Do you think there was voter fraud, significant enough to sway the presidential election?
Folks, this poll will show which option you chose. So, if you'd like to clarify your selection, feel free.
-
@...: 31547908311707/comments/
https://forums.gunbroker.com/discussion/comment/11235445#Comment_11235445
Really ?
From Wiki :
Name calling
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement lists name-calling as the lowest type of argument in a disagreement.
Name-calling is a form of verbal abuse in which insulting or demeaning labels are directed at an individual or group. This phenomenon is studied by a variety of academic disciplines such as anthropology, child psychology, and political science. It is also studied by rhetoricians, and a variety of other disciplines that study propaganda techniques and their causes and effects. The technique is most frequently employed within political discourse and school systems, in an attempt to negatively impact their opponent.
Contents
- 1As a cognitive bias in propaganda
- 2In politics and public opinion
- 3Common misconceptions
- 4References
As a cognitive bias in propaganda[edit]
Name-calling is a cognitive bias and a technique to promote propaganda. Propagandists use the name-calling technique to invoke fear in those exposed to the propaganda, resulting in the formation of a negative opinion about a person, group, or set of beliefs or ideas.[1] The method is intended to provoke conclusions and actions about a matter apart from an impartial examinations of the facts of the matter. When this tactic is used instead of an argument,[citation needed] name-calling is thus a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against an idea or belief, based upon its own merits, and becomes an abusive argumentum ad hominem.[2]
In politics and public opinion[edit]
Politicians sometimes resort to “name-calling” during political campaigns or public events with the intentions of gaining advantage over, or defending themselves from, an opponent or critic. Often such name-calling takes the form of labelling an opponent as an unreliable and untrustworthy quantity, such as use of the term "flip-flopper".
Name calling, both in rhetoric as well as debate, is a common means to argue against a person, instead of their argument.
Labelling, or name calling, attempts to avoid dealing directly with an idea, and goes instead to insult or censure an individual as a means to distract from the actual discussion at hand.
You're going to lecture me on how to do my job? I've banned you once before for two weeks. Now you're banned for two months. At the close of those two months, I will consider whether or not you will return to the forums.
I like the looks of that. In fact, the more I look at that, the more inclined I am to make it permanent.
9 -
I never minded the opinion, but but the delivery was especially vexing.
9 -
I was never able to figure out Barzilla. I would read one post and write him off as a screamingly liberal/troll/nut job. I would read another post and think, hunh, that doesn't sound like Barzilla, because that actually seems like a reasonable comment. Personally I have always wondered what he really believed. Or if all he was interested in was pizzing people off. Sounds like I will now never know the answer to that question. 😁
6 -
@...: 31547908311707/comments/
https://forums.gunbroker.com/discussion/comment/11235324#Comment_11235324
Excellent !
Is there a source for your claim that demonstrates "unusual" represents anything more than a sampling bias and cherry picking in counties where historic changes in absentee voting were well recognized to be occurring ?
The article does nothing to address the fundamental conspiratorial assumptions necessary to reach the pre-assumed conclusion.
Affirming the consequent.
Your bias against the meaning derived from the results of that statistical analysis precluded you from more than a cursory scan of the study. What you assert could be true if the statistics anticipated erroneous vote counts in those swing states, leading to potential for dishonest observations, possibly resulting from confirmation bias. This was not predictive, this is observational and analytical.
Nationwide, the standardized voting margins and log ratios fell within 4 standard deviations, plus the expected outliers. This is easy to demonstrate after the fact. Remember this is a followup analysis; it is not predictive. While this normal behavior happened, something else ridiculously aberrant happened four times. The graph of the trailing candidate's margins took ENORMOUS vertical leaps. It happened four places in America. It was the equivalent of four people rising from the dead.
So the natural response is "why did those four people rise from the dead?" Notice the question doesn't ask where it happened, or their ethnicity or age or citizenship. The one thing that startled the observers was these people rose from the dead. It was stark, dramatic, and visible for the world to see.
This aberrant voting behavior was SO extreme that it is statistically impossible. There was no cherry picking of iffy polling locations or newly-curious voters. It doesn't matter what impetus caused it to happen. This study analyzes the results, not the causes. And it demonstrates the results are statistically impossible.
PS: read the article and graphs carefully. The standardized results are plotted and 4 standard deviations from the mean lie at about 5. From the report, "all but 10 results fall lower than 20". 20 would represent 16 standard deviations from the mean, which is a mathematically impossible result. The aberrant numbers for MI, GA, WI and MI lie 20, 30, 45 and 60 standard deviations from the mean.
6 -
mark christian: 31547908311707/comments/31547963405467
https://forums.gunbroker.com/discussion/comment/11235474#Comment_11235474
You're going to lecture me on how to do my job? I've banned you once before for two weeks. Now you're banned for two months. At the close of those two months, I will consider whether or not you will return to the forums.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6031683/uploads/ZVTSCDKSST6J/2020-12-06.png
I like the looks of that. In fact, the more I look at that, the more inclined I am to make it permanent.
Mark, I actually hate to see him banned. It would be much more enlightening to have him explain his claims and share his thoughts, ideas and point of view. He may have something of true value to add to the discussion, if only he would explain himself. It is nigh on impossible to force someone to explain themselves, he would have been a great lawyer on the OJ Simpson dream team, deflect, obscure and never explain himself or answer a question related to the issue.
I understand his banning and hope he can learn a thing or two about open discussions and how to contribute to them in a valuable manner. It has been an exercise in frustration for over a decade in getting him to explain his point of view.
Years ago he said he worked for some government (?) agency and I believe it is related to medical field. He also claimed he was instrumental in sending someone to prison for three years for misdeeds. When asked about it he said he would disclose the information regarding the jail term in three years. That seems to be about a decade ago. I asked him about it a few years back and he said he was still working for ????? and IIRC needed to retire before he disclosed more on the issue.
What he does and why he acts in the manner he does is still a mystery even after all these years.
3 -
Yes, there was Voter fraud, and it was significant enough to sway the Election to Biden.
My vote showed up, then dissappeared?
3 -
I’d say that voting fraud goes way back:
Wikipedia of Frank Hamer...
”In September 1948, he was called back to Ranger duty to play a small role in the notorious 1948 United States Senate election in Texas.[41][42] Former Governor Coke Stevenson hired him to accompany him to the Texas State Bank in Alice to examine the tally sheets for ballot box 13, which held ballots for his opponent Representative Lyndon Johnson which he knew to be fraudulent. Outside the bank stood two glowering groups of armed men. Hamer got out of the car, approached the first group, and said "git" and they left. The second group was blocking the doors of the bank, and he said "fall back" and they did.[43]
0 -
bpost: 31547908311707/comments/31547976363035
https://forums.gunbroker.com/discussion/comment/11235480#Comment_11235480
Mark, I actually hate to see him banned. It would be much more enlightening to have him explain his claims and share his thoughts, ideas and point of view. He may have something of true value to add to the discussion, if only he would explain himself. It is nigh on impossible to force someone to explain themselves, he would have been a great lawyer on the OJ Simpson dream team, deflect, obscure and never explain himself or answer a question related to the issue.
I understand his banning and hope he can learn a thing or two about open discussions and how to contribute to them in a valuable manner. It has been an exercise in frustration for over a decade in getting him to explain his point of view.
Years ago he said he worked for some government (?) agency and I believe it is related to medical field. He also claimed he was instrumental in sending someone to prison for three years for misdeeds. When asked about it he said he would disclose the information regarding the jail term in three years. That seems to be about a decade ago. I asked him about it a few years back and he said he was still working for ????? and IIRC needed to retire before he disclosed more on the issue.
What he does and why he acts in the manner he does is still a mystery even after all these years.
Your comment will factor heavily on my decision whether or not I allow Barzilla to return to the forum. Regardless, he'll do the full 60 days in the hole. I have no idea what he was even arguing with you about; but he claimed name calling and abuse. I saw none and made a ruling to that fact. That should have been the end of it, but it never is with him. He wasn't banned for arguing with you; he was banned because he ran his mouth at me. This is the second time he's been banned for that, and I'm not inclined to give him the chance at a third. Best,
3 -
I fully support your decision Mark, you are and always have been a fair and reasonable man.
3 -
3
-
Nanuq907: 31547908311707/comments/31547977765787
Okay I'll explain this.
Premise: several vote updates in competitive states were unusually large and had unusually high Biden-to-Trump vote ratios.
In the election statistics there is a consistent mathematical property: there is an inverse relationship between: a) the difference in candidates’ vote counts (the margin) and b) the ratio of the vote counts (the log-ratio):
- The difference between the number of votes for Biden and the number of votes for Trump is the “margin”
- The logarithm of the ratio between the number of votes for Biden and the number of votes for Trump is the “log-ratio”
8,954 vote updates were used, and four vote updates were identified as the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 7th most anomalous updates. These updates did not follow the typical pattern, and their anomalous behavior was particularly extreme.
So far this is pure mathematics. We have numbers and a simple analysis reveals “standard” behavior and “outliers” to that behavior. This is explained as a Poisson Distribution. Typically we find 95% of all results in a set lie within 4 standard deviations from the mean. But like everyone knows, “figures lie and liars figure”. So to accommodate the reality that margins and ratios will vary between states, we perform a data standardization: we subtract the mean of the data from each point, then divide by the standard deviation. This produces a series of distributions that permit apples-to-apples comparison of margins and log-ratios between states. If we multiply the margins and log-ratios, we can plot and evaluate the distribution of the results:
https://us.v-cdn.net/6031683/uploads/GD1I7TOM6HA3/election-stats.png
the results are overwhelmingly concentrated near the median. There are 4 results as extreme outliers (probability of occurrence around 0.00001%) all 4 are in the swing states, and all 4 results were submitted for tabulation within 5 hours of each other.
These are the standardized results, intentionally modified to eliminate bias between states. The four ballot dumps (outliers) that cost Trump the election are shown on the plot.
You decide if there was fraud.
Your analysis is spot on. Despite distractions from detractors, this is pretty clear evidence of voting anomalies that need to be investigated.
3
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
41 comments