Twitter also put a disclaimer on a U.S. Senator who was quoting Kentucky Democrat Ed Pritchard https://twitter.com/Peoples_Pundit/status/132478060579671654... and blocked a tweet from @marklevinshow that merely articulated Art. II, §1, cl. 2 of the United States Constitution!
I just can't trust the results of MI, WI, PA. Hundreds of thousands of mail-in votes that arrive at 4AM after election day were just enough to change the outcome of the election. And how is that out of a batch of 130,000+ mail-in votes all of them were for one candidate.
Because trump told his followers to not submit mail in ballots. Since this has been pointed out to you multiple times I’m curious why you think his supporters would mail in ballots despite their candidates plea not to?
> occurred in front of hundreds of bipartisan observers
There is evidence that in PA and MI republicans were not allowed to observe the vote counting. Why are they not allowed to observe?
> There is no liberal conspiracy to steal an election. Trump made the same claim in 2016.
In WI, MI there hundreds of thousands of mail-in ballots all arriving after election day. And they almost entirely for one candidate. I don't remind this happening in 2016, or never in US history.
It certainly is a mystery why legally cast mail in votes (which are allowed to arrive after election day per state law in some jurisdictions) would sway to one party. It's almost like one candidate has been telling his supporters to, in no uncertain terms, not use mail in ballots.
Your other claim is literal misinformation.
Philadelphia City Commissioner Al Schmidt, a Republican: "Observers from the Democratic Party and Republican Party, from the Biden campaign and the Trump campaign, have been in our counting area observing, right up against where the process is taking place, from the very beginning" (he said this in response to a similar lie by Ted Cruz)
I would tone down the contrast/volume on your responses if you want to sound persuasive. I’m guessing this is showing up on Hacker News because of the data analysis methodology nature of the postings.
Benford’s law is a very well-established approach in forensic accounting to determine patterns of fraud. Is it appropriate to use in these cases, and was it used properly?
Selective analysis/p-hacking/cherry picking is a strategy all-too-often used in even scientific publications to exaggerate the strength of claims. Mathematical statistics itself, however, is pretty well-established as an approach to analyze data and identify outliers to gain insights. Is the author biasing the analysis with selective focus in a way that any objective observer would believe was unreasonable? Exactly how, and what would a more balanced analysis show?
Responses that identify methodological concerns with challenges to reported voting numbers in a systematic and thorough way would be of value to the HN community. Angry words that veer off-topic and provide only anecdotal information make you sound overly defensive and do not serve your cause well in this forum. It’s like running away from a dog, it only motivates the dog to run faster.
Just chill and address the points systematically. There aren’t that many points to address. Maybe it will take more than one post or a pdf of your own.
But if you skip a point, assume that the audience will interpret it to means that the post is correct on that point. Acknowledge if it is and move on.
I do love voting data. It collapses the wave function of political rhetoric...
> It's almost like one candidate has been telling his supporters to, in no uncertain terms, not use mail in ballots.
MI, WI, PA stopped counting votes on November 3. These states had the same candidate winning by 130K+, 300K+ and 700K+ votes respectively. It's remarkable that at about 4AM in Nov 4, WI and MI reported just enough votes to change the outcome of the election.
And there is evidence of people that was prevented from observing the vote count, and apparently some observers were kept so far away that they had to use binoculars to observe.
Given the emotional argument, here is another way to think about it - do you believe in the process and the court system? The person(s) most affected by it, the 2 candidates are making those calls. If you believe everything is corrupted and you cannot trust the system, then it starts sounding like a conspiracy theorist would.
If you want to discuss application of Benford law to election process, maybe a different tone would help.
The supreme court of PA changed the law months before the elections to allow non-postmarked ballots without signature verification to be received after election day.
Please tell us why this is a conspiracy theory. The article has references to the data sources, including web-archived snapshots of official government websites.
* Joe Biden has been in politics since 1972. Do you think someone who has been in office for so long without accomplishing much is going to come in and change everything for the better?
* Biden claims to be the candidate of the middle class, yet he takes millions of dollars from tech billionaires for his campaign. His commitment to the middle class is dubious after taking so much money from the rich. Once he gets past the election is payback time.
* Biden claims he would've handled the pandemic better than Trump. This statement is hard to believe after he was against the China travel ban that Trump imposed before most western and european countries. Trump was not the only one to initially belittle the pandemic hazard, there was also Biden and the World Health Organization.
* Biden wants to stop subsides for the oil industry and ultimately shut it down. Trump is for a balanced energy production system with both clean energy and non-renewables. Trump's focus on energy independence has lead to the lowest US energy imports in decades.
China is the epicenter of the worst pandemic in decades and does a terrible job in preventing it from spreading to other countries. Now China is trying to put senile, weak, and easy to manipulate Biden in the white house. There is unrest and suffering in most democracies for something that came out from a communist authoritarian regime. I hope the next US president imposes more economic sanctions on China, and I doubt Joe, who hasn't impose any sanctions in his 47-year political career, can get it done.
Yeah, they seem to be a good place to build apps, but certainly not better than my local dev environment where I have total control over my packages and commands. E.g. some of these are restricted or not even supported in repl.it: sudo, dnf/apt-get, Vim plugins
Shameless plug: I recently wrote a Ruby gem to get/post Wikipedia articles from the command line. Then I can use my text editor to edit the articles which is faster than doing so in the browser. To install it: gem install wikian. To see how it works visit https://rubygems.org/gems/wikian.
I use Vim. Thanks for mentioning edit conflicts, I had overlooked that important feature. Will add it to the next version of Wikian by comparing timestamps of the local and most recent revisions.
