192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Wed 9 Dec, 2020 12:20 am
@oristarA,
Quote:
This claim of "Everyone knows" is statistically impossible. It is a barefaced lie.

Like Biden winning the election? Glad you agree somethings are statistically impossible. Now that you know that you know there was fraud.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Wed 9 Dec, 2020 12:24 am
@coldjoint,
to answer the question it asks: it amounts to a heaping mountain of bullshit and conspiracy theory.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  2  
Wed 9 Dec, 2020 12:35 am
This is a better written story than the 1st one, Paxton is still a proven reprobate (along with cj)!

Quote:
The rank hypocrisy of the Texas AG's election case

Opinion by James Moore


Updated 11:30 PM ET, Tue December 8, 2020

CNN - Ken Paxton is a lawman being chased by the law. And when the Texas Republican attorney general filed a suit on Tuesday with the US Supreme Court on behalf of his state, he also became an even more rank hypocrite.

Paxton, who has been indicted on securities fraud and accused by top aides of bribery, abuse of office and other potentially criminal offenses -- charges that he has denied -- argued that a handful of battleground states destroyed the integrity of the 2020 election vote totals. He insists the US Constitution was violated by allowing their legislatures to make last-minute changes that ignored federal electoral regulations.

Earlier in the campaign, Paxton played a key role in President Donald Trump's fight against expanding mail-in ballots. Now Paxton's plea to the Court is that Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Georgia must be found to have used the Covid-19 pandemic as an excuse to manipulate outcomes.

If that argument has merit, he ought to have included his home state in the lawsuit.

Texas' Republican Gov. Gregg Abbott extended early voting by a week and expanded the period in which mail-in ballots could be hand-delivered. "Using his emergency authority because of the pandemic," Glenn Smith, a Texas Democratic political consultant, told me, "our governor accomplished exactly what his attorney general is saying other states did, improperly. Nonsense. None of this harmed the presidential election. It helped turnout."

But apparently, to Paxton, it's only legal if the rule changes help the GOP win.

To make his case, the Texas AG marches out the same unproven allegations numerous courts have already found specious. His paranoia includes hidden suitcases full of ballots, a secret laptop and several USB drives supposedly used to program favorable Democratic results in Pennsylvania, and even alleged videos of poll workers cheering as poll watchers are ordered out of counting rooms. Credible evidence of such allegations has never been produced, and the US Supreme Court rejected another GOP bid to block certification of the Pennsylvania result on the same day that Paxton filed his suit.

There is, meanwhile, an accumulating body of allegations against Paxton.

A letter obtained in October by the Austin American-Statesman and television station KVUE, noted that a number of Paxton's top aides had reported to "the appropriate law enforcement authority" a "potential violation of law" by Paxton. The staffers insisted they had "a good faith belief that the Attorney General is violating federal and/or state law, including prohibitions relating to improper influence, abuse of office, bribery and other potential criminal offenses."

Several of Paxton's former employees filed a whistleblower lawsuit against the attorney general, saying Paxton retaliated against them after they accused him of intervening in legal matters to help his friend, a real estate investor who had made a $25,000 donation to his 2018 campaign, according to the suit. Paxton has denied their allegations.

The investor named by the lawsuit, Nate Paul, said he had also employed a woman based upon a recommendation by Paxton. Although Paul said he was not doing favors for the attorney general, the Texas Tribune and The Dallas Morning News have reported at least two people say Paxton told them he had an extramarital affair with the woman Paul later hired. Paxton insists the allegations are all part of a "political witch hunt" and denies any wrongdoing.

Paxton has already been indicted for felony securities fraud, accused of failing to register with the State Securities Board while selling stock to investors without disclosing he was making a commission. The case has been hung up on questions of venue, and payment and replacement of county prosecutors, and has slogged through appeals that have dragged it out for five years without adjudication.

The indictments did not stop Paxton from winning reelection at the same time his wife was being voted into a seat in the Texas state senate. In one of her earliest acts in public office, Angela Paxton filed a bill to broadly increase her husband's power with legislation allowing him to exempt individuals from state securities law. Surely, it is only coincidental that those are the laws Paxton is accused of violating. The measure appears to have stunk too much even for the Texas legislature and didn't get a committee hearing.

The Texas AG's latest US Supreme Court plea might just be currying favor with Trump in an attempt to get a pardon before Paxton is potentially tried and convicted. Even a bad lawyer like our attorney general is likely to know he has no real case. The electoral fraud argument is considerably weaker than the pleadings his office made to ask the high court to overturn the Obama administration's Affordable Care Act, which it denied.

It's hard to believe the Supreme Court will bother to hear Paxton's case, which has the potential to disenfranchise tens of millions of voters, especially after its Tuesday ruling on Pennsylvania. But at one point it also seemed improbable that the narcissistic host of a reality TV television show could become the President of the United States.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/08/opinions/texas-attorney-general-ken-paxton-election-lawsuit-moore/index.html
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Wed 9 Dec, 2020 01:04 am
@BillW,
Quote:
The rank hypocrisy of the Texas AG's election case

Just take out his name a plug in the Democratic party and you have something.

This man is not on trial and it does not a bit of difference. It is his argument that counts. The article is gossip and it goes nicely with your posting history.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  3  
Wed 9 Dec, 2020 01:12 am
'm betting my money on this guy. When I 1st read Dr Cicchetti's stats I felt they way to over whelming, as Dr Post shows them to be. When in almost all those states Biden was winning pre election, yeap, Cicchetti is pure bullshit!
Quote:

Statistical nonsense at SCOTUS


The Texas AG's outlandish claims about the statistical unlikelihood of Biden's victory

DAVID POST | 12.8.2020 8:52 PM

As co-Blogger Jonathan Adler has noted, the Texas AG is suing the states of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin over supposed election irregularities, and calling on the Supreme Court to exercise its original jurisdiction to hear the case on an expedited basis.

This little tidbit caught my eye:

Dr. Cicchetti wrote:
9. Expert analysis using a commonly accepted statistical test further raises serious
questions as to the integrity of this election.

10. The probability of former Vice President Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant States—Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—independently given President Trump's early lead in those States as of 3 a.m. on November 4, 2020, is less than one in a quadrillion, or 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000. For former Vice President Biden to win these four States collectively, the odds of that event happening decrease to less than one in a quadrillion to the fourth power (i.e., 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000^4). See Decl. of Charles J. Cicchetti, Ph.D. ("Cicchetti Decl.") at ¶¶ 14-21, 30-31. See App. 4a-7a, 9a. 11.

11. The same less than one in a quadrillion statistical improbability of Mr. Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant States—Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin— independently exists when Mr. Biden's performance in each of those Defendant States is compared to former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton's performance in the 2016 general election and President Trump's performance in the 2016 and 2020 general elections. Again, the statistical improbability of Mr. Biden winning the popular vote in these four States collectively Again, the statistical improbability is 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000.


Wow! What a bombshell this is! Odds of Biden having won GA, PA, WI, and MI are 1,000,000,000,000,000 to the fourth power to 1!

For the mathematically disinclined, 1 quadrillion to the 4th power is 1 with 60 zeros after it. Long odds indeed! It's about equivalent to being dealt several trillion or so royal flushes in a row. There's proof of fraud for you!

Spoiler Alert. It's total nonsense—I know it's early in the 2020-21 Term, but I'm putting the odds at getting anything more ridiculous in a SCOTUS filing at about 3 quadrillion to 1.
I have not read the cited declaration by Dr. Cicchetti; it is not yet publicly available anywhere, as far as I can determine. The Complaint says it will be included as an Appendix in the (forthcoming) motion to expedite, and that will give more detail, I assume, as to how he arrived at this preposterous calculation.

But I do know a little about statistics, having taught it for many years, and I assure you: there is no "commonly accepted statistical test" that will, or can, demonstrate that the odds of Biden winning these four states, given Trump's early lead, are so incredibly long. It is a fantasy. As many, many people have pointed out, Trump's disappearing leads in all four states can rather easily be explained by an increased tendency of people using mail-in ballots to cast votes for Biden—something that was widely anticipated prior to the election, and which indeed seems to have come to pass.

This is flim-flammery of the highest order. I look forward to parsing Dr. Cicchetti's analysis and filling you all in on the mistakes that he made. Stay tuned.

https://reason.com/volokh/2020/12/08/statistical-nonsense-at-scotus/
BillW
 
  2  
Wed 9 Dec, 2020 01:30 am
@BillW,
And Paxton, the Texas AG is trying to buy a pardon(s) with it to get out of jail when it is just more climb foam. Like SCOTUS is stupid or something. He oughta go to jail for this alone!

He's sure to get jail for his securities charges which he is already indicted! For the bribery charges, he's trying to play games with the FBI. Not a good idea in my view!
BillW
 
  2  
Wed 9 Dec, 2020 01:49 am
@BillW,
climb foam s/b flim flam

Spell check screwed.me again!
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  3  
Wed 9 Dec, 2020 02:08 am
It's like the claims are getting more and more desperate.

I mean seriously - one in 4 quadrillion...not just the nonsense number, but voting isn't an odds game. It has no random fall of numbers. It has no maybes. The votes are what the votes are (unless of course they are tampered with). You cannot calculate odds with votes, and even if you could, they would be meaningless (because of the above).

The statistician would know this. He really should be ashamed of himself, misleading gullible people who will only see what they want to see.

....

Now the analysis of the dominion computer system would be much more interesting...if they didn't already have a very simple test (that I previously mentioned).

Of course the only qualification to that is if it was connected to the internet (and they shouldn't be), then that could lead to a problem.

I'm presuming they took away an image of the drive. Which is a good thing, as any analysis they do will be able to be compared against the original. What suprises me is this wasn't done sooner.

As only a presumption, I would presume it would turn up what the vast majority of the other 'evidence' has turned up - just irregularities. I will presume the only way for it to tell if the output count is the same as the inputed paper ballots is that images are taken of the paper ballots. In that case, they would also expect an analysis of the vote numbers for each candidate, which is the only thing capable of showing fraud (and not just the total votes versus the machine result, which can only show irregularities rather than fraud)

If they don't do that, then they themselves would be attempting fraud.
BillW
 
  2  
Wed 9 Dec, 2020 02:27 am
@vikorr,
vikorr - 1st, numbers and odds are stats, which are the statisticians game. Votes are beautiful numbers and can be divided into so many different categories. Odds are constantly being developed based on history, weather, type of vote, characteristics of the voter, before election, after election, onward and upward. Yes, they are ripe for statistical differentiation!

2nd - That one in 4 quadrillion figure you recited is to the 4th power; ie,
4 quad(4 quad(4 quad(4 quad))) -
an astronomically larger number than just 4 quad.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Wed 9 Dec, 2020 02:37 am
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:

It's like the claims are getting more and more desperate.


And to make matters worse plastic drinking straws have been banned. What are they going to clutch now?
BillW
 
  2  
Wed 9 Dec, 2020 02:40 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

vikorr wrote:

It's like the claims are getting more and more desperate.


And to make matters worse plastic drinking straws have been banned. What are they going to clutch now?

It falls between their legs!
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  4  
Wed 9 Dec, 2020 02:46 am
My bet right now is that SCOTUS will deny the Texas case because it wasn't timely. I don't think they will go any further than that, but, if they do they will also deny the suit because Texas doesn't have standing. Thirdly, it contains all the BS in the other 50+ cases plus this new flim flam from Dr Cicchetti. Denial of lack of evidence and garbage not made out of whole cloth!

It will be another STFU reading from the court.
vikorr
 
  2  
Wed 9 Dec, 2020 02:54 am
@BillW,
Quote:
vikorr - 1st, numbers and odds are stats, which are the statisticians game. Votes are beautiful numbers and can be divided into so many different categories. Odds are constantly being developed based on history, weather, type of vote, characteristics of the voter, before election, after election, onward and upward. Yes, they are ripe for statistical differentiation!
Yes, as I mentioned - you could develop odds. In the end, they are meaningless to the outcome of the vote. The only people they are meaningful to are the punters.
Builder
 
  -2  
Wed 9 Dec, 2020 04:43 am
@vikorr,
Quote:
The only people they are meaningful to are the punters.


The punters are more aware of the dodginess of the outcome than anyone else will admit. No amount of media bullshit will change the facts there.

farmerman
 
  6  
Wed 9 Dec, 2020 05:55 am
@Builder,
DONALD TRUMP'S EFFORT TO DESTROY OUR DEMOCRACY HAS BEEN UNANIMOUSLY REBUFFED BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. IN A ONE LINE REBUKE THE NATIONS TOP COURT REFUSED TO EVEN HEAR TRUMP'S INSANE AND TRAITOROUS
APPEAL TO INVALIDATE 200 K BALLOTS IN PENNSYLVANIA
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  4  
Wed 9 Dec, 2020 06:24 am
somebody wrote:
No amount of media bullshit will change the facts there.

No amount of facts will change the bullshit between somebody's ears either.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  3  
Wed 9 Dec, 2020 06:49 am
When you've lost about 50 lawsuits, so far, it really makes sense to bet on the next one(s). Don't it?
Frank Apisa
 
  6  
Wed 9 Dec, 2020 06:55 am
@Builder,
Builder wrote:

Quote:
They live in a post truth world.


Demonstrating just how easily led by the mass media fear and loathing campaign. Baaaaaa baaaaaa.


We hear you bleating...but you can't come in.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DwZktnKU8AAucne.jpg
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Wed 9 Dec, 2020 07:08 am
Forgot how to change the size of photo again. Sorry. If someone can do it...please do.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  2  
Wed 9 Dec, 2020 11:10 am
@Brand X,
Brand X wrote:

When you've lost about 50 lawsuits, so far, it really makes sense to bet on the next one(s). Don't it?

SCOTUS notices things like this and don't take kindly to it. They're not stupid, they know this is throwing sh@t against the wall to see what sticks, and nothing did - multiple times! theRump and associates are simply fishing without bait.

Frank, picture looks good!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.49 seconds on 07/08/2025 at 12:56:13