Jump to content
The Education Forum

The inevitable end result of our last 56 years


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Steve Thomas said:

I read this morning that Donald Trump has sent out over 500 emails since November 3rd begging the gullible to send him money. He has raised more than $150 million so far.

Why would he quit now? It's a money making machine.

Steve Thomas

Always has been a scam. They can closely track their receipts versus messages and keep playing the same tune according to those numbers. Trump will launder the funds through his usual methods and the ignorant fools will go on for at least another month. Not very difficult to figure out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 8.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

13 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

The Wisconsin recount effort has no real bearing on the statistical voting analysis published by the vote-pattern-analysis people. However, the partial voting chart shared by Chris represents the kind of detailed voting breakdown information they stated they didn’t have, so an update to their paper should be expected.

The chart Chris shared is from the Wisconsin election update published at 3:42 AM Central Time (Nov 4), which is specifically analyzed by the Vote Pattern Analysis people. The first three items of that (partial) chart - Milwaukee wards 199, 200, & 201 - represent the high disparity pro-Biden districts which Cliff describes, with approximately nine Biden votes counted to every one vote submitted for Trump. Wards 202 through 216 maintain a decisive Biden favour, but at a much reduced rate averaging about 2.3 Biden votes to every Trump vote. The disparity of the update in total (presumably 216 wards) represents about 6.7 Biden votes for every one Trump vote. The analysis found the disparity (6.7 to 1) high in relation to other updates, but also very high in relation to total number of votes appearing a a single update (over 150,000). The analysts wonder if all the votes from high-disparity pro-Biden districts somehow appear in just one update. They also found that four separate district updates from three different states within a five hour period early on Nov 4 had similar appearances - relatively high disparity favouring Biden and relatively large updates in terms of total votes.

Statistical analysis by election monitors would flag something like the above in just about any election in any jurisdiction, as that is what the election monitors are supposed to do. It does not mean that anything untoward occurred - as the example from Bolivia demonstrates - but it does mean that blanket statements declaring there were no anomalies anywhere in  US election 2020 are not supported by the numbers.

The author states that the data was derived from "publicly available data from the NYT". Which is it? What does this mean? They also don't submit for review to any known group to analyze their findings which is convenient because that fact make it impossible to make any critical assessment of their findings unless you buy off on their predetermined methodology and assumptions such as "publicly available data NYT etc".

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- Pro-Trump Attorney, Lin Wood -

image.png.fb53487344c9327a5350d1a20c47438d.png

"Good morning.

Our country is headed to civil war. A war created by 3rd party bad actors for their benefit – not for We The People.

Communist China is leading the nefarious efforts to take away our freedom.@realDonaldTrump should declare martial law.https://t.co/h3Ym5ytMYt "

— Lin Wood (@LLinWood) December 1, 2020

Let's see. We've got one lawyer calling for murder, and another one calling for martial law.

This is good company Trump keeps.

Steve Thomas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

I read this morning that Donald Trump has sent out over 500 emails since November 3rd begging the gullible to send him money. He has raised more than $150 million so far.

Why would he quit now? It's a money making machine.

Steve Thomas

I received this email on Nov. 25 from Trump & Pence. It was addressed to a "Mark Cady" whoever that is.

If EVERY Patriot chips in $45, President Trump and Vice President Pence will have what it takes to DEFEND the Election and WIN!

Can we count on you, Mark? Your 1000%-IMPACT is LIVE for 1 HOUR!

Note: If you've saved your payment information, your donation will go through immediately.

Please contribute $45 IMMEDIATELY to the Official Election Defense Fund and to increase your impact by 1000%. >>

 
Official Election Defense Fund: Claim Your 1000% Offer

CONTRIBUTE $250 = $2750
 
CONTRIBUTE $100 = $1100
 
CONTRIBUTE $50 = $550
 
CONTRIBUTE $45 = $495
 
CONTRIBUTE ANY AMOUNT


 




 

 
 



 



Contributions to the Trump Make America Great Again Committee are not deductible for federal income tax purposes.

Paid for by Trump Make America Great Again Committee, a joint fundraising committee authorized by and composed of Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., Save America, and the Republican National Committee.

Trump Make America Great Again Committee, 725 Fifth Ave New York, NY 10022

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bob Ness said:

The author states that the data was derived from "publicly available data from the NYT". Which is it? What does this mean? They also don't submit for review to any known group to analyze their findings which is convenient because that fact make it impossible to make any critical assessment of their findings unless you buy off on their predetermined methodology and assumptions such as "publicly available data NYT etc".

 

What is your complaint? The authors state they are working from “publicly available data”, available from NY Times and other sources ( I.e. official government election statistics), covering “8954 individual vote updates” dispersed across the nation. The information is easily verifiable, and in fact one of their data sets was widely republished in the form of recount results in just the last few days. How do you come to describe this as an “assumption”? What do you mean by “predetermined methodology” - is the statistics field or most other scientific pursuits not largely dependent on “predetermined” methods?

Are you suggesting that sites such as Substack and Medium, hosting self-published essays and academic papers, should be put under the control of some “group” so as to verify or approve information? That seems sort of authoritarian. Who gets to choose the group? Should this vetting process extend across all electronic platforms? There are educated people advocating exactly that. Have you not noticed that in the space of a few short years the “marketplace of ideas” touted as the functioning framework of western intellectual endeavour and participation since the Enlightenment has flipped conceptually into a dangerous dark forest of disinformation that the citizenry needs to be protected from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

This is emblematic of the total collapse of critical thinking acuity in American liberal circles, a measurable trend since the beginning of 2017.

I don't see your critical thinking here, Jeff.  Just because a guy claims that sets of data show "anomalies" doesn't make it so.  This is emblematic of the severe confirmation bias in the Anti-anti-Trump Left.

How can you establish "anomalies" in a pattern when there is no "norm" or "mean" with which to compare?  The 2020 vote cannot be compared to any other election.

Since you know less than nothing about American politics and can't bother with research, let me outline what happened:  In Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia the Republican Legislatures decreed that mail-in paper ballots cannot be counted until the morning of election day.  In those states and others the walk-in Election Day vote is counted first.

Republicans tend to vote in person on Election Day -- Democrats overwhelmingly use mail-in paper ballots.

It's called the "red mirage" when these states reported early large leads for Trump.  The last to get counted were the large numbers of paper ballots from Milwaukee, Detroit, Philadelphia and Atlanta.  Those updates were dead accurate as confirmed by all recounts.

This was unprecedented in American history.  The historically suppressed black vote found their full voice thru the mail and kicked Donald Trump straight outta the White House.

That's the headline story of the 2020 election.  And you guys just want to sht on it...

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

I don't see your critical thinking here, Jeff.  Just because a guy claims that sets of data show "anomalies" doesn't make it so.  This is emblematic of the severe confirmation bias in the Anti-anti-Trump Left.

How can you establish "anomalies" in a pattern when there is no "norm" or "mean" with which to compare?  The 2020 vote cannot be compared to any other election.

Since you know less than nothing about American politics and can't bother with research, let me outline what happened:  In Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia the Republican Legislatures decreed that mail-in paper ballots cannot be counted until the morning of election day.  In those states and others the walk-in Election Day vote is counted first.

Republicans tend to vote in person on Election Day -- Democrats overwhelmingly use mail-in paper ballots.

It's called the "red mirage" when these states reported early large leads for Trump.  The last to get counted were the large numbers of paper ballots from Milwaukee, Detroit, Philadelphia and Atlanta.  Those updates were dead accurate as confirmed by all recounts.

This was unprecedented in American history.  The historically suppressed black vote found their full voice thru the mail and kicked Donald Trump straight outta the White House.

That's the headline story of the 2020 election.  And you guys just want to sht on it...

It’s your defensiveness which is interesting. It seems to be widely shared, if the tweeter from the Raw Story post is indicative. The Vote Analysis people don’t address any allegations or conclusions, rather simply say that the anomalies “invite further scrutiny.” None of their numbers are factually incorrect (though some have been recently revised via recounts), and their methods are reproducible. So why the impulse to dismiss or censor the post, or demand its vetting by some “group” as others would have it? The anomalies themselves aren’t even controversial, as they have been recognized since Nov 4 when the first screen captures from network news captions began to be shared. It is a matter of record now where the anomalous updates were filed, what they represented, and the precise time they were introduced. And it is not at all difficult to believe that inner-city voters in Detroit, Milwaukee, and Philadelphia voted for the Democratic candidate in margins of 7:1 and higher, and took advantage of the opportunity to vote via mail rather than endure the usual crappy and inadequate polling stations provided on election days. It’s just very interesting that the reflexive instinct you seem to support is to prevent speech, prevent debate and clarification. 

And, since you are going to hammer this particular nail - your personal definition of “paper ballot” is a bit more expansive than most laypersons would have it. Most persons understand a paper ballot as a sheet featuring a list of candidates onto which a voter makes a mark. Your definition includes print-outs of QR codes, printed on paper, made by a machine by scanning and reformatting a previously marked paper ballot. That process is one-step removed from the common understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

It’s your defensiveness which is interesting. It seems to be widely shared, if the tweeter from the Raw Story post is indicative. The Vote Analysis people don’t address any allegations or conclusions, rather simply say that the anomalies “invite further scrutiny.” None of their numbers are factually incorrect (though some have been recently revised via recounts), and their methods are reproducible. So why the impulse to dismiss or censor the post, or demand its vetting by some “group” as others would have it? The anomalies themselves aren’t even controversial, as they have been recognized since Nov 4 when the first screen captures from network news captions began to be shared. It is a matter of record now where the anomalous updates were filed, what they represented, and the precise time they were introduced. And it is not at all difficult to believe that inner-city voters in Detroit, Milwaukee, and Philadelphia voted for the Democratic candidate in margins of 7:1 and higher, and took advantage of the opportunity to vote via mail rather than endure the usual crappy and inadequate polling stations provided on election days. It’s just very interesting that the reflexive instinct you seem to support is to prevent speech, prevent debate and clarification. 

And, since you are going to hammer this particular nail - your personal definition of “paper ballot” is a bit more expansive than most laypersons would have it. Most persons understand a paper ballot as a sheet featuring a list of candidates onto which a voter makes a mark. Your definition includes print-outs of QR codes, printed on paper, made by a machine by scanning and reformatting a previously marked paper ballot. That process is one-step removed from the common understanding.

Because Jeff anyone doing a study like this, which is difficult to impossible to reproduce or verify, needs to have it tested like any other scientific study to determine if the statistical relationships they are presenting as fact point to an objective conclusion. That's why complex subjects beyond the reach of ordinary people are subjected to peer review. 

People with an axe to grind can make an argument based on the untested theory described in this paper but it really holds nothing until it can be reasonably assessed as accurate, which it can't be. It starts by saying their numbers are based on either public data, data presented by the Times or both.

The idea that conclusions can be made by the Chyron read out at CNN, which I've seen here elsewhere, is ridiculous. It's a news organization with dope smokers in the patch bay and doesn't reflect anything more the a news observation, probably accurate but still to be confirmed by tabulations, audits and recounts by professional poll workers. Even Barr is saying there is no evidence of errors or fraud that could effect the election results and people are making a big deal out of this study seeming to suggest there is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

I received this email on Nov. 25 from Trump & Pence. It was addressed to a "Mark Cady" whoever that is.

If EVERY Patriot chips in $45, President Trump and Vice President Pence will have what it takes to DEFEND the Election and WIN!

Can we count on you, Mark? Your 1000%-IMPACT is LIVE for 1 HOUR!

Note: If you've saved your payment information, your donation will go through immediately.

Please contribute $45 IMMEDIATELY to the Official Election Defense Fund and to increase your impact by 1000%. >>

 
Official Election Defense Fund: Claim Your 1000% Offer

CONTRIBUTE $250 = $2750
 
CONTRIBUTE $100 = $1100
 
CONTRIBUTE $50 = $550
 
CONTRIBUTE $45 = $495
 
CONTRIBUTE ANY AMOUNT


 




 

 
 



 



Contributions to the Trump Make America Great Again Committee are not deductible for federal income tax purposes.

Paid for by Trump Make America Great Again Committee, a joint fundraising committee authorized by and composed of Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., Save America, and the Republican National Committee.

Trump Make America Great Again Committee, 725 Fifth Ave New York, NY 10022

 

 

My understanding is the only contributions that go to defending the election are those over $5,000 and any less than that mostly goes to Trump's campaign fund. 

Hysterical!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bob Ness said:

My understanding is the only contributions that go to defending the election are those over $5,000 and any less than that mostly goes to Trump's campaign fund. Patriot to them equals chump or mark hahaha!

Hysterical!!!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

It’s your defensiveness which is interesting. It seems to be widely shared, if the tweeter from the Raw Story post is indicative. The Vote Analysis people don’t address any allegations or conclusions, rather simply say that the anomalies “invite further scrutiny.”

And further scrutiny reveals that the 2020 election was a novel event from which no identification of "anomalies" can be made.

Quote

None of their numbers are factually incorrect (though some have been recently revised via recounts), and their methods are reproducible.

The notion that anomalies can be detected in a novel event is absurd.

Quote

None of their numbers are factually incorrect (though some have been recently revised via recounts), and their methods are reproducible. So why the impulse to dismiss or censor the post, or demand its vetting by some “group” as others would have it?

Talk about defensive!

You're pimping a non sequitur.  Since the 2020 election was unlike any previous election you cannot logically identify an "anomaly."

Quote

 

The anomalies themselves aren’t even controversial, as they have been recognized since Nov 4 when the first screen captures from network news captions began to be shared. It is a matter of record now where the anomalous updates were filed, what they represented, and the precise time they were introduced. And it is not at all difficult to believe that inner-city voters in Detroit, Milwaukee, and Philadelphia voted for the Democratic candidate in margins of 7:1 and higher, and took advantage of the opportunity to vote via mail rather than endure the usual crappy and inadequate polling stations provided on election days.

24:1 in Detroit. 

Quote

 

 

It’s just very interesting that the reflexive instinct you seem to support is to prevent speech, prevent debate and clarification. 

Wow!  Paranoid, dude? 

I make a better case and that means I'm infringing on your right to free speech?

Quote

And, since you are going to hammer this particular nail - your personal definition of “paper ballot” is a bit more expansive than most laypersons would have it.

Excuse me?  Mail-in ballots are paper ballots.  Marked by hand. 

All the ballots in your non-anomaly "spikes" are paper ballots.

Quote

 

Most persons understand a paper ballot as a sheet featuring a list of candidates onto which a voter makes a mark. Your definition includes print-outs of QR codes, printed on paper, made by a machine by scanning and reformatting a previously marked paper ballot. That process is one-step removed from the common understanding.

I guess watching the national elections expert is too much to ask.

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cliff Varnell:

“…(it) was a novel event from which no identification of "anomalies" can be made…(t)he notion that anomalies can be detected in a novel event is absurd…Since (it) was unlike any(thing) previous … you cannot logically identify an ‘anomaly’.”

 

Cliff - the topic at hand is the 2020 election results, not Maradona's 1986 "hand of god" goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

Cliff Varnell:

“…(it) was a novel event from which no identification of "anomalies" can be made…(t)he notion that anomalies can be detected in a novel event is absurd…Since (it) was unlike any(thing) previous … you cannot logically identify an ‘anomaly’.”

 

Cliff - the topic at hand is the 2020 election results, not Maradona's 1986 "hand of god" goal.

...That's all you have?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...