Jump to content

the trump election lawsuit thread of dominance

henrygandorf

By henrygandorf
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

aggie08

aggie08 21515

Posted
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

I’d sure like to see the methodology at work behind that claim. 

It's steaming hot garbage. Like, embarrassing even for their standards bad. Shocking, I know.

https://mobile.twitter.com/imaybeskeptical/status/1336483431413407747

https://mobile.twitter.com/justingrimmer/status/1336448639862902784

(Sorry I suck at embing)

Edited by aggie08
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 10k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Bookman
Bookman

The rumor is that Alito and Thomas voted first, and then there was a dump of 7 votes. Texas expert says there’s only a 0.0039% chance of this happening.

Bama Chick
Bama Chick

Fuck Kayleigh and her headache and all the other enabling babysitters. I hope she hasn’t had a night with more than three hours of sleep for this entire year. I hope he texts her and calls her at al

Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand
Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

40 plus indictments, guilty pleas, convictions, prison sentences, and roughly a dozen fed cases borne of said investigation is slightly more than jack shit.

Posted Images

Francisco 2.0

Francisco 2.0 32413

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

It is also possible that TTom is a dry drunk.  He's been struggling with alcoholism for a while and seemed to refuse to accept AA.

An alcoholic can get sober, but if he doesn't adjust his ways of thinking and dealing with the world, sobriety can be worse than drinking.  AA is one way of doing that, there are some others, but they all require getting honest with yourself and coming to grips with things in your past, among other difficult personal work.

You described my ex FIL perfectly.  I was never around him when he drank, and he had sobered up when I met the ex wife for the first time, but he was a miserable son of a bitch, and I'm assuming he still is to this day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pato del Muerto

Pato del Muerto 52557

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

It's steaming hot garbage. Like, embarrassing even for their standards bad. Shocking, I know.

https://mobile.twitter.com/imaybeskeptical/status/1336483431413407747

https://mobile.twitter.com/justingrimmer/status/1336448639862902784

(Sorry I suck at embing)

And lol. Does the expert even claim What the campaign is alleging?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31521

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

I’d sure like to see the methodology at work behind that claim. 

The guy basically assumes that the outcome of the 2016 and 2020 elections were both random statistical events.  Like flipping a coin.  That is two separate instances of flipping a coin 100 times should be expected to yield 50-50 heads/tails.  Similarly, the D/R split in a state in two elections four years apart should also be similar.

So whatever variance in the two cannot be due to changes in voter behavior, but rather have to be shenanigans.

Also, they keep having all of these experts talk about how Trump led on election day before mail-in ballots were counted.  And that the deviation between the split on in-person votes and mail-in ballots is unpossible without shenanigans.

It is galactically, cosmically regarded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28596

Posted
Posted
It's steaming hot garbage. Like, embarrassing even for their standards bad. Shocking, I know.
https://mobile.twitter.com/imaybeskeptical/status/1336483431413407747
https://mobile.twitter.com/justingrimmer/status/1336448639862902784
(Sorry I suck at embing)

Don’t paste mobile Twitter links. Just remove the “mobile” from the link and if you’re on a browser, wait about 10-15 seconds for it to convert before submitting.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sidis

sidis 9832

Posted
Posted

so i have a bit of a unique insight into this dude's declaration because i have filed countless declarations providing statistical probabilities of certain events.  i have worked with and against a number of experts at brg, some of which are bright and competent and some of which are shameless whores.

the declaration that cicchetti filed is easily the most asinine thing i have ever seen proffered by an expert.  i've never dealt with personal injury shit and i am sure there is some seriously putrid shit in that particular arena but in general, my experience in commercial disputes covering o&g, ip, contracts, etc..., no one would possibly sign their name to such a devastatingly stupid piece of shit like that.

assumes the populations voting are precisely the same vis-a-vis clinton and biden, assumes that the mail-in ballots are normally distributed relative to day of voting, measures increase in absolute numbers of votes on a probability basis using z-scores - which is insane by the way and can be undermined by just applying the same methodology to trump's increase in number of votes to come up with the same outlandish probabilities.  

his null hypothesis requires that the voting populations in each state directly mirror 2016 or else it is all pointless.  

narrator: it is all pointless.

his conclusions could be applied to any comparison of state voting outcomes that are...wait for it...different from one cycle to the next.  if one applied his methodology to the changes in michigan and wisconsin from the obama-romney outcomes to the trump-clinton outcomes while requiring the hypothesis to assume the voting populations would behave precisely the same, one would reach the irrelevant statistical outcomes.

embarrassing shit.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cairn Horn88

Cairn Horn88 8279

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, sidis said:

so i have a bit of a unique insight into this dude's declaration because i have filed countless declarations providing statistical probabilities of certain events.  i have worked with and against a number of experts at brg, some of which are bright and competent and some of which are shameless whores.

the declaration that cicchetti filed is easily the most asinine thing i have ever seen proffered by an expert.  i've never dealt with personal injury shit and i am sure there is some seriously putrid shit in that particular arena but in general, my experience in commercial disputes covering o&g, ip, contracts, etc..., no one would possibly sign their name to such a devastatingly stupid piece of shit like that.

assumes the populations voting are precisely the same vis-a-vis clinton and biden, assumes that the mail-in ballots are normally distributed relative to day of voting, measures increase in absolute numbers of votes on a probability basis using z-scores - which is insane by the way and can be undermined by just applying the same methodology to trump's increase in number of votes to come up with the same outlandish probabilities.  

his null hypothesis requires that the voting populations in each state directly mirror 2016 or else it is all pointless.  

narrator: it is all pointless.

his conclusions could be applied to any comparison of state voting outcomes that are...wait for it...different from one cycle to the next.  if one applied his methodology to the changes in michigan and wisconsin from the obama-romney outcomes to the trump-clinton outcomes while requiring the hypothesis to assume the voting populations would behave precisely the same, one would reach the irrelevant statistical outcomes.

embarrassing shit.

So....comparing apples to oranges?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sidis

sidis 9832

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Cairn Horn88 said:

So....comparing apples to oranges?

more like...

i am going to assume that behavior in 2016 is an apple.

i am also going to assume that behavior in 2020 HAS to be an apple.

thus, it is statistically impossible that behavior in 2020 can be an orange.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pato del Muerto

Pato del Muerto 52557

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, sidis said:

so i have a bit of a unique insight into this dude's declaration because i have filed countless declarations providing statistical probabilities of certain events.  i have worked with and against a number of experts at brg, some of which are bright and competent and some of which are shameless whores.

the declaration that cicchetti filed is easily the most asinine thing i have ever seen proffered by an expert.  i've never dealt with personal injury shit and i am sure there is some seriously putrid shit in that particular arena but in general, my experience in commercial disputes covering o&g, ip, contracts, etc..., no one would possibly sign their name to such a devastatingly stupid piece of shit like that.

assumes the populations voting are precisely the same vis-a-vis clinton and biden, assumes that the mail-in ballots are normally distributed relative to day of voting, measures increase in absolute numbers of votes on a probability basis using z-scores - which is insane by the way and can be undermined by just applying the same methodology to trump's increase in number of votes to come up with the same outlandish probabilities.  

his null hypothesis requires that the voting populations in each state directly mirror 2016 or else it is all pointless.  

narrator: it is all pointless.

his conclusions could be applied to any comparison of state voting outcomes that are...wait for it...different from one cycle to the next.  if one applied his methodology to the changes in michigan and wisconsin from the obama-romney outcomes to the trump-clinton outcomes while requiring the hypothesis to assume the voting populations would behave precisely the same, one would reach the irrelevant statistical outcomes.

embarrassing shit.

He basically says that the 2016 numbers were 51/46 so in 2020 the voting should have been 51/46 and any deviation must be due to fraud, and it’s a quadrillion to one that it could vary from 51/46 Trump to 49.5/49.3 biden, because the late counted votes should be 51/46 and the mail ins should be 51/46 because of random distribution.  
when it’s obvious to anyone with a triad of synapses that the populations aren’t consistent or fixed (move in, move out, die  off, come of age, change vote, decide to vote, decide not to vote), and the distribution isn’t random (say of won’t be the same as early in person won’t be the same as mail in).

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
aggie08

aggie08 21515

Posted
Posted (edited)

Honest question: where do they find these people? Are they just adamant Trump supporters trying to use their education/careers to support him (even when their expertise is grossly exaggerated or irrelevant to their speculative arguments)? Is there money changing hands? Narcissists who like being called experts--however briefly--in court? Just straight up attention whoring?

Edited by aggie08
Link to comment
Share on other sites
'stache

'stache 21834

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

 

There is no clearer way to convey "This is a fucking waste of our time" than to write a one-sentence denial and nothing else.

image.png

Yup, Thomas and Alito have not been shy recently to dissent and write paragraphs in denying cert on right Wong religious suits, so their silence here is actually significant, including that only 4 justices are needed to accept cert and at least three of the six had to say “fuck off.” But qanon is probably ready to lunch then all including Thomas, their most valuable token, because dear leader lost the vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31521

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Yup, Thomas and Alito have not been shy recently to dissent and write paragraphs in denying cert on right Wong religious suits, so their silence here is actually significant, including that only 4 justices are needed to accept cert and at least three of the six had to say “fuck off.” But qanon is probably ready to lunch then all including Thomas, their most valuable token, because dear leader lost the vote.

This isn't a denial of cert.  That may be coming or not.

It is a denial of a requested injunction pending disposition of cert.  Still draws those little shitty dissent notes though from time to time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted
He basically says that the 2016 numbers were 51/46 so in 2020 the voting should have been 51/46 and any deviation must be due to fraud, and it’s a quadrillion to one that it could vary from 51/46 Trump to 49.5/49.3 biden, because the late counted votes should be 51/46 and the mail ins should be 51/46 because of random distribution.  
when it’s obvious to anyone with a triad of synapses that the populations aren’t consistent or fixed (move in, move out, die  off, come of age, change vote, decide to vote, decide not to vote), and the distribution isn’t random (say of won’t be the same as early in person won’t be the same as mail in).
Yup. Stupid and simple.

They ran a model on the mail in votes saying "if each ballot has a 46% chance of being Biden what are the odds that 80% of them go Biden?". Mind numbingly stupid. They absolutely know what they're doing and whoever ran the model knows it's absurd. But now you've got an army of morons who get to run around and say "quadrillions!!" and feel smart, which was the goal all along.

What a disgrace.
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pacman

pacman 7369

Posted
Posted (edited)

Well, by that logic, Trump cheated in 2016 as he should have never been able to flip the blue wall., accorfing to the same statistical comparisons of 2012/2016.

 

Heretofore, since we accepted Trump's cheating to victory in 2016, it is now acceptable to cheat in Presidential elections. So forth, Biden is accepted as the winner.

 

QED

Edited by pacman
  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Cairn Horn88 said:

So....comparing apples to oranges?

 

8 hours ago, sidis said:

more like...

i am going to assume that behavior in 2016 is an apple.

i am also going to assume that behavior in 2020 HAS to be an apple.

thus, it is statistically impossible that behavior in 2020 can be an orange.

Also, the genius who came up with this statistical analysis was shopping in the *marked down produce section and because some of the fruits are brown, there's no way those votes count, therefore they have to be tossed.

 

*NTTAWWT

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fudge Nuggets

Fudge Nuggets 19211

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, sidis said:

by the way, if any of you want to read this insanity, it starts at page 20 of the below:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163048/20201208132827887_TX-v-State-ExpedMot%202020-12-07%20FINAL.pdf

I like the part where he has a table showing the percent increase in early ballots.  Mensa there states an increase from 2.439MM early ballots to 3.958MM early ballots is an increase of 162.3%.  Now I know not everyone can get into Rice, but most know a 100% increase is double the original figure.  2 x 2.439 = 4.878.  4.878 < 3.958 thus the percent increase is less than 100%.  Ok, it's picking nits but goes to show another way this guy's work is sloppy and complete shit.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31521

Posted
Posted

In news that surprises no one, Mellissa Carone was a stripper at a Detroit-area club called Bada Bing that was shut down while she worked there because the manager and others tortured a customer in the basement.

https://australiannewsreview.com/star-witness-in-trumps-voter-fraud-case-in-michigan-used-to-strip-at-club-named-the-bada-bing/

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

In news that surprises no one, Mellissa Carone was a stripper at a Detroit-area club called Bada Bing that was shut down while she worked there because the manager and others tortured a customer in the basement.

https://australiannewsreview.com/star-witness-in-trumps-voter-fraud-case-in-michigan-used-to-strip-at-club-named-the-bada-bing/

When I used to lurk--wasn't there a section called Bada Bing?

2020 is the Ripley's Believe It Or Not year of strange.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

 

The case that 'everyone has been waiting for' ???  You sure about that, Mr. President?  It was brought forth by a guy who's about to be run outta office for helping a real estate shyster launder money.  May not want to put all your eggs in the Paxton basket at this point.  Ken's got his eye on other endeavors.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Neonmoon

Neonmoon 38130

Posted
Posted

What are the chances Trump breaks this after January 20th? Probably high. I guess like always, will anyone have the balls to prosecute

Quote

 

Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 742; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aggie08

aggie08 21515

Posted
Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, Bookman said:

The Texas lawsuit is MAGA tears! They’re so butthurt that the State of Texas has petitioned the highest federal court to file a lawsuit against Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia. 

Just think about that. This is real life.

Okay, I'm on board now. Watching these idiots get their hopes way up that this is the REAL* lawsuit--all the other ones were a purposely poorly rushed smokescreen--that will take down those cheatin' libs is a lot of fun. Since Trump declared this "The Big One" it's going to be truly crushing to them, and I can't wait to see how they spin the defeat.

*While simultaneously containing Mr. One in a Quadrillion's findings and the Michigan stripper's ramblings.

Edited by aggie08
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Okay, I'm on board now. Watching these idiots get their hopes way up that this is the REAL* lawsuit--all the other ones were a purposely poorly rushed smokescreen--that will take down those cheatin' libs is a lot of fun. Since Trump declared this "The Big One" it's going to be truly crushing to them, and I can't wait to see how they spin the defeat.

While simultaneously containing Mr. One in a Quadrillion's findings and the Michigan stripper's ramblings.

They will just say the Supreme Court is part of the “deep state” and move on to the next round of idiocy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31521

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Yeah but “ALL CRITERIA MET!!!!”

 

23 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

I am INTERVENING in this thread!!

He's such a fucking dunce.  As much litigation as he's been involved in, he should know more about it than he does.

I have longstanding clients that have been around the block a few times, many times fewer than teh Donald, that can analyze legal outcomes with pretty good accuracy.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...