Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why would I need to disprove it? The claimant needs to prove it, not the other way around.
That which is asserted out of hand, can be dismissed out of hand.
So data surrounding PA mail-in ballots was "changed". Was it changed to correct information? Was it changed by people unauthorized to make changes? Any evidence that anything other than normal election processes were what effected these changes?
Otherwise you're in no position to defend your idea that there is no factual basis to Trumpists' claims of electoral fraud.
You can begin anywhere you want, starting with the statistical entries.
I am a Trump supporter but I must disagree. Unless the irregularities were enough to alter the national result it's just not worth the candle. Too much would have to go right for Trump for fraud to swamp the results in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Arizona. I don't remember if Wisconsin was an issue.
What the more conservative forces need to do is to find a way to turn major states such as California and/or New York at least a bluish shade of purple, the way Virginia, for example, is. To do otherwise is to rely on too many things going right. Also, elections cannot forever ride on electoral majorities and popular minorities. It is not a stable format for politics.
I am a Trump supporter but I must disagree. Unless the irregularities were enough to alter the national result it's just not worth the candle. Too much would have to go right for Trump for fraud to swamp the results in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Arizona. I don't remember if Wisconsin was an issue.
What the more conservative forces need to do is to find a way to turn major states such as California and/or New York at least a bluish shade of purple, the way Virginia, for example, is. To do otherwise is to rely on too many things going right. Also, elections cannot forever ride on electoral majorities and popular minorities. It is not a stable format for politics.
Why would I need to disprove it? The claimant needs to prove it, not the other way around.
That which is asserted out of hand, can be dismissed out of hand.
So data surrounding PA mail-in ballots was "changed". Was it changed to correct information? Was it changed by people unauthorized to make changes? Any evidence that anything other than normal election processes were what effected these changes?
This is basic tally data of evidence that is already in the public domain. The latter is the proof. The only sticking point being that (in the case of GA) there are paywalls and restrictions on how the data can be disseminated outside of official sources.
You don't need quantitative analysis to denote anomalies such as registrations at hotels or motels, merely access to the data.
If you don't want to pay for the data, that's fine. You just won't be able to disprove an unsubstantive entry.
There's no point asking me about Pennsylvania. The onus is on you to explain away these anomalies as benign. You could try writing to PA to ask what these anomalies mean, but judging by their response to the Texas lawsuit I doubt you'll get much in reply.
Last edited by Hightower72; 07-13-2021 at 02:40 PM..
This is basic tally data of evidence that is already in the public domain. The latter is the proof. The only sticking point being that (in the case of GA) there are paywalls and restrictions on how the data can be disseminated outside of official sources.
You don't need regression analysis to denote anomalies such as registrations at hotels or motels.
If you don't want to pay for the data, that's fine. You just won't be able to disprove an unsubstantive entry.
There's no point asking me about Pennsylvania. The onus is on you to explain away these anomalies as benign. You could try writing to PA to ask what these anomalies mean, but judging by their response to the Texas lawsuit I doubt you'll get much in reply.
You've got it exactly backwards on both counts. I don't need to disprove either claim. They need to support their claims with actual data.
Like I said, you should have quit while you were behind.
The democrats didn't want to count the mail in ballots as they came in because they wanted to know how many Trump would get so they could produce and beat what Trump got.
Sorry but here in Pennsylvania it was the Republican lead legislature, not Democrats that wouldn't allow for early voting of mail in ballots!
If that's too much for you, maybe it's best you stick to posting irrelevant jpegs.
My last post to you on the subject of PA - I don't need to prove the "anomalies" are benign. People claiming they are NOT need to put up or shut up. Why are they/you using archived data from Nov 6th? Was the count even finished on 6 NOV? The canvassing was certainly not.
State officials said Friday evening there are an additional 101,421 provisional ballots in Pennsylvania... While the results of the 2020 presidential election in Pennsylvania are still being tabulated in some counties...
The "Friday evening" referenced in that news story is, you guessed it, Nov 6. So your big "gotcha" is unofficial data? You've never heard of "Garbage in, garbage out"?
And I circle back to my original assertion - Trump supporters believe the election was "stolen" simply because they want that to be the truth. 100% emotion, 0% evidence.
My last post to you on the subject of PA - I don't need to prove the "anomalies" are benign. People claiming they are NOT need to put up or shut up. Why are they/you using archived data from Nov 6th? Was the count even finished on 6 NOV? The canvassing was certainly not.
State officials said Friday evening there are an additional 101,421 provisional ballots in Pennsylvania... While the results of the 2020 presidential election in Pennsylvania are still being tabulated in some counties...
The "Friday evening" referenced in that news story is, you guessed it, Nov 6. So your big "gotcha" is unofficial data? You've never heard of "Garbage in, garbage out"?
And I circle back to my original assertion - Trump supporters believe the election was "stolen" simply because they want that to be the truth. 100% emotion, 0% evidence.
If the Trumpists invoke inference to the best explanation to allege fraud, you do need to address the anomalies. Not just this one, but most of them, given the way this mode of abduction works, ie. where you have induction across multiple lines of context.
Don't worry about it though. You got about as far through the list as I'd expected you to get.
All 4 datasets are official sources (disclosed anomalies refer to Nov 10, Nov 16, Dec 16 sets) so disputing this is pointless.
As for why PA were tabulating data before the full results were in, I guess you'll need to ask them.
Quote:
"The Nov 10th Version showed 23,305 ballots having a “Returned” date before their actual “Mailed” date. The Nov 16th Version change most of the ballots, leaving only 185 ballots with this anomaly. The December 16th version has only 181."
Last edited by Hightower72; 07-13-2021 at 04:36 PM..
Reason: quote post was edited
A lot of what happened to Trump was brought on by his own words. I have no sympathy. He's a mentally ill man who should never have held public office.
Bravo! Agreed here
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
