• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

If you Believe in Science and Mathermatics

Jay59

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
17,798
Reaction score
3,961
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
If anyone that says that it has been shown that there was no cheating, note them as a propaganda junky. Here is a report on the much discussed vote dumps. From the conclusion.
This report studies 8,954 individual updates to the vote totals in all 50 states and finds that four individual updates — two of which were widely noticed on the internet, including by the President — are profoundly anomalous; they deviate from a pattern which is otherwise found in the vast majority of the remaining 8,950 vote updates. The findings presented by this report [28]suggest that four vote count updates — which collectively were decisive in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia, and thus decisive of a critical forty-two electoral votes — are especially anomalous and merit further investigation.
42 EV is enough to swing the election. The report notes that these patterns are only suggestive, but it's very suggestive. If you believe in science, you also believe in digging deeper.

It's worth noting that this is not a new issue. After the 2004 election, former President Carter led a blue ribbon panel which anticipated these issues.
 
Last edited:
If anyone that says that it has been shown that there was no cheating, note them as a propaganda junky. Here is a report on the much discussed vote dumps. From the conclusion.

42 EV is enough to swing the election. The report notes that these patterns are only suggestive, but it's very suggestive. If you believe in science, you also believe in digging deeper.

It's worth noting that this is not a new issue. After the 2004 election, former President Carter led a blue ribbon panel which anticipated these issues.

LMAO... Did you read any of the rebuttals in the comments section of your source?
 
If anyone that says that it has been shown that there was no cheating, note them as a propaganda junky. Here is a report on the much discussed vote dumps. From the conclusion.

42 EV is enough to swing the election. The report notes that these patterns are only suggestive, but it's very suggestive. If you believe in science, you also believe in digging deeper.

It's worth noting that this is not a new issue. After the 2004 election, former President Carter led a blue ribbon panel which anticipated these issues.
Suggestive?

HAHAHAHAHA
 
If anyone that says that it has been shown that there was no cheating, note them as a propaganda junky. Here is a report on the much discussed vote dumps. From the conclusion.

42 EV is enough to swing the election. The report notes that these patterns are only suggestive, but it's very suggestive. If you believe in science, you also believe in digging deeper.

I learned in my management career that things that seemed too good to be true usually were.

This is just another way to determine what is anomalous. A smell test if you will.

I found it very interesting that all of the major polling agencies outside of Rasmussen and one other that I heard about late in the election season were, once again, wildly wrong.

There is something fishy going on with all of this. As I've posted here before, I don't need to understand the biology of a rotting fish at the cellular level to know I don't like the smell.

The source of the smell in this tracks back directly to the lying propagandists trying to drive our country into centrally run Communism.

Do they not treasure a free press or are they actually committed to the idea of destroying the free press? Facebook, Twitter and Google seem to be committed to aggressively destroying the First Amendment.

By their actions, we can only assume that it's already gone and now must be resurrected.
 
If anyone that says that it has been shown that there was no cheating, note them as a propaganda junky. Here is a report on the much discussed vote dumps. From the conclusion.

42 EV is enough to swing the election. The report notes that these patterns are only suggestive, but it's very suggestive. If you believe in science, you also believe in digging deeper.

It's worth noting that this is not a new issue. After the 2004 election, former President Carter led a blue ribbon panel which anticipated these issues.
Trump is a looser, live with it already.
 
LMAO... Did you read any of the rebuttals in the comments section of your source?
Rebuttals, no. I saw nothing akin to evidence and scientific method in any of the comments.

To which of almost 1000 comments are you referring?
 
If anyone that says that it has been shown that there was no cheating, note them as a propaganda junky. Here is a report on the much discussed vote dumps. From the conclusion.

42 EV is enough to swing the election. The report notes that these patterns are only suggestive, but it's very suggestive. If you believe in science, you also believe in digging deeper.

It's worth noting that this is not a new issue. After the 2004 election, former President Carter led a blue ribbon panel which anticipated these issues.
They are showing the same pattern in their graph. Are you blind? Additionally, why are they not showing the actual data from each state, but only an average of the other states?

This doesn't show anything except that sometimes things fall out of the norms.
 
If anyone that says that it has been shown that there was no cheating, note them as a propaganda junky. Here is a report on the much discussed vote dumps. From the conclusion.

42 EV is enough to swing the election. The report notes that these patterns are only suggestive, but it's very suggestive. If you believe in science, you also believe in digging deeper.

It's worth noting that this is not a new issue. After the 2004 election, former President Carter led a blue ribbon panel which anticipated these issues.

A few places they went wrong.

First, an outlier in data cannot ever prove anything.

Second, they do no look at where the votes came from, thus they cannot compare them to other vote totals from other parts of the state.

Third, they did not look at the type of vote being added in.

Fourth, the NY TImes update are not official results. They should have gotten this data from the state and not the NY Times
 
Rebuttals, no. I saw nothing akin to evidence and scientific method in any of the comments.

To which of almost 1000 comments are you referring?

Let’s start with a basic question: What does intermittent reporting of votes tallied predict?
 
If anyone that says that it has been shown that there was no cheating, note them as a propaganda junky. Here is a report on the much discussed vote dumps. From the conclusion.

42 EV is enough to swing the election. The report notes that these patterns are only suggestive, but it's very suggestive. If you believe in science, you also believe in digging deeper.

It's worth noting that this is not a new issue. After the 2004 election, former President Carter led a blue ribbon panel which anticipated these issues.

It’s odd that the media never uses the term “machine politics” anymore. It is alive and well.
The only thing a this point would be to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate. I can assume an incoming AG would immediately cancel it, but it would add fuel to what is shaping up to be a Biden slaughter in 2024. If the R’s can take the house and keep the Senate in 2022, something might get done.
 
It’s odd that the media never uses the term “machine politics” anymore. It is alive and well.
The only thing a this point would be to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate. I can assume an incoming AG would immediately cancel it, but it would add fuel to what is shaping up to be a Biden slaughter in 2024. If the R’s can take the house and keep the Senate in 2022, something might get done.

or you could just accept the facts, your boy lost and Biden won.

When you get desperate enough to claim that "statistical anomalies" are proof of something, that should tell you how shitty your position is supported.
 
I learned in my management career that things that seemed too good to be true usually were.

This is just another way to determine what is anomalous. A smell test if you will.

I found it very interesting that all of the major polling agencies outside of Rasmussen and one other that I heard about late in the election season were, once again, wildly wrong.

There is something fishy going on with all of this. As I've posted here before, I don't need to understand the biology of a rotting fish at the cellular level to know I don't like the smell.

The source of the smell in this tracks back directly to the lying propagandists trying to drive our country into centrally run Communism.

Do they not treasure a free press or are they actually committed to the idea of destroying the free press? Facebook, Twitter and Google seem to be committed to aggressively destroying the First Amendment.

By their actions, we can only assume that it's already gone and now must be resurrected.
you, like trump, his lawyers and every other person in the US, has exactly zero evidence of fraud. Zero. Nothing at all. "could be", "what if", "seems like", "theres no way he got that many votes" is not evidence. It's all baseless allegations with zero evidence to support them. It's why trump has had his ass laughed out of court 39 straight times.
 
One eensy-bitsy problem with the premise of the "votepatternanalysis" page - it used data from 4 Nov. Since that date, the states with "anomalies" in their ballots have all had recounts showing that the mathematician really didn't know what he was doing. Like many on the right and some on the left, he appeared to only pick numbers that supported a belief before running the "analysis"

For instance:
Biden gets boost from Wisconsin recount that cost Trump $3M
Georgia Completes Full Recount, Reaffirming Biden’s Win
Claims of rampant voter fraud in Michigan don't hold up to scrutiny
Trump Is Running Out Of Time As Key States Set To Certify That Biden Won
 
None of these analysis prove fraud or error in counting. Anomaly methodology in statistics is used to find outliers, being abnormalities or figures that differ significantly from the mean or norm. It doesn't mean the what is found is incorrect. The great majority are not, though in statistical analysis may be thrown out of various exhibits because they skew such as mean avg, etc. All the analysis found is what has already been reviewed, most especially in the WI recount, and no fraud or incorrect counting was or has been found.
 
LMAO... Did you read any of the rebuttals in the comments section of your source?
Sheeeiiittt... the “comments” are the shame type of shrill partisans that populate DP, and never, ever challenge their beliefs.

Regarding data, it reveals that democrats fighting election reform are doing it for a reason. What exactly is wrong with an accurate count? When asked, the public polls show the electorate wants it.
 
It’s odd that the media never uses the term “machine politics” anymore. It is alive and well.
The only thing a this point would be to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate. I can assume an incoming AG would immediately cancel it, but it would add fuel to what is shaping up to be a Biden slaughter in 2024. If the R’s can take the house and keep the Senate in 2022, something might get done.
There has to be evidence of a crime in order to appoint a special prosecutor. There is zero evidence fraud occurred in this election. None, what so ever. It's why trump has had his ass laughed out of court 39 straight times, most of which by republican appointed judges, many of which appointed by trump himself.
 
This is really shoddy analysis work. All they did was prove there were statistical anomalies, if the data from the NY Times is actually accurate. They did not look into those anomalies to see if they were valid or not. Stats 101 tells you that an outlier is not necessarily false information.
 
Sheeeiiittt... the “comments” are the shame type of shrill partisans that populate DP, and never, ever challenge their beliefs.

Regarding data, it reveals that democrats fighting election reform are doing it for a reason. What exactly is wrong with an accurate count? When asked, the public polls show the electorate wants it.
We have an accurate count. Both machine counting and the hand recounting confirm the same thing. Biden won, trump got his ass kicked, and there is zero evidence of fraud.
 
What exactly is wrong with an accurate count? When asked, the public polls show the electorate wants it.

we have had recounts in multiple states and you people still refuse to accept the results.

just be honest, all you care about Trump staying in the White House, nothing else matters
 
There has to be evidence of a crime in order to appoint a special prosecutor. There is zero evidence fraud occurred in this election. None, what so ever. It's why trump has had his ass laughed out of court 39 straight times, most of which by republican appointed judges, many of which appointed by trump himself.
To say “zero evidence” is the height of arrogance.
 
To say “zero evidence” is the height of arrogance.

sure, you have the same amount of evidence that the flat earthers do.

one can find "evidence" for anything, whether it is valid or not is the question
 
Another thing these people should have done if they wanted to be taken seriously is looked at the data from the past elections to see if there were anomalies in those as well.
 
Back
Top Bottom