Trump supporters...please show class. Don't be sore losers...

[TBBills]

34 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

Here’s what you’re likely to encounter around here with your post:

“Take your reasonable, thought out remarks and shove them, Nazi Trumphole!”

 

No he just happens to be wrong. It was thought out but just not correctly. On top of that you have Trump's people saying they have evidence.

 

The courts today even made Trump's lawyers nervous when asking questions b.c they do not want to lie so they could not continue with their cases b c they could not lie to the judge.

[WideNine]

9 minutes ago, TBBills said:

No he just happens to be wrong. It was thought out but just not correctly. On top of that you have Trump's people saying they have evidence.

 

The courts today even made Trump's lawyers nervous when asking questions b.c they do not want to lie so they could not continue with their cases b c they could not lie to the judge.

 

This.

 

It was rather a round-about way of justifying recounts that really does not align with the rules for each state regarding that process.

 

Basically it is a flawed premise.

 

Most states automatically do a recount if the margin between the number of votes is low enough. Demanding a recount as many ignorant people have done in those situations is dumb. It happens any way without the hysterics.

 

For most of the swing states that Trump lost the margins do not justify an auto recount. If he wants one the GOP has to find evidence of wide spread ballot fraud to justify it (looking like needles in haystacks), OR the GOP does have the option to pay out of pocket to fund a recount.

 

Historically these are several decades of bets on a horse that does not come in. 

 

The GOP will gladly take your money though and flush much of it down the drain of a hopeless cause and pocket the rest. They are duplicitous not dumb.

 

 

 

[daz28]

Ok Trumpies, gonna ask you another question here about why Trump is refusing to show ANYONE any evidence.  WHY would they want the evidence in their Arizona court sealed??  WHY DO THE WITNESSES NEED PROTECTION??????????????????????  

 

 

https://www.khou.com/article/news/politics/elections/trump-campaign-lawsuit-in-az-centers-around-only-180-votes-attorneys-say/75-b9583623-418e-463d-9434-695d55a0a352

 

 

[transplantbillsfan]

@leh-nerd skin-erd conflating the simple act of a Presidential transition--including all the money and briefings that come with it that allow a President to hit the ground running without security risks involved with a delay in that allowance--with tangential acts and investigations unrelated to literally passing the Presidency over in January.

 

Classic.

[shoshin]

10 hours ago, WideNine said:

 

This.

 

It was rather a round-about way of justifying recounts that really does not align with the rules for each state regarding that process.

 

Basically it is a flawed premise.

 

Most states automatically do a recount if the margin between the number of votes is low enough. Demanding a recount as many ignorant people have done in those situations is dumb. It happens any way without the hysterics.

 

For most of the swing states that Trump lost the margins do not justify an auto recount. If he wants one the GOP has to find evidence of wide spread ballot fraud to justify it (looking like needles in haystacks), OR the GOP does have the option to pay out of pocket to fund a recount.

 

Historically these are several decades of bets on a horse that does not come in. 

 

The GOP will gladly take your money though and flush much of it down the drain of a hopeless cause and pocket the rest. They are duplicitous not dumb.

 

 

 

The post office guy and Rudy’s grainy photos aren’t evidence?
 

Twitter believes. 

[Wacka]

Logic and libs (commies) are mitually exclusive.

[All_Pro_Bills]

12 hours ago, TBBills said:

No he just happens to be wrong. It was thought out but just not correctly. On top of that you have Trump's people saying they have evidence.

 

The courts today even made Trump's lawyers nervous when asking questions b.c they do not want to lie so they could not continue with their cases b c they could not lie to the judge.

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.

Edited November 12, 2020 by All_Pro_Bills

[oldmanfan]

21 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

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.

It is not a certainty there is a high error rate with mail in balloting.  I am a research scientist with over 40 years experience in data analysis and management and as I pointed out above you are assuming an outcome and then trying to make data fit your pre-conceived conclusion.  The states audit and check data before finalizing results and that is what should drive any recounts, not the upset feelings of the loser of the election.

Edited November 12, 2020 by oldmanfan

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

5 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

@leh-nerd skin-erd conflating the simple act of a Presidential transition--including all the money and briefings that come with it that allow a President to hit the ground running without security risks involved with a delay in that allowance--with tangential acts and investigations unrelated to literally passing the Presidency over in January.

 

Classic.

Your mancrush Obama created an international incident by boldly expelling nearly 3 dozen Russian diplomats 22 days before he left office, during the Presidential transition last election cycle.  Michael Flynn was targeted by the Obama admin’s DOJ for acts Joe Biden is undertaking as we speak—negotiating and conspiring with foreign leaders to get back to the good old days.  The Obama DOJ was manipulating data and passing false intel to an incoming president in an attempt to disrupt his administration. 
 

DJT is pursuing litigation in search of a remedy.  Biden has been a Washington fixture for 50 years, he’s a former VP and knows full well which interns are vulnerable for hair sniffing and groping.    People in positions of power have a knack for figuring that stuff out. He’ll be working with Margaret Thatcher in no time—they’re good friends, he says. 
 

He’ll be fine when the time comes.  We simply have to wait for the results of the investigations, or until DJT is convinced the election was handled fairly, or fairly enough to satisfy him.  You and many others have suggested the evidence will be clear and convincing, or rather there will be a lack of evidence to the contrary, so I’m not sure what you think I’m conflating. 
 

Though, it would be interesting to see what might shake out if DJT expelled Chinese diplomats on 12/29.  That would be an interesting gambit. Let’s put a pin in that one. 
 

In the meantime, patience boyo. You’ll be fine either way, and we’ll see what shakes out. 

[dickleyjones]

31 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

 

Why protest? Why fight any efforts? Because that is the way the game is played. If trump is going to throw everything he has at this (lawyers, lawmakers, etc) then the dnc would be fools to not respond in kind.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

36 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

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.

Good stuff, thanks for sharing.  I think the challenge can be that while there are certainly well-intentioned and intelligent posters here, some could not find their belly button using a mirror. 
 

Most have taken the position that pursuing legal remedy is an affront to American tradition, even when you acknowledge they might be correctly predicting the outcome down the road?  Where do you go with that?  

[All_Pro_Bills]

19 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

It is not a certainty there is a high error rate with mail in balloting.  I am a research scientist with over 40 years experience in data analysis and management and as I pointed out above you are assuming an outcome and then trying to make data fit your pre-conceived conclusion.  The states audit and check data before finalizing results and that is what should drive any recounts, not the upset feelings of the loser of the election.

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? 

Edited November 12, 2020 by All_Pro_Bills

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

19 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

It is not a certainty there is a high error rate with mail in balloting.  I am a research scientist with over 40 years experience in data analysis and management and as I pointed out above you are assuming an outcome and then trying to make data fit your pre-conceived conclusion.  The states audit and check data before finalizing results and that is what should drive any recounts, not the upset feelings of the loser of the election.

Two schools of thought with two people with relevant experience in analyzing data.  One suggests “see it through”, the other “acquiesce and submit”.  
 

Interesting. 

[oldmanfan]

10 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

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? 

You don’t understand research.  In research you make a hypothesis to explain an observation and you then experimentally test your hypothesis.  And then analyze the data obtained by appropriate statistical methodology.  But here is the key thing:  You are always testing the null hypothesis; I.e. that there is no effect.  You are assuming an effect.  That’s wrong.

 

What you are calling to be done is exactly what the states do to validate their outcomes via audits and such.  I see no resistance from anyone to do so.  What people are saying is simply this:  all the states have said their elections were carried out consistent with their laws and procedures, and that there is no reason to suspect the outcomes.  They will validate because that is part of their procedure.  

 

And again, you are assuming there is in fact some egregious error with absolutely no data to back it up.  You have a conclusion in your mind and want to bend circumstances to fit your pre-made conclusion.  I hope you don’t do that for your clients.

12 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Two schools of thought with two people with relevant experience in analyzing data.  One suggests “see it through”, the other “acquiesce and submit”.  
 

Interesting. 

Where did I say acquiesce and submit?  That’s crap and you know better.  I specifically stated that the states have processes to audit and verify final results and they will do so.  

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

This isn’t complicated. Why would the side that’s ahead ever want a recount? Answer....they wouldn’t! Nothing newsworthy here. We all learned this in kindergarten.

[snafu]

2 hours ago, shoshin said:

The post office guy and Rudy’s grainy photos aren’t evidence?
 

Twitter believes. 

 

Twitter does nothing of the sort.  Their red warning is proof.

 

[snafu]

1 hour ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

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.

 

 

Trump and everyone associated with him needs to be steamrollered out of D.C. now. Not January 20. Four years was enough. 

 

 

1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:

It is not a certainty there is a high error rate with mail in balloting.  I am a research scientist with over 40 years experience in data analysis and management and as I pointed out above you are assuming an outcome and then trying to make data fit your pre-conceived conclusion.  The states audit and check data before finalizing results and that is what should drive any recounts, not the upset feelings of the loser of the election.

 

Sort of. 

States have had longstanding systems in place. Normally you’d be right. This time around seems a lot different. I think 1/3 of Pennsylvania’s votes were mail-in. These are not robots voting. These are not robots handling. These are not robots verifying. And everyone is new to the game.

 

And I believe there’s a difference between tallying the vote and auditing the results. Most times, an audit isn’t necessary. 

 

 

 

Edited November 12, 2020 by snafu

[oldmanfan]

3 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

 

Trump and everyone associated with him needs to be steamrollered out of D.C. now. Not January 20. Four years was enough. 

 

 

 

Sort of. 

States have had longstanding systems in place. Normally you’d be right. This time around seems a lot different. I think 1/3 of Pennsylvania’s votes were mail-in. These are not robots voting. These are not robots handling. These are not robots verifying. And everyone is new to the game.

 

 

And they will do their QC before finalizing what is reported.  And there were observers for both parties present.

[snafu]

Just now, oldmanfan said:

And they will do their QC before finalizing what is reported.  And there were observers for both parties present.

 

What you describe are a large part of the complaints (I also added an edit to my post while you were responding).  

People focus solely on fraud, but there’s a lot more that goes into it. A lot of human error.   Including whether state laws were properly followed. You may be fluent in research.  Do you ever think “system 1.0” is ever as good as it should be?  It is easy to see that this particular election in certain places (places that have historically voted in person) is very different. 

 

Now I agree that if the Trump team had proof they’d (1) better get on with showing it, and (2) better have really solid proof.  And if they do and he loses like it is probable, then fine.  They’ve got more information than you or me, and they’ve got the right to present their proof. I’d add that if there was widespread irregularity, then they have an obligation to bring it to light for the sake of future elections.

 

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

52 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

You don’t understand research.  In research you make a hypothesis to explain an observation and you then experimentally test your hypothesis.  And then analyze the data obtained by appropriate statistical methodology.  But here is the key thing:  You are always testing the null hypothesis; I.e. that there is no effect.  You are assuming an effect.  That’s wrong.

 

What you are calling to be done is exactly what the states do to validate their outcomes via audits and such.  I see no resistance from anyone to do so.  What people are saying is simply this:  all the states have said their elections were carried out consistent with their laws and procedures, and that there is no reason to suspect the outcomes.  They will validate because that is part of their procedure.  

 

And again, you are assuming there is in fact some egregious error with absolutely no data to back it up.  You have a conclusion in your mind and want to bend circumstances to fit your pre-made conclusion.  I hope you don’t do that for your clients.

Where did I say acquiesce and submit?  That’s crap and you know better.  I specifically stated that the states have processes to audit and verify final results and they will do so.  

 

 

Perhaps it’s semantics, but unless I’m misreading you, you’re advocating for ‘trust the state’ . 
 

If a candidate doesn’t trust the state, and your suggestion is to forgo aggressive action in search of the truth, it boils down to acquiesce and submit in my opinion.  You are absolutely correct—those were my words describing what I see as your position, not yours.  
 

I stand by the characterization, but apologies if you felt I was quoting you verbatim. 

Edited November 12, 2020 by leh-nerd skin-erd