IMO, the Fix is in

Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham seem to be in some sort of quiet competition to tout Trump's talking points in hopes they can inherit his base. Is it working?

 
nashhorn said:
You’re right SH, absolutely no reason the in force, excuse me, reinforce the laws.
Click to expand...

Which laws aren't being enforced? Rand Paul lets the cat out of the bag with his real concern. He's worried that more voters = Republican losses. That's a Republican problem, not a voter or lawless problem.
 
In what appears to be an attempt to avoid a defamation lawsuit from Smartmatic, Fox created a video to debunk their own claims against the company. It ran on 3 shows: Lou Dobbs, Jeanine Pirro and Maria Bartiromo's shows which were all specifically called out in a letter from Smartmatic's legal team which was sent to Fox, OANN and Newsmax.

This comes on the heels of Fox settling with Seth Rich's family for the BS conspiracy they spread at that time.

 
Last edited:
Newsmax now following suit. Is OANN close behind?

Honestly, these reversal of prior comments just shows that these aren't "news" organizations but vast opinion networks masquerading as "news".

 
Last edited:
OUBubba said:
Crickets. No evidence.

Fake news is taking a beating.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile, 60k of Trump supporters are planning a virtual Trump Inauguration ceremony on 1/20. Of all the money raised since the election to fight his election legal battles, $66M went towards Trump's SuperPAC slush fund. The true hoax of the Trump Administration was that he was there to "drain the swamp". He and others were the swamp. It was an amazing con job, maybe the best ever.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Meanwhile, 60k of Trump supporters are planning a virtual Trump Inauguration ceremony on 1/20. Of all the money raised since the election to fight his election legal battles, $66M went towards Trump's SuperPAC slush fund. The true hoax of the Trump Administration was that he was there to "drain the swamp". He and others were the swamp. It was an amazing con job, maybe the best ever.
Click to expand...

As I've said before, I'll never make fun of Stacey Abrams again.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I'm talking about the stupid **** about refusing to concede and suggesting that Kemp was illegitimate. It was still stupid, but these Trump people are blowing her out of the water.
Click to expand...
To be fair, Kemp flat out stole that race. That would be like Barry and DKR playing a game while Switzer also wore a striped shirt, white hat, and carried a whistle; and played the role of NCAA investigator as well.
 
OUBubba said:
To be fair, Kemp flat out stole that race. That would be like Barry and DKR playing a game while Switzer also wore a striped shirt, white hat, and carried a whistle; and played the role of NCAA investigator as well.
Click to expand...

Wait what? So voter fraud does exist? I thought that was crazy talk.
 
I just checked in on the sports forums and saw that I had two private messages from @Garmel accusing me of "hit jobs" for making posts and not sticking around to defend them. I responded to him privately, but thought I'd check in to see whether he raised any points that make me reconsider my latest post. Nope.

Garmel said:
You and Husker think that you understand stats better than the guys who have a doctorates degree so just quit embarrassing yourself. Seriously.
Click to expand...

I didn't attack Dr. Cicchetti's statistical analysis. In fact, based on my moderate understanding of statistics, I have no reason to doubt his statistical analysis.

Garmel said:
I'm sure the good doctor did not release every single thing in his analysis so finding holes is worthless. It's what, 10 pages long? I'm sure the full paper is much longer than that so is this armchair quarterbacking is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Garmel said:
Having a reasonable analysis and drawing conclusions over a chopped up 10 page summary is futile. If he releases the full paper then you can criticize what's in there. Otherwise, you're just talking out of your *** because you don't have the full story.
Click to expand...

Dr. Cicchetti explicitly spelled out his assumptions in his ten-page summary. Those assumptions are what I refuted. Unless you can somehow rehabilitate his assumptions, the analysis is based on "garbage in" and thus will inevitably yield "garbage out."

To reiterate -- Dr. Cicchetti explicitly assumed that the votes counted before 3:00 a.m. on November 4 were drawn from the same population as the votes counted after 3:00 a.m. on November 4. The truth or falsity of that assumption is the key to his analysis. I don't see you, or anyone else, trying to defend his assumption. And I didn't see any need to hang around to see whether you would refute it, because I knew it couldn't be refuted. It is objectively false.

Garmel said:
Seriously, some of the best statisticians are saying this election is wonky and you guys keep acting like Christian fundamentalists that can't handle the fact that a scientist is telling you that evolution is real and Adam and Eve is a myth.
Click to expand...

"Some of the best statisticians out there" -- really? Name one. This guy is not even a statistician, much less one of the best out there -- he is an economist. Every attempt I've seen to debunk the election using statistics or other math techniques (this one, Benford's law, swing-vote scatterplots) has been posted by someone with expertise other than the area they are talking about. And it has all been refuted by people who actually are experts.

NJlonghorn said:
If there is anything in the rest of it that isn't as obviously refuted, I'll wait for the courts to say so. I expect the Supreme Court to toss this very quickly, 9-0. There is absolutely nothing for them to sink their teeth into.
Click to expand...

As I predicted... I guess SCOTUS must be corrupted, too.
 
NJlonghorn said:
I just checked in on the sports forums and saw that I had two private messages from @Garmel accusing me of "hit jobs" for making posts and not sticking around to defend them. I responded to him privately, but thought I'd check in to see whether he raised any points that make me reconsider my latest post. Nope.



I didn't attack Dr. Cicchetti's statistical analysis. In fact, based on my moderate understanding of statistics, I have no reason to doubt his statistical analysis.




Dr. Cicchetti explicitly spelled out his assumptions in his ten-page summary. Those assumptions are what I refuted. Unless you can somehow rehabilitate his assumptions, the analysis is based on "garbage in" and thus will inevitably yield "garbage out."

To reiterate -- Dr. Cicchetti explicitly assumed that the votes counted before 3:00 a.m. on November 4 were drawn from the same population as the votes counted after 3:00 a.m. on November 4. The truth or falsity of that assumption is the key to his analysis. I don't see you, or anyone else, trying to defend his assumption. And I didn't see any need to hang around to see whether you would refute it, because I knew it couldn't be refuted. It is objectively false.



"Some of the best statisticians out there" -- really? Name one. This guy is not even a statistician, much less one of the best out there -- he is an economist. Every attempt I've seen to debunk the election using statistics or other math techniques (this one, Benford's law, swing-vote scatterplots) has been posted by someone with expertise other than the area they are talking about. And it has all been refuted by people who actually are experts.



As I predicted... I guess SCOTUS must be corrupted, too.
Click to expand...


As of yet, @Garmel 's only defense of the affidavits has been "they are experts" thus are unquestionable, despite them actually putting either their assumptions or in most cases presumptions used to form their analysis or conspiracy theories. He has yet to respond to both Fox and Newsmax now fact-checking their own prior claims admitting their is no evidence that voting machines were corrupted nor widespread voter fraud.
 
Here is a good interview with Matthew Masterson, Christopher Krebs' deputy at CISA. Masterson recently left CISA for the private sector but prior to joining that agency was a Republican election official and a member of the Federal Election Commission.

A few excerpts from the interview.

Masterson believes, on the contrary, that the 2020 vote was "as smooth a presidential election as I've ever seen." He noted recent improvements in election security and transparency, including expanded use of paper ballots and audits, as well as streaming live video of vote counts.

"Yet we're still beating back disinformation and claims of technical manipulation that just simply aren't true," he said. "So we've got to continue to explore how to offer voters more and more evidence, in a transparent fashion, to reassure them that their vote was counted as cast."
Click to expand...

What other concerns do you have about the 2020 election?

The environment in which election officials are now in, where they're receiving death threats for simply doing their job, where they're being targeted, is disgusting and vile but, on top of that, not sustainable.

I worry a lot about our ability to retain election officials. A lot of these folks are considering retirement. And so whatever we can do moving forward to embrace these officials, to support them, whether that means monetarily, or more services from CISA, or just standing with them and saying, 'You did a really good job in the midst of a pandemic to serve your voters in what was a high turnout election. And you deserve to be saluted for that instead of threatened.'

It angers me to no end because they deserve better than this. Instead, they're having to beat back insane conspiracy theories. It's wrong and incredibly detrimental to our election process.
Click to expand...
 
NJlonghorn said:
xperts.



As I predicted... I guess SCOTUS must be corrupted, too.
Click to expand...

Look at his points at 30-34 in his summary and particularly 31. "Start with Data from two different years..." Now, I have been reading from professionals that don't like his data so I will keep an open mind on the astronomical odds. However, it doesn't change the fact that we did see 150k- 5k type spreads in favor of Biden in the middle of the night.

Many statisticians are not math majors. The doctor here has done a lot of statistician work in the past so I would consider him to be one.

Stat guys that support fraud and Dominion data switching and have written statemnts for Trumps' team:

1) Dr. Navid Keshavarz-Nia- Check out this guy. He's one of the most renowned cyber crime experts in America.

2) Dr Shiva Ayyaadurai- MIT Professor
.
3) Philip Waldron (US Army-Retired) served over 30 years as a U.S. Military Intelligence Officer

Now, I have a job for you. Show me a stat guy that defends what we saw on November 3rd.

NJlonghorn said:
As I predicted... I guess SCOTUS must be corrupted, too.
Click to expand...

This was ruled due to no standing (which I understand) and nothing to do with stats.

I will thank you for actually interacting with me instead of the childish garbage that you were pulling.
 
Last edited:
Seattle Husker said:
As of yet, @Garmel 's only defense of the affidavits has been "they are experts" thus are unquestionable, despite them actually putting either their assumptions or in most cases presumptions used to form their analysis or conspiracy theories. He has yet to respond to both Fox and Newsmax now fact-checking their own prior claims admitting their is no evidence that voting machines were corrupted nor widespread voter fraud.
Click to expand...

I'll ask you to quit calling me out. I've had you blocked since the " I didn't say fraud" fiasco and I don't care about interacting with you. These statements don't show or prove anything except they don't want to be sued. Lin Wood wrote a nasty letter to Smartmatic. Does this prove anything? Smartmatic in my opinion doesn't have much to stand on. Fox News and Newsmax should have told them to take a hike. Smartmatic was there during the Venezuelan elections. We'll see how the court handles it.

Btw, here's Wood's letter:


Eps6acEXEAMvInY
 
Garmel said:
Now, I have a job for you. Show me a stat guy that defends what we saw on November 3rd.
Click to expand...

Please disprove our claims we haven't proved! It's a conspiracy that respectable professional statisticians are lining up to try and disprove a claim that has yet to be proven. In other words, we believe that there is wrongdoing despite the lack of evidence and it's up to you to prove us incorrect. Yes, this is elementary debate.
 
Hardly a conspiracy. MSM and conservative news outlets showed before the election how easy Dominion is to hack. I'm not saying Dominion themselves are doing this.
Waldron was saying he could teach an elementary school kid to hack this system in 12 minutes. I don't know if he's using hyperbole or not but our voting machines are hardly secure.
 
Last edited:
Garmel said:
Hardly a conspiracy. MSM and conservative news outlets showed before the election how easy Dominion is to hack. I'm not saying Dominion themselves are doing this.
Waldron was saying he could teach an elementary school kid to hack this system in 12 minutes. I don't know if he's using hyperbole or not but our voting machines are hardly secure.
Click to expand...

In the Arizona case and in Michigan Waldron wasn't even using his own analysis. His testimony in Michigan was rebutted pretty simply.



Justin Roebuck was an election official that points out that Waldron is comparing when data was reported and when it was tabulated by the machines to extrapolate that the machines can't process that many votes and claiming fraud.
 
The counting machines are hooked up to the internet. That's just the thing. They claim there is an air gap in order to provide security. But there isn't. It is how vote count manipulation has been demonstrated multiple times. Roebuck is stating the company line, but not the truth of the actual set up.
 
Monahorns said:
The counting machines are hooked up to the internet. That's just the thing. They claim there is an air gap in order to provide security. But there isn't. It is how vote count manipulation has been demonstrated multiple times. Roebuck is stating the company line, but not the truth of the actual set up.
Click to expand...

Is that confirmed? At least at the TCF Center in Detroit that was dispelled.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top