Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Ipquarx

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 1599
16
Georgia has certified their election results: Biden has officially won Georgia

(Yes, the Annoying Orange campaign has requested a recount. They normally change the result by <1000 votes, and Biden won the state by over 12,000 votes.)

17
As of that video there was no evidence. So much has changed in terms of info now.
So you watched the video? Do you agree with his conclusions?

18
Electronic voting has been, is currently, and will always be a terrible idea. For security reasons I firmly believe it shouldn't exist, period. However, despite that, there is no evidence to date that electronic voting machines in the US have been tampered with.

More on that topic from Tom Scott

19
this is loving slander i havent even seen the new star wars, delete this before i deboonk your existence

20
Do these scatter plots reveal fraudulent vote-switching in Michigan?

More pseudoscience election fraud allegations debunked!

Side note: in the original video Matt references here they attempted to use a "control" to show that the correlation doesn't happen in every county. However it was a very strongly leaning democrat county, and as a result the republican vote data was so clumped together that fitting a line to it became largely meaningless. In addition their argument was "The negative slope indicates votes being switched away from that candidate", which is different from the argument "The existence of a slope indicates election fraud" which they did not claim and is not supported by any brown townysis.

21
Off Topic / Re: Old user check-in v.2
« on: November 14, 2020, 07:16:11 PM »
Heeeyyyy =)

22
Large demand, and Nvidia might be forcing rarity like they have done in the past with some of their cards
they're not forcing rarity they're facing demand upwards of christmas levels with nowhere near enough supply

23
guess his name coulda been "guy" or "john doe" lol. I was just poking fun at the whole "if someone is a criminal, than why should you believe anything they say" philosophy
for the record, I obviously wasn't saying "oh well they're a criminal therefore they must lie all the time"

I was moreso saying that from a character point of view, it would certainly lessen my trust in a person if they were a person who had committed a serious federal crime. clearly they're willing to do bad things, so if they had some sort of ulterior motive (even as simple as "cause chaos because i'm a troll") a lie is a serious possibility.

24
It's an indicator.
So, I already know you didn't watch the whole video because you replied in 4 minutes, when the video is about 10 minutes long if you skip through side rants and whatnot.

But since you didn't want to watch, I'll give you the important bits here:
"Benford's Law only holds if your data covers [...] several orders of magnitude."
"98.7% of all precinct vote totals was a 3 digit number. This is the opposite of several orders of magnitude."
"It is not simply that Benford's Law occasionally judges a fraudulent election fair or a fair election fraudulent. Its 'success rate' is essentially equivalent to a toss of a coin, thereby rendering it problematic at best as a forensic tool and wholly misleading at worst."

The point is that Benford's Law wasn't being used as an election fraud indicator because Benford's Law doesn't apply to that dataset. They don't fail to fit Benford's Law, because Benford's Law doesn't say anything about this kind of dataset.

Someone who didn't know what they were talking about, who didn't care about the truth, used the false claim of "Biden's votes don't fit Benford's Law" to push a narrative, or in many cases just straight up say "This is undeniable proof of election fraud," and you then copied that here to try to spread it.

Just like the misinformation (or fake news, whatever you want to call it) was spread to all of these websites:
https://gnews.org/534248
https://www.glocktalk.com/threads/benford%E2%80%99s-law-has-been-used-to-prove-election-fraud-in-the-past-%E2%80%93-joe-biden%E2%80%99s-numbers-in-mi.1873548/
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/update-benfords-law-used-prove-election-fraud-past-joe-bidens-numbers-michigan-99-flawed-no-surprise-tech-giants-banning-information/ (this one also mentions a chi-square test which is completely different and equally not applicable to this use case)
https://www.newsfromtheperimeter.com/home/2020/11/8/joe-bidens-votes-violate-benfords-law-mathematics-statistically-impossible
https://www.rightnation.us/forums/topic/231299-joe-biden%E2%80%99s-votes-violate-benford%E2%80%99s-law-mathematics/
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3902973/posts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LAEcQl2Tg4 "This is pretty obvious voter fraud, the math does not work."

and likely many others. Just look at the comments and you can see how many people have been misled by this:

From the youtube video:
labsub: "They are not interested in truth, they are only interested in concealing it."
Paddy C: "This is going to be the first election that's going to be unraveled by Reddit, and Pepe Army." (unrelated but funny)

From gnews:
BuffaloBull: "Like if they’d care wit whatever violates whatsoever… PFF "

T: "Claims that the number set is too small are erroneous. Be Ford’s Law is used to detect tax evasion. The numbers of voters are in fact similar to those individuals paying tax. So the claim that the application of Be Ford’s Law to vote fraud cannot be applied is false."
(Confidently incorrect)

A nice logical comment for once:
dnick: "These types of distributions work on large, natural datasets, but not on small subsets or ones that are influenced by certain factors."

And a very silly reply: "They seem to be working just fine on all the other candidates. You have a hole in your logic the size of one of those vans marked Biden/Harris on the side that were spotted by witnesses unloading numerous cartons of emergency “ballots”"

From thegatewaypundit:
THE RED PILL: "ANYONE censoring this information is HIDING the truth. WHY WOULD HARD SCIENCE BE CENSORED?????"

Quondam Que: "What I find very curious is the super low numbers of trolls here gloating. Almost like they know they got busted."

ZooomZooom: "Benford’s Law + Occam's Razor = Annoying Orange DOMINATED."

hasinbinsober: "It's useless to use numbers with the people who calculate 1 male and
1 female and come up with 52+ genders." (One Joke)

Patriotic Gecko: "Democrats, so much for the party of science."

(And so on... this had by far the most comments that I could see)

rightnation.us:
E Van der Vliet: "I shared this is on Twitter and they suspended my account for 12 hours. I shared this on Facebook and they deleted it. They sure don’t want people talking about election anomalies. Which gets more and more people talking about election anomalies."

ThePatriot: "Can't have the masses knowing the truth. "

25
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etx0k1nLn78

Interesting video on Benford's law, which was mentioned in here earlier

26
I posted a video of the man himself, stating he did not recant, while the entire media claims he does.
  • how do you know that is the same person?
  • how do you know "the man himself" is trustworthy and that they're telling the truth? after all if the claim is true, then they're a criminal. are you going to trust what a criminal says?
  • how do you know the news source has not manipulated, taken out of context, or distorted the footage in any way?

If those questions sound silly it's probably because you have a trust in the source that nobody else here does, because the answer to all of these points is that you can't know that any of these are true. you just have to trust it's true. That's my point. no amount of whataboutism "but the MSM narrative is X!" will change that. because it's coming from an untrustworthy source, from a person who may or may not be who they say they are, who for all i know is untrustworthy, i'm not going to trust it.

27
its not from the mouths of one of your trusted propaganda spewing talking heads.
you're saying "you're not gonna believe this because it's from an unreliable source!" as if it's some shocking fact. Yeah, no stuff we're not going to believe something that's from an unreliable source, because we can't trust an unreliable source. That's how trust works. Having one or two true stories in a whole whackton of misinformation doesn't a trust make.

News reporting is an implicitly trust-based relationship. since they don't give you all their material, for any given article or video you need to put your trust in them several, even dozens of different times in order to believe what they're putting out. That they're vetting sources properly, that they're not taking things out of context, etc etc etc. This applies to MSM too. feel free to not trust them. but if you don't trust them, then you certainly shouldn't be trusting the likes of Humble Water Filter Merchant, Brietbart, gatewaypundit, etc, who consistently put out misinformation.

28
I mean it's project veritas. Every "exposé" they've made has been fake news whether they want to admit it or not. I have no reason to believe anything they show since they've shown they're willing to massively distort what they're given to fit a narrative. Inb4 matthew says "oh well the demoncrats do that too!!!!!!11" and i ignore him

29
As it turned out, this was fake news.

everything is fake news. you're fake news. i'm fake news. this sentence is fake news. oh forget that's a parad-

30
Bernie Sanders would literally be considered a centrist in many other advanced countries lmao.
Bernie would probably be liberal party here in Canada, and considering that's our centrist party (our left party the NDP has never had federal power) i'd say that's pretty accurate

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 1599