US Election 2020 - Lame duck days

Gnarls

Gnarls

Expert Member
Joined
May 20, 2008
Messages
4,909
buka001 said:
I am keen to hear why the courts need to convene to hear whether Gnarls is an alien from Pluto?

I have a written and signed affidavit alleging this.

They must sit and hear the merits! Only then can we determine whether or not Gnarls is an alien.
Click to expand...

Does Gnarls being an alien violate the constitution? If not, then this is a stupid analogy as usual.
 
surface

surface

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Messages
26,596
CaptainOblivious said:
Oh brother. Assuming that this is true, that does not in any way prejudice the merits of the case, rather it implies that the submission itself has a procedural deficit that is eminently rectifiable.

I imagine all the state AGs signing on to dispute the electoral laws of some of the other states will mean SCOTUS hears the merits of the case one way or another. You're celebrating over nothing, hahahahaha.
Click to expand...
Chana, Iqbal surve here. I liked your comment "it rather it implies that the submission itself has a procedural deficit that is eminently rectifiable."

May I use your comment for article I am commissioning on Ms Mkhwebane's many many defeats. Let me know if you got any copyright et. al. Also can we hire you for IOL ? DM for negotiations. Money no object but only cash will be given.
 
greg0205

greg0205

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
28,863
Someone check my math, please...

Yesterday Donnie lost in the PA Supreme Court, the NV Supreme Court and the Supreme Court.

That's three, right?

Has anyone else ever lost three Supreme Court cases in one day?
 
B

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
16,981
CaptainOblivious said:
Except the dispute is exactly that the votes were not legal, proving your bad faith engagement yet again. :rolleyes:


Says the guy who can't explain all the statistical anomalies and historical tells that wildly misjudged the mark with no explanation for the collective 1 in a bazillion chance outcome aside from more "orange man bad". :ROFL:


No, not only. But it is rather convenient, and I make no apologies for hamming it up. :sneaky:
Click to expand...

More on this. I don't need to counter ignorant explanations of statistics, in the same way I don't need to counter ignorant explanations that the earth is flat. When people believe a conspiracy theory to their core, no amount of evidence to the contrary will change their minds.

There are no statistical anomalies. Otherwise, why was this not presented in any one of the 52 (the number keeps on jumping up!) court applications thus far?

The polling ultimately predicted the results. Yes it was off, but within the margin of error predicted.

Down ballot results were miserable for the Democrats. This was on the same ballot as the Presidential election, so how can one be fraudulent, but the other is deemed as perfectly acceptable? Explain that "statistical anomaly"? LOL

There just was no "1 in a bazillion chance" that Biden would win. His chances were always higher than Trump. I guess if you feast on a diet of OAN and Newsmax and Breitbart and Gatewaypundit, then perhaps you saw such predictions, but essentially all legitimate polling showed Biden would win.

I was wrong about my predictions for the winner of the election. I thought Trump would win because I believed the margin of error on the polling was higher and ultimately Biden would win with a very low margin in one or two key battleground states, leaving a very fine electoral margin, but Trump would have been able to mount a far more successful Supreme court battle, similar to Bush V Gore.

Turns out I grossly over estimated Trump's legal teams abilities and under estimated how strong the courts are against spurious BS.
 
B

buka001

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
16,981
CaptainOblivious said:
Ipse dixit.


Disingenuous. Even 30% of Democrats have admitted in polls that there's a suspicion of voter fraud in the elections. You refuse to actually speak to the evidence, instead you say that the courts will do that and point to pending court cases, only to interpret rulings based upon procedural issues to mean a pronouncement on the substance of the matter. Do you really expect people cannot see through your hollow trolling?


No, actually, making sure that widespread perceptions of possible voter fraud get heard out and investigated and ruled on definitively is the very cornerstone of a viable democratic process, and that you have judged all those who favour such a response as acting in bad faith is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that nobody needs to take anything you say on the matter seriously.
Click to expand...
30%, where did you get this from and what was the actual questions asked in the poll?
 
DreamKing

DreamKing

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 23, 2009
Messages
14,483
buka001 said:
More on this. I don't need to counter ignorant explanations of statistics, in the same way I don't need to counter ignorant explanations that the earth is flat. When people believe a conspiracy theory to their core, no amount of evidence to the contrary will change their minds.
Click to expand...

obviously, we shouldn't argue with 99% ...
 
C

CaptainOblivious

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2019
Messages
2,535
buka001 said:
More on this. I don't need to counter ignorant explanations of statistics, in the same way I don't need to counter ignorant explanations that the earth is flat. When people believe a conspiracy theory to their core, no amount of evidence to the contrary will change their minds.
Click to expand...
Actually, given that you cannot indicate what exactly the evidence would look like in the event that actual voter fraud did occur, and often the only evidence one could reasonably expect to find would be circumstancial, you do need to counter circumstancial evidence that's indication of something unlikely having happened, or nobody needs to take your skeptard routine seriously.

buka001 said:
There are no statistical anomalies. Otherwise, why was this not presented in any one of the 52 (the number keeps on jumping up!) court applications thus far?
Click to expand...
There are plenty of statistical anomalies. I posted a video last night indicating what one of the anomalies in Pennsylvania looked like with respect to the disparity between voter registrations and the eventual outcome. I have posted others as well. So far none of the lords of snark have deigned to formulate any sort of response.

buka001 said:
The polling ultimately predicted the results. Yes it was off, but within the margin of error predicted.
Click to expand...
Saying it was off while trying to claim that it was ultimately predictive as a strategy to excuse not having to address other statistical anomalies is desperately pathetic.

buka001 said:
Down ballot results were miserable for the Democrats. This was on the same ballot as the Presidential election, so how can one be fraudulent, but the other is deemed as perfectly acceptable? Explain that "statistical anomaly"? LOL
Click to expand...
Why would you think someone rigging a vote against Trump is necessarily for the Dems? The establishment on both sides of the political aisle hate him and everything populist he stands for. And indeed, the fact that Trump is such an outlier with respect to the performance of Repubs in general, when he was wildly wildly popular among the base far beyond the popularity of any of the other candidates, is deeply suspect. His performance in his own party's primary is testament to that fact. And if you paid attention to the witness testimony alleging fraud, there are indeed claims that batches of ballots that appeared to be counterfeit were marked for no one but Biden.

buka001 said:
There just was no "1 in a bazillion chance" that Biden would win. His chances were always higher than Trump. I guess if you feast on a diet of OAN and Newsmax and Breitbart and Gatewaypundit, then perhaps you saw such predictions, but essentially all legitimate polling showed Biden would win.
Click to expand...
spectator.us

Reasons why the 2020 presidential election is deeply puzzling

To say out-loud that you find the results of the 2020 election odd is to invite derision. You must be a crank. Well, count me one
spectator.us spectator.us

It's not that Biden didn't have a chance of winning, it's that his winning was very unlikely to occur while also upsetting all the historical trends that have traditionally coincided with the winning candidate. If only one or two of them ended up not being predictive, you could shrug it off, but when they're all out of whack simultaneously, then the statistical probabilities start to favour a rigged election as the more likely explanation, and it's no longer unreasonable to expect answers as to the cause of the statistical upset and to grow suspicious to the degree that one cannot be proffered.
 
Last edited:
AfricanTech

AfricanTech

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
40,366
greg0205 said:
Someone check my math, please...

Yesterday Donnie lost in the PA Supreme Court, the NV Supreme Court and the Supreme Court.

That's three, right?

Has anyone else ever lost three Supreme Court cases in one day?
Click to expand...
Table Update:

League: 1-51
CL: 0-3
 
C

CaptainOblivious

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2019
Messages
2,535
buka001 said:
30%, where did you get this from and what was the actual questions asked in the poll?
Click to expand...
Nov 19:

www.rasmussenreports.com

61% Think Trump Should Concede to Biden

Most voters now believe President Trump should admit that he lost the election, although they’re less certain their friends and neighbors would agree. They’re more closely divided, however, over whether the Democrats stole the election as Trump contends.
www.rasmussenreports.com www.rasmussenreports.com
Sixty-one percent (61%) of Republicans say it’s Very Likely the Democrats stole the election, but just as many Democrats (61%) say it’s Not At All Likely. Among unaffiliateds, 29% feel it’s a stolen election; 45% do not.
Click to expand...

Nov 29:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1333113548281683977
 
DreamKing

DreamKing

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 23, 2009
Messages
14,483
surface said:
Nice touch there. 'After tomorrow' means anytime in next 5 billion years and beyond. You are the Grandmaster of 9-D chess.
Click to expand...
I said you can ask now, not 1 more day later. so what are you talking about?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top