Maes17
Superstar
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2017
- Messages
- 6,521
Good luck with that. Nothing is gonna change the outcome.
The American “Coup d’etat”
- Thread starter Red Sky at Morning
- Start date
Wigi
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2017
- Messages
- 891
Trump isn't going to prove that. Nothing will happen, he's doing damage control at best.
He shouldn't have fought with gloves while his opponent had a knife and a corrupt referee influenced by an hostile and brainwashed public.
Maes17
Superstar
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2017
- Messages
- 6,521
The deep state is too deep.
I don’t like it either. But it is what it is.
You cannot undermine the millions of actual legal votes to prove something. That will not sit well with a general public on edge already.
Maes17
Superstar
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2017
- Messages
- 6,521
Anyways everyone have a happy and safe holiday weekend.
@Artful Revealer if Trump does pull it off buddy. I’ll happily eat crow. I’ll be damn impressed.
But let’s not stress over it. I’m sure at the end of the day you aren’t. Godspeed down the line
@Artful Revealer if Trump does pull it off buddy. I’ll happily eat crow. I’ll be damn impressed.
But let’s not stress over it. I’m sure at the end of the day you aren’t. Godspeed down the line
UnderAlienControl
Superstar
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2017
- Messages
- 8,023
Helioform
Star
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2017
- Messages
- 3,195
This is too good I am gonna keep it.
Artful Revealer
Star
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2017
- Messages
- 4,426
You're missing clues all over the place.
Trump knew about election fraud. He even knew about vote switching in 2012:
He said the Dems cheated back in 2016, even after he won:
He's been announcing for months the Dems would cheat again in the 2020 election:
You think he knew about it, he warned about it and didn't prepare? You really think that?
You think the September 12, 2018 Executive Order against foreign election interference was a coincidence?
Executive Order on Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election | The White House
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic
You think they didn't exactly know what the Dems were going to try to pull off when they realised their software "glitching" and ballot harvesting and mail-in-voting fraud wouldn't be enough to beat him?
They were aware. They were prepared. And better yet, they caught them red-handed. Everything you're seeing right now is strategy. The end result remains the same.
Pay some attention, mate. Or be more prudent when you go about making claims in full confidence.
We’ve all had our popcorn ready and waiting for weeks artful. WEEKS. If this is his strategy and he actually has evidence.. his strategy sucks and it’s looking like we will have a new president before he gets around to releasing it.You're missing clues all over the place.
Trump knew about election fraud. He even knew about vote switching in 2012:
He said the Dems cheated back in 2016, even after he won:
He's been announcing for months the Dems would cheat again in the 2020 election:
You think he knew about it, he warned about it and didn't prepare? You really think that?
You think the September 12, 2018 Executive Order against foreign election interference was a coincidence?
Executive Order on Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election | The White House
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economicwww.whitehouse.gov
You think they didn't exactly know what the Dems were going to try to pull off when they realised their software "glitching" and ballot harvesting and mail-in-voting fraud wouldn't be enough to beat him?
View attachment 46976
They were aware. They were prepared. And better yet, they caught them red-handed. Everything you're seeing right now is strategy. The end result remains the same.
Pay some attention, mate. Or be more prudent when you go about making claims in full confidence.
why did he defund the post office? Remove mail sorting machines? Ignore orders to sweep local post offices to ensure ballots got processed on time? Why did the republicans put up phony ballot drop boxes? Why why why?? why are you only looking at one side of things??? Why why why??
Helioform
Star
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2017
- Messages
- 3,195
Thunderian
Superstar
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2017
- Messages
- 7,515
Just when I thought it was all over.
SomeNOBODY0
Rookie
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2020
- Messages
- 63
Oh yeah I'm very curious on how the court rulings pan out. I can't even speculate anymore on it lol. I don't wanna be guessing on all this till freaking January! The funny thing is I used to think I had a good handle on politics... I was wrong! At this point in the game I am willing to bet any outcome is gonna get ugly though.
Helioform
Star
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2017
- Messages
- 3,195
Maes17
Superstar
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2017
- Messages
- 6,521
Like I said.You're missing clues all over the place.
Trump knew about election fraud. He even knew about vote switching in 2012:
He said the Dems cheated back in 2016, even after he won:
He's been announcing for months the Dems would cheat again in the 2020 election:
You think he knew about it, he warned about it and didn't prepare? You really think that?
You think the September 12, 2018 Executive Order against foreign election interference was a coincidence?
Executive Order on Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election | The White House
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic
You think they didn't exactly know what the Dems were going to try to pull off when they realised their software "glitching" and ballot harvesting and mail-in-voting fraud wouldn't be enough to beat him?
View attachment 46976
They were aware. They were prepared. And better yet, they caught them red-handed. Everything you're seeing right now is strategy. The end result remains the same.
Pay some attention, mate. Or be more prudent when you go about making claims in full confidence.
I’ll eat crow if Trump pulls it off.
I just don’t see it happening this time
Thunderian
Superstar
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2017
- Messages
- 7,515
Wouldn’t it be sweet, though?
Maes17
Superstar
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2017
- Messages
- 6,521
I’d prefer Trump over Joe personally so of course.
Thunderian
Superstar
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2017
- Messages
- 7,515
Not Trump Team member Sidney Powell has finally filed a lawsuit. I am monitoring the situation. 
It’s been quite a day. The hearing and the court-ordered halt of certification in PA, the news that the Trump team will be able to present evidence of fraud in Nevada, and now this. Plus, Cuomo’s attendance caps on religious services in New York has been blocked by the new, conservative-heavy, Supreme Court.
It’s been quite a day. The hearing and the court-ordered halt of certification in PA, the news that the Trump team will be able to present evidence of fraud in Nevada, and now this. Plus, Cuomo’s attendance caps on religious services in New York has been blocked by the new, conservative-heavy, Supreme Court.
Maes17
Superstar
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2017
- Messages
- 6,521
If they are going based off hand counts. This may get dismissed.Not Trump Team member Sidney Powell has finally filed a lawsuit. I am monitoring the situation.
It’s been quite a day. The hearing and the court-ordered halt of certification in PA, the news that the Trump team will be able to present evidence of fraud in Nevada, and now this. Plus, Cuomo’s attendance caps on religious services in New York has been blocked by the new, conservative-heavy, Supreme Court.
Don’t get hopes up man.
It’s nice to see progress but like Jess said. It undermines the legal votes over accusations of a handful of voter fraud.
It’s worth a look for sure. But I think it’s unconstitutional
Red Sky at Morning
Superstar
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2017
- Messages
- 13,963
The vote pattern analysis report is in
In the early hours of November 4th, 2020, Democratic candidate Joe Biden received several major “vote spikes” that substantially — and decisively — improved his electoral position in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia. Much skepticism and uncertainty surrounds these “vote spikes.” Critics point to suspicious vote counting practices, extreme differences between the two major candidates’ vote counts, and the timing of the vote updates, among other factors, to cast doubt on the legitimacy of some of these spikes. While data analysis cannot on its own demonstrate fraud or systemic issues, it can point us to statistically anomalous cases that invite further scrutiny.
This is one such case: Our analysis finds that a few key vote updates in competitive states were unusually large in size and had an unusually high Biden-to-Trump ratio. We demonstrate the results differ enough from expected results to be cause for concern.
With this report, we rely only on publicly available data from the New York Times to identify and analyze statistical anomalies in key states. Looking at 8,954 individual vote updates (differences in vote totals for each candidate between successive changes to the running vote totals, colloquially also referred to as “dumps” or “batches”), we discover a remarkably consistent mathematical property: there is a clear inverse relationship between difference in candidates’ vote counts and and the ratio of the vote counts. (In other words, it's not surprising to see vote updates with large margins, and it's not surprising to see vote updates with very large ratios of support between the candidates, but it issurprising to see vote updates which are both).
The significance of this property will be further explained in later sections of this report. Nearly every vote update, across states of all sizes and political leanings follow this statistical pattern. A very small number, however, are especially aberrant. Of the seven vote updates which follow the pattern the least, four individual vote updates — two in Michigan, one in Wisconsin, and one in Georgia — were particularly anomalous and influential with respect to this property and all occurred within the same five hour window.
In particular, we are able to quantify the extent of compliance with this property and discover that, of the 8,954 vote updates used in the analysis, these four decisive updates were the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 7th most anomalous updates in the entire data set. Not only does each of these vote updates not follow the generally observed pattern, but the anomalous behavior of these updates is particularly extreme. That is, these vote updates are outliers of the outliers.
The four vote updates in question are:
Extensive mathematical detail is provided and the data and the code (for the data-curation, data transformation, plotting, and modeling) are all attached in the appendix to this document[1].
votepatternanalysis.substack.com
In the early hours of November 4th, 2020, Democratic candidate Joe Biden received several major “vote spikes” that substantially — and decisively — improved his electoral position in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia. Much skepticism and uncertainty surrounds these “vote spikes.” Critics point to suspicious vote counting practices, extreme differences between the two major candidates’ vote counts, and the timing of the vote updates, among other factors, to cast doubt on the legitimacy of some of these spikes. While data analysis cannot on its own demonstrate fraud or systemic issues, it can point us to statistically anomalous cases that invite further scrutiny.
This is one such case: Our analysis finds that a few key vote updates in competitive states were unusually large in size and had an unusually high Biden-to-Trump ratio. We demonstrate the results differ enough from expected results to be cause for concern.
With this report, we rely only on publicly available data from the New York Times to identify and analyze statistical anomalies in key states. Looking at 8,954 individual vote updates (differences in vote totals for each candidate between successive changes to the running vote totals, colloquially also referred to as “dumps” or “batches”), we discover a remarkably consistent mathematical property: there is a clear inverse relationship between difference in candidates’ vote counts and and the ratio of the vote counts. (In other words, it's not surprising to see vote updates with large margins, and it's not surprising to see vote updates with very large ratios of support between the candidates, but it issurprising to see vote updates which are both).
The significance of this property will be further explained in later sections of this report. Nearly every vote update, across states of all sizes and political leanings follow this statistical pattern. A very small number, however, are especially aberrant. Of the seven vote updates which follow the pattern the least, four individual vote updates — two in Michigan, one in Wisconsin, and one in Georgia — were particularly anomalous and influential with respect to this property and all occurred within the same five hour window.
In particular, we are able to quantify the extent of compliance with this property and discover that, of the 8,954 vote updates used in the analysis, these four decisive updates were the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 7th most anomalous updates in the entire data set. Not only does each of these vote updates not follow the generally observed pattern, but the anomalous behavior of these updates is particularly extreme. That is, these vote updates are outliers of the outliers.
The four vote updates in question are:
- An update in Michigan listed as of 6:31AM Eastern Time on November 4th, 2020, which shows 141,258 votes for Joe Biden and 5,968 votes for Donald Trump
- An update in Wisconsin listed as 3:42AM Central Time on November 4th, 2020, which shows 143,379 votes for Joe Biden and 25,163 votes for Donald Trump
- A vote update in Georgia listed at 1:34AM Eastern Time on November 4th, 2020, which shows 136,155 votes for Joe Biden and 29,115 votes for Donald Trump
- An update in Michigan listed as of 3:50AM Eastern Time on November 4th, 2020, which shows 54,497 votes for Joe Biden and 4,718 votes for Donald Trump
Extensive mathematical detail is provided and the data and the code (for the data-curation, data transformation, plotting, and modeling) are all attached in the appendix to this document[1].
Anomalies in Vote Counts and Their Effects on Election 2020
A Quantitative Analysis of Decisive Vote Updates in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia on and after Election Night
Maes17
Superstar
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2017
- Messages
- 6,521
The thing is every career democrat and republican are crooks and really should serve term limits like the president.
We need some type of change and a bi-partisan approach otherwise we’ll have more cities like Detroit, Compton, San Francisco down the line.
We need some type of change and a bi-partisan approach otherwise we’ll have more cities like Detroit, Compton, San Francisco down the line.
Maes17
Superstar
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2017
- Messages
- 6,521
It’s worth a look. But I cannot see anything other than a heated dramatic hearing.The vote pattern analysis report is in
In the early hours of November 4th, 2020, Democratic candidate Joe Biden received several major “vote spikes” that substantially — and decisively — improved his electoral position in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia. Much skepticism and uncertainty surrounds these “vote spikes.” Critics point to suspicious vote counting practices, extreme differences between the two major candidates’ vote counts, and the timing of the vote updates, among other factors, to cast doubt on the legitimacy of some of these spikes. While data analysis cannot on its own demonstrate fraud or systemic issues, it can point us to statistically anomalous cases that invite further scrutiny.
This is one such case: Our analysis finds that a few key vote updates in competitive states were unusually large in size and had an unusually high Biden-to-Trump ratio. We demonstrate the results differ enough from expected results to be cause for concern.
With this report, we rely only on publicly available data from the New York Times to identify and analyze statistical anomalies in key states. Looking at 8,954 individual vote updates (differences in vote totals for each candidate between successive changes to the running vote totals, colloquially also referred to as “dumps” or “batches”), we discover a remarkably consistent mathematical property: there is a clear inverse relationship between difference in candidates’ vote counts and and the ratio of the vote counts. (In other words, it's not surprising to see vote updates with large margins, and it's not surprising to see vote updates with very large ratios of support between the candidates, but it issurprising to see vote updates which are both).
The significance of this property will be further explained in later sections of this report. Nearly every vote update, across states of all sizes and political leanings follow this statistical pattern. A very small number, however, are especially aberrant. Of the seven vote updates which follow the pattern the least, four individual vote updates — two in Michigan, one in Wisconsin, and one in Georgia — were particularly anomalous and influential with respect to this property and all occurred within the same five hour window.
In particular, we are able to quantify the extent of compliance with this property and discover that, of the 8,954 vote updates used in the analysis, these four decisive updates were the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 7th most anomalous updates in the entire data set. Not only does each of these vote updates not follow the generally observed pattern, but the anomalous behavior of these updates is particularly extreme. That is, these vote updates are outliers of the outliers.
The four vote updates in question are:
This report predicts what these vote updates would have looked like, had they followed the same pattern as the vast majority of the 8,950 others. We find that the extents of the respective anomalies here are more than the margin of victory in all three states — Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia — which collectively represent forty-two electoral votes.
- An update in Michigan listed as of 6:31AM Eastern Time on November 4th, 2020, which shows 141,258 votes for Joe Biden and 5,968 votes for Donald Trump
- An update in Wisconsin listed as 3:42AM Central Time on November 4th, 2020, which shows 143,379 votes for Joe Biden and 25,163 votes for Donald Trump
- A vote update in Georgia listed at 1:34AM Eastern Time on November 4th, 2020, which shows 136,155 votes for Joe Biden and 29,115 votes for Donald Trump
- An update in Michigan listed as of 3:50AM Eastern Time on November 4th, 2020, which shows 54,497 votes for Joe Biden and 4,718 votes for Donald Trump
Extensive mathematical detail is provided and the data and the code (for the data-curation, data transformation, plotting, and modeling) are all attached in the appendix to this document[1].
Anomalies in Vote Counts and Their Effects on Election 2020
A Quantitative Analysis of Decisive Vote Updates in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia on and after Election Night
Good luck to those who voted.