Nationwide riot megathread

[kumbaya 139]

4 minutes ago, nykolos said:

No, I'd much rather be outside pissing on CNN's cameras instead. 

 

 

how are you any different from any person in portland or los angeles if youd take anyone's property and do anything with it though? you are mad about something you'd do to someone else, correct? lol

 

 

 

[moxy 1,051]

3 minutes ago, B_J said:

Amazingly, all of your words had nothing to do with what I said.

Ok, let me sum up then: there was no mystery math.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

47 minutes ago, kumbaya said:

you are the one comparing a president being certified by the 20th to roe and obfergell though? like, im literally using the things you brought up.

 

how is certifying a president by jan 20th anything like generations long fights for civil rights?

 

whats the short term and long term version of right and wrong you are trying to allude to in regards to a very static vote count in which trump lost?

 

in your imagination, this will or can be legally overturned by jan 20th even though there is no evidence and many courts have stated such? even judges that trump has appointed himself?

You're not using things I brought up. I never, ever said the election will be certified for anyone let alone Trump on the 20th. I specifically said we'll know when Congress certifies the election in January. They just did late last night. I also don't know what you mean by long term and short term version of right and wrong. The Constitution is explicit in how elections for Presidents are conducted. They were unambiguously violated in many states, votes in Arizona that were cast past the date prescribed by law should've been invalidated, they weren't, and it was far from the only issue.. this has been rehashed dozens of times over in other threads. There's no way to know if those votes would've meant anything for the election, but it doesn't matter, a remedy is required. It wasn't done and it justified the objections. Congress felt the law could be broken, and that's that. The questions you're asking are moot and/or don't make sense.

[B_J 2,752]

Just now, moxy said:

Ok, let me sum up then: there was no mystery math.

I'm sorry, but you clearly don't understand.

 

When you increase the number of participants, the chances of the rejection rate decreasing is low.  Logically, it would be expected for the rejection rate to increase.  For it to drastically decrease is very surprising.

 

I don't know if the numbers I've seen are correct.  I don't know there is another issue that could explain this statistical oddity.  And this doesn't prove any type of voter fraud.  But, it is something that has me intrigued.

[moxy 1,051]

Just now, B_J said:

I'm sorry, but you clearly don't understand.

 

When you increase the number of participants, the chances of the rejection rate decreasing is low.  Logically, it would be expected for the rejection rate to increase.  For it to drastically decrease is very surprising.

 

I don't know if the numbers I've seen are correct.  I don't know there is another issue that could explain this statistical oddity.  And this doesn't prove any type of voter fraud.  But, it is something that has me intrigued.

What you are alluding to is something that has been completely debunked, and nobody should engage with you seriously on this. It has been settled over and over and over. There were no mass irregularities, including rejection rates.

 

If the lower rejection count has you intrigued in a mathematical sense, then you probably aren't going to find the answers here. Maybe call your local election office or a university math department, I don't know. But we both know that's not why you're "intrigued."

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

51 minutes ago, Sarge2155 said:

I'm well aware of this and I take no pleasure in it. I'm speaking figuratively. This does not happen  regularly that a white women is killed  like this by any police, one thing is clear she was not shot and killed simply because of the color of her skin.

Nearly all of the suggestions that someone is shot because of the color of their skin are wrong anyways. In the vast majority of investigations, the person who winds up shot puts themselves in the position to be shot, just like this lady did.

[B_J 2,752]

1 minute ago, moxy said:

What you are alluding to is something that has been completely debunked, and nobody should engage with you seriously on this. It has been settled over and over and over. There were no mass irregularities, including rejection rates.

 

If the lower rejection count has you intrigued in a mathematical sense, then you probably aren't going to find the answers here. Maybe call your local election office or a university math department, I don't know. But we both know that's not why you're "intrigued."

I'm intrigued because my degree is in Mathematics and this is interesting to me.  

[Orangesapples 1,954]

16 minutes ago, moxy said:

Fortunately the explanation has been available since before the election.

 

President Trump convinced many/most of his supporters that mail-in balloting was fraudulent. He urged them to vote on election day. So they did.

Non-Trump supporters didn't fall for the lies, so many/most voted by mail.

In many states, mail-in votes are counted after election day votes. Including Georgia.

 

So what you had was the illusion of Trump winning, and then these blue votes seemingly coming in a huge wave. It was an illusion. The vote was always what it was: a win for Biden.

 

Experts had been saying this is exactly what would happen for weeks leading up to the election.

 

There is no mystery here. There was no voter fraud, there were no mystery votes.

You're making too much sense now. What about Antifa? This is a the real problem /s

[kumbaya 139]

10 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

You're not using things I brought up. I never, ever said the election will be certified for anyone let alone Trump on the 20th. I specifically said we'll know when Congress certifies the election in January. They just did late last night. I also don't know what you mean by long term and short term version of right and wrong. 

 

  

1 hour ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Courts rejecting things repeatedly were never a basis for them being right or wrong, or else there'd never be Obergefell or Roe.

what are you talking about here and why was it brought up in reference to the vote count being wrong and several judges failing to see this wrong?

 

your idea of remedy: keep counting votes and entertaining any statement without there being a basis until what exactly?

Edited January 7, 2021 by kumbaya

[moxy 1,051]

1 minute ago, B_J said:

I'm intrigued because my degree is in Mathematics and this is interesting to me.  

Cool. Do the research without bias. Write a white paper. Report back please.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

9 minutes ago, B_J said:

I'm sorry, but you clearly don't understand.

 

When you increase the number of participants, the chances of the rejection rate decreasing is low.  Logically, it would be expected for the rejection rate to increase.  For it to drastically decrease is very surprising.

 

I don't know if the numbers I've seen are correct.  I don't know there is another issue that could explain this statistical oddity.  And this doesn't prove any type of voter fraud.  But, it is something that has me intrigued.

If we take one of the Arizona cases, voting past the date state law said. There's no ambiguity that every vote cast past then should be discarded.

 

1 minute ago, kumbaya said:

 

what are you talking about here and why was it brought up in reference to the vote count being wrong and several judges failing to see this wrong?

See above.

Edited January 7, 2021 by Burnt Reynolds

[Orangesapples 1,954]

10 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

You're not using things I brought up. I never, ever said the election will be certified for anyone let alone Trump on the 20th. I specifically said we'll know when Congress certifies the election in January. They just did late last night. I also don't know what you mean by long term and short term version of right and wrong. The Constitution is explicit in how elections for Presidents are conducted. They were unambiguously violated in many states, votes in Arizona that were cast past the date prescribed by law should've been invalidated, they weren't, and it was far from the only issue.. this has been rehashed dozens of times over in other threads. There's no way to know if those votes would've meant anything for the election, but it doesn't matter, a remedy is required. It wasn't done and it justified the objections. Congress felt the law could be broken, and that's that. The questions you're asking are moot and/or don't make sense.

Why was no evidence for this fraud presented in court? 

[Dashinka 24,514]

18 minutes ago, moxy said:

Good. Antifa are "anti-fascists." Everyone should get behind anti-fascism. I'm glad the President-elect is anti-fascism.

Only anti-fascists as long as you agree with them.

[kumbaya 139]

1 minute ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

If we take one of the Arizona cases, voting past the date state law said. There's no ambiguity that every vote cast past then should be discarded.

 

See above.

and it was proven wrong/not valid by the judges who hear such.

 

what else do you want? how do you not feel you arent the one asking for too much at this point? such entitlement

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

3 minutes ago, Orangesapples said:

Why was no evidence for this fraud presented in court? 

It was. It was thrown out. Instead of people citing the number of cases and other talking points, should be looking at the merits. The courts clearly didn't either, but more importantly, Congress abdicated their responsibility to right that wrong. Failure all over, but it's far from the only one. Nonetheless, doesn't matter at this point. Now my concern is future elections.

Edited January 7, 2021 by Burnt Reynolds