The Lawsuits

[BubberMiley]

27 minutes ago, sharkman said:

I don't pretend.  Nor does introducing a faulty argument change the fact that you are worried this morning.  If I were you, I wouldn't worry.   Just learn to adjust to reality.  Spending the last 4 years insisting that Trump wasn't a legitimate president has ruined some people's perspective, don't let it ruin yours.

If I may paraphrase: "You mad, bro?"

[Infidel Dog]

Damn...

Double again.

Can you please just put the edit button back where it was? Surely I'm not the only one who can't adjust to the hidden button.

Edited December 9, 2020 by Infidel Dog

[Infidel Dog]

4 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

The Professor was not the only one with expertise who thought the unbelievably high spike of ballots appearing only in the key counties of the key states and the same time after the same types supposedly closed the count for the night is highly implausible. 

Pollster Patrick Basham is another one. He describes the many improbability adding up to the pretty much impossible here:

https://spectator.us/reasons-why-the-2020-presidential-election-is-deeply-puzzling/

or if you prefer you can watch him here:

or if you'd prefer to click neither but pretend expertise on both, no problem...

I can post the entire text here.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

or if you prefer you can watch him here:

or if you'd prefer to click neither but pretend expertise on both, no problem...

I can post the entire text here.

You'd figure with their expertise people would really be paying attention.

You don't think the Supreme Court are just pretending, do you?  That would be pretty shabby, what with them being supreme and all...

[sharkman]

26 minutes ago, Boges said:

BS! They hadn't counted the Mail-In votes which were publicly available online before the election. We knew they were overwhelmingly Democratic. 

Wrong.  That’s just a theory hatched to excuse wild result spikes for Biden, which were nothing more than voter fraud.

[Infidel Dog]

  

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

You don't think the Supreme Court are just pretending, do you? 

 

Why are you so sure the Supreme Court won't hear any of the challenges?

Edited December 9, 2020 by Infidel Dog

[Boges]

1 minute ago, Infidel Dog said:

Why are you so sure the Supreme Court won't hear any of the challenges?

Well now you've reached the Safe Harbour Deadline. So beyond all the challenges faced, you'd have to get Federal Law changed to overcome that. 

https://globalnews.ca/news/7510282/us-election-biden-states-safe-harbour/

IIRC The case that was rejected yesterday didn't involve Fraud. It involved changing Absentee ballot requirements in the face of COVID-19 that "Could" allow for fraud. 

That's a flimsy argument to try and get multiple states to overturn voting. 

We knew before November 3rd that some 100,000 people voted using Mail or Early voting. 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Why are you so sure the Supreme Court won't hear any of the challenges?

I'm not.  In fact, with a quadrillion to the fourth power being the odds against Trump losing the election, it has to be a lock that they will, and award Trump the election. 

Unless they are pretending, of course, as we discussed earlier.

[Boges]

9 minutes ago, sharkman said:

Wrong.  That’s just a theory hatched to excuse wild result spikes for Biden, which were nothing more than voter fraud.

Early voting statistics were publicly available before the election. 

https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/PA.html

https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/WI.html

https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/GA.html

https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/MI.html

 

 

Edited December 9, 2020 by Boges

[Infidel Dog]

6 minutes ago, Boges said:

Well now you've reached the Safe Harbour Deadline. So beyond all the challenges faced, you'd have to get Federal Law changed to overcome that. 

https://globalnews.ca/news/7510282/us-election-biden-states-safe-harbour/

Not according to Trump lawyer Jenna Ellis and apparently Ruth Bader Ginsburg. They say Trump has until Jan. 6.

But hey, who are they to argue against Global News, right? 

Quote

IIRC The case that was rejected yesterday didn't involve Fraud. It involved changing Absentee ballot requirements in the face of COVID-19 that "Could" allow for fraud. 

 

If we're talking about the same case then no, you do not recall correctly.

Alito only denied emergency injunctive relief. The case is still pending before the supreme court.

[Boges]

11 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Unless they are pretending, of course, as we discussed earlier.

Which is astonishing that no one here will concede that this is just a fundraising Grift. 

 

[Boges]

2 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Not according to Trump lawyer Jenna Ellis and apparently Ruth Bader Ginsburg. They say Trump has until Jan. 6.

But hey, who are they to argue against Global News, right? 

This again, would probably have to be argued in court. You can't just say the Safe Harbour Deadline is meaningless, you'd have to convince a judge. 

The hurdles to overturning this election keep stacking up. 

But at least they can keep fundraising. 

[Infidel Dog]

1 minute ago, Boges said:

This again, would probably have to be argued in court. You can't just say the Safe Harbour Deadline is meaningless, you'd have to convince a judge. 

A judge like Ruth Bader Ginsburg for example? She's already offered her judgement. But you have a Canadian news network's opinion, right? Is that all?

[Infidel Dog]

18 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I'm not.  In fact, with a quadrillion to the fourth power being the odds against Trump losing the election, it has to be a lock that they will, and award Trump the election. 

Unless they are pretending, of course, as we discussed earlier.

Who knows? However we may find out. Did you read the piece you're claiming expertise on?

Quote

In the brief submitted to the Supreme Court, Texas includes a declaration from Pacific Economics Group member and USC economics professor, Charles J. Cicchetti, Ph.D.

According to Dr. Cicchetti, his calculations show the probability of Joe Biden winning the popular vote in the four states independently given President Trump’s early lead in those States as of 3 a.m. on November 4, 2020, is less than one in a quadrillion.

Dr. Cicchetti’s analysis calculates that for Joe Biden to win the four states collectively, the odds of that event happening decrease to less than one in a quadrillion to the fourth power.

 

[sharkman]

23 minutes ago, Boges said:

Early voting statistics were publicly available before the election. 

https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/PA.html

https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/WI.html

https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/GA.html

https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/MI.html

 

 

 

You're saying that early voting stats were available before the election.  They were not allowed to start counting these mail in ballots until election day, so that proves just more illegal activity.

 

Edited December 9, 2020 by sharkman

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Who knows? However we may find out. Did you read the piece you're claiming expertise on?

 

I'm not claiming any expertise.  In fact, I'm agreeing with you.  And if I hadn't read it, how would I know it was to the fourth power?

That said, the best stuff in the link is the comments section.  They are very enlightening, and serve to convince an outside observer that America is a long, long way from being out of the woods yet.

Edited December 9, 2020 by bcsapper

[Infidel Dog]

Just now, bcsapper said:

I'm not claiming any expertise.  In fact, I'm agreeing with you. 

Really? You're not just being snotty?

Because you didn't seem to realize that Professor's statistical argument was already set to be presented before the supreme court?

But if I did misunderstand I apologize.

[Boges]

6 minutes ago, sharkman said:

You're saying that early voting stats were available before the election.  They were not allowed to start counting these mail in ballots until election day, so that proves just more illegal activity.

Yes because people were voting for months before November 3rd. This was specifically a problem in these 4  Swing States. 

https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/america-votes/crush-of-mail-in-ballots-slows-count-in-4-key-states-1.5174004

[Guest]

Just now, Infidel Dog said:

Really? You're not just being snotty?

Because you didn't seem to realize that Professor's statistical argument was already set to be presented before the supreme court?

But if I did misunderstand I apologize.

Now you have me at a disadvantage.  I don't think I would characterize it as being snotty.  I'm agreeing that the odds should make the SCOTUS sit up and take notice.  That they haven't is an indication that the Professor is wrong.  If he were correct, the line up of mathemeticians and statisticians studying his numbers would stretch around the block.  So no apology required, but thanks for the classiness.

[Boges]

12 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

A judge like Ruth Bader Ginsburg for example? She's already offered her judgement. But you have a Canadian news network's opinion, right? Is that all?

Would you like an American news source discussing Safe Harbour you'll just try to discredit? 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/08/us-election-2020-safe-harbor-deadline-congress-republicans

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/12/08/safe-harbor-deadline-arrives-hurting-trumps-bid-overturn-election/6478954002/

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/what-safe-harbor-day-why-it-s-bad-news-trump-n1250205

 

[Infidel Dog]

Funny thing about those early statistics. I just looked at the Pennsylvania one. 

It says Democrats were returning ballots at only about double the rate of all others.

And yet I've heard the ballots when they were actually counted were between 80 and 100% democrat for the questioned times in the questioned counties. 

What would you say the odds of that are, if true. One in Quatrillion, maybe?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Infidel Dog said:

Funny thing about those early statistics. I just looked at the Pennsylvania one. 

It says Democrats were returning ballots at only about double the rate of all others.

And yet I've heard the ballots when they were actually counted were between 80 and 100% democrat for the questioned times in the questioned counties. 

What would you say the odds of that are, if true. One in Quatrillion, maybe?

Fairly reasonable, given the dichotomy Trump imposed on the in person vs mail in votes issue.

[Infidel Dog]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

Fairly reasonable, given the dichotomy Trump imposed on the in person vs mail in votes issue.

Why would that matter if the ratio of the mail-in votes Democrats to others remained the same. If 50% of those mail-ins weren't Democrats how could 80 to 100% be for Biden? That's even assuming they'd already counted all the walk-ins.

[Guest]

Just now, Infidel Dog said:

Why would that matter if the ratio of the mail-in votes Democrats to others remained the same. If 50% of those mail-ins weren't Democrats how could 80 to 100% be for Biden? That's even assuming they'd already counted all the walk-ins.

The ratio would not remain the same.  The vast majority of mail in ballots were expected to be for Biden and that's what was shown to be the case.

In most contentious states, the mail in ballots were counted after the walk in votes.  It stood to reason that if Biden was going to catch and overtake Trump in those states, he would do so after most observers had gone to bed.

I did read of one state, I think it was Ohio, where the reverse happened.  Their rules allowed them to count the mail in ballots before the walk in votes, and Biden went off to an early lead, only to be caught and overtaken by Trump when the final count was tallied.

 

[Infidel Dog]

22 minutes ago, Boges said:

Would you like an American news source discussing Safe Harbour you'll just try to discredit? 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/08/us-election-2020-safe-harbor-deadline-congress-republicans

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/12/08/safe-harbor-deadline-arrives-hurting-trumps-bid-overturn-election/6478954002/

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/what-safe-harbor-day-why-it-s-bad-news-trump-n1250205

 

Do you really live in a world where you think the far left British rag, The Guardian is "an American news source?"

Now I'm just a Canadian who hears stuff and lack the expertise of a British Communist (apparently such opinions Trump those of Supreme court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, do they?) but can you ask one of your British socialists this then? 

Don't state legislatures ultimately decide what electoral votes go to the electoral college? As I understand it they haven't done it yet and it's December 9.

Edited December 9, 2020 by Infidel Dog