Insurrection 2021

[Aidan]

Trump is now a martyr.

This hadn't crossed my mind but you're right. Who needs fiction anymore?

 

[All becomes gunt]

And the question is how long before the CCP gets more direct with things.

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.

 

[BlackDragoons]

Trump is now a martyr.

Huh really you sure about that?

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

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.

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.

 

[Quiet Guy]

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

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?

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

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?

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.

He uses the last counted votes (mail-in votes)going towards Biden as evidence. However, PA GOP said they couldn't start counting mail-in votes until after election day and Trump himself told his cult to not vote by mail. Navarro's horribly flawed "study" doesn't even mention this.

 

[Aidan]

Data analysis implies that the data is rational and predictable; election results and people's behavior is not.

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.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

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.

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.

 

[Violent Ken Apologist]

WARRRR!!!

i hope

it'd be funny

 

[Quiet Guy]

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.

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?

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

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?

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.

 

[Aidan]

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.

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 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.

 

[Rich Evans Apologist]

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?

Spoiler: methodology of his first premise

It would take a while to go through the whole thing, and I'm trying to learn some shit I'll wind up actually use. But to look through that first argument, he basically is looking at the differences in vote values between observations for the Biden team (ie, how much it increased each time). He compiles a set of ALLLLLLLLLL the various vote increases, and then adds together random samples of all of these various increments together 10,000 different times by adding together... his 'frequency' breakdown for the number of vote distributions times ninety.

Basically, he does 10,000 runs of taking 90 different values and adding them together from Figure 2, which is measuring the number of increments of the total which fell into the ranges (0-10k, 10k-20k, etc). This completely disregards the individual vote total increments that happened - it instead rounds them, presumably up (IE a vote increase in an interval that -was- 500 is now weighted at 10k). The frequency with which he selects each of the values is based on their frequency in the total, so the 10k one is theoretically likely to be picked 60-some percent of each 'pick' in the set of 90.

Based on those 10,000 runs, he maps out the distribution of sum totals - IE, very few of the runs resulted in just 400k increases for Joe, and very many of them resulted in somewhere slightly below 900k increases. He uses this to conclude that the chance that Joe would land within 1% of Trump's total would be very, very unlikely.

Now, this is a retarded take for many reasons. First off, Joe ultimately beats Trump over this period by somewhere above 574,724 votes. I say 'somewhere above' because this paper doesn't say how much Trump's count increased over the course of it. Adding 541k (his original deficit) and 34k (his finishing margin) doesn't account for trump's own increase.

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.

Spoiler: Why his conclusion on variability is stupid

He basically tries to conclude that by not doing as well as his model says that he should have, this is very suspicious.
Of course, as I said earlier, he would round up an interval of 100 extra votes to 10k extra votes, so that under-900k value is grossly inflated and as such the 'center' of his data is grossly inflated.
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."

But if he fucking LOST to Trump, by this model, it would be EVEN MORE UNLIKELY.
Any value that Biden landed at would in reality be very unlikely because IT'S AN ELECTION. This guy tries to fixate on the fact that he got so close to Trump, which surely must be abnormal! But then, what's normal...?

By this nimrod's metric, Biden's win would have been more "normal" if PA's voter turnout had been even higher. Assuming he'd need that extra 300k to be "normal," that means he'd need a 2% increased turnout of ALL PENNSYLVANIANS (not just VEP) in an election where PA already broke its record for voter turnout.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

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.

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

 

[Quiet Guy]

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.

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.

 

[Aidan]

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

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.
If someone does the same thing with Joe saying anything you'd probably just MATI them over and over and they'd cry irl because some people care about that, but it's just dumb to do this with either candidate since both have said seriously dumb shit throughout their lives.

 

[Rich Evans Apologist]

Trump originally suggested that people shouldn't vote by mail because it was incredibly untrustworthy, and then someone showed him bad polling numbers (old-timers afraid of corona) so he flipped on it and suggested that everyone should either vote by mail or do both.

The democrats had the inversion of the freakout, where they realized they were pushing mail-in voting hard to the point of potentially deterring people who didn't really want to fill out the paperwork or otherwise trust it, so they started flipping and calling for people to go to the polls.

You can broadly correlate which areas voted more in person and which did more by mail by whether they're urban or rural, and that lines up with Trump voters preferring to vote in person and Biden voters preferring to vote via mail.

 

[CWC-in-the-minds]

My condolences, pedophilic Shareblue brethren...

https://i.redd.it/ja86upm7i1961.png

Hope the five people that were attending can dilate the pain away.

 

[Harvey Danger]

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.

You're misreading the premise.

Spoiler: More numbers wankery

His model says that if Biden won some kind of state-wide sweep, it should have been higher. But it was only higher in the "problematic" counties (Philadelphia and Alleghany). He shows they're anomalous pretty clearly: all the other counties followed historical trends, but those counties had surges out of line with trends from previous years and this year.

His conclusion is fraud, of course. The alternative argument is that there's something super special about Philadelphia and Alleghany counties who just love them some Sleepy Joe. Considering how they ignored court orders and fucked with observers, they don't get the benefit of the doubt.

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."

You're leaving out a big point here. From the report:

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.

As above, the problem isn't that there was some big surge of mail-in votes for Biden. That was expected. The problem is that the surge in those specific counties is way out of step with the overall surge everyone else saw.

It's not enough to say "this was an unprecedented election" and just excuse any weird looking returns. The law of large numbers is a real thing. When the major anomalies occur in limited locations, all in strategic states, all tilting one way, that requires a better explanation than "people are unpredictable". They are not that unpredictable (a fact the study covers as well).

Also, I don't know what that Forbes article is supposed to be, it doesn't address any of the points in the study. It seems to generalize some arguments without reading them, then point to "debunking" articles about completely different accusations. Maybe it was referencing something in his press conference, there isn't a shred of math in there.

 

[Inventor of the Telephone]

elected

Anyone can win elections. They are legitimate contests. May the best man win.

Spoiler: more

https://thedonald.win/p/11ROGmlHG5/the-one-thing-you-must-know-befo/c/

The One Thing You Must Know Before Going To DC on The 6th..
Hmmm.