Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!
Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2020 1:48 pm
The day before the election. "Should we go out & vote, honey?"...
Exposing the stupidity, lies, and hypocrisy of Social Justice Warriors since July 2012
http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/
Bullshit. The courts are throwing this shit out of court because of a lack of merit. Here is a sample.ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑The Democrats know exactly how mail balloting fraud works because they have always been vocal about things like signature checking when they think it helps them and yet they launched a big propaganda campaign in the run up to the election spinning Trump's complaints about election security as a sign of an attempted coup. They did this while litigating to strip safeguards where they could and now you have the disputed states steadfastly resisting signature checking and continuing their monitoring obstruction during recounts. Given normal amounts of rejected mail ballots Trump wins easily. These anomalies are over and above the effect of the MSM and social media stifling negative stories about Biden and positive stories about Trump. Around nine percent of polled Biden voters have said they'd have changed their vote if they'd been aware of these stories.Old_ones wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 8:15 pmSomehow the Democrats managed to steal the presidential election while losing ground in the House of Representatives and having a disappointing showing in the Senate. Yeah, that totally looks like fraud. That's not anything like how it would look if a groundswell of people wanted to get rid of an incompetent menace, but didn't totally trust Democrats because of the insanity brewing on the left wing of the spectrum.
Face it, Trump wins if safeguards are respected, it's now just a monumental task to get the courts to agree and they like to find ways of dismissing such cases on procedural grounds.
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54724960
President Trump's legal team say voters in Democrat-leaning areas were given more of an opportunity to correct any mistakes on their postal ballots - but on 21 November a judge in Pennsylvania rejected their case, saying it presented "strained legal arguments without merit".
...
And on 27 November, a federal appeals court rejected a request to block Joe Biden from being declared winner in Pennsylvania, saying: "Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here".
...
The Trump campaign filed a lawsuit in Arizona on 7 November, claiming some legal votes were rejected.
The case cites declarations by some poll watchers and two voters who claim they had problems with voting machines.
But Arizona's Secretary of State said this was "grasping at straws", and on 13 November Trump's team dropped the suit.
...
Georgia Republican chairman David Shafer tweeted that party observers saw a woman "mix over 50 ballots into the stack of uncounted absentee ballots". On 5 November, a judge dismissed this lawsuit, saying there was "no evidence" of improper ballot mixing.
He was never capable of any of that even if he were interested. He made a half-hearted effort with the wall and the trade war, at least, even if it never really accomplished anything. The boarder wall still cracks me up...Hunt wrote: ↑ Trump's hand was played out anyway. He was never going to reform health care, never overturn Obamacare, never build the wall, never rebuild American manufacturing, and never realign American economics with China. His goose was cooked at least two years ago. He would have been lame duck for four straight years.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html
SAN DIEGO — Smuggling gangs in Mexico have repeatedly sawed through new sections of President Trump’s border wall in recent months by using commercially available power tools, opening gaps large enough for people and drug loads to pass through, according to U.S. agents and officials with knowledge of the damage.
The breaches have been made using a popular cordless household tool known as a reciprocating saw that retails at hardware stores for as little as $100. When fitted with specialized blades, the saws can slice through one of the barrier’s steel-and-concrete bollards in minutes, according to the agents, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the barrier-defeating techniques.
What part of 'elected Democrat judges' don't you get?
Old_ones,Old_ones wrote: ↑ Somehow the Democrats managed to steal the presidential election while losing ground in the House of Representatives and having a disappointing showing in the Senate. Yeah, that totally looks like fraud. That's not anything like how it would look if a groundswell of people wanted to get rid of an incompetent menace, but didn't totally trust Democrats because of the insanity brewing on the left wing of the spectrum.
Are you talking about the evidence for God's creation? Its all around and numinous.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑What part of 'elected Democrat judges' don't you get?
I'll concede that the trump legal team's performance has been sloppy, slow, and disjointed. But as for evidence, there is tons of it.
Oh YES the Devil is INDEED in the details.Old_ones wrote: ↑ He was never capable of any of that even if he were interested. He made a half-hearted effort with the wall and the trade war, at least, even if it never really accomplished anything. The boarder wall still cracks me up...
SAN DIEGO — Smuggling gangs in Mexico have repeatedly sawed through new sections of President Trump’s border wall in recent months by using commercially available power tools, opening gaps large enough for people and drug loads to pass through, according to U.S. agents and officials with knowledge of the damage.
The breaches have been made using a popular cordless household tool known as a reciprocating saw that retails at hardware stores for as little as $100. When fitted with specialized blades, the saws can slice through one of the barrier’s steel-and-concrete bollards in minutes, according to the agents, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the barrier-defeating techniques.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html
Who was it on here who used to berate those loopy liberals for arguing that a Wall wouldn't stop illegal boarder crossing? I guess the devil is in the details even when something nice and simple like a Wall is involved.
I don't see much to love in your last paragraph there. It sounds like accelerating chaos and social upheaval, and I'm not a fan of those things.Service Dog wrote: ↑ Old_ones, Kiwi, screwtape, Hunt--
You'll find more to like in my posts... if you understand which 'side' I'm actually on.
A big part of why I stopped voting-- was reading about journalists-- decades ago-- who covered previous presidential campaigns. Ones who made the decision to not-vote as soon as they took the campaign assignment-- to lessen their own bias.
Similar to the phenomenon seen on Wall Street-- in which people who are Winning or Losing money on a certain stock-- perform worse at predicting that stock's future-- than people who do not hold any shares of that stock.
I've tried to adopt Moldbug's advice: try to look at current events the way a Historian would study Sumerians vs Akkadians in 2300 B.C.
Don't get emotionally involved with deeming one side 'my side' and the other side 'the bad guys'. See it as distant & nothing-to-do-with you personally.
Still-- sometimes I take it personally. I have sentimental ties to Iowa. So I took it personally when the Iowa Democratic Party used a fishy app called "Shadow"-- developed by cronies of Pete Buttigieg-- to steal that race from Bernie Sanders. Both on election-night... and in the following days... as votes were tabulated with Impossible Math.
Am I taking it too personally right now? Have I become a shill? For who? Certainly not "The Republicans" because I don't think "The Republicans" is a useful category, anymore. "The Republicans" are as schism-ed as "The Atheist Community".
I think Giuliani is a corrupt vampire. I'm pretty sure there's a post on here-- back, several Christmases ago-- about how I bumped into Giuliani on the street in Manhattan-- with no security guards between him & me-- and I was rattled by the split-second decision-- whehter to throttle his throat and slam his head to the ground-- before anyone could stop me. I kept walking and my clothes soaked-thru with hot sweat instantly-- I was zooming with adrenaline. I had to go to a friend's nearby apartment and take a cold shower.
I find Robert Barnes' assessment of Trump lawyers Lin Wood and Sydney Powell-- to be very credible. Barnes says Lin Wood is an incompetent glory hog putting Kyle Rittenhouse's defense in jeopardy. And Sydney Powell can't resist co-signing every specious wild conspiracy theory she hears. Meanwhile, I cast a jaundiced eye at Barnes-- his self-regard is grandiose.
=
I don't think I'm a 'sore loser'. I think my actual side has won: I think the Dems cheated-- but even if Biden becomes president-- he's as damaged as O.J. Simpson prevailing against murder charges. Same with Big Tech and Media-- they have mortally wounded themselves with their censorship and propaganda and psyops and privacy-invasion. I think Trump's brush-with-losing is what motivated him to muzzle the CIA... and order half our troops home from Iraq, Afghanistan & Syria... and appoint antiwar-dream-candidate Doug MacGregor as Pentagon advisor. Democrats and Republicans have been startled-awake to the possibility of stolen elections-- even-if they're content about this steal. Republican voters are seeing which of their peers are Lincoln Project traitors or spineless hacks. Dems are poised for a civil war between BLM-Antifa-Bernie freaks and bland NPCs. The Trump fanclub over at TheDonald.win are also overdue for a cold-splash of harsh reality, if Trump is unseated. The Covid alarmists have overplayed their hand. The teacher's unions are exposed as anti-student. Legions of moronic neighbors have shown their true colors for all to see. Win win win, everywhere I look.
I would have agreed-- before the election. But he has belatedly opened up pandora's box against the FBI, CIA, disloyal Republicans, Big Tech, Fake News, the endless-warmongers, welfare-queen democrat cities, corrupt elections, lockdown fanatics...
The part where it makes any fucking difference.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑What part of 'elected Democrat judges' don't you get?
I'll concede that the trump legal team's performance has been sloppy, slow, and disjointed. But as for evidence, there is tons of it.
Is this really your punchline? Yeah, I have no problem believing that. I'm willing to bet you could explain it with information about geography of the ballots and voting method. If it's a bunch of mail in votes from big cities, I don't think it needs a lot of extra investigation. And frankly It doesn't actually need explaining absent other incriminating evidence. Funny coincidences happen all the time. Like I said, there were Democrats who posted pages of this shit about the Ohio election in 2004. The exit polls were off and the returns had funny patterns... whatever.Service Dog wrote:All that's required-- to believe that Old_ones is correct-- about the mindset of voters preferring a Biden/Republican mixed-win...
...all that's required is you gotta ALSO believe that the only voters who thought that way-- also somehow happened to have their ballots counted ALL AT THE SAME TIME, in the same wee hour batches in each State. Whether they mailed their ballots in. Or voted in the morning. Or voted in the evening. Or early-voted in person weeks-earlier. Somehow the people who saw the world the way Old_ones sez they did... all got their ballots arranged in long uninterrupted homogenous strings, counted by the exact-same late-shift of vote counters.
Perhaps so.
I couldn't have said it better. That would actually be the poetically just end to Trump.Old_ones wrote: ↑ I accept your concession, btw. If the election was actually stolen, and nothing ever comes of it because Trump is such an imbecile that he can't even put together a decent legal team, I'm happy to treat that as a kind of political Darwin Award. In some ways I actually like that better than the idea that he lost fairly.
A fitting end to a wasted presidency.
" In the data are 4 spikes totaling 384,733 ballots allegedly processed in a combined interval of only 2 hours and 38 minutes. This is physically impossible given the available equipment at the 4 reference locations.”
“Wayne County uses Dominion Equipment, where 46 out of 47 precincts/townships display a highly unlikely 96%_ as the number of votes cast, using the Secretary of State’s number of voters in the precint/township; and 25 of those 7 precincts/townships show 100% turnout.”
You evidently don't understand what's wrong with the creationist rhetoric you are citing.Service Dog wrote: ↑ We're all familiar with Creationists pointing-to the statistical improbability of Earth maintaining a habitable temperature, or one specific sperm winning the race to fertilize an egg-- multiplied across countless generations-- as evidence of the Hand Of God exerting supernatural influence.
And we're all familiar with the Atheist retort-- Reality is what it is. After the fact, the odds of things being the way they are is 100%. Things had to be some-way. It turned out this way. Any big data set has improbable freak occurrences.
Well we aren't talking about The Big Bang, Evolution, Quantuum Physics. This is just an election in a few hick states in a few run-down cities.
When we see "profoundly" "bizarre" "too extreme along multiple dimensions to be accepted at face value" "aberrations" of Biblical Proportions-- it's probably-not necessary to invoke Schrodinger's Cat rolling dice in the voting machine. There's nothing profound about it.
And when the skeptics are ordered to stand 60 feet away from the magic trick-- and the judges refuse to look at the evidence before ruling-- there's a real obvious explanation for that too.
==
One aspect of the stat report worth mentioning-- is a bit of 'what if' at the end. Looking at the 4 hugest latenight batches of votes for Biden which were such freakish outliers-- that they deviate beyond the cluster which includes 99.92% of batches. The report asks: what if those specific results weren't Quite So amazingly unusual... in the EXACT RIGHT BATTLEGROUNDS where Biden NEEDED to win? What if those batches were only slanted toward Biden at the 99% percentile edge-of-probability? ...suddenly Biden sheds 118,000 votes in Wisconsin. 123,000 in Michigan. 85,000 in Georgia. Biden sheds 42 electoral college votes. 42
That's quite a rounding-error.
I'll grant you that any "explanation" I concoct, is no better than the one you've concocted, but that's sort of the point. Any proposed explanation is going to require additional evidence, including yours.service dog wrote:There's nothing preventing you from concocting all sorts of "explanations" with no burden of defending them, flitting on to the next one, each time the last is exposed to be wildly-improbable.
Here's my stupid voting irregularity explanation: God actually does exist, and he likes America so he wanted Biden to win. So he made all those ballots appear late at night because Jedi mind tricking people into voting for Biden would violate free will (and Christians usually think that's a problem for some reason). I dunno if you will accept that, but right now it's just as supported by the evidence as yours, unless you've been holding out on me.Old_ones wrote:
What's missing is specific evidence that those ballots were introduced illegally. If election workers came in with fake ballots stuffed in their pockets, then you need evidence of that specifically. Its the same answer I have for people who say that the Russians hacked voting machines in 2016. Show me forensics or shut the fuck up.
The probable explanation is a bit more mundane. Dems historically vote by mail in much larger percentages. Mail-in ballots are often not processed until election day, and the results don't appear tabulated until late at night. Sanders laid it out a week and a half before election night:Old_ones wrote: ↑ Here's my stupid voting irregularity explanation: God actually does exist, and he likes America so he wanted Biden to win. So he made all those ballots appear late at night because Jedi mind tricking people into voting for Biden would violate free will (and Christians usually think that's a problem for some reason). I dunno if you will accept that, but right now it's just as supported by the evidence as yours, unless you've been holding out on me.
Perhaps you'd like to address what I said? Do you dispute that the Democrats took steps to remove or water down safeguards? Do you dispute that lack of signature matching and ballot rejection rates are an issue? As for why lawsuits are being rejected or why they are being rejected, that is a more complex issue and it can be far more political than people assume. There are apparently many ways for judges to dismiss lawsuits they'd rather not hear which have nothing to do with the merits of the case, such as the old "no standing because Injury not yet occurred , too late, moot case, injury already occurred" bind. Trump does not need to prove any fraud at all to challenge the integrity of the results. He only needs to prove that the integrity of enough votes is in question and he has a very strong legal case. This is why the question of signature matching is crucial and why the media are spinning so hard sneering at the other avenues. The legal process has only just begun despite what the MSM is saying. It may well be up to the Supreme Court in the end. I would suggest listening to people such as Richard Baris for a more informative take on the issues with the election because comfort consumption of the vitriolic Trump hating press is not going to be very enlightening. I would also suggest listening to Robert Barnes regarding the shortcomings of judges and the legal process. While he does have some bees in his bonnet he may give you pause to reconsider how easy it is to get a case fairly heard and how political the courts can be.Old_ones wrote: ↑Sun Nov 29, 2020 3:38 pmBullshit. The courts are throwing this shit out of court because of a lack of merit. Here is a sample.ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑The Democrats know exactly how mail balloting fraud works because they have always been vocal about things like signature checking when they think it helps them and yet they launched a big propaganda campaign in the run up to the election spinning Trump's complaints about election security as a sign of an attempted coup. They did this while litigating to strip safeguards where they could and now you have the disputed states steadfastly resisting signature checking and continuing their monitoring obstruction during recounts. Given normal amounts of rejected mail ballots Trump wins easily. These anomalies are over and above the effect of the MSM and social media stifling negative stories about Biden and positive stories about Trump. Around nine percent of polled Biden voters have said they'd have changed their vote if they'd been aware of these stories.Old_ones wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 8:15 pmSomehow the Democrats managed to steal the presidential election while losing ground in the House of Representatives and having a disappointing showing in the Senate. Yeah, that totally looks like fraud. That's not anything like how it would look if a groundswell of people wanted to get rid of an incompetent menace, but didn't totally trust Democrats because of the insanity brewing on the left wing of the spectrum.
Face it, Trump wins if safeguards are respected, it's now just a monumental task to get the courts to agree and they like to find ways of dismissing such cases on procedural grounds.
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54724960
President Trump's legal team say voters in Democrat-leaning areas were given more of an opportunity to correct any mistakes on their postal ballots - but on 21 November a judge in Pennsylvania rejected their case, saying it presented "strained legal arguments without merit".
...
And on 27 November, a federal appeals court rejected a request to block Joe Biden from being declared winner in Pennsylvania, saying: "Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here".
...
The Trump campaign filed a lawsuit in Arizona on 7 November, claiming some legal votes were rejected.
The case cites declarations by some poll watchers and two voters who claim they had problems with voting machines.
But Arizona's Secretary of State said this was "grasping at straws", and on 13 November Trump's team dropped the suit.
...
Georgia Republican chairman David Shafer tweeted that party observers saw a woman "mix over 50 ballots into the stack of uncounted absentee ballots". On 5 November, a judge dismissed this lawsuit, saying there was "no evidence" of improper ballot mixing.
Supposing the others are getting tossed on procedural grounds, I guess there is your argument for not electing an imbecile. Its easy enough to find council that can read a procedural law book and find the court with jurisdiction to file the suit in.
As for the rest of it: prove it.
The republican party has been alleging Democratic voter fraud forever, but they always come up short in court for some reason. You'd think if it was such a significant and pervasive problem they'd prioritize investigating it or gathering some evidence once in a while.
You really should read the stat report. It addresses this. There were many many batches of votes. Including batches of mail-in votes. All of the batches fell within a clear cluster on the graph, containing 99.92% of the batches.
Lame Duck à L'Orange!Hunt wrote: ↑ Trump's hand was played out anyway. He was never going to reform health care, never overturn Obamacare, never build the wall, never rebuild American manufacturing, and never realign American economics with China. His goose was cooked at least two years ago. He would have been lame duck for four straight years.
Oh FFS! It really is disheartening. None of the exposure of how Russiagate unfolded ever happened, it as all just "wailing". It was his "own government". You seem to know very little of what actually transpired but then I suspect you don't care.Old_ones wrote: ↑Sun Nov 29, 2020 5:55 pmI don't see much to love in your last paragraph there. It sounds like accelerating chaos and social upheaval, and I'm not a fan of those things.Service Dog wrote: ↑ Old_ones, Kiwi, screwtape, Hunt--
You'll find more to like in my posts... if you understand which 'side' I'm actually on.
A big part of why I stopped voting-- was reading about journalists-- decades ago-- who covered previous presidential campaigns. Ones who made the decision to not-vote as soon as they took the campaign assignment-- to lessen their own bias.
Similar to the phenomenon seen on Wall Street-- in which people who are Winning or Losing money on a certain stock-- perform worse at predicting that stock's future-- than people who do not hold any shares of that stock.
I've tried to adopt Moldbug's advice: try to look at current events the way a Historian would study Sumerians vs Akkadians in 2300 B.C.
Don't get emotionally involved with deeming one side 'my side' and the other side 'the bad guys'. See it as distant & nothing-to-do-with you personally.
Still-- sometimes I take it personally. I have sentimental ties to Iowa. So I took it personally when the Iowa Democratic Party used a fishy app called "Shadow"-- developed by cronies of Pete Buttigieg-- to steal that race from Bernie Sanders. Both on election-night... and in the following days... as votes were tabulated with Impossible Math.
Am I taking it too personally right now? Have I become a shill? For who? Certainly not "The Republicans" because I don't think "The Republicans" is a useful category, anymore. "The Republicans" are as schism-ed as "The Atheist Community".
I think Giuliani is a corrupt vampire. I'm pretty sure there's a post on here-- back, several Christmases ago-- about how I bumped into Giuliani on the street in Manhattan-- with no security guards between him & me-- and I was rattled by the split-second decision-- whehter to throttle his throat and slam his head to the ground-- before anyone could stop me. I kept walking and my clothes soaked-thru with hot sweat instantly-- I was zooming with adrenaline. I had to go to a friend's nearby apartment and take a cold shower.
I find Robert Barnes' assessment of Trump lawyers Lin Wood and Sydney Powell-- to be very credible. Barnes says Lin Wood is an incompetent glory hog putting Kyle Rittenhouse's defense in jeopardy. And Sydney Powell can't resist co-signing every specious wild conspiracy theory she hears. Meanwhile, I cast a jaundiced eye at Barnes-- his self-regard is grandiose.
=
I don't think I'm a 'sore loser'. I think my actual side has won: I think the Dems cheated-- but even if Biden becomes president-- he's as damaged as O.J. Simpson prevailing against murder charges. Same with Big Tech and Media-- they have mortally wounded themselves with their censorship and propaganda and psyops and privacy-invasion. I think Trump's brush-with-losing is what motivated him to muzzle the CIA... and order half our troops home from Iraq, Afghanistan & Syria... and appoint antiwar-dream-candidate Doug MacGregor as Pentagon advisor. Democrats and Republicans have been startled-awake to the possibility of stolen elections-- even-if they're content about this steal. Republican voters are seeing which of their peers are Lincoln Project traitors or spineless hacks. Dems are poised for a civil war between BLM-Antifa-Bernie freaks and bland NPCs. The Trump fanclub over at TheDonald.win are also overdue for a cold-splash of harsh reality, if Trump is unseated. The Covid alarmists have overplayed their hand. The teacher's unions are exposed as anti-student. Legions of moronic neighbors have shown their true colors for all to see. Win win win, everywhere I look.
Not that I agree with your characterization of most of it. There were rumblings about the Republicans having stolen the 2016 election* (i.e. the Russia business) but Hillary Clinton respected the apparent will of the voters and conceded to Trump quite rapidly. Trump and his supporters wailed for a couple years that the Mueller investigation was a coup attempt, but that was Trump's own fucking government investigating him and he made it worse by publicly trying to obstruct it. If the FBI wanted to investigate this election, that would be a clear parallel, but so far there is no sign of that happening. Instead we have a big baby who lost as clean an election as we ever have, who won't accept it because of his own psychological pathologies. Maybe all these "irregularities" I keep hearing about are a sign of cheating, but I'm waiting for evidence that will hold up in court. But I digress.
I can agree with Moldbug on a few things. One of the main ones being his criticism that Democratic government is inherently disorderly and unhelpful for social cohesion. That hits at a concern I have for America and the western world after the mainstreaming of SJW identity politics. If we can't hold together and function, we'll marginalize ourselves. The economic and cultural momentum will go to societies like China that aren't fighting low grade civil war. I don't look at this year as much of a "win" from that perspective. But getting a dangerous irritant out of the White House is a good start at least. Alongside his war on federal norms and the independence of the Justice Department he's also played right into the hands of the SJW left, and given them more clout than they've ever had. You can expect "Trump" to be a one word rebuttal to any criticism leveled at that ideology for the next 20 years. It could be that we need someone who will take a similar stand to Trump on that ideology, but it needs to be someone clever enough to use the inconsistencies of that ideology against itself, and someone who presents a valid alternative for concerned moderates. Not the kind of blunt instrument who would put "corrupt vampires" and "paint huffers" on their legal team, because, you know, they don't actually care about the content of their lawsuits when they challenge something as important as a national election.
_________________________________
* In actual fact there is a contingent of Democrats that has proclaimed every election to be rigged by the Republicans since 2000 (or at least worried about it) and they always seem surprised when the win some of them. I heard a bunch of this same bullshit about "irregularities" and "statistical anomalies" in 2004. It just got little to no press because John Kerry didn't litigate any of it or promote it in any way.
You're willing to grant correlation, then? The stat report is correct in the correlations they've identified, yeah?
You're barking at a strawman. I don't "want to go on to allege that fraud is the reason for the improbable pattern".If you want to go on to allege that fraud is the reason for the improbable pattern in the data you have to have additional evidence for that.
As opposed to Trump, who doesn't have a case, and still doesn't concede. Maybe he doesn't know it. He's such a pathological liar it's really hard to gauge what he actually believes. As usual, Clinton was still the better human being.ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑
Oh FFS! It really is disheartening. None of the exposure of how Russiagate unfolded ever happened, it as all just "wailing". It was his "own government". You seem to know very little of what actually transpired but then I suspect you don't care.
Clinton folded because she didn't have a case and she knew it. She didn't respect the result, she went on and on about Trump being an illegitimate president citing an investigation she manufactured.
Maybe he did. Again we don't know. That's the point.Service Dog wrote: ↑ Applying your way of thinking, Jeffrey Epstein Killed Himself.
You haven't shown anything about procedure or process dude. You are assuming that shit based on some statistics.Service Dog wrote: That's the burden of proof which I must meet. I don't have to "prove fraud". I just have to show that the accepted process of an election was not met, so the claimed-results are not reliable. And the scale of the procedural-breakdown is large-enough to matter.
I don't really have any interest in talking to you or listening to what you have to say, to be blunt. I would definitely never listen to any source recommended by you. The world you describe in your posts has no fucking relation to the one the actually exists, and I'm not really interested in crawling into some sort of Q-tard alternate reality bubble where the Mueller investigation was a coup attempt, and Donald Trump is an honest man who just can't catch a break.ThreeFlangedJavis wrote: ↑
Perhaps you'd like to address what I said? Do you dispute that the Democrats took steps to remove or water down safeguards? Do you dispute that lack of signature matching and ballot rejection rates are an issue? As for why lawsuits are being rejected or why they are being rejected, that is a more complex issue and it can be far more political than people assume. There are apparently many ways for judges to dismiss lawsuits they'd rather not hear which have nothing to do with the merits of the case, such as the old "no standing because Injury not yet occurred , too late, moot case, injury already occurred" bind. Trump does not need to prove any fraud at all to challenge the integrity of the results. He only needs to prove that the integrity of enough votes is in question and he has a very strong legal case. This is why the question of signature matching is crucial and why the media are spinning so hard sneering at the other avenues. The legal process has only just begun despite what the MSM is saying. It may well be up to the Supreme Court in the end. I would suggest listening to people such as Richard Baris for a more informative take on the issues with the election because comfort consumption of the vitriolic Trump hating press is not going to be very enlightening. I would also suggest listening to Robert Barnes regarding the shortcomings of judges and the legal process. While he does have some bees in his bonnet he may give you pause to reconsider how easy it is to get a case fairly heard and how political the courts can be.
The GOP sued PA before the election over the SOS's unconstitutional allowance of voting by mail without cause. The judge threw out the complaint on the grounds they had no standing as the election hadn't occurred yet. After the election, the judge threw out the complaint under the doctrine of 'laches', i.e., they waited too long to complain, and should have said something before the election.Old_ones wrote: ↑ The point is this: if you want to obtain a murder conviction or overturn an election, you have a higher burden of proof. If Trump's legal team is going into a courtroom with statistical anomalies and alleging fraud on that basis, then it's no secret why that shit is being thrown out of court, and it has nothing to do with who the judge was elected by (Matt Cavanaugh). For all their problems the courts have a pretty decent framework in place for evaluating evidence....
Yeah, you'd think that maybe 3 days ago Lin Wood and Sydney Powell would have asked the court to preserve a copy of the voting machines' data, before it is wiped.
For Biden to win in this fashion, he needed to shoot the moon in statistical improbabilities. You don't need to be a lifetime member of The Skeptics Society to recognize it stinks to high heaven; an extraordinary claim deserving of careful scrutiny and extraordinary proof that it was just an amazingly lucky alignment of the stars.Old_ones wrote: ↑ Your statistics can't tell you fraud or anything else about why the votes are what they are. They can tell you when something is unlikely to have occurred by chance. You've heard the adage "correlation does not imply causation", yes? This is the same principal. If you want to go on to allege that fraud is the reason for the improbable pattern in the data you have to have additional evidence for that.
Jumping to any particular conclusion on the basis of "this is unlikely to be the product of chance" is an argument from ignorance (and possibly an argument from incredulity).
No, again that's the point. I don't have to do anything to satisfy your list of arguments from incredulity. This type of shit is what the court system was conceived for, and I'm going to go ahead and trust the institutions. Moreover, the burden of proof is on you. Your arguments are exactly like creationists trying to poke holes in evolutionary theory because they want to win by default. When you are the one alleging wrongdoing for the sake of blocking an elected official, you take on the burden of proof. Prosecutors and plaintiffs have the responsibility for proving their case, because they are the ones trying to get the legal system to strip things from people. And that is why Rudy and his clown car are failing.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑For Biden to win in this fashion, he needed to shoot the moon in statistical improbabilities. You don't need to be a lifetime member of The Skeptics Society to recognize it stinks to high heaven; an extraordinary claim deserving of careful scrutiny and extraordinary proof that it was just an amazingly lucky alignment of the stars.Old_ones wrote: ↑ Your statistics can't tell you fraud or anything else about why the votes are what they are. They can tell you when something is unlikely to have occurred by chance. You've heard the adage "correlation does not imply causation", yes? This is the same principal. If you want to go on to allege that fraud is the reason for the improbable pattern in the data you have to have additional evidence for that.
Jumping to any particular conclusion on the basis of "this is unlikely to be the product of chance" is an argument from ignorance (and possibly an argument from incredulity).
Most of all, if you want me or anyone to accept this was an above-board win for Biden, you need to explain how polities in just four cities in four swing states, acted not only dramatically different from similar voters in every other big city, but also dramatically different from how they themselves acted in previous elections.
-- How, across America, Biden drew <90% of the black vote, while Trump doubled his support ... except in four cities, where Biden got 98+;
-- How turnout in these four states was c.90% -- requiring essentially every single adult to cast a ballot in many city precincts -- when it'd had never topped 75%, and when black turnout elsewhere was depressed;
-- Why Biden's votes in excess of down-ballot candidates' was ten times normal ... but only in these four states;
-- Why requests for mail-in ballots skewed c. 55/45 in favor of Dems, yet the millions of ballots arriving in the wee hours of the morning skewed 97/3 for Biden;
- How Pennsylvania counted 700,000 more absentee ballots than it mailed out.
The list goes on -- far too long to be dismissed with the lazy hand-having that's been offered to date.
Well, that's a zinger!screwtape wrote: ↑ I am heartily sick of all this. Quite obviously, you should have stuck with George III, as he would have seen you right.
And talking of royalty, I was dismissive of the critics' complaints about season 4 of The Crown, but I have to admit it is complete fiction. Gone right off the rails. Utter lunacy. Do not believe a word of it, as what it suggests happened is clearly not the case, over and over again.
And perhaps all of these matters are actually the same thing: Americans making stuff up, yet again.
PS for SD, your graphic about abusive relationships bears an uncanny resemblance to your posts here....
Actually, the best response to an argument from incredulity is to provide the explanation. Dawkins devoted an entire book, The Blind Watchmaker, to that approach. Alternately, like you have here, one could take the approach of being an obstinate dickhead.
No. A slew of unprecedented, statistically highly improbable, and prima facie impossible [e.g., hundreds of thousands of more ballots counted than were issued] events occurred. The onus is on the election official, on whose watches they happened, to explain how they didn't either completely botch their job, or weren't flat out cheating.Moreover, the burden of proof is on you.
Now you're guilty of argument by repeated assertion. Saying over and over we're just like the creationists doesn't make it so -- especially when Dog and Javis have already busted you on it.Your arguments are exactly like creationists trying to poke holes in evolutionary theory because they want to win by default.
Wow, you totally slayed that strawman. I'm in awe of your rhetorical wizardry.You can make your own religion where Trump is the messiah, and the fact that he lost the election really proves he won, and was anointed by god and shit.
Well, Kirbmarc, Aneris, and the other dickhead sophists flounced long ago, leaving a niche for you.I don't have any illusions about being able to reason with you, and I'm certainly not going to waste any of my time following you down a rabbit hole to find evidence for explanations you are going to reject on the basis of incredulity anyway. I'm just here to point and laugh.
Keep us updated on how that constitutional amendment is going.When it comes to my own personal sensibilities, I think winning the popular vote should be enough
Since FDR, Democrat potus candidates have won a majority of the popular vote only thrice: LBJ -- which was mostly a response to JFK's assassination -- and Obama twice. Carter eked out 50%. The Dems' legacy of being repeatedly and resoundingly rejected, only rarely sneaking in with slim pluralities, tells you everything you need to know.I look at presidents who lose the popular vote as an undesirable consequence of a flawed system. Trump has been a minority president for his entire 4 years, he's never been close to winning the popular vote, and that alone says everything you need to know about his legitimacy in my opinion.
You should. You pussies played at your limp-dicked "resistance" for four years. Go ahead, let us show you how it's done.I don't care if you accept the vote or not.
I've been trying to take that pie squarely in the face... but I just can't figure out how to get in front of it.
Even with this adjustment, I'm still autistically unable to get the joke. I suspect it's because I'm an MRA-weirdo. I think the Abusive Relationship Wheel is insane feminist witchhunting, codified into law by Joe Biden's 1994 Violence Against Women Act.p.s. for SD, your graphic about abusive relationships bears 99.92% resemblance to your posts here....
The man will be dead before January.Lsuoma wrote: ↑Well, that's a zinger!screwtape wrote: ↑ I am heartily sick of all this. Quite obviously, you should have stuck with George III, as he would have seen you right.
And talking of royalty, I was dismissive of the critics' complaints about season 4 of The Crown, but I have to admit it is complete fiction. Gone right off the rails. Utter lunacy. Do not believe a word of it, as what it suggests happened is clearly not the case, over and over again.
And perhaps all of these matters are actually the same thing: Americans making stuff up, yet again.
PS for SD, your graphic about abusive relationships bears an uncanny resemblance to your posts here....
BTW, you see the physical attacks on Biden have been started by the KH for Pres bunch? Broken foot? Well, OK. Playing with doggy woggy? Right...
This apparently stems from a typo on the PA Dept. of State website, which didn't subtract absentee ballot counts returned in the primary election, making it look like more were received in the actual election than were sent out.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑ - How Pennsylvania counted 700,000 more absentee ballots than it mailed out.
Nooooo. It's corruption, I tell you.Hunt wrote: ↑This apparently stems from a typo on the PA Dept. of State website, which didn't subtract absentee ballot counts returned in the primary election, making it look like more were received in the actual election than were sent out.Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑ - How Pennsylvania counted 700,000 more absentee ballots than it mailed out.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/fac ... 450032002/
Irony fail. 2/10. Must try harder. See me after class.Service Dog wrote: ↑I've been trying to take that pie squarely in the face... but I just can't figure out how to get in front of it.
The fault lies with me-- I'm autistically hung-up on the word "uncanny".
I know an 'uncanny resemblance' still technically means a very-close resemblance. But I can't get past the word "uncanny" invoking the "uncanny valley"-- an immense chasm between vague-resemblance and actually resembling something.
So the joke needs to be workshopped... I propose replacing 'uncanny' with some other adjective which is a callback to the statistic-heavy content of my recent posts...
Even with this adjustment, I'm still autistically unable to get the joke. I suspect it's because I'm an MRA-weirdo. I think the Abusive Relationship Wheel is insane feminist witchhunting, codified into law by Joe Biden's 1994 Violence Against Women Act.p.s. for SD, your graphic about abusive relationships bears 99.92% resemblance to your posts here....
It's entirely possible I'm some sort of toxic patriarchy absuse monster, unable to recognize myself in the Abusive Relationship Wheel.
or else the zinger just doesn't match reality. I'm open to someone enumerating exactly-what I'm missing. Even tho that will be less fun than just spooging-off throwaway remarks.
p.s.
I'm ever-so sorrry for demanding the Emotional Labor of those whose Job-It-Is-Not to educate me. :cdc:
Fucking hilarious! 10/10.Service Dog wrote: ↑