Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - PeterNSteinmetz

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 47
286
Spin Zone / Re: 2000 Mules
« on: June 29, 2022, 04:47:24 PM »
Quote from: Lucifer on June 29, 2022, 03:34:49 PM
  So a 10,457 split.  Joe Biden "won" by 10,457.

 And yet in one county we have:

* 5K dead people voted in Maricopa county
* 10K voters used the same SS#
* 246,691 phantom voters on the Maricopa County voter rolls
* 235,367 ballots were changed by either a human or machine after they were tallied
* 10,943 ballots were counterfeit
* 94,737 more ballots were counted than the number of official ballots sent out in Maricopa County
* 120,867 ballots in Maricopa County had ghost votes on them from the use of Sharpies
* There were 11X more ghost votes that went to adjudication than the historical average
* 343,304 ballots were printed out of compliance
* 200,000 ballots were printed on non compliant paper
* 120,867 ballots were compromised by going to forced adjudication

  So with what's known above, wouldn't a recount be in order after removing the problematic ballots cited above?
Have they recounted? Certainly seems like a count of the problematic ballots cast for each candidate and then subtracting would be good. Essentially what I was suggesting above. But I have not seen that done. I do not understand why that was not done while examining each ballot with a magnifier, etc.

There are several possible explanations for a lack of report of that. One of which is that it effectively has been done and that the problematic ballots are distributed roughly like all the other ballots and so it makes no difference in the outcome. There are other more sinister possible explanations as well of course.


We don’t know and that does seem a pity given the effort which the GOP in this state has invested in re-examination.

287
Spin Zone / Re: 2000 Mules
« on: June 29, 2022, 04:39:57 PM »
Quote from: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on June 29, 2022, 04:28:32 PM
Go to 49 minutes into the video I posted and listen for a few minutes, then maybe come back here and give the explanation.
As I have noted before, I don’t generally watch videos for this sort of thing. That is mostly because I absorb information at least ten times more quickly reading and because it is very easy for videos to make a misleading impression. Sorry. If you have a written summary of the facts with references I can have a look.

I only watched 2000 Mules per Rush’s request as a sort of favor given our past discussions.

288
Spin Zone / Re: 2000 Mules
« on: June 29, 2022, 03:04:30 PM »
Quote from: Lucifer on June 29, 2022, 02:22:24 PM
  What was the vote total in Arizona for Biden, and the vote total for Trump?

Looks like 1,672,143 Biden, 1,661,686 Trump. It was rather close. https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/results/state/arizona/president

One of the things which has puzzled me with the recount is that I have not seen them tally the disputed votes in Maricopa County and then compute what happens if you throw out all of the votes in specific categories. Clearly some are more suspicious than others.

One could likely gain some insight by looking at the vote distribution in each category of problematic ballot. For example, do the 'dead people' tend to vote more for Biden? I have asked people involved in this why this has not been done and have never received an answer other than it would be a lot of work.

There is a mixture of preferences in the other counties (Tucson contains the University of Arizona for example) but those have not been examined in such detail.

289
Spin Zone / Re: 2000 Mules
« on: June 29, 2022, 02:04:26 PM »
Quote from: Lucifer on June 29, 2022, 12:53:43 PM
   I got this from another board on the Arizona Audit

  Kinda hard to say there is no clear evidence of fraud.  Quite the contrary.

Please note I did not say there was no evidence of fraud. There is and has been for some time. What there is NOT is evidence that fraud had affected the outcome.

Remember that Maricopa County is quite large with a population of 4,496,588 people. Some of these problems are just people likely making errors, like the ghost votes using Sharpies.

This just isn't good evidence of something that is other than the sort of error rate you expect in any human process. Particularly if you spend a lot of effort digging, as they have.

I would suggest re-reading that list and thinking about what each item might mean. Some I don't completely understand, perhaps it is explained at the source, but printed on non-compliant paper? That doesn't seem like it necessarily indicates an intentional fraud. Same sort of considerations apply to a lot of those.

My recollection from a more detailed analysis was that if you assumed nearly all of the plausibly fraudulent votes, like those from dead people, were cast for Trump, it could change the outcome. But that assumption seems like a pretty far stretch.

290
Spin Zone / Test 2 for 2000 Mules
« on: June 29, 2022, 11:50:28 AM »
It would be very useful to use the evidence in 2000 Mules to estimate the fraction of cases where ballot harvesting is taking place which are likely illegal. This could easily be performed with their dataset.

Take a random sample of the 2000 people identified (or the larger set with looser criteria). For each, try and find the video corresponding to their passage near a ballot box. Then categorize each passage in terms of categories such as to whether video was available, what happened in the video, use of gloves, number of ballots apparently dropped, etc.

The fractions in each category are then of great interest and one could extrapolate those fractions over the whole set to get a sense of the amount of this going on.

Combined with the results of Test 1, previously discussed in post #152, this would be even more powerful. 

291
Spin Zone / Re: 2000 Mules
« on: June 29, 2022, 11:31:29 AM »
Quote from: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on June 29, 2022, 06:37:40 AM
https://rumble.com/v19u51g-understanding-the-arizona-audit-w-doug-logan-history-making-herculean-effor.html

I have of course watched the AZ audit progression a bit more closely since I live in AZ.

What has struck me the most about it is that despite the enormous effort of a complete forensic recount, there is no clear evidence of fraud which would affect the outcome. Lot's of evidence of problems though, but nothing to show it would have affected the outcome.

As I mentioned earlier, it is almost weak evidence that in fact there was not enough fraud to make a difference and that if you dig hard enough you will find evidence of problems at a low level in any election.

292
Spin Zone / Re: 2000 Mules
« on: June 29, 2022, 11:27:08 AM »
Quote from: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on June 29, 2022, 03:50:01 AM
Any ballots dropped in a box by a mule would have been illegal.  Fortunately for them, they knew there would be no way to pull them out and exclude them, assuming anyone would have wanted to.

That is likely true in GA. I believe something like 27 states allow legal ballot harvesting by others. So in those states ballots dropped in the boxes were not necessarily illegal.

293
Spin Zone / Test 1 for 2000 Mules
« on: June 28, 2022, 08:31:33 PM »
Of course I find it hard when thinking about datasets not to ponder how one might use them to prove a point. So here is one that occurs in about 10 minutes of thought on how to show more convincingly that there was a level of bias which could affect the election based on what is known about this dataset.

It would be very useful to show that the people transferring ballots from potential non-profits to ballot boxes are doing so in a party preferential manner. This would address a number of criticisms raised by the AP article. So here is what I think could be done using the existing dataset and publicly available information.

First gather a list of all the non-profits in the swing states. This is publicly online. Also gather the information about their total donations and number of employees. This might require purchase of access to a non-profits database, but that would be quite small compared to the millions already spent. Have someone blinded to any of the other analyses classify each non-profit as left or right leaning on some scale and based on publicly available information. This could perhaps be done 3 or 5 times and averaged. One could even hire 3 or 5 people of left and right political persuasions and average.

Then draw a geofence around the location of each non-profit and again measure the number of people that go inside these geofences and then go inside geofences around the ballot drop boxes within a certain timeframe. Next compute a measure of often this is occurring in a fixed timeframe for each non-profit. Normalize that measure by number of employees or total budget. One could even use a squared measure of the difference from the mean to emphasize outliers. Then compute the relationship of this measure with the score of left versus right leaning of the non-profit. And to show statistical significance, use a simple Monte-Carlo simulation of the same measure when the score of political leaning is randomly swapped.

This sort of numerical experiment could be easily performed using readily available statistical packages, such as R.

If there was a strong statistically significant correlation between the political leaning score and the measure of ballot harvesting, this would be strong evidence of a potentially important effect.

294
Spin Zone / Re: 2000 Mules
« on: June 28, 2022, 08:17:30 PM »
Quote from: Rush on June 28, 2022, 04:57:51 PM
There is plenty of plausible proof.  The illegal and unconstitutional mail in ballots might be the biggest single thing that allowed thousands of ballots to be cast which had no proper chain of custody, plenty of evidence of having been duplicated on copy machines, videos of ballots being run through multiple times, and the Dominion voting machines were shown to miscount votes in favor of the Dems, as well as having been improperly connected to the internet and having had improper and unsupervised adjudication of far too many votes, and all of this in swing districts that just happened to push over to Biden early the next morning.  Then there is the mathematical impossibility of Trump having gotten 50% more of the black vote than he did in 2016, and more of the Hispanic, and then lost to a man that said if you don’t vote for me you ain’t black?

Most of those items were not covered in this video I don't believe. But OK, let's pick that apart a bit.

mail in ballots, if legally permitted, are not evidence of fraud. Is there evidence that there were a substantial amount of actually illegal ballots? If so, please provide to links to verifiable sources.

miscount by Dominion voting machines - again where is the reliable evidence that there was a substantial fraction of mis-counting that favored one party?

mathematical impossibility of Trump having gotten 50% more of the black votes ... - certainly interesting if true. Where is the reliable source calculating that? Seems like it would require a considerable assumption about the fraction of black votes going to Trump versus Biden, but I am all ears.

Without showing that such irregularities tended to favor one candidate or another, I don't find that these sort of items constitute a plausible argument for fraud that would have affected the election in any way. I think a simpler explanation is that elections have a finite error rate and that if you dig hard looking at only one side you will find things.

295
Spin Zone / Re: 2000 Mules
« on: June 28, 2022, 08:08:38 PM »
Quote from: President-Elect Bob Noel on June 28, 2022, 08:00:19 PM
why do you keep going on and on and on about "widespread" fraud?

Do you think that "widespread" fraud is the only possible problem?

Sorry, perhaps I should have said "coordinated systematic fraud". I focus on that because as noted in my reply #102 above, D'Souza and colleagues claim that they
"Know for a fact that there was coordinated systematic fraud" (at ~46:34).

296
Spin Zone / Re: 2000 Mules
« on: June 28, 2022, 08:05:08 PM »
Quote from: bflynn on June 28, 2022, 05:15:01 PM
There were initially accusations of fraud - expected, but a big nothing.  Then there is data showing irregularities in voting patterns, patterns that are know to coincide with ballot box stuffing - Cobb county seeing a 40% rise in Democrats voting for example, more than voted for Obama in a largely black district. Beyond that, there is now video evidence of people dropping a dozen or more ballots at once into boxes and taking precautions not to leave dna evidence behind. There is forensic evidence of travel patterns which branch out from concentrated points and move to multiple ballot drop box locations. 

Is there direct evidence of substantial illegal ballot harvesting in Cobb County? I certainly did not catch that in this film.

Yes, there were some video examples which are strongly suggestive of some type of illegal activity. But how often does that appear to have happened? Without proof of that happening on a substantial level, I don't think a few anecdotal examples make a 'plausible' case. Especially when it hasn't even been shown to have happened more on the left than the right.

I guess one could debate how certain one is that fraud occurred on that basis of these anecdotes expressing certainty as some type of subjective probability. I don't rank it very high personally. But hey if you do, perhaps you should donate some more money to D'Souza and company to perform some better analyses of their dataset and maybe hire some serious people to do that analysis. From what I saw, they appear to either be deliberately ignoring some obvious tests or are quite incompetent.

297
Spin Zone / Re: 2000 Mules
« on: June 28, 2022, 07:55:33 PM »
Quote from: Jim Logajan on June 28, 2022, 05:23:12 PM
I have not seen the movie, but D'Souza has stated that the movie was created after a person who was party to the fraud came forward. Was that not part of the movie?

There are several examples that I would consider fairly good evidence for fraud. But that is hardly plausible proof of widespread coordinated fraud. What he showed was essentially anecdotal.

298
Spin Zone / Re: 2000 Mules
« on: June 28, 2022, 04:07:44 PM »
Quote from: bflynn on June 28, 2022, 03:21:11 PM
The evidence - you cannot prove a negative. So the answer is to assume it’s right, then show the evidence is wrong.  Part of the problem here is that there’s been a serious accusation and the Left’s response has been gaslighting. They don’t want to know if the election was stolen because they want it to happen again.

How can there be this amount of evidence of a conspiracy to corrupt the democratic process and there be no concern for what the truth is?

This is inverting the burden of proof in a very seriously erroneous way.

Say for example I assert, there is a ghost on the upper shelf of my closet. Does that mean we should all assume that is true until you prove it is false?

Fairly clearly not. That is what is meant by the burden of proof is on he who asserts existence. In this example, me because I asserted that there was such a ghost.

Applied to this case. The assertion that there has been widespread systematic voter fraud is an assertion that a specific type of fraud has occurred. Lacking at least plausible proof that this is the case, it is reasonable to assume it has not.

But another way to consider this is in terms of non-falsifiable beliefs. What evidence, which could exist in principle, would you find persuasive that no such fraud has occurred?

If one can't name any, then it is a non-falsifiable belief. These have all sorts of logical problems.

Finally, there is the more scientific way to consider the evidence and that is to objectively consider the evidence both for and against the proposition. What sort of evidence is there that coordinated systematic fraud occurred in the 2020 presidential election? I have been asking for some months now for an objective overview of the evidence on both sides and have not heard of one. The film "2000 Mules" was said to be worth considering in this regard. In my view it fails to present even a plausible case to back up its assertion to the effect. But I remain very interested in such an objective overview if one exists.


299
Spin Zone / Re: 2000 Mules
« on: June 28, 2022, 12:35:43 PM »
I will clarify one more thing. My comments pertain only to the question of whether fraud had a significant effect on the election, which is sort of implied generally by the use of a term like “stolen” as applied to the election.

I suspect that other legal measures, such as the use of large numbers of mail in ballots or ballot harvesting, might well have affected the outcome in such a tightly contested race.

300
Spin Zone / Re: 2000 Mules
« on: June 28, 2022, 12:26:32 PM »
I actually suspect that many commenters here have essentially a non-falsifiable belief that the election was “stolen”. So the only way to deal with that is for such people to define what evidence, which could exist, would be persuasive that the election was NOT stolen.

The claim that the election was “stolen” is an assertion of the existence of a certain type of fraud. The burden of proof lies on he who asserts existence, not the other way around.

Another logical principle which should operate here is that the claim that the election was “stolen” is a sort of extraordinary claim. And extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

So far, despite watching the suggested film, I have seen nothing approaching even the level of a plausible argument that there was “systematic coordinated fraud” as asserted in that film.

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 47