Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GTANet.com

    1. GTA Online

      1. The Cayo Perico Heist
      2. The Diamond Casino Heist
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Frontier Pursuits
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    3. Crews

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA VI

      1. St. Andrews Cathedral
    3. GTA V

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
    5. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    6. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    7. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    8. Portable Games

      1. GTA Chinatown Wars
      2. GTA Vice City Stories
      3. GTA Liberty City Stories
    9. Top-Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

      1. Documentation
    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. Design Your Own Mission
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Movies & TV
      5. Music
      6. Sports
      7. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    3. Gangs

    1. Announcements

    2. Support

    3. Suggestions

Raavi

General US Politics Discussion

Recommended Posts

NaidRaida

Having such crowds of ppl, like I've seen around the White House/Times Square during election, that would probably lead to a massive array of police/special police here, even if there were any kind of election, to disperse the crowd. I suppose, all important elections would be simply postponed here right now. Bars, restaurants, baths, clubs, specific shops... alot is locked down here, including curfew here and there. Max. covid restriction violation penalty up to 30,000 USD in the next town! America seems alot more relaxed about that, I hope this dog will not bite it's own tail soon. Despite all this restrictions, numbers increase here still as well. That is frustrating. ūüė∑ūü•Ķ

Edited by NaidRaida

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Burbalade
On 10/30/2020 at 6:10 AM, sivispacem said:

The whole "origin story" for the emails is self-evidently drivel

You forming an opinion about something highly politicized (which happens to align with your bias) does not make it self evident. The only reason you say this is to excuse yourself from needing any sort of evidence or reason to back up your opinions.

 

On 10/30/2020 at 6:10 AM, sivispacem said:

I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone remotely in the know who won't acknowledge they're source is Russian cyber espionage operations

That's because you judge whether or not you think someone is "in the know" based on whether or not they blame the failings of democrats on Russian interference. 

But if we were to play along with your belief that this is a foreign attempt to influence the election, then by that logic Steele's dossier was also foreign interference except it was funded by the DNC and the media knowingly and actively participated in this election interference. 

Do you still think Russian operatives organizing a few rallies for both parties caused Trump to win?

 

On 11/5/2020 at 5:22 AM, NaidRaida said:

the Democrats seems to care the situation more, or is that a misunderstanding?

Democrats want to portray the virus (and republican's reactions) as negatively as possible, and they have the full support of the media. It's not care you're seeing, it's propaganda. Poor handling by virtue signaling and careless democratic leadership is why NYC was hit so hard.

The best balancing of safety and freedom is the long standing practice of quarantining the sick, reducing exposure to those most susceptible, and allowing everyone else to carry on with their lives. You can't hit pause on hundreds of millions of healthy lives and expect everything to be fine.

 

On 11/5/2020 at 3:33 PM, Konjca said:

The only thing that is for sure, everytime there's an election and one of the sides loses, they will always gonna cry "fraud". 

A few? Maybe. Big difference here is the overwhelming evidence of fraud on a scale large enough to affect the outcome. 

 

On 11/5/2020 at 6:14 PM, NaidRaida said:

that would probably lead to a massive array of police/special police here, even if there were any kind of election, to disperse the crowd. 

Just to be clear, do you think that's a good thing, or a bad thing?

 

On 11/5/2020 at 6:14 PM, NaidRaida said:

I suppose, all important elections would be simply postponed here right now.

Can't happen here. Dems want Trump out at any cost and as soon as possible. They didn't take him seriously in the last election but they are not making that mistake again. This is clearly a show of power. 

  • Like 2
  • tarumph 1
  • cry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raavi

There are some very worrisome moves being made at the moment. Not only do we have an incumbent refusing to accept the outcome of an election, and his intellectually challenged supporters (see the poster above) eating it up sans any actual evidence, but they are quite literally now overturning standing DOJ policy that is to protect the sanctity of elections to launch investigations based on literally zilch. 

 

When we zoom out a little bit. This tweet sums it up nicely.

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Burbalade
25 minutes ago, Raavi said:

and his intellectually challenged supporters (see the poster above) eating it up sans any actual evidence

Pure gold. 

There's tons of evidence.

Hundreds of thousands of Biden votes coming in all at once with little to no Trump votes. 

-The "fact checkers" cite input errors on certain websites while also admitting that those numbers are accurate to what the states are reporting, and of course those states are being declared for Biden based on those numbers. 

Videos of workers tossing or modifying near every other ballot they're supposed to count. 

Final Biden votes in the slow counting dem flopping swing states breaking benford's law.

-Fact checkers cite cherry picking and misapplication, even though data was drawn equally from thousands of precincts that weren't cherry picked, and Trump/Jorgensen and often even the very small sample size write ins closely follow benford's law.

 

Speaking of the intellectually challenged eating something up without evidence, what part of the voting rights act is being gutted? What is discriminatory about wanting only living and willing US citizens to vote once in US elections?

Removing machines that are prone to error and requiring IDs does a great deal to protect the sanctity of the election. What makes you think this is bad?

The USPS isn't crippled, and there's strong evidence of fraud on a massive scale.

 

Do you actually believe the bullsh*t you're spewing?

  • Like 1
  • cry 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

I do find the tears of conservatives to actually be a lot funnier than that of liberal tears.  At least Clinton had the notion to concede when the election was called.  At least now, I know what we'll spend the next four years hearing from Republicans.

  • Like 3
  • KEKW 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncle Sikee Atric
2 hours ago, Burbalade said:

Pure gold. 

There's tons of evidence.

 

Please state your evidence, with reliable, solid links to reputable source sites, QAnon, OAN, Breitbart and Youtube Blogs are not reputable sources.

 

2 hours ago, Burbalade said:

Hundreds of thousands of Biden votes coming in all at once with little to no Trump votes. 

 

Because Democrats chose to promote the idea of voting via mail-in ballot, to protect their voters from Covid infection transmission at the polling station.  Yet, you then wonder why mail-in ballots produced such a skewed result for Joe Biden?

 

2 hours ago, Burbalade said:

-The "fact checkers" cite input errors on certain websites while also admitting that those numbers are accurate to what the states are reporting, and of course those states are being declared for Biden based on those numbers. 

Videos of workers tossing or modifying near every other ballot they're supposed to count. 

Final Biden votes in the slow counting dem flopping swing states breaking benford's law.

-Fact checkers cite cherry picking and misapplication, even though data was drawn equally from thousands of precincts that weren't cherry picked, and Trump/Jorgensen and often even the very small sample size write ins closely follow benford's law.

 

In not one case has there been any observers not allowed at counts, even Fox News has admitted that, therefore all of the above claims are utter bunkum.  About the only thing that has any merit is the reduced proximity observers have had within the counts themselves, again, to protect one another from Covid risk, not to limit access to the counters.

 

2 hours ago, Burbalade said:

Speaking of the intellectually challenged eating something up without evidence, what part of the voting rights act is being gutted? What is discriminatory about wanting only living and willing US citizens to vote once in US elections?

Removing machines that are prone to error and requiring IDs does a great deal to protect the sanctity of the election. What makes you think this is bad?

The USPS isn't crippled, and there's strong evidence of fraud on a massive scale.

 

Without evidence confirming any of this, there's not court in the land that'll support these claims.  It's the biggest joke of all that the Arlington Fraud Hotline, is getting is getting more TikTok attacks than useful calls!

 

2 hours ago, Burbalade said:

 

Do you actually believe the bullsh*t you're spewing?

 

No, we don't believe the bullsh*t you're spewing.  You lost, get over it!

 

If you're so determined to back 45 through with this, the rest of the world is going to take great pleasure watching the entire chain of events fail, and we'll all get to call him a loser, twice.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

He is referring to a clerical error by a county clerk in Shiawassee, MI.  Someone accidentally added an extra zero at the end, but when the error was discovered, it was quickly corrected.

Edited by Svip
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Oh good, you're back and wholly on the fake voter fraud bandwagon. I did wonder if you'd skulk off into the aether or whether you'd return wildly swinging and I suppose we have our answer.

 

10 hours ago, Burbalade said:

You forming an opinion about something highly politicized (which happens to align with your bias) does not make it self evident. 

No, the fact it's absolute nonsense does though. 

 

The suggestion that Hunter Biden turned up to a tiny computer repair shop hundreds of miles from his home, in person, in a car plastered on Democrat bumper stickers, with three water damaged and entirely unencrypted MacBooks that the enterprising owner then decided to violate the CFAA by undertaking a phishing expedition for information of interest on, which just so happened to actually be conveniently saved to disk in a readily accessible form, and apparently contained damning emails orders of magnitude more incendiary than the entirely uninteresting dross so far published, before handing over to republicans where they were saved to a hard drive and waved threateningly by Rudy Guiliani (a man explicitly cuted by federal law enforcement to be a counterintelligence risk) and then conveniently lost in the post...

 

Yes, I think "unbelievable" is an adequate description. Partisanship in no way shapes my assessment of that though I daresay it does your obedient swallowing of it hook, line and sinker.

 

10 hours ago, Burbalade said:

The only reason you say this is to excuse yourself from needing any sort of evidence or reason to back up your opinions.

As usual, you've fixated on a minor aspect of the wider point, which is regardless of the origins of the emails there's nothing remotely interesting in them. 

 

10 hours ago, Burbalade said:

That's because you judge whether or not you think someone is "in the know" based on whether or not they blame the failings of democrats on Russian interference. 

Nice straw man, but I think you'll find I've never ascribed the democrats failures in the 2016 presidential election to Russian state interference and nor would I treat someone who thought that way as knowledgeable given that there were far bigger issues at play. 

 

Having a detailed understanding of Russian intent vis-a-vis the US, the capabilities they leverage to pursue that intent, the actions they have taken against political entities within the West over the last half decade and the nature of what was released leads me to form that assessment. 

 

10 hours ago, Burbalade said:

then by that logic Steele's dossier was also foreign interference except it was funded by the DNC and the media knowingly and actively participated in this election interference. 

Tu quoque aside, and also ignoring the fact that the Steele dossier started and was initially funded as a piece of Republican opposition research into Trump during the primaries, subsequently abandoned when it appeared he stood a good chance of winning... what foreign state or states were Steele or the democrats acting on behalf of?

 

8 hours ago, Burbalade said:

There's tons of evidence.

Cone on now, we all know this isn't actually the case. Every specific example you cite of alleged interference or improper practices has been roundly debunked, and the desperate attempts to invoke Benford's law, doubtlessly copied from the front page of /r/thedonald where it originally appeared, through obvious cherry picking and manipulation of the scales is just the icing on the cake.

 

uzYKg.png

 

Domestic observers saw no evidence of electoral fraud.

Overseas observers saw no evidence of electoral fraud.

Election officials saw no evidence of electoral fraud.

The Trump campaign have been unable to present any evidence of electoral fraud in the myriad of lawsuit's filed, the vast majority of which were thrown out almost immediately.

Numerous senior republican figures have conceded that no substantive electoral fraud took place.

 

How big is the alleged conspiracy to throw this election?

  • Like 6
  • KEKW 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raavi

Burb’s ridiculous assertions have already been roundly blown to smithereens not only by the three posters above me, but also numerous fact checkers and state officials. But Burb, and with him sadly millions other choose to continue to live in a fantasy world where the orange buffoon is deified and his losing is impossible. So instead they choose to believe that a cabal of republican Secretaries of State, republican governors, and republican election officials are part of this grandiose conspiracy together with their democrat counterparts to try and overthrow the republican incumbent. That this is completely batsh*t crazy does not matter, because their favorite ultra-right YouTube commentator / ultra-right wing blog told them it is true. Nevermind the fact that a multitude of lawsuits based on these spurious assertions parroted by Burb have been almost literally laughed out of court. I sometimes genuinely wonder if there is something in these red hats that completely obliterates any semblance of critical thinking skills these already intellectually deprived individuals had left.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timsalabimbo

Well then.

  • KEKW 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
executor404

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

Trump: Don't vote by mail! Mail fraud is rampant! You cannot trust the mail! You cannot trust mailing your ballots! I'll even put DeJoy in charge and order him to slow and cripple the mail!

 

Mailed-in votes end up being mostly Democrat

 

Trump: Why are so few mailed votes for me?!!!?!?!?! FRAUD!

 

It's incredible how there's no rational linking between the two. None. It must be fraud. Even more incredible that their supporters, as exemplified by our resident crybaby, are eating it all up. Like, wow. All I can say is: cry more. No tears are more delicious than trumpist tears who have been gloating about owning the libs for 4 years.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Burbalade

 

16 hours ago, Uncle Sikee Atric said:

Please state your evidence, with reliable, solid links to reputable source sites, QAnon, OAN, Breitbart and Youtube Blogs are not reputable sources.

You don't get to decide what constitutes a reputable source any more than I do. 

 

16 hours ago, Uncle Sikee Atric said:

Because Democrats chose to promote the idea of voting via mail-in ballot, to protect their voters from Covid infection transmission at the polling station. 

If masks and social distancing prevent infections, why risk the legitimacy of the election by promoting voting methods that are far more susceptible to fraud? 

 

16 hours ago, Uncle Sikee Atric said:

Yet, you then wonder why mail-in ballots produced such a skewed result for Joe Biden?

A slightly skewed result like we saw in most of the country is entirely expected. That does not excuse ballot dumps containing 90%+ Biden votes being counted nearly a week after polls closed in swing states that determine the election. 

 

16 hours ago, Uncle Sikee Atric said:

Without evidence confirming any of this, there's not court in the land that'll support these claims. 

Way to avoid addressing any of the points. But according to Sivi's logic, the burden of proof is on Raavi. 

 

16 hours ago, Uncle Sikee Atric said:

In not one case has there been any observers not allowed at counts

I can see why you'd think that if you immediately dismiss any and all claims to the contrary as false without looking into them. 

 

16 hours ago, Uncle Sikee Atric said:

even Fox News has admitted that

What exactly do you think that even means? Are you citing Fox news as a reputable authority, or are you under the impression that a few conservative reporters working for Fox means they speak on behalf of the entire right so I must agree with everything any of them have said? Really curious on your logic here.

 

16 hours ago, Uncle Sikee Atric said:

It's the biggest joke of all that the Arlington Fraud Hotline, is getting is getting more TikTok attacks than useful calls!

A DDoS attack on a fraud hotline can not be considered evidence that fraud has not occurred. 

 

15 hours ago, sivispacem said:

The suggestion that Hunter Biden turned up to a tiny computer repair shop hundreds of miles from his home

Is entirely plausible. Any suggestion otherwise is made only to back up an opinion you've already formed.

 

15 hours ago, sivispacem said:

in person

Also entirely plausible, especially if you believe him to be doing honest business. 

 

15 hours ago, sivispacem said:

with three water damaged and entirely unencrypted MacBooks

My experience in computer repair suggests water damage is second only to broken screens on laptops. If you don't have careless teenagers or undisciplined children slinging them around water damage probably takes the lead for most common. 

Hillary used unencrypted private emails to conduct business as Secretary of State. Not everyone conducting shady business knows computers as well as we do.

 

15 hours ago, sivispacem said:

that the enterprising owner then decided to violate the CFAA by undertaking a phishing expedition for information of interest on

You say that as if it's unheard of.

You list these things like you think they're all near impossible but nothing you've mentioned is too far from ordinary. If you think any of this is proof of Russian interference or falsified evidence you're sadly mistaken. 

 

15 hours ago, sivispacem said:

and waved threateningly by Rudy Guiliani (a man explicitly cuted by federal law enforcement to be a counterintelligence risk)

What is done with the emails after they're found has absolutely no bearing on their legitimacy or the legitimacy of the source. 

 

15 hours ago, sivispacem said:

nor would I treat someone who thought that way as knowledgeable given that there were far bigger issues at play. 

So no one involved in the Russian collusion scam or impeachment proceedings is knowledgeable. Or can we both agree that most of them knew it was BS put pursued it anyway in an attempt to remove him from office? 

 

16 hours ago, sivispacem said:

Having a detailed understanding of Russian intent vis-a-vis the US, the capabilities they leverage to pursue that intent, the actions they have taken against political entities within the West over the last half decade and the nature of what was released leads me to form that assessment. 

I think you're overplaying your understanding of Russian intent. 

 

16 hours ago, sivispacem said:

what foreign state or states were Steele or the democrats acting on behalf of?

Clinton Foundation donors is a likely answer. But if it's to be believed that Russia was working with the Trump campaign officials, then it could be said that the Russians were working on behalf of the Trump campaign, which if I'm reading your stance on the dossier correctly, you wouldn't take issue with?

 

16 hours ago, sivispacem said:

Every specific example you cite of alleged interference or improper practices has been roundly debunked

By who? Independent fact checkers whose articles you haven't even read? Get real. 

 

16 hours ago, sivispacem said:

the desperate attempts to invoke Benford's law, doubtlessly copied from the front page of /r/thedonald where it originally appeared

I didn't copy anything from Reddit. I don't read Reddit. I don't follow any Trump related page on any social media platform. Swing and a miss on discrediting the source by...  what exactly? That comment wouldn't disprove anything even if your assumption were correct. 

 

16 hours ago, sivispacem said:

through obvious cherry picking and manipulation of the scales is just the icing on the cake.

I know statistics is not a strong point for you, but what exactly do you think was cherry picked, and how exactly do you think the scales were manipulated? Do you even know what the scale is? The picture you posted suggests you don't. 

The data I was looking at was compiled from all precincts in contested areas. That's not cherry picking. 

The picture you posted is of second digits which follow a more narrow spread and tell far less than first digits. 

 

Here's the first digits:

photo_2020-11-06_14-07-36.jpg

 

Since you'll whine about manipulating the scales, here they are on the same scale:

U37XkIT.png

 

16 hours ago, sivispacem said:

Domestic observers saw no evidence of electoral fraud.

Overseas observers saw no evidence of electoral fraud.

Election officials saw no evidence of electoral fraud.

According to who? You've interviewed them all?

 

16 hours ago, sivispacem said:

How big is the alleged conspiracy to throw this election?

100k+ votes in most of the contested states, all of which came in very late and in swing states. If these discrepancies were purely innocent erroneous input, there are several things we would expect to see:

-Errors benefiting both sides at similar rates

-More errors in the 40+ states that were easily predicted than in the half dozen or so contested swing states.

-Errors occurring more frequently early on when more states were still counting 

There's more than enough evidence to justify an investigation. 

 

11 hours ago, Raavi said:

Burb’s ridiculous assertions have already been roundly blown to smithereens not only by the three posters above me, but also numerous fact checkers and state officials.

-None of those three posters have disproved anything I've said.

-The legitimacy of the fact checkers you trust being questionable at best is part of the point.

-Some state officials saying there has been fraud and some saying there hasn't been is not proof that there hasn't been. 

-if an investigation has not been conducted, no fact checkers or officials have any place to say for sure that fraud has not occurred. 

 

11 hours ago, Raavi said:

But Burb, and with him sadly millions other choose to continue to live in a fantasy world where the orange buffoon is deified and his losing is impossible.

-I haven't deified him.

-His losing is not impossible, but given the circumstances and current environment is improbable. It would be far more believable if there weren't so many factors pointing to fraud.

 

11 hours ago, Raavi said:

That this is completely batsh*t crazy does not matter

Pro establishment or anti Trump officials working to influence an election in their favor is not batsh*t crazy. If Americans were as partisan as you're making them out to be, every election would go the same way. 

 

11 hours ago, Raavi said:

because their favorite ultra-right YouTube commentator / ultra-right wing blog told them it is true

Who exactly do you think that is? Nevermind that this is an attack on the messenger rather than the message, is your ultra-left twitter or reddit personality or blogger more reputable?

 

11 hours ago, Raavi said:

Nevermind the fact that a multitude of lawsuits based on these spurious assertions parroted by Burb have been almost literally laughed out of court.

"Almost literally" = Not literally

But that doesn't sound as good, does it?

Let's ignore the content of the lawsuits, and ignore the lawsuits that have been won. Only focus on the fact that some have been thrown out. That's how you learn about what's going on. 

  • Like 3
  • cry 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

 

16 hours ago, Burbalade said:

Is entirely plausible

 

You've kind of missed the point here. Whilst some are in isolation rather improbable (like managing to water damage three laptops, for which I cannot think of a single reasonable circumstance aside from an office flood) none are impossible; it's the absurdly convenient combination of them which is implausible; or, at least, much less plausible than other competing hypotheses which do have evidentiary support (for instance it being confirmed that Russian state-endorsed adversaries targeted the Biden campaign as well as individuals related to it, as the FBI, DHS and numerous security vendors have affirmed). It's also notable that more than fifty senior intelligence figures signed a letter outlining their view that the emails were likely a Russian information operation, not to mention the cozy relationship between Giuliani and Andrii Derkach who had multiple meetings about the Biden-Ukraine allegations despite Derkach being a Russian state operative subsequently sanctioned for interference in the 2020 election:

 

 

Treasury designated Andrii Derkach (Derkach) pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13848 for his efforts to influence the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Derkach, a Member of the Ukrainian Parliament, has been an active Russian agent for over a decade, maintaining close connections with the Russian Intelligence Services. Derkach has directly or indirectly engaged in, sponsored, concealed, or otherwise been complicit in foreign interference in an attempt to undermine the upcoming 2020 U.S. presidential election. Today’s designation of Derkach is focused on exposing Russian malign influence campaigns and protecting our upcoming elections from foreign interference. This action is a clear signal to Moscow and its proxies that this activity will not be tolerated. The Administration is working across the U.S. Government, and with state, local, and private sector partners, to make the 2020 election secure.

 

...

 

From at least late 2019 through mid-2020, Derkach waged a covert influence campaign centered on cultivating false and unsubstantiated narratives concerning U.S. officials in the upcoming 2020 Presidential Election, spurring corruption investigations in both Ukraine and the United States designed to culminate prior to election day. Derkach’s unsubstantiated narratives were pushed in Western media through coverage of press conferences and other news events, including interviews and statements.

 

Between May and July 2020, Derkach released edited audio tapes and other unsupported information with the intent to discredit U.S. officials, and he levied unsubstantiated allegations against U.S. and international political figures. Derkach almost certainly targeted the U.S. voting populace, prominent U.S. persons, and members of the U.S. government, based on his reliance on U.S. platforms, English-language documents and videos, and pro-Russian lobbyists in the United States used to propagate his claims.

 

 

A more likely origin story is that adversaries linked to the GRU (who run the majority of Russian information operations) compromised Burisma in January 2020 and obtained emails from there- this compromise having been confirmed by the organisation that investigated it. But none of this mitigates the core point at hand, which is the fact there was absolutely nothing interesting in the emails that were released, and no evidence that anything more compelling ever existed in the first place. 

 

16 hours ago, Burbalade said:

Hillary used unencrypted private emails to conduct business as Secretary of State.

The difference here being that the emails were stored on a server as is customary for almost all implementations of mail clients. It's been a while since I've done Mac forensics, but my recollection is that the default settings for Apple Mail is and has been storage to iCloud rather than locally for at least the last 2-3 years.

 

16 hours ago, Burbalade said:

What is done with the emails after they're found has absolutely no bearing on their legitimacy or the legitimacy of the source. 

That's not really true though, is it? Modification of documents, after their "discovery" (IE theft through espionage), usually so they conform to Kremlin narratives, before their leaking has been an aspect of Russian espionage tradecraft going back to the 1920s with events such as Operation Trust. It's remained a significant aspect of current Active Measures and has been discussed at length and in public by the Five-Eyes intelligence community, amongst others. 

  

16 hours ago, Burbalade said:

So no one involved in the Russian collusion scam or impeachment proceedings is knowledgeable. 

It's nice to see your straw men aren't just confined to me, but to anyone holding a position you oppose. The position that investigators and those involved in impeachment proceedings hold Russian interference in the 2016 election responsible for the Democrats failure to win is a notion which exists solely within right-wing echo chambers. Trying to portray it as the default position is absurdly inaccurate. If you actually read my comment, you'd realise that this was my point, but you clearly didn't as you're responding as if I said something completely different.

  

16 hours ago, Burbalade said:

I think you're overplaying your understanding of Russian intent. 

Given I've spend the last near-decade conducting investigations into foreign state cyber espionage, and hold a postgraduate degree in intelligence studies, with distinction, in which a significant portion of my dissertation was dedicated to examination of Russian use of information operations against European governments, I think that if anything I've underplayed my subject matter knowledge.

  

16 hours ago, Burbalade said:

By who? Independent fact checkers

Yes, by independent fact checkers. 

 

16 hours ago, Burbalade said:

I didn't copy anything from Reddit.

You actually did, because that's where the Benford's Law claims were initially posted before being picked up by The Red Elephants, which in case you didn't know (which I'm assuming you didn't because you probably would have used a less tainted source), is a white nationalist media outlet run by Rise Above Movement affiliate, vocal anti-semite and "9/11 was the work of the Jews" conspiracy theorist Vincent James Foxx.

  

16 hours ago, Burbalade said:

I know statistics is not a strong point for you, but what exactly do you think was cherry picked, and how exactly do you think the scales were manipulated?

I've never suggested that statistics is my strong point, but equally it is far from yours either. Failing to notice a clear misapplication of Benford's law just because it happens to conform to your political position is evidence of that, but we'll come to that in a second.

What I'm referring to is this, which was posted as part of the same set of charts you've cited above:

 

Biden-Allegheny.jpg

 

Trump-.jpg

 

That's allegedly Second digit frequencies in Alleghany County, Pennsylvania, which was probably the most prominent image posted to support the assertions. I say "allegedly" as I've not interrogated the data set myself, but the issue with the graph is plain to see- the variance in scales used in the Trump representation and the Biden representation suggests a far greater variance from expected in the case of the latter when actually overlaying the two graphs on the same scale (as in my initial post) shows their deviation from expect is actually very similar. The fact this obvious abuse of statistics was used by the same outlet you cite to demonstrate a variance from Benford's Law indicates that they are intentionally trying to mislead readers- no surprise given the political position of the site in question.

 

The whole thing should be a complete non-issue anyway for anyone doing research into the methodology, as Benford's Law is far from universal and academic studied it doesn't actually work in the context of detecting election fraud. 

 

From here:¬†"...It is not simply that the Law occasionally judges a fraudulent election fair or a fair election fraudulent. Its ‚Äúsuccess rate‚ÄĚ either way is essentially equivalent to a toss of a coin, thereby rendering it problematical at best as a forensic tool and wholly misleading at worst."

From here: "...Unfortunately, my analysis shows that Benford's Law is an unreliable tool. And, as one applies more sophisticated methods of estimation, the results become increasingly inconsistent. Worse still, when compared with observational data, the application of Benford's Law frequently predicts fraud where none has occurred."

 

There are numerous reasons for this failure, chief amongst which is the fact that core tenets of Benford's Law applicability- distributions that span orders of magnitude and the absence of first digit bounding- are not satisfactorily met. In the case of Chicago, as cited above, the uniform size of the precincts in question (as seen here) and the distribution of votes in those precincts account for the variance here. The same non-Benford results can be seen by looking at voter-by-precinct distribution in some Trump-majority wards where his vote margin was in the 60-70% order; by the logic employed here this must mean that the results of these elections are also fraudulent, but whoever came up with the initial statistical analysis has clearly decided to omit such information.

 

 

A little experiment, if you will:

Take West Virginia, the state that Trump won with the largest majority in the 2016 presidential election. If you look at the breakdown of Trump's votes by county, take the first digit and apply Benford's law, you will see that the distribution doesn't match what would be expected. Here's a two minute Excel graph:

Untitled.png

 

By the logic employed by those using Benford's law to try and invalidate the Biden results, Trump must have cheated to achieve this. But the simple fact is that Benford's law is essentially useless in this application, because of the bounding issues created by ward (or, indeed, county) size, and the lack of numbers spanning multiple orders of magnitude (indeed, over 99% of all Chicago wards had three digit numbers as their Biden vote counts whereas Trump's dispersion between single, double and triple digits was far greater, thus making is more likely to align with Benford's law).

 

Feel free to trawl the Github repo hosting the data set to see all other demonstrations of the failure for results to align with Benford's law, such as Trump's votes in Republican precincts in Allegheny:

 

98672406-a7d2dc00-234d-11eb-9865-bce00ee

  

16 hours ago, Burbalade said:

According to who?

According to their statements. I don't know what your obsession with "interviewing" is at the moment.

  

16 hours ago, Burbalade said:

100k+ votes in most of the contested states, all of which came in very late and in swing states. If these discrepancies were purely innocent erroneous input, there are several things we would expect to see:

-Errors benefiting both sides at similar rates

-More errors in the 40+ states that were easily predicted than in the half dozen or so contested swing states.

-Errors occurring more frequently early on when more states were still counting 

Whilst these are statistically true, there's nothing to suggest that this wasn't actually the case, due to selection bias of the small group of observers who have obsessed over these events.

 

The simple fact of the matter is that proponents of the "great fraud" conspiracy have only looked at the small number of contentious swing states. In doing so they've seen anomalies they ascribe, without evidence, to malice. However they have roundly ignored the ~43 far less contentious states where the same anomalies may have occurred (as they have frequently in previous elections), but have gone unnoticed because the advocates of this conspiracy theory have been so intently focused on the 7 or so that are either deciders or significant swingers, and literally nobody else is looking because they know that, for all its quirks, when it comes to the actual act of casting and counting ballots the US electoral system exhibits no appreciable fraud.

 

16 hours ago, Burbalade said:

You don't get to decide what constitutes a reputable source any more than I do. 

I mean he does, mostly because he's not literally quoting white supremacist websites as if they're an authoritative source. Which is why it doesn't surprise me that you seem to think that QAnon is reputable, even though the basic tenets of the persona used to perpetuate that ridiculous conspiracy are self-evidently drivel.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raavi
13 hours ago, Burbalade said:

-The legitimacy of the fact checkers you trust being questionable at best is part of the point.

Of course everything that runs counter to narratives being spun by your best bud the¬†pussy grabber in chief is ‚Äėquestionable at best‚Äô. Don‚Äôt you see how incredibly and laughably dishonest you are being? Nevermind the fact that what these fact checkers base themselves on is publicly available for everyone‚Äôs perusal.

 

13 hours ago, Burbalade said:

-Some state officials saying there has been fraud and some saying there hasn't been is not proof that there hasn't been. 

Some? Try virtually all of them. 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/10/us/politics/voting-fraud.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage

 

Eat this, but let me guess it is fake news because it is the NYT right? 

 

13 hours ago, Burbalade said:

-if an investigation has not been conducted, no fact checkers or officials have any place to say for sure that fraud has not occurred. 

Bud, a lot of these claims are downright laughable so they don’t need any investigative resources wasted on them to disprove them. Take these gems:

 

 

And then there is this moron who was strung along by ‚ÄúProject Veritas‚ÄĚ and perjured himself.

 

13 hours ago, Burbalade said:

-I haven't deified him.

Hahahahahah good joke. Bud, you’re his biggest cheerleader here. Even defending him where other Trumpers here who actually do have the benefit of critical thinking skills call foul.

 

13 hours ago, Burbalade said:

-His losing is not impossible, but given the circumstances and current environment is improbable. It would be far more believable if there weren't so many factors pointing to fraud.

It’s not improbable at all, in fact it had been in the cards for months now. He bungled the coronavirus response and is in generally just a big f*cking idiot. The saner half of the US has been done with him for years now. Hence his AGAIN losing the popular vote, which is no mean feat.

 

13 hours ago, Burbalade said:

Pro establishment or anti Trump officials working to influence an election in their favor is not batsh*t crazy. If Americans were as partisan as you're making them out to be, every election would go the same way. 

It is quite emblematic¬†as to your deification of the guy that you find it more probable that republican officials ‚Äúinfluence the election‚ÄĚ against the orange moron than him just losing because he didn‚Äôt get enough votes.

 

Ever heard of Occam’s razor?

 

13 hours ago, Burbalade said:

Let's ignore the content of the lawsuits, and ignore the lawsuits that have been won. Only focus on the fact that some have been thrown out. That's how you learn about what's going on. 

 

As close as you can get to being laughed out of the courtroom. They are in 0-12 at the moment as far as their lawsuits go. Do keep up buddy boy.

 

 

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Burbalade
19 hours ago, sivispacem said:

like managing to water damage three laptops

You see a ton of water damaged laptops and phones in electronic repair, it happens far more often than you seem to think. If you're just using them as tools and one breaks it's quite common to throw it on the shelf to be dealt with later, especially for laptops and tablets. 

 

19 hours ago, sivispacem said:

much less plausible than other competing hypotheses which do have evidentiary support (for instance it being confirmed that Russian state-endorsed adversaries targeted the Biden campaign as well as individuals related to it

If Russia targeting the Biden campaign previously is evidence that they are still targeting it, then Russia targeting the Trump campaign in the past is also evidence that they still are, which nullifies your assumption that Russia must be supporting Trump. 

 

19 hours ago, sivispacem said:

It's also notable that more than fifty senior intelligence figures signed a letter outlining their view that the emails were likely a Russian information operation

"We are all also individuals who see Russia as one of our nation’s primary adversaries."

This tells me the mindset of these individuals is to assume Russian malice as a default, but let's look at their reasoning. 

 

"We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement"

Fantastic. This letter is nothing more than an admission that these senior intelligence officials have absolutely no intelligence on this matter. 

Even better you cite this as evidence and it explicitly states that even senior intelligence officials have no evidence. 

 

19 hours ago, sivispacem said:

Yes, by independent fact checkers. 

So not by trustworthy or reputable sources. Why even bother claiming they've been debunked? You might as well be citing 4chan.

 

19 hours ago, sivispacem said:

You actually did, because that's where the Benford's Law claims were initially posted

I actually didn't, because I was never on Reddit. 

 

19 hours ago, sivispacem said:

before being picked up by The Red Elephants, which in case you didn't know (which I'm assuming you didn't because you probably would have used a less tainted source), is a white nationalist media outlet run by Rise Above Movement affiliate, vocal anti-semite and "9/11 was the work of the Jews" conspiracy theorist Vincent James Foxx.

"White supremacists also think Joe Biden cheated" is not a point relevant to the discussion and has no place in any form of debate. Grow up.

 

19 hours ago, sivispacem said:

Failing to notice a clear misapplication of Benford's law just because it happens to conform to your political position is evidence of that, but we'll come to that in a second.

-It's not a misapplication, as can clearly be seen by looking at Jorgensen's votes from the same dataset.

O3Yxq6p.png

-Your belief that it's a misapplication is evidence that statistics are alien to you in general, or you had no idea what Benford's law was.

 

19 hours ago, sivispacem said:

What I'm referring to is this...

This is what we call a straw man.

You've roundly ignored the evidence that suggests fraud, and elected instead to lazily pick apart data that I never cited as evidence, and that doesn't mean anything in the first place.

 

19 hours ago, sivispacem said:

as Benford's Law is far from universal

This is absolutely true. There are plenty of data sets that would not conform to Benford's law. Anything with the data points falling within a narrow range, or with a small sample size obviously would not net the same result.

 

19 hours ago, sivispacem said:

A little experiment, if you will:

Your experiment on the accuracy of Benford's law on a sample size of 55 says nothing of it's accuracy on a sample size of 2054. But you knew that and continued anyway. This indicates that you are intentionally trying to mislead readers- no surprise given your political position.

 

19 hours ago, sivispacem said:

to see all other demonstrations of the failure for results to align with Benford's law, such as Trump's votes in Republican precincts in Allegheny:

Again with the reduced sample size.

 

19 hours ago, sivispacem said:

According to their statements.

If you haven't read statements from all of them, then you're in no place to make that call. 

 

19 hours ago, sivispacem said:

The simple fact of the matter is that proponents of the "great fraud" conspiracy have only looked at the small number of contentious swing states. In doing so they've seen anomalies they ascribe, without evidence, to malice.

-These discrepancies have occurred in large numbers in swing states.

-If you're going to defraud an election, you don't need to defraud all 50 states, just a few swing states.

-There has been evidence of malice.

-You're now operating under the unevidenced assumption that similar events took place in other states.

 

19 hours ago, sivispacem said:

and literally nobody else is looking because they know that, for all its quirks, when it comes to the actual act of casting and counting ballots the US electoral system exhibits no appreciable fraud.

Glad you're not an election official with an attitude like that. Fraud should be excused without investigation in deciding states because you don't think it's possible that the fraud you allow and refuse to investigate could ever reach an appreciable level? What do you think an appreciable level is? 100k+ in contested votes in each of three states changed the outcome of this election. If you don't want that looked into, it's because you're hoping to hide something.

 

19 hours ago, sivispacem said:

I mean he does, mostly because he's not literally quoting white supremacist websites as if they're an authoritative source. 

-No, he doesn't. 

-Save for the letter you linked to in your last post, I didn't "literally quote" any website. 

-Until you learned what you assume to be a white supremacist also shared it, you assumed I got it from Reddit. You're cherry picking sources to falsely assume I got it from so you can attack the character of those sources. That's not part of a civil debate.

-You're doing the same thing to me the media has been doing to Trump since he announced he was running. Maybe you're the foreign operative.

 

14 hours ago, Raavi said:

Of course everything that runs counter to narratives being spun by your best bud the¬†pussy grabber in chief is ‚Äėquestionable at best‚Äô.

I'm not overly concerned with the narrative, that's where you and me differ. When I see the fact checks, I read them out of curiosity. Most of them end up being obvious pieces of propaganda written by highly biased individuals. They're not reputable. One that comes to mind is the Wayfair child trafficking theory. Fact checkers jumped on it quickly and confirmed it false. You would of course believe that without question and not bother to read how it was confirmed false, but I decided to check it out. Your reputable fact checkers tried calling Wayfair to ask them about it, but didn't hear back. Case closed. 

 

14 hours ago, Raavi said:

Some? Try virtually all of them. 

"Virtually all" = not all = some

Stop double speaking. It doesn't look good for you when you're trying to accuse me of dishonesty. 

 

14 hours ago, Raavi said:

Eat this, but let me guess it is fake news because it is the NYT right? 

Eat this? How old are you? 

Do you expect election officials that potentially contributed to fraud to come out and say "Yeah we f*cked this one up big time, you can't trust any of the numbers we reported."?

Try putting yourself in their shoes, innocent or not. What would you say?

 

14 hours ago, Raavi said:

Bud, a lot of these claims are downright laughable so they don’t need any investigative resources wasted on them to disprove them. Take these gems:

If you don't think everyone observing the counts supporting burning the country down if it makes Trump look bad is an issue, it's because you agree with them. 

If you don't think election staff cheering the removal GOP observers suggests there might be fraud favoring the DNC, it's because you want it covered up.

If you think 80% of military ballots being straight ticket dem isn't extremely suspicious, then you don't know many vets. 

 

14 hours ago, Raavi said:

you’re his biggest cheerleader here.

That's not saying much when the staff blow up on members that openly support him. You, Sivi, and Sikee have literally scared conservatives from posting in this thread for fear of being banned for sharing dissenting opinions. If I had your manners I'd already be gone. So much for healthy debate.

 

14 hours ago, Raavi said:

He bungled the coronavirus response

Should he have stopped travel earlier or later?

Should he have shut down the country sooner, sacrificing people's freedom and livelihood for a virus that kills less than half as many people as smoking does every year, and the vast majority of which are 75 or older and whose death was also attributed to influenza or pneumonia? 

Do you have any perspective at all on this, or are you just parroting left wing anti-Trump propaganda websites?

 

14 hours ago, Raavi said:

Ever heard of Occam’s razor?

The simplicity of the answer depends entirely on your wording. For example "Dems cheated" is about as simple as it gets. 

 

14 hours ago, Raavi said:

They are in 0-12 at the moment as far as their lawsuits go. Do keep up buddy boy.

Maybe it's you that needs to keep up.

https://www.jurist.org/news/2020/11/trump-campaign-wins-election-lawsuit-in-pennsylvania-loses-in-georgia-and-michigan/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2020/11/05/pennsylvania-court-orders-state-to-segregate-some-mail-in-ballots-in-response-to-trump-challenge/?sh=28047dd930b6

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pennsylvania-ballots-gop/2020/11/06/064fdf94-2056-11eb-90dd-abd0f7086a91_story.html

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-pennsylvania-lawsuit/trump-campaign-sues-over-pennsylvania-mail-in-voting-system-idUSKBN27P30F

There's three wins and one ongoing. Further evidence that you completely ignore anything that doesn't fit your narrative.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • fir thi bairns 1
  • cry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

The two first cases don't really deal with voter fraud?  The third one is the same as the second one.  In the first one, the Trump campaign wanted to secure access to the polling places, and were granted that, but had to stand a certain distance apart from those who count and wear masks.  It sounds more like there was some confusion about the exact rules for poll watchers, and the court effectively clarified it.  A reasonable win, but hardly proving of malice.

 

In the second one, which had been ongoing since September, I believe, the Trump campaign had sought to not have those ballots counted received after election day, and have them segregated.  Before the Supreme Court's decision, the Pennsylvania counting clerks played it safe, and segregated the votes received after election day, regardless of the decision.  Eventually, Justice Alito ruled that the votes should be segregated, but they should also be counted, so hardly a big win for the Trump campaign.  Pennsylvania Secretary of State also recently announced that only about 10,000 ballots had been received after election day, hardly enough to change the winner in PA.

 

The third one (though your fourth link) is likely to fail is the general legal opinion, I've seen.  Again, the 'win' in the first case, and the half-win in the second case, were hardly unexpected.  But this claim of a two-tiered system has already failed in Nevada, so I am unsure why it would work in Pennsylvania.

  • Like 6
  • YEE 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
11 hours ago, Burbalade said:

You see a ton of water damaged laptops and phones in electronic repair, it happens far more often than you seem to think.

Nobody doubts this, but the notion of hoarding soggy laptops on a shelf then carting them off to a tiny repair shop hundreds of miles away stretches the bounds of credibility, especially when combined with other aspects of the story that you seem unwilling to address.

 

For the record, in fifteen or so years I've never seen any organisation, large or small, take the "dump stuff on a shelf then send it for repair in bulk" approach, because it makes absolutely no sense to do so. Either damaged assets get shipped straight back to the OEM for repair whilst the clumsy user gets an older device from a pool, or they have to stuck it up for a few days and be without, or as is the case in larger organisations you get a brand new one expressed to you next-day and the old one gets either scrapped or repaired and dumped into a pool of seconds.

 

Which isn't to say it doesn't happen, but it's certainly not something I've ever seen.

 

11 hours ago, Burbalade said:

If Russia targeting the Biden campaign previously is evidence that they are still targeting it, then Russia targeting the Trump campaign in the past is also evidence that they still are, which nullifies your assumption that Russia must be supporting Trump. 

You should probably refrain from trying to make points predicated on subjects you evidently have zero basic appreciation, let alone any understanding, of.

  • I was referring to confirmed targeting of the Biden campaign, and of¬†Burisma, that took place during the relevant time period and which has been attributed to Russian adversaries.
  • I made no statement that could be construed as¬†the Biden campaign "still being targeted", though in all likelihood they are.
  • The fact that a single state, or even single adversary, seeks to target two separate entities does not imply the intent behind this targeting is the same.
  • Whilst historical targeting is usually a strong indicator of future intent to target, it's far from universal; the specific intent of the adversary in question is the most critical factor.¬†
  • Targeting of friendly governments and allies, in your words, happens far more often than you seem to think.

This whole sentence of yours is laughably incoherent nonsense.

 

11 hours ago, Burbalade said:

This tells me the mindset of these individuals is to assume Russian malice as a default

Or, more accurately, it tells you that these individuals have an appreciation of strategic and geopolitical realities that you evidently sorely lack.

 

11 hours ago, Burbalade said:

Even better you cite this as evidence and it explicitly states that even senior intelligence officials have no evidence.

I cite is as "notable", because it is, and describe the letter, accurately, as an outlining (of) their view(s).

Maybe address what I actually say rather than what it's convenient for you to imagine I've said for the purposes of your argument.

 

I see you're also unwilling to address the subject of Giuliani's collusion with known Russian state operatives.

 

11 hours ago, Burbalade said:

So not by trustworthy or reputable sources.

To paraphrase you, you don't get to decide what constitutes a trustworthy or reputable source. You never had that privilege in the first place given your total refusal to ever engage on the subject of empirical evidence and the sources you rely on for you comments; even if you did you would have lost it the moment you started citing white supremacist media outlets and insinuating that the reputability of QAnon is similar to that of non-partisan fact-checking organisations.

 

11 hours ago, Burbalade said:

I actually didn't, because I was never on Reddit. 

Citing stuff in ignorance of its origin doesn't mean that it didn't originate from that place.

Maybe you should practice what you preach and do your own research into some of these narratives rather than blindly quoting them?

 

11 hours ago, Burbalade said:

"White supremacists also think Joe Biden cheated" is not a point relevant to the discussion

"White supremacists perpetuate statistical abuse and false narratives because it benefits their ideology to create political strife and Burblade laps it up" absolutely is, though.

 

11 hours ago, Burbalade said:

-It's not a misapplication, as can clearly be seen by looking at Jorgensen's votes from the same dataset.

The fact that some aspects of a data set happen to align with Benford's Law does not mean that Benford's Law is applicable to that data set. 

Why have you refused to address the vast majority of my rebuttal on this subject? 

 

11 hours ago, Burbalade said:

-Your belief that it's a misapplication is evidence that statistics are alien to you in general

The fact you think Benford's Law can be applied to election results as a means of identifying discrepancies, despite multiple academic studies using far more comprehensive data sets proving it is no better a predictor of fraud than a coin toss, is evidence that being objective, empiricism, expertise, basic reading comprehension and reality are alien to you in general. The fact that you clearly didn't know that Benford's Law is unlikely to apply in cases where distributions are first-digit bound and fail to span orders of magnitude means we can add statistics to that list.

 

11 hours ago, Burbalade said:

You've roundly ignored the evidence that suggests fraud

The evidence doesn't "suggest fraud", because election results are a distribution known not to obey Benford's Law, as can be seen in the two academic papers I cited addressing the very subject.

 

11 hours ago, Burbalade said:

and elected instead to lazily pick apart data that I never cited

I'm picking apart data that emanates from the same source you cite, to demonstrate that the analysis presented is intentionally misrepresentative.

It's immaterial whether the specific data set you cite is valid (which it isn't as the entire premise on which the data set is build is erroneous) because my attack is on the credibility and authority of the source in general.

 

11 hours ago, Burbalade said:

Anything with the data points falling within a narrow range...obviously would not net the same result.

As you can see from the citation on the previous page showing both registered voters and ballots cast across all Chicago wards and precincts, the data points do fall within a narrow range

Therefore, by your own logic, Benford's Law does not apply.

 

11 hours ago, Burbalade said:

Your experiment on the accuracy of Benford's law on a sample size of 55 says nothing of it's accuracy on a sample size of 2054.

I find the irony of you taking issue with small sample sizes and yet continuing to ignore the digit bounding and order-of-magnitude issues that exist within the data set you cite, despite them being much less pronounced in the one I do pretty entertaining, but the same results can be see through looking at larger data sets too.

 

2019 UK election results, in England only, for the victorious Conservative party, by constituency (sample size 533)

Untitled.png

 

Allow me to cite Deckert et al again:

" Looking at simulations designed to model both fair and fraudulent contests as well as data drawn from elections we know, on the basis of other investigations, were either permeated by fraud or unlikely to have experienced any measurable malfeasance, we find that conformity with and deviations from Benford's Law follow no pattern."

 

11 hours ago, Burbalade said:

Again with the reduced sample size.

It's a sample size larger than some of those used within the very piece you're referencing to allegedly "prove" electoral interference; why have you not taken issue with it there?

Is it, perhaps, because it happens to align with your existing biases?

 

11 hours ago, Burbalade said:

If you haven't read statements from all of them, then you're in no place to make that call.

Can you cite a single non-partisan external observer who reported fraudulent activity?

 

11 hours ago, Burbalade said:

-These discrepancies have occurred in large numbers in swing states.

This does not preclude them from having occurred in other states too.

 

11 hours ago, Burbalade said:

-If you're going to defraud an election, you don't need to defraud all 50 states, just a few swing states.

This is not relevant to the point at hand.

 

11 hours ago, Burbalade said:

-There has been evidence of malice.

There has not- the so-called "evidence" discussed so far is either wilful misrepresentation, products of perception bias, confirmed falsehoods, lying through abuse of inapplicable statistical models, or otherwise explainable via far more viable and less laughable hypotheses.

 

11 hours ago, Burbalade said:

-You're now operating under the unevidenced assumption that similar events took place in other states.

Not only did they take place in other states, as they have in previous elections, but they've also occurred to the benefit of Trump in the very states we're discussing.

Instances of votes being subtracted from Biden's total and added to Trump's occurred in at least one of the contested states, but this is conveniently overlooked by those who support the electoral fraud conspiracy theory because it happens not to correlate with their personal biases.

 

11 hours ago, Burbalade said:

Fraud should be excused without investigation in deciding states because you don't think it's possible that the fraud you allow and refuse to investigate could ever reach an appreciable level?

What the f*ck are you on about?

 

The fact that "no appreciable fraud" has taken place within the US electoral system in recent history is categorical fact. The small handful of fraud cases that have occurred- which I never said shouldn't be investigated- have concerned numbers many orders of magnitude below anything which would affect the legitimacy of election; moreover, they've primarily been committed by Republicans to this point. Using a series of false and misleading allegations to try and question the outcome of an election that all evidence has shown for quite literally months Trump would lose- by a larger margin than he actually did, no less- is far more harmful to the integrity of the US political system than any fraud that has ever actually been confirmed as taking place.

 

I don't take issue with investigations being made into alleged fraud. I think it's a waste of time to chase nonexistent ghosts predicated on the assertion by a pathological liar that there's no way he could have lost an election, but that's not my time or money that's being pissed away so I don't really care. What I do take issue with is the violation of accepted norms in investigating this activity by highly politicised aspects of federal government with a significant reputation for publicly contradicting the realities of events as presented by state and federal entities far better placed to make assessments on the matter.

 

11 hours ago, Burbalade said:

-No, he doesn't. 

Again, you don't get to decide what constitutes a trustworthy or reputable source.

 

11 hours ago, Burbalade said:

-Save for the letter you linked to in your last post, I didn't "literally quote" any website. 

I'd count posting images from white supremacist websites as "quoting" from them given the context of their use.

If you don't consider them quoting, or at the very least citing, why did you use them?

 

11 hours ago, Burbalade said:

-Until you learned what you assume to be a white supremacist also shared it, you assumed I got it from Reddit.

The white supremacist website also appears to have got it from Reddit. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Where did you get it from? Was it the white supremacist website, or another outlet which referenced it? That's certainly where the images you posted are from. I can see from the URLs.

 

Also, there's no "assumption" that's it's a white supremacist site:

  1. It's run by a white supremacist
  2. It contains white supremacist content
  3. It offers a platform to other white supremacists

If the glove fits...

 

11 hours ago, Burbalade said:

Maybe you're the foreign operative.

Maybe I am. Maybe I'm part of a secret cabal of Satanists trying to undermine Trump. 

 

11 hours ago, Burbalade said:

The simplicity of the answer depends entirely on your wording. For example "Dems cheated" is about as simple as it gets. 

1) That's not how Occam's Razor works

2) "Trump lost" is simpler

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raavi
7 hours ago, Burbalade said:

I'm not overly concerned with the narrative, that's where you and me differ. When I see the fact checks, I read them out of curiosity. Most of them end up being obvious pieces of propaganda written by highly biased individuals. They're not reputable. One that comes to mind is the Wayfair child trafficking theory. Fact checkers jumped on it quickly and confirmed it false. You would of course believe that without question and not bother to read how it was confirmed false, but I decided to check it out. Your reputable fact checkers tried calling Wayfair to ask them about it, but didn't hear back. Case closed. 

Do you hear that? That is my last semblance of hope you weren‚Äôt a completely lost cause going out the window. To try and impugn the credibility of fact checkers as a group, is one thing. You could have for example found some examples were fact checkers rectified their assessment in light of new evidence that came in. That would have at least allowed you to maintain a shred of credibility. Even though when that happens those rectifications lead to a new article or updating the original one. But you didn‚Äôt do that, you went out and cited an absolutely certifiably insane¬†Qanon conspiracy theory¬†being proven to be exactly that as evidence that factcheckers are publishers of ‚Äúpropaganda‚ÄĚ. The fact that you go and cite this specific example tells me, and any poster on this board here that has any interest in arguing a good faith all they need to know. YOU are batsh*t crazy.

 

7 hours ago, Burbalade said:

"Virtually all" = not all = some

Stop double speaking. It doesn't look good for you when you're trying to accuse me of dishonesty. 

Quite to the contrary. Had I said ‚Äúall‚ÄĚ that would have been dishonest, because statistically you will always have a percentage, however small,¬†that differs. Hence the use of the word ‚Äúvirtually‚ÄĚ.¬†That being said, the amount of state officials from low level officials to¬†electoral registrars, to Secretaries of State / the Commonwealth, to Attorney Generals and everything inbetween that say there has been absolutely no evidence of fraud is overwhelming. If you really want to suggest they are all involved in some kind of anti-Trump conspiracy, might I suggest that instead of replying to me and Sivi‚Äôs you go check yourself into a mental hospital.

 

7 hours ago, Burbalade said:

Do you expect election officials that potentially contributed to fraud to come out and say "Yeah we f*cked this one up big time, you can't trust any of the numbers we reported."?

Try putting yourself in their shoes, innocent or not. What would you say?

The conspiracy is growing and growing, now it is not just fraudulent ballots being cast, now it is election officials in charge of reporting the numbers that are part of it too. You do realize that this would require the involvement of tens of thousands of people across a multitude of counties, across half a dozen states. Nevermind the fact that even Trump’s lawyer would not go anywhere close to even suggesting election officials were involved with any fraud when asked in court. Because you know, ethics.

 

Emgfsi2XUAE6jIa?format=jpg&name=medium

 

7 hours ago, Burbalade said:

If you don't think everyone observing the counts supporting burning the country down if it makes Trump look bad is an issue, it's because you agree with them. 

If you don't think election staff cheering the removal GOP observers suggests there might be fraud favoring the DNC, it's because you want it covered up.

If you think 80% of military ballots being straight ticket dem isn't extremely suspicious, then you don't know many vets. 

 

The real issue is that it is either hearsay, and as such inadmissible or based on preconceived notions that are not supported by the actual facts or and this is the most mundane but common explanation: it is just routine. 

 

1. The witness heard someone else saying outlandish stuff = hearsay

2. There were an equal number of observers from both parties. 

3. ‚ÄúYes, your honor based on my subjective understanding this is suspicious and as such you should award the election to Donald J. Trump‚ÄĚ]

 

It gets better when you dig into the pasts and social media presences of these so-called ‚Äúwitnesses‚ÄĚ. From Qanon supporters to sex offenders. Not that it will ever make it to trial, but these ‚Äúwitnesses‚ÄĚ would be completely destroyed in cross-examination. They might even walk out with a perjury charge.

 

I’ll leave you with this since hearsay seems to be a difficult concept for you to grasp.

 

Emj4MPjW8AEgrxx?format=png&name=900x900

7 hours ago, Burbalade said:

You, Sivi, and Sikee have literally scared conservatives from posting in this thread for fear of being banned for sharing dissenting opinions.

Such delicate little snowflakes, scared off by my non-existent bans for dissenting opinions. 

 

7 hours ago, Burbalade said:

The simplicity of the answer depends entirely on your wording. For example "Dems cheated" is about as simple as it gets. 

 Proposition: Joe Biden won the election.

 

A. He won because he won both the popular vote and the electoral college

 

B. He won because there was a grandiose multi-state cross-party conspiracy involving tens of thousands of people and hundreds of thousands of fraudulent ballots to make Donald J. Trump a one term president.

 

Tell me which requires the least amount of assumptions? A or B?

 

I won’t further address the links you posted because Svip already did a great job at that.

 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
make total destroy
On 11/10/2020 at 9:04 PM, Burbalade said:

 

 

ultra-left  

bordiga.jpg

 

anyways sorry beyblade but trump lost

  • Like 3
  • KEKW 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Burbalade
14 hours ago, sivispacem said:

the notion of hoarding soggy laptops on a shelf then carting them off to a tiny repair shop hundreds of miles away stretches the bounds of credibility

Three laptops certainly wouldn't be considered hoarding. 

 

14 hours ago, sivispacem said:

or as is the case in larger organisations you get a brand new one expressed to you next-day and the old one gets either scrapped or repaired and dumped into a pool of seconds.

Maybe practices are different in the UK, but from what I've seen it's quite common to have a pool of ready to go replacements as well as a small store of broken or damaged units to be salvaged, repaired, or auctioned off in bulk at a later date. It is not in the least bit out of the ordinary for businesses or even for individuals to keep old or broken electronics to be dealt with later. 

 

14 hours ago, sivispacem said:
  • Whilst historical targeting is usually a strong indicator of future intent to target, it's far from universal; the specific intent of the adversary in question is the most critical factor.¬†

You don't know the specific intent. You're making assumptions on the intent based on who is being targeted. If assumptions are made about the intent behind attacks on Trump with the same logic, they contradict the assumptions you're making about the intent behind the attacks on Biden. 

 

15 hours ago, sivispacem said:

Or, more accurately, it tells you that these individuals have an appreciation of strategic and geopolitical realities

No, it doesn't. It explicitly states their stance on Russia. 

It does not offer any sort of support for their reasoning at all, much less "more accurately" than it depicts their stance on Russia. 

 

15 hours ago, sivispacem said:

Maybe address what I actually say rather than what it's convenient for you to imagine I've said for the purposes of your argument.

"other competing hypotheses which do have evidentiary support" - you

You then link a letter from senior intelligence officials explicitly stating they have no evidence to support this assertion. 

 

15 hours ago, sivispacem said:

To paraphrase you, you don't get to decide what constitutes a trustworthy or reputable source.

None of us do individually. But if you think attacking the character of a source is a valid rebuttal to accurate data, then there's no sense in us not all playing by the same rules. 

 

15 hours ago, sivispacem said:

given your total refusal to ever engage on the subject of empirical evidence

I shared empirical evidence. You ignored it and instead attempted show bias or inaccuracy in data that you presented to the discussion. 

 

15 hours ago, sivispacem said:

you would have lost it the moment you started citing white supremacist media outlets and insinuating that the reputability of QAnon is similar to that of non-partisan fact-checking organisations.

-I didn't cite a white supremacist media outlet. I provided a picture of a chart that happens to be hosted by that outlet as well as dozens of other websites. You looked at the URL, so you're well aware of the fact that I did not get that picture from them but instead from another website that happened to use an archived copy. 

-I didn't mention QAnon.

-The fact checking organizations you're referring to as non-partisan are absolutely not. 

 

15 hours ago, sivispacem said:

Maybe you should practice what you preach and do your own research into some of these narratives rather than blindly quoting them?

I did do my own research, and found the both the data and application to be sound. The narrative of one of the hundreds of websites, videos, and individuals sharing this information is not of my concern. 

 

15 hours ago, sivispacem said:

"White supremacists perpetuate statistical abuse and false narratives because it benefits their ideology to create political strife and Burblade laps it up" absolutely is, though.

-Statistical abuse is you claiming the inaccuracy of a sample size of 55 is proof of inaccuracy of a sample size of over 2000. 

-Dismissing data based on an assumed narrative is strong evidence of delusion and bias. 

 

15 hours ago, sivispacem said:

The fact that some aspects of a data set happen to align with Benford's Law does not mean that Benford's Law is applicable to that data set. 

You don't get Jorgensen's results by chance in a data set that doesn't adhere to Benford's law. You've yet to provide a single example of the same measure with a sample size even half as large as what you're trying to disprove, while knowing that it becomes less accurate with a smaller sample size. You're the one abusing statistics. Whether it's intentional or not, I still can't tell. 

 

15 hours ago, sivispacem said:

I find the irony of you taking issue with small sample sizes and yet continuing to ignore the digit bounding and order-of-magnitude issues that exist within the data set you cite

Look at everyone else's results in the data I showed. All of them show some basic adherence to Benford's law except for Biden. The affect of the narrower distribution from 3rd party candidates is also quite obvious.

 

15 hours ago, sivispacem said:

but the same results can be see through looking at larger data sets too

...

2019 UK election results, in England only, for the victorious Conservative party, by constituency (sample size 533)

533 is your larger sample size when trying to discredit the accuracy of a sample size of over 2000? That's really the best you can do?

 

16 hours ago, sivispacem said:

It's a sample size larger than some of those used within the very piece you're referencing to allegedly "prove" electoral interference; why have you not taken issue with it there?

-I didn't reference the article itself as proof. I referenced one set of data that happens to be contained within one or several articles. 

-The sample size is significantly smaller than that of the data I referenced. 

-Had I been blindly parroting articles with no understanding of the content like you're accusing me of doing, I would have shared the same data you did. I didn't because I know it's not relevant. 

-On the off chance that anyone enters this thread claiming the small variance in the second digits also points to fraud, I will gladly point out that second digits mean f*ck all in this context. And on the off chance they think there's a large variance in second digits, I will gladly point out that the scales are different.

 

16 hours ago, sivispacem said:

This does not preclude them from having occurred in other states too.

"It could have happened in other states too" means absolutely nothing.

100k+ Biden vote dumps took place in 100% of the three states that decided the election after days of standstill. 

Can you find similar discrepancies benefiting Trump in any of the remaining 47 states?

 

16 hours ago, sivispacem said:

This is not relevant to the point at hand.

It's quite relevant to the point at hand. 

When you admit fraud does happen but base your entire argument on the assumption that it can't happen on a scale large enough to influence the country. The fact that only three states need any shift at all to flip the election is a very important point. Days late landslide vote dumps in these states of sufficient size to flip the results is certainly cause for alarm if you're worried about sanctity of the election. 

 

16 hours ago, sivispacem said:

The fact that "no appreciable fraud" has taken place within the US electoral system in recent history is categorical fact.

At this point  it's very much up for debate. If you just parrot that every time there's a fraud allegation, you would be operating under the assumption that appreciable fraud is impossible and as such none is worth investigating. 

 

16 hours ago, sivispacem said:

I don't take issue with investigations being made into alleged fraud.

Unless it potentially benefits someone you hate. Let's just be honest here.

 

16 hours ago, sivispacem said:

What I do take issue with is the violation of accepted norms in investigating this activity

The false allegations against Trump were met with years of national security level investigation. What exactly do you think the accepted norm is?

 

16 hours ago, sivispacem said:

Where did you get it from?

I heard about it from a friend, and then researched it. I didn't read an article and parrot it, there is no one singular source I got the information from. 

 

16 hours ago, sivispacem said:

That's certainly where the images you posted are from. I can see from the URLs.

What you can see from the URLs is one is hosted by web archive (which was linked to from a separate source) and the other by imgur. 

I've literally never visited the site in question and don't browse reddit. So when you ask me which I got it from, the answer is neither. 

 

16 hours ago, sivispacem said:

2) "Trump lost" is simpler

Assuming all of these assertions false is no simpler than assuming them all true. You're making the same number of assumptions either way. Regardless, Occam's razor is no more universal than Benford's law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
On 11/13/2020 at 4:38 AM, Burbalade said:

Maybe practices are different in the UK, but from what I've seen it's quite common to have a pool of ready to go replacements as well as a small store of broken or damaged units to be salvaged, repaired, or auctioned off in bulk at a later date. It is not in the least bit out of the ordinary for businesses or even for individuals to keep old or broken electronics to be dealt with later. 

I should note that this includes work both for US companies and in the US proper, and that certainly earlier in my career when I was but a lowly analyst one of the less glamorous parts of my role was auditing asset and device registers as part of (particularly insider) investigations. And not once have I seen what you describe as normal practice. The only time you typically see devices hoarded is when they're destined for disposal.

 

But that's largely a moot point because this fixation on a single aspect of the narrative that I never said was impossible in the first place, just improbable, ignores the core point at hand which is the plausibility of the narrative as a whole.

 

On 11/13/2020 at 4:38 AM, Burbalade said:

You don't know the specific intent. You're making assumptions on the intent based on who is being targeted. If assumptions are made about the intent behind attacks on Trump with the same logic, they contradict the assumptions you're making about the intent behind the attacks on Biden. 

Except I do know the specific intent, and I'm categorically not making assumptions on it from who was targeted. You've basically got the whole assessment process back to front here.

 

Intent defines victimology. Intent tends to be quite transparent with state endorsed adversaries as there's usually a clear delineation of tasking with specific groups in terms of geography of operations, verticals, specific objectives, tradecraft et cetera which can be directly related back to the sponsoring political entity. This is especially true within competitive intelligence frameworks such as the Russian model. This is all attribution 101 type stuff that I'll gladly go into more depth on given it's the meat and potatoes of my day job but I think that'll suffice for now.

 

Once you combine tradecraft, techniques and specific pre- and post-compromise activities with that understanding of structure, chain of command and tasking, determining specific intent is actually quite easy. It's also inherently victim agnostic. Whilst victimology tends to fall largely in line with what's expected there are plenty of outliers, particularly when the specific target is not the final intended victim but a means to enable further access, down or upstream targeting or third party collection. 

 

 

The tl;dr of the above is basically that competent analysts don't go "adversary A targeted victim 1 therefore their intent must be X". If that's your genuine belief of how these conclusions are reached then you may wish to better verse yourself on the subject before making arguments that are predicated on understanding it.

 

On 11/13/2020 at 4:38 AM, Burbalade said:

No, it doesn't. It explicitly states their stance on Russia. 

This would only constitute a contention if their stance on Russia was questionable, but it isn't. It's a stance shared by:

  • The entirety of the US intelligence community and military, bar a few of Trump's political appointees;
  • The entirety of the Five-Eyes community;
  • NATO;
  • Unaligned and neutral states within Russia's sphere of influence.

All of whom are far better placed to make such assessments than Burblade, an armchair russophile on a gaming forum with absolutely no clear subject matter expertise, qualification or authority. 

 

On 11/13/2020 at 4:38 AM, Burbalade said:

None of us do individually. But if you think attacking the character of a source is a valid rebuttal to accurate data, then there's no sense in us not all playing by the same rules. 

We're already "not playing by the same rules" because you refuse to acknowledge the core points of most rebuttals addressing you, and yet for some reason I continue trying to engage with you as if you're arguing from a position that isn't purely dogmatic and completely bereft of credibility.

Questioning the credibility of a data source is entirely valid, as is exploring data points contained within the same source that you haven't posted:

  • The agenda of an outlet releasing, reissuing and/or commenting on a data set is likely to shape their portrayal of it- or indeed, see them selectively omit- aspects of it to reinforce their own narratives. If you think a white supremacist media outlet is going to approach any subject, let alone one as contentious as this, with impartiality and objectivity then you are unquestionably deluded.
  • The presence of graphs and data points which do not support the conclusions drawn but which are presented in a misleading way to suggest they do is absolutely a valid contention. It indicates either:
    1. That the originator does not understand the basic principles of statistical analysis, and therefore is likely to have misunderstood or  misapplied the models in question; or (and more likely),
    2. The originator is seeking to misuse data in a manner designed to accentuate a preconceived bias, which means that other data sets they present (such as the one you quote) are unlikely to be representative of objective analysts and correct application of models.

 

It does not escape me that the particular data points chosen by the author of the conspiracy to look at, and you to purport, are from Chicago. This strikes me as an odd choice of location, as:

  • Chicago is not a remotely contentious battleground when it comes to voting.
  • Illinois more generally¬†is a Democrat stronghold and has been for almost thirty years.
  • The data in question doesn't concern a swing state in which fraud is alleged to have occurred by the Trump campaign.

As much as I love the absurdity of the notion that the Democrats are so dedicated and brazen in their attempts to steal the election they're even cheating in the safest city in one of the safest states in the US, it does rather stretch the bounds of credibility. My suspicion is that the author actually picked Chicago because it's a data set they identified as meeting the criteria they need in order to assert electoral interference (IE Biden's results not aligning with Benfords Law whilst those of other candidates broadly do), even though it's not actually relevant to the core assertion that it's being used to support (that Democrats cheated in swing states, of which Illinois is not one). So a clear example of cherry picking, as I said in my initial rebuttal.

 

But all this is secondary to the fact that Benford's Law cannot be used to determine election fraud, as is proven without a doubt by multiple studies. A point of undeniable fact you still fail to refute.

  

On 11/13/2020 at 4:38 AM, Burbalade said:

I did do my own research, and found the both the data and application to be sound.

Either:

  1. This statement is untrue; or
  2. Your research was so selective (read worthless) it failed to find fundamental flaws with the methodology and its applicability to the data set that could be identified through ten seconds Googling; or
  3. You did identify these flaws but decided to persevere with perpetuating a narrative you know to be flawed, either in the hope that nobody else would notice or question this, or because you're manifesting Dunning-Kruger effect so badly that you've legitimately convinced yourself that your subject matter knowledge exceeds that of subject matter experts.

I don't care which of those is reality because all of them invalidate your position.

  

On 11/13/2020 at 4:38 AM, Burbalade said:

-Dismissing data based on an assumed narrative is strong evidence of delusion and bias. 

Accepting the assertion that data should confirm to a model when all evidence suggests otherwise because it's convenient for your political views is strong evidence of delusion and bias.

 

The assumed narrative is the explanation for the misuse of the model; it's a wider manifestation of dogmatic anti-intellectualism and perpetuation of the "cult of ignorance" that afflicts those on the populist right in particular, who seem to genuinely possess the entirely misguided belief that they're more qualified to speak on subjects such as this than actual experts. 

 

"The only expert you need is you", eh Burblade?

  

On 11/13/2020 at 4:38 AM, Burbalade said:

Look at everyone else's results in the data I showed. All of them show some basic adherence to Benford's law except for Biden.

The fact that five data points sort-of-but-not-properly align to Benford's Law, and one doesn't, in one cherry-picked example data set from a distribution known not to obey Benford's Law, doesn't magically make its application valid. Given the studies I cited show that there's a roughly fifty percent chance a given electoral data set aligns with Benford's law, then the odds of five aligning is not particularly low. In reality only three of the six align, but we'll get onto that in a minute.

 

I say "sort of but not properly" because of the five graphs you posted aside Biden's:

  • One (Jorgensen/Cohen) shows near perfect alignment
  • Two (Trump/Pence and Hawkins/Walker) shows broad alignment with some minor anomalous ordering.
  • Two (La Riva/Peltier and Carroll/Patel) show significant deviation in the form of extremely large overrepresentation of 1 as a leading digit, and under-representation across digits 4-9.

In fact, if you use a tester such as this one with the data I posted on the previous page you'll find that fifty percent of the Chicago results fits Benford's Law and fifty percent do not, which aligns exactly with the results that you would expect given the two academic papers I've cited. 

 

You're incorrect assumption seems to be that Benford's Law relates solely to the ordering rather than the distribution. A distribution falling significantly outside the expected curve is still a failure to adhere to Benford's Law even if the digit ordering is correct.

  

On 11/13/2020 at 4:38 AM, Burbalade said:

533 is your larger sample size when trying to discredit the accuracy of a sample size of over 2000?

So your rebuttal is essentially that 533 isn't a large enough data set to show accurate alignment to Benford's Law but 982, which is the total number of Chicago wards saw registered votes for Carrol/Patel, is? What's your justification for that assertion?

 

How about we look at another data point? Let's take the electoral districts of all 12 Assembly Districts of New York borough, as seen here. That's 1,299 EDs.

Let's look at Trump's vote distribution by first digit:

 

Untitled.png

 

Oh dear. 

 

How about we expand the data set to also include the Bronx as well?

That gives us a total of 2,298 EDs, a data set more than 10% larger than the one you're using to assert Biden cheated:

 

Untitled.png

 

Oh dear oh dear.

 

So from this, what can we conclude?

  • Republicans cheated in New York and Bronx?
  • That Benford's Law doesn't apply to voting data?

If you genuinely had been interested in validating or verifying the assertions you blindly puppet you might have had the forethought to run some of these tests yourself rather than expecting other people to do it for you. But because your actual basic competence in statistical analysis is somewhere between the rigid and stiffer mantle, whilst your assessment of your own competence lies somewhere in the magnetosphere, you didn't think to do so.

 

If you actually had a clue about statistic as you claim, you'd appreciate that Trump's voter tallies following Benford's law actually makes it statistically unlikely that Biden's would purely because of the issues of bounding I've already discussed, and because there's a direct relationship between the data sets in question (which violates the basic principle that two compared data sets cannot be dependent on each other and still be expected to both follow Benford's Law). The total votes assigned to third party candidates are not statistically significant enough to skew the leading digit frequency for either Biden or Trump; when combined with the fairly uniform size of each individual constituent district (in the case of Chicago, seeing roughly 200-600 voters for the most part) and the vote distribution between Biden and Trump (between 60-40 and 80-20 in a majority of cases) anyone who possessed the ability to think critically and rationally should realise that the results posted above are exactly what you would expect. 

 

On 11/13/2020 at 4:38 AM, Burbalade said:

Can you find similar discrepancies benefiting Trump in any of the remaining 47 states?

There are similar discrepancies benefitting Trump within the contested states as I've already said. You and your ilk just choose to ignore them as its inconvenient for your arguments.

 

There have also been "vote dumps" comprising thousands of Trump votes that have occurred in two Michigan counties Biden was winning, but which Trump eventually won.

  

On 11/13/2020 at 4:38 AM, Burbalade said:

When you admit fraud does happen but base your entire argument on the assumption that it can't happen on a scale large enough to influence the country.

The rate of electoral fraud within the US is judged to be approximately 0.00006%; that's taken from a 20 year MIT study. That means, even if the entire US population voted, only 193 ballots would be fraudulent. 

Tell me more about how 193 ballots would influence the outcome of this election.

  

On 11/13/2020 at 4:38 AM, Burbalade said:

The false allegations against Trump were met with years of national security level investigation.

Which is due process for investigation into federal officials. Overriding existing due process which divests the responsibility for initial investigations into electoral fraud to state authorities and instead placing it in the hands of political appointees is not an act of good faith.

  

On 11/13/2020 at 4:38 AM, Burbalade said:

I heard about it from a friend, and then researched it.

I believe the first half of this sentence. If you'd actually researched it then you'd know the model isn't applicable to the data, as I've repeatedly said, supported with external evidence, and demonstrated publicly and unquestionably for all to see.

As an aside, you need to invest in some better friends.

  

On 11/13/2020 at 4:38 AM, Burbalade said:

Assuming all of these assertions false is no simpler than assuming them all true. You're making the same number of assumptions either way. Regardless, Occam's razor is no more universal than Benford's law.

I was actually being facetious and ridiculing your complete misunderstanding of what Occam's Razor is.

Raavi already covered this above so I didn't really feel the need to retread something he'd already addressed so eloquently. 

  • Like 4
  • KEKW 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raavi

 

The Grand Canyon-sized rift¬†between what Trump is shouting on Twitter and what his campaign / GOP attorneys are claiming in court is quite something. Yet we still have people, even in this very thread, perpetuating the completely baseless notion of widespread fraud despite there being no evidence and Trump & co being now 1-24 in court. In the words of another judge in one of these frivolous lawsuits: ‚ÄúAt what point does this get ridiculous?‚ÄĚ.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

Georgia recount is over, and Trump lost again.

 

Now he'll definitely request another recount, which he is entitled to, and will lose again. Man does that guy loves to be a loser!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yokelsson

This is so much fun

 

 

  • Like 1
  • KEKW 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jpm1

 

On 10/28/2020 at 10:13 PM, sivispacem said:

We have a specific Covid-19 topic, please refrain from posting stuff only very loosely related to the actual topic.

i don't think talking of covid management, and comparing the results between countries is OT, as it's the only reason why Trump lost this election

 

On 11/4/2020 at 11:31 AM, Detective Phelps said:

Yeah, I'm not surprised with the way things are going; I have been expecting Trump to get another electoral college victory. But it isn't over yet, you never know how it might end up. The main issue was that while Biden's supporters hate Trump, only a few Biden voters actually like Biden. Whereas Trump's base love Trump so much that they'd be perfectly fine with Trump f*cking them over. 

 

Well, the stock market looks good, so there's that, at least!

i think Americans can be grateful to the skies that a man like Biden stood up against the colossal mess of the reps covid management. i mean i don't know if you realize it, but all the world is laughing hard at how Trump governement, and its voters are managing the covid crisis. so no i really don't think Biden voters hate him. i think they're exteremelly grateful to him to exist. just look at actual US hospitals situation to have a glimp of the disaster hitting the US right now. a nurse in El paso even reported having seen a room in the hospital where people where literally left to die without any treatment, because the services were overwhelmed

 

On 11/5/2020 at 10:30 PM, ddarko12 said:

Not a misunderstanding at all. We saw 105k+ new cases yesterday. Malls are filled. Restaurants are filled. Parks are filled. Stores are filled. Nobody cares. Definitely doesn't seem like Republicans give a good damn about the virus at all. We got masks on that's it. Nobody even social distances and no stores enforce it. It feels like pre-pandemic just with masks.

fault to Trump governement who behaved lightly regarding the pandemic. letting his 70M+ voters think it was a 'small' disease'. but fault also to the american mentality that for a reason i can't explain did literally nothing to stop the disease. in France for example, during these meetings where we saw pro Trump high responsibles doing high fives you would have instantly a group of citizens that would have stood up , and put the taunters on trials. and they'd had won. creating a kind of power trail all around the country. I'm not judging the US people, i have a tremendous respect for them for all they achieved as a people, but i don't undestand that immobility, it's a mystery to me. but we French make errors sometimes too, we are nowhere to perfect

 

On 11/10/2020 at 5:22 AM, Raavi said:

There are some very worrisome moves being made at the moment. Not only do we have an incumbent refusing to accept the outcome of an election, and his intellectually challenged supporters (see the poster above) eating it up sans any actual evidence, but they are quite literally now overturning standing DOJ policy that is to protect the sanctity of elections to launch investigations based on literally zilch. 

 

When we zoom out a little bit. This tweet sums it up nicely.

 

 

i don't think Trump actual desastrous moves are voluntarilly. i personnally think no one ever told him how to manage a decisive loss. because his moves are so dumbs, i don't see any kind of bad minded behavior here, but more a kind of psycological failure. even if some of his moves are very dangerous as it accentuates the division among the US people

all in all i think the division we see in the US is not specific to the US. because we see this everywhere nowadays. but i think it's very worrying as it looks very much to Germany in the 30s. where the majority of the population makes the wrong choice. i think Biden will have a very hard job to repair all this. And i do hope the reps will follow Biden. Because something very serious is in the balance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ddarko12
7 hours ago, jpm1 said:

I'm not judging the US people, i have a tremendous respect for them for all they achieved as a people, but i don't undestand that immobility

It's delusion. It's also people like Trump and the Republican party (which is just Trumpism right now) taking advantage of those less educated. And then it's people who do know better and know they're wrong, but what they want (freedom to do whatever they want (even during a pandemic), run businesses however they want (even during a pandemic), pay less taxes, ignore climate change, ignore racial tensions, etc) is far more important than what is right (and a surprising amount don't care about what is right).

 

I run a car page on IG, and I follow a lot of car people (a lot of them successful business folk, some even owners) and a lot of them are highly educated. And yet,  lot of them follow Trump and everything he says religiously. I cannot just rule some of these folks off as delusional either because it- you know they know better and could not be that dumb/ignorant. I feel like theres a lot of this in the Republican party and its followers. They know better, but they care more about their selfish wants and needs or holding power than anything else. There is no arguing with these people, they all say the same thing. The same retorts. And if you ask them anything in regards to what Trump has said, like election fraud, they all repeat the same thing. No real answer. It's sad. Anything Trump says is gospel. They don't even know why, at least the poorly educated. His other followers just go along with whatever he says even if they know it's horse-sh*t.

 

I lean left but I tend to be pretty neutral politically. But it is hard to be with Trumpism going on. I don't really like to argue with these folks about politics, but observing it is just... something else really.

Edited by ddarko12
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jpm1

what is really sad, it's that these people don't realize that behaving in an impulsive way can end very bad for them. civil war at best, North Korean model at worst

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 3 Users Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 3 Guests

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.