dunes runner wrote:
The same people who routinely violate the LRC terms of service and guidelines are the same ones condoning the election fraud being done by the democrats and trying to deny it.
--
Of course cheaters are going to deny that they're cheating.
Indeed! The fact that there is no evidence of election fraud just shows you how thoroughly fraudulent the whole process is!
RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!!!
Reality Calling wrote:
NYC guy wrote:
I am not sure but I think Biden might be more dishonest than Trump. . .
Congratulations for identifying yourself as either completely devoid of consciousness or completely devoid of a conscience. It is difficult to tell which. But congratulations either way.
NYC guy offers what he clearly calls an opinion. You offer zero point zero reasons why his opinion is as foolish as you smugly merely assert it is. One might think that a supporter of Joe Biden, who backs the vivisection of 6- and 7-lb human fetuses, lacks a conscience.
sunflower wrote:
I'm not informed enough to really comment and I don't care enough to educate myself. But... with so much at stake, how could there not be stuff going on on both sides. It's like thinking that professional athletes aren't doping. Both parties are going to do anything and everything they think they can get away with to win.
It does seem like mail in ballots provide more opportunity. If you're going to try to stuff the ballot box you need to keep the number of people involved low to avoid someone saying something. It would be harder to pull off with in-person voting than with mail in ballots. But if you're going to go the mail in ballot route why deliver them all at once? Wouldn't you just stick them in the mail and let them trickel in?
As far as it going on on both sides, I haven't heard a single allegation against Republicans, because it really is one-sided corruption by Democraps. No one ever stops them, so why would they stop themselves?
As far as Democraps dumping all the ballots for Biden at once, they aren't the sharpest tools in the drawer either. We'll see if the Republicans let them get away with it.
BLtheKid wrote:
I haven't heard a single allegation against Republicans,
Years of voter suppression.
Purging voter rolls.
Closing polling sites.
Restricting early voting.
Even sabotaging the U.S. mail
But it is the other party that is cheating!
Harambe wrote:
dunes runner wrote:
The same people who routinely violate the LRC terms of service and guidelines are the same ones condoning the election fraud being done by the democrats and trying to deny it.
--
Of course cheaters are going to deny that they're cheating.
Lol. Breaking terms of service = cheating. That's a new one.
Just remember - this was a referendum on the existence of SARS-CoV-2 and YES vote won!
Sorry, dude
It exist but it is a scam.
adsfdasfasfsafadfa wrote:
ernest 1978 wrote:
As a Biden voter, I admit this election was rigged. Here are the problems I see:
Even before votes are cast, 99% of their media spends 99% of their time attacking Trump. Many of their attacks are flat out lies with no evidence (such as Russian Collusion and Trump insulting the military).
?
Yeah we sure don't have video tape of trump insulting the milatary to go along with dozens of eyewitness. And all those people that went to jail for trumps coverup were lying just for fun...
And of course 99% of the media doesn't attack trump. When was the last time you say Fox, Brietbart or a ton of other media companies go after trump? And. you often run into the issue. of where does an reporting end and attacking begin? Very few of the stories on trump have been refuted. They. are all facts. The. question is how you view those facts... There is zero doubt that Trump asked the Ukraines to investigate Hunter Biden. That is a fact. If. you think that is. impeachable or not is a bit more debateable.
Did you say 99% of media doesn’t attack Trump?
Runner10287 wrote:
Did you say 99% of media doesn’t attack Trump?
Let's be clear, Trump attacks himself and the media reports it.
2016: Trump wins: He could have said, "that was a tough election battle and losing the popular vote means that a lot do not agree with my policies. But I am going to pull the nation together and lead us to increased posterity" Instead he said: "Lock her up. I have already done more than any president in history. We had record inauguration numbers (when it was basically empty). " Lies and exaggerations from day one.
The media called him on the lies. That is when he started an attack on the media with "alternative facts" and "fake news" which in his words "so when media calls out things I do wrong no one will believe them."
He told thousands and thousands of substanciated lies about very serious issues as well as the smallest things. He lied at times when the truth would have served him better. Do you expect journalists to accept this as normal and okay or try to uncover truths for the people? If questioned about lies HE attacked the journalists including mocking a physically disabled reporter, and especially attacking women journalists. This was his norm and his followers want to call this the media attacking him. Just because you have an "R" or "D" after your name should not mean you can't see the faults of your party. And this buffoon has A LOT of faults. His defeat will likely go down in history as the best thing that could ever happen to the GOP.
The media did not attack Trump, they simply did not allow media to be his platform to spread untruthful propaganda.
The title of this thread has it wrong. It should be: "a serious thread about unsubstantiated and baseless allegations of voter fraud." That's all we have. End of thread.
Armstronglivs wrote:
The title of this thread has it wrong. It should be: "a serious thread about unsubstantiated and baseless allegations of voter fraud." That's all we have. End of thread.
LOL End of thread? You mean, your thread?
Cry some more, little toddler. They deleted your thread? Poor baby. There, there, cry some more.
Armstronglivs wrote:
The title of this thread has it wrong. It should be: "a serious thread about unsubstantiated and baseless allegations of voter fraud." That's all we have. End of thread.
Well, the Benford's Rule applied at both the precinct and county level in PA suggests in the least that a recount is warranted. I am sure we will find out on Monday whether is it baseless or not, but the media/democrat effort to declare this thing before legal challenges are addressed shows they have things they want buried and that they may be trying to build enough public sentiment via media campaign to shut any accountability efforts down. You personally seem very very interested in making sure no scrutiny is given to the vote counts in the very close swing states. Why is that? Why not just take a look and make sure when things are so close. If it is all clean, then there is nothing to hide right; true vindication then? Why are you here acting to vigilantly to squash concern of fraud?
Benford's Analysis for county counts in PA:
1st # B T
1 16 26
2 7 11
3 4 6
4 12 5
5 5 4
6 5 3
7 6 4
8 4 3
9 4 2
Here's my explanation: learn the difference between reliable news and clickbait.
Lead Foil Hat II wrote:
Well, the Benford's Rule applied at both the precinct and county level in PA suggests in the least that a recount is warranted. I am sure we will find out on Monday whether is it baseless or not, but the media/democrat effort to declare this thing before legal challenges are addressed shows they have things they want buried and that they may be trying to build enough public sentiment via media campaign to shut any accountability efforts down. You personally seem very very interested in making sure no scrutiny is given to the vote counts in the very close swing states. Why is that? Why not just take a look and make sure when things are so close. If it is all clean, then there is nothing to hide right; true vindication then? Why are you here acting to vigilantly to squash concern of fraud?
Benford's Analysis for county counts in PA:
1st # B T
1 16 26
2 7 11
3 4 6
4 12 5
5 5 4
6 5 3
7 6 4
8 4 3
9 4 2
I am not sure how you did you analysis or where you got it from? Benford's law is pretty weak unless the data it's used on is of a very specific type.
You usually need to have data distributed over many orders of magnitude and a LOT of samples. I don't think what you are seeing with ~60 counties in PA is enough to be significant. I'd be curious if there were any tests of significance run with these calcs because I'm guessing this is well within the realm of noise. The broad trend holds -- more counts at lower digits and less at higher.
Regardless, Benford's law has been shown multiple times to be not predictive on election data:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/political-analysis/article/benfords-law-and-the-detection-of-election-fraud/3B1D64E822371C461AF3C61CE91AAF6Dhttps://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/557850Harambe wrote:
Lead Foil Hat II wrote:
Well, the Benford's Rule applied at both the precinct and county level in PA suggests in the least that a recount is warranted. I am sure we will find out on Monday whether is it baseless or not, but the media/democrat effort to declare this thing before legal challenges are addressed shows they have things they want buried and that they may be trying to build enough public sentiment via media campaign to shut any accountability efforts down. You personally seem very very interested in making sure no scrutiny is given to the vote counts in the very close swing states. Why is that? Why not just take a look and make sure when things are so close. If it is all clean, then there is nothing to hide right; true vindication then? Why are you here acting to vigilantly to squash concern of fraud?
Benford's Analysis for county counts in PA:
1st # B T
1 16 26
2 7 11
3 4 6
4 12 5
5 5 4
6 5 3
7 6 4
8 4 3
9 4 2
I am not sure how you did you analysis or where you got it from? Benford's law is pretty weak unless the data it's used on is of a very specific type.
You usually need to have data distributed over many orders of magnitude and a LOT of samples. I don't think what you are seeing with ~60 counties in PA is enough to be significant. I'd be curious if there were any tests of significance run with these calcs because I'm guessing this is well within the realm of noise. The broad trend holds -- more counts at lower digits and less at higher.
Benfords law doesnt prove anything but I'm pretty sure the article I read said it held up everywhere but swing states (I can't firmly remember though so don't put any weight in that).
adsfdasfasfsafadfa wrote:
[There is zero doubt that Trump asked the Ukraines to investigate Hunter Biden. That is a fact. If. you think that is. impeachable or not is a bit more debateable.
The Obama admin violently overthrew the elected govt of Ukraine.
Isn't that a slightly bigger crime?
Bet you don't know about that. It did not fit the Russian aggression narrative sold by the media
Armstronglivs wrote:
The title of this thread has it wrong. It should be: "a serious thread about unsubstantiated and baseless allegations of voter fraud." That's all we have. End of thread.
Don't be silly.
The way all the votes went to Biden after Trump was clearly on his way Tuesday night is suspicion enough.
And there have been several instances of seeming fraud (many found on this thread).
if the Bidens are so certain of no fraud, then surely they will welcome investigations and court cases to prove it. After all, he wants to bring the nation together
rlrlrlrlrkrk wrote:
Harambe wrote:
I am not sure how you did you analysis or where you got it from? Benford's law is pretty weak unless the data it's used on is of a very specific type.
You usually need to have data distributed over many orders of magnitude and a LOT of samples. I don't think what you are seeing with ~60 counties in PA is enough to be significant. I'd be curious if there were any tests of significance run with these calcs because I'm guessing this is well within the realm of noise. The broad trend holds -- more counts at lower digits and less at higher.
Benfords law doesnt prove anything but I'm pretty sure the article I read said it held up everywhere but swing states (I can't firmly remember though so don't put any weight in that).
I get it, 4 orders of magnitude is not enough for the liar Harambe. Why do they use it then to detect potential cases of election fraud? Of course it does not prove anything, but it warrants a scrutinized count. To be expected from an agenda driven troll liar like Harambe/Bro2600, Precious Roy/armstonglivs.........
Other guy wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
The title of this thread has it wrong. It should be: "a serious thread about unsubstantiated and baseless allegations of voter fraud." That's all we have. End of thread.
Don't be silly.
The way all the votes went to Biden after Trump was clearly on his way Tuesday night is suspicion enough.
And there have been several instances of seeming fraud (many found on this thread).
if the Bidens are so certain of no fraud, then surely they will welcome investigations and court cases to prove it. After all, he wants to bring the nation together
nobody is obstructing the investigation. Nobody is against it. Everybody feels it is a waste of time and its a useless exercise backed by a very sore whiny loser.
Everybody is making plans accordingly and the world goes on.
Did i miss anything?
?? such pathetic losers. I love the argument that Biden obviously couldn’t have had more votes in swing states - real hard hitting accusations lol.
seattle prattle wrote:
Other guy wrote:
Don't be silly.
The way all the votes went to Biden after Trump was clearly on his way Tuesday night is suspicion enough.
And there have been several instances of seeming fraud (many found on this thread).
if the Bidens are so certain of no fraud, then surely they will welcome investigations and court cases to prove it. After all, he wants to bring the nation together
nobody is obstructing the investigation. Nobody is against it. Everybody feels it is a waste of time and its a useless exercise backed by a very sore whiny loser.
Everybody is making plans accordingly and the world goes on.
Did i miss anything?
Yeah, FRAUD! If we post it in all caps it has to have existed.
total conjecture on my part, but what of it: Trump is throwing out this baseless and ridiculous accusations in an attempt solely as a means to gauge if he has the support to attempt a coupe.
At least then his actions would make sense.
It doesn't matter how baseless the claim, and for that measure, the more baseless the better, since it's just sent to see the kind of support he might muster to forceably obstruct the transfer of power.
Imo, it's either that or he is a sociopath not fully in control of reasoning rationally.