Biden wins presidency, Trump denied second term in White House, Fox News projects

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

6 minutes ago, laylalex said:

What counts here is what is in a sworn statement. Recordings mean zero. Currently the affidavit he has sworn to upon penalty of perjury is that he made it all up. If he really was coerced, let him make another one. It's not hard to do. You write it up and you sign and date it. He can do it himself. If he has enough time to talk on video, he has enough time to write out a new one. If the state makes him have it notarized, it's not exactly expensive. I'm sure he can tap that gofundme for the fee.

Got a link to his sworn statement?

 

Also, do you think affidavits and statements made under duress (coercion) are binding? Do we even know he actually recanted "it"? 

 

That's why we look at evidence. I already understand the point of picking a "side" just because.

Edited November 11, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

So according to the ACLU they have joined the suit in PA against Trump. 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

6 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

So according to the ACLU they have joined the suit in PA against Trump. 

Dead+algorithmic lives matter.

[Coin3 66]

 

3 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

It puts things in perspective with just looking at four counties in that video posted above. Here are screenshots for the purpose of awareness (and discussion for those who actually intend on honest discussion)

 

 

 

 

What these other graphs are saying in 3 counties is that not only that overwhelmingly Democrats voted more for Trump than usual (especially with in-person voting), but that the more "Republican" the precinct got, the more they voted for Biden.. with near-perfect to perfect consistency. Wayne however looks relatively normal in that analysis (party line voting). This is absolutely not indicative of a normal, human distribution of votes because it doesn't even look human, this output looks absolutely algorithmic. This sort of thing is done on the software side. I'd challenge anyone to explain how this is normal and why it should be trusted. The data they got is available to anyone. We've already seen outcomes changed and results flipped because of these errors when spotted and rectified. There are clearly many more.

 

This is also not something to look at in isolation, as there were clearly other efforts to hinder or eliminate oversight, observers, etc. that don't come down to algorithmic execution. There's also some very interesting questions, which Republicans are going to need to answer, about how this implicates their party as well. Either we're going to get honest answers, or we're going to get football team answers. I think there needs to be some serious inquiry and I hope Trump is focused and not beside himself clogging up the courts with moronic lawsuits lacking substance when there's so much blatant evidence that should by its systematic efforts result in either ballots thrown out or a re-election conducted in these regions without these systems and with oversight+paper trails instituted. 

 

I've only had time so far to watch the main points of Dr. Shiva's presentation, and while I haven't entirely ruled out the possibility of irregular trends being found in the data, I do have some major problems with his analysis.

 

My main argument revolves around his choice of formula for the y-axis on the graphs.

His description of the y-axis is "Difference of %Trump Individual Candidate Votes minus %RSP votes", and the example on the below slide demonstrates that.

 

 

My issue with this formula came when I heard him explaining his reasoning against the "Trump is no longer popular among Republicans" theory. The hypothetical graph he used to demonstrate this situation is below.

With the formula described before, the below graph indicates that on average, a precinct will have an individual Trump vote (ITV) percentage equal to (RSP% - 10)%. For example, a precinct with RSP 60% will have ITV 50%, and a precinct with RSP 20% will have ITV 10%. Amazingly, a precinct with RSP 0% would have ITV -10%. This does not logically make sense.

 

The more reasonable assumption in this hypothetical situation would be that on average, a precinct will have an ITV% equal to 10 PERCENT less than the the RSP%, with the graph's y-axis formula being ((ITV% - RSP%) / RSP%). For example, a precinct with RSP 60% will have ITV 54%, and a precinct with RSP 20% will have ITV 18%.

 

 

In addition, Dr. Shiva has actually taken this inappropriate misconception further by manipulating the graph of Wayne County. This graph, contrary to his definition of the graphs at the beginning of analysis, is actually plotted with the y-axis formula I just described, ((ITV% - RSP%) / RSP%). This is immediately obvious because there are precincts plotted on the graph that would be impossible with the formula that he defined. I've indicated an example below, in which the precinct would indicate ITV -15%, which is impossible.

 

 

In the results portion of his presentation, Dr. Shiva points out that the slope of the trends for all of the counties he looked at is the same. Now, I have not downloaded the data to make my own graphs or complete a full analysis myself, but I would not be surprised if most of the slope seen in the graphs of the counties he cherry picked disappeared when it is graphed correctly (y-axis calculated as ITV percent change from RSP%).

 

Dr. Shiva seems smart enough to know what he's doing when it comes to data analysis. The fact that he has deliberately misrepresented information in an attempt to mislead people's opinion about such a serious topic is disturbing to me. 

[laylalex 7,284]

2 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Got a link to his sworn statement?

 

Also, do you think affidavits and statements made under duress (coercion) are binding? Do we even know he actually recanted "it"? 

 

That's why we look at evidence. I already understand the point of picking a "side" just because.

There really isn't any need to be so condescending. I do have a brain and it does function quite well. 

 

Couple of things: first -- his 11/6 sworn statement is available online; his 11/9 one is not yet, though I expect it will appear soon. Second, an affidavit made under duress is indeed not binding, but you can't just claim "they made me do it!" without any evidence (that word again!) that there was actually coercion or duress. I think there is a legal definition to duress, which I can look up (thank you dad for giving me your Westlaw login!) and I am not 100% sure it applies here. 

 

I look at representations and I weigh them. This guy is a serial liar by his own admission. That makes me doubt pretty much everything he said. The USPS? Not so much. We can wait for the 11/9 statement to come out. 

[laylalex 7,284]

1 minute ago, Coin3 said:

*snip*

 

Dr. Shiva seems smart enough to know what he's doing when it comes to data analysis. The fact that he has deliberately misrepresented information in an attempt to mislead people's opinion about such a serious topic is disturbing to me. 

I want to take the time to read your comments more fully, but I want to put to you this: Dr. Shiva is a crank who claimed he invented email, a serial litigant (look up his case against TechDirt which went miserably), and is so butthurt about losing the primary he was running for in MA he is suing the state acting as his own attorney because his lawyer quit on him. He may be a very intelligent person, and I do not dispute that, but there is a pattern of not-quite-right behavior going on with him. He's one of the people who bubbles up into my consciousness every so often for some nutty stunt or other.

 

Recent article: https://www.universalhub.com/2020/serial-senate-candidate-alleges-election-fraud

[Coin3 66]

1 minute ago, laylalex said:

I want to take the time to read your comments more fully, but I want to put to you this: Dr. Shiva is a crank who claimed he invented email, a serial litigant (look up his case against TechDirt which went miserably), and is so butthurt about losing the primary he was running for in MA he is suing the state acting as his own attorney because his lawyer quit on him. He may be a very intelligent person, and I do not dispute that, but there is a pattern of not-quite-right behavior going on with him. He's one of the people who bubbles up into my consciousness every so often for some nutty stunt or other.

 

Recent article: https://www.universalhub.com/2020/serial-senate-candidate-alleges-election-fraud

Yes I just read about him a bit more and I completely agree. lol

 

I just wanted to keep my reply to @Burnt Reynolds focused on the data analysis portion so we can have a more civil discussion about the data itself.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

44 minutes ago, laylalex said:

There really isn't any need to be so condescending. I do have a brain and it does function quite well. 

 

Couple of things: first -- his 11/6 sworn statement is available online; his 11/9 one is not yet, though I expect it will appear soon. Second, an affidavit made under duress is indeed not binding, but you can't just claim "they made me do it!" without any evidence (that word again!) that there was actually coercion or duress. I think there is a legal definition to duress, which I can look up (thank you dad for giving me your Westlaw login!) and I am not 100% sure it applies here. 

 

I look at representations and I weigh them. This guy is a serial liar by his own admission. That makes me doubt pretty much everything he said. The USPS? Not so much. We can wait for the 11/9 statement to come out. 

I wasn't condescending, at all, whatsoever.

 

He did have evidence, it's the very recording presented (and more is going to be released), you just ignored it to then claim he has no evidence. But it's there, regardless of that statement, and while not in any way "proof", it's far more than the nothing provided by the article, which I see you're going out of your way to presume is true and suggest he should be charged with perjury for. What I see is you coming to conclusions about this person based on very little actual information, but I understand this picking a side thing, as some people are upset he actually came forward with this and they see it as a threat to an election going their way.

Edited November 11, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[TBoneTX 45,285]

A noncontributory post has been removed.  Let's please be careful not to risk the recent fate of so many others.  

[Prizm123 1,086]

7 hours ago, laylalex said:

There really isn't any need to be so condescending. I do have a brain and it does function quite well. 

 

Second, an affidavit made under duress is indeed not binding, but you can't just claim "they made me do it!" without any evidence (that word again!) that there was actually coercion or duress.

it wasnt duress, apparently he was paid

 

apparently now he is recanting his recantation, and some sources allege that the money came through "donors" or ties to Project veritas, its unclear who, but there is this, so i tend not eo believe anything from those idiots in project veritas since they are apparently paying people for fraud allegations, and anyone who knows anything about them understands they are fraudsters

 

[Prizm123 1,086]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/georgia-s-secretary-of-state-announces-a-full-by-hand-recount-of-presidential-election-votes-as-biden-leads/ar-BB1aURng

 

please, by all means, do so. just ensure its finished on time so that we can get on with our lives.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

19 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

The one truism, and the deepest chasm, is:

 

A.  Trump's supporters know to interpret him figuratively rather than literally; and

B.  His opponents insist on taking him literally.

 

  I think this applies more to conservatives who either support or are against him. Liberals don't really like him whether taken literally or figuratively.

 

  What you said can be readily seen in the current election procedural challenges. Conservatives who take him literally are rallying around the idea that the 2020 election was stolen and they can somehow get it back. Those who take him figuratively know he is actually starting his 2024 campaign right now. This is going to be the conservatives version of the Russian collusion debacle.

 

  Either way, liberals need to focus on fixing their own house. It's still broken too.

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

[Prizm123 1,086]

29 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  I think this applies more to conservatives who either support or are against him. Liberals don't really like him whether taken literally or figuratively.

 

  What you said can be readily seen in the current election procedural challenges. Conservatives who take him literally are rallying around the idea that the 2020 election was stolen and they can somehow get it back. Those who take him figuratively know he is actually starting his 2024 campaign right now. This is going to be the conservatives version of the Russian collusion debacle.

 

  Either way, liberals need to focus on fixing their own house. It's still broken too.

liberals need to grow a spine first and fight the republicans as hard as they do.

 

they need to stop being outraged or panicky about anything trump does or says. it gives him oxygen. he loves the attention, whether it is positive or negative. he knows cnn is his best friend because people will hate watch it based on his control of the news cycle. the best thing to do is ignore him, its the best thing you could ever do to a malignant narcissistic psychopath.

[implife 318]

33 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

Mueller (again) says a US president can be charged after leaving office

From CNN's Fadel Allassan and Aishvarya Kavi

Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller, in exchange with Republican Rep. Ken Buck, again said a president can be charged with obstruction of justice after they have left office. 

Here's the exchange:

Buck: "Could you charge the President with a crime after he left office?"

Mueller: "Yes."

Buck: "You believe that he committed — you could charge the President of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office?"

Mueller: "Yes."