[garygreen]

for real guys trump is about to win the 2020 election. he's winning his court cases. you're just desperate. trust the storm. the plan rises.

[Rama Set]

Tom, I will leave it up to you to try and figure out why the vote totals reported on election night would not be accurate. If you can’t, let me know and I can help you.

That mathematician talking about AZ votes is either an idiot or trying to misrepresent the truth. He says that the increase in votes from 1998 to 2020 outstripped the population growth. He then goes on to assert that this must mean that the entire increase in votes should be attributed to the population added. This is obviously false because only 48% of voters voted in 1998. So 52% of the existing 1998 population could have voted in 2020. This is a terrible failure.

No one has ever disputed that instances of fraud have occured. There have been multiple instances committed by both Biden and Trump voters. So what? What we are talking about is overturning a certified result. That cannot be done with a few small instances, only widespread fraud. This is all evident.

Similarly, Tom shifting the goal posts from election audits to machine audits is obviously missing the point. Regardless of what you think may have happened with machine voting in Antrim county, a recount of hand marked ballots matched the certified results, which matched the canvass. There hasn’t been any evidence of tampering with tens of thousands of hand marked ballots just bawwing about machines in an audit that appears to be sketchy at best. That isn’t evidence of election fraud. Fraud being plausible still isn’t the same as fraud being probable.

This is wrong.

You have no clue.

Fraud is targeted and abetted.

Your word salad doesn’t matter. Unless evidence of fraud encompassing tens of thousands of votes is found the election result will stand unless, as Pete says, it can be tied directly to Biden’s campaign in which case he may be forced to resign.

[Dr Van Nostrand]

Arizona is not over yet.

Quit writing as if the concept of help is something with which you are familiar.

Lol, even if this weren’t completely delusional and objectively false it would have any effect on the election.

Arizona isn't over yet.

Arizona was John McCain's State and he was loved there. But Trump shit all over him just like he shit all over all the military heroes who sacrificed to give you your life style. Trump lost Arizona.


But you seem to know so much, why don't you tell us when it will be over. If it is not over yet, when will it be?  Will you still be wailing like this four years from now? Just give us a time frame.  I'm sure your good buddy Vladimir Putin will have answers for you.

[Tom Bishop]

That mathematician talking about AZ votes is either an idiot or trying to misrepresent the truth.

I just see some anonymous leftist on an internet forum with no known credentials calling a mathematician an idiot who doesn't know what he's doing. Compelling.

Let me know when you have a qualified source which can rebut it. Your personal opinion is garbage and lacks qualification.

[Iceman]

That mathematician talking about AZ votes is either an idiot or trying to misrepresent the truth.

I just see some person on an internet forum with no known credentials calling a mathematician an idiot and who doesn't know what he's doing. Compelling.

Let me know when you have a qualified source which can rebut it. Your personal opinion is garbage and lacks qualification.

Not to drive things too far off topic, but with that critique, you are giving everyone carte blanche to ignore any wiki entry that isnt supported by qualified sources. Many pages contain numerous sources that are well cited, laid out and accessible. Many do not.

[Rama Set]

That mathematician talking about AZ votes is either an idiot or trying to misrepresent the truth.

I just see some anonymous leftist on an internet forum with no known credentials calling a mathematician an idiot who doesn't know what he's doing. Compelling.

If a mathematician claims that 1+1=3 I don't' have to be a mathematician to refute it.  I gave a substantive response, too bad you can't provide the same other than link gore and gish gallop.

Did you figure out why voting numbers from Nov 3 in PA aren't accurate yet?

Let me know when you have a qualified source which can rebut it. Your personal opinion is garbage and lacks qualification.

Its not an opinion.  I addressed what he said substantively.

[Tom Bishop]

That mathematician talking about AZ votes is either an idiot or trying to misrepresent the truth.

I just see some anonymous leftist on an internet forum with no known credentials calling a mathematician an idiot who doesn't know what he's doing. Compelling.

If a mathematician claims that 1+1=3 I don't' have to be a mathematician to refute it.

You are simply not qualified to refute the proofs of a mathematician. Sorry.

[Rama Set]

You are simply not qualified to refute the proofs of a mathematician. Sorry.

Good thing I haven't done that.  I have pointed how nonsensical his factual assertions are.  Have you figured out why the PA voting data from Nov. 3 isn't accurate yet?  Can I help you with that?  Or do you want to let that drop?

[Iceman]

Tom is willing to discount almost any mathematician out there...unless they're coming up with equations for a Trump victory in 2020

[Tom Bishop]

You are simply not qualified to refute the proofs of a mathematician. Sorry.

Good thing I haven't done that.  I have pointed how nonsensical his factual assertions are.  Have you figured out why the PA voting data from Nov. 3 isn't accurate yet?  Can I help you with that?  Or do you want to let that drop?

You are not qualified. Please find an appropriate source to rebut the content.

Tom is willing to discount almost any mathematician out there...unless they're coming up with equations for a Trump victory in 2020

I've asked to see positive statistical evidence which supports Biden's win plenty of times here.

For some reason you guys just keep trying to justify anomalies rather than simply showing strong positive evidence supporting Biden.

[stack]

You are simply not qualified to refute the proofs of a mathematician. Sorry.

Good thing I haven't done that.  I have pointed how nonsensical his factual assertions are.  Have you figured out why the PA voting data from Nov. 3 isn't accurate yet?  Can I help you with that?  Or do you want to let that drop?

You are not qualified. Please find an appropriate source to rebut the content.

I'm not sure what qualifies as being qualified, but your "mathematician", Bobby Piton, according to his bio at his company site, is a self taught "scientist" and "mathematician". He said he's read a lot of books about science and math.

In an interview with Anna Kaight(sp) (You know, the Survivor contestant of the terrabytes of treasonous data and the Falconer fame, that Anna) Piton starts talking about how the actual Census data is wrong after he had done his "calculations". I find that bizarre - Saying Census data is wrong so he runs off with his own extrapolated numbers? In any case, his math qualifications seem to be him just saying he knows Excel pretty well. If that's all you need to consider someone a learned expert in a field, well I guess that says a lot right there.

Tom is willing to discount almost any mathematician out there...unless they're coming up with equations for a Trump victory in 2020

I've asked to see positive statistical evidence which supports Biden's win plenty of times here.

For some reason you guys just keep trying to justify anomalies rather than simply showing strong positive evidence supporting Biden.

We've been over this - Positive statistical evidence is that Biden won the popular vote and the electoral college. You know, votes counted. That's all there is to it. That's statistically and historically how presidents get elected, by the number of votes received. I mean statistically we had never had a black president until Obama. Should he have been rejected as President based upon your "positive statistical evidence" theory?

[garygreen]

i have stone-cold proof that biden won the election: all the ballots were counted, and biden had more ballots cast for him. we have this whole process set up where we count the actual ballots instead of trying to guess at who won. peep some episodes of school house rock, they go through the whole thing.

super weird how turnip's doj didn't bring a single fraud case to criminal term. and then went on record saying that the election was secure and the results legitimate. since i don't have a law degree, i'm obviously not in a position to question the veracity of those claims. what do i know? i'm just some dude on the internet. gotta trust the experts.

[Tom Bishop]

I'm not sure what qualifies as being qualified, but your "mathematician", Bobby Piton, according to his bio at his company site, is a self taught "scientist" and "mathematician". He said he's read a lot of books about science and math.

Wrong. He has degrees in Finance, Business and is a CFA -
https://www.preactiveinvestments.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ADV-2B-Robert-Pinton.pdf

https://www.preactiveinvestments.com/team/

CFA is a qualification relating to mathematical analysis -

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartered_Financial_Analyst

The Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) program is a postgraduate professional certification offered internationally by the American-based CFA Institute (formerly the Association for Investment Management and Research, or AIMR) to investment and financial professionals. It has the highest level of global legal and regulatory recognition of finance-related qualifications. The program teaches a considerably wide range of subjects relating to advanced investment analysis, security analysis, statistics, probability theory, fixed income, derivatives, economics, financial analysis, corporate finance, alternative investments, and portfolio management, and provides a generalist knowledge of other areas of finance.

We've been over this - Positive statistical evidence is that Biden won the popular vote and the electoral college. You know, votes counted. That's all there is to it. That's statistically and historically how presidents get elected, by the number of votes received. I mean statistically we had never had a black president until Obama. Should he have been rejected as President based upon your "positive statistical evidence" theory?

You need to show supporting evidence showing that Biden got more votes, not just say that Biden got more votes. That is a poor level of supporting evidence.

[stack]

I'm not sure what qualifies as being qualified, but your "mathematician", Bobby Piton, according to his bio at his company site, is a self taught "scientist" and "mathematician". He said he's read a lot of books about science and math.

Wrong. He has degrees in Finance, Business and is a CFA -
https://www.preactiveinvestments.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ADV-2B-Robert-Pinton.pdf

https://www.preactiveinvestments.com/team/

CFA is a qualification relating to mathematical analysis -

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chartered_Financial_Analyst

The Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) program is a postgraduate professional certification offered internationally by the American-based CFA Institute (formerly the Association for Investment Management and Research, or AIMR) to investment and financial professionals. It has the highest level of global legal and regulatory recognition of finance-related qualifications. The program teaches a considerably wide range of subjects relating to advanced investment analysis, security analysis, statistics, probability theory, fixed income, derivatives, economics, financial analysis, corporate finance, alternative investments, and portfolio management, and provides a generalist knowledge of other areas of finance.

I know a handful of CFA's. None would call themselves "mathematicians". But hey, whatever standard of expertise you feel makes someone an expert is your opinion. Still doesn't matter as to the outcome of the election.

We've been over this - Positive statistical evidence is that Biden won the popular vote and the electoral college. You know, votes counted. That's all there is to it. That's statistically and historically how presidents get elected, by the number of votes received. I mean statistically we had never had a black president until Obama. Should he have been rejected as President based upon your "positive statistical evidence" theory?

You need to show supporting evidence showing that Biden got more votes, not just say that Biden got more votes. That is a poor level of supporting evidence.

Here, supporting evidence:

[AATW]

You are simply not qualified to refute the proofs of a mathematician. Sorry.

But you believe yourself to be qualified to refute the proofs of centuries of scientists?
It’s interesting how you think appeal to authority is only valid when the authority is saying what you want to hear.

Rama hasn’t just said “nuh uh”, he has explained why the mathematician’s reasoning is flawed. Just like I and others did with the “one in a quadrillion” nonsense. In both cases the people doing the “analysis” started with a false premise. If you do that then you’re going to get the wrong conclusion.

Your only response is “but he’s a mathematician” rather than dealing with the actual argument. It’s interesting that you don’t seem to care about the qualifications of the 60 judges who laughed the cases out of court...

[AATW]

You need to show supporting evidence showing that Biden got more votes, not just say that Biden got more votes.

It's not us saying he got more votes. It's the election officials in the states who are saying that.
Every court case alleging fraud has been laughed out of court.
Bill Barr said there was no evidence of widespread fraud.
The head of cyber security said the same.
Every recount and audit has reaffirmed the original results.
The results in every state were certified. The electoral college voted. Joe Biden is in the White House.
There's the supporting evidence.

And if you don't believe any of that then how about this dude, saying how secure the election was:

"They are saying what a wonderful job the Trump administration did in making 2020 the most secure election ever. Actually this is true"
- Donald J. Trump.

 

[Rama Set]

More allegations of election fraud:

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/georgia-secretary-of-states-office-investigating-whether-pro-trump-lawyer-lin-wood-broke-the-law-by-voting-in-2020-election/?utm_source=mostpopular

[garygreen]

You need to show supporting evidence showing that Biden got more votes, not just say that Biden got more votes. That is a poor level of supporting evidence.

you are simply not qualified to refute the proofs of doj lawyers and election officials. sorry.

[Tom Bishop]

You need to show supporting evidence showing that Biden got more votes, not just say that Biden got more votes. That is a poor level of supporting evidence.

you are simply not qualified to refute the proofs of doj lawyers and election officials. sorry.

What proof did they present that the votes were legitimate?

I have been asking for, and am still waiting for, compelling supporting evidence that Joe Biden was legitimately elected. So far the evidence here has been arguments that rediculous anomalies are possible and that "Joe Biden got more votes". Pretty poor.

You need to show supporting evidence showing that Biden got more votes, not just say that Biden got more votes.

It's not us saying he got more votes. It's the election officials in the states who are saying that.
Every court case alleging fraud has been laughed out of court.

Already discussed at length and shown to be false. You are unable to show that the bulk of the cases were dismissed on merit

And someone claiming that they didn't see fraud isn't positive evidence that the election was legitimate. I also have quotes from at least a dozen government officials questioning the discrepancies and claiming fraud.

You have no positive evidence to present, as you continue to argue from a desperate position.

[Rama Set]

You need to show supporting evidence showing that Biden got more votes, not just say that Biden got more votes. That is a poor level of supporting evidence.

you are simply not qualified to refute the proofs of doj lawyers and election officials. sorry.

What proof did they present that the votes were legitimate?

Audits of votes have all upheld the certified results.

I have been asking for, and am still waiting for, compelling supporting evidence that Joe Biden was legitimately elected. So far the evidence here has been arguments that rediculous anomalies are possible and that "Joe Biden got more votes". Pretty poor.

What compels you is your own business. If you aren’t convinced that getting more votes is a compelling argument Biden won, you’re an idiot or a troll. You pick.

Already discussed at length and shown to be false. You are unable to show that the bulk of the cases were dismissed on merit

The ones that weren’t dismissed on merit were dismissed because they weren’t coherent from a legal standpoint. How does that help you?