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

[oldmanfan]

3 minutes ago, Tenhigh said:

No, but they have the numbers to push candidates to the fringes of their parties though the primary process.  We need a better way, imo.  

Couldn’t agree more.

[Niagara Bill]

2 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Interesting, another tolerant liberal weighs in with a silly take. 
 

I shall donate $38 in your screen name, but as that is not enough, I’ll throw in $38 for So Tier and another $38 for good measure. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The money ends up with Putin to support Rhinos efforts in Lithuania.😁

[BillStime]

4 minutes ago, dickleyjones said:

the pandemic definitely wasn't Trump's fault. neither was the rather poor response, most of the world was not ready. and the Ds hammered it as if it was his fault which is par for the course when you are in charge. i think it was wrong to do so, morally, but strategically you really can't blame them.

 

however, the vaccine is not Trump's either. or God's for that matter. we have awesome science humans for such things.

 

Wasn't Trump's fault?  Who destroyed our pandemic infrastructure? Why were we not more prepared?  Why do we have the worst infection and death rates?

 

 

[BillStime]

Still pigs

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

11 minutes ago, dickleyjones said:

the pandemic definitely wasn't Trump's fault. neither was the rather poor response, most of the world was not ready. and the Ds hammered it as if it was his fault which is par for the course when you are in charge. i think it was wrong to do so, morally, but strategically you really can't blame them.

 

however, the vaccine is not Trump's either. or God's for that matter. we have awesome science humans for such things.

We're probably not all that far off on views on the pandemic.  The federal response under DJT can and should rightly be reviewed and criticized appropriately.  Stepping aside from that for a second, I think Andrew Cuomo is an abhorrent public servant, a horrible governor and an entitled c*ckmuncher.  I see him as chief architect of the "Let's Get taxpayers to Flee NYS!" party.   However, I gave him a pass and a considerable amount of acknowledgement for being thrust into the spotlight in the era of COVID.  It was an un-winnable position to be put in and it's hard to fault him for being caught woefully unprepared and absent a clue on what to do.  This is separate and apart from his handling of late, and the deaths and blood on his hands at our elder care facilities. 

 

Anyway, I feel it is proper and just to acknowledge DJTs role in bringing together the government, private industry and the scientific community in effort to make PPE, ventilators, money and regulation to fast track a solution to a very complex problem.   I saw the teams at his press conference, saw the passion in their eyes, saw the teamwork to help build the dreamwork, and I think that does not happen under most presidential administrations.  History indicates that death and destruction are generally good for the people in power, and we've see a substantial amount of power-grabbing and fear mongering in the past year.  

 

As for God--to each his own.  

[RochesterRob]

14 minutes ago, BillStime said:

Still pigs

 

 

  Seek professional help at once!

[Westside]

3 hours ago, shoshin said:

"60% of each contribution first to Save America, up to $5,000/$5,000, then to DJTP's (Donald J. Trump for President's) Recount Account, up to a maximum of $2,800/$5,000.40% of each contribution to the RNC's Operating account, up to a maximum of $35,500/$15,000. Any additional funds will go to the RNC for deposit in the RNC's Legal Proceedings account or Headquarters account, up to a maximum of $213,000/$90,000."

I wonder how much china donated to the turnip? I seem to recall a huge jump in money raised not to long ago.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

21 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said:

The money ends up with Putin to support Rhinos efforts in Lithuania.😁

Some of you guys are odd.  Do you obsess over neighbors that moved away? 

 

The man is doing fine and living his best life in a new neighborhood.  You guys have the echo chamber you want and can criticize the echo chamber the rest of us enjoy.  

 

Everybody wins.  

[BillStime]

5 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  Seek professional help at once!

 

Why? I'm fine. 

You? 

Still nurturing DR's ego?

[snafu]

47 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

Why are you here?  @Deranged Rhino and @Foxx created a hyper controlled environment for you snowflakes - you think you're going to win here?

 

Did DR come out of hiding yet? LMAO

 

 

 

Win what?

There's a prize to win here, or does everyone get a participation medal?

Why tune out and push away opposing voices here if you're going  to try to mock the "controlled environment" elsewhere?  

 

 

[BillStime]

5 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

Win what?

There's a prize to win here, or does everyone get a participation medal?

Why tune out and push away opposing voices here if you're going  to try to mock the "controlled environment" elsewhere?  

 

 

 

Did DR come out of hiding yet?

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, BillStime said:

 

Why are you here?  @Deranged Rhino and @Foxx created a hyper controlled environment for you snowflakes - you think you're going to win here?

 

Did DR come out of hiding yet? LMAO

 

 

Oh Lord, this now.  

 

I guess it's on me for trying, so let's see it through.  Elaborate on what a BillStime thinks a leh-nerd skin-erd might think is a 'win' on a message board.  Tell me what you see.  

 

 

[WEATHER DOT COM]

4 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

In NYS alone the restrictions are already lifting. 

 

Not really

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, wAcKy ZeBrA said:

 

Not really

 

My comment on restrictions lifting had to do with airplane travel and quarantine requirements when traveling this winter.  I was also referring to the fact that as downstate NYer, Cuomo took care of his people by abandoning any pretense of COVID safety as it related to commuters and visitors from Ct, NJ and Pa.  He said it was more or less unreasonable to track potential COVID carriers in and around the metro NY area.  No word as to whether or not he waxed philosophically about a time, some time in the future, where people might carry hand-held, portable devices that would make them exceptionally easy to track and contact.  Maybe someday. 

 

However, he did flex his authoritarian muscles by ordering gyms, bars and restaurants to be closed by 10pm under threat of permanent closure.  New studies have revealed what's called a 'vampire' effect where the virus suddenly gets stronger at 10:01 pm.  Previously, it was thought by Governor Cuomo that the vampire effect was lessened or neutralized by the humble potato chip.  It's widely known, of course, that gym's are extraordinarily busy most nights from 10pm-4:30am.  Finally, he has directed that private residences in NYS limit the number of people to 10 as well.  In our large family, I'm getting to Mom's early so that if anyone get pinched it's one of the younger nieces and nephews.  Worst that happens at age 13 or 14 is they go to juvey. 

 

Nod to the Zeeb is this is what you were talking about.  This is certainly a tightening of restrictions on the compliant folk among us. 

Edited November 11, 2020 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[shoshin]

3 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Thank you for the acknowledgment, and I want to validate you, your feelings and your observation. I strike a different path, I would classify this as a political cause much more so than a charitable donation.   I budget my money and make charitable donations to organizations that touch my heart and do what I consider to be The Lord's work.  

 

I'm fortunate enough to be able to navigate what I see as the chasm between the two. 

 

The political cause going forward is great. The charity is donating to bail someone out of the debt they already incurred. That's the heart-touching part!

[All_Pro_Bills]

7 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

Because our legal system is not supposed to deal with claims with no evidence.  If you were to take the "well, we think something is wrong so we're going to court" thought process being used by trump and apply that to anyone who feels butt hurt about something the legal system as we know it would cease to exist.  What Trump and his supporters are doing right now is the equivalent of a frivolous lawsuit.

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.

 

 

 

[TBBills]

15 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

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.

 

 

 

It's b.c the Trumpies say they have evidence right now... Which is why people are asking for it.

Edited November 11, 2020 by TBBills

[shoshin]

19 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

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.

 

 

 

 

So you're saying you want an investigation without evidence to justify the investigation.

 

Some would call that a fishing expedition. 

 

You do an investigation based on evidence. To do an investigation without evidence is what police states do. 

 

Hillary lost by less than Trump and conceded. 

 

 

[oldmanfan]

36 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

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.

 

 

 

Do you know what you are describing here?  How states audit and certify their vote totals before they finalize their elections.

 

You are committing the classic mistake I see when I review scientific manuscripts for various journals.  Poor science and poor researchers decide what they  want the outcome to be ahead of time, and then bend their experiments and data analysis to fit the presupposed conclusion.  Here, Trump announces the only way he could lose is if the election was rigged.  And now that he has lost, he and his sycophants scream that results are tainted because it violates the presupposed conclusion.

 

The states will validate their data.  If and only if during that verification issues show up, then further examination will be warranted.  Doing a recount and such just because you want to make up stories about a rigged process, with absolutely no data to support it, is ridiculous.

[snafu]

42 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

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.

 

 

 

 

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

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

 

[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