The American “Coup d’etat”

[A.J.]

It is failing us. The answer isn’t a billionaire trust fund baby. It isn’t Biden either.

Putting party and corporate/special interests over the rule of law and will of the people is a problem as well. They have gotten away with it for so long. They’ve been lying to us (and telling us what we want to hear), consequences and feasibility be damned. They start the fires and put em out without any regard for us. They will keep taking from us till they get rid of us.... sad, sick people that they are.

 

[justjess]

Putting party and corporate/special interests over the rule of law and will of the people is a problem as well. They have gotten away with it for so long. They’ve been lying to us (and telling us what we want to hear), consequences and feasibility be damned. They start the fires and put em out without any regard for us. They will keep taking from us till they get rid of us.... sad, sick people that they are.

Both parties do that. Include both the current and incoming presidents. Your right - it’s a disgusting travesty. But it would be this way regardless of the results of the current election. I’ve been trying to make the idea of boycotting the system catch for ten years now... to no avail. An organized principled peaceful refusal to partake. Instead of voting we sit on the lawn in front of the polling places with signs indicating our dissent. Or something along those lines. They can not continue to function forever if they have no buy in from the populace and no one giving them active or tacit consent.

 

[vancityeagle]

It definately does look suspicious... until you realize that the post offices refused to follow the federal court order instructing them to sweep the mail all day to ensure ballots got to the polling locations in a timely manner. It would seem it’s possible they disregarded that order just long enough to make regular votes appear like late night dumps. It’s a theory more plausible then some others. Imo, and my opinion is based on the security checks I personally had to go through to request my own mail in ballot.

At the end of the day This election has totally fucked this country. No matter what the truth is or who ends up president you are going to have half the country believing they are living in an illegitimate state. That doesn’t bode well for anyone.

If you watch Fox News and then watch CNN, you will see pretty much the entire purpose of either network is to divide the public and be totally mistrustfull of the other side.

Their goal has been to divide the country dramatically, and its mission accomplished. That was pretty much the main purpose for Trump. He was to exacerbate and finalize the total split of the country, and now there is no trust in elections or media, either side is just believing what their chosen media tells them. A fractured society believing in 2 seperate realities, and the other side is whats wrong with the world, in their chosen reality. It is very dangerous.

 

[justjess]

If you watch Fox News and then watch CNN, you will see pretty much the entire purpose of either network is to divide the public and be totally mistrustfull of the other side.

Their goal has been to divide the country dramatically, and its mission accomplished. That was pretty much the main purpose for Trump. He was to exacerbate and finalize the total split of the country, and now there is no trust in elections or media, either side is just believing what their chosen media tells them. A fractured society believing in 2 seperate realities, and the other side is whats wrong with the world, in their chosen reality. It is very dangerous.

It’s called splitting. Never thought I’d see it in practice on a societal level to this extent... yet here we are. Sad sad sad...

 

[vancityeagle]

It’s called splitting. Never thought I’d see it in practice on a societal level to this extent... yet here we are. Sad sad sad...

people are going to have to wake up to the fact that this "splitting" IS what Trump was put here to do and finish, not just Trump, but the whole QAnon psy op. It will continue whether Trump or Biden is in the whitehouse.

You have the majority of Republican congressman wanting to void the election, all because of Qanon type disinformation. You have a cult of worshippers over a lifelong conman, thinking he is Jesus Christ in the flesh.

 

[justjess]

people are going to have to wake up to the fact that this "splitting" IS what Trump was put here to do and finish, not just Trump, but the whole QAnon psy op. It will continue whether Trump or Biden is in the whitehouse.

You have the majority of Republican congressman wanting to void the election, all because of Qanon type disinformation. You have a cult of worshippers over a lifelong conman, thinking he is Jesus Christ in the flesh.

They are hoping their loyalty will win them cushy positions when trump campaigns in 24. That’s pretty much what this boils down to.

I agree100% about what’s going on with his citizen supporters though. It’s scary.

 

[Artful Revealer]

My obvious dishonest ways? You referenced this outrageous statistic in support of your claims of election fraud numerous times. Numerous. I looked at it and found it was a meaningless statistic. I asked for and received an independent second opinion (before even giving my own) from someone with a stat background and completely different ideological persuasion. We agreed.

as for starck saying a random sample would have been better then a complete audit... that flies in the face of all statistical principles and truths. When you have an entire population at your disposal and the means to run the whole thing you do - because doing so is WAY more reliable than any sample method could ever be.

He didn't say it was better than a complete audit. He said the officials named it an audit, a recount, when it was in actuality just a re-canvassing, which is a basic requirement for a RLA, and which they didn't even do properly enough to even begin with a RLA, which was mandatory by law!

I also never made the claim that a RLA is better than a complete audit. I've said that the recount / retabulation was not a full audit and that when you don't verify signatures no one knows if they have counted legal votes.

Sources:

Post #493

They didn’t have audits. No signature verification, just a recount of the ballots, illegal or not.

Post #1,161

If you're genuinely concerned by possible disenfranchisement of legal voters, you oughta be supporting full transparency and full signature-verifying audits.

Where I gave an answer to your post when you accused me of deliberately not answering your substance, which you left unaddressed.

Dishonest!

Post #1,295

They didn't do a risk-limit audit and they didn't verify signatures on absentee ballots. If you have fraudulent av ballots, a simple recount or re-scan without verifying signatures won't change a thing.

I also asked for a second opinion of this publicly from a poster with a stat background and a more friendly political ideology to you. Said poster also confirmed this to be the case.

Absurd. You have an affidavit by a guy with these credentials:




You and Helio check it out for 2 minutes (no offence, Helio) and you think you've "debunked" (first ridiculous claim) "my argument" (second ridiculous claim). Here's my post regarding Cicchetti's numbers.

Post #1,204


I clearly said "TX Lawsuit claims". Did I say this was proof? Did I say this was true? Did I say I agreed with it? Am I saying it's false? No. Did I use this "numerous times"? No, just this once. I read it in the lawsuit and I posted it for all to see. When Helio asked for more info, I gave the link so he could check. Then you go cackling like a witch (that's how I imagine it) because you believe you and some guy on the internet (again, no offence, Helio) can figure out in 2 minutes that the entire thing is false.

Dishonest!

 

[justjess]

He didn't say it was better than a complete audit. He said the officials named it an audit, a recount, when it was in actuality just a re-canvassing, which is a basic requirement for a RLA, and which they didn't even do properly enough to even begin with a RLA, which was mandatory by law!

I also never made the claim that a RLA is better than a complete audit. I've said that the recount / retabulation was not a full audit and that when you don't verify signatures no one knows if they have counted legal votes.

Sources:

Post #493


Post #1,161
Where I gave an answer to your post when you accused me of deliberately not answering your substance, which you left unaddressed.

Dishonest!

Post #1,295



Absurd. You have an affidavit by a guy with these credentials:

View attachment 48666


You and Helio check it out for 2 minutes (no offence, Helio) and you think you've "debunked" (first ridiculous claim) "my argument" (second ridiculous claim). Here's my post regarding Cicchetti's numbers.

Post #1,204
View attachment 48667

I clearly said "TX Lawsuit claims". Did I say this was proof? Did I say this was true? Did I say I agreed with it? Am I saying it's false? No. Did I use this "numerous times"? No, just this once. I read it in the lawsuit and I posted it for all to see. When Helio asked for more info, I gave the link so he could check. Then you go cackling like a witch (that's how I imagine it) because you believe you and some guy on the internet (again, no offence, Helio) can figure out in 2 minutes that the entire thing is false.

Dishonest!

What is your level of knowledge and education in statistics artful? Both me and helio provided ours. What’s yours?

did you even read the footnotes regarding the statistics before you directed us to them? I am willing to bet you did not, because if you had read them and you knew even the fundamental basics of statistics you would have been to ashamed to direct anyone to them period. So either you didn’t read them or you don’t know anything about statistics. Which is it?

For the unpteenth time - voting is confidential. Meaning signature verification occurs prior to vote tabulation and after it occurs the ballots are pushed on to be counted and the documents used to verify signatures are separated. There is NO WAY to match an individual ballot to its signature verification documents after this process has happened. Anonymity in voting is a right guaranteed to Americans. You are asking for something that is not only impossible at this stage in the game but that would also undermine the principles of our electoral process.

all of which is irrelevant since the initial reasonfor the recount was to ensure the dominion system didn’t switch votes - it didn’t. The hand recount matched the machine tabulations. Once that was determined you started switching goal posts throwing shit against the wall hoping literally anything would stick. We should know by Monday. I doubt it will. If all the evidence you have is a meaningless statistic and a bunch of theories which have already been disproven... it won’t.

as for the other claims like that felons and minors voted - I tried to find theGeorgian voting records from which these claims supposedly arose. Georgia voting records again are anonymous and coded by voter registration numbers. You would have to have every voter in Georgia’s voter registration number and then do a background search to determine any of this.. so who had access to this information and where can I find the databases in order to check them myself? I asked thunderian but then he disappeared.

 

[Artful Revealer]

What is your level of knowledge and education in statistics artful? Both me and helio provided ours. What’s yours?

Hah, more dishonesty. Argument from authority. Doesn't even matter if you took the time to read what I said in the previous post.

 

[justjess]

Hah, more dishonesty. Argument from authority. Doesn't even matter if you took the time to read what I said in the previous post.

I did. You are telling me that neither I or helio have the ability to look at the documentation you provided and make a judgement about the validity of the statistics used in the argument you are making. You appealed to the credentials and authority of the person who compiled the statistic and brushed off our analysis as if it was nothing - despite us independently coming to the same conclusion despite starting with very different biases and ideologies. So... what are your credentials and what qualifies you to dismiss our analysis? We both Gave you ours. What’s fair is fair. If you want proof of mine that can be provided as well.

if someone is going to make a statement in support of a statistic then they should have some background or atleast general knowledge of statistics, shouldnt they?

 

[Artful Revealer]

I did. You are telling me that neither I or helio have the ability to look at the documentation you provided and make a judgement about the validity of the statistics used in the argument you are making. You appealed to the credentials and authority of the person who compiled the statistic and brushed off our analysis as if it was nothing - despite us independently coming to the same conclusion despite starting with very different biases and ideologies. So... what are your credentials and what qualifies you to dismiss our analysis? We both Gabe you ours. What’s fair is fair. If you want proof of mine that can be provided as well.

if someone is going to make a statement in support of a statistic then they should have some background or atleast general knowledge of statistics, shouldnt they?

What statement did I make in support of the statistic?

I'm an autodidact without any higher education degrees. I'm not a politicial scientist, not a social scientist, not an economist, not a theologian, not a historian, and yet I never get asked about credentials there because Mrs has done a course on statistics. You want to throw out Cicchetti? Fine. No big deal. If it's that easily falsifiable, it would be rejected in court in no time.

 

[justjess]

Supreme Court Rejects Texas Suit Seeking to Subvert Election (Published 2020)

The suit, filed directly in the Supreme Court, sought to bar Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin from casting their electoral votes for Joseph R. Biden Jr.

trib.al

Thoughts and prayers artful.

 

[Artful Revealer]

Supreme Court Rejects Texas Suit Seeking to Subvert Election (Published 2020)

The suit, filed directly in the Supreme Court, sought to bar Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin from casting their electoral votes for Joseph R. Biden Jr.

trib.al

Thoughts and prayers artful.

Gotta admit that this is surprising. All 3 Trump justices voted no.

 

[Artful Revealer]

Does anyone know what Certiorari Granted means in SCOTUS? Right to re-file improved suit?

 

[Helioform]

See Artful we were not the only ones seeing the stupidity of this:

"The lawsuit was filed Monday by Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general. Among its claims was that the chances of a Biden victory were "less than one in a quadrillion.” That statement was widely ridiculed, because it was based on a statistician's assumption that voters showed exactly the same party preferences as they did in 2016.

"Wow!" wrote David Post of the libertarian Cato Institute on a conservative legal blog. "If mail-in voters had the same preferences as in-person voters, Trump must have won!! And if my aunt had four wheels, she'd be a motorcar!!"

Supreme Court rejects Texas’ effort to overturn election in fatal blow to Trump legal blitz to stop Biden

"The Supreme Court has decisively and speedily rejected the latest of Donald Trump and his allies’ attacks on the democratic process," said Biden campaign spokesman Mike Gwin.

www.google.com

 

[justjess]

Does anyone know what Certiorari Granted means in SCOTUS? Right to re-file improved suit?

View attachment 48670

That’s a seperate pending case

 

[justjess]

What statement did I make in support of the statistic?

I'm an autodidact without any higher education degrees. I'm not a politicial scientist, not a social scientist, not an economist, not a theologian, not a historian, and yet I never get asked about credentials there because Mrs has done a course on statistics. You want to throw out Cicchetti? Fine. No big deal. If it's that easily falsifiable, it would be rejected in court in no time.

You never get asked on credentials where? An autodidact just means self taught. Have you taught yourself statistics?

 

[Maes17]

It’s over.

Any more scenarios?

 

[Artful Revealer]

"Wow!" wrote David Post of the libertarian Cato Institute on a conservative legal blog. "If mail-in voters had the same preferences as in-person voters, Trump must have won!! And if my aunt had four wheels, she'd be a motorcar!!"

Supreme Court rejects Texas’ effort to overturn election in fatal blow to Trump legal blitz to stop Biden

"The Supreme Court has decisively and speedily rejected the latest of Donald Trump and his allies’ attacks on the democratic process," said Biden campaign spokesman Mike Gwin.

www.google.com

I know the comment. David Post is the one who wrote the Reason.com fact-check:

More on Statistical Stupidity at SCOTUS

As I noted yesterday (here), Texas AG Ken Paxton's suit asking the Supreme Court to overturn the certified election results…

reason.com

The statement "If mail-in voters, same preferences ..." etc is not a good argument against it, imo. First, did Democrats apply more for mail-in ballots than Republicans contrary to what lightseeker told you? Two. A proper rebuttal could include the same method to show what the odds were with the actual data from question 1.

 

[Artful Revealer]

It’s over.

Any more scenarios?

The Texas suit came from left-field.

Giuliani/ Ellis, Powell and Wood still have separate appeals running.