2020 United States presidential election - Conspiracy theories, alleged fraud, etc

[Craig4]

Sidney Powell said it a couple days ago, and the MIT part could be me mis-remembering what she actually said, or I heard maybe somebody else say MIT.

No matter if MIT or not, if the math is good. Powell said she was bringing it to court.

Be patient then.

Time will tell.

I bet she has COVID 19 heh heh.

 

[Bubba]

So, no link, then.



Sidney Powell has said many fabulous things recently. None of them have panned out so far. The most reasonable conclusion for any skeptic at this point based on the evidence (conditional conclusion, of course, since new evidence could require a revision) would be that Sidney Powell is lying.

But that's only what a skeptic would do. Others may leap to different conclusions.


Be all that as it may, though, Bubba, you are admitting to posting baseless information. You asserted as fact something you cannot support. There is a word for that sort of behavior.

But I could support it, if I cared to go looking for that particular Powell interview where she said mathematically impossible, or however it was that she put it. It might have been answering a question about what she would present to SCOTUS to get them to send it to congress.

Anyway, what difference would it make if any of you (would even) watch her say it in the video?

 

[Meadmaker]

Don't worry, Bubba is lying again.

Its the same debunked crap claim, from the other thread about Benfords Law, that Bubba copied from an old right wing blog

Benford's Law does not apply to elections.

Fact check: Deviation from Benford’s Law does not prove election fraud
Social media users have been sharing posts that say a mathematical rule called Benford’s Law provides clear proof of fraud in the U.S. presidential election. However, research papers and academics......
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-benford-idUSKBN27Q3AI

It's fascinating how this stuff is covered.

The first I had ever heard of Benford's Law was on Neflix this summer, but when people started quoting it shortly after the election I looked into it. It's not spooky. It's not magic. It works because of what happens to log scales, but it only works on data that makes sense to plot on log scales. The number 1 comes up in such data 30% of the time because log10(2)=0.3. Put another way, if you look at some log scale graph paper, the first gap after the big lines is 30% of the area. It turns out there is a lot of data in the world that makes sense to plot on log scales, including a bunch of things you wouldn't expect to work unless you studied them.

In the thread about election fraud that I started, I went through a lot of it, but those sorts of explanations are not the kinds of things that end up in a Reuters article.

Does Benford's Law work for "election data"? There are certain sets of data pulled from elections where Benford's Law could apply. The number of votes received in a precinct is not one of them. Benford's law for the first digit would not work. Benford's law for the second digit would not work. There isn't any controversy. There isn't any doubt. There isn't any serious debate.

One of the most amusing aspects of the "controversy" about Benford's Law as it was stated in the few days after the election was that there would be graphs published that showed one data set that followed Benford's Law, and a different one that did not follow Benford's Law. Usually, it would be the number of Trump votes that followed Benford's Law, and the number of Biden votes, that did not follow Benford's Law. Since the Biden votes did not follow Benford's Law, that meant they were fraudulent, the blog post or tweet said. Then they would show the graphs and....neither graph followed Benford's Law. They weren't even close. However, one of them would show a graph with a lot of 1s, and not as many 2s, and fewer of the rest of the numbers, and they would say, "See....Benford's Law."

Another classic conspiracy theory tactic. Show some scientific evidence you don't understand, and claim it proves the theory. Even if your analysis is incredibly flawed and any competent reviewer would understand that your analysis proved nothing except that you don't know how to do that sort of analysis, your audience will still believe that you have proved the theory.

 

[Resume]

Its nothing, really.

Yes.

No link provided.

No real context.

No real connection to the subject of this thread, other than the words voter's information, which according to the unlinked quote, is trivially available for a fee.

In other words, another useless Bubba post.

 

[Resume]

Anyway, what difference would it make if any of you (would even) watch her say it in the video?

No difference because it's a bull **** assertion.

Or in other words, a Bubba post.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

This gets easier and funner by the minute.

"The President announced Mr Giuliani had contracted the virus in a tweet on Sunday afternoon. US media subsequently reported the former New York Mayor had been admitted to Georgetown University Medical Center in Washington DC."

Bring back the Kraken! Bring back the Kraken!

 

[Bubba]

So, no link, then.



Sidney Powell has said many fabulous things recently. None of them have panned out so far. The most reasonable conclusion for any skeptic at this point based on the evidence (conditional conclusion, of course, since new evidence could require a revision) would be that Sidney Powell is lying.

But that's only what a skeptic would do. Others may leap to different conclusions.


Be all that as it may, though, Bubba, you are admitting to posting baseless information. You asserted as fact something you cannot support. There is a word for that sort of behavior.

so far.

Maybe I missed something??


Shouldnt we wait for rulings on each item she presents??

 

[Resume]

Maybe I missed something??

Yes, many things.

 

[Craig4]

But I could support it, if I cared to go looking for that particular Powell interview where she said mathematically impossible, or however it was that she put it. It might have been answering a question about what she would present to SCOTUS to get them to send it to congress.

Anyway, what difference would it make if any of you (would even) watch her say it in the video?

Have you considered trying to move to countries where election stealing is okay? I mean, it's obvious you don't like living in a country where elections are determined by the will of the people and you don't share our American values. Seriously, maybe you would be happier in a place where it's okay to steal elections. You are obviously okay with stealing elections.

 

[Resume]

Have you considered trying to move to countries where election stealing is okay? I mean, it's obvious you don't like living in a country where elections are determined by the will of the people and you don't share our American values. Seriously, maybe you would be happier in a place where it's okay to steal elections. You are obviously okay with stealing elections.

Comrade Bubba?

 

[Matthew Ellard]

But I could support it,

Nope. You were simply lying again and got caught again.

 

[Resume]

"The President announced Mr Giuliani had contracted the virus in a tweet on Sunday afternoon. US media subsequently reported the former New York Mayor had been admitted to Georgetown University Medical Center in Washington DC."

Bring back the Kraken! Bring back the Kraken!

Bubba, where's the goddam, ************* Kraken?

 

[Craig4]

Maybe I missed something??

Yes, you did. You missed, patriotism; loyalty to your country; devotion to a duty bigger than yourself; the rule of law; democracy; personal liberty. In short, you've missed everything Americans value.

 

[Resume]

Nope. You were simply lying again and got caught again.

For Bubba.

 

[Meadmaker]

Maybe I missed something??


Shouldnt we wait for rulings on each item she presents??

Not if it's Benford's Law.

That's something that is always very frustrating for those of us with scientific educations. I can do the math that explains Benford's Law. I don't need a lawyer and a judge to tell me whether or not it applies. It doesn't.


You will not find any academic mathematician anywhere who says it applies to votes obtained from precincts. You'll find an occasional forensic accountant or stockbroker who says it, but no mathematicians, because they can do the math themselves. The accountants can load the data into a spreadsheet and declare an answer. The lawyers can repeat something that they heard, with no comprehension of what it means.

 

[Bubba]

Not if it's Benford's Law.

That's something that is always very frustrating for those of us with scientific educations. I can do the math that explains Benford's Law. I don't need a lawyer and a judge to tell me whether or not it applies. It doesn't.


You will not find any academic mathematician anywhere who says it applies to votes obtained from precincts. You'll find an occasional forensic accountant or stockbroker who says it, but no mathematicians, because they can do the math themselves. The accountants can load the data into a spreadsheet and declare an answer. The lawyers can repeat something that they heard, with no comprehension of what it means.

Great. Thanks

I will tell Sidney when she gets home, although she has not mentioned Benford's law.


I'll hafta look for her interview to hear how she actually put it. You'll be among the first to see hear of it

 

[jsfisher]

But I could support it, if I cared to go looking for that particular Powell interview where she said mathematically impossible, or however it was that she put it.

You made a flat assertion of fact. You did not qualify it as hearsay via Powell. You misrepresented the information, seemingly deliberately.

 

[Resume]

You'll be among the first to see hear of it

We're all tingly here.

 

[Meadmaker]

Powell did not mention Benford's law.


I'll hafta look for her interview to hear how she actually put it. You'll be among the first to see hear of it

Cool.

 

[Craig4]

Great. Thanks

I will tell Sidney when she gets home, although she has not mentioned Benford's law.


I'll hafta look for her interview to hear how she actually put it. You'll be among the first to see hear of it

It's not really that important. No need to go to any trouble. It's not like it's going to prevent Joe Biden from being sworn in as president on 20 January at 1200.