I use my negative press covefefe machine every morning. It's far superior to pour-over and french press types.
Last edited:
Election results discussion thread (and sadly the inevitable aftermath)
- Thread starter Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)
- Start date
- Status
He's trying to blackmail the guy into finding enough votes for him to win. That's not grounds for simply throwing away illegal votes. It's a felony. People go to prison for a very long time for these types of crimes. So why aren't you calling for Donald Trump's arrest?
US election: Have judges refused to look at the evidence of fraud?
If you have followed much news coverage of the US election and its aftermath, chances are you’ve read that President Donald Trump and his legal team have failed to prove their claims of widespread voter fraud in court.
www.news.com.au
To put it succinctly, no. The President’s explanation for his record in court does not hold up under scrutiny.
There are certainly isolated cases where judges did not consider the merits of the Trump campaign’s arguments. Specifically, he can point to the US Supreme Court, and that last decision I mentioned from the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Otherwise, even when his campaign’s lawsuits have been rejected for technical reasons – such as a lack of standing, or the laches doctrine – judges have gone out of their way to address the merits of its arguments as well.
On multiple occasions, Mr Trump’s lawyers have been given the opportunity to present their much-hyped evidence in court, and have failed to do so.
When they have offered purported evidence of fraud, such as in Nevada and Michigan, judges have invariably found it unconvincing.
The President is certainly free to disagree with those judgments. But when he says judges refused to even hear the evidence, he is wrong.
I know. I'm asking why you consider some perfectly-routine actions to be worthy of suspicion, and not others.
Come to think of it, I saw somebody go to the bathroom at work the other day. He could have been taking a piss... or he could have been slipping away to sell company secrets. We just don't know! Suspicious, right?
And that's why you have no meaningful case, because you're not prepared to address the issue reasonably. You just want to make claims without any responsibility to back them up.
Because the USA is not an autocracy. But he did have compliance from numerous states, partial compliance from others. And what about everything else? Why was this not fully passed to the Department of Homeland Security as claimed? What is your explanation for why Republicans refused investigation into alleged election fraud against them? You don't know and you don't seem to care.
But is this analysis actually valid? You don't know and you don't seem to care.Yes I have, but you've ignored them. The most recent is an analysis of the New York Time's data showing Trump votes going down instead of up:
DATA SCIENTISTS SHOCKING ELECTION TESTIMONY
Data scientists bring forward evidence showing the manipulations and vote swings on election night. This testimony was given before the Georgia State Senate. https://gofile.io/d/itc4XN https://gofile.rumble.com
If we're correcting apostrophe use, it's "the New York Times's data".
And also recently in, just for everyone's interest: Trump held a one-hour call with the Georgia secretary of state to persuade him to just award the state to Trump.
www.theguardian.com
You know, seeing as we're talking about election fraud, that's the president outright demanding it.
'I just want 11,780 votes': Trump pressed Georgia to overturn Biden victory
Trump asked secretary of state Brad Raffensperger in hour-long phone call to recalculate vote
www.theguardian.com
You know, seeing as we're talking about election fraud, that's the president outright demanding it.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."Yes I have, but you've ignored them. The most recent is an analysis of the New York Time's data showing Trump votes going down instead of up:
DATA SCIENTISTS SHOCKING ELECTION TESTIMONY
Data scientists bring forward evidence showing the manipulations and vote swings on election night. This testimony was given before the Georgia State Senate. https://gofile.io/d/itc4XN https://gofile.
I actually slogged through most of that video. Most of it isn't analysis, it's padding and gross conjecture. The analysts say data doesn't lie, but how someone chooses to explain data absolutely can be (and in this case is) lies.
1)
There's a lengthy preamble as the three people introduce themselves and their personal bona fides. They call themselves the "Data Integrity Group" but I can find no meaningful trace of their existence beyond this presentation. This is not a good sign: no transparency, reputation, etc. They then talk about algorithms and analysis systems that sound very fancy, but there's absolutely no detail what they've done with their analysis. Rule number one: if you don't explain your methodology clearly, everyone needs to be very worried how robust your analysis is.
2)
Then they pretty much press play on a video presentation, which makes various assertions that for the life of me I can't see what anyone would need a complex algorithm for, because they are claims like "A precinct voting over 90% for one candidate is a marker for fraud, here are some precincts that did." Er... no. You can't just set an arbitrary threshold and claim anything that exceeds that indicates fraud. It makes claims like "it is statistically impossible for x many precincts to vote over 90% for Joe Biden." Why is it "statistically impossible"? By what analysis / model? I might point out they use DeKalb county: in 2016 as a reference point, DeKalb voted over 80% for Clinton. Actually, it's very likely indeed with that sort of disparity that a substantial number of precincts would break over 90% for Biden; if an area is overwhelmingly populated by black people and we know black people vote about 85:15 Democrat, we should totally expect precincts with 90%+ for the Democratic candidate. As a minor point, any data analyst who uses the term "statistically impossible" in this sort of situation should immediately be flagged as risk of being a phoney: this is a world of probabilities and life just isn't that certain.
3)
Next is the idea that votes are being removed from the totals. Now, I don't need to be a data scientist to see that some of these substractions are exactly the same as additions that also appear: e.g. 5935 votes are added at a certain time point, and removed at another. Or in some cases, the other way round, are deleted and reinstated. (The funny thing here is also that at least one of the counties they pick on here is a Republican county. But anyway.)
They take one example of Putnam county (pop ~22k), which by my research ended with 8300 votes for Trump, 3400 for Biden, and 100 for Jorgensen with a turnout of ~80%. They claim that nearly 13,000 votes were removed from Trump. But hang on, if you add those 13,000 votes, Putnam county had a turnout of over 150%, and more voters than population. So clearly these are not "real" votes, and an even halfway competent and honest data analyst would notice that. So this trio of clown shoes are incompetent or lying.
There's more along the same lines, but one does not need to be a whizzo data analyst to realise that this is either some artefact of their data collection, or almost certainly the result of data entry errors that are being caught and corrected. We all know people make mistakes, and all sorts of checks and double checks exist to review the totals. These checks then correct the figures: and they can go down as well as up.
* * *
So, that's that. But this is why bullshit wins. In the time it's taken me to do this, Houseman could have put up half a dozen more piles of steaming bullshit that he doesn't think he has any responsibility to understand and criticise before declaring as God's own truth.
Thanks for taking the time to actually explaining that all out. That's exactly what I was trying to get at with the quote but was feeling far too lazy to put in the effort for Houseman.
Just because someone has taken a bunch of numbers and smacked them together like a child with action figures doesn't mean anything useful has come out of it. 2+3=5 is always true, but what '5' means and where '2' and '3' are derived from make all the difference between useless bunk and insightful analysis.
Telling people to properly do their job, because doing otherwise would be criminal, is not blackmail.
Kind of like how telling a doctor "you better not kill this patient in surgery or else I'll hold you accountable" is not blackmail.
Because I don't have the time to go through each and every lawsuit and give my opinion on them.
So, which is it? Is Trump so powerful that he has all the tools available at his disposal to find voter fraud and stop it, or can he be stonewalled by the states, and it's up to them whether to comply or not? It can't be both. You claimed it was the first, but you've been shown that this is wrong.
I'm not a data scientist, so you're right, I don't know.
I would like to see this analysis be defended in a court of law against an opposing expert to analyze their findings. I would accept that result.
The same goes for Matt Braynard's analysis.
Which was why I don't think your "debunking" of the earlier video is persuasive. You aren't an expert, and you're dealing with a presentation meant for laypeople, which is not what these people would present to a court of law to be examined by the defendant's experts.
Thanks. Why can't we just put an apostrophe at the end if a word already ends with s, like Jesus'?
Because what we can see on-screen requires less speculation than what we can't see off-screen.
The difference between "fraud" and "routine" is pressing one button. Was that button pressed or not? That's the only question.
Last edited:
They already were properly doing their job though. Then Trump started to apply pressure and threats for them to not to it properly and instead ''find'' 11780 votes for him.
Kind of like a doctor following the proper proceedures being told by his boss to radically change things up
Project Veritas has no legitimacy though. Didn't they at one point bribe a ''witness'' to lie about what project veritas wanted to hear?
Entities can refuse certain types of data to certain types of people. A White House commission probably has limitations that a legal investigation by like of the FBI does not. And even the FBI are limited by the need to get warrants if required. But that doesn't block an investigation, as it can be conducted by other means and it can be conducted through the states that have complied.
One might note, for instance, the huge amount of "evidence" (such as you have put into this file, itself a tiny scrap of all the stuff out there) brought forward, which is visible to the FBI, DoJ, DHS, etc. These organisations can investigate, and the president basically can make them do so. I mean, a director or secretary can refuse, and Trump can fire them and install someone who will. The investigators themselves can of course spoil the investigation deliberately, but nevertheless an investigation can be brought.
Again, it is problematic to observe the reaction to 2016 in terms of the narrative of widespread fraud. It does not make sense that Republican politicians would sit idle against credible accusations of fraud that would endanger their own seats. Although they might refuse the federal government on principle for interference in their jurisdiction even if sympathetic to the investigation, they surely would take action themselves at a state level. Such state level investigations are either not evident, or if they occurred revealed nothing. Outside direct power, the president surely has general political influence to persuade states to raise their own investigations.
Generally, it's "...s's" for singular nouns and "...s'" for plural: so the repast of Mary and Joseph would be "Jesus's parents' dinner". This does of course lead to an interesting argument about whether the Times in "New York Times" should count as a plural (because times is a plural word) or singular, as part of the singular entity "New York Times", and someone better at grammar than I am might argue the former and that I was wrong also.
This is also where apostrophe use has become a little more grey area. In practice, enough people do leave the extra s off on the singular form that it is often accepted nowadays, even though not conventionally proper.
No, I would not call myself an expert.
I am not a data analyst. But I am a scientist, which means that study design and data analysis are a very big part of my job. In that sense, a better question to ask is "Am I less of an expert than some of these guys"? Probably less of an expert than Matt Braynard who has a busy CV in the area, but potentially at least as much of an "expert" as some of these other enthusiastic amateurs who have wangled presentations at hearings, as I probably have a similar skill set.
One might point out that a bona fide expert has (in written submission at least) taken Braynard to task.
I do not agree with your interpretation of events.
I have no clue. But these leaks they were teasing are about the Georgia runoff, not the Presidential election, as it turns out.
Assuming that this is true, it seems like a lose-lose situation.
If Trump commands a FBI investigation into voter fraud, firing people until he finds someone he can work with, you'll call him a tyrant for wielding them as a weapon to accomplish his own goals, like Hoover did, and disregard whatever they turn up as politically motivated, and therefore, untrustworthy.
It seems more likely that he would rather do this, if he could. Since he hasn't, then it seems that he simply can't.
States are not conducting investigations now, nor do they appear at all concerned with the matter. Rudy has to bring his travelling show around to hearings and convince (Republican) legislators to do the investigating, because the Governors aren't, the Secretaries of State aren't.
Everyone should have skin in the game. Nobody is entirely unbiased here. Governors don't want to anger all those people who allegedly voted for Biden or admit that the elections that they ran were unsecure. It's like steamed hams. Come clean, and reveal yourself incompetent, or continue on with the charade and hope things work out for the best while a fire starts in the kitchen?
Neat.
The difference between taking a piss and selling company secrets is one phone-call. We'd better investigate that guy I saw go to the loo; it's mighty suspicious behaviour.
It's exactly as much of one as pointing to a poll-watcher doing something routine and expected and labelling it suspicious.
- Status