wrong with no way to deal with them.
Last edited:
When this happened with Popes, they elected a new Pope to clear up the mess. The previous two Popes refused to go, so they then had 3 Popes. You need to set your sights higher.
Pretty much every other Western country is on the same globalist/managerial class side as Biden. If they aren't calling it's not because they aren't on his side. Plus, wouldn't talking to them risk breaking the Logan act?
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
We will not.
The constitution states that the term lasts 4 years. Trump's term ends on Jan 20, 2021. There is no ambiguity. He can "refuse to leave" all he wants, but he won't be President.
Unless, of course, all those "strict constructionist" Constitution supporters claim that the Constitution doesn't count.
In the US system, it seems pretty clear most of the time. In the case of elections, the buck seems to stop with congressional delegations.
And that's the "Well if bought off the refs that's the same thing as playing fairly" mentality.
You can't "Don't hate the player, hate the game" us into a dictatorship.
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
If the two teams can't agree on what the rules of the game are then the congressional delegations are the final ref. I'd be stunned if it got there.
- Status