- Joined
- Aug 16, 2020
This hadn't crossed my mind but you're right. Who needs fiction anymore?Trump is now a martyr.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This hadn't crossed my mind but you're right. Who needs fiction anymore?Trump is now a martyr.
Probably they will just keep governing by proxy as they have done for nearly 5 years now. The reason people actually started to notice is because the stranglehold became tighter and therefore more intrusive.And the question is how long before the CCP gets more direct with things.
Huh really you sure about that?Trump is now a martyr.
Lol that you Trump cultists are still assmad about losing and clinging to your conspiracy theories. Yes, everyone is lying to you except the career grifter who has made $300 million in "donations" to "fight the fraud". You got conned by a boomer conman and you are not only in denial, but doubling down.That would be very unfortunate, maybe we can have Big Mike count, tabulate and adjudicate the electoral votes using certified Dominion equipment to avoid any possible disputes. Legal troubles could be avoided as we have precedent from every court in the land certifying nobody has any standing ever when it comes to disputing Dominion tallied votes.
To answer your question, they could know about data analytics.What would a PhD in computer science know about election data? And what does he say that couldn't also apply to other elections? Your conman lost. Get over it, snowflake
The states would take him to court and say that wasn't what their designated electorals voted and Pence would be in deep, deep legal shit
There is a huge flaw with the study. The problem with using "data analysis" for examining the election results is that any idiot can say they're a data scientist and cherry pick some ratios and apply them and say they are wrong. In fact, the author of that "study" is Peter Navarro, a huge Trump cultist in his own right (he even works for Trump) and he is an economist, not a "Data scientist". Trump was very, very unpopular in bigger cities (like Atlanta and Philly). That is where the majority of voters are, too. Data analysis implies that the data is rational and predictable; election results and people's behavior is not.To answer your question, they could know about data analytics.
For those insisting that Trump lost, such as yourself, what are your thoughts about statistical analysis that would appear to indicate abnormalities, such as this analysis that was posted elsewhere:
https://www.scribd.com/document/484579782/PA-2020-Voter-Analysis-Report
Statistical analysis is what scientists use to determine whether or not data supports a hypothesis, so it's quite important. The way I see it there are two likely, possible explanations for these results: There were some kind of major aberrations with the ballots or there is a flaw with the study. What do you think?
It implies analyzing data. This is independent of that report that I'm not going to read, just wanted to acknowledge this was a dumb sentence. Voter data is analyzed virtually nonstop and is big money. Behavioral data is basically its own field.Data analysis implies that the data is rational and predictable; election results and people's behavior is not.
Correct, it's analyzing data, but you can't predict human behavior. That's why you can't predict what will happen in a sporting event.It implies analyzing data. This is independent of that report that I'm not going to read, just wanted to acknowledge this was a dumb sentence. Voter data is analyzed virtually nonstop and is big money. Behavioral data is basically its own field.
Granted Navarro publishing this could lead one to question the credibility, but it looks like a number of PhDs are doing various analyses. With that said I'm not certain if this was peer-reviewed, so you can also take that into account. Also, while I'm not certain, I would imagine there is a good chance that economists often do a decent amount of data analytics, but that may not matter much if Navarro didn't do any of the analysis himself.There is a huge flaw with the study. The problem with using "data analysis" for examining the election results is that any idiot can say they're a data scientist and cherry pick some ratios and apply them and say they are wrong. In fact, the author of that "study" is Peter Navarro, a huge Trump cultist in his own right (he even works for Trump) and he is an economist, not a "Data scientist". Trump was very, very unpopular in bigger cities (like Atlanta and Philly). That is where the majority of voters are, too. Data analysis implies that the data is rational and predictable; election results and people's behavior is not.
It was not peer-reviewed or it'd be laughed at very badly. He cherry-picked it by saying "Trump was leading after day 1, but then the late votes all went to Biden!". That is really, really flawed. Trump told his cult specially to not vote by mail and the state GOP said that they couldn't count early mail-in votes until after election day. Of course the late votes are going to go to Biden. That should be beyond obvious.Granted Navarro publishing this could lead one to question the credibility, but it looks like a number of PhDs are doing various analyses. With that said I'm not certain if this was peer-reviewed, so you can also take that into account. Also, while I'm not certain, I would imagine there is a good chance that economists often do a decent amount of data analytics, but that may not matter much if Navarro didn't do any of the analysis himself.
You said that the data may not be rational, but the first section goes over the likelihood of Biden winning within 1% based on the recorded data, not to mention that data analytics could be used to find patterns, and that social media platforms use data analytics to determine characteristics about their users, (although I'm not certain about the level of reliability). Also, what data is cherry-picked?
None of this voter stuff will be peer reviewed. You can find academics talking about how fucked the peer review process is nowadays but that aside, I don't think people want to deal with getting it peer reviewed when the getting's good.Granted Navarro publishing this could lead one to question the credibility, but it looks like a number of PhDs are doing various analyses. With that said I'm not certain if this was peer-reviewed, so you can also take that into account. Also, while I'm not certain, I would imagine there is a good chance that economists often do a decent amount of data analytics, but that may not matter much if Navarro didn't do any of the analysis himself.
You said that the data may not be rational, but the first section goes over the likelihood of Biden winning within 1% based on the recorded data, not to mention that data analytics could be used to find patterns, and that social media platforms use data analytics to determine characteristics about their users, (although I'm not certain about the level of reliability). Also, what data is cherry-picked?
You keep saying Trump said NOT to vote by mail but I can also recall him saying not only to vote by mail, but to vote in person which itself pissed people off. To be clear, he said if the system works, then only one of your votes will count (whichever is received first) and if it doesn't, then you can bet your in-person vote will count.It was not peer-reviewed or it'd be laughed at very badly. He cherry-picked it by saying "Trump was leading after day 1, but then the late votes all went to Biden!". That is really, really flawed. Trump told his cult specially to not vote by mail and the state GOP said that they couldn't count early mail-in votes until after election day. Of course the late votes are going to go to Biden. That should be beyond obvious.
Here is a great point-by-point debunk and an outline of just a few of the many issues with this "study": https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewal...-navarro-releases-dubious-voter-fraud-report/ And it's by Forbes, who are definitely not pro-Democrat.
To answer your question, they could know about data analytics.
For those insisting that Trump lost, such as yourself, what are your thoughts about statistical analysis that would appear to indicate abnormalities, such as this analysis that was posted elsewhere:
https://www.scribd.com/document/484579782/PA-2020-Voter-Analysis-Report
Statistical analysis is what scientists use to determine whether or not data supports a hypothesis, so it's quite important. The way I see it there are two likely, possible explanations for these results: There were some kind of major aberrations with the ballots or there is a flaw with the study. What do you think?
He said to vote in-person, which means to not vote by mail. He said "voting by mail is not reliable". https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/t...ail-isnt-reliable-what-does-the-evidence-showYou keep saying Trump said NOT to vote by mail but I can also recall him saying not only to vote by mail, but to vote in person which itself pissed people off. To be clear, he said if the system works, then only one of your votes will count (whichever is received first) and if it doesn't, then you can bet your in-person vote will count.
I don't think this link is talking about the study I mentioned; the dates don't seem to match up and the study doesn't look like it mentions the "six dimensions of election irregularities". I feel that Rich Evans Apologist's response is better, since it addresses potential issues with the analysis itself, although I think I still have a question for him regarding that.It was not peer-reviewed or it'd be laughed at very badly. He cherry-picked it by saying "Trump was leading after day 1, but then the late votes all went to Biden!". That is really, really flawed. Trump told his cult specially to not vote by mail and the state GOP said that they couldn't count early mail-in votes until after election day. Of course the late votes are going to go to Biden. That should be beyond obvious.
Here is a great point-by-point debunk and an outline of just a few of the many issues with this "study": https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewal...-navarro-releases-dubious-voter-fraud-report/ And it's by Forbes, who are definitely not pro-Democrat.
You "know I'm mad" because everything I post you seem to interpret as MATI/dumb because you read it some weird way, but you can find him saying to vote by mail as well. It'd be like me running around saying, "I know Trump said to vote twice..." over and over just because I can find him saying that and then use it to back up whatever I want.He said to vote in-person, which means to not vote by mail. He said "voting by mail is not reliable". https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/t...ail-isnt-reliable-what-does-the-evidence-show
I know, you're mad he lost, but he lost fair and square. He's just conning you cultists now on his way out and so far it's worked pretty well considering you're believing a career grifter over every judge in the nation
His own model suggests that Biden should have gotten somewhere under 900k additional votes from his initial deficit in Navarro's data, ~300k more than Biden actually did.
His conclusion is also flawed. It's basically "given the delta of these intervals, rounded up, and completely ignoring the fact of time (IE, late-coming batches of ballots causing very small increments and increments even of 0 getting rounded up to 10k further inflating it), it is very unlikely that he would ONLY get this much, because it is close to Trump."
Item 9 —Vote counts were secured for Wed, Nov 4 and also the final counts. The difference between these counts is the number of mail-in votes. Here we examine the distribution of those votes between problematic and non-problematic PA counties. Many more votes were added to the problematic counties compared to the non-problematic counties.