Dominion Software miscounts

[Steve R.]

@moke123: You can astound us, should you actually cite non-biased legitimate fact checkers instead of the biased sham "fact checkers" infected with TDS. Recall how wrong the supposed highly claimed neutral pollsters were.

 

[moke123]

Show me your facts then. Do you only believe what trump or tucker tell you?

Qanon does not count as facts.

pollsters are not fact checkers.

 

[Steve R.]

You seem to believe that your the only one who defines what facts to believe. Facts not in compliance with your alleged fact checking are dismissed as false.

 

[moke123]

Gotcha. I forgot you guys have those alternative facts.

 

[Mike Krailo]

Here's a fact or two for you Moke:

1. Biden had virtually no one attend his pathetic rallies and Trump had massive turn out and enthusiasm at his. The media played this down so much that many don't even know that fact.
2. The down ballot vote clearly went for Trump (there wasn't enough time to cheat with precision at 2am in the morning when they realized Trump was winning).
3. There are currently some very serious anomalies being litigated in those swing states that could very well account for SJ getting all those votes that were reported in those swing states.
4. The biggest fact that is undeniable at this point is that this is the highest amount of mail in ballots in American history. Accompany that with the lowest rejection rate for mail in ballots in American history in key swing states. This never happened before, EVER!

Fact checkers don't hold the supreme truth of the land. In my opinion they are paid cronies used by the far left to push their left agenda. Nothing more and nothing less. Propaganda is rampant in the media and censorship is being enabled by big tech.

I had no problem when BHO won his presidency, that was on the up and up for the most part. I don't remember any censorship during any previous election. This one reeks of voter fraud and mass manipulation to the nth degree. At least Gore got his recount of paper ballots to be sure, Trump has been dealt a recount using the same corrupt machines that counted the votes the first time. If there are no verifiable paper ballots, you don't have any recourse for potential fraud that may have occurred.

In my area, there was a very secure easy to verify paper ballot that was generated and could be used in a recount if necessary. When it comes to mail-in ballots, the level of security for verification of the vote goes way down. Mail-in ballots were never meant to be used on a mass scale as they were used in this particular election. I don't think they should ever be used in mass like that ever again for this very reason.

I wonder how many voters died from voting in person this year? Let's ask the fact checkers.

 

[moke123]

Biden had virtually no one attend his pathetic rallies and Trump had massive turn out and enthusiasm at his. The media played this down so much that many don't even know that fact.

Yea, responsility vs. ego. Stamford Univ. study ties 30,000 cases of covid and 700 deaths to trump rallies.
Heres the fox news version cause I know you trust them https://www.fox5ny.com/news/study-trump-rallies-caused-over-30000-covid-cases-led-to-over-700-deaths

There are currently some very serious anomalies being litigated in those swing states that could very well account for SJ getting all those votes that were reported in those swing states.

Name them with details please. Not the Q versions.
Hope you dont mean the Sidney Powell stuff - "she claimed, with no evidence, a mass Democratic Party conspiracy to cheat in the election coupled with foreign interference by the ghost of Hugo Chavez, and mentions of China and George Soros thrown in for good measure."

The biggest fact that is undeniable at this point is that this is the highest amount of mail in ballots in American history. Accompany that with the lowest rejection rate for mail in ballots in American history in key swing states. This never happened before, EVER!

Without checking your numbers I would venture a guess that with all the publicity surrounding the issue people were more careful.

If there are no verifiable paper ballots, you don't have any recourse for potential fraud that may have occurred.

In my area, there was a very secure easy to verify paper ballot that was generated and could be used in a recount if necessary. When it comes to mail-in ballots, the level of security for verification of the vote goes way down. Mail-in ballots were never meant to be used on a mass scale as they were used in this particular election.

How is it different? Both in person (even Dominion machines) and mail in have paper ballots. There are several states that are mail in only.

I don't think they should ever be used in mass like that ever again for this very reason.

I think early voting and mail in is great. It increases participation.

I wonder how many voters died from voting in person this year?

probably not as many as from the super spreader rallies but who knows , its too soon to tell.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Yea, responsility vs. ego. Stamford Univ. study ties 30,000 cases of covid and 700 deaths to trump rallies.
Heres the fox news version cause I know you trust them https://www.fox5ny.com/news/study-trump-rallies-caused-over-30000-covid-cases-led-to-over-700-deaths

I have no idea how Stamford U decided they could attribute all these cases and deaths to Trump rallies since their methodology is a secret but you should at least note that Fox actually carries "news" whether it is pro-Trump or not and you can't say that for any of your other sources. If its positive for Trump and they can't spin it, they ignore it. Fox carries the bad with the good. I do wonder if there were any "mostly peaceful" demonstrations in nearby cities during the relevant timeframes. We already know that people doing contact tracing were specifically told to ignore these "mostly peaceful" protests.

I dropped a fact in another thread. However I couldn't find any reporting on it. The fact came from Giuliani's conference today with the PA legislature. How would you explain ~1.8 million ballots sent out but ~ 2.5 million returned? The numbers might not be exact but they are from PA's own data that they have decided to certify. I remember working through an office Christmas party because an important report was out of balance by $1.51. I guess 1.51 is more important than 700,000!!!!! What kind of people would certify something so far out of whack? I was actually looking for a report on the conference to verify my numbers but couldn't find any that included any facts. Who needs facts when you can read other people's OPINIONs?

 

[Vassago]

Mike, give it a rest. You can show recordings of him saying something and both him and his supporters will claim "fake news.".

Alternative facts? More like alternative reality.

 

[Pat Hartman]

More like alternative reality.

We do all agree on that. Some of us are living in an alternate reality

 

[moke123]

I have no idea how Stamford U decided they could attribute all these cases and deaths to Trump rallies since their methodology is a secret

Not a secret Pat. Heres a copy of the report https://siepr.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/20-043.pdf
The methodology starts on page 5.

How would you explain ~1.8 million ballots sent out but ~ 2.5 million returned? The numbers might not be exact but they are from PA's own data

I would explain it as 3,088,123 ballots were requested and 2,628,183 were returned as per this screenshot from the SOS's office.
I thought I responded to you with this already.

As far as Fox I always enjoy seeing studies and Polls (for what their worth)

PIPA also conducted a statistical study on purported misinformation evidenced by registered voters before the 2010 election. According to the results of the study, "... false or misleading information is widespread in the general information environment ..."[72] but viewers of Fox News were more likely to be misinformed on specific issues when compared to viewers of comparable media,[73] that this likelihood also increased proportionally to the frequency of viewing Fox News[73] and that these findings showed statistical significance.[74]

A 2007 Pew Research Center poll of general political knowledge ("Who is the governor of your state?", "Who is the President of Russia?") indicated that Fox News Channel viewers scored 35% in the high-knowledge area, the same as the national average. This was not significantly different than local news, network news and morning news, and was slightly lower than CNN, standing for "Cable News Network" (41%). Viewers of The O'Reilly Factor (51%) scored in the high category along with Rush Limbaugh (50%), NPR (51%), major newspapers (54%), Newshour with Jim Lehrer (53%) The Daily Show (54%) and The Colbert Report (54%).[75]

A 2010 Stanford University survey found "more exposure to Fox News was associated with more rejection of many mainstream scientists' claims about global warming, [and] with less trust in scientists".[76] A 2011 Kaiser Family Foundation survey on U.S. misperceptions about health care reform found that Fox News viewers had a poorer understanding of the new laws and were more likely to believe in falsehoods about the Affordable Care Act such as cuts to Medicare benefits and the death panel myth.[77] A 2010 Ohio State University study of public misperceptions about the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque", officially named Park51, found that viewers who relied on Fox News were 66% more likely to believe incorrect rumors than those with a "low reliance" on Fox News.[78]

In 2011, a study by Fairleigh Dickinson University found that New Jersey Fox News viewers were less well informed than people who did not watch any news at all. The study employed objective questions, such as whether Hosni Mubarak was still in power in Egypt.

 

[Pat Hartman]

The methodology starts on page 5.

They found what they wanted to find.
- they didn't look for other events such as "mostly peaceful" demonstrations going on in the same counties or weddings or funerals or fairs, etc.
- they didn't look at testing rates before and after. We do know don't we that more testing = more positive results?
- they didn't identify whether the people who were testing positive actually attended a rally or were in contact with someone who did.

They took isolated statistics and assumed a correlation. There was no control.

 

[Pat Hartman]

I came across some interesting videos today.

Arizona audit of Dominion software and equipment

Testimony, cyber security on Dominion system counts

The voice of reason - probable cause. Who is supposed to find the evidence? Listen at minute 41-43 to hear democrat's opinion of Dominion before they realized the fix was in for their guy.

 

[Jon]

Did Stanford do a study on how many deaths were attributed to the BLM demonstrations? Even The Guardian, a left wing UK newspaper, had an article calling out their own hypocrisy on this, where mass gatherings for demonstrations were ignored, yet it was against the left wing position on social distancing and avoiding large groups.

Rule for thee but not for me.

When someone keeps saying one thing but does another, their credibility is shot.

 

[moke123]

Apparently not. I'm rushed for time but found this article. Only skimmed it but it seems to say the demonstrations were not a big contributor.

Racial justice protests were not a major cause of COVID-19 infection surges, new national study suggests

States that had some of the largest protests in May and June were also among the least likely to report a surge in cases of COVID-19 in subsequent months, according to a new national study by Northeastern, Harvard, Northwestern, and Rutgers.

news.northeastern.edu

 

[Jon]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but you seem to be skimming to find anything that supports the "Trump is guilty"narrative, rather than giving a fair representation of the truth.

Their argument for why protests were not that damaging also applies to Trump rallies too:

“We’re not saying the protests didn’t cause more cases, an assessment that will require substantial, additional analyses” he added. “It’s just that if they were the key drivers, then you would expect the places that had the most protesters to have the biggest surge, and, in fact, the opposite is the case.”

One possible explanation may lie in the increasing scientific consensus that indoor proximity may be the dominant path in the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19.

“As such,” the study found, “it is possible that proximity outdoors might not have a major impact on spread.”

They are arguing that because the protests were outside, it doesn't have much of an impact. Unless, of course, it is a Trump rally where although it is outside, it is still not ok.

One rule for thee but not for me.

 

[moke123]

as I said I didnt have a chance to read the article in depth nor search for other articles, I believe the differences being that the protests are outside, people are more mobile, not stationary, and a larger percentage of the people are wearing masks. At the trump rallies they are often seated, less mobile, and not wearing masks even though they may be outside. Trump also held several indoor rallies whereas none of the protests were inside that I can recall.

 

[Jon]

I believe the differences being that the protests are outside, people are more mobile, not stationary, and a larger percentage of the people are wearing masks.

Do you mean like these social distancers?

Source: voanews.com

Not sure why moving as opposed to being stationary means you receive less air particles. Doesn't moving mean you get exposed to a wider variety of air particles, thus increasing your risk? If I walk through town, I am sure my risk goes up as opposed to just standing still. If I sit next to one person, I don't get exposed to many people. Can you explain to me why moving through vast numbers of people reduces your risk, even though you are exposing yourself to more people?

Trump also held several indoor rallies whereas none of the protests were inside that I can recall.

Do you mean like these decent law abiding citizens?

Video clip of the above incident:

So is the advice you can wear a mask OR social distance? I thought it was both, not take your pick. Or do you take your pick based on if you are talking about Trump rallies or BLM protests?

Didn't these peaceful protesters enter the restaurant, and therefore were protesting inside?

Is this how the left believe we should run society? I hope I am wrong. I don't believe we should be behaving in this manner, intimidating innocent people who are minding their own business. Yet Biden et al remained silent on the violence, with only positive things to say about the protests. Denying what happens when you have video evidence shows how much you care about the victims.

 

[moke123]

Biden has spoken up. Has trump?(the guy with the bully pulpit)

regardless of what they're doing, do you notice the difference in the photos? count the masks.

I dont think the guys with masks in this picture are wearing them because of the virus, do you?

Why protests aren't as dangerous for spreading coronavirus as you might think | Ashish Jha

Anti-racism demonstrations are the perfect scapegoat for a rise in Covid-19 cases, but science suggests their risks can be mitigated, says Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute

www.theguardian.com

Finally, although this is more preliminary, evidence suggests that if you’re going to be in a crowd, a mobile one is better than a stationary one. None of these three aspects will protect you from infection definitively – but together they offer a modest level of risk reduction. And compared with the risk of catching Covid-19 that is present in many jobs or other activities, such as working in meat-packing plants, outdoor protests are likely to be much safer– especially if we carry out testing, which can quickly reveal if the virus is spreading among protesters, as Massachusetts has done recently.

There are very few ,if any articles, past july - august.

 

[Isaac]

Biden has spoken up. Has trump?(the guy with the bully pulpit)

regardless of what they're doing, do you notice the difference in the photos? count the masks.
View attachment 87311

I dont think the guys with masks in this picture are wearing them because of the virus, do you?

View attachment 87312

wait, I see no masks anywhere, except the military ones.

??

 

[Jon]

Why did Biden take months to speak up about it? I think we all know why. He was losing political ground on the issue.

But wait, aren't we getting off track here? The Trump rallies vs BLM protesters were viewed differently by you regarding risk. Yet your own link to defend BLM protesters said outdoor groups don't have a big impact. So you were also (inadvertently) defending Trump rallies at the same time. And you remain silent on the social distancing requirement. How do you explain that? Do you think that social distancing is not a required during mass protests, and that masks give adequate protection? Or should we give them a pass because they are Democrats and it is only Republicans who should also social distance?

One other thing. How many went to a Trump rally? Do you realise that tens of millions went out to protest in mass gatherings for the BLM movement? The following article, dated July 3rd 2020, said that up to 26 million had protested. Yet the protests continued way after that date.

Black Lives Matter May Be the Largest Movement in U.S. History (Published 2020)

Recent polls suggest that about 15 million to 26 million people in the U.S. have participated in recent protests.

www.nytimes.com

Four recent polls — including one released this week by Civis Analytics, a data science firm that works with businesses and Democratic campaigns — suggest that about 15 million to 26 million people in the United States have participated in demonstrations over the death of George Floyd and others in recent weeks.

I think a little perspective is needed here. When you get tens of millions protesting in a middle of a pandemic, and those numbers were prior to widespread mask usage, and try to compare the risk posed by this to a fraction of people at Trump rallies, don't you think that is a little bit disingenuous?

To be clear, I have no idea how many people in total went to Trump rallies. Maybe a million? I picked that out of a straw hat. How many BLM protesters to date? 50 million? Another straw hat. But you get my point. If it was a 50 to 1 ratio, the BLM protests were 50 times more damaging to the effort to suppress death from Covid.

Focusing on a group of non-mask wearing Trump supporters may make you feel good, but it doesn't do anything to further your understanding of the big picture.