Serious thread about election fraud

He telegraphed this move.

He knew his only way to win was to call fraud so he set it up to call out the mail in ballots.

Alan

This deserves to be investigated with at least as much energy as we put in the Mueller Report, but it will never happen.

If there's an answer to this that doesn't involve insults ...I'm listening. I'm open to theories. I want to believe this didn't happen.

Your move.

DiscoGary wrote:

This deserves to be investigated with at least as much energy as we put in the Mueller Report, but it will never happen.

If there's an answer to this that doesn't involve insults ...I'm listening. I'm open to theories. I want to believe this didn't happen.

Your move.

How many court cases?

Runningart2004 wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

This deserves to be investigated with at least as much energy as we put in the Mueller Report, but it will never happen.

If there's an answer to this that doesn't involve insults ...I'm listening. I'm open to theories. I want to believe this didn't happen.

Your move.

How many court cases?

Explain it.

DiscoGary wrote:

This deserves to be investigated with at least as much energy as we put in the Mueller Report, but it will never happen.

If there's an answer to this that doesn't involve insults ...I'm listening. I'm open to theories. I want to believe this didn't happen.

Your move.

The Bible Code was more credible than this. And more interesting.

real info wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

This deserves to be investigated with at least as much energy as we put in the Mueller Report, but it will never happen.

If there's an answer to this that doesn't involve insults ...I'm listening. I'm open to theories. I want to believe this didn't happen.

Your move.

The Bible Code was more credible than this. And more interesting.

Do we have a Democrat here smart enough to understand what this means. If so please explain it to the dumb ones.

DiscoGary wrote:

Runningart2004 wrote:

How many court cases?

Explain it.

DHS said no fraud.

In 50+ court cases no fraud was proven.

So I am failing to see how a Congressional investigation would result in something different.

Alan

Runningart2004 wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

Explain it.

DHS said no fraud.

In 50+ court cases no fraud was proven.

So I am failing to see how a Congressional investigation would result in something different.

Alan

No. Explain the data. There will never be any investigation or justice. That is very clear.

How do YOU explain it. Don’t delegate your thoughts to the same people who lied to you for 4 years about Russian collusion.

DiscoGary wrote:

Runningart2004 wrote:

DHS said no fraud.

In 50+ court cases no fraud was proven.

So I am failing to see how a Congressional investigation would result in something different.

Alan

No. Explain the data. There will never be any investigation or justice. That is very clear.

How do YOU explain it. Don’t delegate your thoughts to the same people who lied to you for 4 years about Russian collusion.

It sucks that there will never be an investigation or justice. Maybe you could call your congressman?

Are there any Dems here with an ounce of intellectual integrity?

I say it’s a smoking gun. Where am I wrong?

DiscoGary wrote:

I say it’s a smoking gun. Where am I wrong?

To start with, 4800x2 isn't 9200, and 4800x4 isn't 18,400.

I'll explain how else you're wrong when I have more time.

DiscoGary wrote:

were all multiples of ~4,800 margin in Biden's favor.

There were 17 of these where the multiple of 4,800 votes was between 0.967 and 1.038.

I divided by two when the vote margin was near 9,200, and by 4 when it was near 18,400 to normalize multiplier to a base value.

Disco. Just the fact laid out a very coherent analysis showing exactly how you are completely and utterly wrong. Unequivocally wrong. You seem to just be ignoring that and moving on. WTF is wrong with you! You literally posited BS smoking gun evidence, it was completely disproven and now you are simply proceeding as if nothing happened while calling other people stupid and dishonest. Do you actually not see the problem here?

DiscoGary wrote:

Runningart2004 wrote:

DHS said no fraud.

In 50+ court cases no fraud was proven.

So I am failing to see how a Congressional investigation would result in something different.

Alan

No. Explain the data. There will never be any investigation or justice. That is very clear.

How do YOU explain it. Don’t delegate your thoughts to the same people who lied to you for 4 years about Russian collusion.

How does someone come back from hundreds of thousands of votes down? When there are well over a million votes left to be counted from solid dem districts and mail-ins which favored Biden something like 80/20.

Please don't tell me you are this stupid? Trump telegraphed this by telling his ppl to vote in person and calling out mail-in votes weeks ahead of time. Please tell me you at least have an 8th grade education?

Alan

just the facts, ma'am wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

I say it’s a smoking gun. Where am I wrong?

To start with, 4800x2 isn't 9200, and 4800x4 isn't 18,400.

I'll explain how else you're wrong when I have more time.

DiscoGary wrote:

were all multiples of ~4,800 margin in Biden's favor.

There were 17 of these where the multiple of 4,800 votes was between 0.967 and 1.038.

I divided by two when the vote margin was near 9,200, and by 4 when it was near 18,400 to normalize multiplier to a base value.

Correct, and based on your analysis, if we were to assert that there was cheating fir Biden late in the day, we would have to assert that there was MORE cheating fir Trump early in the day.

Another thing that should be noted is that in a large random string of numbers, what looks like highly improbable clusters will occur. In fact, if they DON’T occur that is kind of suspicious.

Also going in post-hoc like this and searching for clusters is the epitome of a statistical fishing expedition. If I have 20 data points to search on, each of which could theoretically prove my hypothesis, I can EXPECT one of them to reach the p=0.05 level of evidence, even if my hypothesis is garbage. Looking through this data, you have an almost infinite number of data points you could look at.

This is a good article on the appearance of clusters in a random distribution

DiscoGary is still around? At least I'm glad his handlers are able to keep him contained to mostly one thread.

There are 27 times that Trump's lead jumps by a multiple 'close to' 4800. There are only 23 times that Biden's lead jumps by a multiple 'close to' 4800. Biden's occur later in the day in the same ways more populated precincts and absentee ballots were known to be counted later, and known to be likely to skew towards Biden for obvious reasons.

I can make the same stupid argument that 'it is statistically improbably that Trump would have some many quantised (not a word) jumps early in the voting. Someone was committing computer fraud and trying to make his lead so big it seemed insurmountable. This is a smoking gun of fraud.' That doesn't make it true.

By your own admission, the existence of similar jumps by Trump that were left out of their analysis is evidence of them being misleading, and then you left any examination of similar jumps by Trump out of your analysis. We therefore rate you...misleading by your own words.

DiscoGary wrote:

the same people who lied to you for 4 years about Russian collusion.

Who might this be?

AG Barr who redacted all parts (over 30%) of the report showing criminal behavior by Trump?

Trump himself, who refused to tstify under oath even though it could clear his name?

Mauller? A republican who said there is overwhelming evidence of behavior that could be

prosecuted, but it is the responsiblity of the Senate to pursue charges, not his?

McConnell? Who said they would not allow the redacted Mauller report to be opened while

Trump is in office?

The White House officals? Who were going to testify under oath but were publically threatened

to lose their jobs if they did?

The military officials with sterling career records? Who were smeared and an attempt to

demote them after testifying?

I am curious who you believe lied in this? And this led to bounties on American soldiers in which Trump turned a blind eye to not stir up his Russia ties again. Of course his taxes would clear his name that he does not owe large amounts of $ to them.

Who again lied? My god, why can't people with an R after their name admit the current guy is a pile of crap and try to move the party toward sane leadership? There is no weakness in admitting you backed the wrong horse, learned a great deal, and are moving forward, not bathing in the stench of 1950.

I don't think you understand what the data really looks like. I'll have to find a way to show you. Everything you're saying is irrelevant.

Let's try this again because nothing anyone is saying addresses the issue.

I retrieved the time series of vote updates for the presidential election in Georgia from NY time's web site. The data comes in the form of 609 updates with timestamps where they give a vote total and the percentage of the vote total for both Trump and Biden.

During the period starting at 11/04 00:14 to around 11/04 16:30 there were hundreds of updates where the margin increases for either candidate seem to be random multiples of 4,800. The fractions are all over the place, but sometimes they are very close to integers, which is what you expect . So far, no red flags.

But starting at around 11/4 16:30 Trump was winning by ~110,000 votes, the random big vote total updates stopped and a long series of small updates with no margins bigger than 141 botes for either candidates begins. Mixed in with that series until 11/7 23:52 we see 17 updates where Biden wins by margins that are multiples of 4,800 [0.967 to 1.038]. There are no big margins or Trump.

I am not cherry picking data out of a long stream of random numbers. You need to look at page 6 to see how dramatic and improbably this is.

https://centralcitynews.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Central-City-News-11-19-20-Small.pdf