4
Butter_and_Meatloaf 4 points ago +4 / -0

What the hell did they think was going to happen?

1
Butter_and_Meatloaf 1 point ago +1 / -0

Which other magazines do you love, Jeffrey?

17
Butter_and_Meatloaf 17 points ago +17 / -0

Came here to say this. Those are political donations. When donating to a candidate or PAC you're required to list your employer.

HOWEVER, this is definitely evidence that Dominion can't be trusted to be neutral.

2
Butter_and_Meatloaf 2 points ago +2 / -0

I hate how people I trusted have turned out to be traitors. Twenty years ago in the early days of Fox News I used to watch Cavuto every evening. He even read an email of mine on the air once. And now like so many others, now that we have an amazing president who has yanked back the covers on the establishment, Cavuto has shown his true colors. As George Carlin said, "It's a big club and you ain't in it."

Interesting that it's not just Fox. Back in the late 90s I used to watch Chris Mathews every night, and he was very much a moderate & was tough on Clinton during the Lewinski saga. Heck, he even guest-hosted for Rush on at least one occasion.

You wonder how much of it is organic corruption of working in the New York media cesspool versus targeted corruption by powers using blackmail as leverage.

2
Butter_and_Meatloaf 2 points ago +2 / -0

This is exactly what I've been thinking. Dems are going to (try to) use Dominion as their escape hatch and that's always been their failsafe.

by shrbrn
2
Butter_and_Meatloaf 2 points ago +2 / -0

Checked it where? Official site is votewa.gov & only tells you if your ballot was received/challenged/etc. Doesn't tell you who you voted for. Otherwise anyone could see anyone's ballot w/ just name & DOB.

3
Butter_and_Meatloaf 3 points ago +3 / -0

Wednesday & Thursday were up & down for me definitely tense, but today I'm actually in a great mood & even more confident than I was on Tuesday.

1
Butter_and_Meatloaf 1 point ago +1 / -0

I don't think that's what it's saying. I think you have to read the numbers in reverse order.

So, of all absentee ballots counted, 76.99% were for Biden. Of all absentee ballots requested, 76.6% were requested by registered Democrats or non-Republicans.

In NC, 51.7% of absentee votes went for Biden, but 81.8% of all absentee ballots were requested by D's or Non-R's.

Etc.

The breakdown, then, would be:

NC - 63% of absentee D's & Non-R's voted for Biden; AZ - 83% of absentee D's & Non-R's voted for Biden; FL - 81% of absentee D's & Non-R's voted for Biden; CA - 81% of absentee D's & Non-R's voted for Biden; PA - 101% of absentee D's & Non-R's voted for Biden

Or in other words, another indicator of fraud.

3
Butter_and_Meatloaf 3 points ago +3 / -0

I didn't get that sense from Rush today. He's mad at establishment R's who aren't backing PDT, just like everyone here is.

by Alpha
4
Butter_and_Meatloaf 4 points ago +4 / -0

Also this wasn't in an email, it was allegedly overheard backstage, I believe after one of the debates.

2
Butter_and_Meatloaf 2 points ago +2 / -0

Same reason he told Republicans to vote in person: To keep the sets of ballots as Dem-only as possible.

It's a lot "cleaner" to go after mail-in ballots that aren't mixed in w/ Republican ballots. It's "cleaner" to have all of the ballots reviewed before you get to see any of them, if you can't see all of them and are going to contest them. Then the Dems can't muddy the waters by arguing that you did get to be part of the process.

2
Butter_and_Meatloaf 2 points ago +2 / -0

Sorry to break it to you, but you missed out on tricks or treats.

1
Butter_and_Meatloaf 1 point ago +1 / -0

I haven't looked at any of the other sites but it sounds like you have. Is screen-scraping an option for the sites w/o API? (I'm not a dev or I'd help.)

5
Butter_and_Meatloaf 5 points ago +5 / -0

"Benford's law is an observation about the leading digits of the numbers found in real-world data sets. Intuitively, one might expect that the leading digits of these numbers would be uniformly distributed so that each of the digits from 1 to 9 is equally likely to appear. In fact, it is often the case that 1 occurs more frequently than 2, 2 more frequently than 3, and so on. This observation is a simplified version of Benford's law. More precisely, the law gives a prediction of the frequency of leading digits using base-10 logarithms that predicts specific frequencies which decrease as the digits increase from 1 to 9.

"This phenomenon occurs generally in many different instances of real-world data. It becomes more pronounced and more likely when more data is combined together from different sources. Not every data set satisfies Benford's law, and it is surprisingly difficult to explain the law's occurrence in the data sets it does describe, but nevertheless it does occur consistently in well-understood circumstances. Scientists have even begun to use versions of the law to detect potential fraud in published data (tax returns, election results) that are expected to satisfy the law."

Source: https://brilliant.org/wiki/benfords-law/

So, basically we should see the frequency of the leading digit in each candidate's number of votes from each ward make a smooth progression from more frequent to less frequent as we go from 1-9. See the green bars. We would expect to see something like that.

Look at the red bars for Trump and we see basically that progression, with the exceptions being 2-3 and 5-6, and those are very close.

Now look at Biden. After the 1 being where expected, his numbers make an inverse V. Or in other words, the vote totals were manipulated.

4
Butter_and_Meatloaf 4 points ago +4 / -0

Fell asleep praying. Woke up many times during the night, immediately started praying. Woke up early this morning, started praying. It's pretty much my default state right now.

The Word says to pray without ceasing. I just want to better at doing it this way when there's no duress or need.

view more: ‹ Prev