Allegations of Fraud in 2020 US Election - Page 14

JoeMorgue · 10th November 2020, 08:21 AM

Republicans are results based, Democrats are standards based.

With Republicans if the Ref didn't see it, then it's a valid gameplay tactic. If you can pay off the Refs, hey you're just being smart. As long as you win the game it's all good.

shuttlt · 10th November 2020, 08:30 AM

Originally Posted by johnny karate

I’m not sure, but apparently we need to ask noted mathematician Chris Rock.

Maybe we should ask Joe Frazier?

Dave Rogers · 10th November 2020, 08:30 AM

Originally Posted by No Other

5. There will be occurrences where Benford's Law will not be the proper tool but election results is not one of them.
6. Using Benford's Law as a tool to observe the distribution of votes counted is valid as long as the proper criteria is present. (defined universe,at least one magnitude of numbers, numbers are naturally established, sufficient sample size).

Since you claim expertise in this, let's construct a hypothetical. Suppose there is an election in which all counting districts are chosen so that the expected vote total from each is 1000 votes, and the votes counted fall within 10% of this figure. Suppose also that the two candidates each poll close to 50% overall, and the variance between counting districts turns out to be within 20% of this figure (i.e. all districts report between 30/70 and 70/30 votes for all candidates). Based only on the above information, would it be possible to use Benford's Law on the first digits of the numbers of votes cast to determine whether the results were, or were not, suspect?

I'll supply the answer later, if anyone hasn't got it immediately.

Dave

shuttlt · 10th November 2020, 08:33 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Can we put this nonsense to rest; this stupid idea that wanting fairness is the same thing as being biased for the people who don't cheat?

"Democrats want things to be run fairly, Republicans don't" doesn't make this a "Political difference" that you are just "Biased for the Democrats" in wanting.

Of course each side claim, and perhaps believe, that they are the honest ones. That is why in practice all these questions of whether elections are fair are actually political questions.

JoeMorgue · 10th November 2020, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Of course each side claim, and perhaps believe, that they are the honest ones. That is why in practice all these questions of whether elections are fair are actually political questions.

In a post-fact world sure.

Dave Rogers · 10th November 2020, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Of course each side claim, and perhaps believe, that they are the honest ones. That is why in practice all these questions of whether elections are fair are actually political questions.

That position is a moral vacuum.

Dave

Meadmaker · 10th November 2020, 08:37 AM

Originally Posted by No Other

7. Both Democrats and Republicans use this method... this is not new.

Citation needed.

I don't think either Democrats or Republicans have ever used this method.

pgwenthold · 10th November 2020, 08:37 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Right, so one "error" can throw the vote off in a county by 6000 votes and the total votes in some states are only different by 15000 votes or less.
.

There was an error of 6000 votes, it was detected immediately, and immediately corrected.

How does that support a claim that there is potentially an error of 15000 votes somewhere else that has not been found?

"The system worked to detect serious anomalies" somehow turns into "there are bigger problems that have not found"?

JoeMorgue · 10th November 2020, 08:38 AM

It's Conspiracy Thinking.

"Well if this got discovered, just think of what kind of evil is still uncovered!"

shuttlt · 10th November 2020, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Trump has made it clear that he fervently believes that he has already won the election,

Trump says a lot of attention seeking, bombastic stuff. How much of it he believes, and whether he believes it "fervently", isn't clear.

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

and the only purpose of an investigation would be to find out how it was fraudulently stolen from him. Do half the country believe him? You don't know that.

Now we are getting back into the realms of political calculations. If you believe that it's only an insignificant minority that believe his claims, then it is certainly safe not to investigate.

shuttlt · 10th November 2020, 08:40 AM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

There was an error of 6000 votes, it was detected immediately, and immediately corrected.

How does that support a claim that there is potentially an error of 15000 votes somewhere else that has not been found?

"The system worked to detect serious anomalies" somehow turns into "there are bigger problems that have not found"?

If a similar error occurred in another country and wasn't detected. The amount of error and fraud is almost always going to be greater than the amount detected for any given level of investigation.

I Am The Scum · 10th November 2020, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Which case are you talking about?

There are zero cases in which party representatives have been prevented from observing the count.

JoeMorgue · 10th November 2020, 08:43 AM

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

There are zero cases in which party representatives have been prevented from observing the count.

Okay but what about all the cases where the Illuminati prevented us from knowing about representatives being prevented from observing the count?

pgwenthold · 10th November 2020, 08:43 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

If a similar error occurred in another country and wasn't detected.

On what basis do you assert that a similar error occurring in another county would not be detected?

The evidence we have indicates that a 6000 vote error gets immediately detected and fixed.

johnny karate · 10th November 2020, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by johnny karate

What’s the minimum number of people who need to believe without evidence that you are a pedophile before you are comfortable with the police investigating you for it?

Bumped for shuttit, as it appears you missed this post.

You have argued that if enough people believe something without evidence then we should proceed is if that thing might be true, regardless of the lack of evidence.

The upper threshold you’ve placed on this seems to be “half the country”.

I’m trying to determine the lower threshold.

How many people would need to believe that you are a pedophile without evidence before it would be appropriate to launch a criminal investigation into your alleged pedophilia?

JoeMorgue · 10th November 2020, 08:45 AM

Looks like I'm going to have to go check and see which party the Invisible Dragon in My Garage is registered with...

Craig4 · 10th November 2020, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

If a similar error occurred in another country and wasn't detected. The amount of error and fraud is almost always going to be greater than the amount detected for any given level of investigation.

What could have happened doesn't matter. Did it happen?

shemp · 10th November 2020, 08:46 AM

OMG I found examples of VOTER FRODD!!!1!1!11!ELEVENTY!!!111

https://twitter.com/brguest20/status...87700826685440

shuttlt · 10th November 2020, 08:46 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

That position is a moral vacuum.

Dave

It's how the system is designed. We heard all about this with impeachment that congress could impeach the president for any reason that congress thought justified impeaching him... a political process. The same with elections, that's why you can have faithless electors... or congress deciding who the winner is.

You can't decide who are the good guys based on your sides conviction that you are the good guys. Pretty much everybody thinks they are the good guys. Trump voters certainly think they are the good guys.

JoeMorgue · 10th November 2020, 08:47 AM

Originally Posted by shemp

OMG I found examples of VOTER FRODD!!!1!1!11!ELEVENTY!!!111

https://twitter.com/brguest20/status...87700826685440

Mrs. Krabappel and Principal Skinner were in the closet making fake votes and I saw one of the fake votes and then the fake vote looked at me.

JoeMorgue · 10th November 2020, 08:48 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

It's how the system is designed. We heard all about this with impeachment that congress could impeach the president for any reason that congress thought justified impeaching him... a political process. The same with elections, that's why you can have faithless electors... or congress deciding who the winner is.

You can't decide who are the good guys based on your sides conviction that you are the good guys. Pretty much everybody thinks they are the good guys. Trump voters certainly think they are the good guys.

Yes if only there were this outside elements, these firm factual things that don't change based on your opinion of them... hmmm but there I go living in my fantasy land again.

shuttlt · 10th November 2020, 08:50 AM

Originally Posted by Craig4

What could have happened doesn't matter. Did it happen?

The only way to find out would be to go look. Somebody should go look, with witnesses representing the stakeholders close enough to witness the checks.

JoeMorgue · 10th November 2020, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

The only way to find out would be to go look. Somebody should go look, with witnesses representing the stakeholders close enough to witness the checks.

WE DID THAT AND THE OTHER SIDE STILL JUST GO "LOL NO, STILL DON'T BELIEVE IT."

Both sides have poll watchers! NOTHING HAPPENED!

pgwenthold · 10th November 2020, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

The only way to find out would be to go look.

Do you have any evidence that they did not "look" by using the same approach that was used to detect the 6000 vote error?

shuttlt · 10th November 2020, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Yes if only there were this outside elements, these firm factual things that don't change based on your opinion of them... hmmm but there I go living in my fantasy land again.

We seem to be in a time where there is disagreement and lack of trust, hence it is a political question.

JoeMorgue · 10th November 2020, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

We seem to be in a time where there is disagreement and lack of trust, hence it is a political question.

Because one side literally will sit there and deny reality.

shuttlt · 10th November 2020, 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

Do you have any evidence that they did not "look" by using the same approach that was used to detect the 6000 vote error?

No. If they did, then the way it was checked needs to be explained, and possibly audited to clear the air.

MinnesotaBrant · 10th November 2020, 08:55 AM

I fired an employee at my store but never followed through on the paperwork after he refused to leave so I let him stay which was a disaster. I wonder if we are gonna end up with two presidents come Jan 20. The fact that so many countries aren't calling Biden is telling; they must know something that we don't.

JoeMorgue · 10th November 2020, 08:55 AM

Talking politics is now literally indistinguishable from arguing Woo.

Scene. There is a red ball on the table.
Ted: There's a red ball on the table.
Bill: There's a blue cube on the table.
Ted: What... no that's a red ball. We're both looking at it.
Bill: Agree to disagree.
Ted: That's not how this works.
Bill: Well that's just your opinion.
Ted: It... is... a.... red... ball.
Bill: Why are you sowing such distrust?
Ted: It's a red ball.
Bill: Meet me halfway, it's a red cube.
Ted: No it's still a red ball.

Why are so many people looking at that discussion and somehow coming to the conclusion that Ted is the problem?

malbui · 10th November 2020, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

It's Conspiracy Thinking.

"Well if this got discovered, just think of what kind of evil is still uncovered!"

It reminds me of the Dreyfus Affair. It was clear that the evidence that convicted him at his first trial had been forged, so at his retrial the prosecution argued that they now had even stronger evidence but it was so top secret that nobody was allowed to see it.

I Am The Scum · 10th November 2020, 08:57 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

WE DID THAT AND THE OTHER SIDE STILL JUST GO "LOL NO, STILL DON'T BELIEVE IT."

Both sides have poll watchers! NOTHING HAPPENED!

Joe, I sincerely enjoy how one minute you're all "Why are we even feeding the troll?" into the hard swing of vomiting bile directly into the troll's gullet. It really is something.

Meadmaker · 10th November 2020, 08:57 AM

This Benford's Law stuff is really funny. I did a news search to see what was coming up. Here's one article:

https://www.truthorfiction.com/does-...n-biden-votes/

It basically describes some of the claims going about, showing how they are wrong, but the site itself does a terrible job, starting with their description of Benford's Law.

"[Benford’s Law is] the principle that in any large, randomly produced set of natural numbers, such as tables of logarithms or corporate sales statistics, around 30 percent will begin with the digit 1, 18 percent with 2, and so on, with the smallest percentage beginning with 9. The law is applied in analyzing the validity of statistics and financial records."

No. Just no. First of all, "tables of logarithms", are not "a randomly produced set of natural numbers". Second, it isn't in "any randomly produced set of natural numbers". It's just not. Not even close. Whoever wrote that line, presumably the truthorfiction.com authors cribbed it from somewhere, just didn't understand Benford's Law, or nature.

If I have a Gaussian distributed random variable (and those of you who know what that means probably also know that they occur a lot in nature - curse you Central Limit Theorem), the numbers recorded for it won't follow Benford's law. If you have a uniform distribution, which is much rarer in nature, but common in games and probability, it won't follow Benford's Law. If you have any distribution that doesn't span at least one order of magnitude it can't possibly follow Benford's Law.

On the other hand, if you have something that follows an exponential pattern, it will follow Benford's Law. As many of you know, lots of natural processes are described by differential equations, and those have a lot of exponentials in them, so lots of natural processes work with Benford's Law.

And, it turns out, that while a gaussian distribution does not follow Benford's law, the product of two gaussians will....some restrictions apply. The product of many gaussians also will. So will the product of uniform distributions. That's why the product of dice rolls will follow Benford's Law, but the sum of dice rolls will not. And this is related to why you can make use of Benford's Law to catch accounting fraud.

But, the cool think is seeing all these people talk about it, and just getting it wrong from every angle. It's not some magic formula that roots out fraud. The misinformation is flowing fast and furious about it.

pgwenthold · 10th November 2020, 08:58 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

We seem to be in a time where there is disagreement and lack of trust, hence it is a political question.

As JoeMorgue hints, this is pure sophistry.

It goes like this
"Who watches the watchers?"
"Who watches them?"
"And who watches them?"

and it ends with
"How do you know reality exists and we aren't all just part of simulation?"

No one cares.

JoeMorgue · 10th November 2020, 08:58 AM

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

Joe, I sincerely enjoy how one minute you're all "Why are we even feeding the troll?" into the hard swing of vomiting bile directly into the troll's gullet. It really is something.

I have literally never once advocated ignoring trolls, and actively fight against the very concept. Ignoring trolls is literally why discourse is why it is the way it is now.

We let people just be wrong for so long and we're all shocked and appalled that lo' and behold a lot of people are wrong with no way to deal with them.

shuttlt · 10th November 2020, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by MinnesotaBrant

I fired an employee at my store but never followed through on the paperwork after he refused to leave so I let him stay which was a disaster. I wonder if we are gonna end up with two presidents come Jan 20. The fact that so many countries aren't calling Biden is telling; they must know something that we don't.

When this happened with Popes, they elected a new Pope to clear up the mess. The previous two Popes refused to go, so they then had 3 Popes. You need to set your sights higher.

Pretty much every other Western country is on the same globalist/managerial class side as Biden. If they aren't calling it's not because they aren't on his side. Plus, wouldn't talking to them risk breaking the Logan act?

pgwenthold · 10th November 2020, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by MinnesotaBrant

I fired an employee at my store but never followed through on the paperwork after he refused to leave so I let him stay which was a disaster. I wonder if we are gonna end up with two presidents come Jan 20.

We will not.

The constitution states that the term lasts 4 years. Trump's term ends on Jan 20, 2021. There is no ambiguity. He can "refuse to leave" all he wants, but he won't be President.

Unless, of course, all those "strict constructionist" Constitution supporters claim that the Constitution doesn't count.

shuttlt · 10th November 2020, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

As JoeMorgue hints, this is pure sophistry.

It goes like this
"Who watches the watchers?"
"Who watches them?"
"And who watches them?"

and it ends with
"How do you know reality exists and we aren't all just part of simulation?"

No one cares.

In the US system, it seems pretty clear most of the time. In the case of elections, the buck seems to stop with congressional delegations.

JoeMorgue · 10th November 2020, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

In the US system, it seems pretty clear most of the time. In the case of elections, the buck seems to stop with congressional delegations.

And that's the "Well if bought off the refs that's the same thing as playing fairly" mentality.

You can't "Don't hate the player, hate the game" us into a dictatorship.

pgwenthold · 10th November 2020, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Talking politics is now literally indistinguishable from arguing Woo.

Scene. There is a red ball on the table.
Ted: There's a red ball on the table.
Bill: There's a blue cube on the table.
Ted: What... no that's a red ball. We're both looking at it.
Bill: Agree to disagree.
Ted: That's not how this works.
Bill: Well that's just your opinion.
Ted: It... is... a.... red... ball.
Bill: Why are you sowing such distrust?
Ted: It's a red ball.
Bill: Meet me halfway, it's a red cube.
Ted: No it's still a red ball.

Why are so many people looking at that discussion and somehow coming to the conclusion that Ted is the problem?

My favorite example; skip ahead to about 40s

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

"Man's entitled to his opinion"

shuttlt · 10th November 2020, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

And that's the "Well if bought off the refs that's the same thing as playing fairly" mentality.

You can't "Don't hate the player, hate the game" us into a dictatorship.

If the two teams can't agree on what the rules of the game are then the congressional delegations are the final ref. I'd be stunned if it got there.

10th November 2020, 08:21 AM	#521
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 29,862	Republicans are results based, Democrats are standards based. With Republicans if the Ref didn't see it, then it's a valid gameplay tactic. If you can pay off the Refs, hey you're just being smart. As long as you win the game it's all good.
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

10th November 2020, 08:30 AM	#522
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314	Originally Posted by johnny karate I’m not sure, but apparently we need to ask noted mathematician Chris Rock. Maybe we should ask Joe Frazier?
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314

10th November 2020, 08:30 AM	#523
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 32,216	Originally Posted by No Other 5. There will be occurrences where Benford's Law will not be the proper tool but election results is not one of them. 6. Using Benford's Law as a tool to observe the distribution of votes counted is valid as long as the proper criteria is present. (defined universe,at least one magnitude of numbers, numbers are naturally established, sufficient sample size). Since you claim expertise in this, let's construct a hypothetical. Suppose there is an election in which all counting districts are chosen so that the expected vote total from each is 1000 votes, and the votes counted fall within 10% of this figure. Suppose also that the two candidates each poll close to 50% overall, and the variance between counting districts turns out to be within 20% of this figure (i.e. all districts report between 30/70 and 70/30 votes for all candidates). Based only on the above information, would it be possible to use Benford's Law on the first digits of the numbers of votes cast to determine whether the results were, or were not, suspect? I'll supply the answer later, if anyone hasn't got it immediately. Dave
	__________________ Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel. - Myriad

10th November 2020, 08:33 AM	#524
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Can we put this nonsense to rest; this stupid idea that wanting fairness is the same thing as being biased for the people who don't cheat? "Democrats want things to be run fairly, Republicans don't" doesn't make this a "Political difference" that you are just "Biased for the Democrats" in wanting. Of course each side claim, and perhaps believe, that they are the honest ones. That is why in practice all these questions of whether elections are fair are actually political questions.
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314

10th November 2020, 08:34 AM	#525
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 29,862	Originally Posted by shuttlt Of course each side claim, and perhaps believe, that they are the honest ones. That is why in practice all these questions of whether elections are fair are actually political questions. In a post-fact world sure.
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

10th November 2020, 08:36 AM	#526
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 32,216	Originally Posted by shuttlt Of course each side claim, and perhaps believe, that they are the honest ones. That is why in practice all these questions of whether elections are fair are actually political questions. That position is a moral vacuum. Dave
	__________________ Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel. - Myriad

10th November 2020, 08:37 AM	#527
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 24,758	Originally Posted by No Other 7. Both Democrats and Republicans use this method... this is not new. Citation needed. I don't think either Democrats or Republicans have ever used this method.
	__________________ Yes, yes. I know you're right, but would it hurt you to actually provide some information?

10th November 2020, 08:37 AM	#528
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 20,045	Originally Posted by shuttlt Right, so one "error" can throw the vote off in a county by 6000 votes and the total votes in some states are only different by 15000 votes or less. . There was an error of 6000 votes, it was detected immediately, and immediately corrected. How does that support a claim that there is potentially an error of 15000 votes somewhere else that has not been found? "The system worked to detect serious anomalies" somehow turns into "there are bigger problems that have not found"?
	__________________ "As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets

10th November 2020, 08:38 AM	#529
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 29,862	It's Conspiracy Thinking. "Well if this got discovered, just think of what kind of evil is still uncovered!"
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

10th November 2020, 08:38 AM	#530
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers Trump has made it clear that he fervently believes that he has already won the election, Trump says a lot of attention seeking, bombastic stuff. How much of it he believes, and whether he believes it "fervently", isn't clear. Originally Posted by Dave Rogers and the only purpose of an investigation would be to find out how it was fraudulently stolen from him. Do half the country believe him? You don't know that. Now we are getting back into the realms of political calculations. If you believe that it's only an insignificant minority that believe his claims, then it is certainly safe not to investigate.
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314

10th November 2020, 08:40 AM	#531
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314	Originally Posted by pgwenthold There was an error of 6000 votes, it was detected immediately, and immediately corrected. How does that support a claim that there is potentially an error of 15000 votes somewhere else that has not been found? "The system worked to detect serious anomalies" somehow turns into "there are bigger problems that have not found"? If a similar error occurred in another country and wasn't detected. The amount of error and fraud is almost always going to be greater than the amount detected for any given level of investigation.
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314

10th November 2020, 08:41 AM	#532
I Am The Scum Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 4,558	Originally Posted by shuttlt Which case are you talking about? There are zero cases in which party representatives have been prevented from observing the count.

10th November 2020, 08:43 AM	#533
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 29,862	Originally Posted by I Am The Scum There are zero cases in which party representatives have been prevented from observing the count. Okay but what about all the cases where the Illuminati prevented us from knowing about representatives being prevented from observing the count?
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

10th November 2020, 08:43 AM	#534
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 20,045	Originally Posted by shuttlt If a similar error occurred in another country and wasn't detected. On what basis do you assert that a similar error occurring in another county would not be detected? The evidence we have indicates that a 6000 vote error gets immediately detected and fixed.
	__________________ "As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets

10th November 2020, 08:45 AM	#535
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 14,173	Originally Posted by johnny karate What’s the minimum number of people who need to believe without evidence that you are a pedophile before you are comfortable with the police investigating you for it? Bumped for shuttit, as it appears you missed this post. You have argued that if enough people believe something without evidence then we should proceed is if that thing might be true, regardless of the lack of evidence. The upper threshold you’ve placed on this seems to be “half the country”. I’m trying to determine the lower threshold. How many people would need to believe that you are a pedophile without evidence before it would be appropriate to launch a criminal investigation into your alleged pedophilia?

10th November 2020, 08:45 AM	#536
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 29,862	Looks like I'm going to have to go check and see which party the Invisible Dragon in My Garage is registered with...
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

10th November 2020, 08:45 AM	#537
Craig4 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State. Posts: 22,322	Originally Posted by shuttlt If a similar error occurred in another country and wasn't detected. The amount of error and fraud is almost always going to be greater than the amount detected for any given level of investigation. What could have happened doesn't matter. Did it happen?
	__________________ A MAGA hat = a Swastika arm band. A vote for Trump is a vote for treason.

10th November 2020, 08:46 AM	#538
shemp a flimsy character...perfidious and despised Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: People's Democratic Republic of Planet X Posts: 39,566	OMG I found examples of VOTER FRODD!!!1!1!11!ELEVENTY!!!111 https://twitter.com/brguest20/status...87700826685440
	__________________ If being a twat was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set. "...just as a magnet attracts iron filings, ~~Trump~~ shemp attracts, and is attracted to, louts." - George Will "[shemp is] a most notable coward, an infinite and endless liar, an hourly promise breaker, the owner of no one good quality." - Shakespeare

10th November 2020, 08:46 AM	#539
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers That position is a moral vacuum. Dave It's how the system is designed. We heard all about this with impeachment that congress could impeach the president for any reason that congress thought justified impeaching him... a political process. The same with elections, that's why you can have faithless electors... or congress deciding who the winner is. You can't decide who are the good guys based on your sides conviction that you are the good guys. Pretty much everybody thinks they are the good guys. Trump voters certainly think they are the good guys.
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314

10th November 2020, 08:47 AM	#540
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 29,862	Originally Posted by shemp OMG I found examples of VOTER FRODD!!!1!1!11!ELEVENTY!!!111 https://twitter.com/brguest20/status...87700826685440 Mrs. Krabappel and Principal Skinner were in the closet making fake votes and I saw one of the fake votes and then the fake vote looked at me.
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

10th November 2020, 08:48 AM	#541
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 29,862	Originally Posted by shuttlt It's how the system is designed. We heard all about this with impeachment that congress could impeach the president for any reason that congress thought justified impeaching him... a political process. The same with elections, that's why you can have faithless electors... or congress deciding who the winner is. You can't decide who are the good guys based on your sides conviction that you are the good guys. Pretty much everybody thinks they are the good guys. Trump voters certainly think they are the good guys. Yes if only there were this outside elements, these firm factual things that don't change based on your opinion of them... hmmm but there I go living in my fantasy land again.
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

10th November 2020, 08:50 AM	#542
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314	Originally Posted by Craig4 What could have happened doesn't matter. Did it happen? The only way to find out would be to go look. Somebody should go look, with witnesses representing the stakeholders close enough to witness the checks.
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314

10th November 2020, 08:51 AM	#543
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 29,862	Originally Posted by shuttlt The only way to find out would be to go look. Somebody should go look, with witnesses representing the stakeholders close enough to witness the checks. WE DID THAT AND THE OTHER SIDE STILL JUST GO "LOL NO, STILL DON'T BELIEVE IT." Both sides have poll watchers! NOTHING HAPPENED!
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

10th November 2020, 08:52 AM	#544
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 20,045	Originally Posted by shuttlt The only way to find out would be to go look. Do you have any evidence that they did not "look" by using the same approach that was used to detect the 6000 vote error?
	__________________ "As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets

10th November 2020, 08:52 AM	#545
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Yes if only there were this outside elements, these firm factual things that don't change based on your opinion of them... hmmm but there I go living in my fantasy land again. We seem to be in a time where there is disagreement and lack of trust, hence it is a political question.
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314

10th November 2020, 08:53 AM	#546
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 29,862	Originally Posted by shuttlt We seem to be in a time where there is disagreement and lack of trust, hence it is a political question. Because one side literally will sit there and deny reality.
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

10th November 2020, 08:54 AM	#547
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314	Originally Posted by pgwenthold Do you have any evidence that they did not "look" by using the same approach that was used to detect the 6000 vote error? No. If they did, then the way it was checked needs to be explained, and possibly audited to clear the air.
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314

10th November 2020, 08:55 AM	#548
MinnesotaBrant Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 4,953	I fired an employee at my store but never followed through on the paperwork after he refused to leave so I let him stay which was a disaster. I wonder if we are gonna end up with two presidents come Jan 20. The fact that so many countries aren't calling Biden is telling; they must know something that we don't.
	__________________ Formerly known as MNBrant.

10th November 2020, 08:55 AM	#549
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 29,862	Talking politics is now literally indistinguishable from arguing Woo. Scene. There is a red ball on the table. Ted: There's a red ball on the table. Bill: There's a blue cube on the table. Ted: What... no that's a red ball. We're both looking at it. Bill: Agree to disagree. Ted: That's not how this works. Bill: Well that's just your opinion. Ted: It... is... a.... red... ball. Bill: Why are you sowing such distrust? Ted: It's a red ball. Bill: Meet me halfway, it's a red cube. Ted: No it's still a red ball. Why are so many people looking at that discussion and somehow coming to the conclusion that Ted is the problem?
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate." Last edited by JoeMorgue; 10th November 2020 at 08:56 AM.

10th November 2020, 08:55 AM	#550
malbui Beauf Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 2,754	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue It's Conspiracy Thinking. "Well if this got discovered, just think of what kind of evil is still uncovered!" It reminds me of the Dreyfus Affair. It was clear that the evidence that convicted him at his first trial had been forged, so at his retrial the prosecution argued that they now had even stronger evidence but it was so top secret that nobody was allowed to see it.
malbui Beauf Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 2,754	__________________ "But Master! Does not the fire need water too? Does not the mountain need the storm? Does not your scrotum need kicking?"

10th November 2020, 08:57 AM	#551
I Am The Scum Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 4,558	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue WE DID THAT AND THE OTHER SIDE STILL JUST GO "LOL NO, STILL DON'T BELIEVE IT." Both sides have poll watchers! NOTHING HAPPENED! Joe, I sincerely enjoy how one minute you're all "Why are we even feeding the troll?" into the hard swing of vomiting bile directly into the troll's gullet. It really is something.

10th November 2020, 08:57 AM	#552
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 24,758	This Benford's Law stuff is really funny. I did a news search to see what was coming up. Here's one article: https://www.truthorfiction.com/does-...n-biden-votes/ It basically describes some of the claims going about, showing how they are wrong, but the site itself does a terrible job, starting with their description of Benford's Law. "[Benford’s Law is] the principle that in any large, randomly produced set of natural numbers, such as tables of logarithms or corporate sales statistics, around 30 percent will begin with the digit 1, 18 percent with 2, and so on, with the smallest percentage beginning with 9. The law is applied in analyzing the validity of statistics and financial records." No. Just no. First of all, "tables of logarithms", are not "a randomly produced set of natural numbers". Second, it isn't in "any randomly produced set of natural numbers". It's just not. Not even close. Whoever wrote that line, presumably the truthorfiction.com authors cribbed it from somewhere, just didn't understand Benford's Law, or nature. If I have a Gaussian distributed random variable (and those of you who know what that means probably also know that they occur a lot in nature - curse you Central Limit Theorem), the numbers recorded for it won't follow Benford's law. If you have a uniform distribution, which is much rarer in nature, but common in games and probability, it won't follow Benford's Law. If you have any distribution that doesn't span at least one order of magnitude it can't possibly follow Benford's Law. On the other hand, if you have something that follows an exponential pattern, it will follow Benford's Law. As many of you know, lots of natural processes are described by differential equations, and those have a lot of exponentials in them, so lots of natural processes work with Benford's Law. And, it turns out, that while a gaussian distribution does not follow Benford's law, the product of two gaussians will....some restrictions apply. The product of many gaussians also will. So will the product of uniform distributions. That's why the product of dice rolls will follow Benford's Law, but the sum of dice rolls will not. And this is related to why you can make use of Benford's Law to catch accounting fraud. But, the cool think is seeing all these people talk about it, and just getting it wrong from every angle. It's not some magic formula that roots out fraud. The misinformation is flowing fast and furious about it.
	__________________ Yes, yes. I know you're right, but would it hurt you to actually provide some information?

10th November 2020, 08:58 AM	#553
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 20,045	Originally Posted by shuttlt We seem to be in a time where there is disagreement and lack of trust, hence it is a political question. As JoeMorgue hints, this is pure sophistry. It goes like this "Who watches the watchers?" "Who watches them?" "And who watches them?" and it ends with "How do you know reality exists and we aren't all just part of simulation?" No one cares.
	__________________ "As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets

10th November 2020, 08:58 AM	#554
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 29,862	Originally Posted by I Am The Scum Joe, I sincerely enjoy how one minute you're all "Why are we even feeding the troll?" into the hard swing of vomiting bile directly into the troll's gullet. It really is something. I have literally never once advocated ignoring trolls, and actively fight against the very concept. Ignoring trolls is literally why discourse is why it is the way it is now. We let people just be wrong for so long and we're all shocked and appalled that lo' and behold a lot of people are wrong with no way to deal with them.
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate." Last edited by JoeMorgue; 10th November 2020 at 09:04 AM.

10th November 2020, 09:00 AM	#555
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314	Originally Posted by MinnesotaBrant I fired an employee at my store but never followed through on the paperwork after he refused to leave so I let him stay which was a disaster. I wonder if we are gonna end up with two presidents come Jan 20. The fact that so many countries aren't calling Biden is telling; they must know something that we don't. When this happened with Popes, they elected a new Pope to clear up the mess. The previous two Popes refused to go, so they then had 3 Popes. You need to set your sights higher. Pretty much every other Western country is on the same globalist/managerial class side as Biden. If they aren't calling it's not because they aren't on his side. Plus, wouldn't talking to them risk breaking the Logan act?
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314