- Status
F
Freddy
Guest
An affidavit is not evidence. Neither is it proof. It says that someone believes that they have evidence which they may be called on to provide. The Trump team is continually classing the affidavits as evidence. I’ve just watched Powell talking to a news team saying exactly the same thing. And judge after judge is tossing them out.Freddy:
You seem to be missing your own words.
Do you not know what “evidence” is? It’s not synonymous with “proof”.
I have also just listened to Powell claiming that the Georgia Republican governor is in on this scam and, wait for this, has taken kick backs from Dominion for his part in it. And it gets more bat crazy…she also claims that the Democrats used the same system to cheat Sanders out of his election with Clinton and he was told about this and chose to say nothing! Whaaaat?
She rambled on about the fact that they will be using different varieties of ‘evidence’ in different cases in different states. Does she not know that just proving that Dominion is in on this will be the biggest story in politics ever? And she’s shuffling affidavits about and still calling them evidence. She is sitting on what she claims is proof of the biggest story in my lifetime and is still presenting claims by people who said they couldn’t stand close enough to those doing the counting.
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
Nobody is. Unfortunately, all the mud slinging will actually need to be cleaned off the wall before anyone can proceed. And you only need one guy and a gun and things go pear shaped very quickly indeed.
Last edited:
M
MNathaniel
Guest
With sincerely meant compassion I recommend to you the same thing I’ve been recommending to my grandma for months if not years now: just turn it off and do something else.
What concrete, specific good do you realistically expect to come out of your rapt attention to the TV right now, that outweighs the psychological impact of paying so much attention to it?
Is it soothing you? Is it equipping you to change minds (as evidenced by, in real life, you having conversations in which you effectively change minds)? What is the realistic significant effect of any of the specific minds you think you may specifically change? Do you think you’ll have the opportunity to talk to literal would-be terrorists and will literally convince such a person to not be a terrorist? Are you planning to talk to the lawyers involved in the cases and you think you’ll convince them to give something up? Are you, yourself, a lawyer specifically involved in one of the cases, or a policy maker obliged to make a sudden rapid policy or procedural move based on up-to-the-minute comments made by political figures in press conferences?
I sincerely pity those who are professionally obliged to be paying close attention to the minutiae of what happens prior to certification day.
Every other human individual on the planet, my recommendation is to turn off the TV; turn on some music; call a friend to chat about recipes; or movies, or old memories; go for a hike.
Give yourself permission to tune out. Mark a date on the calendar of a reasonable benchmark time to tune back in again.
I did this over the past few years. Turns out not much actually happens when you’re not looking at it. It’s 24/7 froth with only the rarest of actual new content, usually separated on a timescale of months, not minutes.
The last major significant date was Election Day. The next major significant date is certification day.
I wish everybody well during the meantime, which as far as I’m concerned is early Christmas-gift-brainstorming time.
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
I’m somewhat bemused by the fact that, either way this turns out (and it’s only going to go one way), it’s being treated as something that is only of incidental interest. That if we find something else with which to occupy ourselves for a while, when we come back everything will be fine.Freddy:
With sincerely meant compassion I recommend to you the same thing I’ve been recommending to my grandma for months if not years now: just turn it off and do something else.
You EITHER have a president of the USA who is trying to subvert the democratic process (with zero evidence) OR the democratic process actually has been subverted.
Either way, this is hugely important. And not just for the USA. The very basis of the democracy is being challenged. On the biggest stage on the planet. You can go for a walk in the woods if you like. Or catch up with some Xmas shopping. But I will be watching this intently and will expect those who are found to be, lets say - a little loose with the truth, held publicly accountable.
This is vitally important. More so than you seem to acknowledge.
Last edited:
M
MNathaniel
Guest
Where have I said that anything will be “fine”?
It obviously isn’t fine.
But me gluing my nose to the TV screen and hysterically tracking the minute-to-minute minutiae won’t make a lick of positive difference to either anyone else in the world, or myself.
Whereas checking in at reasonably distanced intervals (e.g. once a month, or at pre-determined and predictably important dates, or at spontaneous moments when world-changing news makes its way to me even despite me being generally tuned out of it) preserves me from the worst of the psychological hysteria that seems to thrash so many around, and still enables me to be adequately aware of key points.
If anything, I’m exposed to less misinformation, because I ignore the moment-to-moment stuff when media sources are making mistakes in their rush to beat each other to the punch. By the time I check in, there’s a solid list of settled facts to scan, with a richly textured body of evidence to browse if I so choose.
I can’t count for you how many times, during this year, my family have messaged me in near panic attack about what they just heard on the news – then it’s effectively ‘corrected’ by the same news station two days later, then there’s another tweak four days after that, then additional sources add their counterbalancing voices and by the time we get to my reasonable check in point, the same knowledge is available to all of us but I alone skipped past the hyperventilation, and my family has been unnecessarily miserable whereas I have been whistling and carrying on with my life.
This isn’t about pretending nothing’s happening or suggesting anything is fine.
This is about adopting a reasonable approach to navigating a world that isn’t fine, where things happen at a rate that realistically, you can keep up with by fairly infrequent check-ins, while missing nothing but misinformational noise and psychological stress. It was honestly a revelation to me when I experimented with tuning out, and realized to my shock how little (of concrete substance, below the frothy shrieky noise) actually changes, except approximately once per month.
I am not that important. Me watching football live and concentrating real hard won’t ‘help’ my team score a touchdown. And me watching the minutiae of talking heads screaming about press conferences and speculating about court cases and public unrest won’t ‘help’ the court cases turn out a certain way, or reduce public unrest.
If anything, by the simple act of tuning out, I reduce public unrest. Because I refuse to be provoked into unrest by the constant hysteria-stirring 24/7 news cycle.
I invite the whole world to join me.
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
This isn’t frothy, shrieking noise. This has become more important than the result of the election itself. Which was always hugely important. Treat it as you wish.
M
MNathaniel
Guest
As I’ve repeatedly affirmed, yes, things happening in the world are important.
And at the same time, it helps nobody and changes nothing important to psychologically exhaust myself or allow myself to be whipped up into psychological hysteria by watching the ping-pong match of 24/7 ‘breaking news’ headlines, most of which get eventually walked back or corrected or at least better contextualized with time. I still end up aware of the exact same information as everybody else. I just choose to receive it at reasonably scheduled mealtimes, not by 24/7 drip IV.
As you say though, treat it as you wish. If you believe that by passively watching the minutiae in real time (rather than going for a walk in the fresh air, playing board games, and turning in only to keep informed of substantial conclusions and outcomes, or opportunities for direct personal concrete action), you are somehow improving the world…?
I disagree, but we each choose our way in life. I hope yours goes well.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I watched his so-called explanation and it is clear the charlatan is just continuing to peddle his same faulty wares. I have no doubt that Dr. Shiva is a very educated man and that’s why I know he is not merely mistaken or misguided, but it actively seeking to deceive. I see that he has now introduced new variables (6 or 7 I believe) and talking about a parabola and all sorts of other obfuscations that make it difficult for the average person to see through his deceit, and therefore have to fall back on relying on him as an authority, which I believe was his intent all along.LeafByNiggle:
Apparently, Dr Shiva has posted a video addressing precisely Matt Parker’s failure to understand what was going on. Crucial point v Parker starts at 1:07:00 in the video, although at about the 45:00 mark he begins explaining the basic argument.HarryStotle:
Absolutely not! Do what Matt Parker recommended. Download the data from the Kent County website, put it in a spreadsheet, write the Excel commands that create the scatter plots, and see for yourself.
As for the response to Matt Parker, he didn’t give one. Oh, he mentioned Matt Parker, and thanked him for making plots of Biden, but those plots were of the wrong variable. They were of the made up subtraction variable, which has no meaning. He did not address at all the subsequent plots when the correct variable is used. He continues to point to a nonsense graph and claim that Trump is losing vote in heavily Republican precincts, when the data shows no such thing. If one carefully notes what variable, precisely, is on the X-axis and what variable is on the Y-axis, this becomes apparent. The deceit is in falsely characterizing what those axes stand for.
But here is yet another way to check. There were five other states in this election that had the option for straight party voting: Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and South Carolina. We should be able to check Dr. Shiva’s theory against real data from one of these states. If he is right, the same sort of plot will show the flat line that he says ought to be there. Isn’t it strange the he did not analyze data from one of these states just to show what a non-fraudulent dataset looks like? Instead he lulls people into imagining what his plot is supposed to look like for a fair election. Care to give it a try?
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Even 30% of Democrats think the election was stolen from Trump.
That kind of reduces the “majority” who voted “them in” by a bit, no?
It wasn’t a great majority that did so and now it appears that majority has been reduced. You may want to qualify your claim here.
That kind of reduces the “majority” who voted “them in” by a bit, no?
It wasn’t a great majority that did so and now it appears that majority has been reduced. You may want to qualify your claim here.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
That PJ Media conclusion about 30% of Democrats was not shown in the Rasmussen poll they linked to. Fake news.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Funny. The appeal to authority move is your bread and butter with reference to challenging claims regarding climate change. You consistently have stated that you are not sufficiently competent to debate the fine points of climate change so you must defer to the climate scientists.
Yet here, when it suits you, you refer to the vexing concepts that you don’t have the wherewithal to address as “obfuscations” and “attempts to deceive” because the average person has difficulty seeing through them. Right.
Climate scientists, like Michael Mann, deal with difficult data so we must trust them despite their stated attempts to deceive (Climategate), but election fraud proponents are dealing with difficult data so they are charlatans trying to fool and deceive us. Consistency is not your middle name, then?
Dr Shiva noted in both videos that they began with MI data because it was available and will begin working through the other states as volunteers join their project - you know, the Elections Integrity Systems (EIS) Project he spoke of at the end?
You definitely have a pattern of behaviour and “tells” when you run out of defenses. Impugning character is definitely one of them.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
That’s right. I have no expertise in climate science. I do understand mathematics and correlation though. But if you insist on my abandoning my understanding of mathematics, and arguing on authority in this case, I can do that too. Dr. Shiva no doubt is an authority. His competence is not being questioned at all. His honesty is. The fact is no other authorities are taking him seriously. Why is that? Is he the only competent analyst of election fraud? Why don’t other mathematicians take him seriously? Why don’t the courts take him seriously? Even on the basis of argument on authority, Dr. Shiva’s propaganda is dead.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Given that the full breakdown is only available to Platinum members, which I assume PJMedia likely is, I might ask if you are one and have confirmable evidence in your hands before you lob accusations of fakery.HarryStotle:
That PJ Media conclusion about 30% of Democrats was not shown in the Rasmussen poll they linked to. Fake news.
There is, however, sound corroborating evidence in the article that you are wrong besides being incendiary.
If 61% of Democrats think it not likely that the election was stolen, that leaves 39% who think it is likely or don’t know. The claim that 30% of the 39% think it is likely seems plausible.
I do know that you won’t attempt to actually uncover the facts before calling “fake news.”
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I do know that one should not call the PJ Media story any kind of news if it doesn’t make sense and no one else is reporting it. Given that PJ Media is a site for right-wing commentary, it is not at all surprising that they would misrepresent the data.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
That’s a strange claim given that I have already cited Valentine, who designed fraud detection systems for eBay, that does agree with him and several of Dr Shiva’s associates at MIT including one with a specialty in election systems fraud is working with him.
But on this question we must trust you who are not biased in any way, clearly.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Okay, it doesn’t make sense to you. We get that.
No one else is reporting it probably because like everything else the MSM reports it isn’t supportive of their narrative and it is likely flagged or banned by social media.
Do keep digging.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
That was not my preference. You were the one who wanted to abandon mathematical understanding and rely exclusively on authorities. I would be happy to go back to discussing the mathematics, which is really not that hard.
I do not see “MSM” as quite the slur you do. The MSM actually earned that first ‘M’.
Last edited:
D
Dan123
Guest
I too get concerned about things that have been made up about my opponents. For example I think it’s important we stop Republicans from spreading white supremacy, forcing women back into the kitchen, banning every religion except Christianity and reverting civil rights for racial minorities to how they were pre-1950’s.
Now see you’re probably thinking it’s absurd to think that, aren’t you. You’re probably thinking that’s a ridiculous caricature of modern conservatives made from a hugely biased, extremely uncharitable position and intended to incite disdain towards conservatives by those inclined to believe it.
I wonder if you own a mirror.
I think more people than I’d want to imagine will simply conclude that the Democrats stole this election. They’ll repeat in like-minded company and go through the rest of their lives convinced it’s the truth even if nothing of substance is ever presented.
I guess as a test case, Georgia certified it’s results yesterday. So is that matter put to rest now?
D
Dracarys
Guest
Pope Benidict said the following http://www.vatican.va/content/bened...s/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060330_eu-parliamentarians
I assume the organization you refer to got their list from the above. EWTN also listed the following
https://www.ewtn.com/vote/non-negotiables.asp
If you are a Catholic why would yo disagree with anything on the list? It’s very straight forward.
Why would he want to attend a meeting full of whiners who just want to bash him? Instead he started Operation Warp Speed. It obviously worked since, as President Trump said, we have vacinees. Pfizer had a government contract for billions of dollars but yet they waited till after the election to annonce. It’s easy to see whose side they are on.
It’s ridiculous to say President Trump doesn’t care about this nation. He is a patriot who served without taking a salary. If you look objectively at his record he did more to raise the standard of living for the people of this nation than the egotistical Obama/Biden administration did, and that the Biden/Harris will do. I shutter to think what these two clowns are capable of. Thankfully we have a Republican Senate that will limit what they can do.
- Status