2020 U.S. Presidential Election - Took place November 3, 2020. Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden assumed office January 20, 2021.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gehenna said:
It is, in fact, the magic number. We base our elections on a MAJORITY not a PLURALITY.

Legally, if no one gets 270, it goes to congress.

Look up the 1824 election, it's happened.
Click to expand...
Okay, I admit defeat. Looks like it was part of the 12th Amendment rewrite, and I wasn't as well versed on that one as I believed.
 
  • Feels
  • Informative
Reactions: Shield Breaker, EmuWarsVeteran, ChikN10der and 3 others
Gehenna said:
Less black pill than you think. Kavanaugh's support hinged on one thing, and one thing only. The board of elections changed the rule, and the legislature said "no". Kavanaugh sided with the legislature, saying it is their constitutional power alone.
Click to expand...
Kavanaugh gonna "Be a Hero" , in the upcoming weeks. Vote "Yes" for the GEOTUS....hehe. I can see Justice Thomas whispering in Kav's ear, "Time to be a hero Kegger Kav".
 
  • Optimistic
  • Autistic
  • Horrifying
Reactions: AnitaSarsleezian, Pocket Dragoon, verissimus and 4 others
There'll be another time said:
If they actually did that it's an absolutely fucking retarded play.
Click to expand...
Unless they want to be able to take the L in PA without destroying their rigged election set up and try to hide out until 2022. I think they are hoping trump takes the electors and is too busy to look into the actual machine that enabled this to happen.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Agree
Reactions: MidUSA, PureP, spiritofamermaid and 3 others
Nahash said:
Unless they want to be able to take the L in PA without destroying their rigged election set up and try to hide out until 2022. I think they are hoping trump takes the electors and is too busy to look into the actual machine that enabled this to happen.
Click to expand...
Are they relying on him still losing? Because if he hits 270, he's got four years to sic the Barr-led DoJ on them.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Fek, Shield Breaker, iRON-mAn and 2 others
Haven't seen any proof Philadelphia county destroyed ballot envelopes

Hard to believe, Trump would have a clear legal avenue to argue that large amounts of votes should be thrown out then. Coupled with the other issues it could be enough spoliation to mean armageddon for Joe Presidente in PA
 
  • Like
Reactions: Parthenos, FreeYourDoodies, JohnDoe and 10 others
Corn Flakes said:
Nothing against the guy's analysis but I'm pretty sure we're past Benford's law already.

Particularly when it comes to that subject, I think people really should keep in mind the difference between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. Benford's law is at most cirucmstantial evidence. It's an indirect indication that something may have happened. If someone walks into a building with a wet umbrella and wet shoes, you could postulate that it's raining outside and be reasonably certain of it, but until you look outside or the person tells you that it's raining outside (which would be direct evidence), all you have is circumstantial evidence.

Benford's law is a statistical thing. It can be used to justify an investigation, but if the investigation finds no evidence of wrongdoing then the statistical anomaly was just that: an anomaly. It's like saying "90% of buildings are built according to code". That's a perfectly fine assessment. But you can only know for certain whether an individual building was built up to code if you sent an inspector to check it.
Click to expand...
Currently, we have a wet man inside, some leaks in the ceiling and 1000+ people saying its raining while they're keeping us from going outside and blocking the windows.
 
  • Like
  • Winner
  • Agree
Reactions: The Notorious RGB, MarvinTheParanoidAndroid, MidUSA and 9 others
Haven't opened this thread in 2 weeks, what the fuck is going on? Is trump gonna win or is biden going to fuck America for 4 years?
 
Zero Day Defense said:
Actually, he's referring to the paper proper-- from his comment in the comment section:
View attachment 1724395
Click to expand...
Then he probably should have quoted that, rather than a semi-literate wikipedia article, it's sloppy at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. That quote does not appear in the linked paper.

download.gif


Edit:
While that doesn't disqualify his analysis wholesale, at this point I'm skeptical of those who try and discredit a single data point. given the sheer volume of data available; skeptical rather than disbelieving though.

Zero Day Defense said:
I agree that in general, this is something that would be used as circumstantial evidence, and in particular, the very first thing to tip off an investigation in the first place.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. It's more like supporting evidence or probable cause than anything directly indicating shenanigans.
 
Last edited:
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, FriedPickles and Zero Day Defense
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back