Allegations of Fraud in 2020 US Election - Page 8

TahiniBinShawarma · 9th November 2020, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by wareyin

You keep claiming that the multiple studies presented which show Benfords Law does not apply to elections are somehow not representative of the consensus. Yet you've failed to bring one drop of evidence that vote counts do obey Benfords Law. Why not show us these many more studies that do agree with your take and show how wrong the, according to you, lone crank PhDs who wrote these papers are?

I don't think that it can prove election fraud. It can point to "possible" fraud. It will identify anomalies, but those anomalies could be nothing.

pgwenthold · 9th November 2020, 06:46 PM

Failing Benford's law does not indicate election fraud. At best, it indicates election anomaly.

For voter fraud, you actually have to have evidence of fraud.

As in, show something actually fraudulent. Fraud means someone did something wrong. Who did it and what did they do?

Other than that you have nothing but smoke and mirrors.

acbytesla · 9th November 2020, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I'm aware of that. It seems to me that one reason to have some confidence here is that this technique has clearly seen quite a bit of use over a long period of time in other elections, hence it isn't something that has been plucked from nowhere just to defend trump. It doesn't really matter though, since I very much doubt that these mathematical arguments, regardless of how off the data is, will in and of themselves be accepted as proof of anything. At most they help open the door for an investigation.

I don't understand how it was used elsewhere and it doesn't sound like you do either. You're just sailing by that fact and the fact that mathematical models in themselves do not prove election fraud.

TahiniBinShawarma · 9th November 2020, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by slyjoe

BS.

The DoJ has a long standing policy of not getting involved in elections, similar to their policy of not indicting sitting presidents.

So what happens today? Esper, who doesn't like the military involvement with protesters and called Trump out on it, is fired. He is replaced by a Trump yes-man, who has no problem with the Insurrection Act.

Then Barr has this memo allowing the federal DoJ to be involved in the election.

I thought the election was over?

slyjoe · 9th November 2020, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma

I thought the election was over?

It's not - try to keep up.

TahiniBinShawarma · 9th November 2020, 06:49 PM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

Failing Benford's law does not indicate election fraud. At best, it indicates election anomaly.

For voter fraud, you actually have to have evidence of fraud.

As in, show something actually fraudulent. Fraud means someone did something wrong. Who did it and what did they do?

Other than that you have nothing but smoke and mirrors.

Correct, it can show an anomaly, which could be fraud, but the law in itself is only good at finding the anomaly. To prove fraud, you need something more than Benford's law.

Norman Alexander · 9th November 2020, 06:49 PM

Originally Posted by No Other

Benford's Law is Empirical what more do you require?

So is Ohm's Law. Let's use that too.

shuttlt · 9th November 2020, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

But why would the last digit follow Benford's Law? That makes no sense.....but I didn't want to say anything because I wasn't sure. Well, now I'm sure. The last digit of anything won't follow Benford's Law.

It been a long day and I am saying last when I mean first and first when I mean last. On that note, I happily withdraw for a bit :-)

TahiniBinShawarma · 9th November 2020, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by slyjoe

It's not - try to keep up.

I thought Biden won, and everything else was a conspiracy theory?

shuttlt · 9th November 2020, 06:52 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I don't understand how it was used elsewhere and it doesn't sound like you do either. You're just sailing by that fact and the fact that mathematical models in themselves do not prove election fraud.

Meh, what interested my was that you folks have a hair trigger for saying that things that help trump are debunked. I couldn't see what your basis was for saying that this law that I had heard about for years was debunked, I still don't.

acbytesla · 9th November 2020, 06:53 PM

Originally Posted by slyjoe

BS.

The DoJ has a long standing policy of not getting involved in elections, similar to their policy of not indicting sitting presidents.

So what happens today? Esper, who doesn't like the military involvement with protesters and called Trump out on it, is fired. He is replaced by a Trump yes-man, who has no problem with the Insurrection Act.

Then Barr has this memo allowing the federal DoJ to be involved in the election.

No, that's not what the memo said. It's about as non-committal a memo as I have ever read. I also think you're reading too much into the Esper firing.

Cain · 9th November 2020, 06:53 PM

David Frum: "It's just bizarre to say, 'We want to count every legal vote' when your primary election strategy is to disenfranchise legal voters."

Can I rant about 2000 for a moment? George W. Bush "won" with 537 more votes. In that election, a few thousand residents in Palm Beach voted for Pat freaking Buchanan. The reason? An illegal butterfly ballot. Yes, the ballot was created by some local Democrat, but the people there had no intention of voting for an anti-immigration, anti-Semitic bigot. Naturally, Republicans didn't give a **** about the will of the people of Florida (or the will of the country for that matter because 500,000 more Americans voted for Gore). Now they care about free and fair elections? No. They care about winning.

Meadmaker · 9th November 2020, 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by slyjoe

The DoJ has a long standing policy of not getting involved in elections, similar to their policy of not indicting sitting presidents.

Is that true? Who investigates election fraud charges? Is that normally as state function? is it a state crime or a federal crime?

I'm assuming that if there are allegations of federal crimes, then the FBI would investigate. If I print up a bunch of ballots, mark them for Joe Biden, and drop them in a mailbox, would that not be a federal crime? Maybe not. If it isn't, then the FBI should butt out.

johnny karate · 9th November 2020, 06:56 PM

Quote:

There is at least as much evidence that something isn't right as there was before the recount in 1960 discovered mass "human frailty". Naturally prior to an investigation, it's circumstantial.

To what specific “circumstantial” evidence are you referring?

wareyin · 9th November 2020, 06:57 PM

Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma

I don't think that it can prove election fraud. It can point to "possible" fraud. It will identify anomalies, but those anomalies could be nothing.

That's a simplified version of what the studies presented here say. Unfortunately for shuttlt, he's claiming that these are by lone cranks and not representative of the consensus. He says he's "been aware" of Benfords Law for years, so I guess he's the expert. Certainly not all the people that keep laboring to explain it to him, they're probably lone cranks too.

crescent · 9th November 2020, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma

I thought Biden won, and everything else was a conspiracy theory?

Pretty much, its good you understand that

Our current President doesn't understand that. He's an idiot who still has control of a vast security and military apparatus. That's a dangerous situation.

acbytesla · 9th November 2020, 06:59 PM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Meh, what interested my was that you folks have a hair trigger for saying that things that help trump are debunked. I couldn't see what your basis was for saying that this law that I had heard about for years was debunked, I still don't.

Nonsense. You clearly didn't read my earlier post. I'm not going to buy into a mathematical formula as proof that Trump was cheated.

Also given that 4 million more Americans voted for Biden I could give a ****.

Trump lost. Get over it.

Meadmaker · 9th November 2020, 07:00 PM

Originally Posted by No Other

Benford's Law is Empirical what more do you require?

No it isn't. The definition of "emprical" is

"based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic."

That isn't the case with Benford's Law. It is purely number theory. No observation required.

The application of Benford's Law to a specific problem may be empirical.

TahiniBinShawarma · 9th November 2020, 07:03 PM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Is that true? Who investigates election fraud charges? Is that normally as state function? is it a state crime or a federal crime?

I'm assuming that if there are allegations of federal crimes, then the FBI would investigate. If I print up a bunch of ballots, mark them for Joe Biden, and drop them in a mailbox, would that not be a federal crime? Maybe not. If it isn't, then the FBI should butt out.

If it's a federal election it's a federal crime. They try to wait until after, I don't think there are set rules against investigating. They have to walk the line of not getting involved in an election while at the same time taking serious allegations seriously.

TahiniBinShawarma · 9th November 2020, 07:04 PM

Originally Posted by crescent

Pretty much, its good you understand that

Our current President doesn't understand that. He's an idiot who still has control of a vast security and military apparatus. That's a dangerous situation.

It's not really that dangerous, it's worked till now, it will work from now on.

TahiniBinShawarma · 9th November 2020, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Nonsense. You clearly didn't read my earlier post. I'm not going to buy into a mathematical formula as proof that Trump was cheated.

Also given that 4 million more Americans voted for Biden I could give a ****.

Trump lost. Get over it.

I'd think they would use it to target where they wanted to look for fraud because it identifies anomalies, but it seems like they are taking the shotgun approach.

TahiniBinShawarma · 9th November 2020, 07:08 PM

Originally Posted by wareyin

That's a simplified version of what the studies presented here say. Unfortunately for shuttlt, he's claiming that these are by lone cranks and not representative of the consensus. He says he's "been aware" of Benfords Law for years, so I guess he's the expert. Certainly not all the people that keep laboring to explain it to him, they're probably lone cranks too.

Yeah, I don't think Team Trump is taking Benford's law into court as their evidence.

shuttlt · 9th November 2020, 07:08 PM

Originally Posted by johnny karate

To what specific “circumstantial” evidence are you referring?

Again, in 1960 I believe there was an unexplained pause in counting from democrat districts while the Republican numbers came in, only for enough Democrat votes to come in when it was clear how many were needed. You then have suspicious variance between districts and based on past elections. You had evasiveness and secrecy from the counting operations. You had the dead voting. Those seem to map pretty well between my understanding of 1960 and today. You also obviously have the 6000 vote glitch, the adding an extra zero by mistake error, the various bits of Veritas evidence and other recordings of people supposedly altering ballots and so on. Who knows? Maybe it will go like 1960 and huge fraud will be discovered, but it won't matter?

Meadmaker · 9th November 2020, 07:10 PM

Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma

If it's a federal election it's a federal crime. They try to wait until after, I don't think there are set rules against investigating. They have to walk the line of not getting involved in an election while at the same time taking serious allegations seriously.

Ok. I reread the memo, and caught that. Normally, they wait until after the election is certified, and then investigate any allegations of crimes. This time, Barr is saying don't wait for certification, so it does seem to be a change.

I suppose we'll see how it goes. If they actually do anything that interferes with the certification process, I'm sure we'll here about it. I can't say I trust them to be fair, but I will say that I trust the FBI agents to not deliberately go in and cheat the election process, so I think we are safe from a dictatorship.

wareyin · 9th November 2020, 07:11 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Nonsense. You clearly didn't read my earlier post. I'm not going to buy into a mathematical formula as proof that Trump was cheated.

Also given that 4 million more Americans voted for Biden I could give a ****.

Trump lost. Get over it.

I hadn't bothered to touch on it yet, but the original Benfords Law info that Zig linked to was using to to explain the "anomaly" that heavily Democratic areas like Pittsburgh voted more for Biden than for Trump. Seriously.

shuttlt · 9th November 2020, 07:14 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Nonsense. You clearly didn't read my earlier post. I'm not going to buy into a mathematical formula as proof that Trump was cheated.

I didn't claim it was proof.

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Also given that 4 million more Americans voted for Biden I could give a ****.

Trump lost. Get over it.

Exactly. A lot of people don't care if Biden has dementia, if he was taking money from China and Russia or sexually assaulted some woman years ago... they just want Trump gone. I'm not saying those things to knock Biden, or even claiming that they are true, just acknowledging that I understand that a lot of people just don't care.

wareyin · 9th November 2020, 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Again, in 1960 I believe there was an unexplained pause in counting from democrat districts while the Republican numbers came in, only for enough Democrat votes to come in when it was clear how many were needed. You then have suspicious variance between districts and based on past elections. You had evasiveness and secrecy from the counting operations. You had the dead voting. Those seem to map pretty well between my understanding of 1960 and today. You also obviously have the 6000 vote glitch, the adding an extra zero by mistake error, the various bits of Veritas evidence and other recordings of people supposedly altering ballots and so on. Who knows? Maybe it will go like 1960 and huge fraud will be discovered, but it won't matter?

Oh boy, if this is where you're getting your understanding a lot of your confusion is understandable.

acbytesla · 9th November 2020, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I didn't claim it was proof.

Exactly. A lot of people don't care if he has dementia, if he was taking money from China and Russia or sexually assaulted some woman years ago... they just want Trump gone. I'm not saying those things to knock Biden, or even claiming that they are true, just acknowledging that I understand that a lot of people just don't care.

What a ridiculous reply.

We are talking about the will of the people not the CTs of nutjobs. The will of the voters bitch slapped Trump and you're throwing turds pulled out of your ass to justify destroying the American democracy.

You'll excuse me when I say **** NO!

shuttlt · 9th November 2020, 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by wareyin

Oh boy, if this is where you're getting your understanding a lot of your confusion is understandable.

Not really, if you read the rest of the post you'll see that the information I'm putting more weight in isn't that. It's all evidence though that will either check out or not. I suspect everything I have seen from them is either too late to do anything meaningful about (ballot harvesting) or too hard to evidence a significant impact on the result (postal worker claims) even if it were to pan out which it may not.

acbytesla · 9th November 2020, 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Again, in 1960 I believe there was an unexplained pause in counting from democrat districts while the Republican numbers came in, only for enough Democrat votes to come in when it was clear how many were needed. You then have suspicious variance between districts and based on past elections. You had evasiveness and secrecy from the counting operations. You had the dead voting. Those seem to map pretty well between my understanding of 1960 and today. You also obviously have the 6000 vote glitch, the adding an extra zero by mistake error, the various bits of Veritas evidence and other recordings of people supposedly altering ballots and so on. Who knows? Maybe it will go like 1960 and huge fraud will be discovered, but it won't matter?

Get real. Then what happened in 2016 and 2001? Did the GOP pull more shenanigans?

johnny karate · 9th November 2020, 07:23 PM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Again, in 1960 I believe there was an unexplained pause in counting from democrat districts while the Republican numbers came in, only for enough Democrat votes to come in when it was clear how many were needed. You then have suspicious variance between districts and based on past elections. You had evasiveness and secrecy from the counting operations. You had the dead voting. Those seem to map pretty well between my understanding of 1960 and today. You also obviously have the 6000 vote glitch, the adding an extra zero by mistake error, the various bits of Veritas evidence and other recordings of people supposedly altering ballots and so on. Who knows? Maybe it will go like 1960 and huge fraud will be discovered, but it won't matter?

You’ve presented no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise. You’ve merely made a series of claims. Claims are not evidence.

What is your evidence that substantiates any of these claims?

shuttlt · 9th November 2020, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

What a ridiculous reply.

We are talking about the will of the people not the CTs of nutjobs. The will of the voters bitch slapped Trump and you're throwing turds pulled out of your ass to justify destroying the American democracy.

You'll excuse me when I say **** NO!

What? Nothing we say on this forum has any impact on the destruction or non-destruction of American democracy. If there was significant cheating of the scale of 1960, that would seem to be a problem for American democracy as well. We will see what comes out.

wareyin · 9th November 2020, 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Not really, if you read the rest of the post you'll see that the information I'm putting more weight in isn't that. It's all evidence though that will either check out or not. I suspect everything I have seen from them is either too late to do anything meaningful about (ballot harvesting) or too hard to evidence a significant impact on the result (postal worker claims) even if it were to pan out which it may not.

You said it's been a long day, so you probably don't realize that you didn't actually say what information you're putting more weight into, or where you are getting that information from. If you are still using known fraudsters and convicted felons as a trusted source of information that certainly explains why you get so much incorrect.

Segnosaur · 9th November 2020, 07:30 PM

Originally Posted by slyjoe

Quote:

It seems like a fine memo to me. It authorizes field agents to investigate credible allegations of voter fraud. Well, that's good. However, it also notes that there will be specious allegations, and those should not be investigated.

In other words, if something looks suspicious, look into it. If it's just cranks complaining, ignore them.

BS.

The DoJ has a long standing policy of not getting involved in elections, similar to their policy of not indicting sitting presidents.
...
Then Barr has this memo allowing the federal DoJ to be involved in the election.

I guess the question is... was this memo a prelude to actions by Barr and the DOJ that are... questionable (i.e. "the memo gave me a pretext for investigating fraud and now I'm going to find it, even where none exists"), or is it a sort of "cover your ass" sort of thing (i.e. Barr realizes that Stubby McBonespurs is cooked, but he doesn't want to follow Esper out the door, so he releases a memo to say "yeah, election fraud is important", but he'll just let it die.)

turingtest · 9th November 2020, 07:30 PM

Make no mistake about it- Trump has achieved exactly what he was after by his voter fraud claims (link is to Mediaite article "Republican Trust in Electoral Process Craters by 50% After Trump Loses and Starts Spreading Voter Fraud Conspiracies")-

Quote:

Per a Morning Consult tracking poll, 68% of Republicans reported that they had “a lot” or “some” faith in the nation’s elections just a week before Election Day. That figure was almost identical to the 66% of Democrats who said the same and bit more than the 58% of Independents who agreed.

But when Morning Consult asked the same question now, the number of Republicans answering the same way had fallen by half. This comes after nearly a week of Trump and his surrogates sowing unfounded seeds of doubt and pushing rampant conspiracy theories about fraud after President-Elect Joe Biden was declared the winner of the [election] as hundreds of thousands of mail-in votes were counted in the days after Election Day.

Trump and his enablers keep mouthing words about the American voter being entitled to feel confidence in the democratic process that they take part in to elect their government; it seems pretty obvious to me that their actual aim is to destroy that confidence when the outcome of the process in any given election isn't to their liking.

TahiniBinShawarma · 9th November 2020, 07:31 PM

@ktbenner

NEW: Richard Pilger, the official who oversees election crimes has stepped down over Barr's memo:
“Having familiarized myself with the new policy and its ramifications… I must regretfully resign from my role as Director of the Election Crimes Branch.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/09/u...elections.html

shuttlt · 9th November 2020, 07:33 PM

Originally Posted by johnny karate

You’ve presented no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise. You’ve merely made a series of claims. Claims are not evidence.

What is your evidence that substantiates any of these claims?

Well, there are the various recordings, eye witness testimony and so forth. I'm sure you know about them as well as I do. If you aren't happy with that, you are going to have to wait and see if there is an investigation. The point of an investigation is to substantiate or refute the claims. Demanding the fruits of the investigation before the investigation is ridiculous. Equally I think Nixon did kind of have to provide that by doing his own investigation before the official investigation that Kennedy was then able to have stopped.

Meadmaker · 9th November 2020, 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

What? Nothing we say on this forum has any impact on the destruction or non-destruction of American democracy.

I'm not sure I agree. I would like to think my actions have at least some singificance.

Admittedly, not much.

I think that we, as citizens, can help maintain or we can hasten the destruction of American democracy. If we say, without evidence, that the wrong guy is in the White House, we are saying that America is not a democracy. I think that contributes to the destruction of American democracy. We can perhaps be forgiven because of our insignificance.

My hostility toward Trump was enhanced greatly when he talked about rigged elections in 2016. Saying something was rigged is a good way to say that we don't really have a democracy. For a candidate to say that, without evidence, I thought was completely irresponsible. For a president to say it is unforgivable. For the people to echo and repeat those claims is predictable, but very dangerous.

For my part, I want to see evidence, and there isn't any, and Trump should put up or shut up.

shuttlt · 9th November 2020, 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma

@ktbenner

NEW: Richard Pilger, the official who oversees election crimes has stepped down over Barr's memo:
“Having familiarized myself with the new policy and its ramifications… I must regretfully resign from my role as Director of the Election Crimes Branch.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/09/u...elections.html

If it goes like 1960, this will be stalled out to inauguration at which point there is no constitutional way of undoing it. I'm doubtful that either the FBI, the Supreme Court or Congress are going to want to get involved in a way that changes the result if they can possibly avoid it.

acbytesla · 9th November 2020, 07:37 PM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

What? Nothing we say on this forum has any impact on the destruction or non-destruction of American democracy. If there was significant cheating of the scale of 1960, that would seem to be a problem for American democracy as well. We will see what comes out.

A bunch of crap thrown against the wall doesn't have much impact. You're right about that.

Neither does your hyperbolic rants comparing this election to 1960. You haven't shown a shred of credible evidence proving cheating in this election. Not any. Only wild ass crazy claims. On the other hand Qanon crazies were arrested trying to deliver fake ballots.

9th November 2020, 06:45 PM	#281
TahiniBinShawarma Muse Join Date: May 2020 Posts: 756	Originally Posted by wareyin You keep claiming that the multiple studies presented which show Benfords Law does not apply to elections are somehow not representative of the consensus. Yet you've failed to bring one drop of evidence that vote counts do obey Benfords Law. Why not show us these many more studies that do agree with your take and show how wrong the, according to you, lone crank PhDs who wrote these papers are? I don't think that it can prove election fraud. It can point to "possible" fraud. It will identify anomalies, but those anomalies could be nothing.
TahiniBinShawarma Muse Join Date: May 2020 Posts: 756

9th November 2020, 06:46 PM	#282
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 20,048	Failing Benford's law does not indicate election fraud. At best, it indicates election anomaly. For voter fraud, you actually have to have evidence of fraud. As in, show something actually fraudulent. Fraud means someone did something wrong. Who did it and what did they do? Other than that you have nothing but smoke and mirrors.
	__________________ "As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets

9th November 2020, 06:47 PM	#283
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 27,938	Originally Posted by shuttlt I'm aware of that. It seems to me that one reason to have some confidence here is that this technique has clearly seen quite a bit of use over a long period of time in other elections, hence it isn't something that has been plucked from nowhere just to defend trump. It doesn't really matter though, since I very much doubt that these mathematical arguments, regardless of how off the data is, will in and of themselves be accepted as proof of anything. At most they help open the door for an investigation. I don't understand how it was used elsewhere and it doesn't sound like you do either. You're just sailing by that fact and the fact that mathematical models in themselves do not prove election fraud.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

9th November 2020, 06:47 PM	#284
TahiniBinShawarma Muse Join Date: May 2020 Posts: 756	Originally Posted by slyjoe BS. The DoJ has a long standing policy of not getting involved in elections, similar to their policy of not indicting sitting presidents. So what happens today? Esper, who doesn't like the military involvement with protesters and called Trump out on it, is fired. He is replaced by a Trump yes-man, who has no problem with the Insurrection Act. Then Barr has this memo allowing the federal DoJ to be involved in the election. I thought the election was over?
TahiniBinShawarma Muse Join Date: May 2020 Posts: 756

9th November 2020, 06:48 PM	#285
slyjoe Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Near Harmonica Virgins, AZ Posts: 2,542	Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma I thought the election was over? It's not - try to keep up.
	__________________ "You have done nothing to demonstrate an understanding of scientific methodology or modern skepticism, both of which are, by necessity, driven by the facts and evidence, not by preconceptions, and both of which are strengthened by, and rely upon, change." - Arkan Wolfshade

9th November 2020, 06:49 PM	#286
TahiniBinShawarma Muse Join Date: May 2020 Posts: 756	Originally Posted by pgwenthold Failing Benford's law does not indicate election fraud. At best, it indicates election anomaly. For voter fraud, you actually have to have evidence of fraud. As in, show something actually fraudulent. Fraud means someone did something wrong. Who did it and what did they do? Other than that you have nothing but smoke and mirrors. Correct, it can show an anomaly, which could be fraud, but the law in itself is only good at finding the anomaly. To prove fraud, you need something more than Benford's law.
TahiniBinShawarma Muse Join Date: May 2020 Posts: 756

9th November 2020, 06:49 PM	#287
Norman Alexander Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: Gundungurra Posts: 8,458	Originally Posted by No Other Benford's Law is Empirical what more do you require? So is Ohm's Law. Let's use that too.
	__________________ _{...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015}

9th November 2020, 06:50 PM	#288
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314	Originally Posted by Meadmaker But why would the last digit follow Benford's Law? That makes no sense.....but I didn't want to say anything because I wasn't sure. Well, now I'm sure. The last digit of anything won't follow Benford's Law. It been a long day and I am saying last when I mean first and first when I mean last. On that note, I happily withdraw for a bit :-)
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314

9th November 2020, 06:50 PM	#289
TahiniBinShawarma Muse Join Date: May 2020 Posts: 756	Originally Posted by slyjoe It's not - try to keep up. I thought Biden won, and everything else was a conspiracy theory?
TahiniBinShawarma Muse Join Date: May 2020 Posts: 756

9th November 2020, 06:52 PM	#290
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314	Originally Posted by acbytesla I don't understand how it was used elsewhere and it doesn't sound like you do either. You're just sailing by that fact and the fact that mathematical models in themselves do not prove election fraud. Meh, what interested my was that you folks have a hair trigger for saying that things that help trump are debunked. I couldn't see what your basis was for saying that this law that I had heard about for years was debunked, I still don't.
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314

9th November 2020, 06:53 PM	#291
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 27,938	Originally Posted by slyjoe BS. The DoJ has a long standing policy of not getting involved in elections, similar to their policy of not indicting sitting presidents. So what happens today? Esper, who doesn't like the military involvement with protesters and called Trump out on it, is fired. He is replaced by a Trump yes-man, who has no problem with the Insurrection Act. Then Barr has this memo allowing the federal DoJ to be involved in the election. No, that's not what the memo said. It's about as non-committal a memo as I have ever read. I also think you're reading too much into the Esper firing.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

9th November 2020, 06:53 PM	#292
Cain Straussian Join Date: May 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 14,215	David Frum: "It's just bizarre to say, 'We want to count every legal vote' when your primary election strategy is to disenfranchise legal voters." Can I rant about 2000 for a moment? George W. Bush "won" with 537 more votes. In that election, a few thousand residents in Palm Beach voted for Pat freaking Buchanan. The reason? An illegal butterfly ballot. Yes, the ballot was created by some local Democrat, but the people there had no intention of voting for an anti-immigration, anti-Semitic bigot. Naturally, Republicans didn't give a **** about the will of the people of Florida (or the will of the country for that matter because 500,000 more Americans voted for Gore). Now they care about free and fair elections? No. They care about winning.
	__________________ April 13th, 2018: Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.

9th November 2020, 06:55 PM	#293
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 24,758	Originally Posted by slyjoe The DoJ has a long standing policy of not getting involved in elections, similar to their policy of not indicting sitting presidents. Is that true? Who investigates election fraud charges? Is that normally as state function? is it a state crime or a federal crime? I'm assuming that if there are allegations of federal crimes, then the FBI would investigate. If I print up a bunch of ballots, mark them for Joe Biden, and drop them in a mailbox, would that not be a federal crime? Maybe not. If it isn't, then the FBI should butt out.
	__________________ Yes, yes. I know you're right, but would it hurt you to actually provide some information?

9th November 2020, 06:56 PM	#294
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 14,173	Quote: There is at least as much evidence that something isn't right as there was before the recount in 1960 discovered mass "human frailty". Naturally prior to an investigation, it's circumstantial. To what specific “circumstantial” evidence are you referring?

9th November 2020, 06:57 PM	#295
wareyin Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 8,155	Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma I don't think that it can prove election fraud. It can point to "possible" fraud. It will identify anomalies, but those anomalies could be nothing. That's a simplified version of what the studies presented here say. Unfortunately for shuttlt, he's claiming that these are by lone cranks and not representative of the consensus. He says he's "been aware" of Benfords Law for years, so I guess he's the expert. Certainly not all the people that keep laboring to explain it to him, they're probably lone cranks too.

9th November 2020, 06:58 PM	#296
crescent Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Colorado Posts: 3,921	Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma I thought Biden won, and everything else was a conspiracy theory? Pretty much, its good you understand that Our current President doesn't understand that. He's an idiot who still has control of a vast security and military apparatus. That's a dangerous situation.

9th November 2020, 06:59 PM	#297
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 27,938	Originally Posted by shuttlt Meh, what interested my was that you folks have a hair trigger for saying that things that help trump are debunked. I couldn't see what your basis was for saying that this law that I had heard about for years was debunked, I still don't. Nonsense. You clearly didn't read my earlier post. I'm not going to buy into a mathematical formula as proof that Trump was cheated. Also given that 4 million more Americans voted for Biden I could give a ****. Trump lost. Get over it.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

9th November 2020, 07:00 PM	#298
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 24,758	Originally Posted by No Other Benford's Law is Empirical what more do you require? No it isn't. The definition of "emprical" is "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic." That isn't the case with Benford's Law. It is purely number theory. No observation required. The application of Benford's Law to a specific problem may be empirical.
	__________________ Yes, yes. I know you're right, but would it hurt you to actually provide some information?

9th November 2020, 07:03 PM	#299
TahiniBinShawarma Muse Join Date: May 2020 Posts: 756	Originally Posted by Meadmaker Is that true? Who investigates election fraud charges? Is that normally as state function? is it a state crime or a federal crime? I'm assuming that if there are allegations of federal crimes, then the FBI would investigate. If I print up a bunch of ballots, mark them for Joe Biden, and drop them in a mailbox, would that not be a federal crime? Maybe not. If it isn't, then the FBI should butt out. If it's a federal election it's a federal crime. They try to wait until after, I don't think there are set rules against investigating. They have to walk the line of not getting involved in an election while at the same time taking serious allegations seriously.
TahiniBinShawarma Muse Join Date: May 2020 Posts: 756

9th November 2020, 07:04 PM	#300
TahiniBinShawarma Muse Join Date: May 2020 Posts: 756	Originally Posted by crescent Pretty much, its good you understand that Our current President doesn't understand that. He's an idiot who still has control of a vast security and military apparatus. That's a dangerous situation. It's not really that dangerous, it's worked till now, it will work from now on.
TahiniBinShawarma Muse Join Date: May 2020 Posts: 756

9th November 2020, 07:06 PM	#301
TahiniBinShawarma Muse Join Date: May 2020 Posts: 756	Originally Posted by acbytesla Nonsense. You clearly didn't read my earlier post. I'm not going to buy into a mathematical formula as proof that Trump was cheated. Also given that 4 million more Americans voted for Biden I could give a ****. Trump lost. Get over it. I'd think they would use it to target where they wanted to look for fraud because it identifies anomalies, but it seems like they are taking the shotgun approach.
TahiniBinShawarma Muse Join Date: May 2020 Posts: 756

9th November 2020, 07:08 PM	#302
TahiniBinShawarma Muse Join Date: May 2020 Posts: 756	Originally Posted by wareyin That's a simplified version of what the studies presented here say. Unfortunately for shuttlt, he's claiming that these are by lone cranks and not representative of the consensus. He says he's "been aware" of Benfords Law for years, so I guess he's the expert. Certainly not all the people that keep laboring to explain it to him, they're probably lone cranks too. Yeah, I don't think Team Trump is taking Benford's law into court as their evidence.
TahiniBinShawarma Muse Join Date: May 2020 Posts: 756

9th November 2020, 07:08 PM	#303
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314	Originally Posted by johnny karate To what specific “circumstantial” evidence are you referring? Again, in 1960 I believe there was an unexplained pause in counting from democrat districts while the Republican numbers came in, only for enough Democrat votes to come in when it was clear how many were needed. You then have suspicious variance between districts and based on past elections. You had evasiveness and secrecy from the counting operations. You had the dead voting. Those seem to map pretty well between my understanding of 1960 and today. You also obviously have the 6000 vote glitch, the adding an extra zero by mistake error, the various bits of Veritas evidence and other recordings of people supposedly altering ballots and so on. Who knows? Maybe it will go like 1960 and huge fraud will be discovered, but it won't matter?
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314

9th November 2020, 07:10 PM	#304
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 24,758	Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma If it's a federal election it's a federal crime. They try to wait until after, I don't think there are set rules against investigating. They have to walk the line of not getting involved in an election while at the same time taking serious allegations seriously. Ok. I reread the memo, and caught that. Normally, they wait until after the election is certified, and then investigate any allegations of crimes. This time, Barr is saying don't wait for certification, so it does seem to be a change. I suppose we'll see how it goes. If they actually do anything that interferes with the certification process, I'm sure we'll here about it. I can't say I trust them to be fair, but I will say that I trust the FBI agents to not deliberately go in and cheat the election process, so I think we are safe from a dictatorship.
	__________________ Yes, yes. I know you're right, but would it hurt you to actually provide some information?

9th November 2020, 07:11 PM	#305
wareyin Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 8,155	Originally Posted by acbytesla Nonsense. You clearly didn't read my earlier post. I'm not going to buy into a mathematical formula as proof that Trump was cheated. Also given that 4 million more Americans voted for Biden I could give a ****. Trump lost. Get over it. I hadn't bothered to touch on it yet, but the original Benfords Law info that Zig linked to was using to to explain the "anomaly" that heavily Democratic areas like Pittsburgh voted more for Biden than for Trump. Seriously.

9th November 2020, 07:14 PM	#306
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314	Originally Posted by acbytesla Nonsense. You clearly didn't read my earlier post. I'm not going to buy into a mathematical formula as proof that Trump was cheated. I didn't claim it was proof. Originally Posted by acbytesla Also given that 4 million more Americans voted for Biden I could give a ****. Trump lost. Get over it. Exactly. A lot of people don't care if Biden has dementia, if he was taking money from China and Russia or sexually assaulted some woman years ago... they just want Trump gone. I'm not saying those things to knock Biden, or even claiming that they are true, just acknowledging that I understand that a lot of people just don't care.
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314	Last edited by shuttlt; 9th November 2020 at 07:16 PM.

9th November 2020, 07:15 PM	#307
wareyin Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 8,155	Originally Posted by shuttlt Again, in 1960 I believe there was an unexplained pause in counting from democrat districts while the Republican numbers came in, only for enough Democrat votes to come in when it was clear how many were needed. You then have suspicious variance between districts and based on past elections. You had evasiveness and secrecy from the counting operations. You had the dead voting. Those seem to map pretty well between my understanding of 1960 and today. You also obviously have the 6000 vote glitch, the adding an extra zero by mistake error, the various bits of Veritas evidence and other recordings of people supposedly altering ballots and so on. Who knows? Maybe it will go like 1960 and huge fraud will be discovered, but it won't matter? Oh boy, if this is where you're getting your understanding a lot of your confusion is understandable.

9th November 2020, 07:19 PM	#308
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 27,938	Originally Posted by shuttlt I didn't claim it was proof. Exactly. A lot of people don't care if he has dementia, if he was taking money from China and Russia or sexually assaulted some woman years ago... they just want Trump gone. I'm not saying those things to knock Biden, or even claiming that they are true, just acknowledging that I understand that a lot of people just don't care. What a ridiculous reply. We are talking about the will of the people not the CTs of nutjobs. The will of the voters bitch slapped Trump and you're throwing turds pulled out of your ass to justify destroying the American democracy. You'll excuse me when I say **** NO!
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

9th November 2020, 07:22 PM	#309
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314	Originally Posted by wareyin Oh boy, if this is where you're getting your understanding a lot of your confusion is understandable. Not really, if you read the rest of the post you'll see that the information I'm putting more weight in isn't that. It's all evidence though that will either check out or not. I suspect everything I have seen from them is either too late to do anything meaningful about (ballot harvesting) or too hard to evidence a significant impact on the result (postal worker claims) even if it were to pan out which it may not.
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314

9th November 2020, 07:22 PM	#310
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 27,938	Originally Posted by shuttlt Again, in 1960 I believe there was an unexplained pause in counting from democrat districts while the Republican numbers came in, only for enough Democrat votes to come in when it was clear how many were needed. You then have suspicious variance between districts and based on past elections. You had evasiveness and secrecy from the counting operations. You had the dead voting. Those seem to map pretty well between my understanding of 1960 and today. You also obviously have the 6000 vote glitch, the adding an extra zero by mistake error, the various bits of Veritas evidence and other recordings of people supposedly altering ballots and so on. Who knows? Maybe it will go like 1960 and huge fraud will be discovered, but it won't matter? Get real. Then what happened in 2016 and 2001? Did the GOP pull more shenanigans?
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

9th November 2020, 07:23 PM	#311
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 14,173	Originally Posted by shuttlt Again, in 1960 I believe there was an unexplained pause in counting from democrat districts while the Republican numbers came in, only for enough Democrat votes to come in when it was clear how many were needed. You then have suspicious variance between districts and based on past elections. You had evasiveness and secrecy from the counting operations. You had the dead voting. Those seem to map pretty well between my understanding of 1960 and today. You also obviously have the 6000 vote glitch, the adding an extra zero by mistake error, the various bits of Veritas evidence and other recordings of people supposedly altering ballots and so on. Who knows? Maybe it will go like 1960 and huge fraud will be discovered, but it won't matter? You’ve presented no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise. You’ve merely made a series of claims. Claims are not evidence. What is your evidence that substantiates any of these claims?

9th November 2020, 07:26 PM	#312
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314	Originally Posted by acbytesla What a ridiculous reply. We are talking about the will of the people not the CTs of nutjobs. The will of the voters bitch slapped Trump and you're throwing turds pulled out of your ass to justify destroying the American democracy. You'll excuse me when I say **** NO! What? Nothing we say on this forum has any impact on the destruction or non-destruction of American democracy. If there was significant cheating of the scale of 1960, that would seem to be a problem for American democracy as well. We will see what comes out.
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314

9th November 2020, 07:27 PM	#313
wareyin Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 8,155	Originally Posted by shuttlt Not really, if you read the rest of the post you'll see that the information I'm putting more weight in isn't that. It's all evidence though that will either check out or not. I suspect everything I have seen from them is either too late to do anything meaningful about (ballot harvesting) or too hard to evidence a significant impact on the result (postal worker claims) even if it were to pan out which it may not. You said it's been a long day, so you probably don't realize that you didn't actually say what information you're putting more weight into, or where you are getting that information from. If you are still using known fraudsters and convicted felons as a trusted source of information that certainly explains why you get so much incorrect.

9th November 2020, 07:30 PM	#314
Segnosaur Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 16,848	Originally Posted by slyjoe Quote: It seems like a fine memo to me. It authorizes field agents to investigate credible allegations of voter fraud. Well, that's good. However, it also notes that there will be specious allegations, and those should not be investigated. In other words, if something looks suspicious, look into it. If it's just cranks complaining, ignore them. BS. The DoJ has a long standing policy of not getting involved in elections, similar to their policy of not indicting sitting presidents. ... Then Barr has this memo allowing the federal DoJ to be involved in the election. I guess the question is... was this memo a prelude to actions by Barr and the DOJ that are... questionable (i.e. "the memo gave me a pretext for investigating fraud and now I'm going to find it, even where none exists"), or is it a sort of "cover your ass" sort of thing (i.e. Barr realizes that Stubby McBonespurs is cooked, but he doesn't want to follow Esper out the door, so he releases a memo to say "yeah, election fraud is important", but he'll just let it die.)
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu We are Groot - Groot

9th November 2020, 07:30 PM	#315
turingtest Mistral, mistral wind... Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: Embedded, reporting from Mississippi Posts: 4,538	Make no mistake about it- Trump has achieved exactly what he was after by his voter fraud claims (link is to Mediaite article "Republican Trust in Electoral Process Craters by 50% After Trump Loses and Starts Spreading Voter Fraud Conspiracies")- Quote: Per a Morning Consult tracking poll, 68% of Republicans reported that they had “a lot” or “some” faith in the nation’s elections just a week before Election Day. That figure was almost identical to the 66% of Democrats who said the same and bit more than the 58% of Independents who agreed. But when Morning Consult asked the same question now, the number of Republicans answering the same way had fallen by half. This comes after nearly a week of Trump and his surrogates sowing unfounded seeds of doubt and pushing rampant conspiracy theories about fraud after President-Elect Joe Biden was declared the winner of the [election] as hundreds of thousands of mail-in votes were counted in the days after Election Day. Trump and his enablers keep mouthing words about the American voter being entitled to feel confidence in the democratic process that they take part in to elect their government; it seems pretty obvious to me that their actual aim is to destroy that confidence when the outcome of the process in any given election isn't to their liking.
	__________________ I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV; I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems Deep Purple- "The Aviator" Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King