All_Pro_Bills

I think the Russia collusion theory is a big hoax manufactured by Obama and his cronies to cripple the new administration. And it worked pretty well for them.

You are invoking the quid pro quo argument. You are alleging some conspiracy to alter the election results. Assuming Trump offered a member of the state legislator "something" in return for his cooperation in blocking the certification of the election. The meeting itself is not illegal. And there is no evidence any arrangement was offered or accepted. What's to investigate? Two people had a meeting, it ended, and they left. I'm not attacking you or what you say. My basic contention is the entire political system is a fraud. And left, right, or center we're all getting played by one or another peddling some fraudster fantasy story about how much they care about everybody. And how wonderful life will be with them leading us forward to prosperity. I could suggest that any and all future meetings between politicians and lobbyists should be scrutinized to the same degree. What are they offering? Campaign contributions, jobs for family members, free trips, and other perks in exchange for political favors or lucrative legislation for their employers. Sounds illegal.

Challenging the results of the election have been within the framework of the legal and constitutional system. So what 'subversion' has taken place by utilizing legal recourse as prescribed by the law? Nothing. And to date the majority of court rulings have been against the campaigns claims. These rulings appear to be correct. Just because we might not "like" or "agree" with what someone is doing doesn't equate to them breaking the law. I've argued the dangers of efforts to politicize the legal system. Its a dangerous path to take. Such an investigation might be perceived by the heavily armed and motivated hard-core right as an attempt by the left to use state power against their political enemies rather than some fundamental pursuit of some legal claim. That would be a declaration of civil war and most likely open season on leftist politicians and their MSM agents. Who will stop it? Defunded police organizations? The FBI? There are only so many agents. National Guard, active military? Who's side would the rank and file soldier side with here? Left wing paramilitary groups like Antifa? Doubtful. BLM? Its not their fight. The rational course of action will be to just let it go and move on.

Looking around at what's happening I don't believe Trump's plan is to "steal the election". None of these legal challenges are having a real impact. The latest ruling in PA was a blow to his chances. I have doubts the US Supreme Court will hear the appeal or rule in his favor. From my interpretation of the PA court ruling is they acted properly so there is shaky and perhaps no legal ground for the Supreme Court to overrule the decision. None of the other state challenges are moving the vote totals to anything that might change the result. In a couple week's the electors from all states will meet and this will be over. Do I think the Democratic party machines is these key districts in the swing states played fast and loose with the mail-in vote process and vote counting? Absolutely. But they've had sufficient time to plan and prepare well for any conceivable vote challenge. Like a good friend of mine pointed out about the legal process "its not what you know or think its what you can prove" that matters. The time is short and the legal process is slow. The clock will simply run out on Trump here. I think Trump has a few objectives beyond reversing the election: 1). Stay relevant through to 2024. 2). Give his followers a cause going forward, the new resistance. 3). Engage in a "scorched earth" policy prior to the transition in January. 4). Position himself to be blameless for the economic and social disaster that awaits us in 2021 (you should position yourselves too).

I don't see either political party representing the interests of the majority of Americans. They seem to cater to the extremists on the left and right. I think both parties are corrupt beyond repair both morally and ethically. I think corporations have too much power in our current system. I think the wealthy and powerful exert control no matter which party is in power. I think both parties have a penchant for getting into wars and conflicts that don't serve our interests but rather some special interest. I think both parties are bankrupting the country through the accumulation of huge un-serviceable debts in order to buy votes and funnel government money to special interests while saddling future generations with the bill. And the future is here now. I think both presidential candidates are lifetime grifters and con artists. One feeding at the trough of the public treasury and selling influence for cash and the other a BS artist bilking and shaking down investors through the use of bankruptcy laws and shady side deals. I think the people in the middle, whatever their race, or gender, or ethnicity, or religion, or other attributes and beliefs, that earn a paycheck or run a business, stay out of trouble, pay their bills, do the right thing, and keep the economy and society going get the shaft. If they all went on strike for a week they could flush out the rats on both sides. I'd hope that moderates in both parties seeing common ground would break from both major parties and form a third party that would represent the middle ground where most people reside. A true populist movement. But this would take courage and vision. Something in short supply at the moment.

I was clear on your intent. But I just wanted to provide some specific examples. The liberals have a penchant for demanding "evidence" while providing none to support their claims. Like the Russian collusion hoax. No convictions, no trials, no indictments, no evidence, only unconfirmed suspicion but they "know" its true because CNN and MSNBC, the NY Times, and the Washington Post and their "anonymous sources said so. I wish the girls I knew in high school were as gullible as the lefties. I would have had a much better time! Regards..

See bold

Maybe. Or maybe not.

Two memory cards with votes, one in Floyd and another in Fayetteville counties have been "found" that missed the initial count.

The morons might get more than they bargained for with about 73 million pissed off and heavily armed people believing the election was rigged.

A problem on the Knox penalty was he clearly extended his arms into the defender. But a bigger problem is he's getting a rep for holding and illegal blocks. And given this the officials are more likely to make calls against him. I wouldn't be surprised if the ref's pre-game huddle they say watch this guy for holding. I think Knox has a target on his back. Another call I thought was completely wrong was the PI call on Worley with :13 left in Q3. If that's PI I don't know how DB's are supposed to cover receivers. My argument with the Singletary call was more about how they called it "after the play". After the play is after the whistle. it didn't blow and the play was still on. So even if the call was legit, which is something I don't agree with, the Bills should have gotten the down back. Not lost the down and got a 15 yard mark off. All complaints about the refs considered the Bills lost the game because they were sleepwalking again thru the 3rd quarter and couldn't make the kill shot when they had the Cards down.

I'm glad you mentioned the interception on the very next play. There were two plays that annoyed me more than the Hail Mary. And both were self-inflicted gunshots by the Bills. I think the outcome of these two consecutive drives cost them the game. 1. The 12 yards punt - this resulted in a 1st and 10 from the Bills 30 for Arz and they kicked a FG to make it 23-19. 2. The Knox penalty which negated a 21 yard gain to the ARZ 40. Next play interception and the Cards go 56 yards for the go-ahead TD to make it 23-26. Take those two screw-ups away is maybe its 23-16 end-of-Q3. Hypothetically if the Bills go down and score absent that Knox penalty it could have been 30-16 end-of-Q3. In any case these screw-ups shifted the momentum for about 14-15 minutes of the 2nd half.

This was the Knox call downfield? He seems to generate at least one holding/illegal block call every game. This penalty really hurt because it was unnecessary and inconsequential to the play. It was a big chunk play that got called back. He's has to start playing smarter and eliminate these drive killers.

I would have put Edmunds with his height and wingspan or some other taller players back there to battle Hopkins or whatever receiver would have been contesting for the ball but I've got no big dispute with your assessment. I thought Josh Allen standing up and saying the loss was on him showed great leadership. Sure the two picks didn't help but he left the field with 39 seconds left with the lead. We could talk about the 12 yard punt that lead to 3 points. Or a host of unnecessary penalties, pre-snap penalties, another hold downfield on Knox that wiped out a chunk play, the "blindside" 15 yarder on Singletary. Or the defense surrendering 3 TD's in the 2nd half. Or the offense going flat once again for a big stretch in the 2nd half with a good lead. Outside of the defense against the run the biggest issue with this team is a consistent flat and listless 3rd quarter almost every game. As the opponent makes halftime adjustments on both sides of the ball and the Bills coaching staff has no answer. That's got to get fixed down the stretch. Also, shout-outs to Bass and Beasley for huge games and clutch play.

Everyone, for or against him. should reconcile with the fact that the result of the election is going to be Joe Biden in the White House. Unless by some miracle there are recounts ordered and vote challenges upheld in several key states. Under that scenario all hell would break loose. One of the reasons Trump lost a lot of supporters was his failure to keep his 2016 campaign promise to "drain the swamp". He didn't do that. In fact the swamp existing inside his administration and inside the government without being encumbered or impeded during his term. He made of lot of promises, shot his mouth off, made a lot of threats, but never took any action. But he still can if he chooses to do so. Let me say I doubt he will. It would piss off a lot of powerful and dangerous people. There could be consequences to angering and exposing them. But it might be one of the greatest moments in American history. A moment of truth. A middle finger to the people running the show from behind the curtain protected in the darkness and flaunting the law. He has the power to de-classify and release all kinds of 'swamp" secrets to the public. These are some of the things I think he should expose and do. I think we all would like to know most of them. Just a few: Release all information on the JFK, MLK, and RFK assassinations. Release all information on the Vietnam War. Release all information on the 1990 Gulf War and the lies told about WMD. Release all information on the 911 attack. Pardon Julian Assauge and out the source of the Clinton server e-mails and the DNC files that were received by Wkileaks Release all information on Russiagate, the origins, the investigation, the outcome Release all information on CIA and NSA spying, information gathering, and surveillance of American citizens. Identify corporate co-conspirators and their roles. Release all information on the origins of COVID. Was it natural, was it man-made? Release all information on MOSSAD spying on U.S. soil. Get them out of here. Release all information on "real" Chinese spying and theft of IP and identify domestic co-conspirators Release all information on "real" Russian spying and influence. Release Jeffrey Epstein's client book and out all the pedophiles and perverts on the list. Any of this will be met with cries and concerns about "national security". But if your national security is based on the systematic deception of American citizens you don't really have any security to protect. What people expressing national security concerns are really saying is they don't want their asses exposed to the public and the light of day. Releasing all or some of this will blow the lid off the deep state and fulfill his #1 campaign promise. I doubt Trump will do it.

I doubt the recounts will sway the election to Trump. But I also don't see why people are so resistant to recounts unless they think there's something to hide? All the lying and excuses aside they're simply afraid a recount count could alter the result. However, remote that scenario might be. Let's not BS each other any more.

Trump's response to the COVID outbreak was certainly insufficient. But we can say that about almost every single world leader too. His instincts were correct in shutting down travel from China (which was met with charges of "racism" right on queue) but he didn't go far enough as the virus came to our shores generally through travelers from Europe (there was the less severe West Coast variant of COVID and the more deadly East Coast strain). By the time a more restrictive policy was put into place to manage travel it was too late. And while the virus raged in the NY/NJ area it was incomprehensible that air travel into and out of the 3 NYC area airports was still in operation. Epidemiological models I've seen show how that facilitied the spread of the virus across the country. Although I do not believe they acted with malice and if they had more information they would have done otherwise, the actions by the governors in NY and NJ resulted in the deaths of thousands of nursing home patients. The outbreak required cooperation between governments and agencies on a global scale and he was just not up to or willing to take on that task. Rather he choose the path of America going it alone. There were failures in intelligence and awareness. In late 2019 (I guess that's why its COVID 19 instead of COVID 20?) China began stockpiling personal protective equipment. This could have been a clue of something and in hindsight it indicates Chinese officials were aware of the virus and that the outbreak had already begun. Some place its origin back to October 2019. Much of the PPE left US inventories so when the virus hit the U.S. there was a shortage of gear for American health care workers. Many got sick or died as a result. So China could have certainly been more transparent about the outbreak. And the WHO was less than helpful during the outbreak sending sometimes conflicting and false signals on the severity and nature of the virus and the outbreak. U.S health agencies changed their positions on masks and other measures so there were a lot of inconsistencies in how to deal with the outbreak. From my perspective Trump's biggest fault was his unwillingness to deal with the outbreak with the seriousness it required. Always downplaying the situation, claiming all was well when people looked around themselves and saw a very bad situation that the President just seem to be disconnected from in some other reality. And if he took more responsibility rather than looking to pass off blame and accountability which is his nature the assessment of his performance by the public might have been better. He just didn't act in the manner consistent with the actions and behaviors of a true leader.

If you want to "make a ton of money" and the Democrats control the White House and Congress they will likely pass all kinds of new initiatives that require either more taxes, more borrowing, or more outright money printing to fund. It will all seem like a "free lunch" to start. Before it turns to crap. So bet on higher taxes and high price inflation by investing in hard assets and distribute some funds into foreign stocks using things like emerging market ETF's or mutual funds. Dump treasury and corporate bonds funds as interest rates rise. This will be different from the "inflation" the Fed has created in asset markets by pumping money into the banking system through QE. QE has been a major contributor to the so called wealth gap and income inequality. Simply rich people own most of the financial assets so when huge amounts of money get pumped into the market rich people get richer. This has also helped Boomers fund a more lavish lifestyle than successive generations as they got in on the ground floor of the market moves through being lucky to be at the right age when the markets began to move. Gen X'ers and Millennials not so lucky. But don't worry, they will suffer when markets crash but you will suffer more. Expect your cost of living to increase substantially. Expect the US dollar to lose a lot of value against other currencies like the CDN dollar which will likely move close to par with the US currency. This will be followed by calls and actions to raise the minimum wage to a "livable" level which will result in more unemployment. Your might see price and wage controls enacted. And if the US dollar loses its official status in trade settlement and as the central bank reserve currency of choice then look out. The party will be over. A recession or depression. Expect this political outcome to be a one-term experiment.

Your point to me is stereotypes are dangerous to make. I could stereotype Biden supporters to be liberal arts degree holders that are either unemployed or under-employed along with the 50% of Americans that pay no Federal tax plus people on welfare and others receiving all kinds of Federal and State handouts that want more "free stuff" and they see the role of government being a mechanism to force productive people to pay for all of it so they can live a relatively comfortable lifestyle without doing any real work to earn it. But I know better because I know and socialize with people that hold diverse beliefs that are tolerant of others and respectful regardless of their political disagreements. just a few years ago that was the norm rather than the exception.

There's an a written by a fellow named David Haggith titled "TROJAN TRUMP: I Would Have Voted for Trump if he had Done Anything to Bring Down the Deep State". I think both pro and anti Trump people might find it interesting. It certainly resonates with my personal assessment of Trump. You can find it on zerohedge this morning. The prologue to it: "I have tried to be fair with Trump, taking down many of the big lies I have seen brought against him, but I hold him to the same standard of truth. His charges of fake news against the mainstream media could have changed things if he hadn’t told so many lies himself that he lost all moral high ground. If you’re going to accuse liars of lying, you can’t be one yourself. Trump’s loudest of all lies to his own supporters has been that he will bring down the deep state (“drain the swamp”). Back in September, 2016, before Trump even became president, I wrote an article titled, “Trump: Trojan Horse for the Establishment or Mighty Mouth for Mankind?” in which I gave the following observations and warning: I crave the opportunity to see an anti-establishment candidate win the election…. So, while I do not like Trump the man (as it would appear he has never done anything that didn’t entirely serve his own self-interest and pompous ego), I have thoroughly enjoyed seeing him upset establishment Republicans and establishment Democrats … because … both parties exist to serve the same rich people and themselves…. I’ll even acknowledge that perhaps it takes someone as brazen and blusterous as Trump … to stand up to such a powerful assemblage of egoists as we have embedded in congress …. My desire to see the economy righted and the establishment overturned (peacefully), however, is exactly what makes me cautious about any gold-plated politician who has lived all of his life in the realm of the one percenters…. While I have never liked this particular publicity *****, I’d put up with his relentless boasting and forgive his audacious past if it takes that kind of brassy, risk-taking adventurer … to stand up to the intimidation's of congress…. Unfortunately, I have seen often in life that bellicose people are usually nowhere near as brave as they sound…. Then I asked, Is Donald Trump a Trojan horse? Is he as hollow as his mouth is big?… Trump knows he can tap into a huge vault of anger; and, as a media mogul himself, he knows better than anyone how to play the media for free publicity by being outrageous…. From Trump’s choice of a 180-proof neocon vice presidential candidate to an embedded Goldman-Sachs campaign financial manager to the Heritage Foundation’s dream team of budget advisors he assembled, Trump has selected people who wholly embody the establishment. Everything these people have ever done or said has been in support of the Wall Street one-percenters…. So, if you think Trump is any threat to the establishment, you may be riding a Trojan horse."

I do understand. Maybe you are not as familiar with business and system process implementation as its not really the wheelhouse of data scientists. Any new process has errors consistent with failure to conform to system specifications. I've never seen a system or process work at 100% to conformance to specifications on day one. If you have then you're the first. This entire mass mail in ballot (we've had some form of limited absentee and mail in ballots before) is new and quickly defined. Let's look at PA. The vote stands at 49.7% for Biden and 49.1% for Trump. You're going to suggest the error rate here either by unintentional or intentional counting is less than 1%? I call BS on that. We can agree to disagree. You can claim the higher ground all you want, and also suggest the state did its job correctly. But you have no more proof of this than I do unless you were present and observing the activity. As a scientist you should have an innate skepticism. And these people managing and acting in the process are not machines or logical instructions. This is not a controlled research environment. This is a process with a lot of moving parts. A lot of opportunities for errors. People have motivations and skills that we have no ability to assess or quantify. You're assuming they did their job to the letter and intent of the process. But affidits and sworn statements along with video evidence and documented instances of process violations should be enough to require a credible recount where the margin of victory is .6%. This margin seems well within a reasonable threshold to order a recount without hesitation and without any actions to contest the count. That seems like a reasonable thing in the world's greatest democracy. . Like I said at the beginning. Why be afraid of a recount? If it confirms the original outcome then case closed and we move on. If not then we need to apply pressure and put more scrutiny on the players and actors in the process. Let's cut to the chase here too. The fear among the resistance to a recount is a recount might alter the outcome they desire.

So when doing research and coming up with insights and conclusions you don't perform checks and validations to ensure your results are correct? Of course you do. But in the case of the election you're also making a similar pre-conceived conclusion. In your case that the error rate is not statistically significant and the process was run in conformance to its design. Your assessment of that is neither more correct or more incorrect unless we audit the process and receive some confirmation our hypothesis is either true or false. So why so much resistance from all places to validate the result and put all issues to rest?

Well, first tell me how I'm wrong don't just say I'm wrong and leave it at that. That doesn't qualify as a rebuttal. Here's where I'm coming from on this. First I don't care who won let's get that straight right away. I have about 25 years experience managing and participating in development and roll-outs of business and technical projects and processes on an enterprise scale. As well as several years experience in my current job managing a data analytics organization. I know business and technical systems and statistics and analytics. I've worked in the public sector in state government and in the private sector for both large and small companies. In the private sector some of my clients have been government agencies and organizations. I know from experience and facts that no matter how good and thorough you are there are always quality and performance issues when rolling out a process or an application. I know from facts there is no process that exists that has a zero error rate. I'm well versed in process and quality principals like 6-sigma. So when it comes to processes and data and statistics I can claim expert status. So here's the thing. Every process has a positive error rate. Some might be close to zero like defense or aerospace applications or medical procedures but they are not zero. So there is no process defined by humans that has a zero error rate. And throw in the facts the mail in ballot was quickly defined and deployed using the COVID outbreak as justification. And then throw in the fact it was designed and deployed by non-scientific government organization(s) and I can say with confidence the error rate is high. How high? My educated guess is between 12 and 15 percent. But everyone that knows close to nothing about processes and statistics can go on believing the error rate is zero or near zero. Its their fundamental right to be ill-informed and oblivious to reality. Its their right to cheer on a potentially incorrect result. So it comes down to this. Its a 100% certainty this mail in ballot process has a high error rate. High enough to alter the result? I don't know, nobody knows. But if there's nothing to hide then why worry about a recount? Why all the protests about having a recount? If it doesn't matter and won't alter the result then let the Trump campaign spend the funds to bankroll the recounts. If its a waste of time its their time not yours. What do you care? You're so sure its all legitimate so there's nothing to lose, right? If everything is on the up-and-up then why isn't the Biden camp endorsing and encouraging these recounts? After all, that will put to rest all claims of impropriety and the country can move forward knowing the results were fair. It all seems like a small price to pay in order to achieve some degree of unity. To summarize the Biden campaign and the DNC (and the MSM that suppresses any questioning of the result) have a lot of smart people working for them. They know the same things I do and more about the details of the count and what went down in several key states. They know its BS. They know there's a high number of invalid votes/data records that passed the quality test of the process because the process was not functioning to spec or the users (the vote counters) did not perform their function correctly. They are all lying out of simple self-interest. They have no concern for the legitimacy of the voting process only the results. And anyone that thinks the result is more important than the process of democracy is traveling down a dangerous path. If you disagree with me you should re-think your position. You should be careful what you wish for.

Here's the problem with the call for evidence BEFORE performing any data analysis on the population of votes in some specific state or county. The evidence is an output of the process, not an input. In order to assess the need for a recount or a review of the vote you need to produce allegations that lead to a conclusion that support enough probable cause to support the need to examine the data. So you do a recount. You do a recount strictly following the rules and procedures for counting and recording votes for that specific jurisdiction. You compare the result of your recount analysis to the original "baseline" vote count. If there is no meaningful statistical difference in the two counts then you conclude the original count was correct. You are done and the result is confirmed. If there is a meaningful statistical difference between the recount and the original count then you conclude the original count has some data disparities that require further analysis. You identify the votes or data records counted in the original count but rejected in the recount which was performed strictly and correctly by applying the rules and procedures for the jurisdiction. You identify the specific reason a vote was rejected like the person was dead or they did not reside in the jurisdiction and other reasons for rejection. You produce a count by each category you have established. Now we come to the evidence part. I have all these votes that were counted in the original count that were rejected in the recount. How did all these votes that were rejected in the recount get into the original count? Then you look for answers to questions: Did the people doing the count understand the rules and procedures for counting votes? How did votes for dead people get into the count? How did votes that were received late get into the original count? How did votes from people not residing in the jurisdiction get into the original count? And so on. Then we can draw conclusions: Like there were 1,000 votes from dead people that polling place XYZ included. We need to interview the poll workers at XYZ and find out why they counted those votes. But people wanting to see evidence before the analysis and investigation take place don't care about the evidence. In most cases what they really want is to shut down discussion of the issues and shut down any investigation into the vote count. Am I right? You know I am. They're not the least bit interesting in any evidence. They're looking to avoid scrutiny and questions and consequences. And avoid any potential to reverse the original result which they support. So people asking for evidence before the investigation are full of crap. And they know it. We all know it.

Its doubtful the Supreme Court will rule to eliminate the ACA. It's too broad a ruling and rumblings from the court suggest any challenge would be rejected. The potential to eliminate the ACA was a scare tactic used in the campaign. I guess it worked.