re: New poll: "How likely is it that cheating affected the outcome of the 2020 election?”

quote:

---

Can I say given the evidence presented so far, I haven't a clue.

---

That’s what makes you a sheep.

Do your own research and statistical analysis and you will know without doubt that the 2020 results are a mathematical/statistical impossibility which is all the evidence you need.

When numbers tell you something is impossible you need nothing else to validate.

@porksammich your thoughts?

The results are in favor of cheating, because it really happened!

quote:

---

Do your own research and statistical analysis and you will know without doubt that the 2020 results are a mathematical/statistical impossibility which is all the evidence you need

---

So what mathematical/statictical impossibilitirs did your research discover?

Interesting

quote:

---

So what mathematical/statictical impossibilitirs did your research discover?

---

Blacks voted more enthusiastically for Biden than they did for Obama.

Muh Covid voter turnout. I do love that you’re fighting with a straight face though. It’s asinine, but I love it.

quote:

---

That is why the "insurrection" was commenced just as the whole process of CONSTITUTIONALLY contesting the results of a POTUS election was beginning. Does nobody find it suspicious that the whole shitshow was orchestrated to shut down the EV count just as the first contest was brought to the floor? The cover was laid to shove the whole thing through in the dark of night under "extremely dangerous" circumstances, which were there to give an excuse for not havng the people see any of their blatant cheating.
The treasonous unelected bastards running this country could not have their crimes come to light, just like in November 1963 when JFK was about to unravel their gravy train.

---

Why hell yeah!

They had to "kill a girl" when she made a 3" incursion through am easily knocked out special plexiglass window placed by the real windows, broken by her antifa crisis actor mates.

Yeah, Babbit (named after a Sinclair Lewis novel/title) had to pay "the ultimate price"...

Defined thus:

quote:

---

babbitt
noun
A person who subscribes complacently to materialistic middle-class ideals

---

a special name for a special actor, named for a favorite definition. Hubris on steroids.

Yeah right. Yeah, uhh, NO!

Ever seen video of a 40 caliber wound through the neck? The antifa video showed no such thing. It showed a fakery plot in a specially selected out of the way spot.

Hell Pelosi and Schumer even acted for a pre-arranged "documentary" filming by another Pelosi, her daughter, during the whole "crisis".

GTFO

quote:

---

Do your own research and statistical analysis and you will know without doubt that the 2020 results are a mathematical/statistical impossibility which is all the evidence you need

(from prominent supporter of the theft of Americans civil rights and their votes, noted moron Texridder..):

So what mathematical/statictical impossibilitirs did your research discover?

---

quote:

---

Auditing Biden’s ‘Victory’ -
A veteran CPA lays it all out for you.
I’ve never heard of Joseph Fried before, and it was only a few days ago that I became aware of his four-month-old book Debunked: A Professional Auditor Reviews the 2020 Election. But it turns out that this veteran MBA and CPA, who recently retired from his own auditing firm and now writes at Substack, has given us what must surely be the definitive work on the topic. Having “professionally conducted and reviewed hundreds of audits,” he brings his decades of experience in that field to bear on the administration of the 2020 presidential election in each of the six swing states that were awarded to our current dotard-in-chief, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. Throughout the book, Fried’s objective is to “analyze the major claims of fraud or irregularity, the credibility of those claims, the available evidence, and the threshold audit standards the states applied, or should have applied, relative to those claims.”

I don’t know the first thing about the work of an auditor. But Fried is a very good teacher. Among much else, he explains that a recount is not an audit – the latter must be performed by independent professionals – and that a mere recount doesn’t preclude the need for an audit. Nor does a court’s ruling on procedural grounds negate an auditor’s findings.

In some cases, an election result cries out for an audit. One test is statistical likelihood. The 2020 election, as it turns out, failed this test spectacularly. A few examples: for almost sixty years, the winner of the electoral votes from Ohio and Florida has also won the nationwide election – but in 2020, no. Since 1898, any candidate winning those two states plus North Carolina has taken the presidency – but, again, not in 2020. For forty years, nineteen bellwether counties around the country have correctly predicted the ultimate winner of the presidential sweepstakes – and who won eighteen of them in 2020? Trump.

There’s more. Not in 150 years has a candidate whose vote total jumped as much as Trump’s did from one election to the next ended up losing the election. Never has any incumbent who received over 75 percent of the votes in his party’s primaries (Trump won 94 percent) lost the general election. Rarely has a president lost a re-election bid even as his party picked up seats in the House. Then there’s the blatantly obvious difference in voter enthusiasm between Trump – with his epic campaign rallies – and Biden, whose events sometimes seemed to draw more journalists than voters. Then there’s what is apparently a suspicious variation in turnout rates between otherwise very similar cities: for example, 84 percent in Milwaukee, but only 51 percent in Cincinnati.

All of it points to the urgent need for a legitimate audit. So do a number of other problems in several widely distributed jurisdictions. For instance, several Democrat-run states, purportedly seeking to make the voting process safer (because of COVID) and easier (especially for minorities, who, it was claimed, somehow had special difficulties in navigating the process), dramatically broadened the use of absentee ballots and relaxed (or entirely removed) ballot signature requirements. Some states even sent out unsolicited ballots to every registered voter. All of these actions were blatant invitations to massive fraud. Republicans who protested were condemned as racist reactionaries – even though most countries in “progressive” Western Europe ban absentee ballots entirely for resident citizens, and those that do allow them are much stricter in distributing them.

Some states hired election workers who weren’t able to operate the computers involved. In many locations, there was large-scale “vote harvesting” – the practice, by political operatives, of going door-to-door to collect voters’ completed absentee ballots and then delivering them (perhaps intact, perhaps not) to the appropriate polling place. And a number of state governments – often at the last minute – made illegal changes in election procedures.

For a responsible auditor, there are other questions to be asked. Were voter logs updated? Were ballot requests logged? Who emptied the drop boxes in which absentee voters deposit their ballots? Who, after the ballots were received, maintained chain of custody? Who had access to the computers used in ballot processing? Where were ballots stored? Who witnessed ballot counts?

After Election Day, there were reports around the country of specific cases of election fraud. A New York Post reporter interviewed a New Jersey Democrat who professed to run a ballot-harvesting operation whose participants collected voters’ completed mail-in ballots, took them out of their envelopes, discarded the ones containing votes for Trump, replaced them with new ballots marked with votes for Biden, then sent them in to be counted. The man running this scheme told the Post reporter that he knew of anti-Trump postal workers who’d thrown out ballots en masse in Trump-friendly neighborhoods.

There were also some abstruse mathematical observations. A mathematician named Edward Solomon noticed unusual patterns in the Georgia and Pennsylvania votes: in some precincts, the total vote and the Trump vote had a much lower percentage of co-primes (i.e., numbers that don’t share a common factor other than one) than would be expected. Some co-prime patterns were oddly repetitious: one Trump vote to 18 for Biden; one Trump vote to 24 for Biden. Solomon found this suspicious. Similarly, scientist Douglas Frank, studying the election results by county in several states, noticed that while the voting pattern by age was pretty much the same in each county of a given state, that pattern differed significantly from state to state. What did that signify? Some observers cited violations in the vote tallies of Benford’s Law, which states that in a large batch of random numbers there will be a certain distribution of their first digits (for example, about 30% of the numbers will begin with 1; 18% with 2; 12% with 3; and so on); but Fried considers this test “too unreliable” to take very seriously.

Then there were the post-election observations whose import could easily be grasped without an advanced math degree. In several swing states there were sudden late-night jumps in voting tallies, all of them massively favoring Biden, and many of them occurring after a mysterious period during which vote counting, or at least vote reporting, stopped. In no fewer than 353 counties in 29 states, there turned out to be more registered voters than voting-age citizens.

---

Anybody that can't see it, does NOT want to see it.


They don;t want to think about their gov doing something like this.


"Please allow me to bury my head and forget"

quote:

---

how did AG Barr and his staff miss all that?

---

You seen his glasses? Seriously though, they were on the outs and on the outs with Trump by sitting on his/their asses for much of their tenure.

Furthermore, have you seen the upstream swim anyone would have had to take on their own with the media regarding this? Some lazy swamp frick was absolutely not gonna take it on and risk being trashed as a Trump lackey like they went after him before.

quote:

---

lets see it.
"indisputable "

presented? in the past?
by whom to whom?

---

If you have ignored the countless times the data has been presented already, why should I waste my time trying to present it to you yet again now? Again, you are being disingenuous and not forthcoming just like your other tool friend to whom I was responding. You just spoke volumes to my point with your sanctimonious questions.

quote:

---

any chance you can support your claim here and now?

---

Sure, there is a great chance I would if it wasn't you requesting it because I already know your schtick. You're not fooling anyone here bro.

quote:

---

links.

start with summary ideas.

how?

---

Again, you're being phony...fulfilling your request is a ginormous waste of my time. Cheers!