*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6760 on: November 11, 2020, 01:25:09 AM »
Quote
Tom, have you considered that you may have DDS (the irrational belief that everything the Democrats say or do is a malicious lie?) I honestly think that's more likely than me having TDS; after all, I have on some occasions actually come to Trump's defense over things the mainstream media has said, which indicates at least a partial lack of bias; can you point to an instance when you've similarly defended the Democratic Party (or one of its members) against things that Rush/Faux News/Breitbart has said about them?

Your sample is biased. There is mainly only one Trump attack thread on this forum, populated mostly by people who hate Trump. There's isn't a Bernie Sanders attack thread.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
Oh well, that's interesting. Suddenly you care about people's qualifications? You don't pay much heed to that when it comes to the shape of the earth and people with science degrees...

Actually the Wiki is filled with references from people with science degrees.
You mean cherry picked quotes which deliberately misrepresent their views.

So the Wiki does value people with qualifications then. You had to deflect and try to talk about something else. Looks like a forfeit.

Quote
Funny how with all the 'rampant voter fraud' out there, that Donnie only wants recounts in a couple states. Surely if it was so pervasive he, and all concerned parties, would want to expunge any and all fraudulent ballots out there... something doesn't quiiiite add up with the red flags they're raising



« Last Edit: November 11, 2020, 02:00:52 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4183
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6761 on: November 11, 2020, 01:50:32 AM »
Quote
Tom, have you considered that you may have DDS (the irrational belief that everything the Democrats say or do is a malicious lie?) I honestly think that's more likely than me having TDS; after all, I have on some occasions actually come to Trump's defense over things the mainstream media has said, which indicates at least a partial lack of bias; can you point to an instance when you've similarly defended the Democratic Party (or one of its members) against things that Rush/Faux News/Breitbart has said about them?

Your sample is biased. There is mainly only one Trump attack thread on this forum, populated mostly by people who hate Trump. There's isn't a Bernie Sanders attack thread.

So "no", then.
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6762 on: November 11, 2020, 02:07:55 AM »
Quote
Tom, have you considered that you may have DDS (the irrational belief that everything the Democrats say or do is a malicious lie?) I honestly think that's more likely than me having TDS; after all, I have on some occasions actually come to Trump's defense over things the mainstream media has said, which indicates at least a partial lack of bias; can you point to an instance when you've similarly defended the Democratic Party (or one of its members) against things that Rush/Faux News/Breitbart has said about them?

Your sample is biased. There is mainly only one Trump attack thread on this forum, populated mostly by people who hate Trump. There's isn't a Bernie Sanders attack thread.

So "no", then.

Yep. People rarely say anything bad about Bernie Sanders here. So there wouldn't be a chance to correct any errors. Again, biased sample. We mainly have a mix of foreigners and leftists who want to attack Trump on an internet forum.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4183
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6763 on: November 11, 2020, 02:20:51 AM »
Quote
Tom, have you considered that you may have DDS (the irrational belief that everything the Democrats say or do is a malicious lie?) I honestly think that's more likely than me having TDS; after all, I have on some occasions actually come to Trump's defense over things the mainstream media has said, which indicates at least a partial lack of bias; can you point to an instance when you've similarly defended the Democratic Party (or one of its members) against things that Rush/Faux News/Breitbart has said about them?

Your sample is biased. There is mainly only one Trump attack thread on this forum, populated mostly by people who hate Trump. There's isn't a Bernie Sanders attack thread.

So "no", then.

Yep. People rarely say anything bad about Bernie Sanders here.

Incorrect. There have been whole threads about Bernie, and whole threads about Biden, and whole threads about Obama, and a slew of threads about politics in general here, and there have been arguments from both sides, including often from you yourself.

Quote
So there wouldn't be a chance to correct any errors. Again, biased sample. We mainly have a mix of foreigners and leftists who want to attack Trump on an internet forum.

I'll tell you what. You've had a lot to say about politics in the 15 years or so that you've been associated with these forums. I'll even let you draw from your posts on theflatearthsociety.org.

If you can't provide any instances at all I'm going to just have to conclude that you have a hopeless case of DDS.
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6764 on: November 11, 2020, 02:52:15 AM »
We don't have a 339 page thread about Bernie here, so there aren't many claims being made. What false claim am I supposed to correct? Why don't you go through the forum history and show us these large amount of false claims being made about other politicians.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4183
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6765 on: November 11, 2020, 03:09:09 AM »
We don't have a 339 page thread about Bernie here, so there aren't many claims being made. What false claim am I supposed to correct? Why don't you go through the forum history and show us these large amount of false claims being made about other politicians.

That's what I thought. Hopeless DDS.  :(
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6766 on: November 11, 2020, 06:49:50 AM »
Trump couldn't find 3 million cases of voter fraud he swore happened in 2016.
Trump couldn't charge Hillary Clinton or Obama with any crime despire knowing they were so guilty in such an obvious way that she should be immediately locked up.

I'm seriously not worried.

Now go be a good Trumper and disinfect yourself from the inside.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6767 on: November 11, 2020, 08:02:59 AM »
So the Wiki does value people with qualifications then.

No. Simply quoting someone isn’t valuing them. I quote you in my sig. I’ve picked a quote which shows you up, that isn’t me valuing you.
Cherry picking quotes from people out of context to make it look like they’re saying something you want them to say when they’re actually saying the reverse isn’t valuing them, it’s the opposite. I’ve been through an example about gravity where you conveniently ignore the parts of the paper where he talks about the earth as a spherical planet which orbits the sun like other planets do.

Quote
You had to deflect and try to talk about something else. Looks like a forfeit.

That’s ironic when you have spent the last page deflecting questions about your DDS.
But this dude shows why the pattern of voting doesn’t follow Benford’s Law



Sorry, dude, but your boy lost and he lost bigly.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2020, 11:40:27 AM by AllAroundTheWorld »
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6768 on: November 11, 2020, 08:29:04 AM »
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline Snupes

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1957
  • Counting wolves in your paranoiac intervals
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6769 on: November 11, 2020, 12:06:12 PM »
But this dude shows why the pattern of voting doesn’t follow Benford’s Law

Damn it, you beat me to calling out the braindead use of Benford's Law. Ran here as soon as I read Tom's link. The fact that these people keep trying to apply it to a very deliberate and roughly uniform division of people makes me uncertain if they're deliberately misleading or just stupid.
There are cigarettes in joints. You don't smoke it by itself.

Rama Set

Re: Trump
« Reply #6770 on: November 11, 2020, 12:34:55 PM »
Nope. That's like saying that the opinions or rulings of the Supreme Court are invalid because DT appointed three of them. That's not how it works.

He's the FEC Chair, which means this is a bad thing for you.

The FEC oversees financing of presidential elections; his opinion is irrelevant to how this plays out, regardless of who appointed him.

But keep chasing that Chimera, Tom, lol.

What? No one said that he was a judge making court decisions on this. The Chair of the FEC announcing that he suspects voter fraud is not a good thing for you. It's a bad thing.

It actually has no consequences because regardless of what he thinks the Trump campaign will have to convince a court.  So far, every Trump lawsuit has failed to prove any fraud and/or irregularities in court sufficient to show Biden is not the winner of the election.

*

Offline Iceman

  • *
  • Posts: 1825
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6771 on: November 11, 2020, 01:51:15 PM »
Trumpers point to a handful of accusations of mail-in ballot fraud - several of which have been proven to be lies (like the recent key USPS worker who just admitted he made the claim up) - but are perfectly fine with the actual and systematic efforts by trump and cronies to weaken and slow the USPS in the lead-up to the election.

They are challenging the authenticity of the results where biden won the presidency, even though those SAME BALLOTS are the ones that re-elected Republicans to the Senate.

Hypocrisy sounds like so much fun!

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6772 on: November 11, 2020, 01:57:36 PM »
Benford's law is admissible in court as a valid method of detecting election fraud. No amount of internet commentary will show that it is invalid.

Both Trump and the libertarian candidate votes in various counties follow the law. Biden's votes do not follow the law in many of the anomalous counties. In Florida's Miami-Dade county where Biden lost big his votes do follow the law, however.

*

Offline Iceman

  • *
  • Posts: 1825
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6773 on: November 11, 2020, 02:05:14 PM »
Reuters, and all the academics they consulted, appears to disagree with that sentiment

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN27Q3AI


Rama Set

Re: Trump
« Reply #6774 on: November 11, 2020, 02:07:41 PM »
Benford's law is admissible in court as a valid method of detecting election fraud. No amount of internet commentary will show that it is invalid.

Both Trump and the libertarian candidate votes in various counties follow the law. Biden's votes do not follow the law in many of the anomalous counties. In Florida's Miami-Dade county where Biden lost big his votes do follow the law, however.

What about the counties where Trump won and there are anomalous results?  In the analysis you posted earlier ("flipping a coin 100 times") one Trump county had 115% voter registration?  Obviously the Trump campaign doesn't give a shit about that because they aren't pursuing truth or justice, they are pursuing a second term.  Anyway, they still haven't anything approaching evidence strong enough to over turn the result and have actually shown some incompetence in litigating these cases.  A federal judge strongly admonished a Trump lawyer when trying to claim the GOP didn't have challengers observing ballot counting; a claim the lawyer instantly contradicted when the judge reminded the lawyer of his ethical duties.  In Michigan, Trump's team failed to file the essential documents needed for an appeal.  The two heads of Trump's legal strategy aren't even lawyers...

This is a good breakdown on Trump's lawsuits up to the publish date of the video and why they failed:


*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6775 on: November 11, 2020, 02:10:18 PM »
Reuters, and all the academics they consulted, appears to disagree with that sentiment

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN27Q3AI

This article appears to mainly be talking about the difference between "proof" and "evidence"

“First, I'd like to stress that Benford's Law can NOT be used to "prove fraud",” he told Reuters by email. “It is only a Red Flag test, that can raise doubts. E.g., the IRS has been using it for decades to ferret out fraudsters, but only by identifying suspicious entries, at which time they put the auditors to work on the hard evidence. Whether or not a dataset follows BL proves nothing.”

Walter Mebane, Professor at the Department of Political Science and Department of Statistics at the University of Michigan (here) authored a December 2006 article (here) around the application of Benford’s Law to the US presidential election results. The article suggested some limitations of the process, but said in the Abstract: “The test is worth taking seriously as a statistical test for election fraud."

*

Offline Iceman

  • *
  • Posts: 1825
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6776 on: November 11, 2020, 02:12:28 PM »
Reuters, and all the academics they consulted, appears to disagree with that sentiment

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN27Q3AI

IThe article appears to just be talking about the difference between "proof" and "evidence"

“First, I'd like to stress that Benford's Law can NOT be used to "prove fraud",” he told Reuters by email. “It is only a Red Flag test, that can raise doubts. E.g., the IRS has been using it for decades to ferret out fraudsters, but only by identifying suspicious entries, at which time they put the auditors to work on the hard evidence. Whether or not a dataset follows BL proves nothing.”

Walter Mebane, Professor at the Department of Political Science and Department of Statistics at the University of Michigan (here) authored a December 2006 article (here) around the application of Benford’s Law to the US presidential election results. The article suggested some limitations of the process, but said in the Abstract: “The test is worth taking seriously as a statistical test for election fraud."

Do you have a special search algorithm that can detect the only phrases in an article that can be manipulated to support your preconceptions?  Did you read any of the other paragraphs? The rest of amebanes quotes? The excerpts from the paper he published about the 2020 results?

"On Nov. 9, 2020, in response to “several queries” Mebane published a paper called “Inappropriate Applications of Benford’s Law Regularities to Some Data from the 2020 Presidential Election in the United States” (www-personal.umich.edu/~wmebane/inapB.pdf). His paper says, “The displays shown at those sources using the first digits of precinct vote counts data from Fulton County, GA, Allegheny County, PA, Milwaukee, WI, and Chicago, IL, say nothing about possible frauds” before examining the reasons behind this statement."
« Last Edit: November 11, 2020, 02:14:15 PM by Iceman2020 »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6777 on: November 11, 2020, 02:29:25 PM »
Reuters, and all the academics they consulted, appears to disagree with that sentiment

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN27Q3AI

IThe article appears to just be talking about the difference between "proof" and "evidence"

“First, I'd like to stress that Benford's Law can NOT be used to "prove fraud",” he told Reuters by email. “It is only a Red Flag test, that can raise doubts. E.g., the IRS has been using it for decades to ferret out fraudsters, but only by identifying suspicious entries, at which time they put the auditors to work on the hard evidence. Whether or not a dataset follows BL proves nothing.”

Walter Mebane, Professor at the Department of Political Science and Department of Statistics at the University of Michigan (here) authored a December 2006 article (here) around the application of Benford’s Law to the US presidential election results. The article suggested some limitations of the process, but said in the Abstract: “The test is worth taking seriously as a statistical test for election fraud."

Do you have a special search algorithm that can detect the only phrases in an article that can be manipulated to support your preconceptions?  Did you read any of the other paragraphs? The rest of amebanes quotes? The excerpts from the paper he published about the 2020 results?

"On Nov. 9, 2020, in response to “several queries” Mebane published a paper called “Inappropriate Applications of Benford’s Law Regularities to Some Data from the 2020 Presidential Election in the United States” (www-personal.umich.edu/~wmebane/inapB.pdf). His paper says, “The displays shown at those sources using the first digits of precinct vote counts data from Fulton County, GA, Allegheny County, PA, Milwaukee, WI, and Chicago, IL, say nothing about possible frauds” before examining the reasons behind this statement."

The article admits that Bedford's law is a valid way of collecting evidence for voter fraud.

This is one of those Snopes: Fact Check False articles which builds a strawman and debunks it. It even ends with their "verdict".

"Someone said it was proof! Not proof, it's only evidence!!"

"This method of doing it I saw on the internet may be incorrect, but it's otherwise a valid method of collecting evidence for voter fraud"

Can you see how absurd this sounds? Why not just show that Biden's votes follow the law and that there are no anomalies.

*

Offline GreatATuin

  • *
  • Posts: 310
  • It's turtles all the way down
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6778 on: November 11, 2020, 02:31:58 PM »
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/georgia-mcconnell-trump-senate/2020/11/10/76bb80d6-2389-11eb-8672-c281c7a2c96e_story.html

Trump lost. He (probably) knows it, most likely everyone in the GOP knows it. But they need to keep the voters mobilized for the most important fight to come: Georgia's Senate runoff elections.

BTW, with a 5 million difference in the popular vote, there isn't a single other country in the world where this would be a "disputed" election.

Still, for some unfathomable reasons, both sides seem to believe the american democracy is the best thing ever, and the envy of the world. Go figure.
Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

you guys just read what you want to read

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6779 on: November 11, 2020, 02:36:44 PM »
Benford's law is admissible in court as a valid method of detecting election fraud. No amount of internet commentary will show that it is invalid.
By "internet commentary" do you mean "math"?
(I left the 's' off, just for you. No need to thank me)
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"