Cont: Trump et al continued “2020 election” conspiracy theories
- Thread starter quadraginta
- Start date
- Status
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 69,242
Trump Retweeted
Lee Zeldin
@RepLeeZeldin
The lawsuit filed by TX to the Supreme Court & supported by MANY others throughout the US is a very strong, compelling argument in favor of & defending the constitution, law, & LEGAL voters of GA, PA, MI & WI, etc. It's a must read detailing eye-popping, confirmed wrongdoing.
Lee Zeldin
@RepLeeZeldin
The lawsuit filed by TX to the Supreme Court & supported by MANY others throughout the US is a very strong, compelling argument in favor of & defending the constitution, law, & LEGAL voters of GA, PA, MI & WI, etc. It's a must read detailing eye-popping, confirmed wrongdoing.
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2001
- Messages
- 14,870
I'm just disappointed by you phoning it in. Post something, ignore or handwave the responses, move on to something else. It's demonstrating zero ability to reinforce your argument in the face of rebuttal attempts.
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
Surely by now, somebody has pointed out to Trump that his earlier claim, that no candidate who won Florida and Ohio has ever lost, was wrong. Adding Iowa doesn't make it any righter (Wikipedia).
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
I was reading that one of the Amicus briefs for the SC case made the argument that there is a lot of evidence not being reported by the mainstream media.
Get that?
They told a court (the supreme court) that there is more evidence than what is being reported in the media. As if it actually matters to the court what evidence is reported in the meda.
That's how stupid this is.
Get that?
They told a court (the supreme court) that there is more evidence than what is being reported in the media. As if it actually matters to the court what evidence is reported in the meda.
That's how stupid this is.
Paul2
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2004
- Messages
- 8,553
You have painted a picture for me.
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
Just to reiterate, it's very likely Donny is NOT personally typing these tweets protesting his incredible victory. It will be a flunky with actual typing and what looks like actual spelling and grammar skills. This flunky will then read out these compositions to Trump, and press "Send" when Donny waves his fat, greasy hand.
Sorry.
Matthew Ellard
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2009
- Messages
- 4,094
No one is thanking you because you are simply spamming your extreme right wing rubbish, on our forum, without any intent to explain huge holes in all your claims.
.
SezMe
post-pre-born
I didn't know that; thanks for the heads-up. In what country did this happen so I can look it up and read more.
SezMe
post-pre-born
I was gonna post the same idea.
So go ahead, Bubba. Fire away. I think most of us can take it without resort to the fainting couch.
SezMe
post-pre-born
Ya gotta give it to those wily Democrats.. They knew before the election took place which states had to be rigged and by how much in order to swing the election.
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2004
- Messages
- 14,971
What is that? A commercial organisation won't help the orange snowflake steal the election? What are things coming to?
What is the matter - doesn't 4kuk have video hosting facilities?
SezMe
post-pre-born
heymatto70
Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2016
- Messages
- 182
I love how the tweet is still wrong for the same reason as before. Nixon won all three in 1960 and still lost.
SezMe
post-pre-born
I read most of the Exhibit that does a statistical analysis of the election and concludes that what happened was so statistically unlikely that it had to be rigged. Unfortunately, the author (I forget his name) has impressive credentials and a history of being an expert witness.
He makes some assumptions that are so obviously wrong that even I, a statistical flunkie, could find them. For example, he claims there are no differences between the 2016 and 2020 elections so that he can compare the two as if the sampling populations are identical. Which is BS.
Another glaring, bad assumption he makes is that the in-person voting cohort and the mail-in voting cohort are the same; we know they are substantially different.
Etc., etc. This allows him to conclude, for example, that the Pennsylvania outcome would only happen in 1 out of (1 followed by 1700 zeros) elections. [Not exact numbers - I'm working from memory - but this is an approximation but *not* an exaggeration.] The whole thing is an embarrassment of Trumpian proportions.
ETA: My opening sentence is not clear. This is an exhibit attached to the petition that Texas submitted to the Supremes to overturn the election results..
He makes some assumptions that are so obviously wrong that even I, a statistical flunkie, could find them. For example, he claims there are no differences between the 2016 and 2020 elections so that he can compare the two as if the sampling populations are identical. Which is BS.
Another glaring, bad assumption he makes is that the in-person voting cohort and the mail-in voting cohort are the same; we know they are substantially different.
Etc., etc. This allows him to conclude, for example, that the Pennsylvania outcome would only happen in 1 out of (1 followed by 1700 zeros) elections. [Not exact numbers - I'm working from memory - but this is an approximation but *not* an exaggeration.] The whole thing is an embarrassment of Trumpian proportions.
ETA: My opening sentence is not clear. This is an exhibit attached to the petition that Texas submitted to the Supremes to overturn the election results..
Last edited:
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
And, on top of that, all of the justices will recognize everything that the plaintiffs are alleging, because they will have already seen it all in the media.
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2004
- Messages
- 14,971
Right. So "taking a stand for free speech" means that you want to be able to force certain non-government organisations to carry certain content.
Greenwald's did not have his right to free speech taken away from him. He always had and still has greater access to free speech than 99.9% of the rest of the population. It is just that the organisation he worked for didn't want to publish certain views. He was always free to publish those views elsewhere, just as the rest of us do.
Briebart and all the other alt-right sources also publish only the views they want to publish. Should they also be forced to give equal prominence to left wing and liberal views?
Of course people should feel free to walk down the street with their MAGA hats, and I doubt there are many places in America where they can't.
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
It would be an interesting piece of trivia though:
What is the smallest set of states which, when won by a candidate, has guaranteed an election victory?
Thinking about it as I type, there are probably a trivial set of states, such as Alaska and Hawaii. I'm going to guess that those states have only been won together in landslides. I'll move the goalposts a little bit and wonder what pair, or trio, of states predict election victories in any election where the winning candidate scored less than 75% of the electoral votes.
- Status