I can’t believe this happened just two posts later... I should keep my mouth shut.
I thought that the first admittedly terrible post would be the derail. I didn't expect the second strange sad stranger a comin' in his wake. What a boring troll.
If you included the next paragraph, haven't read that article in a while, but it does however say much more than that. The article itself hinges on the arguments made further down. The primary being a disgrace to mathematics. The sources, and wait for it, you are gonna love it, use the fact that the Iranian election doesn't work.
lmao. So yeah, this "fact check" determined the Benfords Law to be inaccurate citing the disparity in the Iranian election. I think that should be further proof, what's it gonna say next, that Benford's Law is invalid because it doesn't work in China or Russia either, Lol.
However, the core of the argument is correct. The Law doesn't prove Fraud, and if you go back to the comment that I was defending, I wasn't trying to prove beyond doubt that fraud happened. In response to the comment I was saying there should be some actual hearings, election reform, I actually really liked the idea proposed by Cruz to have an election commitee on how to fix this problem and increase faith in the American election. Whether you look at the data or not, nearly half, 39% of the US believes the election was unfair.
The article you used says that it is a red flag. And that's what the post I was defending commented, and Benford's law does essentially scream out that there should be some looking into this election.
In short, on that specific law, it can only ever be used to spot fraud, never to prove, and it does not explain anything about it. Even if the results were clearly fabricated in the analysis of the Law it would not be enough to overturn an election, it is simply a probability.
After the Benfords Law maths came out briefly after the election, that is when other people on either side started to say one of two things:
1. It doesn't apply to elections, which is wrong;
2. It proves fraud and Joe Biden cheated, which is wrong.
The statistics I have done include looking at the data from the election come from looking at the actual standard deviations of voter turnout and voter disparity. There is little point going into it though, for reasons I have already stated. The trump legal team released their numbers, on the standard deviation of similar things and we do not have identical numbers. So, to add to the comment above that posted a few links, I haven't just found these answers online and are trying to argue for them. It is my own math using the data available from the SOS pages. I haven't watched them, but I doubt they are on the work I did a couple months ago.
So I will try and make it clear, the math is only going to give you a probability of a fair election. In order to actually do anything, there is going to have to proof. I have my own theories, and I do believe that the numbers support it, but that is all it is. My own theory based on numbers.
I consider this a pretty reasonable response.
Admittimably, I did not do Benford's law myself, I heard a couple of reports and that is when it peaked my interest. I thought that all claims of voter fraud were speculation until some of the maths started to come out, which in turn encouraged me to do my own.
Last edited by combustiblefuel; 01-08-2021 at 09:28 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to combustiblefuel For This Useful Post:
A little late to this party but your claims intrigue me. I just have a few questions.
[.....]
I look forward to your explanations about your model and the variations you saw, and then if you did any normalizations to handle these variations or even took them into account as you built your model?
I can say this confidently, in my capacity as an adult with reading comprehension:
Abatedmean. What you see above is what is referred to as a "trap." In fact, it has several classical signs of a trap.
1. Seems friendly.
2. Asks reasonable (but leading) questions, supported by research.
3. Leaves off with a cheery request to see your statistical model and responses.
My suggestion?
Don't take the bait! It doesn't get better if you share your "model" or assumptions.
Leave this so called "New Era" to his clever little traps.
__________________
Pylon on the Edmonton Oilers:
"I am actually more excited for the Oilers game tomorrow than the Flames game. I am praying for multiple jersey tosses. The Oilers are my new favourite team for all the wrong reasons. I hate them so much I love them."
The Following User Says Thank You to IliketoPuck For This Useful Post:
I don’t offer any opinions that aren’t expressed already in mainstream media sites.
This may be one of the great understatements of this board's history! I would completely agree. You don't present anything original, just opinions (with no support) that come from media personalities. No critical analysis of what they're saying or trying to square it with reality. Thank you for the moment of clarity!
Quote:
The only people who would find my comments at all unusual are those who get their news from twitter.
Or have any critical thinking skills and subject matter expertise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IliketoPuck
I can say this confidently, in my capacity as an adult with reading comprehension:
Abatedmean. What you see above is what is referred to as a "trap." In fact, it has several classical signs of a trap.
1. Seems friendly.
2. Asks reasonable (but leading) questions, supported by research.
3. Leaves off with a cheery request to see your statistical model and responses.
My suggestion?
Don't take the bait! It doesn't get better if you share your "model" or assumptions.
Leave this so called "New Era" to his clever little traps.
You take all the fun and life out of the board sometimes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mull
This is incorrect.
Yes he was acquitted in that he wasn't convicted.
Yes he remains impeached.
Yes, for someone to be acquitted there would have been a trial. Considering Mitch McConnell refused to cooperate and conduct an actual trial, I'm not sure we can say Trump was acquitted. More accurate to say "the DA" chickened out when they saw who the accused was and understood the overall embarrassment to his community the process would be.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
if only Trump had come out with these last two tweets 2 months ago. Sure, we would have all laughed at him for being a petty sore loser and we'd all have criticized him for breaking traditions by not going to the inauguration, but America would have been spared a lot. All the unnecessary circus, all the lies to further radicalize and incite people, all the efforts to undermine democracy and the trust in fair elections, all the anger and violence, all the further division. All that bull#### in a time where a pandemic is ravaging the country. Seriously, #### him and all of his enablers.
