Pa. Judge Opines State's Mail-in Ballot Procedures Likely Illegal
CharlasPro and Con
Únete a LibraryThing para publicar.
2lriley
Find one judge whose opinion differs from practically every other judge and defer to his/her opinion. Good job. In contrast the judges (the judges who have actually mattered that is) who have decided on Trump's frivolous electoral lawsuits have pitched a shutout against him and Rudy and Jenna and Sidney.
Also those mail-in ballot procedures were the very very recent product of a republican controlled Pennsylvania legislature. Now they don't like the rules they put into place. Go figure. Basically a bunch of liars, cheats and assholes. But I'm sure you already know that.
Also those mail-in ballot procedures were the very very recent product of a republican controlled Pennsylvania legislature. Now they don't like the rules they put into place. Go figure. Basically a bunch of liars, cheats and assholes. But I'm sure you already know that.
3proximity1
When Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, or Wisconsin state courts misapply, violate or ignore the clear terms of their own state legislatures' statutes and petitions for full hearings on the merits are brought in those states' courts and, on first review, summarily dismissed by ruling of the state courts of first-resort, these same petitioners can, of right, appeal those state courts' rulings as being legally in error (of the state's statutes and case precedents) to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The practice of the U.S.S.C.'s authority to reverse state courts' rulings (in which these courts interpret state statutes, erroneously, in the opinion of the Supreme Court) sending the trial's issues back to the state court for further adjudication or simply affirm the plaintiffs' brief by entering an order against the state courts' ruling, setting it aside is abundantly founded in more than two centuries of case-law precedent.*
One judge?
We're going to find five, six, seven, eight or, at the limit, nine of them. And they're going to be very important "judges".
Democrats forgot to pre-arrange the corruption of the U.S. Supreme Court, in order to vouchsafe their corruptions of ballot-counting, ballot-certification and, of course, conniving corrupt state courts and their judges.
The U.S. Constitution vouchsafes a republican form of government in the United States and in the various states' government. This can't be finessed or circumvented by tricked out elections in which concerted officially-backed conspiracies seek to thwart and derail.
The math clearly supports president Trump's allegations of election tampering, ballot-fraud and deceptive and illegal counting procedures designed to cover up the tampering and the fraud.
Biden, if inaugurated, shall be utterly lacking in legitimacy in the view of both the law's statutes and principles of equity and in the minds of 50 % or more of the U.S. public.
____________________________
* On appeals to U.S. courts for review of state courts' infringements of federally-protected rights:
(HOWLETT vs. ROSE, No. 89-5383. Argued March 20, 1990.)
(Mark HOWLETT, a Minor, By and Through Elizabeth HOWLETT His Mother, Natural Guardian and Next Friend, Petitioner vs. Scott ROSE, as Superintendent of Schools for Pinellas County, Florida, et al.
Related: 496 U.S. 356; 110 S.Ct. 2430; 110 L.Ed.2d 332) .
* On the Constitution's guarantee of a republican form of government:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-4/section-4/guarantee-of-...
The practice of the U.S.S.C.'s authority to reverse state courts' rulings (in which these courts interpret state statutes, erroneously, in the opinion of the Supreme Court) sending the trial's issues back to the state court for further adjudication or simply affirm the plaintiffs' brief by entering an order against the state courts' ruling, setting it aside is abundantly founded in more than two centuries of case-law precedent.*
One judge?
We're going to find five, six, seven, eight or, at the limit, nine of them. And they're going to be very important "judges".
Democrats forgot to pre-arrange the corruption of the U.S. Supreme Court, in order to vouchsafe their corruptions of ballot-counting, ballot-certification and, of course, conniving corrupt state courts and their judges.
The U.S. Constitution vouchsafes a republican form of government in the United States and in the various states' government. This can't be finessed or circumvented by tricked out elections in which concerted officially-backed conspiracies seek to thwart and derail.
The math clearly supports president Trump's allegations of election tampering, ballot-fraud and deceptive and illegal counting procedures designed to cover up the tampering and the fraud.
Biden, if inaugurated, shall be utterly lacking in legitimacy in the view of both the law's statutes and principles of equity and in the minds of 50 % or more of the U.S. public.
____________________________
* On appeals to U.S. courts for review of state courts' infringements of federally-protected rights:
(HOWLETT vs. ROSE, No. 89-5383. Argued March 20, 1990.)
(Mark HOWLETT, a Minor, By and Through Elizabeth HOWLETT His Mother, Natural Guardian and Next Friend, Petitioner vs. Scott ROSE, as Superintendent of Schools for Pinellas County, Florida, et al.
Related: 496 U.S. 356; 110 S.Ct. 2430; 110 L.Ed.2d 332) .
* On the Constitution's guarantee of a republican form of government:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-4/section-4/guarantee-of-...
4lriley
#3--why you set yourself up for such disappointment I can't say but you do you. Keep on believing that the Supreme Court is going to step in to reverse multiples of court judgements in multiple states and hand over the election to a guy who has clearly lost. These lower courts have not only made it easy but also made it proper that the Supreme Court not even take any of it at all on.
Waving papers about and shouting at the top of your lungs--twitter posts and retwitting the conspiracy theory of any number of twits is not evidence of anything other than derangement. Trump's and your allegations are without any kind of merit and tantrums and tears are not going to change that.
Waving papers about and shouting at the top of your lungs--twitter posts and retwitting the conspiracy theory of any number of twits is not evidence of anything other than derangement. Trump's and your allegations are without any kind of merit and tantrums and tears are not going to change that.
52wonderY
>4 lriley: My 2 year old would beg to differ. 🤔
6proximity1
from American Greatness :
Reality and The Narrative | by Roger Kimball | 28 November, 2020
"Oscar Wilde was such a card. Sitting for his viva voce examination in Greek, he was given a passage to translate from one of the Passion stories in the New Testament. He started in and was barreling along fluently. At some point, one of the examiners interrupted, noting that he was satisfied by Wilde’s performance and that he could stop. Wilde ignored him and kept at it. The examiner interrupted again. 'Really, Mr. Wilde, you may stop now. It is clear that you know the Greek.' 'Oh please let me continue,' Wilde is supposed to have responded. 'I want to see how it ends.'
"Yuck, yuck, yuck. Who knows whether the story is true? I like to think it is. It’s not that I believe Wilde was ignorant of the plot of a Gospel story. He knew how it ended all right. But I admire the insouciance of his response.
"Many people think the world is in a position akin to Wilde’s with respect to the 2020 presidential election. We’re all assumed to know how it ended. Joe Biden won. Any demurral on that score is put down to feigned ignorance, attempted cleverness, or petulant perversity.
"After all, the Associated Press called the election for Joe Biden a couple of weeks ago. Other news agencies, from the Wall Street Journal and Fox News to CNN, the New Woke Times (Sic), and The Washington Post were right there on cue, hailing him the winner. Time, the former news weekly, devoted its cover to Joe Biden, “46th President of the United States.” Twitter was on the case, adding little warning messages to tweets about the election it didn’t like, suspending the accounts of people whose opinions it disagreed with, throttling the ability of those who dissented to broadcast their dissent. Who knows what Google and Facebook are doing with their search results. Some secrets are too deep for the light of day.
"And that is my point. The strongest argument for Biden’s victory is not the vote tally. It is the monolithic narrative, pumped up like one of those inflatable play castles at a child’s birthday party. With every passing day, that narrative becomes more boisterous, more assertive, more uncompromising. It is a collective primal scream, emitted with eyes shut and ears plugged.
"There is a problem for the narrative, however. Or more to the point, there are 73 million problems. A major concession in the Biden-won-give-it-up-narrative is revealed by the hawkers of the 'Unity Now' meme. Let us all come together as one nation, under Joe, and reassert the American normality that has been so sorely missing under the despotic reign of Donald Trump.
"No. No, that’s not going to fly, and not only because of the snarling viciousness that attended Donald Trump and his entire administration from the moment he was elected until now. Granted, Democrats are masters of hypocrisy. I will give them that. Brazenness is part of the formula. They are utterly unembarrassed by double standards. Indeed, they glory in them.
"On November 12, Kamala Harris was happy to emit this saccharine Tweet:
Hope.
Unity.
Decency.
Truth.
These are the ideals that will guide a (Biden–Harris) administration.
"An alert commentator provided some illuminating historical context from the Left’s latest how-to manual, George Orwell’s Nineteen-Eighty-Four:
... "Winston turned a switch and the voice sank somewhat, though the words were still distinguishable. The instrument (the telescreen, it was called) could be dimmed, but there was no way of shutting it off completely …
HOPE
UNITY
DECENCY
EMPATHY
TRUTH
EXPERTS
SCIENCE
"These are the ideals that will guide a (Biden–Harris) administration."
...
"The inclusion of 'Science' is especially nice.
"In any event, Harris wouldn’t give Orwell a moment’s thought. Her sense of entitlement is unshakable, beyond embarrassment. 'When we do it'—go without masks, eat out with friends after telling hoi polloi to stay home, run a private email server for government business, collude with Russians to upset an election, leak classified material, lie under oath, etc.—'it’s OK because—reasons.' 'What difference, at this point, does it make?'
"But glaring hypocrisy is not the only reason that the narrative’s call for unity is failing. There is also its essential fragility. It is loud. It is seamless. It is asserted by all the best and most beautiful people, the really smart ones with fancy degrees, the right attitudes, the impressive ZIP codes. But it is also like an elaborate barque in high winds and choppy seas on a leeward course off a rocky coast.
"That coast is the anti-narrative, otherwise known as reality.
"The really hard and jagged part of the impinging reality, the 'impervious horrors of leeward shore,' is the actual vote tally in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
"Huge anomalies have been alleged in all of those key states. With an assist from various professionals, I’ve summarized some of them in various columns, here, for example, here and here.
"Inquiring minds want to know, how is it possible that voter turnout in just those key cities in just those key states was so high: often 90 percent or more? How is it possible that Joe Biden, who barely campaigned, garnered more votes in just those spots than even Barack Obama had done? How is it possible that, as everyone was getting tucked into bed on the night of November 3, Donald Trump had notable leads in almost all of those states and then, suddenly, all at once, in the wee hours, floods of votes poured in and—wouldn’t you know it—they were overwhelmingly, sometimes exclusively, for Biden? And what about those voting machines from Dominion: are we confident that they are secure?
"Aristotle tells us that 'Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.' Do we have instruments capacious enough to measure the improbabilities that attend Joe Biden’s performance in these key states?
"There seems to be a couple of different attitudes towards voter fraud. For some, a little voter fraud is just the cost of doing business. The best is the enemy of the good, don’t you know, and after all the FDA maintains a meticulous chart of just what proportion of rodent hair, insect heads, and rat feces, and other such 'defects' are permitted in the food supply. It’s quite a lot, it saddens me to report, and perhaps voter fraud is like a bag of wheat: if we insist on purity, we won’t have any wheat with which to bake bread.
"That, anyway, is one point of view. But even if one grants that in principle, it seems legitimate to ask, how much voter fraud is OK? I am not aware of any political FDA weighing in and telling us what percentage of the vote can be tainted before it is ruled inadmissible. In this election, hundreds of thousands of votes are alleged to be fraudulent. At the moment, Joe Biden is said to be ahead by some 150,000 votes in Michigan, 80,000 in Pennsylvania, 20,000 in Wisconsin, 10-12,000 in Georgia, Arizona, about 30,000 in Nevada. What if his standing in a majority of those states were shown to be the result of fraud?
"Then there is that stretch of coastline known as election law. The particular rules of our elections are generally entrusted to legislatures of the various states. But in several instances, courts or various executive entities weighed in at the last moment to change the rules about how votes would be counted. Pennsylvania is an especially egregious case. As Julie Kelly showed, 'Election officials clearly violated the law by inspecting mail-in ballots before November 3,' in clear defiance of the law, which requires such ballots to be safely kept in 'sealed or locked containers' until 7 a.m. on Election Day.
"Because of this and other irregularities, a state judge on Friday, finding that mail-in ballot procedures likely violated the Pennsylvania constitution, ordered that Pennsylvania halt the process of certifying the vote. 'Petitioners,' Judge Patricia McCollough wrote, 'appear to have a viable claim that the mail-in ballot procedures set forth in Act 77 contravene' the law. In a blow to Team Trump, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated Judge McCollough’s order Saturday night, clearing the way for the state to certify the election.
"Next stop? The Supreme Court of the United States." ... ...
7mikevail
>4 lriley:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-squeaky-wheel/201811/why-certain-peo...
From the article:
"But when people are constitutionally unable to admit they’re wrong, when they cannot tolerate the very notion that they are capable of mistakes, it is because they suffer from an ego so fragile that they cannot sulk and get over it — they need to warp their very perception of reality and challenge obvious facts in order to defend their not being wrong in the first place."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-squeaky-wheel/201811/why-certain-peo...
From the article:
"But when people are constitutionally unable to admit they’re wrong, when they cannot tolerate the very notion that they are capable of mistakes, it is because they suffer from an ego so fragile that they cannot sulk and get over it — they need to warp their very perception of reality and challenge obvious facts in order to defend their not being wrong in the first place."
8proximity1
>7 mikevail:
So, then, Mike, either refute the mathematics' clear import that a presumptive case for the overwhelming evidence of systemic concerted election fraud has been shown and supports full inquiries before the election's alleged outcome is confirmed--or, at the very least, point to a reputable source where that may be seen and reviewed--- or admit you're wrong.
Because, you see, in logic's hard edge, you, here, are engaging in yet another example of "begging the question."
Can you admit error?
Let's see.
I'm betting you can't.
9Matke
I’m (figuratively) betting that SCOTUS will either refuse to hear the cases, or will find that the lower courts have decided correctly that the lawsuits have no merit.
We’ll all be able to see the outcome quite soon.
A question:
Let us suppose for purposes of discussion that SCOTUS does, in fact, find that the lower courts were correct in their decisions.
Will this mean that The Nine, too, are corrupt spineless tools of the Left? Or will it indicate that the allegations were without merit?
Asking for a friend.
We’ll all be able to see the outcome quite soon.
A question:
Let us suppose for purposes of discussion that SCOTUS does, in fact, find that the lower courts were correct in their decisions.
Will this mean that The Nine, too, are corrupt spineless tools of the Left? Or will it indicate that the allegations were without merit?
Asking for a friend.
11kiparsky
>3 proximity1: The math clearly supports president Trump's allegations of election tampering, ballot-fraud and deceptive and illegal counting procedures designed to cover up the tampering and the fraud.
Does it? Why don't you do a little more show and a little less tell?
Does it? Why don't you do a little more show and a little less tell?
12Matke
>10 John5918: LOL
Priceless to me
I read a book about SCOTUS with that title and it just stuck with me.
Priceless to me
I read a book about SCOTUS with that title and it just stuck with me.
13proximity1
I return the same question to you: what if you're wrong in this? :
"I’m (figuratively) betting that SCOTUS will either refuse to hear the cases, or will find that the lower courts have decided correctly that the lawsuits have no merit."
-- prefaced by this one:
I wonder:
How do you characterize the Court which, by a 7-2 decision, ruled in
Scott v. Sandford*, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857) ?
In that decision, would you (DO you) applaud the Court for courage or do you rather view those seven--there were, after all, two Justices then sitting who possessed the understanding to see the demerits of Sandford's case and disagree with the majority's holding--as having been, as you put it above, ..."corrupt spineless tools of the (ruling order) ?"...
Years later, this decision would be overturned by the Court's ruling in another case. Much too late to do Scott much good, of course.
But, before even that sadly late reversal could happen, the nation had to go through the bloodiest war in its history up to that time.
Let's see--what have we learned? The Court is always right? The Court is never wrong? The Court is never right? Sometimes the Court is right, sometimes it is grievously wrong--by the later Courts' own Justices rulings which, of course, eventually overturn (in what's an excruciatingly slow and fault-ridden process) these faulty cases?
How much suffering and what kind must we endure before it's "safe" to admit to each other and to one's self that the holdings in Bush v. Gore (2000) (which subsequent use as a legal precedent the then-ruling Justices themselves formally forbade) were outrageous?
How much suffering and what kind must we endure before it's "safe" to admit to each other and to one's self that the holdings here, assuming your hypothesis is correct and the Supreme Court either affirms or lets stand the lower courts' rulings in Trump's petitions?
Now--not that the truth, whatever you may claim here (You'll applaud or deride the Court as its decision accords or doesn't with your well-established prejudices against Trump.) is in any doubt--question:
Let us suppose for purposes of discussion: What if SCOTUS finds against the lower courts and reverses their rulings and issues orders in favor of Trump's filings--finding they had merit, after all? Shall the court then have been correct in their decisions?
Or, in that case, once more, your question returned:
"Will this mean that The Nine (or the Eight, Seven, Six or Five (as the case may be), too, are corrupt spineless tools of Trump (who has appointed more than one of them, right?) Or will it indicate that the allegations always had at least enough merit to be given a full hearing?
Which is it? in your opinion.
____________________________________
* "Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes called it the Court's greatest self-inflicted wound." (Wikipedia)
As self-inlficted wounds go, Chief Justice Hughes is just lucky he never lived to see the rulings in these Trump/Biden presidential-election cases.
"I’m (figuratively) betting that SCOTUS will either refuse to hear the cases, or will find that the lower courts have decided correctly that the lawsuits have no merit."
-- prefaced by this one:
I wonder:
How do you characterize the Court which, by a 7-2 decision, ruled in
Scott v. Sandford*, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857) ?
In that decision, would you (DO you) applaud the Court for courage or do you rather view those seven--there were, after all, two Justices then sitting who possessed the understanding to see the demerits of Sandford's case and disagree with the majority's holding--as having been, as you put it above, ..."corrupt spineless tools of the (ruling order) ?"...
Years later, this decision would be overturned by the Court's ruling in another case. Much too late to do Scott much good, of course.
But, before even that sadly late reversal could happen, the nation had to go through the bloodiest war in its history up to that time.
Let's see--what have we learned? The Court is always right? The Court is never wrong? The Court is never right? Sometimes the Court is right, sometimes it is grievously wrong--by the later Courts' own Justices rulings which, of course, eventually overturn (in what's an excruciatingly slow and fault-ridden process) these faulty cases?
How much suffering and what kind must we endure before it's "safe" to admit to each other and to one's self that the holdings in Bush v. Gore (2000) (which subsequent use as a legal precedent the then-ruling Justices themselves formally forbade) were outrageous?
How much suffering and what kind must we endure before it's "safe" to admit to each other and to one's self that the holdings here, assuming your hypothesis is correct and the Supreme Court either affirms or lets stand the lower courts' rulings in Trump's petitions?
Now--not that the truth, whatever you may claim here (You'll applaud or deride the Court as its decision accords or doesn't with your well-established prejudices against Trump.) is in any doubt--question:
Let us suppose for purposes of discussion: What if SCOTUS finds against the lower courts and reverses their rulings and issues orders in favor of Trump's filings--finding they had merit, after all? Shall the court then have been correct in their decisions?
Or, in that case, once more, your question returned:
"Will this mean that The Nine (or the Eight, Seven, Six or Five (as the case may be), too, are corrupt spineless tools of Trump (who has appointed more than one of them, right?) Or will it indicate that the allegations always had at least enough merit to be given a full hearing?
Which is it? in your opinion.
____________________________________
* "Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes called it the Court's greatest self-inflicted wound." (Wikipedia)
As self-inlficted wounds go, Chief Justice Hughes is just lucky he never lived to see the rulings in these Trump/Biden presidential-election cases.
14Matke
Where’s the courage of your convictions? Let’s look at how this conversation developed here.
>2 lriley:
Find one judge whose opinion differs from practically every other judge and defer to his opinion
And your response in >3 proximity1:
One judge? We’re going to find five, six, seven, eight, or at the limit, nine of them.
And they’re going to be very important “judges.”
Democrats forgot to pre-arrange the corruption of the US Supreme Court, in order to vouchsafe their corruptions of ballots-counting, ballot-certification, and, of course, conniving corrupt state courts and their judges.
*all emphasis in the original
Now let’s look at that. If you believe, as you have clearly said here, that the Democrats didn’t corrupt the Supreme Court, then you should have no difficulty at all in saying that you’ll accept their decision no matter what it is. You made the statement. Do you, or don’t you, believe that the Supreme Court isn’t corrupt, and that their decisions are based on law and evidence? You’ve said that the Dems hadn’t corrupted them. Ergo, their decisions, even if not to your liking, must be the result of their honest and faithful assessments of the cases brought before them.
You’ve gamed me before trying to turn something around. I asked you a very simple yes/no question based on your own statements here. Answer the question.
Or as they say in the cheap seats, put up or shut up.
>2 lriley:
Find one judge whose opinion differs from practically every other judge and defer to his opinion
And your response in >3 proximity1:
One judge? We’re going to find five, six, seven, eight, or at the limit, nine of them.
And they’re going to be very important “judges.”
Democrats forgot to pre-arrange the corruption of the US Supreme Court, in order to vouchsafe their corruptions of ballots-counting, ballot-certification, and, of course, conniving corrupt state courts and their judges.
*all emphasis in the original
Now let’s look at that. If you believe, as you have clearly said here, that the Democrats didn’t corrupt the Supreme Court, then you should have no difficulty at all in saying that you’ll accept their decision no matter what it is. You made the statement. Do you, or don’t you, believe that the Supreme Court isn’t corrupt, and that their decisions are based on law and evidence? You’ve said that the Dems hadn’t corrupted them. Ergo, their decisions, even if not to your liking, must be the result of their honest and faithful assessments of the cases brought before them.
You’ve gamed me before trying to turn something around. I asked you a very simple yes/no question based on your own statements here. Answer the question.
Or as they say in the cheap seats, put up or shut up.
15Matke
Just one further point: you’ve made repeated unsupported accusations against state judges, saying that they are corrupt or that they are basing their decisions solely on their hatred of Mr. Trump.
That’s actionable, as I’m sure you know. Can you bring proof to this discussion? Not anyone’s opinion, not, “ It went against Mr. Trump, which is impossible without corruption because I (we, they) know that everything Mr. Trump alleges must be absolutely true.”
Actual proof. Letters, affidavits alleging corruption including when, where, and how, from reliable witnesses? Records of phone conversations, perhaps? Sinister snapshots of Biden Campaign workers handing large packets of...something...to these judges? Anything at all?
You know it’s wrong, morally wrong, to accuse someone of a crime (conniving at court decisions with special interest groups, for example) without proof. So why do you do it?
Please don’t answer this by pointing fingers at others. Please explain your own behavior.
Edited for clarity
That’s actionable, as I’m sure you know. Can you bring proof to this discussion? Not anyone’s opinion, not, “ It went against Mr. Trump, which is impossible without corruption because I (we, they) know that everything Mr. Trump alleges must be absolutely true.”
Actual proof. Letters, affidavits alleging corruption including when, where, and how, from reliable witnesses? Records of phone conversations, perhaps? Sinister snapshots of Biden Campaign workers handing large packets of...something...to these judges? Anything at all?
You know it’s wrong, morally wrong, to accuse someone of a crime (conniving at court decisions with special interest groups, for example) without proof. So why do you do it?
Please don’t answer this by pointing fingers at others. Please explain your own behavior.
Edited for clarity
16lriley
#14--it's like these state judiciary rulings mean nothing at all. That the 9 Supreme Court Justices are going to take up these respective smaller court failings and dismiss all of those rulings out of hand.....and I just don't think that's the way it really works. My guess actually is that the Supreme Court won't bother to take up any of this at all and I know that in Donald's tiny mind they owe him---particularly Gorsuch, Kavanagh and Coney Barrett but I think he is going to be seriously disappointed......and the truth is Donald and his lawyers have presented no real case in court yet for any voter fraud at all. You can yell all kinds of shit on Twitter and your lawyers can wave papers around and yell shit too but Giuliani's voter fraud narratives in the public sphere contrast to his this is not about voter fraud narrative in the courtroom. (Why is that Prox?) Basically he's got nothing but bullshit and all this is nothing really more than aggrievement over losing an election and not real evidence of anything else and FWIW citing previous Supreme Court cases (as in #13) from 1857 no less to make yourself look like some kind of an expert on the Supreme Court isn't very compelling to me.
Personally I'd rather not go overboard in rubbing this in faces for a slew of reasons and one of them is that even though I voted for Biden I really don't care for him. Another is as a nation we have issues that should take precedent over stupid bullshit like this such as getting some kind of nation wide pandemic response together or trying to rebuild our Covid destroyed economy from the ground up. We're going to go on from this with a shitload of stuff dividing people but it's really the last thing we need to encourage more of.
Personally I'd rather not go overboard in rubbing this in faces for a slew of reasons and one of them is that even though I voted for Biden I really don't care for him. Another is as a nation we have issues that should take precedent over stupid bullshit like this such as getting some kind of nation wide pandemic response together or trying to rebuild our Covid destroyed economy from the ground up. We're going to go on from this with a shitload of stuff dividing people but it's really the last thing we need to encourage more of.
17lriley
#15--actually the last Pennsylvania judge--Stephanos Bibas to rule against them was a Trump/McConnell appointee. Basically what that Judge told Giuliani and Co. is 'you've given me nothing to work with'.
18davidgn
I'm enjoying this legal commentary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-nblE8ps2M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-nblE8ps2M
19mikevail
>8 proximity1:
"So, then, Mike, either refute the mathematics' clear import that a presumptive case for the overwhelming evidence of systemic concerted election fraud has been shown and supports full inquiries before the election's alleged outcome is confirmed--or, at the very least, point to a reputable source where that may be seen and reviewed--- or admit you're wrong"
I haven't made any assertions regarding the election so I'm not sure what you think I'm wrong about. And you might want to be more specific about the "mathematics" to which you're referring.
Post 7 was in response to the last sentence of >4 lriley:
Also from the same article:
"When confronted, they will continue to insist or pivot to attacking anyone who tries to argue otherwise and to disparaging the sources of the contradictory information"
"So, then, Mike, either refute the mathematics' clear import that a presumptive case for the overwhelming evidence of systemic concerted election fraud has been shown and supports full inquiries before the election's alleged outcome is confirmed--or, at the very least, point to a reputable source where that may be seen and reviewed--- or admit you're wrong"
I haven't made any assertions regarding the election so I'm not sure what you think I'm wrong about. And you might want to be more specific about the "mathematics" to which you're referring.
Post 7 was in response to the last sentence of >4 lriley:
Also from the same article:
"When confronted, they will continue to insist or pivot to attacking anyone who tries to argue otherwise and to disparaging the sources of the contradictory information"
20proximity1
>14 Matke:
"You’ve gamed me before trying to turn something around. I asked you a very simple yes/no question based on your own statements here. Answer the question."
Well, this one isn't one of your simple yes/no questions. Nor does it surprise me at all that you fail to recognize that.
RE: ..."If you believe, as you have clearly said here, that the Democrats didn’t corrupt the Supreme Court, then you should have no difficulty at all in saying that you’ll accept their decision no matter what it is. You made the statement. Do you, or don’t you, believe that the Supreme Court isn’t corrupt, and that their decisions are based on law and evidence? You’ve said that the Dems hadn’t corrupted them. Ergo, their decisions, even if not to your liking, must be the result of their honest and faithful assessments of the cases brought before them."
Yes, let's indeed look at not only "that" -- but this:
for I cite your words verbatim and, in reading and interpreting them, they be bear out what I've written previously:
"You ask questions which reveal that you've either not read or haven't understood what's already been explained and addressed to you. In short, your general reasoning skills suck."
..."And, consider this datum: of all the things you allow me to see and understand about you, the vast, the overwhelming majority of it speaks extremely poorly of you. I'd happily take and grant anything in information from you which recommends you favorably. But, as for that, you offer me so little, practically nothing at all-- and that is a striking thing." ...
I ask: "Where, precisely have I ever contended (as you claim I have: (..."as you have clearly said here,"... ))
"that that the Democrats didn’t corrupt the Supreme Court," ?
I don't in fact contend any such thing. Nor do any of my comments here necessarily support such a conclusion on your part.
You apparently read only for what you wishfully-think is said rather than what's said and logically stated or implied in the words read.
Democrats may or may not have "corrupted" the Court and that, whether or not it is either true or false in fact, that is so independently of how the Court decides, if any or if at all, the questions pending in the disputes between Biden and Trump campaigns in this election.
The Court's decisions may lend evidence of such corruption but they won't--unless they're amazingly and blatantly partisanly reasoned and written ( a possibility but not a likely one) --nor is it likely that they could prove conclusively one way or the other the Court's corruption by the Democrats which, as an argument's point, I have not at all necessarily contended.
I've seen evidence of the Court's blatant susceptibility to corruption (by either party or by both at different times) both in history's record and in my own lifetime's experience.
So I don't question or doubt that the Court is, as a plain matter of fact, susceptible to such partisan corruption. Whether and to what extent they are now corrupted by one or the other of the two major parties is rather a matter of the case under examination. They're quite capable of resisting (partisan) interference in some cases even as, in others, they prove and show themselves incapable of resisting it.
In Bush vs. Gore they couldn't--as their blood-drained faces showed. But that case, twenty years ago approximately, had different personnel and somewhat different--though, yes, certainly similar--circumstances.
My guess is on the pessimistic side: that the present Court has "learned" virtually nothing from that sorry set of examples. But I remain open to the possibility that this guess could be quite mistaken. I hold as not yet foreclosed the possibility that the current Court might find in favor of Trump somewhere between "entirely" and "in only one significant instance of numerous.
"Ergo, their decisions, even if not to your liking, must be the result of their honest and faithful assessments of the cases brought before them."
Non sequitur. Id est, No: I could dislike their decisions at the same time that those decisions failed from the point of view of what I, at least, regard as honest and faithful assessments.
It strikes me that this case--which you neglect to consider and pose here as one of the possibilities-- is, indeed, perhaps the one I'd expect to be the most probable of all. And you leave it unmentioned.
Q.E.D.
"You’ve gamed me before trying to turn something around. I asked you a very simple yes/no question based on your own statements here. Answer the question."
Well, this one isn't one of your simple yes/no questions. Nor does it surprise me at all that you fail to recognize that.
RE: ..."If you believe, as you have clearly said here, that the Democrats didn’t corrupt the Supreme Court, then you should have no difficulty at all in saying that you’ll accept their decision no matter what it is. You made the statement. Do you, or don’t you, believe that the Supreme Court isn’t corrupt, and that their decisions are based on law and evidence? You’ve said that the Dems hadn’t corrupted them. Ergo, their decisions, even if not to your liking, must be the result of their honest and faithful assessments of the cases brought before them."
Yes, let's indeed look at not only "that" -- but this:
"..."If you believe, as you have clearly said here, that the Democrats didn’t corrupt the Supreme Court, then you should have no difficulty at all in saying that you’ll accept their decision no matter what it is. You made the statement. Do you, or don’t you, believe that the Supreme Court isn’t corrupt, and that their decisions are based on law and evidence? You’ve said that the Dems hadn’t corrupted them. Ergo, their decisions, even if not to your liking, must be the result of their honest and faithful assessments of the cases brought before them."
for I cite your words verbatim and, in reading and interpreting them, they be bear out what I've written previously:
"You ask questions which reveal that you've either not read or haven't understood what's already been explained and addressed to you. In short, your general reasoning skills suck."
..."And, consider this datum: of all the things you allow me to see and understand about you, the vast, the overwhelming majority of it speaks extremely poorly of you. I'd happily take and grant anything in information from you which recommends you favorably. But, as for that, you offer me so little, practically nothing at all-- and that is a striking thing." ...
I ask: "Where, precisely have I ever contended (as you claim I have: (..."as you have clearly said here,"... ))
"that that the Democrats didn’t corrupt the Supreme Court," ?
I don't in fact contend any such thing. Nor do any of my comments here necessarily support such a conclusion on your part.
You apparently read only for what you wishfully-think is said rather than what's said and logically stated or implied in the words read.
Democrats may or may not have "corrupted" the Court and that, whether or not it is either true or false in fact, that is so independently of how the Court decides, if any or if at all, the questions pending in the disputes between Biden and Trump campaigns in this election.
The Court's decisions may lend evidence of such corruption but they won't--unless they're amazingly and blatantly partisanly reasoned and written ( a possibility but not a likely one) --nor is it likely that they could prove conclusively one way or the other the Court's corruption by the Democrats which, as an argument's point, I have not at all necessarily contended.
I've seen evidence of the Court's blatant susceptibility to corruption (by either party or by both at different times) both in history's record and in my own lifetime's experience.
So I don't question or doubt that the Court is, as a plain matter of fact, susceptible to such partisan corruption. Whether and to what extent they are now corrupted by one or the other of the two major parties is rather a matter of the case under examination. They're quite capable of resisting (partisan) interference in some cases even as, in others, they prove and show themselves incapable of resisting it.
In Bush vs. Gore they couldn't--as their blood-drained faces showed. But that case, twenty years ago approximately, had different personnel and somewhat different--though, yes, certainly similar--circumstances.
My guess is on the pessimistic side: that the present Court has "learned" virtually nothing from that sorry set of examples. But I remain open to the possibility that this guess could be quite mistaken. I hold as not yet foreclosed the possibility that the current Court might find in favor of Trump somewhere between "entirely" and "in only one significant instance of numerous.
"Ergo, their decisions, even if not to your liking, must be the result of their honest and faithful assessments of the cases brought before them."
Non sequitur. Id est, No: I could dislike their decisions at the same time that those decisions failed from the point of view of what I, at least, regard as honest and faithful assessments.
It strikes me that this case--which you neglect to consider and pose here as one of the possibilities-- is, indeed, perhaps the one I'd expect to be the most probable of all. And you leave it unmentioned.
Q.E.D.
21proximity1
>19 mikevail:
..." so I'm not sure what you think I'm wrong about." ...
You may think you're kidding yourself with such bullshit as that but you're certainly not kidding me. You're quite sure what it is that I "think you're wrong about" because I made that very clear.
Your craven dodge is duly noted. Sheesh!
..." so I'm not sure what you think I'm wrong about." ...
You may think you're kidding yourself with such bullshit as that but you're certainly not kidding me. You're quite sure what it is that I "think you're wrong about" because I made that very clear.
Your craven dodge is duly noted. Sheesh!
22aspirit
A judge submitted an opinion to Newsmax.com, a sometimes-fake news site owned by a friend of Donald Trump's. The opinion does not appear to be available from any other source. Hmm.
23kiparsky
>21 proximity1: Speaking of craven dodges, what mathematics are you on about, and if there's mathematics that shows Trump won, why haven't you told Giuliani about this?
24proximity1
>15 Matke:
a further point? with yet more questions?
When do you respond straightly to me on the questions to you concerning the Court in Scott vs. Sandford, hmmm?
I guess you think this is a one-way street.
It isn't. "No 'dice.'" "You wanna aska the questionnes?, alora, primo, you gonna giva the answers."
25mikevail
>21 proximity1:
I'm not dodging anything. If you can point to a statement I've made about the election, cite it, and I'll reexamine my position. And then maybe you can explain the mathematics you were referring to.
I'm not dodging anything. If you can point to a statement I've made about the election, cite it, and I'll reexamine my position. And then maybe you can explain the mathematics you were referring to.
26kiparsky
>25 mikevail: It seems that >24 proximity1: is not interested in defending their position. I'm going to consider this a forfeit - apparently, the "mathematics" was just another fantasy.
27proximity1
Math: https://votepatternanalysis.substack.com/p/voting-anomalies-2020
___________________________
The above linked study not to be confused with a kind of, sort of Similar but a different analysis (which I've also cited (favorably) here in these threads) is the one referred to in this news report:
"Williams prof disavows own finding of mishandled GOP ballots | By Francesca Paris, The Berkshire Eagle Nov 24, 2020"
https://www.berkshireeagle.com/news/local/williams-prof-disavows-own-finding-of-...
28davidgn
>27 proximity1: As ever, I'm all for hand-counting paper. If Trump's team can convince the relevant courts of the need to do so, I've got no quarrel. That should put any issues to bed.
29Earthling1
Este miembro ha sido suspendido del sitio.
30proximity1
>28 davidgn: "That should put any issues to bed."
LOL!!
That statement shows you haven't read or, if read, grasped the import of the mathematical analysis linked above in >27 proximity1:.
My guess is the former. You haven't even given it a cursory look. The import of the findings is so striking that even someone with my meager knowledge of statistics and their use and interpretation is gob-smacked by the presentation.
The author's explanations are admirable for both the clarity and the manner by which they make these data comprehensible to even non-specialists. I can imagine state and federal judges who, reading the report, would see the import, the implications and be struck--as I am--by the stupendously far-fetched nature of what one must suppose to have happened in order to look upon these data and just shrug them off as "outliers", some of the very unlikely things which, despite their unlikelihood, do nevertheless happen.
It might have helped for them to have given statistically-relevant comparisons to the kind of wildly unlikely things which people can more easily grasp.
An obvious model for that is in statements which run,
"This is akin to a player winning the national "Powerball" drawing 'X' times in a row."
Real life presents us with actual cases of those who've won extraordinarily large jackpots in national or multi-national sweepstakes drawings (based on their having more than once chosen seven to eight or nine numbers (and gotten all or all but one matched in two different drawings (not necessarily the exact same numbers in both draws, but that, too, has happened.
More often, though exceedingly rare, is the same person to twice pick 7 numbers (different sets) and win the jackpot using each of the two sets--even where some large number, n, in missed jackpots separates the two occasions where the jackpot is won.
These data imply a jackpot winner repeatedly in an unbroken series of several wins.
To believe such stuff one requires either a rather dim understanding of statistical probabilities, or a stubborn partisan prejudice in favor of Democrats, or a deep and abiding hatred of Donald Trump or some combination of the three.
At this site alone, we have many, many thousands of people who qualify on one and two of these and no small number at all of those who qualify on all three points. These latter are more likely to be the ones participating most heavily in these fora against Trump and in tacit support of Biden--though they may go on about how little Biden actually thrills them.
The point is, whatever their distaste for Biden, it pales beside that which they feel for Trump.
These people aren't likely to be honest with themselves in these matters, let alone with Trump's sympathizers.
31MsMixte
Another own goal (although this is in Wisconsin, not PA):
"Documents prepared as part of the Dane County recount showed that the Trump campaign’s own lead attorney in Wisconsin, James Troupis, had voted early and in person. He essentially argued that his own vote was illegal and should not be counted. Troupis did not respond to requests for comment."
"Documents prepared as part of the Dane County recount showed that the Trump campaign’s own lead attorney in Wisconsin, James Troupis, had voted early and in person. He essentially argued that his own vote was illegal and should not be counted. Troupis did not respond to requests for comment."
32mikevail
>27 proximity1:
Thanks for posting that. The researchers did a nice job of making their analysis relatively easy to grasp. I agree with their conclusion:
"It is our belief that the extraordinarily anomalous nature of the studied vote updates here, combined with the staggering political implications, demands immediate and thorough investigation"
Thanks for posting that. The researchers did a nice job of making their analysis relatively easy to grasp. I agree with their conclusion:
"It is our belief that the extraordinarily anomalous nature of the studied vote updates here, combined with the staggering political implications, demands immediate and thorough investigation"
33Matke
>20 proximity1: So what did you mean in your response to Iriley? He commented that a poster here found one judge who disagreed with the rest, and went with that one.
In a direct response to that (you quoted it) you responded that we’re going to see anywhere “from five to nine of them.” Did you not mean that we’re going to see five to nine Supreme Court justices who will disagree with the majority of the judges involved in these cases so far? If not, what did you mean?
Then you said, “The Democrats forgot to prearrange the corruption of the Supreme Court, in order to vouchsafe their corruptions of ballots-counting, ballot certification, and of course conniving corrupt state courts and their judges.”
Now I read that as saying that the current court had not been corrupted by the Democrats in this matter, and so we could have a reasonable expectation that they would judge the case(s) on their merits. I don’t think that’s an unwarranted reading of your own words.
But perhaps you didn’t mean that. If not, precisely what were you trying to say? I’m looking for a clarification of your view here, because honestly I don’t understand it.
I’m limiting my discussion to the current court and the current matter at hand, because that’s certainly what you seemed to be addressing above.
In a direct response to that (you quoted it) you responded that we’re going to see anywhere “from five to nine of them.” Did you not mean that we’re going to see five to nine Supreme Court justices who will disagree with the majority of the judges involved in these cases so far? If not, what did you mean?
Then you said, “The Democrats forgot to prearrange the corruption of the Supreme Court, in order to vouchsafe their corruptions of ballots-counting, ballot certification, and of course conniving corrupt state courts and their judges.”
Now I read that as saying that the current court had not been corrupted by the Democrats in this matter, and so we could have a reasonable expectation that they would judge the case(s) on their merits. I don’t think that’s an unwarranted reading of your own words.
But perhaps you didn’t mean that. If not, precisely what were you trying to say? I’m looking for a clarification of your view here, because honestly I don’t understand it.
I’m limiting my discussion to the current court and the current matter at hand, because that’s certainly what you seemed to be addressing above.
34MsMixte
"We have stories that are unbelievable, but we aren't allowed to put in our proof," the president claimed during a phone interview with Fox Business' Maria Bartiromo on "Sunday Morning Futures." "They say we don't have standing."
"I said to the lawyers, I would like to file one nice, big, beautiful lawsuit," he continued. "Talking about this and many other things. We have tremendous proof."
The president repeated himself, telling the Fox Business host that he had asked his lawyers to "put everything into one simple suit."
(snip)
"You mean as president of the United States, I don't have standing?" he asked. "What kind of court system is this? And the judges stay away from it."
Trump has been mulling over changing his elite legal team after hearing this bad news. After many seconds of deliberation, Trump has picked Diamond and Silk over Kanye West and Candace Owens to head his new legal team. Diamond and Silk have assured him that HIS Supreme Court will definitely allow him to file one nice, big, beautiful lawsuit and allow him to WIN.
Donald Trump is a loser.
"I said to the lawyers, I would like to file one nice, big, beautiful lawsuit," he continued. "Talking about this and many other things. We have tremendous proof."
The president repeated himself, telling the Fox Business host that he had asked his lawyers to "put everything into one simple suit."
(snip)
"You mean as president of the United States, I don't have standing?" he asked. "What kind of court system is this? And the judges stay away from it."
Trump has been mulling over changing his elite legal team after hearing this bad news. After many seconds of deliberation, Trump has picked Diamond and Silk over Kanye West and Candace Owens to head his new legal team. Diamond and Silk have assured him that HIS Supreme Court will definitely allow him to file one nice, big, beautiful lawsuit and allow him to WIN.
Donald Trump is a loser.
35lriley
#27---it's all very easily explainable as the people living in Detroit, Milwaukee and Atlanta and its suburbs really loathe Donald Trump and I'm not sure why that would shock anyone. You do realize the orange one is a racist and a bigot, don't you? The funny thing is they did a hand count in Georgia and it hardly moved the needle back in Trump's direction and that state is run by a Republican Governor and its election was overseen by a Republican Secretary of State---and again in Wisconsin a hand count in Milwaukee and Dane Count only netted Biden an even bigger lead. Your shitbird of a president is about 0 for 35 in court rulings and 0 for 2 in hand recounts. His batting average is fucking awful and he'd give minor leaguers a bad name.
#28--I'm fine with hand counts but the burden of proof is on the assclown making the allegations and Trump should pay for those recounts if they fall within the limits of state laws regarding such. If the %'s exceed the recount limitations--'too bad, so sad' 'no soup for you'.
#28--I'm fine with hand counts but the burden of proof is on the assclown making the allegations and Trump should pay for those recounts if they fall within the limits of state laws regarding such. If the %'s exceed the recount limitations--'too bad, so sad' 'no soup for you'.
36kiparsky
>27 proximity1:
"The basic intuition is: big margins are one thing, and so are super-skewed results, but it’s weird to have them both at the same time, as they generally become inversely related as either value increases."
This does not make sense. The authors do not take the trouble to define their terms, but if the terms have anything like their plain English meanings, then we would expect "super skewed results" and "big margins" in precincts which predominantly favor one candidate or the other. Since this is the basis of the argument, and the "intuition" is incorrect, the argument is in big trouble out of the gate.
The justification for this "intuition" is sketched out as follows:
"There are also a number of general intuitions upon which we draw to direct our research. In general, the larger the sample size, the smaller we expect the deviation from the population average to be. While anomalous vote ratios may occur, the statistical chance of anomalous margins goes down as the size of the sample (or vote update) goes up"
This only follows if we expect populations to be relatively homogenous. However, as we all know, this is not the case. We talk about "red states" and "blue states", and what is actually anomalous is the "purple state", which could go either way. Similarly, within each state we know that we find "red zip codes" and "blue zip codes": voters tend to cluster, and those clusters are not just on-off statistical fluctuations.
So the "intuition" is that we should be surprised to find precincts that come in heavily for one candidate or another, and that intuition is based on incorrect assumptions. Furthermore, it is simply not a sane intuition. We absolutely expect to see clumpy data, we would actually be very suspicious if most precincts came in very close to the median vote for the state. And you can see this, for example, by looking at the results by town for Massachusetts. Sort by percentage vote for one of the candidates, and check to see how many fall close to the average for the state (65% for Biden). If I take "within 5%" to be "close", I find that only about a quarter of towns were "close". Divergence from the median is not an anomaly.
I don't know who did your analysis, but either they don't know much about data science or they know about data science and are willing to present a grossly misleading analysis. Nobody who works with data could present that core assumption and not know that it was incorrect.
You can throw this in the bin with your other one. Got any more for me?
Edited to add:
In addition, if votes are being counted in "batches" based on their mode of submission, we have even more reason to expect clustering in the data, since we have every reason to expect mail-in ballots to skew for Biden and walk-in ballots to skew for Trump.
"The basic intuition is: big margins are one thing, and so are super-skewed results, but it’s weird to have them both at the same time, as they generally become inversely related as either value increases."
This does not make sense. The authors do not take the trouble to define their terms, but if the terms have anything like their plain English meanings, then we would expect "super skewed results" and "big margins" in precincts which predominantly favor one candidate or the other. Since this is the basis of the argument, and the "intuition" is incorrect, the argument is in big trouble out of the gate.
The justification for this "intuition" is sketched out as follows:
"There are also a number of general intuitions upon which we draw to direct our research. In general, the larger the sample size, the smaller we expect the deviation from the population average to be. While anomalous vote ratios may occur, the statistical chance of anomalous margins goes down as the size of the sample (or vote update) goes up"
This only follows if we expect populations to be relatively homogenous. However, as we all know, this is not the case. We talk about "red states" and "blue states", and what is actually anomalous is the "purple state", which could go either way. Similarly, within each state we know that we find "red zip codes" and "blue zip codes": voters tend to cluster, and those clusters are not just on-off statistical fluctuations.
So the "intuition" is that we should be surprised to find precincts that come in heavily for one candidate or another, and that intuition is based on incorrect assumptions. Furthermore, it is simply not a sane intuition. We absolutely expect to see clumpy data, we would actually be very suspicious if most precincts came in very close to the median vote for the state. And you can see this, for example, by looking at the results by town for Massachusetts. Sort by percentage vote for one of the candidates, and check to see how many fall close to the average for the state (65% for Biden). If I take "within 5%" to be "close", I find that only about a quarter of towns were "close". Divergence from the median is not an anomaly.
I don't know who did your analysis, but either they don't know much about data science or they know about data science and are willing to present a grossly misleading analysis. Nobody who works with data could present that core assumption and not know that it was incorrect.
You can throw this in the bin with your other one. Got any more for me?
Edited to add:
In addition, if votes are being counted in "batches" based on their mode of submission, we have even more reason to expect clustering in the data, since we have every reason to expect mail-in ballots to skew for Biden and walk-in ballots to skew for Trump.
37Earthling1
Este miembro ha sido suspendido del sitio.
38Earthling1
Este miembro ha sido suspendido del sitio.
39kiparsky
>31 MsMixte: LOL! Brilliant. These people really are the gang that couldn't shoot straight.
40mikevail
>36 kiparsky:
I think the case was made that the four voting updates were outliers. This alone is not evidence of fraud and one shouldn't draw conclusions. I think investigating anomalies in voting patterns is reasonable and can be addressed in recounts. The recount in Milwaukee concluded with no significant change in the results.
I think the case was made that the four voting updates were outliers. This alone is not evidence of fraud and one shouldn't draw conclusions. I think investigating anomalies in voting patterns is reasonable and can be addressed in recounts. The recount in Milwaukee concluded with no significant change in the results.
41kiparsky
>40 mikevail:
It's certainly reasonable to investigate anomalies. However, to begin with, the premise - the "intuition" - on which the authors of the analysis based their work is simply indefensible. This should make us wary of accepting any analysis that follows: again, either they don't know what they're doing, or they know what they're doing and they're willing to lie to us. One of the two is true, and both should destroy our confidence in their work.
The fact that Proximity didn't spot this suggests that they are either not familiar with data, or they don't care about the details as long as the results come out the way they want. Again, one of the two is true, and both should make us skeptical of any claims they make about data.
Looking closer at their cause for alarm on those four updates, we find this justification:
"This report predicts what these vote updates would have looked like, had they followed the same pattern as the vast majority of the 8,950 others. We find that the extents of the respective anomalies here are more than the margin of victory in all three states — Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia — which collectively represent forty-two electoral votes."
Again, there is no reason whatsoever to expect precincts to regress to the mean. The assumption is only valid for normally-distributed data, and this data is decidedly not expected to obey a normal distribution. So the report is "predicting" on an incorrect assumption to begin with, and any argument after that point is moot.
But if we want to play it out, just for fun, let's look at the next sentence: they're totalling four "anomalies", which represent biased samples (remember: election geography is not normally distributed, so sampling from one precinct will always give you a biased sample) and comparing those anomalies to a completely unrelated number, the difference between statewide vote tallies in three states. This is an apples-to-clouds comparison. You could just as well note that the city of Boston voted 82% for Biden, and that Biden's margin of ~180K votes in that city was greater than the margin in X number of states. The comparison tells you nothing.
We can read on a little further, and again the authors get into trouble when they try to explain their reliance on "log ratio". This explanation relies on a static population, which of course is not safe to assume. It also assumes a static voter base, which again is not safe to assume. People move into and out of states, old people die and young people reach voting age, corrupt governors disenfranchise tens of thousands of people, states pass legislation re-enfranchising the wrongly disenfranchised, etc, etc., and crucially, campaigns conduct voter registration efforts as part of their GOTV strategy. Voting populations are not static, this kicks the legs out of their "log ratio" explanation. Specifically, "Alice" does not need to convert half of "Bob"'s voters from four years ago, she needs to find new voters who didn't vote four years ago.
More subtly, when vote counts are coming in, nobody's mind is being changed. At the time when vote counts are being tallied and reported, everyone who was going to vote has already voted. Arguments that rest on a "voter conversion" are irrelevant on their face.
What this looks like to me is that some half-smart intern who took Stats for Business Majors two semesters ago realized that you can always find a number that looks anomalous in a data set, and is hoping that nobody looks too closely at their work.
Again, chuck it in the bin. It's garbage.
It's certainly reasonable to investigate anomalies. However, to begin with, the premise - the "intuition" - on which the authors of the analysis based their work is simply indefensible. This should make us wary of accepting any analysis that follows: again, either they don't know what they're doing, or they know what they're doing and they're willing to lie to us. One of the two is true, and both should destroy our confidence in their work.
The fact that Proximity didn't spot this suggests that they are either not familiar with data, or they don't care about the details as long as the results come out the way they want. Again, one of the two is true, and both should make us skeptical of any claims they make about data.
Looking closer at their cause for alarm on those four updates, we find this justification:
"This report predicts what these vote updates would have looked like, had they followed the same pattern as the vast majority of the 8,950 others. We find that the extents of the respective anomalies here are more than the margin of victory in all three states — Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia — which collectively represent forty-two electoral votes."
Again, there is no reason whatsoever to expect precincts to regress to the mean. The assumption is only valid for normally-distributed data, and this data is decidedly not expected to obey a normal distribution. So the report is "predicting" on an incorrect assumption to begin with, and any argument after that point is moot.
But if we want to play it out, just for fun, let's look at the next sentence: they're totalling four "anomalies", which represent biased samples (remember: election geography is not normally distributed, so sampling from one precinct will always give you a biased sample) and comparing those anomalies to a completely unrelated number, the difference between statewide vote tallies in three states. This is an apples-to-clouds comparison. You could just as well note that the city of Boston voted 82% for Biden, and that Biden's margin of ~180K votes in that city was greater than the margin in X number of states. The comparison tells you nothing.
We can read on a little further, and again the authors get into trouble when they try to explain their reliance on "log ratio". This explanation relies on a static population, which of course is not safe to assume. It also assumes a static voter base, which again is not safe to assume. People move into and out of states, old people die and young people reach voting age, corrupt governors disenfranchise tens of thousands of people, states pass legislation re-enfranchising the wrongly disenfranchised, etc, etc., and crucially, campaigns conduct voter registration efforts as part of their GOTV strategy. Voting populations are not static, this kicks the legs out of their "log ratio" explanation. Specifically, "Alice" does not need to convert half of "Bob"'s voters from four years ago, she needs to find new voters who didn't vote four years ago.
More subtly, when vote counts are coming in, nobody's mind is being changed. At the time when vote counts are being tallied and reported, everyone who was going to vote has already voted. Arguments that rest on a "voter conversion" are irrelevant on their face.
What this looks like to me is that some half-smart intern who took Stats for Business Majors two semesters ago realized that you can always find a number that looks anomalous in a data set, and is hoping that nobody looks too closely at their work.
Again, chuck it in the bin. It's garbage.
42mikevail
>41 kiparsky:
"you can always find a number that looks anomalous in a data set"
I think this is the problem and it has to do with voter confidence which correlates with voter participation. Appearance of impropriety is enough to undermine election integrity for a significant number of voters. This is why I think recounts should be automatic for closely contested races. Here is a fact check on the anomalies:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN27Q307
While you or I might find the explanations reasonable, many will remain skeptical. So I think reconciling the ballots maintains the integrity of the vote.
"you can always find a number that looks anomalous in a data set"
I think this is the problem and it has to do with voter confidence which correlates with voter participation. Appearance of impropriety is enough to undermine election integrity for a significant number of voters. This is why I think recounts should be automatic for closely contested races. Here is a fact check on the anomalies:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN27Q307
While you or I might find the explanations reasonable, many will remain skeptical. So I think reconciling the ballots maintains the integrity of the vote.
43Earthling1
Este miembro ha sido suspendido del sitio.
44kiparsky
>42 mikevail: What do you mean, "reconciling the ballots"?
What do you think could be done at this point to convince people who are determined not to believe the results, or at least to pretend not to believe the results? If you count the ballots, they'll just say you faked the ballots. If you line up everyone in the state of Pennsylvania and ask them how they voted, they'll say they're lying.
What do you think could be done at this point to convince people who are determined not to believe the results, or at least to pretend not to believe the results? If you count the ballots, they'll just say you faked the ballots. If you line up everyone in the state of Pennsylvania and ask them how they voted, they'll say they're lying.
45John5918
>44 kiparsky:
You'll never convince the hard line conspiracy theorists and "tribal" Trump supporters. Reason, evidence, facts, justice and truth will not prevail in the face of those sort of dynamics. Best you can hope for is to convince the more reasonable Republicans, an increasing number of whom gradually appear to be accepting that Biden is the new president.
You'll never convince the hard line conspiracy theorists and "tribal" Trump supporters. Reason, evidence, facts, justice and truth will not prevail in the face of those sort of dynamics. Best you can hope for is to convince the more reasonable Republicans, an increasing number of whom gradually appear to be accepting that Biden is the new president.
46lriley
#44---that's a good point though it may give some closure to a % of the population that's kind of stuck in the middle wondering if there is maybe something to it. Even if it brings 3 or 4 % around to their senses that's something.
47mikevail
>44 kiparsky:
I mean the votes are re-tabulated to verify the accuracy of the original vote. I doubt that anything will change the minds of people prone to believing unproven conspiracy theories or narcissists with fragile egos. But if a reasonable person has concerns about election integrity how can they be persuaded that everything was above board?
I mean the votes are re-tabulated to verify the accuracy of the original vote. I doubt that anything will change the minds of people prone to believing unproven conspiracy theories or narcissists with fragile egos. But if a reasonable person has concerns about election integrity how can they be persuaded that everything was above board?
48kiparsky
>47 mikevail: A manual recount is an expensive process, but if Trump wants to pay for it, I see no reason not to do it. Or, I suppose, if the fantasists want to crowd-source it, that'd be fine as well.
I certainly don't see any reason to saddle the state with the cost of a completely needless procedure, particularly not when states' finances have been put on the ropes by the utter ineptitude of the Trump administration and McConnell's complete failure to do his fucking job and pass a second round of covid relief along the lines of the House bill.
I certainly don't see any reason to saddle the state with the cost of a completely needless procedure, particularly not when states' finances have been put on the ropes by the utter ineptitude of the Trump administration and McConnell's complete failure to do his fucking job and pass a second round of covid relief along the lines of the House bill.
49mikevail
>49 mikevail:
It seems reasonable to have one or both campaigns bear the cost of the recount with the option to decline. Then it's left up to the state to proceed.
It seems reasonable to have one or both campaigns bear the cost of the recount with the option to decline. Then it's left up to the state to proceed.
50lriley
For me it all depends on what protocols for recounts are already established by law. This is what I have and if I'm wrong on anything please feel free to correct:
Wisconsin between 0 and .25 of a percent triggers an automatic recount and a candidate if he/she pays has the option of calling for a recount if the difference is between 0.26 and 1 percent.
Georgia--an automatic recount if the difference is less than 0.5 and we've had that hand recount and it did not change the outcome.
Arizona--an automatic recount if less than or equal to 0.1.
Pennsylvania--an automatic recount if it's less than 0.5. It's not even close to that so the Trump campaign can fuck off. They're not going to shift more than 80,000 votes and their lawsuits on voter fraud or whatever they are have all turned out to be bullshit.
In Michigan if the difference between the candidates is 2000 votes or less. Again it's not close--Trump campaign and fuck off here too.
I simply would not extend the options beyond state requirements. It's all game playing by Donald and his allies as it is.
To me Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia are already satisfied on the requirements for Joe Biden and right there Donald loses.
Wisconsin between 0 and .25 of a percent triggers an automatic recount and a candidate if he/she pays has the option of calling for a recount if the difference is between 0.26 and 1 percent.
Georgia--an automatic recount if the difference is less than 0.5 and we've had that hand recount and it did not change the outcome.
Arizona--an automatic recount if less than or equal to 0.1.
Pennsylvania--an automatic recount if it's less than 0.5. It's not even close to that so the Trump campaign can fuck off. They're not going to shift more than 80,000 votes and their lawsuits on voter fraud or whatever they are have all turned out to be bullshit.
In Michigan if the difference between the candidates is 2000 votes or less. Again it's not close--Trump campaign and fuck off here too.
I simply would not extend the options beyond state requirements. It's all game playing by Donald and his allies as it is.
To me Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia are already satisfied on the requirements for Joe Biden and right there Donald loses.
51proximity1
>33 Matke:
"I’m limiting my discussion to the current court and the current matter at hand, because that’s certainly what you seemed to be addressing above."
________________
Yeah? Well, then, of course you may do that.
As you know, you're free to "limit your discussion" to whatever you please.
On the other hand, if that means, in effect, that you enjoy the privilege of posing questions to me with no corresponding obligation to respond to my questions (as they seem to me pertinent to these same "current matter(s) at hand") then I suppose I have to refer you to my >24 proximity1:.
Thus, you're welcome to go on with your conversation (all by yourself).
For I guess I'm equally free to determine for myself the terms and conditions on which I entertain and respond to others' comments here.
So, given your stated preferences about what you shall and shall not engage with, I think we have nothing more to discuss--and, speaking for myself, that means on any topic, since, male in causa unam, male in causae omnes.
And I'd thought we'd already come to that recognition. For, just recently, I'd been asking myself: Why are you still even reading or responding to my posts? You're obviously under no obligation to do that.
If the questions here get too difficult to handle with your high-wire act of cognitive dissonance, you can always, of course, duck them since to address them might unbalance your wobbling stance on the wire and that's not good since, as it appears to me, you're also "working without a net."
Think of me when you or your house of cards collapses.
"I’m limiting my discussion to the current court and the current matter at hand, because that’s certainly what you seemed to be addressing above."
________________
Yeah? Well, then, of course you may do that.
As you know, you're free to "limit your discussion" to whatever you please.
On the other hand, if that means, in effect, that you enjoy the privilege of posing questions to me with no corresponding obligation to respond to my questions (as they seem to me pertinent to these same "current matter(s) at hand") then I suppose I have to refer you to my >24 proximity1:.
Thus, you're welcome to go on with your conversation (all by yourself).
For I guess I'm equally free to determine for myself the terms and conditions on which I entertain and respond to others' comments here.
So, given your stated preferences about what you shall and shall not engage with, I think we have nothing more to discuss--and, speaking for myself, that means on any topic, since, male in causa unam, male in causae omnes.
And I'd thought we'd already come to that recognition. For, just recently, I'd been asking myself: Why are you still even reading or responding to my posts? You're obviously under no obligation to do that.
If the questions here get too difficult to handle with your high-wire act of cognitive dissonance, you can always, of course, duck them since to address them might unbalance your wobbling stance on the wire and that's not good since, as it appears to me, you're also "working without a net."
Think of me when you or your house of cards collapses.
52kiparsky
>49 mikevail: I agree with >50 lriley:, there are laws in place to determine the rules for recounts. We should follow them.
Honestly, since a large part of the cost of a recount goes into the pockets of working people hired to do the count, I wish the Trump campaign would choose to buy as many recounts as they want. That's pure economic stimulus. But I live with a municipal employee, and I see every day the cost that the Trump administration has imposed on states, and how that cost has fallen on cities. To insist that states find funds for a recount when the federal government can't pull its thumb out and pass the needed relief bill would be out of the question. There is no state that isn't facing budget crunches because of the catastrophic meltdown that the Trump administration exhibited in the face of Covid. They don't have the money to spend on this. If he does, and that's what he wants to spend the money on, great, let him spend it. It'd be the first good thing he'll ever have done for the American people in his life.
Honestly, since a large part of the cost of a recount goes into the pockets of working people hired to do the count, I wish the Trump campaign would choose to buy as many recounts as they want. That's pure economic stimulus. But I live with a municipal employee, and I see every day the cost that the Trump administration has imposed on states, and how that cost has fallen on cities. To insist that states find funds for a recount when the federal government can't pull its thumb out and pass the needed relief bill would be out of the question. There is no state that isn't facing budget crunches because of the catastrophic meltdown that the Trump administration exhibited in the face of Covid. They don't have the money to spend on this. If he does, and that's what he wants to spend the money on, great, let him spend it. It'd be the first good thing he'll ever have done for the American people in his life.
53Matke
>51 proximity1:
I’ll just note for the record that you refuse to answer any of my original questions, and refuse to explain what you meant by the words I quoted.
You’re famous here for ducking questions or asked-for explanations. And, btw, the questions of others. (See many posts above.) So we must conclude that your clever but devious dance of distraction is a thin cover for your inability to support your positions.
Have a wonderful day.
I’ll just note for the record that you refuse to answer any of my original questions, and refuse to explain what you meant by the words I quoted.
You’re famous here for ducking questions or asked-for explanations. And, btw, the questions of others. (See many posts above.) So we must conclude that your clever but devious dance of distraction is a thin cover for your inability to support your positions.
Have a wonderful day.
54MsMixte
>53 Matke: This is why I finally had enough. Bobbing and weaving, insults (not necessarily to me, but to others), and copy and paste verbiage, but no short, clear explanations of why certain positions are held.
Does the politician desire to make the world a better place for everyone? If yes, that is also what I want.
Do I want to vote for someone who is racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, and greedy? No.
Does the politician desire to make the world a better place for everyone? If yes, that is also what I want.
Do I want to vote for someone who is racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, and greedy? No.
55proximity1
"racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, and greedy," Re Donald Trump:
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Vote for whomever the Hell you please. Just don't subscribe or sanction a high-order coordinated election fraud which means that your fellow citizens' legitimately cast ballots are rendered pointless even as they are swamped by many thousands of illegitimately cast and counted ballots.
56kiparsky
>66 Limelite: Just don't subscribe or sanction a high-order coordinated election fraud which means that your fellow citizens' legitimately cast ballots are rendered pointless even as they are swamped by many thousands of illegitimately cast and counted ballots.
There's a certain chutzpah on display here. You, telling people not to subscribe to or sanction a fraud, when you're trying to sell us on the Giuliani story of the 2020 election?
However, since no evidence of the sort of election fraud you describe has been produced, this is an easy request to comply with, and we're all in compliance with it. The only fraud going on is the fraudulent claim of a disputed election, which you have been banging on about, with no particular result. If you think your claims about the election are not fraudulent, please provide some evidence to support them - this time, something that doesn't evaporate on contact with reality, please.
There's a certain chutzpah on display here. You, telling people not to subscribe to or sanction a fraud, when you're trying to sell us on the Giuliani story of the 2020 election?
However, since no evidence of the sort of election fraud you describe has been produced, this is an easy request to comply with, and we're all in compliance with it. The only fraud going on is the fraudulent claim of a disputed election, which you have been banging on about, with no particular result. If you think your claims about the election are not fraudulent, please provide some evidence to support them - this time, something that doesn't evaporate on contact with reality, please.
57Matke
>54 MsMixte: Yes. He certainly doesn’t single me out from many as the receptor of his venom.
I’m just tired of someone who tries to drown others with bombast, but just avoids any actual rationale—in plain, forthright language—of his claims.
And yes also to trying to find a candidate who wants to at least try to make the world a better place.
I’m just tired of someone who tries to drown others with bombast, but just avoids any actual rationale—in plain, forthright language—of his claims.
And yes also to trying to find a candidate who wants to at least try to make the world a better place.
58aspirit
>50 lriley: Georgia--an automatic recount if the difference is less than 0.5 and we've had that hand recount and it did not change the outcome.
Georgia does not have an automatic recount.
A law put in place for this election by state Republicans was invoked by the Secretary of State for an audit or recanvass that has been referred to by state officials and the media as a recount. Calling it that has created large amounts of confusion while further endangering elections workers, who have been facing threats by Trump supporters.
The audit didn't change the outcome. The state certified its results.
Because his loss was under 0.5% of the certifited votes, the Trump campaign then petitioned for a recount, which was granted. The recount is ongoing.
It is extremely unlikely this recount will change the results.
I don't much about what's happening in Pennsylvania, but I know Georgia. The Republican officials in the state have the most control over the elections but are increasing under attack by Republicans at the federal level for not "winning" as expected.
Meanwhile, for both the audit and recount, it's the counties that have to pay, leaving the greatest financial burdens on Democrat-heavy counties instead of the Republican-led state or the Trump campaign.
Georgia does not have an automatic recount.
A law put in place for this election by state Republicans was invoked by the Secretary of State for an audit or recanvass that has been referred to by state officials and the media as a recount. Calling it that has created large amounts of confusion while further endangering elections workers, who have been facing threats by Trump supporters.
The audit didn't change the outcome. The state certified its results.
Because his loss was under 0.5% of the certifited votes, the Trump campaign then petitioned for a recount, which was granted. The recount is ongoing.
It is extremely unlikely this recount will change the results.
I don't much about what's happening in Pennsylvania, but I know Georgia. The Republican officials in the state have the most control over the elections but are increasing under attack by Republicans at the federal level for not "winning" as expected.
Meanwhile, for both the audit and recount, it's the counties that have to pay, leaving the greatest financial burdens on Democrat-heavy counties instead of the Republican-led state or the Trump campaign.
59lriley
#58--thank you for the clarification. The audit did show however that the Dominion Voting system narrative put forward by the Trump administration was pretty much a lie?
#55--there is no question in my mind that Trump is a racist and a bigot. That's been on display since pretty much day 1 with his anti-Mexican and anti-Muslim rhetoric. He's never made even an attempt at apology to either. If anyone needed further proof Charlottesville pretty much provided that and he's sent out love and support to any number of racist organizations and militias on more than just that one occasion and those organizations have discussed and basked in his love on their websites. It not necessarily being against the law to be a racist--taking all this to a court has never really been in the cards has it? So you can hide behind your no evidentiary narrative all you like but that still doesn't change the fact that he meets the basics of what a racist and a bigot is.
As far as the rest of your post you certainly are assuming facts not based on evidence. The courts (even Trump appointed justices) have been throwing out Trump and Giuliani's cases left and right for lack of any evidence yet you continue on with this bullshit about 'illegitimately cast and counted ballots'. If it were Biden who lost and making similar claims you'd be arguing the exact opposite.
#55--there is no question in my mind that Trump is a racist and a bigot. That's been on display since pretty much day 1 with his anti-Mexican and anti-Muslim rhetoric. He's never made even an attempt at apology to either. If anyone needed further proof Charlottesville pretty much provided that and he's sent out love and support to any number of racist organizations and militias on more than just that one occasion and those organizations have discussed and basked in his love on their websites. It not necessarily being against the law to be a racist--taking all this to a court has never really been in the cards has it? So you can hide behind your no evidentiary narrative all you like but that still doesn't change the fact that he meets the basics of what a racist and a bigot is.
As far as the rest of your post you certainly are assuming facts not based on evidence. The courts (even Trump appointed justices) have been throwing out Trump and Giuliani's cases left and right for lack of any evidence yet you continue on with this bullshit about 'illegitimately cast and counted ballots'. If it were Biden who lost and making similar claims you'd be arguing the exact opposite.
60kiparsky
>59 lriley: If it were Biden who lost and making similar claims you'd be arguing the exact opposite.
Just to be clear, though, there is no reason to think that a Democrat would be playing this ridiculous and frankly dangerous game. Right now we have a lame duck president doing everything he can to destroy the American government and to make the country ungovernable, and there are members of this forum who think this is a good idea. What does that mean about those people? We certainly can't call them patriots in any normal sense. We can't even call them decent human beings, since they're cheering on actions that bring harm to others. We can't even call them "smart" or "clever players of politics" since they win nothing by this game. This is pure political vandalism, and they're for it. This is tearing down the American government, and they're cheering.
What do we call people like that? I'm open to suggestions.
Maybe Proximity1 can come up with a name for a person who hates America so much they're willing to cheer as one senile old fool does his best to destroy the country to stroke his shriveled ego. I'm sure I have no idea what you'd call that person.
Just to be clear, though, there is no reason to think that a Democrat would be playing this ridiculous and frankly dangerous game. Right now we have a lame duck president doing everything he can to destroy the American government and to make the country ungovernable, and there are members of this forum who think this is a good idea. What does that mean about those people? We certainly can't call them patriots in any normal sense. We can't even call them decent human beings, since they're cheering on actions that bring harm to others. We can't even call them "smart" or "clever players of politics" since they win nothing by this game. This is pure political vandalism, and they're for it. This is tearing down the American government, and they're cheering.
What do we call people like that? I'm open to suggestions.
Maybe Proximity1 can come up with a name for a person who hates America so much they're willing to cheer as one senile old fool does his best to destroy the country to stroke his shriveled ego. I'm sure I have no idea what you'd call that person.
61lriley
#60--that's true. If Trump had won Biden would have conceded as soon as it was clear and would have exited stage left. We would not have stoked even more division by attacking the election as illegitimate. There was only one who was every going to play that game and Trump made it clear long before the election that he would do that.
62Earthling1
Este miembro ha sido suspendido del sitio.
64kiparsky
>61 lriley: So the question is, what do you do with people who are presumably technically Americans, but act as though they want to destroy the country?
I know that the anti-Americans have an answer, and that answer is violence. They threaten violence to prevent voters from voting, they plot violence against civil society, or if they haven't got the guts to actually take part in the violence, they come to forums like this and applaud it or make apologies for it. For example, they think it's fine to post armed thugs at polling places to intimidate would-be voters, or to conspire to kidnap a sitting governor, or to shoot at people peacefully demonstrating for their basic constitutional freedoms.
However, I think most of the real Americans here know that violence is not a mechanism for change, it's only a tool for control. You don't change someone's mind by beating their body. I could probably get proxette to say anything I wanted them to say, if I could use enough violence on them, but I could not get them to be a real American by any amount of force - that would have to be a decision they would make for themselves.
That suggests that rational argument is an answer, but proxette (and their various ideological allies) do not engage in argument. Their response to argument, as you've seen in this thread, is either an ad hominem attack or simply ignoring it, as though facts go away when you don't face them. In no case do they dare to present a coherent hypothesis and argue for it - they're not willing to risk a rational argument. I don't know whether that's because they don't know what one looks like, or because they know that their ideas wouldn't stand up to that sort of scrutiny, but effectively they've fled from the field of debate. As a result, they can neither convince anyone nor be convinced, all they can do is to stand around shouting. I'm not sure what the point of this is.
But it leaves me without any real answer to the question: how do you deprogram someone who has joined this cult? How do you turn a trumpist back into a citizen?
Can it even be done? Do they want to be Americans? I really don't know, but I would like to know.
I know that the anti-Americans have an answer, and that answer is violence. They threaten violence to prevent voters from voting, they plot violence against civil society, or if they haven't got the guts to actually take part in the violence, they come to forums like this and applaud it or make apologies for it. For example, they think it's fine to post armed thugs at polling places to intimidate would-be voters, or to conspire to kidnap a sitting governor, or to shoot at people peacefully demonstrating for their basic constitutional freedoms.
However, I think most of the real Americans here know that violence is not a mechanism for change, it's only a tool for control. You don't change someone's mind by beating their body. I could probably get proxette to say anything I wanted them to say, if I could use enough violence on them, but I could not get them to be a real American by any amount of force - that would have to be a decision they would make for themselves.
That suggests that rational argument is an answer, but proxette (and their various ideological allies) do not engage in argument. Their response to argument, as you've seen in this thread, is either an ad hominem attack or simply ignoring it, as though facts go away when you don't face them. In no case do they dare to present a coherent hypothesis and argue for it - they're not willing to risk a rational argument. I don't know whether that's because they don't know what one looks like, or because they know that their ideas wouldn't stand up to that sort of scrutiny, but effectively they've fled from the field of debate. As a result, they can neither convince anyone nor be convinced, all they can do is to stand around shouting. I'm not sure what the point of this is.
But it leaves me without any real answer to the question: how do you deprogram someone who has joined this cult? How do you turn a trumpist back into a citizen?
Can it even be done? Do they want to be Americans? I really don't know, but I would like to know.
65lriley
#64--no citizen should be bearing arms in public or in a public place. I also think we have to look at weapons manufacturers and work to curtail their ability to sell and organizations like the NRA--start linking them to supporters who commit gun crimes. Not sure how though you separate people from legally or even illegally acquired weaponry but where at least it's provable as illegal it's going to need to be done anyway. That's the point where violence is most likely to happen. As far as militia movements you look at them individually and brand them as homegrown terrorists if necessary. There are the RICO and hate crimes laws to work with.
To me also the defund the police idea is very much about taking away their weapons grade military equipment. No more tanks, no more flash bangs or rubber bullets, no more mass arrests of anyone they can grab, no more showing up to protests kitted out in body armor. It's time to de-escalate all of that. As well no more sending them into situations that they don't really have the skillsets for.They're not soldiers and they're not psychologists or social workers. They also need to be held to full account when they commit outrageous crimes.
To me also the defund the police idea is very much about taking away their weapons grade military equipment. No more tanks, no more flash bangs or rubber bullets, no more mass arrests of anyone they can grab, no more showing up to protests kitted out in body armor. It's time to de-escalate all of that. As well no more sending them into situations that they don't really have the skillsets for.They're not soldiers and they're not psychologists or social workers. They also need to be held to full account when they commit outrageous crimes.
66Limelite
Anti-Americanism on the Right is Profitable
First: Understand that right wing politics is about greed when it's not about bigotry.
Second: Understand that Republicans since Eisenhower have been adherents of unregulated capitalism. It started with "What's good for GM is good for America" slogan.
Third: Understand that with the discovery that Republicans and right-wing lunatic fringe noisemakers that they could monetize un-Americanism, un-Americanism has become the most popular "Americanism" among the undereducated. All of them see themselves growing rich from it.
Fourth: Understand that the most un-American will stop at nothing to "own" real Americans who don't embrace their un-American cult lies and deceit.
Then you will understand how what's good for GM is inherently not good for America; in fact, it's bass-ackwards of true Americanism because it makes corporations superior to people. That very dogma has now been codified and upheld in the SCOTUS.
The undereducated -- the major victims -- of GM's superiority in law and the Republican Party are beloved for their ignorance by corporations and the Party, and they are exploited for it because they are easy marks.
The exploitation began in capitalistic earnestness with the incorporation of Fox News that never reports actual news but churns out propaganda based on twisted stories that have successfully warped the minds and world view of its audience.
Once law courts said it is not the responsibility of news media to uphold truth and veracity in what they disseminate, any so-called news medium could fabricate any alt reality. The only caveat imposed was by the owners of said media, and it is: If lies sell better than truth, why sell anything but lies?
Because the undereducated only pay attention to lies that aggrandize their p.o.v.s and demonize those that disagree and adhere to facts and truth, media that profits from operating in the mendacity market encourage their spokessalespersons to incite more hunger for their mendaciousness by a great Ponzi scheme.
It works like this -- send money to Republicans who espouse our lies and "alt truths" in order to elect them to office and back your belief in our mendacious media with power. Naturally, Republicans who get those monies, in turn, spend them on red meat advertising on the mendacious media platforms. This churns millions of revenue into the marketplace as the reinforcing loop of flattered undereducated audience grows and patronizes advertisers on mendacious media. All of which allows those media to increase their advertising sales and charges. that drives advertisers to add to the funding of candidates whose political advertising on mendacious media increases the numbers and duration of viewership. Bob's your uncle. The noise machine is up, running, and self-sustaining.
Result? Greed has been the engine that led to the monetization of un-American mendacious capitalist enterprise. From there it has become one of the most successful business plans in operation, especially in the news and social media platforms.
Consequence? Now that the Real American educated audience has risen up and stood up against mendacious media, the undereducated, and those capitalist corporations that enrich and enable the un-American isolationist loop, their defiance, dismissal, and exposure of betrayal by the greedy mendacious monetizers of alt-reality has made the undereducated resentful, disgruntled, and afraid. Those emotions produce anger. Their anger leads to expressions of increasing violence.
As a result: Here we are with innocent 22-year-old people who just want a job in order to earn their way in pursuit of the American dream through honest productive work receiving death threats and displays of nooses with their names on them from the incited undereducated whom Trump loves.
The Shake-out: Though Fox has lost viewers, advertisers, audience, and money since shaking free of the Trump yoke it so willingly put on years ago, Parler, Newsmax, OAN, and any other of a number of rising capitalist enterprises have quickly stooped to pick up Fox's fallen mantle. They do not hesitate to employ the same scheme of monetizing un-Americanism by monetizing mendacity.
Why? Obviously because it's the easiest money lying around and will always be there because deliberate stupidity cannot be remedied and will always look for a "home" where stupidity is valued since it is life's blood to its exploiters.
First: Understand that right wing politics is about greed when it's not about bigotry.
Second: Understand that Republicans since Eisenhower have been adherents of unregulated capitalism. It started with "What's good for GM is good for America" slogan.
Third: Understand that with the discovery that Republicans and right-wing lunatic fringe noisemakers that they could monetize un-Americanism, un-Americanism has become the most popular "Americanism" among the undereducated. All of them see themselves growing rich from it.
Fourth: Understand that the most un-American will stop at nothing to "own" real Americans who don't embrace their un-American cult lies and deceit.
Then you will understand how what's good for GM is inherently not good for America; in fact, it's bass-ackwards of true Americanism because it makes corporations superior to people. That very dogma has now been codified and upheld in the SCOTUS.
The undereducated -- the major victims -- of GM's superiority in law and the Republican Party are beloved for their ignorance by corporations and the Party, and they are exploited for it because they are easy marks.
The exploitation began in capitalistic earnestness with the incorporation of Fox News that never reports actual news but churns out propaganda based on twisted stories that have successfully warped the minds and world view of its audience.
Once law courts said it is not the responsibility of news media to uphold truth and veracity in what they disseminate, any so-called news medium could fabricate any alt reality. The only caveat imposed was by the owners of said media, and it is: If lies sell better than truth, why sell anything but lies?
Because the undereducated only pay attention to lies that aggrandize their p.o.v.s and demonize those that disagree and adhere to facts and truth, media that profits from operating in the mendacity market encourage their spokessalespersons to incite more hunger for their mendaciousness by a great Ponzi scheme.
It works like this -- send money to Republicans who espouse our lies and "alt truths" in order to elect them to office and back your belief in our mendacious media with power. Naturally, Republicans who get those monies, in turn, spend them on red meat advertising on the mendacious media platforms. This churns millions of revenue into the marketplace as the reinforcing loop of flattered undereducated audience grows and patronizes advertisers on mendacious media. All of which allows those media to increase their advertising sales and charges. that drives advertisers to add to the funding of candidates whose political advertising on mendacious media increases the numbers and duration of viewership. Bob's your uncle. The noise machine is up, running, and self-sustaining.
Result? Greed has been the engine that led to the monetization of un-American mendacious capitalist enterprise. From there it has become one of the most successful business plans in operation, especially in the news and social media platforms.
Consequence? Now that the Real American educated audience has risen up and stood up against mendacious media, the undereducated, and those capitalist corporations that enrich and enable the un-American isolationist loop, their defiance, dismissal, and exposure of betrayal by the greedy mendacious monetizers of alt-reality has made the undereducated resentful, disgruntled, and afraid. Those emotions produce anger. Their anger leads to expressions of increasing violence.
As a result: Here we are with innocent 22-year-old people who just want a job in order to earn their way in pursuit of the American dream through honest productive work receiving death threats and displays of nooses with their names on them from the incited undereducated whom Trump loves.
The Shake-out: Though Fox has lost viewers, advertisers, audience, and money since shaking free of the Trump yoke it so willingly put on years ago, Parler, Newsmax, OAN, and any other of a number of rising capitalist enterprises have quickly stooped to pick up Fox's fallen mantle. They do not hesitate to employ the same scheme of monetizing un-Americanism by monetizing mendacity.
Why? Obviously because it's the easiest money lying around and will always be there because deliberate stupidity cannot be remedied and will always look for a "home" where stupidity is valued since it is life's blood to its exploiters.
67proximity1
Did Rachel Maddow, Ellen DiGeneris or Joy Behar tell you to think so?
68Earthling1
Este miembro ha sido suspendido del sitio.
69John5918
>66 Limelite: right wing politics is about greed when it's not about bigotry."
Probably not the exact phraseology that I would have used, but I think one can say that right wing politics tends to favour the perceived good of particular interest/identity groups (whether they be social class, race, ethnicity, gender, nationality, religion, economic standing, etc) whereas left wing politics tends to work towards the common good of other/all interest/identity groups.
Probably not the exact phraseology that I would have used, but I think one can say that right wing politics tends to favour the perceived good of particular interest/identity groups (whether they be social class, race, ethnicity, gender, nationality, religion, economic standing, etc) whereas left wing politics tends to work towards the common good of other/all interest/identity groups.
702wonderY
>68 Earthling1: "It's easier just to repeat what one is told by a chosen source. Even easier when a chosen source oversimplifies and gets things wrong."
Anyone got a mirror handy?
Anyone got a mirror handy?
71jjwilson61
>69 John5918: Hm. That sounds like what Republicans say about Democrats; they call it identity politics. Maybe it would be more accurate to say that dems care about the interests of groups with little power while Republicans protect the interests of those with power.
72John5918
>71 jjwilson61:
Yes, that's true to an extent, but I think caring about the interests of groups with little power is part of creating a free and fair society for everyone, including those who currently have power. Identity politics suggests only caring about particular identity groups, whereas the concept of the common good cares for everybody. That of course doesn't mean that the priviliged will be able to continue to enjoy all their unfair privileges, but it does aim to create a level playing field for everybody. The priviliged may lose some privileges, but they don't lose their rights to be an equal part of society.
Yes, that's true to an extent, but I think caring about the interests of groups with little power is part of creating a free and fair society for everyone, including those who currently have power. Identity politics suggests only caring about particular identity groups, whereas the concept of the common good cares for everybody. That of course doesn't mean that the priviliged will be able to continue to enjoy all their unfair privileges, but it does aim to create a level playing field for everybody. The priviliged may lose some privileges, but they don't lose their rights to be an equal part of society.
73Earthling1
Este miembro ha sido suspendido del sitio.
74Earthling1
Este miembro ha sido suspendido del sitio.
75John5918
>74 Earthling1: That's religion, not politics
No it's not, it's politics. It's a political philosophy. Generally the right wing tends to care about the group to which the adherent belongs or aspires to belong, while the left wing tends to care about justice and equality for groups including those to which she doesn't belong.
"groups with little power"
These can include to different extents, but are not limited to, the poor, the unemployed, immigrants, refugees, asylum seekers, foreigners, disabled, prisoners, black people, women, LGBTQ people, followers of some religions (or atheists in some cases), single mothers, people with chronic illnesses (especially those which society stigmatises), mentally disturbed, children, socio-economic classes, castes, slaves, victims of human trafficking, certain ethnic groups, certain job occupations, certain political parties or views, addicts, and yes, those living under authoritarian regimes such as China and Russia and some of the regimes they support, and some of the regimes supported by the USA.
No it's not, it's politics. It's a political philosophy. Generally the right wing tends to care about the group to which the adherent belongs or aspires to belong, while the left wing tends to care about justice and equality for groups including those to which she doesn't belong.
"groups with little power"
These can include to different extents, but are not limited to, the poor, the unemployed, immigrants, refugees, asylum seekers, foreigners, disabled, prisoners, black people, women, LGBTQ people, followers of some religions (or atheists in some cases), single mothers, people with chronic illnesses (especially those which society stigmatises), mentally disturbed, children, socio-economic classes, castes, slaves, victims of human trafficking, certain ethnic groups, certain job occupations, certain political parties or views, addicts, and yes, those living under authoritarian regimes such as China and Russia and some of the regimes they support, and some of the regimes supported by the USA.
76Earthling1
Este miembro ha sido suspendido del sitio.
772wonderY 
>76 Earthling1:. That certainly says a lot about your qualities.
78proximity1
Just over a year on but much, much longer than that in its conception and making, the presidential election fraud of 2020 is now in the course of seriously and openly unravelling. I told you this would happen more than a year ago.
________________________________
The Federalist (Washington, D.C.)
Elections | Exclusive: Whistleblower Videos Show Systemic Issues With Pennsylvania Elections |
By Margot Cleveland | February 07, 2022
"These videos indicate there were widespread violations of the election code in a large Pennsylvania county, followed by coverups." ...
According to a new whistleblower video obtained by The Federalist, 80 percent of Delaware County, Pennsylvania precincts lacked a valid chain of custody for the provisional ballots cast in the November 2020 election.
This video and two others just obtained by The Federalist provide further evidence that, while officials continue to deny that irregularities occurred during the last presidential election, there were widespread violations of the election code in the large Pennsylvania county, followed by efforts to cover up those problems.
Regina Miller, a contract worker assisting Delaware County officials, secretly filmed the videos as she helped election employees gather material in response to a “Right to Know Request” that sought documentation to confirm the election results certified by the county.
In one of the several most-recent videos The Federalist obtained from someone familiar with the situation, two employees are speaking. The first woman states, “This is what a provisional bag looks like.” As she continues to explain the process for safeguarding provisional ballots following the close of polls, she notes, “And what we currently do not have is a valid chain of custody for the provisional ballots.”
The shocked whistleblower repeats the claim as a question: “So are you saying we never had a chain of custody?” The other woman replies that only “20 percent of precincts have locked the blue bag in the past,” a reference to the bag in which provisional ballots are to be stored and safeguarded.
“Personally, I think that this is happening in every county in Pennsylvania,” the Delaware County election official notes. “We’re working on this antiquated law,” she explains, “on top of the new law,” an apparent reference to changes instituted shortly before the 2020 election. ...
Watch the videos and decide for yourselves.
The somewhat-pseudo-democratic system you've lost was your own--and yours to try and regain now. Self-serving denial won't help you any longer.
79proximity1
New Peer-Reviewed Research Finds Evidence of 2020 Voter Fraud
| COMMENTARY | John R. Lott Jr | RealClearPolitics.com
By a margin of 52% to 40%, voters believe that “cheating affected the outcome of the 2020 U.S. presidential election.” That’s per a Rasmussen Reports survey from this month. This stands in stark contrast to the countless news stories editorializing about “no evidence of voter fraud” and “the myth of voter fraud.”
It isn’t just Republicans who believe this cheating occurred. Even 34% of Democrats believe it, as do 38% of those who “somewhat” support President Biden. A broad range of Americans think this: men, women, all age groups, whites, those who are neither white nor black, Republicans, those who are neither Republicans nor Democrats, all job categories, all income groups except those making over $200,000 per year, and all education groups except those who attended graduate school.
And with good reason. New research of mine is forthcoming in the peer-reviewed economics journal Public Choice, and it finds evidence of around 255,000 excess votes (possibly as many as 368,000) for Joe Biden in six swing states where Donald Trump lodged accusations of fraud. Biden only carried these states – Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin – by a total of 313,253 votes. Excluding Michigan, the gap was 159,065.
The point of this work isn’t to contest the 2020 election (LOL!), but to point out that we have a real problem that needs to be dealt with. Americans must have confidence in future elections.
Some Trump allies, such as attorney Sidney Powell, who famously promised to “Release the Kraken” and then provided no evidence, have helped to discredit these concerns.
Courts have rejected challenges to the 2020 presidential vote, generally citing the lack of evidence that any alleged fraud would have altered the outcome in a particular state. The Republican plaintiffs argued that since their observers couldn’t watch the vote counts or were prevented from seeing other evidence, they couldn’t provide such proof without investigations backed by subpoena power. Still, while some judges have agreed that irregularities occurred in 2020, they weren’t willing to grant discovery in the absence of evidence that fraud could reverse the election results. Republicans thus faced a Catch-22 situation. (Yeah, that was designed, intended, genius)
Recounts haven’t been useful in resolving fraud concerns, as they merely involve recounting the same potentially fraudulent ballots. (Isn't that convenient!?)
Signature verification is far from perfect, as election employees have as little as five seconds to check a signature. Amidst unprecedented numbers of mail-in ballots in the 2020 election, many states didn’t even try to verify signatures. If someone mailed in multiple ballots, there was virtually no way to catch them. And without tamper-resistant photo IDs, fraud is difficult to prove. Unless someone tries voting multiple times in the same precinct, there is no way to catch them."
My research provides three tests of vote fraud.
First, I compared precincts in a county with alleged fraud to adjacent, similar precincts in neighboring counties with no fraud allegations. Precincts tend to be small, homogeneous areas, and many consist of fewer than a thousand registered voters. When comparing President Trump’s absentee ballot vote shares among these adjacent precincts, I accounted for differences in Trump’s in-person vote share and in registered voters’ demographics in both precincts.
While precincts count in-person votes, central county offices are responsible for counting absentee or mail-in ballots. A county with systemic fraud may count absentee or mail-in ballots differently from a neighboring county. We can try to detect this fraud by comparing the results in bordering precincts that happen to fall on opposite sides of a county line. These precincts will tend to be virtually identical to each other – voters may simply be on the other side of the street from their precinct neighbors.
In 2016, there was no unexplained gap in absentee ballot counts. But 2020 was a different story. Just in Fulton County, Georgia, my test yielded an unexplained 17,000 votes – 32% more than Biden’s margin over Trump in the entire state.
With the focus on winning the state, there is no apparent reason why Democrats would get out the absentee ballot vote more in one precinct than in a neighboring precinct with similar political and demographic characteristics.
Next I applied the same method to provisional ballots in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Contrary to state law, voters were allegedly allowed to correct defects in absentee ballots by submitting provisional ballots on Election Day. My analysis found that such permissions in Allegheny County alone contributed to a statistically significant 6,700 additional votes for Biden – in a state decided by fewer than 81,000 votes.
Finally, artificially large voter turnouts can also be a sign of vote fraud. This fraud could come in the form of filling out absentee ballots for people who didn’t vote, voting by ineligible people, or bribing people for their votes.
Republican-leaning swing state counties had higher turnouts relative to the 2016 election. Democratic-leaning counties had lower turnouts, except for the Democratic counties with alleged vote fraud, which had very high turnouts.
My estimates likely understate the true amount of fraud with absentee ballots, as I didn’t attempt to ascertain possible in-person voting fraud. Allegations have arisen of many ineligible in-person voters in Georgia, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. In Fulton County, Georgia, 2,423 voters were not listed as registered on the state’s records, and 2,560 felons voted even though they had not completed their sentences." ...
John R. Lott Jr. is the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center. Until January 2021, he was the senior adviser for research and statistics at the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Policy where he dealt with issues of vote fraud.
John Lott studied economics at UCLA, receiving his B.A. in 1980, M.A. in 1982, and Ph.D. in 1984.
Lott has held positions in law and economics at several institutions, including the Yale Law School, the Hoover Institution, UCLA, the Wharton Business School, Texas A&M University, and Rice University.
Lott was the chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission (1988–1989).
He spent five years as a visiting professor (1994–1995) and as a John M. Olin fellow (1995–1999) at the University of Chicago.
Lott was a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (2001–2006).
He left AEI for SUNY Binghamton. From July 2007 to 2010, Lott was a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland Foundation at the University of Maryland, College Park and lectured on law and economics.
Op-eds by Lott have appeared in such places as The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today and the Chicago Tribune. Since 2008, he has been a columnist for Fox News, initially weekly.
(Wikipedia)
80Molly3028
>79 proximity1:
Fate intervened and protected the country from the continuing onslaught of the "Grievances on Parade" cult leader in 2020.
Fate intervened and protected the country from the continuing onslaught of the "Grievances on Parade" cult leader in 2020.
81lriley
Lott is another asswipe who worked for the Trump administration.
Biden won by about 8 million votes.
Almost every time they’ve found someone who actually did vote twice it turned out to be a Trump supporter.
Mark Meadows Trump’s own right hand man voted illegally.
Biden won by about 8 million votes.
Almost every time they’ve found someone who actually did vote twice it turned out to be a Trump supporter.
Mark Meadows Trump’s own right hand man voted illegally.
84kiparsky
>81 lriley: Mark Meadows Trump’s own right hand man voted illegally.
As did Trump, but who's counting?
As did Trump, but who's counting?
