Official Election 2020 Doomsday Thread

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.

Who wins on November 3rd? (Zeitgeist, not who you're voting for)

  • Expecting a Trump win.

    Votes: 978 45.7%

  • Expecting a Biden win.

    Votes: 277 12.9%

  • Expecting no clear winner on November 3rd.

    Votes: 885 41.4%
  • Total voters
    2,140
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
  • Winner
  • Autistic
  • Like
Reactions: WangOfDamocles, Ebonic Tutor and Andrew Neiman

Attachments

  • phpRfOekqAM.2e16d0ba.fill-661x496.jpg
    phpRfOekqAM.2e16d0ba.fill-661x496.jpg
    13.6 KB · Views: 68
  • Like
Reactions: TooOldforThis, SmokingPig, Cactuar King and 1 other person
EyelessMC said:
That is some exquisite autism, mate. All of that--all of the graphs, the explanations, the further exposition by numbers, just to essentially explain that
"Basically, just because groups of digits don't start with a low number doesn't always necessitate fraud or faulty data."

I'm not mocking you, either. I hope your post gets tons of attention. We genuinely need this "examining the hair on a gnat's ass" level of acute investigation and detail. We're the only ones actually bothering to discern the truth here and any faulty arguments will always be used against us to obfuscate the truth.
It's obvious this election was rigged to hell and there's more than enough evidence to see that--including the perpetual snowballing behavior of the mainstream media and tech moguls on this issue, all speaking and behaving as if reading off the same script (now where have we seen this before?)
Which is what Null found funny since he never trusted the system to begin with.

However, just shouting "Benford's Law! Benford's Law!" as if that proves anything in itself will only make us look like we did when we were shouting "FBI spirals! FBI spirals!" in pizzagate. We need a multilayered approach with hard evidences, plural, not just one thing chiming through the air like chanting lemmings.

I share the autism. I am making this post right now just to tell you thanks. Thank you for your probably potentially very real autism which likely earned you a legitimate Master's in mathematics.
You are a gem of this funposting thread. I screen capped your post just to share your radiating autism. Top Tier, mathman
View attachment 1722159
Click to expand...
I am not a mathman, I'm an accountant man. Shockingly enough accountants aren't very good at math, just reading numbers and attemping to make inferences, estimates, etc. Technicals aside I appreciate the compliments nonetheless.

At the same time for the sake of you and anyone else who read my post earlier, I made a small error in my text that I corrected in my original post just a few minutes ago. It doesn't change much dramatically it is literally just me misreading who has who highest and lowest deviations from their respective digit due to rushed spreadsheet formatting being hard to read. You can see the error yourself if you read close enough on the graphs. I made a corrected list in an edit below my summary and in the spoiler.

The key take away from this exercise is sample size means almost everything in statistics. Benford's law works over a large data set like hundreds or thousands of 1st, 2nd, etc digits. Things like the length of rivers, the amount of checks your average multi billion dollar company signed in a year, or the height of mountains throughout the world not how many counties in one singular state which might not even break into the 100s.

In the end I want an audit for this election even if I don't like Trump at all, as someone who wants to break into auditing myself, and I kind of believed the Benford's law answer at first because the graph was kind of funny. Then I had a thought to try and apply presumed real population statistics to see if those can be "fraud" due to the small sample size. Which ended up in this autism. Never go with your first gut instinct is the other lesson for today.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Dogfacefuke, ScatmansWorld, Hubelublub and 4 others
Übertroon said:
We have this image
View attachment 1722155
Now this reportedly came from this web address
which as of now is offline, being taken down once the heat was on

Since then the media who stands behind Biden has "debunked" these numbers, saying the city of milwaukee disputes the numbers taken from their own website, and also the same media simultaneously trying to handwave it away by saying that the state of Wisconsin has same day voter registration, and it just so happened that double the amount of normal voters showed up that day to cast their vote
Click to expand...
The website you state is offline currently is up for me. The graphing appears to be different and displays the information different than as displayed in the image. The numbers cited do not appear to be the same. For instance:

Ward 274 reports on the website a total of 611 votes, with 702 registered voters (296 Biden, 297 Trump, remainder being third party or write-in*).
Ward 273 reports a total of 612 votes, with 671 registered voters (313 Biden, 290 Trump)
Ward 272 reports 1096 votes with 1190 registered voters (512 Biden, 567 Trump)
Ward 277 reports 1321 votes with 1520 registered voters (688 Biden, 602 Trump)
Ward 269 reports 861 votes with 978 registered voters (451 Biden, 388 Trump)
Ward 234 reports 588 votes with 688 registered voters (458 Biden, 114 Trump)
Ward 312 reports 951 votes with 1029 registered voters (553 Biden, 389 Trump)

*this applies to all subsequent listings as well, I'm just too lazy to type the same disclaimer over and over again

As you may note, none of the vote counts as currently reported exceed the total of registered voters. The numbers in the image differ significantly from the final count. For instance, in the image, Ward 269 appears to have around 200 more votes than is currently reported; 274 appears to have nearly double its final count. Without a way to tie the image back to the website, I am unwilling to take it on faith that the numbers came from the official county clerk site, especially since the design layout is entirely different. Indeed, it appears to have been taken from somewhere else entirely, given its header: "City of Milwaukee votes big for Biden" which sounds more like it comes from a news report.

If there's an archive of the website that reports these numbers lying around or something that can tie these numbers to an official source, I'd be happy to take a look at it.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Wyald
Zeke Von Genbu said:
I am not a mathman, I'm an accountant man. Shockingly enough accountants aren't very good at math, just reading numbers and attemping to make inferences, estimates, etc. Technicals aside I appreciate the compliments nonetheless.

At the same time for the sake of you and anyone else who read my post earlier, I made a small error in my text that I corrected in my original post just a few minutes ago. It doesn't change much dramatically it is literally just me misreading who has who highest and lowest deviations from their respective digit due to rushed spreadsheet formatting being hard to read. You can see the error yourself if you read close enough on the graphs. I made a corrected list in an edit below my summary and in the spoiler.

The key take away from this exercise is sample size means almost everything in statistics. Benford's law works over a large data set like hundreds or thousands of 1st, 2nd, etc digits. Things like the length of rivers, the amount of checks your average multi billion dollar company signed in a year, or the height of mountains throughout the world not how many counties in one singular state which might not even break into the 100s.

In the end I want an audit for this election even if I don't like Trump at all, as someone who wants to break into auditing myself, and I kind of believed the Benford's law answer at first because the graph was kind of funny. Then I had a thought to try and apply presumed real population statistics to see if those can be "fraud" due to the small sample size. Which ended up in this autism. Never go with your first gut instinct is the other lesson for today.
Click to expand...
You made one of the few (and best) posts that made me do some actual reading afterwards. Learned quite a bit actually. Keep it coming, man.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Zeke Von Genbu
Flip: Draw 2 said:
You made one of the few (and best) posts that made me do some actual reading afterwards. Learned quite a bit actually. Keep it coming, man.
Click to expand...
If you want to learn more I just stumbled into this video from someone who can probably more properly explain Benford's law with more actual knowledge and explanation from a math perspective then my "jam numbers into a spreadsheet to see what spits out." simulations with Excel. As I said I studied accounting, not math, so my knowledge of Benford's Law is more limited then I may come across as I merely learned it on a surface level and what it can be used for in my line of study. The most common application for me would be people trying to steal money from their job by making random checks to fake vendors to pocket the money and these checks would hypothetical start with a specific digit for whatever arbitrary reason.

 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Justa Grata Honoria, SmokingPig, King's Gambit Accepted and 5 others
Zeke Von Genbu said:
If you want to learn more I just stumbled into this video from someone who can probably more properly explain Benford's law with more actual knowledge and explanation from a math perspective then my "jam numbers into a spreadsheet to see what spits out." simulations with Excel. As I said I studied accounting, not math, so my knowledge of Benford's Law is more limited then I may come across as I merely learned it on a surface level and what it can be used for in my line of study. The most common application for me would be people trying to steal money from their job by making random checks to fake vendors to pocket the money and these checks would hypothetical start with a specific digit for whatever arbitrary reason.

Click to expand...
Very accurate analysis, can confirm it's validity. People should focus more on the evidence rather than mathematical theories. While they can be indicators on further investigation they are not accurate tools that can be used as solid 100% evidence of election fraud. What is however is the videos and testimonies coming out, which are way more damning, depending of course how admissible they are in a court of law. Any lawyer/law student willing to run me through the legal proceedings that take place ? I'd wager that election law is something that's curated state by state so court proceedings/penalties/legal action probably varies as well, except if it's something that is curated on the federal level. It could actually even be both.
know more.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Meth Kennedy
Spatula said:
I know right. Totally not the same as those racist white slavers who say the n word in rap songs.
Click to expand...
You ought to shut up with your cooking utensils. Behold the new ladle for Thanksgiving.
 

Attachments

  • Easy-Homemade-Brown-Gravy-without-drippings copy.jpg
    Easy-Homemade-Brown-Gravy-without-drippings copy.jpg
    31.8 KB · Views: 86
I am liking the direction of the thread over the last few hours from tuning in briefly during my breaks from coding. Glad that there are some people on this thread that are actively looking to discern a level of truth beyond all of the conjecture. It is fishy to me as a Asian stripper cunt that the weighed averages somehow always end up trending in the direction of Biden, even if the turnout for Trump is significantly higher. It is almost as though, that there is some type of error in the algorithm when it evaluates the voting weights.

I could scream "FRAUD FRAUD," but let's disregard that potential aspect for a second. It would be pretty likely in my mind that our answer could lie in the source code of the voting machines utilized somehow in one of the data type transfers, there was some type of fucked up hiccup logically that threw off the numerations to give us these extremely over-bloated averages. I am thinking some type of overfloating error that probably was probably not accounted for, just generally because of the turnout in it of itself. I find it remarkably bizarre that the tabulation when looking at these trends remained consistent a crossed multiple prescient's.

I am not sure if anyone has managed to get their hands on the source code quite yet, but like the Imperial College COVID statistics when that source code dropped. This wreaks of high heaven of bat soup, just because of how fucking sloppy that was thrown together when that ended up getting leaked back in May. There is just too large of a margin of error when looking at this closer, despite what people would like to believe about how split America is. I do not see the divide being almost exact to be something that is an organic tabulation, even in my day to day life, I haven't be able to find the general public being on almost an exact 50/50 split between the two. With somehow in the middle of the night, this logarithmic rise in the Biden numbers all the sudden jumping to that type of surge.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
Reactions: Meth Kennedy, COCl₂ and Dogfacefuke
Zeke Von Genbu said:
If you want to learn more I just stumbled into this video from someone who can probably more properly explain Benford's law with more actual knowledge and explanation from a math perspective then my "jam numbers into a spreadsheet to see what spits out." simulations with Excel. As I said I studied accounting, not math, so my knowledge of Benford's Law is more limited then I may come across as I merely learned it on a surface level and what it can be used for in my line of study. The most common application for me would be people trying to steal money from their job by making random checks to fake vendors to pocket the money and these checks would hypothetical start with a specific digit for whatever arbitrary reason.

Click to expand...
This is the paper he references in the video.
 

Attachments

SmokingPig said:
I am liking the direction of the thread over the last few hours from tuning in briefly during my breaks from coding. Glad that there are some people on this thread that are actively looking to discern a level of truth beyond all of the conjecture. It is fishy to me as a Asian stripper cunt that the weighed averages somehow always end up trending in the direction of Biden, even if the turnout for Trump is significantly higher. It is almost as though, that there is some type of error in the algorithm when it evaluates the voting weights.

I could scream "FRAUD FRAUD," but let's disregard that potential aspect for a second. It would be pretty likely in my mind that our answer could lie in the source code of the voting machines utilized somehow in one of the data type transfers, there was some type of fucked up hiccup logically that threw off the numerations to give us these extremely over-bloated averages. I am thinking some type of overfloating error that probably was probably not accounted for, just generally because of the turnout in it of itself. I find it remarkably bizarre that the tabulation when looking at these trends remained consistent a crossed multiple prescient's.

I am not sure if anyone has managed to get their hands on the source code quite yet, but like the Imperial College COVID statistics when that source code dropped. This wreaks of high heaven of bat soup, just because of how fucking sloppy that was thrown together when that ended up getting leaked back in May. There is just too large of a margin of error when looking at this closer, despite what people would like to believe about how split America is. I do not see the divide being almost exact to be something that is an organic tabulation, even in my day to day life, I haven't be able to find the general public being on almost an exact 50/50 split between the two. With somehow in the middle of the night, this logarithmic rise in the Biden numbers all the sudden jumping to that type of surge.
Click to expand...
A whistle blower has come forward which may account for how this was done

-This lady is an IT tech for Dominion Voting Systems, sent to the polls to make sure the machines operate correctly and assist the workers.

-While there observes anomalies in the counter on one of the tabulating machines, resulting in hundreds of votes being counted numerous times

-When reported to her boss Nick Ikonomakis (VP and co-owner) he took her aside and said “the last thing we need is a problem, we are only here to assist with IT, not help them run elections”

-There were 40 such machines running, she estimates thousands and thousands of anomalies like this, just in that one location

-If a reject ballot would not go thru the machine, the employee would get a blank ballot and fill it out, unsupervised, and then forge the voters signature. She witnessed this all day and all night.

-in a 24 hour shift, not a single ballot filled-in this way was for Trump. There was a table that they called “duplicate ballots” for these, which numbered in the thousands

-Two young guys in their 20s were responsible for inputting ALL the information from that location into the computer. There was no oversight of them. The two of them worked doubles, all day and all night, and were friendly with Nick.

-of all the workers there, this whistleblower lady was the ONLY republican, which she kept a secret. Every other worker was disparaging of Trump the entire time, and were wearing BLM stuff, ‘I can’t breathe’, etc.

-Also implicated in the mis-handling was City of Detroit employees and supervisors, including Daniel Baxter, doing forbidden things such as going outside to smoke. It is supposed to be a contained building. They were in and out all through the shift, with boxes of ballots just sitting on tables.
Click to expand...
 
  • Informative
  • Winner
Reactions: Meth Kennedy, Activelo, Doctor Doom and 6 others
Bosmadden said:
A whistle blower has come forward which may account for how this was done
Click to expand...
THAT is a hell of a whistleblow!!! Would you please link your source?

Edit: found link (archive) and video interview (I've locally backed that up, will listen in the morning and repost if Twitch removes it)
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Meth Kennedy, Pomme Poire Peche, CeleryBread and 2 others
Bosmadden said:
Nothing to see here.


This is in Oklahoma.

TLDR it seems that Democrat election workers have been so effected by TDS that they were prepared to do literally anything to fuck with the orange man. Even in Oklahoma.
Click to expand...
I'm originally from Oklahoma, and those aren't ballots. I don't know what they are, because he never zooms in, but I can tell you with 100% certainty they are not actual ballots. They look to me like practice or example ballots printed online. I think this video is staged and I think the dude is a piece of shit trying to sew discord. I find it interesting that the video is so fucking low rez, that I can't see what the one ballot that has only half instead of all of the top ripped off says.

In Oklahoma, surprisingly, we actually take our election security very seriously. Ballots are thick, counterfeit resistant cream-colored paper, almost like cardstock, and when you turn in your ballot, you physically slide it into the scantron so it is tallied immediately. The scantron is physically secured to the ballot box with locks that can only be unsecured by an agent of the state.

Also, some statistical analysis: Trump took almost exactly the same percentage of the vote he did in 2016, like 0.3% less, while receiving about 50k more votes. All 77 counties went red. Having voted in Oklahoma, I can also say with some confidence that poll watchers are out in force, and the likelihood of something like this being physically possible is very, very low. I personally smell bullshit, although I will personally drive to the fucking church this weekend and ask them if it would make anyone sleep better.

Edit: I'm sure election fraud could/did happen in other states, but not in Oklahoma.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Meth Kennedy, Justa Grata Honoria, Pizza Munch and 12 others
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back