Wonderful life! Joe Blow is in the White House, and his son, Hunt-a-Blow is there, too!
70-79, F
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
ElwoodBlues · M
@MarthannBann888 [quote] I was investigating what happened,[/quote] Actually, you made a hypothesis about what happened. [quote]I made no HYPOTHESIS![/quote] Your hypothesis is that cheating happened in four states to steal the election. That hypothesis required that the cheaters have near perfect knowledge of the outcome PRIOR TO the election. Your hypothesis is plain as day; throwing insults at me won't change that fact.
BTW, good job ignoring the down-ballot races; that's where the cognitive dissonance comes in. If someone is cheating ballots, are they really gonna forget to cheat for House of Representatives??
In Arizona, democratic House candidates got 33,000 fewer votes than the democratic presidential candidate. In Georgia, the differential was 81,000 fewer. Mich: 115,000 fewer, Penn, 113,000 fewer; Wisc 43,000 fewer. Do you really think these wily perfect cheaters are gonna forget the downballot races? Your hypothesis can't explain this data, so you ignore it, [b]LOL!!![/b]
[quote]1. Hugh amounts, records amounts of money were donated to the liberal judges running in those precincts.[/quote] Evidence, please? In many states, judges are appointed not elected, so judicial campaign donations don't exist. To back up this claim, you'd need evidence about the politics of the judges and details about their election campaigns. You don't have any of that, just another silly unsupported hypothesis.
[quote]3. In the year prior to the election every judge, in violation of the law, had the election laws changed in their precincts, claiming covid as the reason.[/quote]
Legislatures often confer powers upon individuals to make on-the-spot decisions in response to changing conditions. Legislatures don't need to micro-manage every detail of voting locations, hours, etc. Whether it's a hurricane or a flood or a pandemic, there are officials empowered to adjust voting details. Every state held legal elections and Trump lost. Trump sued and appealed about some of these hours changes, and lost 60 out of 61 cases.
[quote]5. On the night following the election, Republican poll workers were sometimes by force.[/quote] An evidence-free right-wing myth!
[quote]6. Demons covered the windows so nothing could be seen of the inside.[/quote] Demons, huh? Now you're getting totally mythological! Poll workers from both parties were present during all counting periods.
[quote]7. During the early part of the evening the vote count went heavily for Trump. In the deep of the night, this began to change. [/quote] FALSE!! The reverse happened in Florida. BTW, in many of those states, the rules required in-person ballots to be counted first, and absentee ballots [i]afterwards.[/i] That simple fact explains why the numbers changed the way they did.
[quote]8. By early morning, when the vote was already tabulated in almost all of the states, THESE FOUR STATES WERE "STILL COUNTING".[/quote] FALSE. DEAD WRONG. Absolutely silly!!!
Prior to Covid, most elections had only a small fraction of absentee ballots. If the election wasn't close, they could announce a winner based on a preliminary count of in-person ballots. The absentee ballots would be counted days or weeks later and their totals added, but since the absentees weren't numerous enough to change the outcome, preliminary totals could be announced early.
Covid changed all that. Lemme repeat: Covid changed all that. As noted above, in many of states, the rules required in-person ballots to be counted first, and absentee ballots [i]afterwards.[/i] For a number of reasons, absentee ballots need more verification before counting so they are slower to count. Prior to Covid, absentee ballots were rarely a factor. Covid changed all that. Lemme repeat: Covid changed all that.
Also, military absentee ballots are allowed to arrive as much as 1 week after the election. In a close election, those military absentee ballots can be enough to swing the outcome. So you have to wait a week for those ballots before you can announce accurate totals.
[quote]11. No ... judge in these contested precincts would hear any case, [/quote] BULLLSHITTT!!! Trump brought 61 cases in all different jurisdictions with all different teams of lawyers. He LOST 60 cases and won a single trivial case that changed nothing. Also, you make an unsupported hypothesis here about the party affiliations of all these judges. What you claim without evidence, I dismiss without evidence.
[quote] Votes were not examined to determine if they were real.[/quote] Obviously you missed EVERYTHING the "Cyber Ninjas" did, including microscopic examinations looking for bamboo fibers in the ballot papers. Obviously you didn't follow my links to the Georgia signature audits.
[quote]12. When the recount took place[/quote] When the many recount took place representatives of both parties were there 100% of the time watching the whole process.
[quote]some mail in ballots were found to have NO FOLDS [/quote] Got a link? There is a process for photocopying damaged ballots to provide a replacement that can be scanned. This photocopying is, of course, done under the eyes of representatives from both parties. Both Arizona and Georgia are RED states; you think all the republicans are incompetent in both those states???
[quote]Country; Venezuela. Dominion was the company. [/quote] Yeah, that claim was debunked when Fox lost that $875 million defamation lawsuit. That was one of the MANY claims Fox knew was false when they made it. Dominion has no particular connection to Venezuela other than Venezuela is one of their customers.
BTW, serious question here: are you aware that the Dominion machines in use here in the US are vote [i]counting[/i] machines? Yep, they are vote [i]counting[/i] machines. How do you check a vote counting machine? You hand count the ballots and compare totals. That's what they did in Georgia and Arizona. [quote]In all, there were 126 counties within 10 votes of their original vote tally, according to the audit data. Of those counties, 54 counties matched their initial results exactly. No county had an error rate higher than 0.73% compared to their original results.[/quote]
[b]https://www.ajc.com/politics/breaking-georgia-manual-recount-confirms-biden-victory/B7LNNHYZOVGKZBUVAT7NZT3VZE/[/b]
[quote]As you should be able to see there was no hypothesis either before or after what I said.[/quote] As I have pointed out, your claims are FULL of unsupported hypotheses that you try to pass off as fact, [b]LOL!!![/b]
[quote]YOU are not right, YOU are not better than me, YOU are not smarter than me,[/quote] That remains to be seen. What is clear is that I back up my claims with evidence and you don't, [b]LOL!!![/b]
[quote]And before you talk about research for God's sake please take a course.[/quote] I have published my research in peer reviewed journals, and I've peer- reviewed the publications of many others. It's clear you've never worked in a STEM field or you'd be aware of how hypotheses work.
[quote]Think of this as a police case. They investigate AFTER THE EVENT. Jeez![/quote] When investigating an event, police form a variety of hypotheses about what happened before the event, and they look for evidence that might support or eliminate these hypotheses.
BTW, good job ignoring the down-ballot races; that's where the cognitive dissonance comes in. If someone is cheating ballots, are they really gonna forget to cheat for House of Representatives??
In Arizona, democratic House candidates got 33,000 fewer votes than the democratic presidential candidate. In Georgia, the differential was 81,000 fewer. Mich: 115,000 fewer, Penn, 113,000 fewer; Wisc 43,000 fewer. Do you really think these wily perfect cheaters are gonna forget the downballot races? Your hypothesis can't explain this data, so you ignore it, [b]LOL!!![/b]
[quote]1. Hugh amounts, records amounts of money were donated to the liberal judges running in those precincts.[/quote] Evidence, please? In many states, judges are appointed not elected, so judicial campaign donations don't exist. To back up this claim, you'd need evidence about the politics of the judges and details about their election campaigns. You don't have any of that, just another silly unsupported hypothesis.
[quote]3. In the year prior to the election every judge, in violation of the law, had the election laws changed in their precincts, claiming covid as the reason.[/quote]
Legislatures often confer powers upon individuals to make on-the-spot decisions in response to changing conditions. Legislatures don't need to micro-manage every detail of voting locations, hours, etc. Whether it's a hurricane or a flood or a pandemic, there are officials empowered to adjust voting details. Every state held legal elections and Trump lost. Trump sued and appealed about some of these hours changes, and lost 60 out of 61 cases.
[quote]5. On the night following the election, Republican poll workers were sometimes by force.[/quote] An evidence-free right-wing myth!
[quote]6. Demons covered the windows so nothing could be seen of the inside.[/quote] Demons, huh? Now you're getting totally mythological! Poll workers from both parties were present during all counting periods.
[quote]7. During the early part of the evening the vote count went heavily for Trump. In the deep of the night, this began to change. [/quote] FALSE!! The reverse happened in Florida. BTW, in many of those states, the rules required in-person ballots to be counted first, and absentee ballots [i]afterwards.[/i] That simple fact explains why the numbers changed the way they did.
[quote]8. By early morning, when the vote was already tabulated in almost all of the states, THESE FOUR STATES WERE "STILL COUNTING".[/quote] FALSE. DEAD WRONG. Absolutely silly!!!
Prior to Covid, most elections had only a small fraction of absentee ballots. If the election wasn't close, they could announce a winner based on a preliminary count of in-person ballots. The absentee ballots would be counted days or weeks later and their totals added, but since the absentees weren't numerous enough to change the outcome, preliminary totals could be announced early.
Covid changed all that. Lemme repeat: Covid changed all that. As noted above, in many of states, the rules required in-person ballots to be counted first, and absentee ballots [i]afterwards.[/i] For a number of reasons, absentee ballots need more verification before counting so they are slower to count. Prior to Covid, absentee ballots were rarely a factor. Covid changed all that. Lemme repeat: Covid changed all that.
Also, military absentee ballots are allowed to arrive as much as 1 week after the election. In a close election, those military absentee ballots can be enough to swing the outcome. So you have to wait a week for those ballots before you can announce accurate totals.
[quote]11. No ... judge in these contested precincts would hear any case, [/quote] BULLLSHITTT!!! Trump brought 61 cases in all different jurisdictions with all different teams of lawyers. He LOST 60 cases and won a single trivial case that changed nothing. Also, you make an unsupported hypothesis here about the party affiliations of all these judges. What you claim without evidence, I dismiss without evidence.
[quote] Votes were not examined to determine if they were real.[/quote] Obviously you missed EVERYTHING the "Cyber Ninjas" did, including microscopic examinations looking for bamboo fibers in the ballot papers. Obviously you didn't follow my links to the Georgia signature audits.
[quote]12. When the recount took place[/quote] When the many recount took place representatives of both parties were there 100% of the time watching the whole process.
[quote]some mail in ballots were found to have NO FOLDS [/quote] Got a link? There is a process for photocopying damaged ballots to provide a replacement that can be scanned. This photocopying is, of course, done under the eyes of representatives from both parties. Both Arizona and Georgia are RED states; you think all the republicans are incompetent in both those states???
[quote]Country; Venezuela. Dominion was the company. [/quote] Yeah, that claim was debunked when Fox lost that $875 million defamation lawsuit. That was one of the MANY claims Fox knew was false when they made it. Dominion has no particular connection to Venezuela other than Venezuela is one of their customers.
BTW, serious question here: are you aware that the Dominion machines in use here in the US are vote [i]counting[/i] machines? Yep, they are vote [i]counting[/i] machines. How do you check a vote counting machine? You hand count the ballots and compare totals. That's what they did in Georgia and Arizona. [quote]In all, there were 126 counties within 10 votes of their original vote tally, according to the audit data. Of those counties, 54 counties matched their initial results exactly. No county had an error rate higher than 0.73% compared to their original results.[/quote]
[b]https://www.ajc.com/politics/breaking-georgia-manual-recount-confirms-biden-victory/B7LNNHYZOVGKZBUVAT7NZT3VZE/[/b]
[quote]As you should be able to see there was no hypothesis either before or after what I said.[/quote] As I have pointed out, your claims are FULL of unsupported hypotheses that you try to pass off as fact, [b]LOL!!![/b]
[quote]YOU are not right, YOU are not better than me, YOU are not smarter than me,[/quote] That remains to be seen. What is clear is that I back up my claims with evidence and you don't, [b]LOL!!![/b]
[quote]And before you talk about research for God's sake please take a course.[/quote] I have published my research in peer reviewed journals, and I've peer- reviewed the publications of many others. It's clear you've never worked in a STEM field or you'd be aware of how hypotheses work.
[quote]Think of this as a police case. They investigate AFTER THE EVENT. Jeez![/quote] When investigating an event, police form a variety of hypotheses about what happened before the event, and they look for evidence that might support or eliminate these hypotheses.