The Next President is...

[slackline]

Ironic that you don’t cite any damage, dollars lost or death in your comment. Just an isolated incident of people doing something they shouldn’t on the road. Yet you fail to recognize the issues on your side. Hypocrisy?

Just because they got lucky, and no one got hurt doesn’t mean it isn’t dangerous, or even violent. The banging on windows, which is akin to threatening violent actions, while honest poll workers are trying to do their jobs is similar. These aren’t isolated incidents. Just because the right knows how to take things right up to that dangerously thin line without crossing it doesn’t mean they are morally or ethically right. Intimidation, something the right is know for is not an isolated incident. See above examples, and look in the many posts over the last few days for your sources.

I’m not on the left my friend. I see the crazy happening on both sides. Just feel like, IN THIS MOMENT IN TIME, and only this moment, the crazy seems to be a little stronger on the right. You can attempt to paint me into that corner all you want. You’re also ignoring the entire last line of my post where I said, “In all fairness, the left is often guilty of the same”.

Unsure what your beef is kid, but you need to let it rest. Stop making this a fight between you and me. Stop making it personal...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Seadogs]

Just now, slackline said:

Just because they got lucky, and no one got hurt doesn’t mean it isn’t dangerous, or even violent. The banging on windows, which is akin to threatening violent actions, while honest poll workers are trying to do their jobs is similar. These aren’t isolated incidents. Just because the right knows how to take things right up to that dangerously thin line without crossing it doesn’t mean they are morally or ethically right. Intimidation, something the right is know for is not an isolated incident. See above examples, and look in the many posts over the last few days for your sources.

I’m not on the left my friend. I see the crazy happening on both sides. Just feel like, IN THIS MOMENT IN TIME, and only this moment, the crazy seems to be a little stronger on the right. You can attempt to paint me into that corner all you want. You’re also ignoring the entire last line of my post where I said, “In all fairness, the left is often guilty of the same”.

Unsure what your beef is kid, but you need to let it rest. Stop making this a fight between you and me. Stop making it personal...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

YOU just called him a kid. I don't see him calling you names. YOU made it personal. YOU'RE a hypocrite. 

[slackline]

YOU just called him a kid. I don't see him calling you names. YOU made it personal. YOU'RE a hypocrite. 

Go back and read his many, many posts where he accuses me of all kinds of personal things, specifically on my service, and the type of officer I am.

I’ll admit, I’ve engaged a few times in a similar fashion, basically calling him “kid” or referencing his maturity. I keep trying to move on, but it’s like a dog and a bone with him. I’m no innocent, but sheesh, let it go...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Guardian]

Just because they got lucky, and no one got hurt doesn’t mean it isn’t dangerous, or even violent. The banging on windows, which is akin to threatening violent actions, while honest poll workers are trying to do their jobs is similar. These aren’t isolated incidents. Just because the right knows how to take things right up to that dangerously thin line without crossing it doesn’t mean they are morally or ethically right. Intimidation, something the right is know for is not an isolated incident. See above examples, and look in the many posts over the last few days for your sources.

I’m not on the left my friend. I see the crazy happening on both sides. Just feel like, IN THIS MOMENT IN TIME, and only this moment, the crazy seems to be a little stronger on the right. You can attempt to paint me into that corner all you want. You’re also ignoring the entire last line of my post where I said, “In all fairness, the left is often guilty of the same”.

Unsure what your beef is kid, but you need to let it rest. Stop making this a fight between you and me. Stop making it personal...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

No beef. Just confront inaccuracies where they lie.

[Guardian]

Go back and read his many, many posts where he accuses me of all kinds of personal things, specifically on my service, and the type of officer I am.

I’ll admit, I’ve engaged a few times in a similar fashion, basically calling him “kid” or referencing his maturity. I keep trying to move on, but it’s like a dog and a bone with him. I’m no innocent, but sheesh, let it go...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You’re not a democrat or a leftist you say. But you employ their tactics. Do as I say not as I do....

I can’t let go of something I never had brah!

[slackline]

I guess I'm just taking crazy pills.  Whatever

 

[pcola]

Are you being sarcastic? 
 
That video has substance but is hard to follow and will be dismissed as partisan. Especially because he supports Trump. 

Not at all. It is a very compelling argument and difficult if not impossible to dispute. Which is why I’m wondering why there’s not more discussion amongst this highly informed group. I guess 45 minutes is too much to invest if it doesn’t support your narrative. And no, it’s not that dense. Intentionally created so that anyone can follow the logic.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Seadogs]

2 minutes ago, pcola said:

Not at all. It is a very compelling argument and difficult if not impossible to dispute. Which is why I’m wondering why there’s not more discussion amongst this highly informed group. I guess 45 minutes is to much to invest if it doesn’t support your narrative. And no, it’s not that dense. Intentionally created so that anyone can follow the logic.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

I've pointed out Benford's law, which is a tool to begin detecting fraud or irregularities in data. Was called a conspiracy theorist and told to stfu and accept the election results. If they can't grasp the simple concept of Benford's law then they will scream at you and call you a holocaust denier if you present something more complex such as that video. "But we follow the science".

[Guardian]

I missed it man. What’s benfords law in your words?

[Seadogs]

Matter of fact, let me post it here so people know what we are talking about.

 

 

Edited November 11, 2020 by Seadogs

[Seadogs]

2 minutes ago, Guardian said:

I missed it man. What’s benfords law in your words?

Quote

Benford's law, also called the Newcomb–Benford law, the law of anomalous numbers, or the first-digit law, is an observation about the frequency distribution of leading digits in many real-life sets of numerical data. The law states that in many naturally occurring collections of numbers, the leading digit is likely to be small. In sets that obey the law, the number 1 appears as the leading significant digit about 30% of the time, while 9 appears as the leading significant digit less than 5% of the time.

It isn't to be used as a standalone to dispute fraud, but an initial tool to dig deeper. As shown in Dr. Shiva's video that I posted. 

[pcola]

And one more point... the video I’m referencing (the previously linked MIT professor’s analysis of Michigan election tampering) should be a concern to all citizens. Regardless of which side you support. We expect fair elections as part of our democratic process and it is apparently not happening. That is a major concern beyond the outcome of this election


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Waingro]

So much fraud!!1!

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/lawyers-litigating-for-trump-suddenly-remember-their-licenses-are-on-the-line-if-they-lie-to-a-judge/

"On Tuesday, Judge Haaz promptly put Trump campaign attorney Jonathan Goldstein on the spot. The judge asked him point-blank if the campaign was actually alleging any fraud. Goldstein went to bat for President Trump while admitting that he was not alleging fraud, uttering the phrase (twice): “To my knowledge at present, no.” Legal experts said that Goldstein’s remarks were typical of a lawyer unwilling to risk sanctions or bar discipline in service of a client."

[Guardian]

What’s wrong with investigating the red flags? Regardless of if something is found or not?

[Waingro]

3 minutes ago, Guardian said:

What’s wrong with investigating the red flags? Regardless of if something is found or not?

Nothing. They should be investigated. That's a long ways away from refusing to concede in the face of a multi-state loss and no actual evidence of any fraud, while continuously eroding faith in the democratic process. 

Let's not forget that Hillary lost Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin by less than a point. Obama was welcoming Trump into the white house by this point in 2016. 

History will not be kind to Mr. Trump's actions between November 3rd and January. 

 

[Guardian]

A lot of votes have changed places since it was declared for Biden. Currently two states called for him AZ and GA are less than 13,000 split. And AZ still has, I think I heard, 50,000 military votes to count?

And maybe history won’t be kind to his actions but your vote is worth the legal investigation. It’s worth it to answer the red flags produced.

[Guardian]

And why such the rush? Electoral college doesn’t meet for another month. And we elect presidents for 4 years.

[Waingro]

7 minutes ago, Guardian said:

A lot of votes have changed places since it was declared for Biden. Currently two states called for him AZ and GA are less than 13,000 split. And AZ still has, I think I heard, 50,000 military votes to count?

And maybe history won’t be kind to his actions but your vote is worth the legal investigation. It’s worth it to answer the red flags produced.

No disagreement. I'm personally skeptical that the military vote will add much to either candidate, I suspect it's pretty even, or at least within 10% on either side. 

The numbers you're talking about are pretty sizable leads, in the grand scheme. And in multiple states. It's not a handful of ballots in a few precincts like in 2000. 

Yes for sure investigate problems. But shotgunning blind lawsuits without any basis (then admitting in court there is no real basis) is a very different thing than investigating discrepancies. 

You and I may be adult enough to know that this is just a preamble to Trump being able to claim he never really lost, once he's out of office. A lot of the population doesn't understand his bluster and will continue to propagate mistrust about the electoral process for many years. Win or lose, his actions today are a stain on our democracy. 

Edited November 11, 2020 by Waingro

[DosXX]

1 hour ago, pcola said:

So you informed individuals...please enlighten me on what I’m apparently missing wrr the aforementioned MIT Professor’s video which clearly establishes election fraud occurred in MI. Why is this not a topic of debates here? The case they presented seems overwhelming to me. Am I missing something?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

That's DR. Shiva to you, inventor of email, grifter in chief, polymath genius with 800 on his SAT math who thinks vitamins will improve your immune defense against COVID contrary to double blind placebo studies.

All jokes aside, I'll address his main argument. This does not "clearly" show anything and shows a poor demonstration of basic statistical understanding. 

The first point I'll make is that you cannot show two linear correlations on one chart comparing data in different portions of the same dataset. Either they thought the concept of a nonlinear correlation was too advanced for the general public, or they thought the general public was too stupid to realize this basic fact. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say it's the former and move on to the broader argument. 

I did not independentally verify the data they were using, since they did not publish it, but for the sake of the argument I will assume it is real. Quite hypocritical for him to bash on the government not releasing data to the public and not do so himself, but that's beside the main point here. The fact was that there were more Republican votes via straight ticket ballots than trump votes at an increasing rate the more republican the precinct got. That's undisputed if the data was correct. The error lies in his assumption that this implies a "weighted voter algorithm" of some sort. One possible explanation is that since the sample size of candidate choice ballots is correlated with republican precincts (which correlate to smaller the more republican it gets), more error is introduced to the difference between straight voting and choice ballots at an increasing rate.  In other words, more republican precincts are smaller, which means an even smaller portions of ballots are not straight ticket ballots, which means the very few independent choice ballots that are counted have a much bigger swing on this effect. If he plotted precinct size vs republican share of votes you would get the same correlation, but he does not show otherwise or give access to the data to prove this. This is just one of several possible explanations, and without addressing them his conclusion would get rejected immediately by any statistician. 

TLDR: It's a classic case of isolating dependent variables to find a correlation that fits your narrative.

 

[Guardian]

Maybe. I feel the same about the conduct of the media and the left over the last 4 years.

[slackline]

7 minutes ago, DosXX said:

That's DR. Shiva to you, inventor of email, grifter in chief, polymath genius with 800 on his SAT math who thinks vitamins will improve your immune defense against COVID contrary to double blind placebo studies.

All jokes aside, I'll address his main argument. This does not "clearly" show anything and shows a poor demonstration of basic statistical understanding. 

The first point I'll make is that you cannot show two linear correlations on one chart comparing data in different portions of the same dataset. Either they thought the concept of a nonlinear correlation was too advanced for the general public, or they thought the general public was too stupid to realize this basic fact. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say it's the former and move on to the broader argument. 

I did not independentally verify the data they were using, since they did not publish it, but for the sake of the argument I will assume it is real. Quite hypocritical for him to bash on the government not releasing data to the public and not do so himself, but that's beside the main point here. The fact was that there were more Republican votes via straight ticket ballots than trump votes at an increasing rate the more republican the precinct got. That's undisputed if the data was correct. The error lies in his assumption that this implies a "weighted voter algorithm" of some sort. One possible explanation is that since the sample size of candidate choice ballots is correlated with republican precincts (which correlate to smaller the more republican it gets), more error is introduced to the difference between straight voting and choice ballots at an increasing rate.  In other words, more republican precincts are smaller, which means an even smaller portions of ballots are not straight ticket ballots, which means the very few independent choice ballots that are counted have a much bigger swing on this effect. If he plotted precinct size vs republican share of votes you would get the same correlation, but he does not show otherwise or give access to the data to prove this. This is just one of several possible explanations, and without addressing them his conclusion would get rejected immediately by any statistician. 

TLDR: It's a classic case of isolating dependent variables to find a correlation that fits your narrative.

 

AKA, cherrypicking.  Thanks for the explanation.

[Prozac]

23 minutes ago, DosXX said:

That's DR. Shiva to you, inventor of email, grifter in chief, polymath genius with 800 on his SAT math who thinks vitamins will improve your immune defense against COVID contrary to double blind placebo studies.

All jokes aside, I'll address his main argument. This does not "clearly" show anything and shows a poor demonstration of basic statistical understanding. 

The first point I'll make is that you cannot show two linear correlations on one chart comparing data in different portions of the same dataset. Either they thought the concept of a nonlinear correlation was too advanced for the general public, or they thought the general public was too stupid to realize this basic fact. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say it's the former and move on to the broader argument. 

I did not independentally verify the data they were using, since they did not publish it, but for the sake of the argument I will assume it is real. Quite hypocritical for him to bash on the government not releasing data to the public and not do so himself, but that's beside the main point here. The fact was that there were more Republican votes via straight ticket ballots than trump votes at an increasing rate the more republican the precinct got. That's undisputed if the data was correct. The error lies in his assumption that this implies a "weighted voter algorithm" of some sort. One possible explanation is that since the sample size of candidate choice ballots is correlated with republican precincts (which correlate to smaller the more republican it gets), more error is introduced to the difference between straight voting and choice ballots at an increasing rate.  In other words, more republican precincts are smaller, which means an even smaller portions of ballots are not straight ticket ballots, which means the very few independent choice ballots that are counted have a much bigger swing on this effect. If he plotted precinct size vs republican share of votes you would get the same correlation, but he does not show otherwise or give access to the data to prove this. This is just one of several possible explanations, and without addressing them his conclusion would get rejected immediately by any statistician. 

TLDR: It's a classic case of isolating dependent variables to find a correlation that fits your narrative.

 

But, but but...it’s so much easier and more fun to make a grand conspiracy claim than to admit things are rarely as simple as they appear on the surface (or on Sean Hannity’s show). 

[Sim]

29 minutes ago, DosXX said:

This is just one of several possible explanations

And all can be easily checked. Visit that top heavy GOP small precinct and do a hand recount.  There is no "independent" choice. Only Trump Vs Biden. 

[Homestar]

2 hours ago, M2 said:

Are you talking about 2020, or 2016?  I can't keep up with the constantly shifting liberal narrative...

Yes. 
 

.....and I’m not a liberal. 

[slackline]

8 minutes ago, Homestar said:

Yes. 
 

.....and I’m not a liberal. 

One of the frustrating things is that you are immediately labeled a liberal, which is now somehow an insult/cussword in this incredibly divided environment (started with Obama, or you could go all the way back to Gingrich).  You're not just of a different political camp anymore, you're somehow the enemy if you don't give Trump your unwavering support.  That may be slightly hyperbolic, but the point is fairly strong.  What is also hyperbolic are the charges (made by some of the very people on this forum) of the immediate destruction of the US and its identity if a Democrat is sitting in the WH.