2.5 million illegal votes
-
All right fellows the MSM has taken to calling the president-elect tweet that there could be two and a half million illegal goat untrue.
I might think that unsubstantiated would be a better descriptor but the MSM hates the guy and chooses to use the most inflammatory term they can.
Just asking for opinions here but does anyone think that there were absolutely no illegal votes?
On the other hand does anyone believe that there were illegal votes?
If so I'm just asking for a guess as to how many you think there might be?
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
Unsubstantiated is probably the 'politically correct' way of saying it, yes.
As to your question, how many illegal votes? I'm sure plenty of people tried. Of course, it's not possible to get a firm count on those that weren't caught because, well, they weren't caught, so it's a nice little get out clause for Trump, where he can say whatever he wants without any kind of evidence and because it can't be explicitly disproved people are like "well maybe, you don't know".
How is anybody supposed to guess and base it on anything substantive?
-
Unsubstantiated is probably the 'politically correct' way of saying it, yes.
As to your question, how many illegal votes? I'm sure plenty of people tried. Of course, it's not possible to get a firm count on those that weren't caught because, well, they weren't caught, so it's a nice little get out clause for Trump, where he can say whatever he wants without any kind of evidence and because it can't be explicitly disproved people are like "well maybe, you don't know".
How is anybody supposed to guess and base it on anything substantive?
Unsubstantiated is probably the 'politically correct' way of saying it, yes.
As to your question, how many illegal votes? I'm sure plenty of people tried. Of course, it's not possible to get a firm count on those that weren't caught because, well, they weren't caught, so it's a nice little get out clause for Trump, where he can say whatever he wants without any kind of evidence and because it can't be explicitly disproved people are like "well maybe, you don't know".
How is anybody supposed to guess and base it on anything substantive?
No idea Chris. Kind of like the question how many drunk drivers are on the road at any given time? If a guy gets busted it's probably not his first and only time and he's probably only a tiny fraction of everybody else motoring along with a buzz.
If there actually were two and a half million illegal votes I would bet the Lion's Share or for Hillary.
WSS
-
I would imagine the lions share would be for the democrat generally because they're 'softer' on immigration, and I suspect they'd be specifically anti-trump because of his, well, trump-ness.
So we're in the situation where you're either in the 'well it may not be exactly right but I bet it's about that' camp or the 'no way, not possible that that could have happened' camp, or, just maybe, the 'there's no evidence for that so we should disregard it for now' camp. But honestly, most people are in their own 'my QB for the browns!' camp.
-
No doubt. I voted for Trump but I realize he has a tendency to talk out his ass.
I think he may possibly believe it when he says it as some of us who are prone to hyperbole, like myself, do from time to time.
But it always affords the MSM the opportunity to hyperventilate which I think at the end is good for him. The more unhinged they seem in their outrage the better he looks.
WSS
-
And yet it's no more outrageous than crazy Jill Stein and her fellow Travelers in the Hillary camp claiming voter malfeasance and demanding a recount.
WSS
-
And yet it's no more outrageous than crazy Jill Stein and her fellow Travelers in the Hillary camp claiming voter malfeasance and demanding a recount.
WSS
And yet it's no more outrageous than crazy Jill Stein and her fellow Travelers in the Hillary camp claiming voter malfeasance and demanding a recount.
WSS
Respectfully that's not quite the case. The point with those recounts was that there was a statistically significant anomaly - in areas using electronic voting, Hillary polled something like 7% worse than with paper voting between counties in the same state, and that's apparently enough of a 'not coincidence' for people to ask questions. On the other hand, you have Trump making up numbers based on literally nothing.
-
All right fellows the MSM has taken to calling the president-elect tweet that there could be two and a half million illegal goat untrue.
I might think that unsubstantiated would be a better descriptor but the MSM hates the guy and chooses to use the most inflammatory term they can.
Just asking for opinions here but does anyone think that there were absolutely no illegal votes?
On the other hand does anyone believe that there were illegal votes?
If so I'm just asking for a guess as to how many you think there might be?
WSS
All right fellows the MSM has taken to calling the president-elect tweet that there could be two and a half million illegal goat untrue.
I might think that unsubstantiated would be a better descriptor but the MSM hates the guy and chooses to use the most inflammatory term they can.
Just asking for opinions here but does anyone think that there were absolutely no illegal votes?
On the other hand does anyone believe that there were illegal votes?
If so I'm just asking for a guess as to how many you think there might be?
WSS
Without a doubt, millions in CA and VA alone.
-
Unsubstantiated claims of computer hacking?
WSS
-
Just because Fortune says there's no evidence, doesn't make it the case. It might be circumstantial, and there might be nothing to it, but the statistical anomalies are there, and on this scale, statistical anomalies are worth investigating.
So no, it's not the same, however much you close your eyes and hope real hard.
-
Just because Fortune says there's no evidence, doesn't make it the case. It might be circumstantial, and there might be nothing to it, but the statistical anomalies are there, and on this scale, statistical anomalies are worth investigating.
So no, it's not the same, however much you close your eyes and hope real hard.
Just because Fortune says there's no evidence, doesn't make it the case. It might be circumstantial, and there might be nothing to it, but the statistical anomalies are there, and on this scale, statistical anomalies are worth investigating.
So no, it's not the same, however much you close your eyes and hope real hard.
Just because they say there's no evidence certainly does not mean that it's true. So is there? According to your source who I'm sure is infallible?
I don't know if you get the Sunday shows is over there, did you see dr. Stein?
WSS
-
Just because Fortune says there's no evidence, doesn't make it the case. It might be circumstantial, and there might be nothing to it, but the statistical anomalies are there, and on this scale, statistical anomalies are worth investigating.
So no, it's not the same, however much you close your eyes and hope real hard.
Just because they say there's no evidence certainly does not mean that it's true. So is there? According to your source who I'm sure is infallible?
I don't know if you get the Sunday shows is over there, did you see dr. Stein?
WSS
Just because they say there's no evidence certainly does not mean that it's true. So is there? According to your source who I'm sure is infallible?
I don't know if you get the Sunday shows is over there, did you see dr. Stein?
He doesn't have an infallible source... He has "math".
In statistics you put forth a hypothesis and test it. In the case of the precincts with electronic machines the hypothesis would likely be something along the lines of:
"The percentage of HRC votes in electronic precincts is not statistically different from that in paper ballot precincts."
Now here's the rub... the test of this hypothesis is not a coin flip situation, i.e., there are not two equally definitive outcomes like heads or tails. The two outcomes of a statistical test are:
- You can statistically reject the hypothesis; or
- You statistically fail to reject the hypothesis.
Put another way... statistically you can state that the hypothesis is false or untrue, but you cannot say that it is true. The best you can do is say it is not provably false. But in any case causality is not assigned/determined...
As for your little poll...
- Absolutely no illegal votes? Nice strawman trap, but nary a turnip truck in sight.
- Sure, illegal votes were cast. But as usual the right's focus is in the wrong place, i.e., in-person voting. Mail-in/absentee voting is so much more ripe for fraud than in-person.
- I'll guess the number of in-person, illegal votes nationwide is <100.
The number of votes suppressed by voter ID laws and purposely indiscriminate purging of voter rolls? I'll go with 300,000+...
-
Well maybe my point wasn't clear enough that the MSM spent all day yesterday calling him a liar because he said 2.5 million. Then you would miss at their worst most likely illegal votes cast.
So like I said in the op the number is just unsubstantiated. Good luck with the recount though, Jillary.
-
MSN? Microsoft?
Jill's half-crazy... and I'm not sure what I'd call the other half, but she's no "Jillary".
She's said she's not expecting the results to change, but is concerned about the electronic precincts' statistical variances. She's concerned about the integrity of the voting process... at least she says that is her motivation... and I believe her. It's certainly not her love for HRC.
The rub is that there is no effective audit of the electronic machines... you can have them regurgitate their tallies and add them up on a TI calculator or an abacus, but that's about it. If machines recorded votes inaccurately, which was reported of some machines across the nation on election day, and the error was not noticed at the time by the voter, then there is no recourse.
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
MSN? Microsoft?
Jill's half-crazy... and I'm not sure what I'd call the other half, but she's no "Jillary".
She's said she's not expecting the results to change, but is concerned about the electronic precincts' statistical variances. She's concerned about the integrity of the voting process... at least she says that is her motivation... and I believe her. It's certainly not her love for HRC.
The rub is that there is no effective audit of the electronic machines... you can have them regurgitate their tallies and add them up on a TI calculator or an abacus, but that's about it. If machines recorded votes inaccurately, which was reported of some machines across the nation on election day, and the error was not noticed at the time by the voter, then there is no recourse.
MSN? Microsoft?
Jill's half-crazy... and I'm not sure what I'd call the other half, but she's no "Jillary".
She's said she's not expecting the results to change, but is concerned about the electronic precincts' statistical variances. She's concerned about the integrity of the voting process... at least she says that is her motivation... and I believe her. It's certainly not her love for HRC.
The rub is that there is no effective audit of the electronic machines... you can have them regurgitate their tallies and add them up on a TI calculator or an abacus, but that's about it. If machines recorded votes inaccurately, which was reported of some machines across the nation on election day, and the error was not noticed at the time by the voter, then there is no recourse.
From what I understand, she stands to make a nice chunk of change out of it. I am sure it will all be used for "election reform" and in no way would go to the Green Party.
Hey-oh
-
Speech to text. MSM sorry
WSS
-
heard on the news that jillary raised 7 soro million bucks for recounts...
and one recount - would have cost her 1 million of that....
and she said they couldn't afford and didn't pay it.........................................
-
I enjoyed the stats lesson, lol.
-
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login