Post by: Lucifer on May 08, 2022, 10:29:53 AM
You can watch here (before it gets taken down)
https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/2000-mules-watch-the-full-movie/
Post by: Rush on May 09, 2022, 05:50:38 AM
Yeah you cannot see this and still believe the election wasn’t stolen. No way.
So three dozen BLM/Antifa rioters (as tracked by cell phone pings) were also tracked going to ballot drop boxes multiple times the night of the election. That’s not suspicious.
Post by: Number7 on May 09, 2022, 06:06:00 AM
24 minutes in, have to stop to work. But this needs to remain available.
Yeah you cannot see this and still believe the election wasn’t stolen. No way.
So three dozen BLM/Antifa rioters (as tracked by cell phone pings) were also tracked going to ballot drop boxes multiple times the night of the election. That’s not suspicious.
Being that jim wasn't there at the time and flynn staked out the ground that nothing happened, look for him and lots of other blind mice to run along and claim that means nothing.
Post by: Rush on May 09, 2022, 06:24:45 AM
Being that jim wasn't there at the time and flynn staked out the ground that nothing happened, look for him and lots of other blind mice to run along and claim that means nothing.
I was going to specifically call out @bflynn and challenge him to watch this and then tell us what he thinks but I hadn’t got around to it yet.
Post by: Number7 on May 09, 2022, 06:36:33 AM
I was going to specifically call out @bflynn and challenge him to watch this and then tell us what he thinks but I hadn’t got around to it yet.
Intentional ignorance is a typical quality among lefties trying to pass as moderates.
Post by: Rush on May 09, 2022, 07:20:00 AM
“Millions of people actually voted for him to be the leader of the free world, showing the wisdom of our forefathers in spurning direct democracy in a seemingly vain attempt at lessening the damage that can be done by idiots participating in civics.”
https://www.amazon.com/Ridicule-All-Deserved-Tarl-Warwick/dp/B09ZCVYRHZ/ref=sr_1_1?crid=CQ5DZJ2JNVKL&keywords=ridicule+for+all+scorn+deserved&qid=1652105585&sprefix=Ridicule+%2Caps%2C275&sr=8-1
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on May 09, 2022, 07:43:02 AM
Post by: Lucifer on May 09, 2022, 07:53:42 AM
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on May 09, 2022, 07:57:33 AM
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on May 09, 2022, 08:00:12 AM
I got this book, it’s a fun little read, it is of course Styx. Anyhoo the copyright will allow me to quote a small part in review and promotion. He absolutely hits the nail here with respect to those who actually did vote for Biden:
“Millions of people actually voted for him to be the leader of the free world, showing the wisdom of our forefathers in spurning direct democracy in a seemingly vain attempt at lessening the damage that can be done by idiots participating in civics.”
https://www.amazon.com/Ridicule-All-Deserved-Tarl-Warwick/dp/B09ZCVYRHZ/ref=sr_1_1?crid=CQ5DZJ2JNVKL&keywords=ridicule+for+all+scorn+deserved&qid=1652105585&sprefix=Ridicule+%2Caps%2C275&sr=8-1
Sounds great, just ordered. Now I see where Amazon makes their bucks. A 50-page booklet costs $5.50 but shipping is $5.99.
Post by: Jim Logajan on May 09, 2022, 08:29:49 AM
Being that jim wasn't there at the time and flynn staked out the ground that nothing happened, look for him and lots of other blind mice to run along and claim that means nothing.
At no time have I said the election wasn't stolen. In fact I've donated several hundred dollars to voterga.org so they would have the resources to win their case to exam ballots for fraud. So how much have you donated to attempts to uncover election fraud around the country?
Post by: Number7 on May 09, 2022, 09:12:53 AM
At no time have I said the election wasn't stolen. In fact I've donated several hundred dollars to voterga.org so they would have the resources to win their case to exam ballots for fraud. So how much have you donated to attempts to uncover election fraud around the country?
How cute.
I actually volunteered dozens (if not hundreds-I don’t keep score like a liberal) protesting against the thrives in Orange County florida who stole thousands of votes.
Know much time did you donate?????
As for donations, I’m offended by people who donate them demand attention and gifts from the IRS for them.
Post by: Rush on May 09, 2022, 09:41:37 AM
Sounds great, just ordered. Now I see where Amazon makes their bucks. A 50-page booklet costs $5.50 but shipping is $5.99.
You must not have Amazon Prime, I paid no shipping.
Post by: Anthony on May 09, 2022, 10:17:13 AM
You must not have Amazon Prime, I paid no shipping.
I choke every time I see the Amazon Prime charge hit my account because of Bezos and their Wokeness. However, I do use it and its the only premium channel I stream. Still, I'm a hypocrite.
Post by: Rush on May 09, 2022, 10:47:22 AM
I choke every time I see the Amazon Prime charge hit my account because of Bezos and their Wokeness. However, I do use it and its the only premium channel I stream. Still, I'm a hypocrite.
Me too but we save so much money on shipping even without the streaming.
Post by: Jim Logajan on May 09, 2022, 10:58:51 AM
How cute.
I actually volunteered dozens (if not hundreds-I don’t keep score like a liberal) protesting against the thrives in Orange County florida who stole thousands of votes.
Know much time did you donate?????
As for donations, I’m offended by people who donate them demand attention and gifts from the IRS for them.
So you don't put up any money at all to rooting out fraud. Instead you just protest pointlessly like a liberal. I don't itemize donations like that - so your IRS claim is a lie.
Show me a post where I ever said the election wasn't stolen. You can't - since I believe it was stolen - but you just stack one lie on top of another.
You emote and let your emotions dictate your posts here, just like a liberal or woke person would.
Sadly your posts here demonstrate you are indistinguishable from a liberal or woke person. Anytime they don't like something a person says they label them as racists or white supremacists or fascists. Anytime you don't like something someone says you label them a liberal or woke person or commies.
Even though I think we agree on many things, I find your infantile triggered response mechanism amusing but ultimately counterproductive to the promotion of liberty.
P.S. If you insist on making baloney claims about me, could you at least make them more interesting? Yours are so boring and predictable.
Post by: Number7 on May 09, 2022, 11:08:44 AM
Your presumptions are idiotic and pointless, as are your claims about the purity of your intentions.
As for your assault on my character, I am NOT a limousine liberal who thinks writing a check gives me credibility.
As for protesting, without people demanding justice the democrat communists would have stolen far more than votes in 2020, so do continue to attack activism like every other frightened lib.
When you stoop to presumptive closes, like every other good offended liberal, you might try to be a bit more believable, even if your blathering is pure bullshit.
Post by: Jim Logajan on May 09, 2022, 11:53:04 AM
Your presumptions are idiotic and pointless,
I know yours are, but what are mine?
Post by: Number7 on May 09, 2022, 02:00:04 PM
I know yours are, but what are mine?
Learn that in fourth grade?
Or was fourth grade too advanced for you?
Post by: Jim Logajan on May 09, 2022, 03:05:48 PM
Learn that in fourth grade?
Or was fourth grade too advanced for you?
One can learn things by studying classical Greeks, classical musics, and classic Pee-wee Herman. Like influential debate tactics.
Post by: Number7 on May 09, 2022, 03:12:02 PM
One can learn things by studying classical Greeks, classical musics, and classic Pee-wee Herman. Like influential debate tactics.
When are you going to start?
Post by: Rush on May 10, 2022, 05:11:31 AM
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on May 10, 2022, 05:17:23 AM
I realize the DNC aren't the best and brightest, but even mouth-breathers can figure out not to let themselves be tracked by cellphones.
Post by: Lucifer on May 10, 2022, 05:42:49 AM
Voting should require an ID. Can't make election day? Then do absentee, the correct way.
Get rid of voting machines and go paper.
Several blue shitholes will keep drop boxes this November, for a reason. The free states have or will move away from them.
Post by: Rush on May 10, 2022, 06:26:39 AM
There is zero need for drop boxes, period. Drop boxes only invite fraud.
Voting should require an ID. Can't make election day? Then do absentee, the correct way.
Get rid of voting machines and go paper.
Several blue shitholes will keep drop boxes this November, for a reason. The free states have or will move away from them.
THIS! Even John Oliver (Trump hater) said this. Prior to 2020 of course.
Post by: jb1842 on May 10, 2022, 06:26:48 AM
There is zero need for drop boxes, period. Drop boxes only invite fraud.
Voting should require an ID. Can't make election day? Then do absentee, the correct way.
Get rid of voting machines and go paper.
Several blue shitholes will keep drop boxes this November, for a reason. The free states have or will move away from them.
You get a tax id number, you can get a voter id number. That number is linked to your ballot. You can then look up your ballot at any time to make sure it hasn't been altered. The technology is there to do it and make it secure.
Post by: Number7 on May 10, 2022, 06:33:55 AM
Post by: Lucifer on May 10, 2022, 06:35:20 AM
You get a tax id number, you can get a voter id number. That number is linked to your ballot. You can then look up your ballot at any time to make sure it hasn't been altered. The technology is there to do it and make it secure.
Absolutely.
But when you have a political faction that can only win by cheating, then secure must be abolished. This is not a secret, it's right there in plain sight.
With the volumes of evidence of machine tampering, drop boxes, dead people voting, 100+ voters using a vacant lot address, more people voting than registered in a district, etc it should be no problem to true the vote and end voting fraud.
Right now the MSM is totally ignoring 2000 Mules, and even Fox and NewsMax won't allow it to be mentioned. This is not just a democrat problem, it's a UniParty problem.
Our constitution is very clear on this. Many state's have very clear laws. We need the will of the people to stop this destruction.
Post by: Rush on May 10, 2022, 06:48:13 AM
Absolutely.
But when you have a political faction that can only win by cheating, then secure must be abolished. This is not a secret, it's right there in plain sight.
With the volumes of evidence of machine tampering, drop boxes, dead people voting, 100+ voters using a vacant lot address, more people voting than registered in a district, etc it should be no problem to true the vote and end voting fraud.
Right now the MSM is totally ignoring 2000 Mules, and even Fox and NewsMax won't allow it to be mentioned. This is not just a democrat problem, it's a UniParty problem.
Our constitution is very clear on this. Many state's have very clear laws. We need the will of the people to stop this destruction.
I was very disappointed to hear that about newsmax.
Post by: Lucifer on May 10, 2022, 06:55:21 AM
I was very disappointed to hear that about newsmax.
Not surprising. They are playing to the UniParty. Same with Fox.
Post by: Rush on May 10, 2022, 07:23:07 AM
Not surprising. They are playing to the UniParty. Same with Fox.
It is being censored so heavily because it totally exposes what happened. If it were a crazy conspiracy theory they wouldn’t be so desperate to squash it. Suppose it claimed little green men from Mars came and rigged the election. No reason to censor that. Nobody would buy it except literal tin foil hat wearers. But they proved it with science and technology. REAL journalists should be all over that, it’s the biggest scandal and most widespread cheating this country has ever had. If it had been the Republicans doing it, it would be all over CNN, MSNBC etc, and the NSA would have already got FISA warrants and the FBI would have raided several organizations and individuals’ homes.
This is the dirtiest filthiest thing to have ever happened in politics and the far left is responsible. Those mules’ locations proved what organizations they ran with and who was giving them the fake ballots. BLM and Antifa need to be prosecuted as literal subversive insurrectionists. The Democrats as usual turn reality on its head. Declare MAGA insurrection when all MAGA ever did was request an investigation into allegations of fraud. They openly support Antifa when Antifa are the literal traitors and violent ones at that. It’s astounding there are people in this country that still vote Democrat.
Post by: Lucifer on May 10, 2022, 07:36:29 AM
It is being censored so heavily because it totally exposes what happened. If it were a crazy conspiracy theory they wouldn’t be so desperate to squash it. Suppose it claimed little green men from Mars came and rigged the election. No reason to censor that. Nobody would buy it except literal tin foil hat wearers. But they proved it with science and technology. REAL journalists should be all over that, it’s the biggest scandal and most widespread cheating this country has ever had. If it had been the Republicans doing it, it would be all over CNN, MSNBC etc, and the NSA would have already got FISA warrants and the FBI would have raided several organizations and individuals’ homes.
This is the dirtiest filthiest thing to have ever happened in politics and the far left is responsible. Those mules’ locations proved what organizations they ran with and who was giving them the fake ballots. BLM and Antifa need to be prosecuted as literal subversive insurrectionists. The Democrats as usual turn reality on its head. Declare MAGA insurrection when all MAGA ever did was request an investigation into allegations of fraud. They openly support Antifa when Antifa are the literal traitors and violent ones at that. It’s astounding there are people in this country that still vote Democrat.
Minor correction: The republicans were in on it. This is not just a democrat inside job.
Post by: Rush on May 10, 2022, 07:41:00 AM
Minor correction: The republicans were in on it. This is not just a democrat inside job.
What I meant was if they were doing it on behalf of a Republican candidate, like Trump or other non-RINO.
Post by: Lucifer on May 10, 2022, 06:31:00 PM
Post by: Lucifer on May 10, 2022, 06:47:27 PM
Post by: Lucifer on May 11, 2022, 05:23:34 AM
Quote
Fox News has been on a collision course with its own audience since the stolen 2020 election — and you can almost feel the impact coming. The network has made so many dumb bets lately that it’s like watching a busload of trailer park residents get offloaded to play the nickel slots in Reno. All you can do is shake your head as you think: I know they’re all going bankrupt, and they’re already bankrupt. It’s been perfectly obvious for years now that Rupert Murdoch and his feckless sons turned against President Trump and actually helped Joe Biden — which is not just unforgivable. It’s unsustainable.
Why? Because it requires the silence of other prominent conservatives, and the short term memories of GOP voters, to allow Fox News to continue pretending that it’s a conservative news network. Guess what: GOP voters have not forgotten about Fox News calling Arizona early — and prominent conservatives are no longer interested in ignoring Fox’s treachery.
Case in point: Dinesh D’Souza dropped several bombshells on Twitter recently that illustrate that Fox News has nowhere left to hide.
(https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F8d3edbf8-8356-4417-943d-ce29ac3ad669_599x445.png)
Post by: Lucifer on May 11, 2022, 05:31:46 AM
Post by: Username on May 11, 2022, 05:43:03 AM
Post by: Rush on May 11, 2022, 05:43:48 AM
Post by: Lucifer on May 11, 2022, 05:51:37 AM
I will NEVER forgive or forget FOX for calling Arizona early. That is BURNED into my memory.
Board Member of Fox News. Tells you all you need to know.
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.famousbirthsdeaths.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F01%2Fpaul-ryan-bio-net-worth-facts.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
Post by: Number7 on May 11, 2022, 06:40:25 AM
Post by: nddons on May 11, 2022, 07:23:02 AM
How cute.What the fuck are you talking about? Political donations or politically-oriented nonprofit donations aren’t deductible.
I actually volunteered dozens (if not hundreds-I don’t keep score like a liberal) protesting against the thrives in Orange County florida who stole thousands of votes.
Know much time did you donate?????
As for donations, I’m offended by people who donate them demand attention and gifts from the IRS for them.
But feel free to not deduct your charitable donations. Your return will look just like Democrats, who rarely donate to charities.
Post by: Number7 on May 11, 2022, 08:27:08 AM
What the fuck are you talking about? Political donations or politically-oriented nonprofit donations aren’t deductible.
But feel free to not deduct your charitable donations. Your return will look just like Democrats, who rarely donate to charities.
Since you brought it up, I’m also offended by people who virtue signal their donations, and complain about others.’
you two fit both bills
Post by: Lucifer on May 11, 2022, 08:37:18 AM
Post by: nddons on May 11, 2022, 01:38:33 PM
Since you brought it up, I’m also offended by people who virtue signal their donations, and complain about others.’I enjoy day drinking too, just not every single day.
you two fit both bills
Post by: Number7 on May 11, 2022, 01:51:40 PM
I enjoy day drinking too, just not every single day.
You mean you only drink twice a day?
Night and day.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on May 11, 2022, 02:12:32 PM
Post by: Lucifer on May 11, 2022, 02:24:26 PM
Heard Bongino say today that Erick Erickson called 2000 Mules propaganda.
Many would welcome him to back that up. Can he take the time and go through the evidence and show us how it's "propaganda"?
Post by: Rush on May 11, 2022, 02:25:57 PM
Heard Bongino say today that Erick Erickson called 2000 Mules propaganda.
I suppose you could hire actors and make up a bunch of fiction about cell phone data points etc. but does anybody seriously believe that?
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on May 11, 2022, 02:43:26 PM
I suppose you could hire actors and make up a bunch of fiction about cell phone data points etc. but does anybody seriously believe that?
Which would be less likely to happen:
1) hiring a bunch of actors - none of whom spill the beans on the hoax
2) hiring a bunch of goons to be mules - none of whom spill the beans on the crimes committed.
Post by: bflynn on May 11, 2022, 02:56:14 PM
Many would welcome him to back that up. Can he take the time and go through the evidence and show us how it's "propaganda"?
Rhetorical. Of course he cannot.
I have been challenging people I know on the left to watch the movie and then come back with an honest explanation of how there was no fraud. I don't expect any of them to be able to do it.
I've withheld judgement because there hasn't been any hard evidence. D'Souza has it. It's factual, it's hard and it's scientific. Anyone else can take the same data and figure it out. There was fraud.
Beyond that - the numbers he is talking about explains the unlikely jump in Democrat turnout. Taking a single county, Cobb County in Georgia,
2020 - Trump got 165,436 votes, Biden got 221,847.
2016 - Trump got 152,602 votes, Hillary got 159,416.
The 62,421 vote difference was chalked up to better democrat turnout. Yes, a 39.15% increase is unlikely, but it wasn't proof. The underlying proof of mules provided by D'Souza means that number is almost certainly fraudulent ballots and ballot harvesting by Democrats.
Dems are already saying why the data is wrong (without examining it). The repeated patterns of so many people intersecting at ballot boxes on a daily basis defies their explanations. They say "they were poll workers" or "it's all innocent". Rather than be aghast at the assault to the democratic process, they want to bury it.
Post by: bflynn on May 11, 2022, 02:58:25 PM
Which would be less likely to happen:
1) hiring a bunch of actors - none of whom spill the beans on the hoax
2) hiring a bunch of goons to be mules - none of whom spill the beans on the crimes committed.
3) Hiring a bunch of criminals dedicated who don't want to be caught committing the most massive voter fraud in US history. My suspicion is that when we identify them, we will find out they are part of a group dedicated to attacking the US, such as Russia.
Post by: Rush on May 11, 2022, 03:12:55 PM
3) Hiring a bunch of criminals dedicated who don't want to be caught committing the most massive voter fraud in US history. My suspicion is that when we identify them, we will find out they are part of a group dedicated to attacking the US, such as Russia.
Not sure I agree that it would be foreign actors but I am thrilled you are finally seeing the light. In fact, you holding out so long waiting for evidence makes it even more clear that this is indeed evidence, you were the hardest to convince back in Dec. 2020. If something convinces you, then we know that it's concrete!
I believe the mules were Antifa/BLM type garden variety urban Americans, due to the pings at the summer riots. They were paid $10 per ballot. The money came from whomever funds those organizations, or Soros, and all the far left entities that thought they HAD to get rid of Trump at any cost.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on May 11, 2022, 07:31:29 PM
Many would welcome him to back that up. Can he take the time and go through the evidence and show us how it's "propaganda"?Not likely, he's Erick Erickson. He's a Rino and a Never Trumper from way back when. He got Rush's time slot locally so now he really thinks he's a big deal.
When he was on a bunch of small local stations in the morning time he had a financial guy, Chris Burns, that he bragged about all the time. Always told his listeners that Burns was his personal financial guy. Well, Burns business must have grown fairly well and one day he just disappeared, with everyone's money of course. Every time I see him Tweet I will reply and ask if he's found Chris Burns yet. Recently I had a guy DM me asking if I had been a client of Burns. I told him no, I just enjoyed poking Erickson when I could. Guy said he is puting together a documentary on the whole thing.
Post by: Lucifer on May 12, 2022, 04:53:49 AM
Post by: Lucifer on May 12, 2022, 04:56:46 AM
Post by: Lucifer on May 13, 2022, 05:27:25 AM
Post by: Rush on May 13, 2022, 05:58:17 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/aFEwbSJ.jpg)
As well as a bunch of other evidence to a bunch of other people such as state legislatures and was even offered to the Supreme Court and ALL of them chickened out. Caved to literal terrorists.
Post by: Anthony on May 13, 2022, 06:02:04 AM
As well as a bunch of other evidence to a bunch of other people such as state legislatures and was even offered to the Supreme Court and ALL of them chickened out. Caved to literal terrorists.
And the MEDIA.
Post by: Lucifer on May 13, 2022, 06:14:45 AM
Post by: Lucifer on May 30, 2022, 06:00:00 AM
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on May 30, 2022, 02:34:35 PM
Quote
Congratulations to my Governor Brian Kemp on being re-nominated for another term by over 50 points. I want to thank all the Georgia voters who stood for truth and integrity and not lies and conspiracy theories. I look forward to supporting you for a second term.
Several of us made comments about the voter fraud and 2000 Mules. He ended up replying that he didn't believe in fiction. I replied with a link to the story of the mule in AZ that has changed her plea from not guilty to guilty in her election fraud case based on the info in 2000 Mules. Also guessing she is going to sing like a Canary.
I also challenged him to post anything he had disproving the info in 2000 Mules.
Not only did he not respond, but has deleted those responses.
Post by: Rush on May 30, 2022, 03:17:51 PM
I have a church friend whose son is the chair of the county Republican committee. Saturday he posted
Several of us made comments about the voter fraud and 2000 Mules. He ended up replying that he didn't believe in fiction. I replied with a link to the story of the mule in AZ that has changed her plea from not guilty to guilty in her election fraud case based on the info in 2000 Mules. Also guessing she is going to sing like a Canary.
I also challenged him to post anything he had disproving the info in 2000 Mules.
Not only did he not respond, but has deleted those responses.
The emperor has no clothes. Willful denial. EVERYONE knows deep down there was fraud.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on May 30, 2022, 04:00:48 PM
I have a church friend whose son is the chair of the county Republican committee. Saturday he posted
Several of us made comments about the voter fraud and 2000 Mules. He ended up replying that he didn't believe in fiction. I replied with a link to the story of the mule in AZ that has changed her plea from not guilty to guilty in her election fraud case based on the info in 2000 Mules. Also guessing she is going to sing like a Canary.
I also challenged him to post anything he had disproving the info in 2000 Mules.
Not only did he not respond, but has deleted those responses.
the guy (the son) is a coward
Post by: texasag93 on May 30, 2022, 04:31:56 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/9nhwuwO.jpg)
At least the fuc*tard on the left finally did something right.
He spell Brian correctly.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on May 30, 2022, 05:15:24 PM
your church friend is a cowardNot the church friend, her son.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on May 30, 2022, 05:28:21 PM
Not the church friend, her son.
ah, I missed that... and I modified my post.
Post by: Lucifer on June 02, 2022, 05:36:58 AM
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on June 03, 2022, 08:36:54 AM
The Arizona Senate hearing with Katherine Englebrecht and Gregg Phillips. You can fast forward through the lead up, except for Anthony, he'll want to watch Kari Lake. More detail about how the data was collected and correlated
Post by: Anthony on June 03, 2022, 09:44:54 AM
https://www.rsbnetwork.com/news/live-true-the-vote-presents-ballot-harvesting-evidence-to-the-arizona-state-senate/
The Arizona Senate hearing with Katherine Englebrecht and Gregg Phillips. You can fast forward through the lead up, except for Anthony, he'll want to watch Kari Lake. More detail about how the data was collected and correlated
Meh....Too old for me.
;D
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on June 03, 2022, 09:54:35 AM
https://decaturish.com/2022/06/breaking-hand-count-in-district-2-dekalb-commission-race-changes-runoff-picture/
Quote
DeKalb County, GA — The DeKalb County Voter Registration and Elections Office on June 1 released the results of a hand count in the District 2 DeKalb County Commission race.
The results should be considered preliminary. VRE originally reported the June 21 runoff was between Orson and Alexander. After a week of review, Lauren Alexander and Michelle Long Spears will go head-to-head in the runoff on June 21.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on June 03, 2022, 02:26:02 PM
Nah, no bias there....
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on June 04, 2022, 08:37:36 PM
Certainly the AP report does not look good in terms of veracity - https://apnews.com/article/e1b49d2311bf900f44fa5c6dac406762
Post by: Jim Logajan on June 04, 2022, 09:00:24 PM
Does anyone know of an objective written summary of the evidence presented in this film and criticism of it.
Certainly the AP report does not look good in terms of veracity - https://apnews.com/article/e1b49d2311bf900f44fa5c6dac406762
Found this article that contests the AP article:
https://politiquerepublic.substack.com/p/fact-checking-the-aps-fact-check?r=1o2ns&s=w&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web (https://politiquerepublic.substack.com/p/fact-checking-the-aps-fact-check?r=1o2ns&s=w&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web)
Post by: Rush on June 05, 2022, 03:13:45 AM
Found this article that contests the AP article:
https://politiquerepublic.substack.com/p/fact-checking-the-aps-fact-check?r=1o2ns&s=w&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web (https://politiquerepublic.substack.com/p/fact-checking-the-aps-fact-check?r=1o2ns&s=w&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web)
That is excellent debunkage… of the lame debunking.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on June 05, 2022, 04:51:29 AM
Does anyone know of an objective written summary of the evidence presented in this film and criticism of it.
Certainly the AP report does not look good in terms of veracity - https://apnews.com/article/e1b49d2311bf900f44fa5c6dac406762 (https://apnews.com/article/e1b49d2311bf900f44fa5c6dac406762)
You can also watch the video I posted a link to above from the AZ Senate meeting. Both Englebrecht and Phillips appeared. They went into to detail about the methods used. If you fast forward to the beginning of the actual hearing you will save a lot of time.
Most recently a lady in AZ changed her plea from not guilty to guilty because of information presented in 2000 Mules.
Again, the intent was not prove any one candidate received unwarranted votes, but to show that the harvesting took place and that xxx,xxx number of ballots were illegal based on harvesting being illegal. They were really showing how poor a job these states did of monitoring the drop boxes and how easily the system was manipulated with the harvesting.
Unfortunately, once those ballots go into the box there us no way to discount them.
Post by: Rush on June 05, 2022, 05:56:08 AM
You can also watch the video I posted a link to above from the AZ Senate meeting. Both Englebrecht and Phillips appeared. They went into to detail about the methods used. If you fast forward to the beginning of the actual hearing you will save a lot of time.
Most recently a lady in AZ changed her plea from not guilty to guilty because of information presented in 2000 Mules.
Again, the intent was not prove any one candidate received unwarranted votes, but to show that the harvesting took place and that xxx,xxx number of ballots were illegal based on harvesting being illegal. They were really showing how poor a job these states did of monitoring the drop boxes and how easily the system was manipulated with the harvesting.
Unfortunately, once those ballots go into the box there us no way to discount them.
But as pointed out you can conduct an investigation and get to the truth, but the PTB won’t do it. I was surprised to learn that the team had actually identified some of the mules, simply using the location data, which led to home address, etc. The NSA sweeps ALL this up yet cannot (legally) unmask identities without a FISA court warrant. Private citizens are under no such constraints.
Not being a lawyer I don’t know the ins and outs of whether the information uncovered that way is admissible. But it is surely enough to warrant an investigation, no pun intended. As pointed out, if simply being on the Capitol grounds on Jan 6 was enough to bring a SWAT team (guns drawn) to your home, then this is more than enough to get proper warrants and get to the bottom of it.
Getting a FISA warrant is a joke, basically a rubber stamp for anyone who has any kind of grudge and can cook up a lie. We know this for fact. So use the FISA court properly for once and investigate a real crime. There is more than enough probable cause.
They simply won’t do it, because they are in on it. The DOJ, FBI, etc. are infested with Trump hating Democrats (edit: and RINOs) who convinced themselves fraud was justified as saving the country from an evil fascist. Of course they won’t investigate. There is too much “there” there and they damn well know it.
Post by: Lucifer on June 05, 2022, 06:51:28 AM
They have an agenda, and if anyone opposes it they will have the full force of the federal government upon them.
Post by: Anthony on June 05, 2022, 10:01:25 AM
It’s not just the democrats. It’s the swamp endorsed UniParty, the so called “elites”. The Turtle is really no different than Cry’n Chuck, and McCarthy is really not different from the Wicked Witch of the West.
They have an agenda, and if anyone opposes it they will have the full force of the federal government upon them.
They are the enemy, just Democrat lite.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on June 05, 2022, 01:36:36 PM
Found this article that contests the AP article:That is an interesting article. Though I think the main points of the AP criticism still are important.
https://politiquerepublic.substack.com/p/fact-checking-the-aps-fact-check?r=1o2ns&s=w&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web (https://politiquerepublic.substack.com/p/fact-checking-the-aps-fact-check?r=1o2ns&s=w&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web)
Of the 2000 people identified, how many of those were found near the ballot drop boxes AND were dropping off ballots on video. Particularly, how many did so more than once?
The actual data in terms of answers to these questions were not clear to me in either article frankly.
And as noted in both articles, none of this is particularly compelling evidence that this would have affected the outcome of the election.
My own view on that of course is that all human processes have a finite error rate. Very few are 1 part in 200 million, so that means there will always be some error in vote counting in the US. Basically the outcome was within random error.
Post by: Lucifer on June 05, 2022, 01:44:54 PM
That is an interesting article. Though I think the main points of the AP criticism still are important.
Of the 2000 people identified, how many of those were found near the ballot drop boxes AND were dropping off ballots on video. Particularly, how many did so more than once?
The actual data in terms of answers to these questions were not clear to me in either article frankly.
And as noted in both articles, none of this is particularly compelling evidence that this would have affected the outcome of the election.
My own view on that of course is that all human processes have a finite error rate. Very few are 1 part in 200 million, so that means there will always be some error in vote counting in the US. Basically the outcome was within random error.
Did you watch the movie 2000 Mules?
Post by: Rush on June 05, 2022, 01:55:33 PM
That is an interesting article. Though I think the main points of the AP criticism still are important.
Of the 2000 people identified, how many of those were found near the ballot drop boxes AND were dropping off ballots on video. Particularly, how many did so more than once?
The actual data in terms of answers to these questions were not clear to me in either article frankly.
And as noted in both articles, none of this is particularly compelling evidence that this would have affected the outcome of the election.
My own view on that of course is that all human processes have a finite error rate. Very few are 1 part in 200 million, so that means there will always be some error in vote counting in the US. Basically the outcome was within random error.
I respectfully disagree. The outcome was focused and deliberate, in specific locations to push the votes just over what was needed for a Biden win.
Although I agree with you about the fact that the cellphones near the ballot boxes doesn't prove all of them were dropping off fraudulent ballots. Also I am very creeped out by the knowledge that ANYONE can access the tracking data of my phone, and then identify me through back searching property records. Of course, you need $2,000,000 to buy the data set, but that's not the point. Well... that's actually not any worse than the NSA already having it. I'm far more wary of the government than random people. I can defend myself against random people.
If there were an investigation, there would need to be protections for the innocent caught up in that net. Innocent people would find themselves having to pay an attorney to defend themselves out of their own pocket. It could get very ugly.
But as the article points out, you would match the individual to a video of them dropping off ballots. Those cells near the boxes but with no corresponding video you'd discard in an investigation. It's not unreasonable, if you ID someone dropping off a handful of ballots, to subpoena their family to prove they were innocently dropping off the whole family's ballots.
It would be a very difficult process, and no one imagines the election result will be overturned, even if they did investigate, which they won't. The best we can hope for is this information gets out to the grassroots level. Some districts can outlaw drop boxes. Those that don't can post watchers and cameras, now that we are wise to their scheme. There must be bipartisan chain of custody of all ballots. I expect the blue shit holes will continue to cheat.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on June 05, 2022, 02:05:05 PM
Did you watch the movie 2000 Mules?Bet I know the answer ::)
Post by: Jim Logajan on June 05, 2022, 03:20:11 PM
Of the 2000 people identified, how many of those were found near the ballot drop boxes AND were dropping off ballots on video. Particularly, how many did so more than once?
The actual data in terms of answers to these questions were not clear to me in either article frankly.
To be defined as a mule they set the threshold at 10 or more visits to drop boxes by any single cell phone. They set the bar high so as to address the sort of concern you raise. Surveillance video simply wasn't taken at many drop boxes or they couldn't get access to view, but they allegedly have 4 million minutes of video and haven't been through it all.
In any case, the tracking appears to have been sufficiently detailed enough that the mules have been back-tracked to the non-profits that supplied the ballots as well as the likely residences of the mules. The tracking data is already being used to investigate alleged mules in Arizona.
Dinesh D’Souza does address your particular question, and goes into detail on other aapects, in this video posted just today:
Quote
And as noted in both articles, none of this is particularly compelling evidence that this would have affected the outcome of the election.
My own view on that of course is that all human processes have a finite error rate. Very few are 1 part in 200 million, so that means there will always be some error in vote counting in the US. Basically the outcome was within random error.
The five states they examined had very small winning margins between Biden and Trump. Voting is supposed to be a deterministic process so the error rates should be much lower than the margin of victory in those states. The whole point of ballot stuffing is to exceed the margin of error so your candidate wins.
P.S. I have not seen 2000 Mules yet either. All the info I have is from the attached Youtube video and other sources that reviewed the film.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on June 05, 2022, 04:23:24 PM
The criminal investigation in Arizona involved a tiny city near Yuma and a conviction of a woman for turning in 4 ballots which did not belong to her or her family. So I don’t regard that as some great vindication of the contents of the film.
While we would like ballot counting to be perfectly accurate or at least have candidates win by a clear margin above the likely error rate, I don’t think that happened in the last Presidential election or in the Bush-Gore election either. That does not surprise me at all as every human process has a finite error rate.
This reflects a situation where neither candidate is viewed by the electorate as a whole as clearly superior. Now that could happen because both candidates are clearly very good, or equally bad.
Or in this case perhaps more likely because the stakes in modern campaigns are very high, given the immense power of an out of control government to interfere in people’s lives, and consequently enormous amounts of money are spent to try and tune both candidates to capture just a bit more of the middle without alienating the more extreme elements.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on June 05, 2022, 04:26:49 PM
Did you watch the movie 2000 Mules?I never watch videos on this sort of topic. For two reasons. Firstly, I absorb information at least 10 times faster in writing. Secondly, it is far too easy to make things appear in a distorted way in a video. I conserve my time and reason based on the written records.
If what they say is true and convincing, they should provide access to all the underlying datasets for independent analysis and critique. That is how proper review works.
Post by: Lucifer on June 05, 2022, 04:33:45 PM
I never watch videos on this sort of topic. For two reasons. Firstly, I absorb information at least 10 times faster in writing. Secondly, it is far too easy to make things appear in a distorted way in a video. I conserve my time and reason based on the written records.
If what they say is true and convincing, they should provide access to all the underlying datasets for independent analysis and critique. That is how proper review works.
The movie does a good job in explaining the methodology of their research. That is the basis of the movie, how they gathered data and how they worked all of the data.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on June 05, 2022, 04:34:35 PM
Personally I am all for having in person voting only on Election Day.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on June 05, 2022, 04:36:02 PM
The movie does a good job in explaining the methodology of their research. That is the basis of the movie, how they gathered data and how they worked all of the data.I am glad they made that effort. But like I said. They should write it up and make the data available for independent review if they are correct.
Maybe one of the fans of the film will try and write it up like a proper scientific study. Hint - hint :-)
Post by: Rush on June 05, 2022, 05:02:15 PM
I am glad they made that effort. But like I said. They should write it up and make the data available for independent review if they are correct.
Maybe one of the fans of the film will try and write it up like a proper scientific study. Hint - hint :-)
You might just want to make an exception for this video. I share your frustration with how slow videos can be, but there's a lot of pretty credible information packed into that one. Unless they are actors and the whole thing is scripted fiction, which I don't buy for a second, it's hard not to give credence to their conclusions.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on June 05, 2022, 05:10:34 PM
You might just want to make an exception for this video. I share your frustration with how slow videos can be, but there's a lot of pretty credible information packed into that one. Unless they are actors and the whole thing is scripted fiction, which I don't buy for a second, it's hard not to give credence to their conclusions.I may just make an exception based on recommendations here. However, if I spend the time on it and conclude it is a bunch of hogwash, I will expect a case of my favorite beer - Sierra Nevada Pale Ale
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on June 05, 2022, 05:22:53 PM
I may just make an exception based on recommendations here. However, if I spend the time on it and conclude it is a bunch of hogwash, I will expect a case of my favorite beer - Sierra Nevada Pale Ale
I guess it depends on what expectations you have.
If you are looking for proof that could be taken to court, then I suspect you'll be unsatisified.... especially if your expectation is proof of wide-spread fraud.
Post by: Rush on June 05, 2022, 05:36:55 PM
I may just make an exception based on recommendations here. However, if I spend the time on it and conclude it is a bunch of hogwash, I will expect a case of my favorite beer - Sierra Nevada Pale Ale
Fast forward to about minute 17 if that helps. That’s when the really good stuff starts.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on June 05, 2022, 06:21:04 PM
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on June 06, 2022, 04:59:31 AM
There could be prosecutions if an AG would go after the Mules.
better to go after the people running the Mules
and also better to go after the people that are so grossly negligent "securing" the process.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on June 06, 2022, 05:09:43 AM
better to go after the people running the MulesYou get to them through the Mules.
and also better to go after the people that are so grossly negligent "securing" the process.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on June 06, 2022, 02:23:39 PM
I have a transcontinental flight coming up and that seems like it would be a good time to watch this. I am not at all familiar with Rumble, Roku, etc. I would like to watch it on my MacBook Pro on the plane.
thanks,
Peter
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on June 06, 2022, 03:36:53 PM
Can anyone advise how to download this film for offline viewing?
I have a transcontinental flight coming up and that seems like it would be a good time to watch this. I am not at all familiar with Rumble, Roku, etc. I would like to watch it on my MacBook Pro on the plane.
thanks,
Peter
You can order a DVD on Amazon
https://www.amazon.com/2000-Mules-Documentary-Dinesh-DSouza/dp/B09YPJQLHZ/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=2000+mules&qid=1654554970&sr=8-1
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on June 06, 2022, 05:29:17 PM
You can order a DVD on Amazon
https://www.amazon.com/2000-Mules-Documentary-Dinesh-DSouza/dp/B09YPJQLHZ/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=2000+mules&qid=1654554970&sr=8-1
Thanks. Unfortunately that has a longer delivery and no DVD drive in my laptop. Any pointers to some online version downloadable version?
Post by: Rush on June 06, 2022, 06:02:56 PM
Thanks. Unfortunately that has a longer delivery and no DVD drive in my laptop. Any pointers to some online version downloadable version?
Haven’t found one yet but he is putting it out in a hardcover book in August.
https://www.amazon.com/000-Mules-Thought-Never-Wrong/dp/168451083X/ref=sr_1_3?crid=K3Q1EN1SA2H9&keywords=2000+mules&qid=1654563545&sprefix=2000%2Caps%2C132&sr=8-3
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on June 10, 2022, 05:13:55 PM
Post by: Rush on June 10, 2022, 06:17:10 PM
OK, I paid for a copy and was able to download a copy of the video using Video Download Helper in Firefox. Thus set to watch it on the long flight on Sunday.
Ooo. You reminded me, I have a long flight coming up too. I need to download some stuff to watch
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on June 15, 2022, 09:28:30 AM
Overall I think they show by clear evidence that there was some illegal ballot harvesting. The argument that it would have affected the outcome of the election is perhaps suggestive, but not much stronger. They make a number of clearly unwarranted and hyperbolic claims.
More specifically:
The argument that illegal ballot harvesting was widespread is quite weak. They demonstrate a few examples that really look like that is what was going on. But they do not state that how often they observed this as a fraction of the total or total number of times. They do not even attempt to estimate that fraction with random sampling of their dataset.
The argument that payments were made for this harvesting in general way is almost non-existent. There are a few examples where it sure looks like the people dropping the ballots are attempting to cover their tracks and one or two interviews, but no substantial proof of this in a broad way is adduced.
The argument that this would have affected the election is quite weak because of the lack of some obvious checks. They targeted what they said were far left non-profits. OK, but what would happen if you targeted similar right wing groups. Maybe this sort of thing was happening on both sides. They could have easily performed this type of analysis with their dataset but failed to do so.
Here is an example of a very hyperbolic claim made in the video - "Know for a fact that there was coordinated systematic fraud" (at ~46:34). My goodness, there is perhaps some evidence that some fraud went on, but hardly anything approaching reasonable evidence for this strong claim. Quite honestly, the fact that they would think this is an appropriate claim based on this evidence and that the people they were interviewing endorsed that seriously impugns the reasoning employed in terms of objective investigation.
Those are my comments from an objective analysis point of view. I will be gone for the next week and one half, so likely will not respond further until I return.
Post by: bflynn on June 15, 2022, 09:52:40 AM
To me, this is intolerable.
Post by: Number7 on June 15, 2022, 10:56:37 AM
So I watched it the other day on the plane. I can't say it is complete hogwash so no free beer for me :( I will first give my overall impression then some more detailed criticism focused on study quality and specific statements made.
Overall I think they show by clear evidence that there was some illegal ballot harvesting. The argument that it would have affected the outcome of the election is perhaps suggestive, but not much stronger. They make a number of clearly unwarranted and hyperbolic claims.
More specifically:
The argument that illegal ballot harvesting was widespread is quite weak. They demonstrate a few examples that really look like that is what was going on. But they do not state that how often they observed this as a fraction of the total or total number of times. They do not even attempt to estimate that fraction with random sampling of their dataset.
The argument that payments were made for this harvesting in general way is almost non-existent. There are a few examples where it sure looks like the people dropping the ballots are attempting to cover their tracks and one or two interviews, but no substantial proof of this in a broad way is adduced.
The argument that this would have affected the election is quite weak because of the lack of some obvious checks. They targeted what they said were far left non-profits. OK, but what would happen if you targeted similar right wing groups. Maybe this sort of thing was happening on both sides. They could have easily performed this type of analysis with their dataset but failed to do so.
Here is an example of a very hyperbolic claim made in the video - "Know for a fact that there was coordinated systematic fraud" (at ~46:34). My goodness, there is perhaps some evidence that some fraud went on, but hardly anything approaching reasonable evidence for this strong claim. Quite honestly, the fact that they would think this is an appropriate claim based on this evidence and that the people they were interviewing endorsed that seriously impugns the reasoning employed in terms of objective investigation.
Those are my comments from an objective analysis point of view. I will be gone for the next week and one half, so likely will not respond further until I return.
Pretty much all bullshit, which is
exactly what I expected from you.
Post by: Jim Logajan on June 15, 2022, 11:07:20 AM
Something to consider is that they demonstrated the method used, but did not show the documented data for every case. Would you agree that if the data shows what they claim, it is a crime that requires jail time for everyone involved in the conspiracy?
To me, this is intolerable.
About what I would have said. The intent of the film is to document a problem exists and is being exploited. No one commits election fraud at any level unless they intend to commit enough to affect an election. Whether they accomplished their goal is unknown. That there appears to have been an attempt is sufficient for the purposes of motivating mitigations of future attempts. That motivation is needed to counter the argument that the election was free of widespread fraud (previously "the most secure election ever.")
Anyway, without additional specifics, missing even the names of alleged perpetrators, the film cannot satisfy a court's criteria. But that was not its goal and it shouldn't be judged on those merits.
Post by: Username on June 15, 2022, 11:26:20 AM
Here is an example of a very hyperbolic claim made in the video - "Know for a fact that there was coordinated systematic fraud" (at ~46:34). My goodness, there is perhaps some evidence that some fraud went on, but hardly anything approaching reasonable evidence for this strong claim. Quite honestly, the fact that they would think this is an appropriate claim based on this evidence and that the people they were interviewing endorsed that seriously impugns the reasoning employed in terms of objective investigation.Warning! I haven't seen the video, so this is based on what I've read about it.
Those are my comments from an objective analysis point of view. I will be gone for the next week and one half, so likely will not respond further until I return.
There is a limitation to their method: they only see the tracks of the mules, assuming that one end is ballots being picked up and then actually observing the ballots being deposited. The people dropping off the ballots may or may not be doing something illegal, but (to me) there is reasonable evidence that something nefarious is going on and this warrants further investigation. I observe a bowling ball fall from a rooftop onto someone on the sidewalk I could conclude that there is no evidence that someone dropped it. But I sure would like to examine the ball to see if there are fingerprints, and go to the rooftop and see what's there. So far there is no effort by law enforcement to do so. But the intent of the film wasn't to gather proof of a crime. It was to show that something strange was going on that needs further investigation.
But beyond this, the systematic effort of courts to override election law to make it easier to vote early and vote often is the thing that drove the election to Biden. 2000 mules is a symptom, not the disease.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on June 15, 2022, 12:39:15 PM
If the government and the media had done their jobs, WHICH THEY DID NOT, President Trump would be at the helm, America would be prospering, freedom would have a champion in the highest office in the land, and Dems would have gotten the wake up call they resist so hard.
The last two years have convinced me that I will never trust a government agency again.
I will not obey a public health order again, unless I deem it worthy.
I will not trust elections again, not simply because they don’t go my way, but because they have been shown to be fraught with vulnerabilities and in the hands of corrupt officials.
On November 3, 2020, my trust was stolen. My country betrayed me. I knew it then, I know it now.
Going on from here, I feel the situation resembles getting a diagnosis and knowing what your disease is so you can fight it. We know where the rot is. It’s up to us, as it always has been, though we have been lax, to excise it and restore integrity.
Post by: Number7 on June 15, 2022, 01:03:22 PM
Just like the rest of the progressives, these fakes pretend what they desire and insist the rest of us pretend along with them.
It is no different than with the bullshit gender confusion. There isn't an adult alive that doesn't know what a woman is.
Just because the asshole contingent demand we play along with their delusional bullshit, doesn't make it true.
No different than the assholes claiming the election wasn't stolen. They are pretending what they want to be true.
When someone calls bullshit they all either get angry and pretend to be offended, they accuse us of being anti-science,
or they make up a new lie to go with the one we just rejected.
The country was stolen by a criminal enterprise funded by enemies of America on 11/3/2020.
If you have a problem with that it's because you are full of shit.
Post by: Anthony on June 15, 2022, 04:04:26 PM
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on June 16, 2022, 08:41:25 AM
Post by: Lucifer on June 16, 2022, 09:54:22 AM
Not sure how many of you have seen the video of Ted Cruz questioning the FBI gal about there involvement with the 1/6 event? This morning, watching Coffee with Scott Adams, he gave a very good answer as to why he believes, based on here answers, the FBI was involved in the 1/6 event.
J6 had all the makings of government involvement and a false flag.
If we had an actual congressional investigation this would be revealed.
Post by: nddons on June 16, 2022, 09:55:07 AM
That is an interesting article. Though I think the main points of the AP criticism still are important.Objectively, do you believe Pedo Joe, who didn’t even campaign for president, received more legitimate votes than any presidential candidate ever?
Of the 2000 people identified, how many of those were found near the ballot drop boxes AND were dropping off ballots on video. Particularly, how many did so more than once?
The actual data in terms of answers to these questions were not clear to me in either article frankly.
And as noted in both articles, none of this is particularly compelling evidence that this would have affected the outcome of the election.
My own view on that of course is that all human processes have a finite error rate. Very few are 1 part in 200 million, so that means there will always be some error in vote counting in the US. Basically the outcome was within random error.
Post by: nddons on June 16, 2022, 09:56:40 AM
I would need to see an objective examination of the actual data to draw any real conclusions from this. It is far too easy to make things appear in a distorted way in a video.
Well you’re not going to get it. Law enforcement doesn’t want to do anything. DAs don’t want to do anything. Certainly county clerks don’t want to do anything. Absolutely the democrats don’t want to do anything. Republicans have their thumbs up their ass and are playing with themselves, so they don’t want to do anything. And the media has become the Fifth Column, so they will fight anyone’s attempt to do anything.
So you have to make your assessment based on all the information available. Do you think DeSouza has made a valid assessment? Or do you think the AP’s argument against 2,000 Mules is sufficient to invalidate 2,000 Mules? Please just don’t tell me that you think the AP is neutral.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on June 16, 2022, 10:25:26 AM
Objectively, do you believe Pedo Joe, who didn’t even campaign for president, received more legitimate votes than any presidential candidate ever?Especially with Trump receiving 11M more votes than he did previously.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on June 16, 2022, 10:27:24 AM
Post by: nddons on June 16, 2022, 10:39:40 AM
Listening to Bongino, he makes mention that the two premises put forth by the kangaroo court cannot be possible. Premise 1 is this was a well organized event with much pre-planning. Premise 2 is this was incited by Trump during his speech. They can't both be possible.I thought the same thing when I heard Liz Cheney trying to make some case.
Post by: Number7 on June 16, 2022, 10:56:31 AM
Listening to Bongino, he makes mention that the two premises put forth by the kangaroo court cannot be possible. Premise 1 is this was a well organized event with much pre-planning. Premise 2 is this was incited by Trump during his speech. They can't both be possible.Especially when the communist party democrats own star witness under oath put the lie to all their claims.
Post by: Lucifer on June 20, 2022, 06:27:01 AM
Post by: bflynn on June 20, 2022, 07:19:40 PM
Anyway, without additional specifics, missing even the names of alleged perpetrators, the film cannot satisfy a court's criteria. But that was not its goal and it shouldn't be judged on those merits.
It doesn't satisfy a court's criteria and never can, because that isn't how court evidence works. Anything they bring to a court can be dismissed for lack of qualification. But the evidence they do have ought to be enough to trigger an official investigation which can show the court. And those people that aren't named have a phone number.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on June 27, 2022, 09:19:02 PM
Something to consider is that they demonstrated the method used, but did not show the documented data for every case. Would you agree that if the data shows what they claim, it is a crime that requires jail time for everyone involved in the conspiracy?Clearly paid ballot harvesting is a crime and they showed a few highly suggestive cases. I have no problem with prosecutions in such cases. OTOH, I do not think they have shown this is really a pervasive issue.
To me, this is intolerable.
And since there are some simple tests they could have done to estimate frequency, and did not do so, I conclude most likely the answer would be the results would not be persuasive. However, it could also be that they just aren’t very good at such investigations.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on June 27, 2022, 09:21:47 PM
Objectively, do you believe Pedo Joe, who didn’t even campaign for president, received more legitimate votes than any presidential candidate ever?There was extremely high turnout in this election and there has been a population increase, so yes, I think it is entirely plausible that both candidates received more votes than any prior presidential candidate.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on June 27, 2022, 09:25:45 PM
Well you’re not going to get it. Law enforcement doesn’t want to do anything. DAs don’t want to do anything. Certainly county clerks don’t want to do anything. Absolutely the democrats don’t want to do anything. Republicans have their thumbs up their ass and are playing with themselves, so they don’t want to do anything. And the media has become the Fifth Column, so they will fight anyone’s attempt to do anything.My view of it is based on my assessment of the data and analyses described in the film, not any particular source or critic.
So you have to make your assessment based on all the information available. Do you think DeSouza has made a valid assessment? Or do you think the AP’s argument against 2,000 Mules is sufficient to invalidate 2,000 Mules? Please just don’t tell me that you think the AP is neutral.
As I described in detail above, I do not think that he has provided even a plausible case for the claim that there was “coordinated systematic fraud”. I think that claim is quite over the top and not supported by the data and analyses adduced by him. In that sense, I do not think he has made a valid assessment. In fact, based on this film, I would say he traffics in poorly supported hyperbole.
Post by: Jim Logajan on June 27, 2022, 10:04:43 PM
There was extremely high turnout in this election and there has been a population increase, so yes, I think it is entirely plausible that both candidates received more votes than any prior presidential candidate.
The population of the U.S. increased from 323 million in 2016 to 331 million in 2020.
Difference: 8 million.
There were 129 million combined votes for Clinton and Trump in 2016.
There were 155 million combined votes for Biden and Trump in 2020.
Difference: 26 million.
The combined vote of the top two candidates as a percentage of the population:
2016: 40%
2020: 47%
I'm too lazy to see how those percentages compare with previous presidential elections, but the sources I used could be used to compute the values. My only objective in this post is to show that population increase was not the explanation for the high turnout. Turnout was more than 17% greater than the previous election after normalizing for population growth.
Sources:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/United-States-Presidential-Election-Results-1788863 (https://www.britannica.com/topic/United-States-Presidential-Election-Results-1788863)
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/population-growth-rate (https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/population-growth-rate)
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on June 28, 2022, 03:58:14 AM
Clearly paid ballot harvesting is a crime and they showed a few highly suggestive cases. I have no problem with prosecutions in such cases. OTOH, I do not think they have shown this is really a pervasive issue.
And since there are some simple tests they could have done to estimate frequency, and did not do so, I conclude most likely the answer would be the results would not be persuasive. However, it could also be that they just aren’t very good at such investigations.
Using "persuasive" as the criteria overlooks the way election results can be changed. It only takes targeted election fraud. For example, there is no need for the democrats to commit election fraud in massachusetts. This state would vote for any idiot with a (D) after his/her name and has done so many many times.
Want to steal an election? concentrate resources in the small number of swing states, especially portions that you already control.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on June 28, 2022, 03:58:57 AM
There was extremely high turnout in this election and there has been a population increase, so yes, I think it is entirely plausible that both candidates received more votes than any prior presidential candidate.
did you see the circular reasoning there?
Post by: Rush on June 28, 2022, 05:48:08 AM
Using "persuasive" as the criteria overlooks the way election results can be changed. It only takes targeted election fraud. For example, there is no need for the democrats to commit election fraud in massachusetts. This state would vote for any idiot with a (D) after his/her name and has done so many many times.
Want to steal an election? concentrate resources in the small number of swing states, especially portions that you already control.
THIS. There was no need for widespread fraud. Only one or two counties in a half dozen states, that’s it. When you look at the entire context beyond 2000 Mules including the Time.org article with the Democrats audaciously bragging about basically “fixing” the election so the “correct” outcome would happen, beginning in early 2020 when they realized that lockdowns could be used to implement a massive change in voting procedures, you look at the forensic evidence of the Dominion machines, you look at how the vote counts were halted at the same time in multiple districts in multiple states, and look at the vote total change along the time axis just as it was becoming clear Trump was ahead, changes that just pushed Biden over the top, and you see cases such as total votes exceeding a district’s entire population, look at the bellwether counties that all went for Trump, all this is undisputed fact, and then look at Trump’s rally turnout vs Biden’s pathetic campaign, put all that together it is statistically impossible for Biden to have won.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on June 28, 2022, 07:37:13 AM
did you see the circular reasoning there?No. Both factors, increase in population and high voter turnout, can independently lead to higher votes for candidates.
I suppose if one defines “high voter turnout” as an absolute number it might appear circular. I mean it in what I suspect is the more usual meaning of a high fraction of the population or of possible voters.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on June 28, 2022, 07:40:29 AM
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on June 28, 2022, 07:58:22 AM
Post by: Lucifer on June 28, 2022, 08:02:22 AM
How about the "water main break" in the State Farm Arena in Atlanta that turned out to be a leaking toilet. Sending home folks from the State Farm Arena saying counting was done for the night and then starting the counting again.
And video showing after everyone left the suitcases full of ballots being pulled out from under the table, and run through the counting machines multiple times.
And the videos of the midnight ballot drops in Detroit.
The list goes on and on.
Post by: Rush on June 28, 2022, 08:06:32 AM
while population increase might account for increased number of votes cast... election fraud can also explain increased number of so-called votes being counted (e.g., multiple times)
Don’t forget all the affidavits. Witness testimony which SCOTUS refused to hear on standing, not merit.
If you can’t say for certain the election was turned, you absolutely cannot assert that it wasn’t. That is what the Democrats and mainstream media would have you believe. There is far more evidence of fraud than evidence of a completely secure election. Reasonable and fair people would investigate the allegations but such investigations are blocked through censorship, intimidation and literal terrorist threats and acts.
Contrast that to the Dems claim of fraud in 2016 which they investigated for four years and came up with absolutely nothing. They won’t investigate 2020 because they know damn well it was stolen, they know it at the highest levels, and they all but admitted it outright. Even Biden made the Freudian slip of bragging about the biggest election fraud ever.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on June 28, 2022, 08:19:57 AM
... Even Biden made the Freudian slip of bragging about the biggest election fraud ever.
to be fair... it's hard to claim anything the clown blabbers as Freudian. The clown is simply not all there...
Post by: Lucifer on June 28, 2022, 09:57:00 AM
Quote
* 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
Post by: Number7 on June 28, 2022, 10:27:30 AM
did you see the circular reasoning there?
Peter hates the idea of admitting he was wrong about the stolen election.
No amount of evidence is going to overturn his ego.
Post by: Rush on June 28, 2022, 11:00:39 AM
Peter hates the idea of admitting he was wrong about the stolen election.
No amount of evidence is going to overturn his ego.
I don’t mine him questioning it just like I didn’t mind Flynn, because the more they question it yet cannot come up with a complete rejection of it, the better. It would be nice if mainstream journalists would do that and objectively dig into it instead of dismissing any allegation as a “lie”.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on June 28, 2022, 12:19:13 PM
There is far more evidence of fraud than evidence of a completely secure election. Reasonable and fair people would investigate the allegations but such investigations are blocked through censorship, intimidation and literal terrorist threats and acts.
On the evidence I have to disagree. There is reasonable evidence of some level of fraud. There is really no good evidence it was biased one way or another.
Certainly the film 2000 Mules does NOT constitute such evidence.
Very few human processes are accurate to 1 part in 200 million. So if you dig around in such an election looking only on one side, yes, you will find fair evidence of some level of fraud on that side. And probably if you dig around on the other side with the same effort level, you will find similar fraud levels.
Where is the objective examination of the data which shows anything approaching a level of fraud that would affect the outcome?
If anything, the extensive investigations, for example in Maricopa County, which have yet to produce any compelling evidence of fraud at a level that would affect outcome, tend to argue no such thing occurred.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on June 28, 2022, 12:26:32 PM
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.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on June 28, 2022, 12:35:43 PM
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.
Post by: Number7 on June 28, 2022, 12:58:33 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.
spoken like closed minded, faux centrist.
You wouldn't agree if the perpetrators admitted and provided video-graphic evidence because that would conflict with your opinions.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on June 28, 2022, 03:06:22 PM
Post by: bflynn on June 28, 2022, 03:21:11 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 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?
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on June 28, 2022, 04:07:44 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.
Post by: Number7 on June 28, 2022, 04:27:30 PM
You carved out a position that appealed to both your politics and vanity.
Now that the position is seriously undermined your ego trumps your ability
to admit your original conclusion was bullshit.
Post by: Rush on June 28, 2022, 04:57:51 PM
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.
This (the bold) is where you’re wrong. 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? Go on believing the emperor has no clothes.
Post by: bflynn on June 28, 2022, 05:15:01 PM
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.
You, like so many before you, are confusing evidence with accusations. There is no evidence of a ghost in your closet beyond your assertion. While I don’t believe it, I hold out the possibility that with evidence, it could be proven, or at least support be shown to warrant a serious investigation.
That’s what we have here. 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.
These move into the realm of evidence of fraud and require deeper investigation, both because of the scientific nature of the evidence and the impact of what it means if true. Your vote and the vote of everyone in your family might have been invalidated by a mule.
Beyond that - many Republican are sure this happened and, given the Left’s gaslighting, believe their only recourse is to cheat in kind. It is critical to the integrity of elections that the truth be known. Otherwise, every election becomes tainted with a claim of illegitimacy.
Post by: Jim Logajan on June 28, 2022, 05:23:12 PM
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.
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?
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on June 28, 2022, 07:55:33 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.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on June 28, 2022, 08:00:19 PM
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.
why do you keep going on and on and on about "widespread" fraud?
Do you think that "widespread" fraud is the only possible problem?
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on June 28, 2022, 08:05:08 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.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on June 28, 2022, 08:08:38 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).
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on June 28, 2022, 08:17:30 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.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on June 28, 2022, 08:31:33 PM
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.
Post by: Number7 on June 28, 2022, 08:35:39 PM
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on June 29, 2022, 03:50:01 AM
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on June 29, 2022, 04:33:14 AM
... Especially when it hasn't even been shown to have happened more on the left than the right.
do you have any evidence, any evidence at all, that the "right" did any election fraud?
Post by: Rush on June 29, 2022, 05:46:26 AM
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.
This was thoroughly gone over back in November and December of 2020 and early 2021. I am not going to go back and unearth all of that if you weren’t following it at the time. I don’t have time, I’m real busy with work right now. I watched the testimony of witnesses at the legislative hearings. I have a printout of the Dominion forensic report. I followed the statistical analysis of the vote totals from sources I have no reason to doubt.
But you are right I’m not talking about what is in 2000 Mules. Even without anything revealed in 2000 Mules there was a mountain of clear and plain evidence that had the six affected states stuck with in person paper ballots Trump would have won. Universal paper ballots implemented without legislative approval because Covid, and then Dominion vote machines that even the leftist hack John Oliver showed as blatantly open to fraud, those two things alone completely and totally remove any certainty that the elections are secure and at the very least provide more than sufficient cause for an investigation. On top of that are the “anecdotal” cases of dead people voting, more votes cast than people exist in a district, etc., and in all cases they go to Biden.
After the cabal in charge spent four years trying to claim 2016 was fraudulent and failed, trying to remove Trump from office, creating fake dossiers and going after innocent people, can you possibly believe they wouldn’t organize a tweaking of 2020 to finally get rid of this person they hate so much? Far easier than their pathetic failed Russia Russia hoax. Occam’s razor. It fits, like a glove!
Post by: Username on June 29, 2022, 06:08:48 AM
Post by: Number7 on June 29, 2022, 06:35:58 AM
I'd like to step outside the discussion for a moment and thank Peter for being here. I welcome his point of view and his thoughtful arguments. Thanks!
At some point pete needs to admit he was defending his ego and not the facts.
Only liberals are allowed to do that. Everyone else is always shouted into silence, especially when they tell the truth, a thing liberals have zero to very little experience doing.
It is no different than the rocket scientists over at pos poa that claimed the 137 voting districts in cleveland where ZERO votes were cast for any candidate other than bathhouse barry was truthful because it was theoretically possible that it could have happened. All bullshit, but typical fo the mindest that allows folks like pete to fight to the death rather than admit a truth that goes against his opinion.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on June 29, 2022, 06:37:40 AM
Post by: Rush on June 29, 2022, 06:44:20 AM
I'd like to step outside the discussion for a moment and thank Peter for being here. I welcome his point of view and his thoughtful arguments. Thanks!
Me too! Peter, don’t take my disagreement for not appreciating that you’re here talking about it.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on June 29, 2022, 06:45:33 AM
They stopped the practice in 2020 and resumed it in 2021.
Remember the USPS truck driver who testified he was told to drive his truck to a specific precinct in Pennsylvania but, departing from all standard practice, he was told not to look at his cargo?
And the USPS bags of ballots found in ditches and dumpsters in heavily Republican areas? But … only in six states, in specific groups of precincts.
This heist was wide and deep. If it weren’t, we’d have two dollar gas and a tight border. And no one punished for electing not to take an experimental injectable.
Oh, and military ballots from overseas. Heavily Republican. Easy to “lose” if you’re the Postal Service.
Post by: Number7 on June 29, 2022, 07:01:02 AM
Let’s not forget that for six years prior to 2020, the USPS photographed the front and back of every piece of mail for “trackability.”
They stopped the practice in 2020 and resumed it in 2021.
Remember the USPS truck driver who testified he was told to drive his truck to a specific precinct in Pennsylvania but, departing from all standard practice, he was told not to look at his cargo?
And the USPS bags of ballots found in ditches and dumpsters in heavily Republican areas? But … only in six states, in specific groups of precincts.
This heist was wide and deep. If it weren’t, we’d have two dollar gas and a tight border. And no one punished for electing not to take an experimental injectable.
Oh, and military ballots from overseas. Heavily Republican. Easy to “lose” if you’re the Postal Service.
It doesn't matter because pete KNOWS it isn't true because it conflicts with his politics.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on June 29, 2022, 11:27:08 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.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on June 29, 2022, 11:31:29 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.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on June 29, 2022, 11:50:28 AM
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.
Post by: Lucifer on June 29, 2022, 12:53:43 PM
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.
I got this from another board on the Arizona Audit
* 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
Kinda hard to say there is no clear evidence of fraud. Quite the contrary.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on June 29, 2022, 02:04:26 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.
Post by: Lucifer on June 29, 2022, 02:22:24 PM
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.
What was the vote total in Arizona for Biden, and the vote total for Trump?
Post by: bflynn on June 29, 2022, 02:23:59 PM
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.
You’re just saying you don’t want it investigated. Many, many people disagree with you and perception is reality. Your reticence to not even try isolates them and makes them threats to our country. They might even be right, but you don’t know because you’re too arrogant to consider you don’t know it all.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on June 29, 2022, 03:04:30 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.
Post by: Lucifer on June 29, 2022, 03:34:49 PM
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.
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.
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?
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on June 29, 2022, 04:28:32 PM
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on June 29, 2022, 04:39:57 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.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on June 29, 2022, 04:47:24 PM
So a 10,457 split. Joe Biden "won" by 10,457.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.
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?
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.
Post by: Anthony on June 29, 2022, 05:06:24 PM
Post by: Lucifer on June 29, 2022, 05:41:00 PM
In most states ballots must be preserved 22 to 24 months after an election. After that, they can be destroyed.
Make sense now?
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on June 29, 2022, 06:45:28 PM
Quote
Predetermined algorithms caused widespread election fraud in Maricopa County, Arizona. Jovan Hutton Pulitzer told (https://www.rsbnetwork.com/featured/live-the-truth-behind-arizonas-paper-ballots-jovan-pulitzers-bombshell-paper-analysis-report-6-27-22/) a packed room on June 27 that he conducted a forensic kinematic investigation of the ballots that “shows sufficient and irrefutable evidence of pervasive voter fraud and widespread election fraud in Maricopa County (https://uncoverdc.com/2021/09/24/maricopa-county-audit-report-over-57k-votes-in-question/), Arizona.” Pulitzer (https://uncoverdc.com/2021/01/31/demanding-election-integrity-tracy-beanz-interviews-jovanhuttonpulitzer/) explained that “specific ballots” were repeatedly and fraudulently inserted to predetermine the election’s winner. In short, the Maricopa election was an absolute mess (https://uncoverdc.com/2022/04/07/brnovich-interim-report-finds-serious-vulnerabilities-in-2020-election/) that robbed many voters of their 14th amendment (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv)rights. Pulitzer said he is still knee-deep in the investigation.
Post by: Number7 on June 29, 2022, 07:22:56 PM
https://uncoverdc.com/2022/06/29/predetermined-algorithms-source-of-widespread-election-fraud-in-arizona/
But petey will never admit it because it's about his ego not the facts.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on June 29, 2022, 07:45:20 PM
https://uncoverdc.com/2022/06/29/predetermined-algorithms-source-of-widespread-election-fraud-in-arizona/It will be interesting to see more of the report of his investigation. I don’t quite understand what he did from that description.
It will be best if the methods are fully described and reviewed and the datasets made publicly available. That way, anyone can double check.
May be too much to hope for given his background. But I guess it can be judged if more fully described by its merits.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Hutton_Pulitzer
Post by: Rush on June 30, 2022, 01:57:49 AM
It will be interesting to see more of the report of his investigation. I don’t quite understand what he did from that description.
It will be best if the methods are fully described and reviewed and the datasets made publicly available. That way, anyone can double check.
May be too much to hope for given his background. But I guess it can be judged if more fully described by its merits.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Hutton_Pulitzer
The trouble is wiki is biased.
Quote
Pulitzer claims to have invented a system for detecting fraudulent ballots, which is being used by right-wing conspiracists such as Doug Logan[17][18][19] in the [20] Republican audit[21] of ballots in Arizona, intended to prove the claim that the 2020 United States Presidential election result was fraudulent.[22] There is no evidence that fraudulent ballots were cast or that Pulitzer's "kinematic marker"[23] detection system works.[22]
When an article calls anyone who questions the total security of the 2020 election “right wing conspiracy theorists” yet nowhere in all of wiki do you see those who question the 2016 election as “left wing conspiracy theorists” you know a source is not objective or trustworthy.
I will grant that it’s extremely difficult to find an objective source.
Post by: Lucifer on June 30, 2022, 05:19:24 AM
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on June 30, 2022, 05:38:52 AM
The trouble is wiki is biased.Peter just needed that to have an excuse to not believe anything Jovan had to say. Peter must be quite a fan of the current economics.
When an article calls anyone who questions the total security of the 2020 election “right wing conspiracy theorists” yet nowhere in all of wiki do you see those who question the 2016 election as “left wing conspiracy theorists” you know a source is not objective or trustworthy.
I will grant that it’s extremely difficult to find an objective source.
Post by: Number7 on June 30, 2022, 07:05:06 AM
Peter just needed that to have an excuse to not believe anything Jovan had to say. Peter must be quite a fan of the current economics.
Like mikey, no matter what facts are presented pete will shrug and make up more shit to avoid any inconvenient truths.
Then he will post wiki as proof…. Just like mikey and for the same reasons.
Yep.
That’s what you’re trying to reason with.
Post by: bflynn on June 30, 2022, 07:39:09 AM
Have they recounted?
Recounting can not detect ballot stuffing or ballot harvesting. If I gave you four $20 bills and a 20 from monopoly and asked you to count, you'd get 100. You could recount and still get 100. But until you recognize that one of the bills isn't legitimate, you can't get the correct answer.
I'm a doubter. But I'm also convinced there's something here. That isn't because I like Trump (I don't), it's because I value freedom and fairness. I don't believe the 2020 election was fair at all.
In 2016, Hillary got 1,837,300 votes in Cobb County. In 2020, Democrats did a "better" job getting out the vote and Biden got 2,473,633 votes - 636,333 more, a 35% increase. That's suspicious, and then we see evidence that supports massive ballot harvesting.
There's statistical ways to show this. Here's an study that has done this with past known ballot fraud. I wonder what this kind of statistical visualization would show. Wish I had the data. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1210722109
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on June 30, 2022, 07:42:18 AM
The trouble is wiki is biased.
When an article calls anyone who questions the total security of the 2020 election “right wing conspiracy theorists” yet nowhere in all of wiki do you see those who question the 2016 election as “left wing conspiracy theorists” you know a source is not objective or trustworthy.
I will grant that it’s extremely difficult to find an objective source.
As you know, I am not really that interested in debating the quality of this source or that source generally. It just isn't as productive as looking at what a source actually has to say.
Now I understand that most people commenting on social media are not in a position to actually do that, give training and time available. That is why one sees so much debate about sources rather than actual facts. It is important to realize all sources have their inclinations and biases. That is why it is so important to actually look at and evaluate the facts. Focus on that rather than throwing around accusations of bias or lack of objectivity.
If and when his methods are fully and accurately described, one can judge them. Until then, I won't hold my breath because of both the very light description of this 'kinematic analysis" which is available and the description of his past questionable business practices. But as I said, we can wait and see.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on June 30, 2022, 07:48:56 AM
I would challenge each of the posters advocating for the theory that the election was "stolen" to post some type of evidence, which could exist in principle, that would be persuasive for them that it was not stolen, and that what we had was simply the type of error and problems typical in an election and basically a tie which was decided by random factors. What would be persuasive of that?
If you can't think of any then you have a non-falsifiable belief. No evidence will ever be persuasive for you and so future discussion and debate is pointless. Please also note that I have already led the way by posting several concrete types of evidence that I think would be persuasive that the election was in fact fraudulent and have even suggested specific ways to use existing datasets to test that hypothesis.
See https://reasonandmeaning.com/2020/11/26/why-non-falsifiable-beliefs-are-absurd/ for a further explanation of this approach.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on June 30, 2022, 08:11:25 AM
One of the reasons that over half the country now believes that President Trump won an overwhelming victory in 2020 is that multiple statistical improbabilities and implausibilities obviously occurred. Even without analyzing the validity of each individual vote, what happened to the count on November 3 could not have happened without an extreme skew in the universe. And people know when this occurs, even if they are uncomfortable admitting it.
These 2020 election impossibilities and implausibilities (I use both terms for a balanced approach) have been listed and analyzed on the internet ad infinitum over the last 18 months, and I’m sure you’ve seen them. Sadly, at this point much of the information had been buried by the narrative-controlled search engines and, as noted earlier in this thread, much information about the election is labeled “conspiracy,” “unfounded,” “baseless,” and the always effective but becoming less so,“right wing extremist.”
Your analysis strikes me as a little too dismissive and convenient, and asks for something that, for an event as massive as the 2020 election, with the subsequent silence and stonewalling by officials who should be safeguarding our elections, and vast media insistence on one narrative only, cannot be provided.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on June 30, 2022, 08:22:02 AM
But I notice my prior question about non-falsifiable beliefs has gone unanswered by all of the posters here. Thus I will repeat the request.
I would challenge each of the posters advocating for the theory that the election was "stolen" to post some type of evidence, which could exist in principle, that would be persuasive for them that it was not stolen, and that what we had was simply the type of error and problems typical in an election and basically a tie which was decided by random factors. What would be persuasive of that?
If you can't think of any then you have a non-falsifiable belief. No evidence will ever be persuasive for you and so future discussion and debate is pointless. Please also note that I have already led the way by posting several concrete types of evidence that I think would be persuasive that the election was in fact fraudulent and have even suggested specific ways to use existing datasets to test that hypothesis.
See https://reasonandmeaning.com/2020/11/26/why-non-falsifiable-beliefs-are-absurd/ for a further explanation of this approach.
Consider quality control procedures that are supposed to be followed to insure that a particular vaccine production lot is correct and safe.
If the manufacturer fails to retain documentation showing that the quality control procedures were in fact followed, do you (A) assume that the procedures were followed and use the lot or (B) toss the lot?
In this hypothetical, we don't know if the procedures were followed or ignored, we don't know if anything bad happened during the production run. The lot could be perfectly good, but we don't have proof.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on June 30, 2022, 08:24:41 AM
Peter, there’s no way I can take on an intellect like yours, but I’ll put my little oar in.Becky, I appreciate your concerns. I think I have said before I would be very happy to see a written objective evaluation of all of these others factors and how they add up. So far I have never seen one posted.
One of the reasons that over half the country now believes that President Trump won an overwhelming victory in 2020 is that multiple statistical improbabilities and implausibilities obviously occurred. Even without analyzing the validity of each individual vote, what happened to the count on November 3 could not have happened without an extreme skew in the universe. And people know when this occurs, even if they are uncomfortable admitting it.
These 2020 election impossibilities and implausibilities (I use both terms for a balanced approach) have been listed and analyzed on the internet ad infinitum over the last 18 months, and I’m sure you’ve seen them. Sadly, at this point much of the information had been buried by the narrative-controlled search engines and, as noted earlier in this thread, much information about the election is labeled “conspiracy,” “unfounded,” “baseless,” and the always effective but becoming less so,“right wing extremist.”
Your analysis strikes me as a little too dismissive and convenient, and asks for something that, for an event as massive as the 2020 election, with the subsequent silence and stonewalling by officials who should be safeguarding our elections, and vast media insistence on one narrative only, cannot be provided.
Since you are friendly and polite, rather than rude and inappropriate, I will comment just a bit more on my overall perspective on this question.
I am old enough to remember the 2000 election as I imagine most of us here are. Remember all the debates about the rules for hanging chads etc? My view is predicated on an interesting follow on to that election. After the dust had settled, the major news organizations hired a separate re-analysis in the county in FL which was pivotal. They concluded that if the rules advocated by the Bush side had been adopted, then Gore would have won. And if the rules advocated by Gore side had been adopted, then Bush would have won! It was essentially a toss up decided by small random factors like the rules about counting chads in a county.
When there is little actual data on a subject, it is very easy for people to form and retain non-falsifiable beliefs. So my challenge stands.
Think about what would persuade you of the falsity of your current position and let us know. Then one can meaningfully debate the criteria and how the data fit in. Until then, it bears much resemblance to a religious debate.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on June 30, 2022, 08:26:21 AM
Interesting points Bob. But what sort of evidence would persuade that the election was not “stolen” and that it was essentially a toss up based on small essentially random factors?
Consider quality control procedures that are supposed to be followed to insure that a particular vaccine production lot is correct and safe.
If the manufacturer fails to retain documentation showing that the quality control procedures were in fact followed, do you (A) assume that the procedures were followed and use the lot or (B) toss the lot?
In this hypothetical, we don't know if the procedures were followed or ignored, we don't know if anything bad happened during the production run. The lot could be perfectly good, but we don't have proof.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on June 30, 2022, 08:27:37 AM
Show me how we can be sure that a mail-in ballot came from an eligible voter.
Where is the integrity?
Post by: Number7 on June 30, 2022, 01:33:19 PM
Interesting points Bob. But what sort of evidence would persuade that the election was not “stolen” and that it was essentially a toss up based on small essentially random factors?
You are full of shit.
So full you haven't made a substantive point yet.
Asking for further proof time and time again just proves you know you're full of shit and have zero creditability as to your positions, and demands.
Polish your bullshit all you want and it is still nothing but a lefty slinging shit because the truth conflicts with your agenda.
Post by: Mase on June 30, 2022, 02:06:49 PM
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on June 30, 2022, 02:32:47 PM
Show me how a ballot cannot possibly be counted more than onceBob, I have reviewed your posts on this in this thread and I think is is fair and reasonable for me to conclude that you have a non-falsifiable belief that the election was somehow stolen.
Show me how we can be sure that a mail-in ballot came from an eligible voter.
Where is the integrity?
So I’m sorry, but while you raise some interesting questions, I don’t discuss people’s non-falsifiable beliefs with them generally even in person, let alone on the internet.
That is mostly because it is not logically meaningful or interesting to do so. It also just tends to lead to acrimony.
Now I am happy to discuss what falsifiability is and why it is necessary generally or even how it applies to this case. And of course happy to discuss how scientific professionals discuss the evidence for and against a proposition.
But other than that it probably is best if I confine myself to politely acknowledging that you appear to have this belief and it appears you sincerely hold it.
Post by: Number7 on June 30, 2022, 03:01:29 PM
Bob, I have reviewed your posts on this in this thread and I think is is fair and reasonable for me to conclude that you have a non-falsifiable belief that the election was somehow stolen.
So I’m sorry, but while you raise some interesting questions, I don’t discuss people’s non-falsifiable beliefs with them generally even in person, let alone on the internet.
That is mostly because it is not logically meaningful or interesting to do so. It also just tends to lead to acrimony.
Now I am happy to discuss what falsifiability is and why it is necessary generally or even how it applies to this case. And of course happy to discuss how scientific professionals discuss the evidence for and against a proposition.
But other than that it probably is best if I confine myself to politely acknowledging that you appear to have this belief and it appears you sincerely hold it.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....
Oh, you're killing me...
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on June 30, 2022, 03:03:47 PM
Bob, I have reviewed your posts on this in this thread and I think is is fair and reasonable for me to conclude that you have a non-falsifiable belief that the election was somehow stolen.
So I’m sorry, but while you raise some interesting questions, I don’t discuss people’s non-falsifiable beliefs with them generally even in person, let alone on the internet.
That is mostly because it is not logically meaningful or interesting to do so. It also just tends to lead to acrimony.
Now I am happy to discuss what falsifiability is and why it is necessary generally or even how it applies to this case. And of course happy to discuss how scientific professionals discuss the evidence for and against a proposition.
But other than that it probably is best if I confine myself to politely acknowledging that you appear to have this belief and it appears you sincerely hold it.
What you think I believe does not make it so. Nor does it change the facts wrt the methods used, if any, to establish ballot counting process integrity.
If you are unable to engage in conversation of about it (because you don't have information, are unwilling to admit the process lacks integrity, or whatever reason), then I can't force you to do so.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on June 30, 2022, 03:16:56 PM
What you think I believe does not make it so. Nor does it change the facts wrt the methods used, if any, to establish ballot counting process integrity.Perhaps, but the fact that you are unable to name any evidence which could in principle falsify your belief, is rather compelling evidence that the belief is non-falsifiable. That is rather near the definition of such a belief.
If you are unable to engage in conversation of about it (because you don't have information, are unwilling to admit the process lacks integrity, or whatever reason), then I can't force you to do so.
Such beliefs are logically vacuous and it makes no sense to debate them. See link previously provided.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on June 30, 2022, 03:38:21 PM
Perhaps, but the fact that you are unable to name any evidence which could in principle falsify your belief, is rather compelling evidence that the belief is non-falsifiable. That is rather near the definition of such a belief.
Examples are:
Show me how a ballot cannot possibly be counted more than once
Show me how we can be sure that a mail-in ballot came from an eligible voter.
What are the processes to insure integrity?
Which are the converse for your apparent belief that the elections were perfectly fine
Show how ballot counts were incorrect
etc etc
oh, btw, apparently you are making some rather bold assumptions regarding my belief.
Post by: Number7 on June 30, 2022, 03:38:54 PM
Perhaps, but the fact that you are unable to name any evidence which could in principle falsify your belief, is rather compelling evidence that the belief is non-falsifiable. That is rather near the definition of such a belief.
Such beliefs are logically vacuous and it makes no sense to debate them. See link previously provided.
Everybody with a brain (and cowards who can't face the truth because it conflicts with their politics) knows wiki is the bible of misinformation.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on June 30, 2022, 03:46:00 PM
Bob, I have reviewed your posts on this in this thread and I think is is fair and reasonable for me to conclude that you have a non-falsifiable belief that the election was somehow stolen.
I've just reviewed my posts on this thread... and I'm really quite stunned by your conclusion.
Would you care to identify the post (or posts) where I claimed that the election "was somehow stolen"?
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on June 30, 2022, 04:00:50 PM
Examples are:
Show me how a ballot cannot possibly be counted more than once
Show me how we can be sure that a mail-in ballot came from an eligible voter.
What are the processes to insure integrity?
Which are the converse for your apparent belief that the elections were perfectly fine
Show how ballot counts were incorrect
etc etc
oh, btw, apparently you are making some rather bold assumptions regarding my belief.
Bob, maybe we are making a little progress here, not sure.
So do you then wish to say that it is not your belief that the election was somehow stolen? Or in the alternative, that your belief is that there was not fraud at a sufficient level to affect the outcome?
Please clarify. No point in debating an inadvertent straw-man.
Post by: Number7 on June 30, 2022, 04:01:48 PM
Bob, maybe we are making a little progress here, not sure.
So do you then wish to say that it is not your belief that the election was somehow stolen? Or in the alternative, that your belief is that there was not fraud at a sufficient level to affect the outcome?
Please clarify. No point in debating an inadvertent straw-man.
You really are an intellectual coward.
Post by: Jim Logajan on June 30, 2022, 04:33:59 PM
;)
Post by: Anthony on June 30, 2022, 04:54:58 PM
Post by: Number7 on June 30, 2022, 04:55:47 PM
In All Six States, The PRESIDENT (not the senile imposter) was well ahead.
Windows used to allow election watchers to view the handling of ballots were covered and election watchers were
excused in some cases and chased out in others.
Testimony and video evidence have been circulated showing ballots boxes being stuffed, boxes of ballots being pulled out
from under tables and vehicles arriving with thousands of previously unknown ballots.
Suddenly the entire election up-ended and the senile imposter was ahead on all six states. Numerous instances of more
votes cast than registered voters were counted as legitimate and judges began to issue rulings that were precarious to
say the least, but treasonous if examined honestly in All Six States.... as if those crooked judges were all following a standard
set of orders.
Judicial orders to protect ballots for further examination were ignored intentionally and in many cases ballots known to be spoiled
were intentionally mixed with unspoiled ballots, making discernment very difficult.
I could on for days with actual evidence but the fuckwads of the left are far too blind, stupid, treacherous and downright pussified to
allow themselves and their precious opinions to be upset by facts.
The communist democrat overthrow of America was hastened along by people like pete, here. His lack of testicles, good sense
and integrity mirror the will of the treasonous left wing. He is just like his academic peers, a bunch of lying, cheating, scum...
and that's on their good days.
I refuse to treat pete or any other lying treasonous lefty with respect while they cooperate with the worst lying trash in the country.
People like pete get their feelings hurt because they aren't used to anyone calling them out for their bullshit, but that doesn't change the fact
that they are little more than pathetic tools of communist left.
Don't like it?
Don't care.
I treat communist traitors like the domestic enemies mentioned in the oath of office for pretty much all elected and appointed offices.
What a whore house of pussies you democrat trash have become.
including counted ballots
Post by: Jim Logajan on June 30, 2022, 05:20:14 PM
I've periodically checked voterga.org to see how they are coming along. It is a voter integrity organization in Georgia that existed many years prior to the 2020 election. They found some allegedly serious problems in the latest state-wide elections:
https://voterga.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Press-Release-VoterGA-Challenges-Raffensperger-SOS-Election-Results-6-23-22.pdf (https://voterga.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Press-Release-VoterGA-Challenges-Raffensperger-SOS-Election-Results-6-23-22.pdf)
Post by: Rush on June 30, 2022, 05:50:41 PM
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on June 30, 2022, 06:11:26 PM
I imagine that casinos have certain precautions to make sure their machines are correct, right? Would ballot counting be harder to secure than what casinos do? Or is my perception of casinos biased by hollywood?
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on June 30, 2022, 07:10:26 PM
I will now apply Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems to show that there is in fact no way to prove a presidential election happened in 2020....
;)
But if there was an election, Benford’s Law proves that Joe Biden lost it.
https://stillnessinthestorm.com/2020/11/joe-bidens-votes-violate-benfords-law-mathematics-statistically-impossible/
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on June 30, 2022, 07:20:02 PM
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on July 01, 2022, 03:42:59 AM
I have a friend that managed to get a cellphone picture of the QR code on his ballot. It is not readable by any standard QR reader. He plans to work on decrypting it.
how do we know that QR is unique?
;)
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on July 01, 2022, 03:49:19 AM
https://twitter.com/i/status/1542684948519419908
Post by: Rush on July 01, 2022, 04:16:11 AM
They are not even hiding it anymore. Makes me wonder what they might have cooked up for November and beyond that they are this bold.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1542684948519419908
The whole quote:
“ This is about the future of the liberal world order and we have to stand firm.
"But at the same time, what I would say to that family and Americans across the country is you have a president and an administration that is going to do everything in its power to blunt those price increases and bring those prices down."
https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-liberal-world-order-gas-oil-prices-brian-deese-viral-video-cnn-1720878
LIAR!! If they were doing everything they can they’d not have shut keystone, denied drilling permits etc.
Fucking goddamn motherfucking lying motherfuckers.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on July 01, 2022, 04:38:43 AM
The whole quote:How do you really feel ;)
“ This is about the future of the liberal world order and we have to stand firm.
"But at the same time, what I would say to that family and Americans across the country is you have a president and an administration that is going to do everything in its power to blunt those price increases and bring those prices down."
https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-liberal-world-order-gas-oil-prices-brian-deese-viral-video-cnn-1720878 (https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-liberal-world-order-gas-oil-prices-brian-deese-viral-video-cnn-1720878)
LIAR!! If they were doing everything they can they’d not have shut keystone, denied drilling permits etc.
Fucking goddamn motherfucking lying motherfuckers.
Post by: Number7 on July 01, 2022, 05:15:00 AM
Post by: Lucifer on July 01, 2022, 05:18:56 AM
Post by: Number7 on July 01, 2022, 05:40:23 AM
Socialism. A system that’s so good that elections must be cheated in order to implement it.
Kind of reminds us all of ObamaCare.
A health care plan so wonderful it had to be implemented at the point of a gun.
There is a pattern that anyone (except lying ass motherfucking lefties) can easily see.
Post by: Rush on July 01, 2022, 05:56:20 AM
The lying motherfuckers wouldn’t have a prayer if it are not for lying mother I mere like pete pretending to be thoughtful and giving them a pass while they shred freedom and watch it replaced with communism.
Pete will have to refresh my memory about his politics. I thought he said he is an ultra libertarian, maybe almost anarchist libertarian which is (in my mind) the complete opposite of communism, socialism or today’s leftist Democrats. I would think someone like that presented with a choice between Biden and Trump, if those were the only two options, would choose Trump. Trump populism is a bit closer to decentralizing power from the feds, where the Dems are now fascists and authoritarians.
So if Peter would have favored a Trump win, he isn’t assuming there was fraud from wishful thinking, whereas I could presumably assume fraud just because emotionally I really wanted Trump to win. I’ve considered that possibility and discarded it. My perception of the fraud is based on looking at the details from the night of Nov. 3 forward, in many counties, districts and states, and looking at them objectively as much as I can. While still human, as even the most objective scientist is still humanly flawed, I believe there is sufficient evidence to say with confidence that there is a high probability that there was sufficient fraud to have effected a false Biden win.
But Pete will have to speak for himself.
Post by: PeterNSteinmetz on July 01, 2022, 09:52:51 AM
But Pete will have to speak for himself.
As you know, I don't speak to posters like Number7 or even read their posts as they engage in name calling. It is not only a logical fallacy, but also rude and inappropriate in this context.
Happy to discuss the issues if raised by other posters who don't engage in those errors. But I think you have it about right. And thanks for the more accurate analyses and appraisals.
BTW, I was going to suggest Rush that if you have the time, that you try and write down a good objective summary of what you have found and analysis on this question. As we've discussed here before, it doesn't seem like anything like that is out there or readily accessible. I think you could do a rather good job and I, for one, would be very interested to read it.
Post by: Number7 on July 01, 2022, 12:43:23 PM
As you know, I don't speak to posters like Number7 or even read their posts as they engage in name calling. It is not only a logical fallacy, but also rude and inappropriate in this context.
Happy to discuss the issues if raised by other posters who don't engage in those errors. But I think you have it about right. And thanks for the more accurate analyses and appraisals.
BTW, I was going to suggest Rush that if you have the time, that you try and write down a good objective summary of what you have found and analysis on this question. As we've discussed here before, it doesn't seem like anything like that is out there or readily accessible. I think you could do a rather good job and I, for one, would be very interested to read it.
It’s not name calling when it’s true.
Post by: Anthony on July 01, 2022, 04:10:15 PM
Post by: Lucifer on July 01, 2022, 06:28:03 PM