• 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.
bignickel said:
I'm curious; has anyone out there applied Benford's Law to the 2000 and 2004 elections? I'm thinking if you took the half-ass and incomplete data from different reports back then during election day, you'd get the same effed-up results as armchair mathematicians are getting now. I searched interwebs and couldn't find anything (because every page out there mentioned Benfords is only interested in this election).
Click to expand...

It is very easy to do the kind of analysis that was done for this election. A spreadsheet and the data from the web page is trivial for someone with a little bit of interest and a few hours of time. There are lots of people like that.


The fact that you haven't seen it means that when people did it, it didn't show what they wanted it to show, so they didn't present it.

Vote counts by precinct have never followed Benford's Law for any election, including this one. That includes the data sets linked earlier where the author claimed that some of the data (the Trump data) followed Benford's law. It didn't, which is no surprise, because it shouldn't.
 
shemp said:
This is as absolutely loony as it gets:

OAN and Louis Gohmert claim U.S. military has seized secret server in Germany that prove Trump got 410 electoral votes.
Click to expand...

I read the other day that 20% of Covid victims suffer from some form of mental illness within 90 days of being infected. The only question is whether Gohmert is part of that 20%, or if he was nuts before coming down with Covid.


(The 20% thing is true, by the way. Mostly anxiety and depression, but includes some more serious mental illness varieties. At least, so the study found.)
 
Meadmaker said:
It is very easy to do the kind of analysis that was done for this election. A spreadsheet and the data from the web page is trivial for someone with a little bit of interest and a few hours of time. There are lots of people like that.


The fact that you haven't seen it means that when people did it, it didn't show what they wanted it to show, so they didn't present it.

Vote counts by precinct have never followed Benford's Law for any election, including this one. That includes the data sets linked earlier where the author claimed that some of the data (the Trump data) followed Benford's law. It didn't, which is no surprise, because it shouldn't.
Click to expand...

They're ALL rigged!! :eek::eek::eek::eek:
 
acbytesla said:
Fascinating reading Popehat's thread on the arguments in the Pennsylvania court case proceeding right now. Sadly, he's having audio issues and can no longer hear what's happening in the courtroom.
Click to expand...

Popehat tweets:

The line is just static.

The static is making a more effective argument against the motion to dismiss [than Giuliani did].
 
sackett said:
Okay, I admit that I accept the above -- but I have no evidence that I do.

You wouldn't credit my intuitive recognition, would you? Nah, didn't think so.
Click to expand...

You could try saying it out loud, but you'd have to cover your ears so that you don't hear it, otherwise it'd just be hearsay. :p
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Throw another L on the pile:



https://twitter.com/Popehat?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
Click to expand...

Not just throwing one on the L pile, it's taking one off the W pile... well if you count a stack of 1 a pile. The ruling reverses a lower court ruling that Trump won several days ago. Basically it is saying that the distance limits for observers that were in place were legal and the lower court should not have required a 6ft distance.

This ruling seems to pull the feet from under Trump's main legal arguments for invalidating thousands of ballots.
 
johnny karate said:
So where does that put the count?
Click to expand...

In terms of lawsuits? I think that leaves Trump with one win - the one that said PA can't cure ballots after a particular date. The PA SoS said that date should be later than what the law said (she interpreted the law differently). A meaningless win for Trump because none of those ballots that were affected by that were even counted, and there were only a few of them anyway.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Yes. Two people agree the claim is true. Most claims have substantially more than two people claiming it.

What is the evidence that their claim is correct.
Click to expand...
I must be missing something. There are only two sides involved. They both confirm. They have opposing motivations. Done.
 
bonzombiekitty said:
Not just throwing one on the L pile, it's taking one off the W pile... well if you count a stack of 1 a pile. The ruling reverses a lower court ruling that Trump won several days ago. Basically it is saying that the distance limits for observers that were in place were legal and the lower court should not have required a 6ft distance.

This ruling seems to pull the feet from under Trump's main legal arguments for invalidating thousands of ballots.
Click to expand...

So they're now 0 for 23?
 
smartcooky said:
So they're now 0 for 23?
Click to expand...

1/XX

They won the case that says that all the 1) mail-in ballots that contained errors that 2) were not corrected by Nov 9 and 3) that the voter wanted to still correct had to be thrown out. Both of them.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Throw another L on the pile:



https://twitter.com/Popehat?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
Click to expand...

Need to keep following along with this thread. Rudy is being handed his arse!

ETA: OMG, he's making a complete fool of himself

"Rudy, at one point, accidentally suggests a FAR MORE LENIENT TEST FAVORING THE STATE because he doesn't understand what's going on. The judge, who is honest, corrects him and gently redirects him to the general vicinity of what he should be talking about."
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom