Trump

[sugilite:Me]

At last! Actual evidence of voter fraud. A person has been charged with Pennsylvania's first case of voter fraud in 30 years.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/-trum...ushpmg00000004

Hilarious! I mentioned to DL that there would likely be low (intelligence) level shit from both sides

Fun fact - even fox news cut away from her on that press conference within the first minute, stating no credible evidence exists of such claims.

The more Trump drags this out the bigger the spectacle at the end of his term

[Grumph]

Sorry, I have a subscription to the WP so didn't notice that.

The woman Trump appointed to run the General Services Admin Dept, the dept that handles the transition arragements, is refusing to cooperate with Biden's team. They should be given offices in every department of government and over nine million dollars to fund the transition. They are currently getting nothing because Trump refuses to acknowledge that he lost and Emily is trying to please her boss.

This is getting quite a lot of coverage now, so you should be able to find it somewhere.

Yep, Emily is afraid of Trump. Probably with good reason. Her job is supposed to be apolitical.

At this point it's too easy to draw a direct line from the 9/11 Commission report which concluded that the delayed transition in Bush/Gore and the incomplete information handover was in part responsible for 9/11 - and Trump sacking his Defence Secretary prior to the transition.

He's making it difficult for Biden - and bloody dangerous for everyone.

[pritch]

Yep, Emily is afraid of Trump. Probably with good reason. Her job is supposed to be apolitical.

At this point it's too easy to draw a direct line from the 9/11 Commission report which concluded that the delayed transition in Bush/Gore and the incomplete information handover was in part responsible for 9/11 - and Trump sacking his Defence Secretary prior to the transition.

He's making it difficult for Biden - and bloody dangerous for everyone.

There are strange things happening at the White House, the lawns are being dug up. I’m wondering if he’s stealing them.

[pritch]

A look at just one of the many RWNJ claims.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/08/t...ing/index.html

[mashman]

That's one for the spectacularly gullible. They don't all live in the USA, we've got them here too apparently.

Why wouldn't people want to see it taken apart and vote accordingly where someone is saying that they intend to do that very thing? The corruption is known.

[mashman]

That's one for the spectacularly gullible. They don't all live in the USA, we've got them here too apparently.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU94ILqkEko

Oh, and a vaccine has been announced hasn't it

[pritch]

We all know (or should know) that Trump lives in an alternate reality of his own choosing. For him to deny Biden's success in the election is to be expected.
Mike Pompeo, US Secretary of State, an important figure in the US, is saying there will be an orderly transition to the next Trump presidency.

Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority Leader, an even more important figure in the US is also supporting Trump. What we have now is a full on coup attempt. In the USA.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/pompeo-pro...184543828.html

[TheDemonLord]

Please, list these "irregularities" of which you speak.

Sure, I'll give you 3 - all based purely on Numbers.

Voter Turn out - if you look at Michigan (one of the Swing states) - it's voter turn out for the previous 3 election cycles has been consistently 62%-66% with the highest in 2008 when Saint Obama (who did have a big voter turnout) got it up to 66%, however that was a 3% increase from the previous year, however the turnout from 2016 to 2020: 62% vs 73%, over a 10% voter turnout increase.

Now, to be clear, I'm not saying that this definitively proves there has been voter fraud, only that it is highly irregular for there to be a sudden increase in voter turnout (especially when the last 4 elections have had the same voter turnout within a margin of 4%, a jump of 11% is irregular.

Benford's law on Biden's voting figures:

Original work, prior to the 2020 election about using statistical methods to detect potential electoral fraud.

Link to Github where (if you are so inclined) you can replicate the findings yourself. The short version is that all the other candidates have numbers that conform to the expected law, whereas Biden has a number of statistical irregularities.

Again, this doesn't prove that there has been voter fraud, but like Michigan above, something irregular has happened.

The vote spike in Wisconsin.

This one has been 'rebutted' by 'fact-checkers', but there explanation is hollow - Here's the original picture: picture, The 'fact-check' claim is that this was a natural result of absentee ballots having a strong Biden support (which, in of itself, is interesting...), the problem comes when you look at the picture they use in their 'rebuttal':

Picture 2 - even when one side has a surge in votes (presumably due to a fresh batch of absentee votes being delivered by mail), the other side ALSO has a corresponding surge (although it may not be as significant) - see on the 4 different graphs that each time there is a hard vertical line for one candidate, the other also has a hard vertical line (although with a different magnitude).

This is irregular, even if we assume that the absentee vote had a hard-left swing, in the region of say 65-70%, that is still not as high a disparity as what we saw in Wisconsin (over 80%).

Again, doesn't prove voter Fraud, but it IS statistically irregular.

So that's 3 bits of evidence that whilst not Impossible are at the very least, statistically highly improbable and as such are worthy of investigation AND explanation.

There's some other sundry and circumstantial bits of evidence (like Ohio and Florida picking the winner in every election going back to the 1960s, having the strictest mail-in voter rules AND having Trump as the winner, Republicans winning the House and Senate, yet not the presidency).


Now, when we verge onto the territory of Conspiracy theory, there are some dangers - so I'll state now that if there is an investigation and it goes to the Supreme Court, I will defer to their findings, that's my standard of Evidence.

[TheDemonLord]

That's not how the system works. The media call it when it is clear that the current margin in a state cannot be overtaken by the number of votes outstanding. That's entirely unofficial. The individual states don't have to officially declare their final figures until December 23 I think. That's a long wait, so everybbody uses the unofficial results supplied by the media in the meantime.

This would be the same media that overwhelmingly despises Trump, yes? So definitely no conflict of interest there.

As I said, I'll wait for the Electoral college and any challenges to be resolved first.

I've no idea what you're reading, but I've seen nothing except idiot level ranting by Trump and Giuliani none of which have had anything approaching evidence in support. Some sycophants are chiming in but so far there has been nothing substantive.

Again, there are some very good lawyers are Republicans. None of them are going anywhere near this clown show.

See the post to HDC, there's 3 statistical anomalies that are rooted not in the 'ranting by Trump and Giuliani', but in objective numbers.

[TheDemonLord]

That "few" needs to be a comprehensive "many" to make a real difference. His bullshit rhetoric is not working for him thus far. I suspect there would have been low level cheating from individuals on BOTH sides.

I'll agree with the last part, but with a caveat - Low-level cheating has probably occurred in every Election, since the dawn of Democracy, to the point where it can be considered as 'background noise' and 'not statistically relevant'.

My primary concerns are for 3 instances which seem to be statistically relevant and not background noise.

And for the record - by my quick maths - For Trump to win, it would only take something in the region of 70,000 (or less) votes in the right location, given a total vote count of 140+ Million, that isn't a large margin of error.

Also, the voter turnout overall is statistically interesting - last 3 elections have had a total vote count of around 120-130 million and yet it looks like we might have a vote count for this election closer to 150 Million.

Again, as I mentioned to HDC - doesn't prove fraud, but it is irregular.

[pritch]

Discretion needed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ9__8UJSc4

[pritch]

Voter Turn out -

I haven't got time to go into your post completely. But starting right there... Of course there was a much greater turnout. That a highly controverial president attracted huge interest shouldn't surprise anybody. We've been discussing it here for four years. Social media in the US has been on fire for four years. And you are surprised there was increased voter turnout?

[TheDemonLord]

I haven't got time to go into your post completely. But starting right there... Of course there was a much greater turnout. That a highly controverial president attracted huge interest shouldn't surprise anybody. We've been discussing it here for four years. Social media in the US has been on fire for four years. And you are surprised there was increased voter turnout?

Yes.

a few percent change, like for example Obama (who had the biggest Voter Turn-out, due to an energised voterbase), absolutely fine.

Over 10% voter turnout increase, is Irregular, especially when previously going back to 2004 (cause that's as far back as I cared to go) - the Voter turnout in that state were between the ranges of 62% and 66% - that's a 4% difference. with 66% being the highest for Obama, who until this election had the highest Vote Count.

The difference between 2016 and 2020 is 11% - that's almost 300% increase in the change of voter turnout, when compared to the previous biggest change in voter turnout (62% to 66% - a 4% difference)

Again, to be clear, I'm not saying 'Definitely fraud', I am saying that there is something irregular, that is worth of investigation and explanation.

[sugilite:Me]

Yes.

a few percent change, like for example Obama (who had the biggest Voter Turn-out, due to an energised voterbase), absolutely fine.

Over 10% voter turnout increase, is Irregular, especially when previously going back to 2004 (cause that's as far back as I cared to go) - the Voter turnout in that state were between the ranges of 62% and 66% - that's a 4% difference. with 66% being the highest for Obama, who until this election had the highest Vote Count.

The difference between 2016 and 2020 is 11% - that's almost 300% increase in the change of voter turnout, when compared to the previous biggest change in voter turnout (62% to 66% - a 4% difference)

Again, to be clear, I'm not saying 'Definitely fraud', I am saying that there is something irregular, that is worth of investigation and explanation.

Trump is by far the most polarizing president of the USA ever - so if course he inspired people from both sides in a big way to vote either for him or against him. Not hard to work out.

[TheDemonLord]

Trump is by far the most polarizing president of the USA ever - so if course he inspired people from both sides in a big way to vote either for him or against him. Not hard to work out.

He was Polarizing in 2016, yet we didn't see the significant change in Voter Turn-out.

Furthermore it doesn't pan-out when you look at other states - which see a small increase in voter turnout, but not 3 times the increase of the last significant voter turn-out change.