• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Allegations of Fraud in 2020 US Election

Status
Not open for further replies.
smartcooky said:
CE can't/won't answer the question because he knows full well that the only "logical" answer that can be derived from Shiva's crackpot mathematics, results in a mathematical impossibility.
Click to expand...

Yeah, CE took the bait and swallowed it whole. Evading the question is tantamount to an admission that s/he knows Shiva is full of **** but is playing along with the lie.

Dave
 
That whole fraud detection by, lets say questionable, math reminds me of this puzzle:
Three guys go to a farmer to by a pig. The farmer wants $30. So each of the guys hands over 10 bucks, they take the pig and off they go.
After half an hour the farmer thinks "$30 was a bit much to ask for" and being of the honest kind, he gives $5 to his farmhand and sends them after the guys.
While catching up to the group, the farmhand thinks "the hell am I dividing $5 by three?". So he keeps 2 bucks and gives $1 back to each of the guys.
Now, bottom line, each of the three guys spent $9 for the pig. 3 times 9 is 27 plus $2 kept by the farmhand is 29. OMG, there's a Dollar missing. Clearly, some kind of fraud is afoot.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Actually, I don't believe either. I analyse the maths.
Click to expand...

Sure, math is independently verifiable. But if you do not have time or skills, then certainly publicly known mathematicians are significantly more credible than some random internet nutjob.
 
Mader Levap said:
Sure, math is independently verifiable. But if you do not have time or skills, then certainly publicly known mathematicians are significantly more credible than some random internet nutjob.
Click to expand...

Dr. Shiva is more than a "random internet nutjob", he does have relevant qualifications. But he's also a conspiracy theorist and has form in promoting falsehoods (most famously that he invented email), and misusing mathematics to "prove" something that is not true.

I would say that he's likely not a dupe who doesn't know what he's talking about, but is instead someone who knows exactly what he's doing.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Dr. Shiva is more than a "random internet nutjob", he does have relevant qualifications. But he's also a conspiracy theorist and has form in promoting falsehoods (most famously that he invented email), and misusing mathematics to "prove" something that is not true.
Click to expand...

And he's using the methodology of the conspiracy theorist rather than that of the serious scientist; drawing guide lines freehand on a graph, presenting his results on YouTube, trying to play Gotcha! with anyone who disagrees with his assertions, being highly selective with the data he interprets - these are all pretty bad signs.

Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I would say that he's likely not a dupe who doesn't know what he's talking about, but is instead someone who knows exactly what he's doing.
Click to expand...

And not the only one.

Dave
 
Dr. Shiva is fun. He was claiming that the local MA election was stolen when he lost the MA primary for the Republican ticket to run for Senate against Markey, which itself is a hopeless endeavor in a deep blue state. He couldn't even get on the ballot for a vanity run and cried fraud.

There was a handpainted sign hanging over the freeway along my commute imploring people to write-in Shiva for Senate. We all need a bit of levity in such dire times.

He's a complete crank. His usual stick is to claim he "invented email", but I guess electoral statistics is another one of his fields of expertise. In case you missed it, he went to MIT.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
What the hell is a Senator from South Carolina doing having any kind of discussion with the electoral officer from Georgia. Its none of Leningrad Lindsay's business what goes on in any state other than his own.

Even worse, this guy is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee - pressuring an electoral official to throw out legally cast ballots is very probably a criminal offence.
Click to expand...

A) the secretary gives no evidence that is what Graham said.

B) federal office makes legislation for all states.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Watch 5:52-8:10.
Click to expand...

Oh god, didn't realize I'd already watched that part, that's really the cut to the chase core?

I started from the beginning and didn't realize I'd made it that far.
I'm afraid I don't see an actual argument there beside "Nuh uh, pattern detection does it different! We have instincts!"

I really thought there would be more meat to dissect, or did you write the wrong time frame?
 
BobTheCoward said:
Does he have evidence for this claim, or is it like other evidence lacking accusations of voter fraud?
Click to expand...

Considering he is telling everyone it was a conversation between he and Graham, he is the primary source and eyewitness. Since it was a conversation, it appears that it is a he said/he said situation. Many of the other accusations were clearly hearsay, which this is not.
 
Disbelief said:
Considering he is telling everyone it was a conversation between he and Graham, he is the primary source and eyewitness. Since it was a conversation, it appears that it is a he said/he said situation. Many of the other accusations were clearly hearsay, which this is not.
Click to expand...

No evidence, got it.
 
BobTheCoward said:
No evidence, got it.
Click to expand...

There's weak evidence of attempted election fraud that was not successful. Graham has confirmed that the conversation took place but argues that his aim was not to persuade Raffensperger to discard valid votes. The question is not therefore about what was said - this is agreed by both parties - but what was Graham's motive in saying it.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
There's weak evidence of attempted election fraud that was not successful. Graham has confirmed that the conversation took place but argues that his aim was not to persuade Raffensperger to discard valid votes. The question is not therefore about what was said - this is agreed by both parties - but what was Graham's motive in saying it.

Dave
Click to expand...

So no evidence Graham said these things? Got it. It is just two people making a claim about what someone said.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Graham has admitted that he said them. Both parties to the conversation agree on what was said; their sole point of disagreement is what was Graham's motive for saying it.

Dave
Click to expand...

An admission is just another type of claim. I'm going to need to see evidence it is true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom