Serious thread about election fraud

Thorough dismantling Gary.

But much like your savior, you can’t take the L.

That graph is completely misleading. It shows a whole bunch of updates where the 4,800 multiple is almost exacly 1.0 . Point 43 is 1.064 , which is not shown correctly on that scale. That data is cooked.

Did you create that graph? If so, then go ahead and put ALL points on it with the correct scale, and then let's see what it looks like.

DiscoGary wrote:

That graph is completely misleading. It shows a whole bunch of updates where the 4,800 multiple is almost exacly 1.0 . Point 43 is 1.064 , which is not shown correctly on that scale. That data is cooked.

Did you create that graph? If so, then go ahead and put ALL points on it with the correct scale, and then let's see what it looks like.

Are you referring to an interpretation regarding NYT data? This is from a NYT article:

"A spokeswoman for the NYT told Reuters that their company did not make the spreadsheets in the Gateway Pundit article. The data used by the NYT comes from the National Election Pool and Edison Research (here , here). In this data, the number of ballots appears in whole integers, unlike the figures in the Gateway Pundit data."

DiscoGary wrote:

That graph is completely misleading. It shows a whole bunch of updates where the 4,800 multiple is almost exacly 1.0 . Point 43 is 1.064 , which is not shown correctly on that scale. That data is cooked.

Did you create that graph? If so, then go ahead and put ALL points on it with the correct scale, and then let's see what it looks like.

If the Democrats were committing fraud, why were there so many increases in TRUMP's lead that were ALSO close to 4800 or close to multiples of 4800?

The logic of the jumps in 4800 is that they calculated the required delta and parceled it out evenly at every update. But why in the world would they do the same thing for Trump??

For a corrupt, demented old man living in a basement saying crazy stuff, who could not get anyone to come to his rallies, Biden sure got lots of votes..in the days following election day.

DiscoGary wrote:

That graph is completely misleading. It shows a whole bunch of updates where the 4,800 multiple is almost exacly 1.0 . Point 43 is 1.064 , which is not shown correctly on that scale. That data is cooked.

Did you create that graph? If so, then go ahead and put ALL points on it with the correct scale, and then let's see what it looks like.

Well, his description defines the possible values as being either 1 for close to 4800 or 0 for not close to 4800. Therefore I would expect to only see 1’s and 0’s.

I don’t recall which definition of “close to 4800” he used, although all of the definitions he chose had Trump having more of those blocks than Biden, so it shouldn’t really matter.

Btw, did you read that article on how clustering is to be expected in random data?

Here it is again for your convenience.

The Unkle wrote:

For a corrupt, demented old man living in a basement saying crazy stuff, who could not get anyone to come to his rallies, Biden sure got lots of votes..in the days following election day.

0/10, you need to find better trolls.

trashcan wrote:

Well, his description defines the possible values as being either 1 for close to 4800 or 0 for not close to 4800. Therefore I would expect to only see 1’s and 0’s.

+1.

Think of it like an "on"/"off" switch. Zeros and ones. Seemed like a straightforward way to highlight the key points.

Gary's article said 9300 was close enough to 9600, which is 1.9375, so I allowed +/- 0.1 from the whole integer. I'm happy to redo it with whatever you want. Even put the real numbers in there, but it'll likely be harder to find those multiples with all the noise.

Best takedown I’ve seen in a while on LRC. Visually very compelling. Shows the insanity of the “mathematical” fraud claims. If you just look at ONE SIDE you make up all the crazy schemes you want

just the facts, ma'am wrote:

trashcan wrote:

Well, his description defines the possible values as being either 1 for close to 4800 or 0 for not close to 4800. Therefore I would expect to only see 1’s and 0’s.

+1.

Think of it like an "on"/"off" switch. Zeros and ones. Seemed like a straightforward way to highlight the key points.

Gary's article said 9300 was close enough to 9600, which is 1.9375, so I allowed +/- 0.1 from the whole integer. I'm happy to redo it with whatever you want. Even put the real numbers in there, but it'll likely be harder to find those multiples with all the noise.

I'm going to use Trumper logic.

We all watched on Election Night as Biden had significant leads over Trump in both Ohio and NC. Leads so large that someone could say that it was so improbable for Trump to overcome the deficits as to be "statistically impossible". And yet, late on Election Night, somehow, magically, large numbers of votes for Trump were found. And, late at night, after my bedtime, Trump overcame those large deficits. No explanation has ever been offered for where these mysterious votes came from, but these vote "dumps" were entirely inconsistent with the vote count pattern up to that point.

I think the answer for how Trump somehow managed to come back from the dead has everything to do with the fact that most counties in both Ohio and NC are run by Republican Trumpers, so it's those Trumpers who control most of the votes. It's so clear you have to admit, it's a smoking gun.

And Trump has whined about thousands of dead people voting. The only confirmed cases of fraudulent votes being cast in the name of dead people have been in PA, and all cases have involved fraudulent votes for Trump. This tells us that most if not all of these thousands of fraudulent votes that Trump is complaining about were cast for him.

And then there's the M*ga-idiots who got arrested a block from the Philadelphia Civic Center, where vote counting was happening, with a truck full of fake ballots. More election fraud in favor of Trump.

I'd like to get to the bottom of all this election fraud, but it's only going to show that Biden won by even more than we now think he did. And it's only going to make the treasonous, cop-killing 'patriots' that much more angry and bitter. So is that really what we want?

And as for the fool who bragged about Trump's rallies as if that was an actual reflection of how popular he is, I drove by a rally/protest/demonstration today. Trump people on one side of the street, anti-Trump/Biden people on the other. The Trump people were maybe a quarter of the anti-Trump people. Using your logic on the predictive value of rally attendance, I'd say Biden is about 4 times more popular than Trump. Since Biden only won by about 5 percent, that's more evidence of significant electoral fraud in favor of Trump. Although admittedly, Trump's popularity may be on the wane given recent events.

Just remember, Walter Mondale drew 100K to a campaign rally a few days before the 1984 election. Using the 'rally size predictive method', he should have beaten Reagan easily, or at least been competitive. You can look up the results, but suffice it to say that Mondale was not close to competitive, despite the great rally attendance.

fasciz wrote:

Thorough dismantling Gary.

But much like your savior, you can’t take the L.

Well said!

Lies have consequences

https://twitter.com/joshscampbell/status/1347749675777011714?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1347775647859486720%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es3_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.yahoo.com%2Fnews%2Fvideo-capitol-shows-pro-trump-200949954.html

We are all disgusted, let’s be truthful Biden won.

You may as well just post an interview of a space alien that says he changed voted.

I mean, come on.

*changed votes

There's only one thing that can be said to a thread like this, that poses a "serious" question on a serious absence of evidence - as over 50 court actions have found and no investigations have sustained. "Seriously, Letsrun - seriously"!

Gary!?!? You out there? Garrrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyy? Are you questioning your life decisions right now as you find your conspiratorial foundation crumbling?

well actually wrote:

https://twitter.com/Yoder_Esqq/status/1348055966995128327

This makes you wonder why the Republican Senate would not even allow a vote on three bipartisan bills that were passed in the house to increase our voting process security to outside (foreign) influence and hacking.

highhoppingworm wrote:

Gary!?!? You out there? Garrrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyy? Are you questioning your life decisions right now as you find your conspiratorial foundation crumbling?

I'm here. I am not questioning my life decisions. The data I am looking at has not been debunked. Those graphs are complete crap, and actually are evidence that the fraud I see has NOT been debunked.

Here's the logic:

If there were a clear explanation that could explain it WITHOUT cooking the data and creating nonsense graphs, then we probably would have seen it by now. Since that's all you guys have so far, I am even more certain that this data is the smoking gun.

I am working on a way to format it a way that makes it clear that the graphs shown are garbage, and that "random clusters" doesnt apply here. Before that, I decided to download all the election data before it gets scrubbed. I have it now. Now I need to start coding to unpack it all and analyze it. I'll try to create a version of the graphs shown with the real data on the proper scale.

None of this matters of course, because now we've lost free speech, and soon this web site will have to shut down all non-conforming ideas. I'll try to finish before that happens.

Again, props to the heroes here still hosting free speech!