This doesn't add up. You can't get to negatives by removing just a fraction. If Trump got 100% of the D vote, he'd go down to 70, and Biden would go up 30. If he got 10%, he'd go down to 7, and Biden would go up three. You can't get negative by swapping, because you can't "swap" more votes than Trump got.
If this was real, then the scheme would have to be totally different. It would be something like "Subtract this flat number of votes from Trump's total and give that many to Biden." But that would mean that they expected to need to steal more than 30% of the vote and that Trump got less than 30% legitimately. Either of those are technically plausible, but not both. If even Dems thought they needed to cheat that much, there's no way it was that lopsided. And if it was actually that lopsided, there's no way they'd believe they needed to cheat that much.
Obviously any negative vote total in any slice is fraudulent, or a reporting error. And I'm not hesitant to believe there was some vote swapping/weighting going on.
But this point of data and this conclusion do not sync up.
I listened to him and he explained his math and process, he also exposed that state electoral directors are funded by commies (Murdoch and Koch fucks)... he’s very smart. He created his own email system at 14.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what the claim is. What does "130% of D's" and "-30% of D's" mean? This picture literally obscures the header for that column.
If it means "130% of Democrat voters voted for Biden, and -30% voted for Trump," then that's obviously wrong, because it would mean the existence of negative votes. -30% of any total would yield a negative number of votes. No one reported "And then we counted a batch of ballots and Trump gained -300 votes."
I suppose I'm misinterpreting what this slide is showing, but only because its so unclear. Is there a full source of this I can watch to get the real context?
He said add 30% to biden vote, and subtract that number of votes from trump. EG:
100 votes for Biden
150 for DJT
+30 for Biden, -30 for DJT:
130 votes for Biden
120 votes for DJT
The point was more that the time series supports a hypothesis of shaving or swapping occurring to reach a particular goal, like Biden winning by 1%. That's more or less what it would look like if you fiddled with batches, had a rough idea of a total, and used something like a reduced gradient regression that targeted equilibrium at say 80% of the total so you'd have some wiggle room to get to 1% with the remaining 20%.
This is why I am persuaded by the argument. The cheaters at this point have two goals, the first is to direct the outcome that they desire... but they cannot over do it. If the results of the fraud had Biden winning 90-10 then nobody would possibly believe such an outcome. Investigation then reveals the fraud, rendering the whole scheme a huge liability.
So they have to make a guess as too how much they must bake in, and then correct as they get a better understanding of the actual totals.
This is not what it means. Lets say Biden got 100% of the registered democrat votes. He also got a certain amount of independent votes which equals 30% of the democrat votes. Now the number of votes he has is equal to 130% of the democrat votes. It is impossible for Biden to have 130% of the democrat votes and for all of those votes to have been cast by democrats. Its illogical. Because Biden got 130% of the democrat votes then Trump logically got -30% of the democrat vote. The problem is that those +30% democrat votes for Biden were not democrat votes, they were independents.
If you looked at all the votes together (democrat, ind., repub) then it would make perfect sense. Biden would have 100% of the democrat vote (just as an example, this doesn't have to be true for the argument to hold up), 50% of the independent vote and 0% of the repub vote. The Dr. is falsely attributing the independent votes that Biden received to democrats.
That's not what it says. "Another possibility is if Biden's actual votes were multiplied by 1.3 (130%) meaning each single vote Biden actually received became 1.3 reported votes, AND President Trump's Votes are reduced by the 0.3 or 30% gained by Mr. Biden, Simply Put, Vote Swapping."
But what about this particular data indicates that happened?
Okay, so we see Biden got 130 votes and DJT got 120. Maybe that's real, or maybe Trump got 150 and 30 were stolen. Maybe Biden got 130 votes, Trump got 200, and 80 Trump votes were simply thrown out. There are lots of ways to end up at a pair of numbers. The numbers themselves don't tell us.
If I'm understanding these numbers, then they just say "Independents went for Biden," and then the claim is made is that that margin is some percentage of the democratic vote share. Which is tautologically true, because every number is some percentage of any other number. That's not suspicious. I can't put that in the "Uncanny coincidences for Biden" Book.
Unless of course there's something I'm missing. If everywhere you look, the independent margin is exactly equal to an even 30% of the Democrat vote total at that time, with statistically ridiculous consistency, then sure that's weird. But is that even the claim here? I can't even tell. It just says that there's a number that's 30% of the Democrat vote total.
If you want some real problems with what's written vs the chart https://twitter.com/va_shiva/status/1333530175770857475/photo/1 there was no convergence at 2,000,000 votes (Biden was reported up by 200k) and Arizona reported a grand total of over 3.2 million votes with DJT behind by less than half a point, the 30% thesis falls apart hard if you cover the whole domain and put the crossing in the right place.
Its very misleading. When he says that Trump got -30% he is trying to confuse you. He is saying Biden got 100% of the democrat vote, and then got additional votes (not registered democrats) that equals 30% of the number of democrat votes. Because Biden got 130% of democrat votes (may be true but is very misleading stated this way) then Trump got -30% democrat votes, even though that extra 30% were not democrat votes. Its ridiculous and this guy should never be allowed to speak publicly about election fraud again.
His other analysis of Trump votes in PA was extremely misleading too IMO>
This doesn't add up. You can't get to negatives by removing just a fraction. If Trump got 100% of the D vote, he'd go down to 70, and Biden would go up 30. If he got 10%, he'd go down to 7, and Biden would go up three. You can't get negative by swapping, because you can't "swap" more votes than Trump got.
If this was real, then the scheme would have to be totally different. It would be something like "Subtract this flat number of votes from Trump's total and give that many to Biden." But that would mean that they expected to need to steal more than 30% of the vote and that Trump got less than 30% legitimately. Either of those are technically plausible, but not both. If even Dems thought they needed to cheat that much, there's no way it was that lopsided. And if it was actually that lopsided, there's no way they'd believe they needed to cheat that much.
Obviously any negative vote total in any slice is fraudulent, or a reporting error. And I'm not hesitant to believe there was some vote swapping/weighting going on.
But this point of data and this conclusion do not sync up.
He has 4 degrees masters and PhD from MIT.
Immmmma gonna go with him.
Well he clearly didn't use common core math.
Clearly a 3 paragraph essay on speculation of data points from a single slide is enough for common core math experts to debunk the entire premise.
Check mate DrUmPtArDs
Argument from authority fallacy, but given I know fuck all about this subject, I can't exactly do better either lol
I listened to him and he explained his math and process, he also exposed that state electoral directors are funded by commies (Murdoch and Koch fucks)... he’s very smart. He created his own email system at 14.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what the claim is. What does "130% of D's" and "-30% of D's" mean? This picture literally obscures the header for that column.
If it means "130% of Democrat voters voted for Biden, and -30% voted for Trump," then that's obviously wrong, because it would mean the existence of negative votes. -30% of any total would yield a negative number of votes. No one reported "And then we counted a batch of ballots and Trump gained -300 votes."
I suppose I'm misinterpreting what this slide is showing, but only because its so unclear. Is there a full source of this I can watch to get the real context?
He said add 30% to biden vote, and subtract that number of votes from trump. EG:
100 votes for Biden 150 for DJT
+30 for Biden, -30 for DJT:
130 votes for Biden 120 votes for DJT
The point was more that the time series supports a hypothesis of shaving or swapping occurring to reach a particular goal, like Biden winning by 1%. That's more or less what it would look like if you fiddled with batches, had a rough idea of a total, and used something like a reduced gradient regression that targeted equilibrium at say 80% of the total so you'd have some wiggle room to get to 1% with the remaining 20%.
This is why I am persuaded by the argument. The cheaters at this point have two goals, the first is to direct the outcome that they desire... but they cannot over do it. If the results of the fraud had Biden winning 90-10 then nobody would possibly believe such an outcome. Investigation then reveals the fraud, rendering the whole scheme a huge liability.
So they have to make a guess as too how much they must bake in, and then correct as they get a better understanding of the actual totals.
This seems to explain the actions observed.
This is not what it means. Lets say Biden got 100% of the registered democrat votes. He also got a certain amount of independent votes which equals 30% of the democrat votes. Now the number of votes he has is equal to 130% of the democrat votes. It is impossible for Biden to have 130% of the democrat votes and for all of those votes to have been cast by democrats. Its illogical. Because Biden got 130% of the democrat votes then Trump logically got -30% of the democrat vote. The problem is that those +30% democrat votes for Biden were not democrat votes, they were independents.
If you looked at all the votes together (democrat, ind., repub) then it would make perfect sense. Biden would have 100% of the democrat vote (just as an example, this doesn't have to be true for the argument to hold up), 50% of the independent vote and 0% of the repub vote. The Dr. is falsely attributing the independent votes that Biden received to democrats.
That's not what it says. "Another possibility is if Biden's actual votes were multiplied by 1.3 (130%) meaning each single vote Biden actually received became 1.3 reported votes, AND President Trump's Votes are reduced by the 0.3 or 30% gained by Mr. Biden, Simply Put, Vote Swapping."
The "simply put" suffices.
It doesn’t explain anything. Biden got 130% of the democrat vote. That doesn’t mean 130% Democrats voted.
But what about this particular data indicates that happened?
Okay, so we see Biden got 130 votes and DJT got 120. Maybe that's real, or maybe Trump got 150 and 30 were stolen. Maybe Biden got 130 votes, Trump got 200, and 80 Trump votes were simply thrown out. There are lots of ways to end up at a pair of numbers. The numbers themselves don't tell us.
If I'm understanding these numbers, then they just say "Independents went for Biden," and then the claim is made is that that margin is some percentage of the democratic vote share. Which is tautologically true, because every number is some percentage of any other number. That's not suspicious. I can't put that in the "Uncanny coincidences for Biden" Book.
Unless of course there's something I'm missing. If everywhere you look, the independent margin is exactly equal to an even 30% of the Democrat vote total at that time, with statistically ridiculous consistency, then sure that's weird. But is that even the claim here? I can't even tell. It just says that there's a number that's 30% of the Democrat vote total.
If you want some real problems with what's written vs the chart https://twitter.com/va_shiva/status/1333530175770857475/photo/1 there was no convergence at 2,000,000 votes (Biden was reported up by 200k) and Arizona reported a grand total of over 3.2 million votes with DJT behind by less than half a point, the 30% thesis falls apart hard if you cover the whole domain and put the crossing in the right place.
Its very misleading. When he says that Trump got -30% he is trying to confuse you. He is saying Biden got 100% of the democrat vote, and then got additional votes (not registered democrats) that equals 30% of the number of democrat votes. Because Biden got 130% of democrat votes (may be true but is very misleading stated this way) then Trump got -30% democrat votes, even though that extra 30% were not democrat votes. Its ridiculous and this guy should never be allowed to speak publicly about election fraud again.
His other analysis of Trump votes in PA was extremely misleading too IMO>