Just one ... what's the evidence for Balfour Beatty being part-owners of Scytl? I couldn't find anything that said that. Of course, they might just have covered their tracks really well!
Evidence Against Algorithmic Vote Flipping (no fraud)
- Thread starter da32130
- Start date
Just one ... what's the evidence for Balfour Beatty being part-owners of Scytl? I couldn't find anything that said that. Of course, they might just have covered their tracks really well!
1
1836
Guest
The conspiracy continues.
Nobody has yet explained why polling companies seem to get it so right with the final results.
Are they all in on the big conspiracy?
[mod edit] this post and others below were moved from another thread:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...or-the-occurence-of-algorithmic-vote-flipping
Nobody has yet explained why polling companies seem to get it so right with the final results.
Are they all in on the big conspiracy?
[mod edit] this post and others below were moved from another thread:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...or-the-occurence-of-algorithmic-vote-flipping
Last edited by a moderator:
RonRules
Member
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2007
- Messages
- 4,485
These guys pretty much matched the left side of my charts.
http://www.youtube.com/user/2012happens
Your guys matched the right side of the chart. Wonder why?
1
1836
Guest
Not simply Edison. Independent pollsters who poll before the primary. They get it pretty damn right, most of the time. The Real Clear Politics Average shows this.
If anything, Ron Paul has SIGNIFICANTLY outperformed his polling average. Are all the independent pollsters affiliated with Edison? Are they all conspiring to bring Ron's numbers down? Or does Ron Paul have 30, 40, 50% support or more and then everyone is missing it, except you guys pushing this conspiracy?
1
1836
Guest
Hm
Last edited:
1
1836
Guest
Hm
Last edited:
1
1836
Guest
Hm
Last edited:
RonRules
Member
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2007
- Messages
- 4,485
I never contacted Ben Swann or Alex Jones. I prefer dealing with people that know math at this point. Call UC Riverside for professors that back this up.
BTW, there's a "NO FRAUD" thread specifically for guys like you. Could you please ask them?
PS: Just so you'all know, poster 1836 was just bawwing about an hour ago: "Why was my thread removed?"
Last edited:
WTC7. Please, nothing else needs to be said. Stop ignoring science and reality, it isn't going away just because you ignore it.
1
1836
Guest
Getting personal are we? I have done a great deal for the liberty movement. I would expect more of a professional response from someone apparently so confident in his conclusions than to resort to personal attacks.
But then, perhaps your conclusions are the fabrications of wishful thinking.
1
1836
Guest
I won't argue about 9/11, as that's not what I'm talking about here. It's been discussed before on this forum rather extensively, and you can read my opinions in those threads from the past.
What cannot be ignored is that there's not a lot of statisticians and mathematicians who seem to be endorsing and approving of the vote flipping conspiracy.
Why is that?
Last edited:
They want to keep their jobs, why else? Money is the great motivator and enslaver of mankind. It keeps people in chains to those that control the supply of it.
TheTexan
Member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2011
- Messages
- 27,454
There's also an assload of economists who think the Federal Reserve is just awesome.
That said, I generally agree that the vote flipping probably is a fiction. That's largely irrelevant to my point though.
1
1836
Guest
Then why have a lot of professors gotten on the 9/11 bandwagon? Again, I'm not trying to start a big 9/11 argument. But you'd think that particular subject would be more controversial than claims of election fraud.
I have never argued or believed that election fraud is non-existant, just that this particular theory is entirely wrong.
You'd think that if it were so legitimate, at least a few people in a position to review these claims and approve or disapprove of them would be able to lend a bit of credence. Yet you've not seen that.
Just these same posters reiterating the same, tired old theories, based on some guise of empiricism and methods that have been shown to be cursory at best.
And if they're so great of methods, why not get some endorsements from prominent people in the fields of statistics or mathematics?
1
1836
Guest
Yes, but usually when you have a theory that's worth considering because there might be some intellectual rigor or legitimacy to it, you would have no trouble finding individuals in the fields that relate to the theory to endorse it.
RonRules
Member
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2007
- Messages
- 4,485
I've seen a total of 5 professors (all at the same University). All thought the data was highly suspicious. None dismissed it. Two wanted a Data DVD to continue the analysis.
If you're not sure about vote flipping, that's fine. I would not expect you to know about aerodynamics, but you trust engineers and scientists before you get on a plane.
So, just take these charts to a statistician, take the time to properly explain the X-Axis (Cumulative Precinct Vote Tally). If you are unsure on how to explain that, give them the nice 47 page document that Drummergirl put together and see what they say.
Report your findings here. Thanks.
Do you have reading comprehension problem? I believe the vote is being flipped and have said as much in many posts on this forum including this very thread!
TheTexan
Member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2011
- Messages
- 27,454
It's been some time since I've read this thread, but if I remember correctly there is some data that needs to be explained. Vote flipping may have been ruled out (by the primary vs caucus argument, for one), but I don't remember anybody providing a solid alternate explanation for that data.
Let them discuss, IMO. Free exchange of ideas, and all that.
1
1836
Guest
You're kidding me.
You're telling someone who doubts your claims that it is MY job to essentially PROVE A NEGATIVE? Prove that there's NOT a chance you're right?
If nothing else proves that you do not understand what empirical data is about, that's it right there.
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU GUYS. Show some statisticians who are willing to say "this is a correct analysis," and show some endorsements that lend some credibility to these arguments. You've spent hundreds if not thousands of pages of threads on these forums showing your data, now find some endorsements from credible academics.
As you mentioned, someone even wrote an academic-style article. Why not try and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal?
Also, I'd also like my questions answered, please.
Last edited:
Similar threads
