Armstronglivs wrote:
ek87o78o78o wrote:
Me and my ilk? hahahaha
Your lobotomy hasn't allowed you to understand that I have never been a Trump/right supporter.
Poor sheepman... Suck that up.
Spoken like the "liberal" you are.
Go tend to your sheep, loser.
Lead Foil Hat II wrote:
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.........
Dude you didn't even post a link! That's all I was asking for.
Benford's law makes sense, but it often doesn't work well for real world data - as I said, it's subject to several constraints. If you have a lot of precincts that are a same size in your data set -- and split the same way for each candidate -- that can easily skew basic applications of Benford's law, for example.
I was merely curious to see where you got the numbers from. I could barely understand your data -- single letter column names are tricky...
alternate opinion wrote:
runnerguy2016 wrote:
It is undeniable that Biden's votes violates Benford's law - an accepted test for catching election fraud:
https://theredelephants.com/there-is-undeniable-mathematical-evidence-the-election-is-being-stolen/This is the sort of analysis I would take seriously, and I look forward it be done by reputable, non partisan statisticians who are citing all data sources.
I couldn't make it through your link because there were enough problems early on that it through the whole thing into doubt for me. But this is on the right path.
The curve argument only works when all votes are counted at the same time. When in-person votes are counted first, then the (Democrat majority) Mail-in ballots next, it would fail this test because it’s not applicable to this situation. If they’d counted the mail-in ballots first and then the in-person, it would’ve appeared that their was fraud on the part of the GOP (only according to this (non-applicable) year. In Texas, they released early vote numbers first which were majority Democrat and made it look like there might be chance of blue gains in the state. When the day-of voting numbers came in, they quickly wiped away any hope of that.
Last I checked Trump is still outperforming vs 2016 in Philly. If there is all of this fraud going on wouldn't they have at least been able to match Clinton's winning percentage there?!
People still posting tweets as evidence. Hilarious but sad.
So are these fake votes actually for Trump then??? Like I said, he is doing better in Philly than 2016...
baa baa wool wrote:
People still posting tweets as evidence. Hilarious but sad.
The 3rd tweet is evidence of the 2nd, and the evidence of dead voters has been posted dozens of times. But you just want to bury your head in the sand.
ernest 1978 wrote:
The 3rd tweet is evidence of the 2nd, and the evidence of dead voters has been posted dozens of times. But you just want to bury your head in the sand.
The federal elections Commission is composed of 6 commissioners appointed by the president and approved by the senate. Both GOP. Compare this to a tweet. Man, people are reaching.
https://www.newsweek.com/no-evidence-voter-fraud-says-federal-election-commission-official-1545747New York times is reporting 700,000 votes in Philly with 98% reporting...so that would only be 75-80% turnout, not 95%.
ernest 1978 wrote:
baa baa wool wrote:
People still posting tweets as evidence. Hilarious but sad.
The 3rd tweet is evidence of the 2nd, and the evidence of dead voters has been posted dozens of times. But you just want to bury your head in the sand.
No I just want evidence instead of tweets. Real high bar I’m setting.
just race wrote:
New York times is reporting 700,000 votes in Philly with 98% reporting...so that would only be 75-80% turnout, not 95%.
Don't let the facts get in the way of this guys twitter screed.
People who hitched their wagon to Trump are freaking out now -- they know their grift is up and they are politically radioactive for whatever comes next. They will do anything to maintain relevancy as long as possible.
just race wrote:
New York times is reporting 700,000 votes in Philly with 98% reporting...so that would only be 75-80% turnout, not 95%.
Lets do the math from the orginal post
971k total voters
What would 95% turnout be? 971*.95 = 922k
Lets see 693+145k = 838k. I.e. using there numbers the voting rate isn't 95%. How can you take a tweet that can't do 3rd grade math correctly seriously?
In the real world, the Philly vote this year is just about the same as it was in 2016. The overall voting rate is up a couple percent (this is true pretty much all over the country) and trump actually did slightly better (from a percent point of view) in 2020 than he did in 2016.
I consider myself pretty reasonable and fair and objective relative to most. I have political opinions that fall both left and right of center, and I am neither a democrat or a republican. I have voted for politicians of both parties both for federal and local positions. I talk to a lot of different people in my life of all different ages, ethnicities, etc, and I spend a ton of time on the internet. For whatever all this is worth. Whatever it is worth, I will also say that I find the results of the election to be VERY surprising, like eyebrow raising, squint your eyes surprising. I had many discussions with people both in person and online where people were asked questions like, "are you switching from voting D to R or R to D this year? Do you know people who are switching? Which direction?" and I would say more than 90% all said either they were switching from D to R or they knew more people switching from D to R, usually substantially more. I even talked to people in the Seattle area (about as blue as it gets) who said they were voting Trump and that they knew many people who were also quietly voting Trump. Beyond that, literally nobody was/is excited about Biden. He's a worse candidate than Hillary was, yet he somehow did substantially better than her in multiple states? Even with all the riots and looting this year, the Seattle and Portland nonsense, the Dems did even better than in 2016?
I could go on, but the point is that the results seem downright odd to me. Might be hard to prove voter fraud, and I seriously doubt the outcome of the election will be switched to name Trump the winner, but I just find the Biden win to be very, very strange, and yes, suspect.
Whatever the truth is, let's hope it comes out.
Time will tell wrote:
I consider myself pretty reasonable and fair and objective relative to most. I have political opinions that fall both left and right of center, and I am neither a democrat or a republican. I have voted for politicians of both parties both for federal and local positions. I talk to a lot of different people in my life of all different ages, ethnicities, etc, and I spend a ton of time on the internet. For whatever all this is worth. Whatever it is worth, I will also say that I find the results of the election to be VERY surprising, like eyebrow raising, squint your eyes surprising. I had many discussions with people both in person and online where people were asked questions like, "are you switching from voting D to R or R to D this year? Do you know people who are switching? Which direction?" and I would say more than 90% all said either they were switching from D to R or they knew more people switching from D to R, usually substantially more. I even talked to people in the Seattle area (about as blue as it gets) who said they were voting Trump and that they knew many people who were also quietly voting Trump. Beyond that, literally nobody was/is excited about Biden. He's a worse candidate than Hillary was, yet he somehow did substantially better than her in multiple states? Even with all the riots and looting this year, the Seattle and Portland nonsense, the Dems did even better than in 2016?
I could go on, but the point is that the results seem downright odd to me. Might be hard to prove voter fraud, and I seriously doubt the outcome of the election will be switched to name Trump the winner, but I just find the Biden win to be very, very strange, and yes, suspect.
Whatever the truth is, let's hope it comes out.
On the contrary, your post sounds VERY SURPRISING to me. Like eye popping surprising. You say you know a lot of Seattleites that were switched to Trump supporters. I know only know two people who did so, Everyone i know was for Biden, and very vocal about it.
Again, i guess it's just the circle you travel in. Ours obviously don't overlap.
See you at the inauguration!
* and let me correct myself please. I know of only two people from the Puget Sound region (inlcuding Seattle) that voted for Trump, and they were always Trump supporters. I don't know anybody that switched.
Florida and Ohio seem to have the most fair vote tallying systems of the swing states. Hillary waited to concede Wisconsin and Michigan because she knew with not all votes counted on election night the Democrat machines in Milwaukee and Detroit might gift her a "magic trick", e.g. 94% reporting gets moved back to 90% reporting.
Catchy song Pallets Full of Ballots
Watch before Youtube deletes for "misinformation"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaEL0JJaHkk&feature=emb_title&ab_channel=AustinFormanMusic
Oh, wait, make that three people I know in Seattle that voted Trump. ^^^^^^^^!
jamin wrote:
Catchy song Pallets Full of Ballots
Watch before Youtube deletes for "misinformation"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaEL0JJaHkk&feature=emb_title&ab_channel=AustinFormanMusic
Hey, Jamin, buddy! Make sure Rudy Giuliani gets that kid's contact info. Between that kid's eye witness account and his pipe bursting conspiracy theory, well, he's got two shreds of evidence!