ad hominem?
Skillful of you. Not really persuasive, but you seem to have mastered it.
Rabbit hole. Try to stay on topic.
One event, 20 years ago, is not materially relevant to the present tense. While it (the old event) can justify a healthy degree of skepticism, it does not mean that science, (in and of itself agnostic) is forever suspended.
So, above you express skepticism, fine. But follow that through to a detailed thought process instead of just clinging to the skepticism and stopping short of a founded conclusion.
Maybe because it might actually be the truth? Maybe a radical prospect, but maybe?
lol
Chemical bombs don't explode immediately like TNT or Plastique. They have a trigger, usually a small explosive device, and then an acceleration process that can take (depending on construction) several seconds. What is shown in these videos is the result of expanding gases from the initial triggering device. Probably the skylight or air conditioner on the roof, being blown off the roof by the initial triggering device. You can CLEARLY see the projectile going UP.
Then, the reason the smoke trail appears to come back down is because the smoke trail less dense higher up and away from the point of origin. Thus, it dissipates from visibility higher up first as the level of dissipation works back to the point of origin.
But i don't know, maybe it's more entertaining to let our imaginations run wild than consider actual science.
So what? Do the Mavericks even have any State contracts? AAC is owned by the City of Dallas and the only leverage the law would have (assuming it passes the House) is against sports teams with contracts with the State of Texas.
Texas Congress: "Ha, take that Cuban" Cuban: yawn
I'm confused here.
Does anybody else just see a blabbering blow hard? I don't think even he, himself, knows WTF he's saying.
His panties are bunched up because of some concrete barriers in the right of way? What child trafficking? Just because he says it's so?
Sorry, vote me down, but I don't get it.
Ahem... The ultimate defense to slander, libel, and defamation is the truth. If in fact Powell had one single shred of factual evidence that was ignored in the original suits, being sued by Dominion is her perfectly legitimate chance to show it, to prove it, to provide the actual truth. Assuming it exists at all, this is her chance, this is Giuliani's chance too. To prove it, once and for all.
Instead of showing the evidence they claimed they had, instead of using the primary defense to these types of law suits, what to they do? They throw Pedes under the bus.
This was all a grift. If they had proof, if they had a defense, they would JUMP at the chance to show it. And worse, rather than see it for the grift it was, Pedes willingly ignore common legal sense. IF SHE HAD PROOF, IF SHE EVER HAD PROOF, THAT PROOF WOULD BE THE IDEAL DEFENSE!
Thanks, but I'm either confused, illiterate, or missing something. (maybe all three)
Not that it matters (in terms of defined as mass shooting), but where is the "jogger" reference? That's the key word I was searching for.
This is what he said, verbatim:
So what I first want to begin by, ah, having people put their attention on this chart. What this is is, we’re literally taking all the data provided by the Secretary of State across the 743 precincts in Maricopa county and we’re literally recreating the election. And there are two curves here. One is the curve for President Trump which is the red curve. And the blue curve is the curve for Mr. Biden. And as we move from left to right, what we’re doing is we’re starting with precincts which have low number of votes, to precincts which have high number of votes. And we’re literally counting the vote totals and summing them up together. When you get to the end here, you get the actual election results. So 49% for Mr. Biden and 47.6% for Mr. Trump. So these curves in many ways show the dynamic of the election as you move from the precincts with low vote counts to high and you’re essentially adding them up. So, when you look at this curve in pattern recognition and pattern analysis one of the things you try to understand is anomalies and the normal conditions. So this is what we’re calling the normal condition. In science we call it the control. And we’re literally looking at two important features. There’s the shape of this curve and the sequence in how these curves develop.
I have downloaded and analyzed the dat for Maricopa County. Based on his description, it is literally impossible to create the chart he showed. There either has to be something he left out, or he is lying to us.
I have downloaded the data from Maricopa County, the data from Arizona and documented it all.
There are VERY SERIOUS PROBLEMS with this video and the data he is presenting. EVEN HIS OWN NUMBERS don't line up.
I am a 33 year experienced Interop Dev / DBA / Analyst. I saw the news today of the forensic analysis from Maricopa County was released and I have to say, was FINALLY pleased to see something that claimed to be a forensic analysis actually was. So I came here to see if anyone was discussing it. Then i see this old video was posted. So I watched it, and watched it again. Somethings just didn't click right. So I went to get the actual data to recreate what he says he's doing. And it looks like, the nicest word I can use is it's bullshit. None of it is right. His data isn't right, his methods aren't right, his charts don't show what he says they show. And, as a result, every single one of his suppositions, EVERY ONE, are flawed (at best) and literally fraud (perjury) at worst.
I wish there was a way here to post some screen shots and attachments.
Hey Guys, Don't flame me yet, but there is something seriously wrong with this data he's using. Even his own data doesn't line up or add up. I'm working on analysis but this screwy GUI won't let me attach pictures to a reply.
Is there anyone else here as good at analysis as I am? If so, please listen carefully to his description of the chart beginning at 2:15.
Something is VERY smelly here and I hate being taken for a ride.
Reviewing cases. WGBTY...
I very much appreciate your comment: “Unlike most of the people here, I remember when we held the left to the standard of ‘proof of burden for a claim’.”
Sadly though, I worry that often I see pedes not applying that same standard to themselves or to the information they consume. I’m sure you know, we all know, it’s not hard for either side to find information published by someone (in some cases anyone) to support their side. It takes a great deal of effort, time, and savvy, to research these claims (either way, either side, either opinion). And, because it takes so much, a lot of people on either side (arguably too many) choose rather to just believe what they’ve seen/read. It’s too easy that way. And, truthfully, both sides do this. Consume information, and believe it as fact, because there is just too many other pressing matters in our lives to spend the time investigating all of it. And then, both sides will tell the other side, “but our sources are trustworthy and yours are not.” Some may, perhaps more appropriately, call this “instinct.” The same kind of instinct that tells a deer not to walk out into a clearing can also tell us what “feels” right and what “feels” wrong. But the hard realization of that analogy is, the clearing isn’t always dangerous for the deer, and what “feels” right or wrong, isn’t always that way.
It makes me CRAZY to watch people, patriotic people (on both sides), miss these opportunities for these reasons. Which leads to another controversial topic. Patriotism and love of country. People may down vote me, but I am convinced that though they may have different preferences, most people on the left do actually love this country too. People on both sides serve (and die) in the military, serve and die) in the police, serve (and die) in the hospitals, serve their communities, serve their youth, serve their seniors, and serve in many more ways. People who serve do it because they care, and if they care, that is because they love the country. It serves no useful purpose, IMO, for one side to come into any interaction with the other side from a position that the opposing side doesn’t love our country. Regardless of veracity of the information being exchanged or provided, the other side just isn’t going to listen, period.
Every single time patriotic people are communicating is an opportunity to convince, to persuade. But for either side to come to such an opportunity unprepared (with validated information), it always end up the same. And worse, both sides walk away with the impression the other side is “just closed minded.” The regrettable truth is, neither side came prepared. Pedes have faith in their information so they already believe it. But they can’t seem to see, or accept, the other side doesn’t have that same faith. Not yet. It doesn’t mean they can’t be convinced. But to be convinced, the information presented needs to be in such a form as it can be validated as truthful. That is the point at which persuasion occurs, people are convinced, and faith is built (the same faith pedes already have).
I’ve seen the graphic from your link and will discuss it next but to avoid the dreaded TL;DR, I wanted to comment on your commendable opening comment from your last reply. Things might not seem so impossible, it more, on both sides, accepted this burden.
OK, well, I've already looked at both of your suggestions, up one side and down the other. Inside and outside and sideways.
"statistical improbabilities and deviances in this election cycle" Perhaps if you could be more specific about the improbabilities or deviations to which you refer. What I've already seen, perhaps not everything, pretty clearly, is that while turnout percentage was somewhat high, it was by no means the highest turnout. While yes, President Trump did have early leads in some states, when you look at the numbers, and the rates of deviation (for example between in-person and mail-in votes) they actually do add up and turn out to be quite probable. For example, in PA, at one point, while Trump had a big numeric lead, in terms of percent, it really wasn't that big. Particularly when it is understood the disparity between mail-in and in-person voting. And, in PA, since their laws prohibit the mail-in being counted early, and they do count more slowly, it actually was true that the in-person voting came in first but it wasn't enough to beat the deviation in the mail-in votes. And really, to be 100% honest, Trump (and all his election advisors) knew this would happen even before the election. That's precisely why he railed so loud and aggressively against main-in voting. He knew if democrats were allowed to vote by mail, they would. And they did. But the deviation between the two were actually not outside probability. Certainly, there were more mail-in votes, but then this election was very different considering the expanded access due to COVID.
It's a hard thing to accept. I get it. But the numbers, as reported, align well within probabilities. Now, from there, there are two remaining possibilities:
- The votes cast (even if legitimate) were fundamentally unconstitutional, or
- There were actual fraudulent votes.
As for the constitutional question, each state that challenged any one this, wound up agreeing to all of it before the election. True, some few legislators continued to object, even after the rulings and agreements, there is a very tough fact left remaining that has been left out. Now don't flame me, because this is truth. Even though they could, not one single legislature got together and actually voted, even if in a non-binding way, to question or doubt any of their elections. Again, there were a few individuals protesting, but none of them, ever one time, actually cast a vote in their legislature. Not one. And everyone of these disputed states have republican legislatures. I don't want to speak for you, but for me, it would have said A LOT more if even one of these legislatures actually could get a vote together on the question of fraud in their elections. I have to admit, that is something that did, and still does, bother me about all these claims.
But maybe I'm off your target topic. What specific improbability or deviation would you like to portray?
I've been known to produce a graphic or two in my day.
Graphics that withstand fact-checking are always key and when factual, transcend "propaganda" in the realm of truth.
For me, the term "propaganda" implies spin, or cherry-picking, or in regrettable cases (such as this meme) falsehoods, (regardless of the spirit) behind it. Truly persuasive arguments (be they words, numbers, or memes) need to be fact based so they withstand scrutiny by opposition. Then their response is...crickets.
What do you have in mind?
I see.
Well, there may be some challenges with your premise. There is no U.S. Constitutional obstruction to any convicted person actually voting.
Most states, by state law, actually do allow felons to vote after various points in time or completions of their sentences.
Even if we assumed, incorrectly, felons can't vote (they can in most states), I would think that number of felony restricted people would be demonstrated as part of the difference between "voting age" and "registered" (which is the same as "eligible"). In other words, they don't really break down or categorize the sub-sets of people within the group of people who are of voting age, but don't register. Some may be felons (in 7 states as detailed below), some may have not met residency requirements, some may be institutionalized, etc.
There are only 7 states in which persons convicted of "certain" felonies never regain the right to vote. Alabama, Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Wyoming.
But still, I'm not sure how this applies to the actual election? We would need to see numbers of felons alleged to have voted improperly in any of the 7 contested states. By the way, each of the 7 primarily contested states actually do allow felons to regain (at various points) the right to vote.
But aside from all of that, I wonder if your premise is rather, in your opinion, felons ought not be allowed to vote at all, anywhere. Is that more representative of your target point?
Generally, "eligible" and "registered" voters are the same thing. Some states use the term "eligible" and some states use the term "registered." What i think you may be confusing is the people of "voting age." Differentiated from "eligible" or "registered" voters, the number of "voting age" is always larger than the number of "eligible" or "registered." According to "United States Election Project" (http://www.electproject.org/2020g) In 2020: There were~257,605,088 voting age Americans. There were 239,247,182 eligible voters (registered) There were 159,690,457 actual votes. So, this is: A 61.99% participation by voting age Americans, and, A 66.74% participation by eligible voters.
Ok, thanks. The report references numbers from 2010. Using a rough estimate of the 2020 population of 330,000,000, and "assuming" the same rate of 8% of the overall population have felony records, that would come to 26,400,000.
We don't have any actual published census numbers yet but Ok, we can stipulate to the assumed baseline from 2010.
But what does that have to do with the 2020 election? This thread is about the election voting numbers.
What felons? Data source?
It's kinda disingenuous to review 2020 numbers in the context of other years.
Trump was a HUGE motivator, on both sides of isle. The big difference between 2016 and 2020 was that BOTH sides had seen 4 years of him in power. Again, those 4 years were a HUGE motivator either way.
The Dems were counting on a blue wave of anti-trump sentiment to sweep large volumes of Dem Reps and Senators into office. The data shows there clearly there was not as much down ballot party ticket voting. But the data also shows much of the "center" (both Blue and Red) had had their fill of Trump. They were apparently happy to maintain a divided congress but change the Admin.
I realize this is a hard perspective for pedes to see/accept/believe, but it isn't as impossible as many project, and the actual data does show it did happen.
I'm not seeing a lot of evidence for your "critical thinking" theory. I was going to say here, in this thread. But honestly, I'm not seeing a lot of critical thinking on the entire site anymore.