JPF Home Page Forums General Messages General Message Forum Voting Pattern Discrepancies Impossible

It is not a prop
1. OK
2. So everyone responsible for organizing elections in every state, no matter which candidate they went for, is a liar and a cheat.I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by this, given that Republican Senate candidates in Georgia are calling for the resignation of the Secretary of State, a Republican, because the vote didn't go exactly as they wanted it to.
3. Not just the vapors. If you select your controls on the basis of what you want to prove, you can prove it. I chose NC because it's my state and proved that his "suspicious" turnout growth in PA happened there too, where Republicans won across the board. Why is this so hard to understand? Take your own state of Texas, which Trump won. Turnout increased by 9%, way more than in Pennsylvania. This guy is lying by means of selective statistics. Since I spent all that time crunching the numbers that you dismissed as the vapors, I found this link which might help you understand.
https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/...507-2616bad5-1516-4dfe-8ea6-fd86a5d5738d
4. This is not still to be determined. In certain states obstacles were placed in the way of counting mail in ballots promptly. In states where this did not occur, e.g. Ohio, these ballots were counted more promptly and indeed created an impression of a Democratic lead which later evaporated. I explained all that. It's fact. Not my biased fact, just fact.
5.Not "so you say," fact, easily verified. Not everything is just what one person says against what another person says. Facts do exist.
6. See 5.
7. So you say
8. You should. It's a great little book, written in 1954. It was assigned reading in my statistics class at business school.

I don't "confirm my bias from biased sources because that is all that is going to reach you or me." That's a lazy way to avoid engaging with the facts. Tell me one biased source that I used. I went to the raw unfiltered figures for voter turnout. It made for some pretty dry reading, but the sources were not biased. I did this to prove that this video is deceptive. It's whole argument is based on the premise that the voter turnout increase in certain states was suspiciously high compared to others. This is demonstrably false. If you think I failed to do this, point out where my facts are wrong or my methodology is flawed. What I did is very simple and straightforward.

I know I'm fighting a losing battle, but the erosion of the very concept of objective fact by those who benefit from the resultant confusion is something I care very deeply about. So, picking up on John's Dutch reference, I stand with my finger in the dike holding back the BS, while next to me someone with a wrecking ball knocks huge holes in it and we are all drowned by the raw sewage of which this video is a particularly pungent example.