He does good work, but I left a comment regarding one of his final comments:
Matt, why do you call the various statistical analyses "crazy" that have shown and proven election fraud and then add that they are analyses "that I cannot understand?" The fact that you might not understand exactly how they reached their conclusions does NOT mean they are "crazy." There are many of us out here who DO understand these analyses and they are anything but "crazy!"
If you don't want to include them in YOUR analyses, which also by the way take a degree of intellectual capacity to understand, that is your prerogative. But why do you insist on denigrating studies that you either cannot easily understand or that you believe others cannot easily understand simply because they use facts/statistics/statistical analysis that is more complex or in many cases more ELEGANT than yours.
I commend you on your work, but you need to be more careful and less arrogant about calling crazy -- meaning "less useful" or " less believable" or "less important" or "less reproducible" by the "less skilled" or "less capable" -- the work done by others that have and use other means to detect the BLATANT fraud perpetrated in the 2020 election that is being and has been uncovered.
I didn't care much for his method(s) of delivery. A bit draining on my mind - he's very soft spoken. I think the jest of his argument is "No confidence that [Pedo-Joe] is the deserving winner of the 2020 election.
He does good work, but I left a comment regarding one of his final comments:
Matt, why do you call the various statistical analyses "crazy" that have shown and proven election fraud and then add that they are analyses "that I cannot understand?" The fact that you might not understand exactly how they reached their conclusions does NOT mean they are "crazy." There are many of us out here who DO understand these analyses and they are anything but "crazy!"
If you don't want to include them in YOUR analyses, which also by the way take a degree of intellectual capacity to understand, that is your prerogative. But why do you insist on denigrating studies that you either cannot easily understand or that you believe others cannot easily understand simply because they use facts/statistics/statistical analysis that is more complex or in many cases more ELEGANT than yours.
I commend you on your work, but you need to be more careful and less arrogant about calling crazy -- meaning "less useful" or " less believable" or "less important" or "less reproducible" by the "less skilled" or "less capable" -- the work done by others that have and use other means to detect the BLATANT fraud perpetrated in the 2020 election that is being and has been uncovered.
I didn't care much for his method(s) of delivery. A bit draining on my mind - he's very soft spoken. I think the jest of his argument is "No confidence that [Pedo-Joe] is the deserving winner of the 2020 election.