|
Post by tigercpa on Apr 15, 2024 14:56:34 GMT
Mail-in voting was banned in France in 1975, do to the large potential for fraud. The internal controls are simply too weak.
|
|
|
Post by ajbuckeye on Apr 15, 2024 16:15:54 GMT
I’m counting on your assessment of non-funded counties in Georgia. Maybe, I shouldn’t ? Money spent in Texas, or California or New Jersey had zero impact on the outcome of the election. That’s just how it is. But, you know that already, don’t you? It’s just there to muddy up the data. I wonder how many lives were saved by this critical COVID protection? The Georgia analysis was only on Democrats, to show your statement was false about democrat votes, that there was “no such increase” in non-Zuckerbucks counties. That’s where it was obvious you were just making blanket statements using your “intelligence guided by experience” rather than actual facts. I specifically mentioned the money spent in California, New Jersey and New York as it was quite a lot, and we agree wouldn’t impact the election. You’re saying it was just a distraction to spend the majority of the money in non-battleground states? Once again you take a statement look at the numbers and manipulate the data in way that fits your agenda. Funded counties vs non funded counties is an extremely biased approach because you are grouping counties that received less the 1 Grant per capitol vs those that have greater than 10 grants per capita. Keep in mind that Zuckerbucks were targeted towards Democrat leaning locations within these counties which you clearly have not taken into consideration. Here are the results of the top 4 counties that Dekalb, Cobb, Gwinnett, and Fulton that all have a democrat majority when in comes to voting. Democrat votes increased by 49% from 2016 to 2020 Republican votes increased by 14% from 2016 to 2020 Demcrat votes increased by 306,000 votes from 2016 to 2020 Republican votes increased by 67,000 votes from 2016 to 2020 Now lets just take a look at the 6 most funded counties the state per capita. This is the four mentioned above including Douglas and Clayton. BTW these are the only 6 counties that received funding that exceeded that average funding per county on a per capita basis. Democrat votes increased by 39% from 2016 to 2020 Republican votes increased by 16% from 2016 to 2020 Demcrat votes increased by 348,000 votes from 2016 to 2020 Republican votes increased by 73,000 votes from 2016 to 2020 Common sense would clearly tell you that these efforts clearly had an impact on the election. By the way your assessment was reckless and flat out wrong but then again that is what you do.
|
|
aufan
New Member
Posts: 31
|
Post by aufan on Apr 15, 2024 18:15:46 GMT
The Georgia analysis was only on Democrats, to show your statement was false about democrat votes, that there was “no such increase” in non-Zuckerbucks counties. That’s where it was obvious you were just making blanket statements using your “intelligence guided by experience” rather than actual facts. I specifically mentioned the money spent in California, New Jersey and New York as it was quite a lot, and we agree wouldn’t impact the election. You’re saying it was just a distraction to spend the majority of the money in non-battleground states? Once again you take a statement look at the numbers and manipulate the data in way that fits your agenda. Funded counties vs non funded counties is an extremely biased approach because you are grouping counties that received less the 1 Grant per capitol vs those that have greater than 10 grants per capita. Keep in mind that Zuckerbucks were targeted towards Democrat leaning locations within these counties which you clearly have not taken into consideration. Here are the results of the top 4 counties that Dekalb, Cobb, Gwinnett, and Fulton that all have a democrat majority when in comes to voting. Democrat votes increased by 49% from 2016 to 2020 Republican votes increased by 14% from 2016 to 2020 Demcrat votes increased by 306,000 votes from 2016 to 2020 Republican votes increased by 67,000 votes from 2016 to 2020 Now lets just take a look at the 6 most funded counties the state per capita. This is the four mentioned above including Douglas and Clayton. BTW these are the only 6 counties that received funding that exceeded that average funding per county on a per capita basis. Democrat votes increased by 39% from 2016 to 2020 Republican votes increased by 16% from 2016 to 2020 Demcrat votes increased by 348,000 votes from 2016 to 2020 Republican votes increased by 73,000 votes from 2016 to 2020 Common sense would clearly tell you that these efforts clearly had an impact on the election. By the way your assessment was reckless and flat out wrong but then again that is what you do. A few points. First - Your numbers don’t match what I get. The top 4 counties you mention had a democrat increase of 36.2%, not 49%. Add in the next two you mentioned and I get 35.5%, not 39%. If you total the bottom 37 counties by per capita (so everything but the top 6 you mentioned) I get an increase of 34.3%. From these numbers, the spending per capita does not seem to be an influencing variable in the growth rate. Second - I compared the Zuckerbucks counties to the non-Zuckerbucks counties because that is what Bevo did, making his very false statement that non-Zuckerbucks counties had “no such increase” - but they did. On this point, when analyzing the influence of an input, you need to look at a control. This is very basic stuff, and I can’t believe I have to spell it out. You must compare against baseline or a control. I agree comparing different counties has its flaws (trying to isolate any single variable for election results will have its flaws). So let’s compare a different baseline, with the same counties: The top 4 counties you mentioned, Dekalb, Cobb, Gwinnett and Fulton, saw a 15.8% decrease in Republican votes from 2012 to 2016. This swung to a 15.4% increase from 2016 to 2020, a net gain of 31.2 percentage points. Compare this to democrat votes, which went from a 12.6% increase to a 36.2% for a net gain of 23.6 percentage points. Zuckerbucks turned those counties around for republicans! From losing votes to gaining them! Third, you are Bevo are arguing against a straw man when you say things like “Common sense would clearly tell you that these efforts clearly had an impact on the election.” I’ve never argued against there being a positive correlation with democrat votes (which is easily explained) or that Zuckerbucks had no impact on the election. The whole goal was to impact the election in a positive way to ensure people could exercise their right to vote. What I’m arguing against is that this was a targeted method to get Joe Biden elected. The fact that the majority of the money went to non-battleground states, and this money also correlates positively with Republican votes shows that this is false. Finally, this nugget: Keep in mind that Zuckerbucks were targeted towards Democrat leaning locations within these counties which you clearly have not taken into consideration. I might take this into consideration if you posted a source for this? I’ve not read that the funding was targeted toward democrat leaning locations. I think this discussion is interesting, but to continue we’d need to align on the numbers, because mine are different than yours. We would need to agree that to draw a meaningful conclusion about the impact of a variable (in this case Zuckerbucks), you must compare it to a baseline. We’d also need to align on what the argument is: the numbers provided don’t prove, or even show good evidence, that Zuckerbucks were a specifically targeted scheme to get Joe Biden elected.
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Apr 15, 2024 18:21:53 GMT
The Georgia analysis was only on Democrats, to show your statement was false about democrat votes, that there was “no such increase” in non-Zuckerbucks counties. That’s where it was obvious you were just making blanket statements using your “intelligence guided by experience” rather than actual facts. I specifically mentioned the money spent in California, New Jersey and New York as it was quite a lot, and we agree wouldn’t impact the election. You’re saying it was just a distraction to spend the majority of the money in non-battleground states? Once again you take a statement look at the numbers and manipulate the data in way that fits your agenda. Funded counties vs non funded counties is an extremely biased approach because you are grouping counties that received less the 1 Grant per capitol vs those that have greater than 10 grants per capita. Keep in mind that Zuckerbucks were targeted towards Democrat leaning locations within these counties which you clearly have not taken into consideration. Here are the results of the top 4 counties that Dekalb, Cobb, Gwinnett, and Fulton that all have a democrat majority when in comes to voting. Democrat votes increased by 49% from 2016 to 2020 Republican votes increased by 14% from 2016 to 2020 Demcrat votes increased by 306,000 votes from 2016 to 2020 Republican votes increased by 67,000 votes from 2016 to 2020 Now lets just take a look at the 6 most funded counties the state per capita. This is the four mentioned above including Douglas and Clayton. BTW these are the only 6 counties that received funding that exceeded that average funding per county on a per capita basis. Democrat votes increased by 39% from 2016 to 2020 Republican votes increased by 16% from 2016 to 2020 Demcrat votes increased by 348,000 votes from 2016 to 2020 Republican votes increased by 73,000 votes from 2016 to 2020 Common sense would clearly tell you that these efforts clearly had an impact on the election. By the way your assessment was reckless and flat out wrong but then again that is what you do. To steal the Presidency, they only had to steal & flip in 6 counties: 1. Maricopa, Arizona 2. Fulton, Georgia 3. Philadelphia, Pa, 4. Wayne, Michigan 5. Milwaukee, Wi. 6. Clark, Nv.
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Apr 15, 2024 18:22:45 GMT
Once again you take a statement look at the numbers and manipulate the data in way that fits your agenda. Funded counties vs non funded counties is an extremely biased approach because you are grouping counties that received less the 1 Grant per capitol vs those that have greater than 10 grants per capita. Keep in mind that Zuckerbucks were targeted towards Democrat leaning locations within these counties which you clearly have not taken into consideration. Here are the results of the top 4 counties that Dekalb, Cobb, Gwinnett, and Fulton that all have a democrat majority when in comes to voting. Democrat votes increased by 49% from 2016 to 2020 Republican votes increased by 14% from 2016 to 2020 Demcrat votes increased by 306,000 votes from 2016 to 2020 Republican votes increased by 67,000 votes from 2016 to 2020 Now lets just take a look at the 6 most funded counties the state per capita. This is the four mentioned above including Douglas and Clayton. BTW these are the only 6 counties that received funding that exceeded that average funding per county on a per capita basis. Democrat votes increased by 39% from 2016 to 2020 Republican votes increased by 16% from 2016 to 2020 Demcrat votes increased by 348,000 votes from 2016 to 2020 Republican votes increased by 73,000 votes from 2016 to 2020 Common sense would clearly tell you that these efforts clearly had an impact on the election. By the way your assessment was reckless and flat out wrong but then again that is what you do. To steal the Presidency, they only had to steal & flip in 6 counties: 1. Maricopa, Arizona 2. Fulton, Georgia 3. Philadelphia, Pa, 4. Wayne, Michigan 5. Milwaukee, Wi. 6. Clark, Nv. Remind us which states stopped counting?
|
|
|
Post by ajbuckeye on Apr 15, 2024 22:40:50 GMT
The top 4 counties you mentioned, Dekalb, Cobb, Gwinnett and Fulton, saw a 15.8% decrease in Republican votes from 2012 to 2016. This swung to a 15.4% increase from 2016 to 2020, a net gain of 31.2 percentage points. Compare this to democrat votes, which went from a 12.6% increase to a 36.2% for a net gain of 23.6 percentage points. You did it again. The study you referred to was between 2016 and 2020. There was nothing within that chart that showed 2012 Numbers yet you inject those numbers to justify your narrative??? Keep in mind that Trump was not even running in 2012.
|
|
aufan
New Member
Posts: 31
|
Post by aufan on Apr 16, 2024 5:13:39 GMT
The top 4 counties you mentioned, Dekalb, Cobb, Gwinnett and Fulton, saw a 15.8% decrease in Republican votes from 2012 to 2016. This swung to a 15.4% increase from 2016 to 2020, a net gain of 31.2 percentage points. Compare this to democrat votes, which went from a 12.6% increase to a 36.2% for a net gain of 23.6 percentage points. You did it again. The study you referred to was between 2016 and 2020. There was nothing within that chart that showed 2012 Numbers yet you inject those numbers to justify your narrative??? Keep in mind that Trump was not even running in 2012.
Well yes, you have to have some sort of baseline or control group to reference when trying to determine the effect of a variable. You’ve rejected using non-Zuckerbucks counties, and now you’ve rejected using the same counties but in a different year. What would you suggest the baseline or control group to be for comparison?
|
|
|
Post by ajbuckeye on Apr 18, 2024 14:33:59 GMT
You did it again. The study you referred to was between 2016 and 2020. There was nothing within that chart that showed 2012 Numbers yet you inject those numbers to justify your narrative??? Keep in mind that Trump was not even running in 2012.
Well yes, you have to have some sort of baseline or control group to reference when trying to determine the effect of a variable. You’ve rejected using non-Zuckerbucks counties, and now you’ve rejected using the same counties but in a different year. What would you suggest the baseline or control group to be for comparison? This was strictly about how Zuckerbucks had an effect on the election. Then you tie in the 2012 election as some sort of baseline that is completely irrelevant to the discussion. It simply was a data point that you tried to tie in simply to meet your narrative.
Then you call out Bevo for making very false claims regarding the effects of Zuckerbucks by presenting very false data.
-counties that did not receive grants had 31% more democrat votes in 2020 compared to 2016
-counties that did receive grants had 36% more democrat votes in 2020 compared to 2016
Let's keep it simple and just look at the data from 2016 and 2020 that you supposedly pulled your data from:
2016 2020 %change TrumpVotes 2,089,104(2016) 2,461,837(2020) ZuckerBuckCounties 1,155,840(2016) 1,358,867(2020) 18% increase NoZuckBuckConties 933,264(2016) 1,102,970(2020) 18% increase
Biden/ClintonVotes 1,877,963(2016) 2,474,507(2020) ZuckerBuckCounties 1,452,867(2016) 1,963,001(2020) 35% increase NoZuckBuckConties 425,096(2016) 511,506(2020) 20% increase
The 31% that you claimed for None Zuckerbucks counties was actually 20% was flat out wrong and very significant in efforts to try to make your point.
Zuckerbuck vs no Zuckerbuck counties had almost no effect on trump votes Zuckerbuck vs no Zuckerbuck for Biden was a 15% increase in votes which equates to 219,561 votes
Now time to take a step back and let's look at what happened in Georgia. We both saw video of multiple people dropping off multiple ballots in the wee hours of the night at the drop boxes.
There is video evidence in Fulton Co where the vote count was halted and everyone left Then moments later they resume counting without any Republicans present.
Does any of this any of this make you question the results of the election at all?
|
|
aufan
New Member
Posts: 31
|
Post by aufan on Apr 18, 2024 21:28:03 GMT
Well yes, you have to have some sort of baseline or control group to reference when trying to determine the effect of a variable. You’ve rejected using non-Zuckerbucks counties, and now you’ve rejected using the same counties but in a different year. What would you suggest the baseline or control group to be for comparison? This was strictly about how Zuckerbucks had an effect on the election. Then you tie in the 2012 election as some sort of baseline that is completely irrelevant to the discussion. It simply was a data point that you tried to tie in simply to meet your narrative.
Then you call out Bevo for making very false claims regarding the effects of Zuckerbucks by presenting very false data.
-counties that did not receive grants had 31% more democrat votes in 2020 compared to 2016
-counties that did receive grants had 36% more democrat votes in 2020 compared to 2016
Let's keep it simple and just look at the data from 2016 and 2020 that you supposedly pulled your data from:
2016 2020 %change TrumpVotes 2,089,104(2016) 2,461,837(2020) ZuckerBuckCounties 1,155,840(2016) 1,358,867(2020) 18% increase NoZuckBuckConties 933,264(2016) 1,102,970(2020) 18% increase
Biden/ClintonVotes 1,877,963(2016) 2,474,507(2020) ZuckerBuckCounties 1,452,867(2016) 1,963,001(2020) 35% increase NoZuckBuckConties 425,096(2016) 511,506(2020) 20% increase
The 31% that you claimed for None Zuckerbucks counties was actually 20% was flat out wrong and very significant in efforts to try to make your point.
Zuckerbuck vs no Zuckerbuck counties had almost no effect on trump votes Zuckerbuck vs no Zuckerbuck for Biden was a 15% increase in votes which equates to 219,561 votes
Now time to take a step back and let's look at what happened in Georgia. We both saw video of multiple people dropping off multiple ballots in the wee hours of the night at the drop boxes.
There is video evidence in Fulton Co where the vote count was halted and everyone left Then moments later they resume counting without any Republicans present.
Does any of this any of this make you question the results of the election at all?
I see where you made your error. I also made an error, albeit a much smaller one. Here is the source of your error: Wikipedia, CNN, others report Hilary having 1,877,963 votes in Georgia in 2016. This is the number you used. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Georgia_electionsOther sources, such as Politico, or the county level data that I used says she got 1,837,300 votes in Georgia. www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/georgia/Which is correct? Honestly, I don’t know. However what is clear is that the Zuckerbucks analysis used the dataset that gives her 1,837,300 votes. This is clear when you look at the county level data: Fulton County Hilary Votes: -Zuckerbucks analysis: 281,875 -County level data I linked: 281,875 -Politico: 281,875 -Wikipedia: 297,051 -CNN: 297,051 This is the same for many of the counties. Again I don’t know which is correct, but clearly the Zuckerbucks analysis uses a data source that attributes 1,837,300 votes to democrats. So to do your analysis correctly, you would need to say Hilary got 1,837,300 votes in Georgia. Or in other words using your method, Democrats grew by 32.8%, not 20% as you claim, for nonZuckerbucks counties.(And in this I found an error in my calculations: they merged some counties together that I missed, but the correction gives me 32.8% growth as well, which means I was understating it before.) I don’t expect you to admit your error, but I do expect this will add fuel to your belief that elections are rigged based on the different numbers reported. I also don’t expect you to comprehend when I tell you again that dropping off multiple ballots in Georgia was not only legal, but expected in certain situations, such as jail employees delivering ballots for inmates. But can we agree on a fundamental of science, that when trying to understand the impact of a variable, you need a control group to compare it against? This is not some political narrative, this is fundamentals of data analysis. And finally, if a billionaire did buy the election, I would be absolutely adamant about proving it. I’m a firm believer that billionaires should not exist as it is way too much money and power for one person, so I don’t really have a narrative to defend them.
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Apr 23, 2024 19:46:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bluehen on Apr 24, 2024 14:54:49 GMT
|
|
aufan
New Member
Posts: 31
|
Post by aufan on Apr 29, 2024 19:59:43 GMT
I think Bevo sums it up perfectly in these two lines: Unfortunately for Trump (And our country), the way the fraud was most likely done left no easily discernable evidence. But, the mountain of evidence on the Trump side would take a LOT to overcome, for me. On an unrelated note, there is a mountain of evidence that I’m the best athlete and scholar to ever exist. Unfortunately for me, that evidence is not easily discernible. On a related note, there were indictments for trying to steal the election. A group of people pretended to be duly elected and qualified electors for Arizona in order to try to steal the election from Joe Biden. Of course this election fraud is the good kind, right? Since it was to help give to election to Trump, who clearly won based on a mountain of indiscernible evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Apr 30, 2024 17:48:56 GMT
very cute...
Ballot harvesting and stuffing is difficult to see, after the fact. As long as the names on the envelopes are real people, or at least names that are listed on registered voter rolls. You can't detect that with ballot recounts, which is all that is allowed immediately following the elections. It requires a detailed analysis of the names of voters, confirmation that they eligible at the time of the election, and confirmation that they actually voted. In the very few places where this kind of analysis has been attempted, LOTS of problems have been found.
The ONLY way to truly combat it is to follow election procedures that make it virtually impossible to do. Naturally, Democrats vehemently oppose ANY effort at improving the security of the election process against this.
The "mountain of evidence" is different. That is the evidence of election "rigging", which may are may not be actual "fraud". That includes things like illegal drop boxes, burying/discrediting the Hunter laptop story, dumping millions of Zuckerbucks into the most populous DEMOCRAT counties, etc.... And yes, there is a mountain of evidence.
|
|
aufan
New Member
Posts: 31
|
Post by aufan on Apr 30, 2024 22:27:04 GMT
very cute... Ballot harvesting and stuffing is difficult to see, after the fact. As long as the names on the envelopes are real people, or at least names that are listed on registered voter rolls. You can't detect that with ballot recounts, which is all that is allowed immediately following the elections. It requires a detailed analysis of the names of voters, confirmation that they eligible at the time of the election, and confirmation that they actually voted. In the very few places where this kind of analysis has been attempted, LOTS of problems have been found. The ONLY way to truly combat it is to follow election procedures that make it virtually impossible to do. Naturally, Democrats vehemently oppose ANY effort at improving the security of the election process against this. The "mountain of evidence" is different. That is the evidence of election "rigging", which may are may not be actual "fraud". That includes things like illegal drop boxes, burying/discrediting the Hunter laptop story, dumping millions of Zuckerbucks into the most populous DEMOCRAT counties, etc.... And yes, there is a mountain of evidence. On your mountain of evidence, I must remind you that you’ve already made verifiably false statements about Zuckerbucks. And I must remind you that with the data you provided, republicans got a bigger net gain in votes than democrats from Zuckerbucks. We agree Zuckerbucks was not election fraud. On the Biden Laptop coverage, we do agree that the media coverage of a news story is not election fraud. On illegal drop boxes, is this about Wisconsin ruling that drop boxes are illegal years after the election? We agree this isn’t fraud. And finally, I’m sure you can provide where “LOTS of problems have been found” with the “detailed analysis” of the mail in ballots. This would be a great place to start! (Please don’t tell me this is the ‘scientific’ study about signature verification you posted earlier) I’m waiting for this mountain of evidence. Hell, I’m waiting for any evidence, it doesn’t have to be a mountain. And back to my original point: I’m still waiting for a real, discernible justification for Trump to have acted the way he did after the election. Meanwhile, real voter fraud happened in Arizona. And the culprits signed their name to claiming to be “duly elected and qualified”, recorded it, posted it on twitter and sent it to congress and the National Archive! Now this is a mountain of discernible evidence! Do you care about this voter fraud, or were they just fighting the good fight?
|
|