You clearly didn't watch his testimony and your charts are shit, nothing new, same old dumb crap that every moron without any understanding of how elections work. GOP employees thousands of election monitors, you think you know better then those professionals because you have charts.
Mar-a-Lago Raided by FBI
- Thread starter exGOPer
- Start date
You clearly didn't watch his testimony and your charts are shit, nothing new, same old dumb crap that every moron without any understanding of how elections work. GOP employees thousands of election monitors, you think you know better then those professionals because you have charts.
It's gone beyond to psychotic and sociopathic.
If the charts indicate actual events on the ground, then they represent election fraud. Are you saying election fraud is nothing new?
Trump offered his latest lawyer the job without having met him after other attorneys turned him down, report says
https://www.businessinsider.com/tru...corcoran-job-without-having-met-report-2022-8
https://www.businessinsider.com/tru...corcoran-job-without-having-met-report-2022-8
Do you mean my interpretation of the charts is psychotic? Or, do you mean taking the charts as actually indicative of what happened on the ground is psychotic?
Are you saying that even if they are indicative of actual events, there is still not enough fraud to turn the 2020 election? My interpretation is they indicate enough fraud to turn the presidential election.
We're looking at two states, at about the same time in the middle of the night, turning in a way that is impossible for even one state to turn under normal counting conditions.
Are you saying that clerks made the same glitch mistake at the same glitching time in both states?
Who is psychotic?
Maybe Barr put his finger to the political wind and said, nope, not worth being called psychotic by a mob at my age?
I'm offering speculation on what Barr was thinking based on what was fairly obvious at the time: he was not taking allegations of fraud seriously enough to investigate specifics enough to dismiss them.
You have never seen Barr address, and dismiss events in connection with these charts and what they indicate.
Maybe he did see the charts, but maybe he also saw a blood thirsty mob that denied the charts existed?
But because of their existence, I think the burden is on you to explain, as Barr seems to have neglected a duty to do so.
Last edited:
Do you mean my interpretation of the charts is psychotic? Or, do you mean taking the charts as actually indicative of what happened on the ground is psychotic?
Are you saying that even if they are indicative of actual events, there is still not enough fraud to turn the 2020 election? My interpretation is they indicate enough fraud to turn the presidential election.
We're looking at two states, at about the same time in the middle of the night, turning in a way that is impossible for even one state to turn under normal counting conditions.
Are you saying that clerks made the same glitch mistake at the same glitching time in both states?
Who is psychotic?
Maybe Barr put his finger to the political wind and said, nope, not worth being called psychotic by a mob at my age?
I'm offering speculation on what Barr was thinking based on what was fairly obvious at the time: he was not taking allegations of fraud seriously enough to investigate specifics enough to dismiss them.
You have never seen Barr address, and dismiss events in connection with these charts and what they indicate.
Maybe he did see the charts, but maybe he also saw a blood thirsty mob that denied the charts existed?
But because of their existence, I think the burden is on you to explain, as Barr seems to have neglected a duty to do so.
Let's provide a link to reality again for you.
https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/mar-a-lago-raided-by-fbi.368972/page-45#post-5662432
What you are peddling is pure fantasy.
You've linked to an interpretation of the charts by Reuters, which has lately indicated it is still a flaming partisan in political battles. Reuters.
Trump lost both those states on January 6th.
WISCONSIN
According to Reuters source, there was a clerical glitch, someone's fat thumb, which accidentally added a zero to county results...and that produced the chart where we see Biden overtake Trump. So then, if you remove the extra zero (which would multiply those county results by 10x) then Trump should have won that state. But your mob buddy Sprout thinks it's psychotic to think Trump should have won that state if you remove the 10x clerical error. Isn't it obvious if you remove the fat finger, Trump would have won that state?
MICHIGAN
In Reuters interpretation of the other state it or it's "source" is saying that the jump represents a batch entry of absentee ballots, not all of which were for Biden. But, 1) a batch entry is itself suspicious, indicating absentee ballots were not being entered, one by one, as the envelopes were opened. That's strange. And, 2) those absentee ballots, even though not all for Trump, must have been 90% for Biden. That's strange given the steady consistent count favoring Trump for all non-absentee counts.
So in either of these cases you still have a burden to offer a less psychotic interpretation.
As pointed out I linked not only Reuters but AP and USA Today. These are among the most factual least biased news sources on the face of the earth.
Your claims are obviously absurd to any rational person.
Are you saying they all three did their own investigation and came up with the same interpretations?
Or, as is more often the case, if one of them reports something, the other two fall in line?
Which of these two do you think it was?
As far as degrees of absurdity, I don't think it is absurd to question the relatively high degree of absurdity in the explanations offered by Reuters sources.
I think it is rational to conclude that if you remove the fat finger error, Trump wins that state.
I think it is rational to question whether absentee ballots can be entered as a batch (instead of one by one as counted), and rational to question whether those absentees could be 95% in favor of any single candidate.
So Barr has neglected his duty and your mob buddies don't like my explanation as to why he neglected his duty.
Do you mean my interpretation of the charts is psychotic? Or, do you mean taking the charts as actually indicative of what happened on the ground is psychotic?
Are you saying that even if they are indicative of actual events, there is still not enough fraud to turn the 2020 election? My interpretation is they indicate enough fraud to turn the presidential election.
We're looking at two states, at about the same time in the middle of the night, turning in a way that is impossible for even one state to turn under normal counting conditions.
Are you saying that clerks made the same glitch mistake at the same glitching time in both states?
Who is psychotic?
Maybe Barr put his finger to the political wind and said, nope, not worth being called psychotic by a mob at my age?
I'm offering speculation on what Barr was thinking based on what was fairly obvious at the time: he was not taking allegations of fraud seriously enough to investigate specifics enough to dismiss them.
You have never seen Barr address, and dismiss events in connection with these charts and what they indicate.
Maybe he did see the charts, but maybe he also saw a blood thirsty mob that denied the charts existed?
But because of their existence, I think the burden is on you to explain, as Barr seems to have neglected a duty to do so.
Simply:
1) What is the source of this chart?
2) How was the data derived?
3) How can someone verify that the data hasn't been tampered with?
4) How do you know that this chart isn't just a graphics program?
Back in the day, out of college hired as a graphic designer, I worked for a weather company that produced 95% of all weather maps used in newspaper print nationwide on a daily basis.
The top-of-the-line hardware computer infrastructure was impressive with a large team of meteorologists customizing the free datafeed from NOAA. They would take all that data (weather feeds contain A LOT) and hand draw a map.
Upstairs, in the middle of the night, a small team of graphic artists and I would translate these hand-drawn maps and transfer it by re-drawing it into a computer graphics program. It was not digitizing, it was translation. We then uploaded our digital graphic images into our servers. Newspapers, tv shows & weather stations would download these weathermaps to use in their publications and broadcast shows. The chain of custody of "data" went through many hands and at any point could be altered. The business itself has an excellent business model, takes free data + cheap post-college labor, repackages it and sells the service for a premium. It's privatized and not transparent as an organization.
If you alter any maritime data, that can cause situations of life or death consequences. Sometimes we would make mistakes, at that time there was a single QA person and if they missed it, we sent bad data that rippled out. Most times this went unnoticed, sometimes there was blowback.
Since then, I've worked as a BI software consultant and developer for a variety of fortune 500 companies. I've had to reconcile data from different feeds and sometimes catch extremely significant accounting errors. That life was 2 decades ago and I don't do programming anymore however do understand how data is processed and how it can be formed to create and support a narrative. The results of my work would be the basis by which CEO's would make business case decisions that had large ramifications.
The chart that you are so attached to has no certified or verifiable datasource attributed to it, the process of collection or a timestamp. While the squiggly lines can be used to promote a narrative, it falls quite short of being any type of "evidence" that a court of law would accept into the record.
You also have your anecdotal reference to it which entrenches your confirmation bias.
Unless you hear what I just wrote, and acknowledge that there are significant questions around the source, accuracy or authenticity of your squiggly lines, there's not much more that can be derived from the conversation.
In closing, what are your answers to questions 1-4?
Last edited: