Big D vs Twitter

[doctor_mac]

Your comprehension skills are lacking.
"to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election."

There's a couple of important qualifiers in there.
1. He didn't say there was no fraud - just that the fraud they've already uncovered wouldn't change the election result.
2. Yet.

So to jump up and down and say there's no evidence of fraud you're either brainwashed or dumb.

I would say your comprehension skills in terms of the context for this statement are lacking. This is someone who wants to say that his boss isn't a loon, his concern was somewhat justified, but ultimately overblown; he is being gracious; fawning even; he reveals that there has been some fraud (as there will be in every election on a small and random scale and scope), but the evidence just hasn't turned up for anything on a wide, election-changing scale. The qualifiers aren't intended to signal that he expects the evidence to turn up. In fact, the fact he has made this statement, and the way it has been made, clearly indicates he has no such expectation.

 

[Rosco]

To date we have not seen proof that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist!!!!

There’s where you are Ross.

For a supposedly smart guy - you’re not being particularly bright - and I’m increasingly worried about your mental health.

No you'be told us for weeks there was no fraud , no evidence of fraud. Now you're admitting there is fraud.

So the question now is should people investigate to make sure that's all the fraud there was or should we just ignore it.

If you believe in democratic principles , you investigate. If you have donkey brains, you sweep it under the carpet.

 

[Rosco]

I would say your comprehension skills in terms of the context for this statement are lacking. This is someone who wants to say that his boss isn't a loon, his concern was somewhat justified, but ultimately overblown; he is being gracious; fawning even; he reveals that there has been some fraud (as there will be in every election on a small and random scale and scope), but the evidence just hasn't turned up for anything on a wide, election-changing scale. The qualifiers aren't intended to signal that he expects the evidence to turn up. In fact, the fact he has made this statement, and the way it has been made, clearly indicates he has no such expectation.

Yeah , like you're a language expert.

 

[dantes]

I would say your comprehension skills in terms of the context for this statement are lacking. This is someone who wants to say that his boss isn't a loon, his concern was somewhat justified, but ultimately overblown; he is being gracious; fawning even; he reveals that there has been some fraud (as there will be in every election on a small and random scale and scope), but the evidence just hasn't turned up for anything on a wide, election-changing scale. The qualifiers aren't intended to signal that he expects the evidence to turn up. In fact, the fact he has made this statement, and the way it has been made, clearly indicates he has no such expectation.

You know mathematics trumps language. The facts are that there was fraud in prior elections, and that it is more prevalent in postal votes. So the last election there was a small number of postal votes, and a small amount of fraud. Now you have widespread postal voting, yet you expect the fraud to still be small. That's not very likely.

 

[Frogfish]

Republican senators have not been vocal in pushing back on the president's unsubstantiated or false claims about the election, but a growing number are slowly acknowledging Biden as the apparent winner.

“They have a genuine fear that knowing that Donald Trump was never about the Republican Party and does not care about a future Republican Party except where it involves the word Trump, and as part of a last swift kick in the butt to Republicans, he can take down the two Senate seats if he wants to,” said Doug Heye, former Republican National Committee communications director. “It’s why we see them moving slowly but methodically toward that place,” Heye added.

The latest major break came Tuesday, when Attorney General William Barr said the Justice Department has found no evidence of fraud that would change the result of the presidential election, despite Trump’s repeated claims of coordinated electoral fraud through which the election was “stolen” from him.
The same day, a GOP elections official in Georgia issued a sharp repudiation of Trump for failing to condemn violence against officials and called on him to accept the election results.

 

[Frogfish]

You know mathematics trumps language. The facts are that there was fraud in prior elections, and that it is more prevalent in postal votes. So the last election there was a small number of postal votes, and a small amount of fraud. Now you have widespread postal voting, yet you expect the fraud to still be small. That's not very likely.

You also seem to have thought time has stood still since the last election and that more safeguards designed to thwart fraud have not been implemented.

 

[Rosco]

You also seem to have thought time has stood still since the last election and that more safeguards designed to thwart fraud have not been implemented.

What safeguards ?

 

[Athens]

You know mathematics trumps language.

Mathematics trumps language, or mathematics' Trump's language?

 

[Athens]

 

[Farkmaster]

No you'be told us for weeks there was no fraud , no evidence of fraud. Now you're admitting there is fraud.

So the question now is should people investigate to make sure that's all the fraud there was or should we just ignore it.

If you believe in democratic principles , you investigate. If you have donkey brains, you sweep it under the carpet.

Fraud on that scale occurs every election. It's investigated already, and is rare. It isn't meaningfully related to the damaging claims trump is making, that the election was "rigged" or that if votes were counted faithfully, he would have won. It's disengenuous to throw the baby out with the bathwater; that because a handful of votes of millions counted may have misrepresented themselves individually, that the entire process needs to be called into question.

Regarding how to read barr, doctor mac is right, particularly this quote:

""There's a growing tendency to use the criminal justice system as sort of a default fix-all, and people don't like something they want the Department of Justice to come in and 'investigate,'" Barr said.

It's of course the height of hypocrisy as barr has acted at the direction of the Whitehouse whenever he thought it suited his political interests, but like anyone with a clue, he knows this is all nonsense and trump is done.

 

[Frogfish]

Some of Trump's recent administration highlights inc. mail-in voting fraud :

 

[dantes]

Fraud on that scale occurs every election. It's investigated already, and is rare. It isn't meaningfully related to the damaging claims trump is making, that the election was "rigged" or that if votes were counted faithfully, he would have won. It's disengenuous to throw the baby out with the bathwater; that because a handful of votes of millions counted may have misrepresented themselves individually, that the entire process needs to be called into question.

Regarding how to read barr, doctor mac is right, particularly this quote:

""There's a growing tendency to use the criminal justice system as sort of a default fix-all, and people don't like something they want the Department of Justice to come in and 'investigate,'" Barr said.

It's of course the height of hypocrisy as barr has acted at the direction of the Whitehouse whenever he thought it suited his political interests, but like anyone with a clue, he knows this is all nonsense and trump is done.

Let's play a game. I give you $1,000,000 in cash for your home, all in $10 notes. You're not an idiot so you pull out 100 notes from the pile and have a look at them. To your shock 50 of them are fake, counterfeit, they're a fugazi. The question is then do you say...

(A) Dantes, you short changed me by $500, come on man, pay up, and the house is yours
or
(B) Dantes, you're half a million short by my calculation, you sly motherfucker, it's time to say hello to my little friend

Barr's statement is based upon (A) type logic, and you agree with it. Yet if I wanted to take ownership of your house, I think you'd come to a different opinion.

 

[dantes]

We know Hansern's answer

(C) Dantes, $50 is nothing it's small, hardly enough to justify looking at the entire pile, there's nothing to see there, so here the house is yours, don't worry about the $50 it's cool man, nice doing business with you.

 

[Grjt2]

Hahahahaha hahahahahaha!

 

[Grjt2]

We know Hansern's answer

(C) Dantes, $50 is nothing it's small, hardly enough to justify looking at the entire pile, there's nothing to see there, so here the house is yours, don't worry about the $50 it's cool man, nice doing business with you.

And yet this doesn’t apply to the accusations of Trumps collusion with Russian parties, or the validity of his excuses regarding releasing tax returns? Strange. And pretty inconsistent logic.

 

[dantes]

And yet this doesn’t apply to the accusations of Trumps collusion with Russian parties, or the validity of his excuses regarding releasing tax returns? Strange. And pretty inconsistent logic.

Collusion doesn't involve any sampling or even any numbers, so there's nothing to apply it to. It could apply to his tax returns if you sampled one week's worth of income out of the year, found discrepancies, and then you'd have to scale those up to the entire year to get a rough estimate of the extent of tax evasion. But that's not how taxes or the inland revenue work, which is why it doesn't apply.

 

[dantes]

If you think the democrat 'judge' was any less drunk you're in for shock.

 

[Farkmaster]

Let's play a game. I give you $1,000,000 in cash for your home, all in $10 notes. You're not an idiot so you pull out 100 notes from the pile and have a look at them. To your shock 50 of them are fake, counterfeit, they're a fugazi. The question is then do you say...

(A) Dantes, you short changed me by $500, come on man, pay up, and the house is yours
or
(B) Dantes, you're half a million short by my calculation, you sly motherfucker, it's time to say hello to my little friend

Barr's statement is based upon (A) type logic, and you agree with it. Yet if I wanted to take ownership of your house, I think you'd come to a different opinion.

That's because it's a fucking stupid analogy that isn't logical.

 

[StevieM]

No you'be told us for weeks there was no fraud , no evidence of fraud. Now you're admitting there is fraud.

So the question now is should people investigate to make sure that's all the fraud there was or should we just ignore it.

If you believe in democratic principles , you investigate. If you have donkey brains, you sweep it under the carpet.

Come on Ross - 4 weeks ago I said “no evidence of systemic fraud”.

There isn’t any.

Seriously- what are you trying to prove here?

Are you suggesting there isn’t fraud in every election - should every single election be investigated on the basis of the result is fraudulent until such point as no dread ca be detected?

Do you just want to lick and choose which elections you think fraudulent voting is a major issue?

I can’t be clearer - whatever fraudulent votes were cast - aren’t enough to make a dent in Biden’s victory margin - in any state he won.

You know it to.., that’s why you’re arguing semantics.

There isn’t a scandal - there isn’t anymore fraudulent voting that you expect in any other election.

Ask yourself why Trump is so desperate to cling to power?

 

[Hansern]

We know Hansern's answer

(C) Dantes, $50 is nothing it's small, hardly enough to justify looking at the entire pile, there's nothing to see there, so here the house is yours, don't worry about the $50 it's cool man, nice doing business with you.

You're logic is all over the place and your example has no barring with the current issue Trump is trying to raise.
If anything the correct analogy would be that the seller was claiming half of the money was counterfeit, when it actually isnt.

And to continue your mob lingo, you'd be sleeping with the fishes if that shit happened to me.

 

[dantes]

That's because it's a fucking stupid analogy that isn't logical.

Then let's dispense with the analogy. Here's the court filing about violations in Wisconsin.

https://electioncases.osu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/WVA-v-WEC-Braynard-Exhibits.pdf

This guy went through the data, called up people, and identified the fraudulent votes out of the sample he called up. The absolute numbers he found are in the tens or hundreds. But based on the sample size he reports them as percentages that are 1%-15% depending on the type of fraud. Next we have the guy saying he sent this data to the FBI.



Then we have Barr saying they've not seen enough evidence to decide the election. A few hundred ballots would not decide it, sure. 1-15% of ballots would definitely decide it. So Barr is looking at the absolute number of cases he can arrest and prosecute someone over. He is not scaling that up based on the sample size. Which is exactly the same scenario as the game I presented to you.

 

[dantes]

You're logic is all over the place and your example has no barring with the current issue Trump is trying to raise.
If anything the correct analogy would be that the seller was claiming half of the money was counterfeit, when it actually isnt.

And to continue your mob lingo, you'd be sleeping with the fishes if that shit happened to me.

Well, look above, you're wrong.

 

[Hansern]

"This guy", that used to be a former chief and strategist for the Trump campaign. Yeah, I'm sure everything is correct there….

 

[dantes]

"This guy", that used to be a former chief and strategist for the Trump campaign. Yeah, I'm sure everything is correct there….

You have no idea if it's correct or incorrect. You do have an idea that you were wrong about Barr and the accuracy of my analogy, so you're just brushing it off with an assumption that the data must be incorrect anyway.

 

[Farkmaster]

Your analogy compares a single person giving evidence of them committing fraud in 50 percent of a sample to the person verifying it. That's not how voting works, each vote is from a different person, and there is no evidence of any systematic fraud.

What we have is verified fraud occuring at less than .001 percent of the time in the sample (to the extent that if I were to check 100 votes there would be zero issue with any of them). And, significantly, one person isn't voting, so the fact that a tiny number of people commit fraud individually doesn't indicate anything about another vote.

The proper analogy would be I offer you 160 million for your house in cash, in one dollar bills. The cash is from general circulation. You find that one of the bills is counterfeit (as you might if you looked at that number of bills). You decide that all of them aren't valid, because you are a loon.

Meanwhile I get the house anyway, because you are watching something called the right side broadcasting network and this was all a fever dream and you've decided to lose your critical filter in service of a truly unremarkable piece of shit whose sole focus is himself and his financial welfare while a couple thousand people die every day.

 

[dantes]

Your analogy compares a single person giving evidence of them committing fraud in 50 percent of a sample to the person verifying it. That's not how voting works, each vote is from a different person, and there is no evidence of any systematic fraud.

What we have is verified fraud occuring at less than .001 percent of the time in the sample (to the extent that if I were to check 100 votes there would be zero issue with any of them). And, significantly, one person isn't voting, so the fact that a tiny number of people commit fraud individually doesn't indicate anything about another vote.

The proper analogy would be I offer you 160 million for your house in cash, in one dollar bills. The cash is from general circulation. You find that one of the bills is counterfeit (as you might if you looked at that number of bills). You decide that all of them aren't valid, because you are a loon.

Meanwhile I get the house anyway, because you are watching something called the right side broadcasting network and this was all a fever dream and you've decided to lose your critical filter in service of a truly unremarkable piece of shit whose sole focus is himself and his financial welfare while a couple thousand people die every day.

Nope. What we have is for the harvesting category, is 96771 ballots sent out. The guy purchased that dataset, then called up 2114 of that sample. From those that were called, 325 never requested that ballot, but returned it. So those are 325 illegal votes. That's 15.37% of the sample. So how many illegal votes would you expect to find if you called up all 96771 people? If you think it's 0.001% I don't know what to say or how to make sense of your thinking.

 

[Farkmaster]

Nope. What we have is for the harvesting category, is 96771 ballots sent out. The guy purchased that dataset, then called up 2114 of that sample. From those that were called, 325 never requested that ballot, but returned it. So those are 325 illegal votes. That's 15.37% of the sample. So how many illegal votes would you expect to find if you called up all 96771 people? If you think it's 0.001% I don't know what to say or how to make sense of your thinking.

It's almost like I don't believe every fucking partisan asshat with a twitter account even if if they support my preferred worldview. I don't go ferreting around on barely partisan news sites like right side broadcasting. I don't believe that because just because journalism has been degraded by the decline of hard news, and the disease of social media, that it's totally dead.

No reasonable source has shown widespread fraud in a US election recently. It hasn't been shown or even seriously alleged in this one.

Trump wanted to make some money, I get that, his campaign was in debt and he wants to figure out what he's going to do next and will at the least need some legal funds. What I don't get is why you are working for him, unpaid. What's in it for you?

 

[dantes]

It's almost like I don't believe every fucking partisan asshat with a twitter account even if if they support my preferred worldview. I don't go ferreting around on barely partisan news sites like right side broadcasting. I don't believe that because just because journalism has been degraded by the decline of hard news, and the disease of social media, that it's totally dead.

No reasonable source has shown widespread fraud in a US election recently. It hasn't been shown or even seriously alleged in this one.

Trump wanted to make some money, I get that, his campaign was in debt and he wants to figure out what he's going to do next and will at the least need some legal funds. What I don't get is why you are working for him, unpaid. What's in it for you?

(1) His america first policies keeps the financial markets and consumer freedom the way I'd like them to stay, but it's a minor inconvenience if they change, so this isn't a big reason, it's just the only thing that's materially in it for me that I can think of

(2) more importantly I hate the value that humans place on emotional and subjective arguments, particularly when they put them above the mathematics, the science, or the law. The question is fraud, yes or no. They don't want to do what is needed to get the answers because it will either hurt their feelings or because they think they know the answer already. That's a poisonous anti-scientific mentality, it's the murdering of curiosity. I despise it. The election has just revealed it in a far higher number of people than I ordinarily experience, which fuels my hatred and wish to see them pay.

 

[Grjt2]

If you think the democrat 'judge' was any less drunk you're in for shock.

Brilliant!

 

[Farkmaster]

(1) His america first policies keeps the financial markets and consumer freedom the way I'd like them to stay, but it's a minor inconvenience if they change, so this isn't a big reason, it's just the only thing that's materially in it for me that I can think of

Yeah, but now what you wanted to have happen didn't happen. He lost. It wasn't that close. It isn't going to change. Everything he's doing now is all about him, like everything else he has ever done.