Evidence Against Algorithmic Vote Flipping (no fraud)

[1836]

Since the other thread quickly spiraled downhill, here are the questions I'd like answered as soon as you have a chance to do so:

1. Why hasn't Ben Swann run a story if there is so much truth to this? He was interested in doing one, interested in looking at data, then didn't run a story. Is he part of the conspiracy?

2. Why are independent pollsters who poll before primaries and caucuses so darn right, as reflected by the Real Clear Politics average?

3. Where is the empirical data to support a stronger presence of Ron Paul support than shown by the final results?

4. Why hasn't a large clamor erupted from news websites that are friendly to fringe and conspiratorial causes, like InfoWars?

5. If this were true it would be the story of the century for some small-time reporter looking to make it big. Where are the news stories about these claims, where is the media coverage even from the independent outlets?

6. The 9/11 conspiracy, which has been proven false repeatedly, nonetheless has plenty of professors, researchers, scientists to endorse its claims. Why hasn't the vote flipping fraud conspiracy realized a large number of endorsements from scientists, mathematicians, statisticians, and people who would be in a position to lend credibility to the claims?

 

[drummergirl]

You are wrong.

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?

 

[drummergirl]

Since the other thread quickly spiraled downhill, here are the questions I'd like answered as soon as you have a chance to do so:

1. Why hasn't Ben Swann run a story if there is so much truth to this? He was interested in doing one, interested in looking at data, then didn't run a story. Is he part of the conspiracy?

2. Why are independent pollsters who poll before primaries and caucuses so darn right, as reflected by the Real Clear Politics average?

3. Where is the empirical data to support a stronger presence of Ron Paul support than shown by the final results?

4. Why hasn't a large clamor erupted from news websites that are friendly to fringe and conspiratorial causes, like InfoWars?

5. If this were true it would be the story of the century for some small-time reporter looking to make it big. Where are the news stories about these claims, where is the media coverage even from the independent outlets?

6. The 9/11 conspiracy, which has been proven false repeatedly, nonetheless has plenty of professors, researchers, scientists to endorse its claims. Why hasn't the vote flipping fraud conspiracy realized a large number of endorsements from scientists, mathematicians, statisticians, and people who would be in a position to lend credibility to the claims?

Stop demanding that others do your work for you. Go get the answers yourself troll.

 

[1836]

I just said that 5 professors agreed. Can you please go waste valuable disk space somewhere else?

Ok. What are the names of these professors? What university?

I can claim that X number of professors from some hidden university back up whatever the heck I say, and what kind of factual claim is that? I could be making it up.

If you have people willing to back up your claims who are in academic positions to lend credibility, then please, by all means, reveal who they are.

In terms of wasting disk space, please tell me which takes up more space on the forum owner's server: my few questions totaling about two pages of a thread, or your hundreds and hundreds of pages of this "data" with pictures included?

 

[TheTexan]

Since the other thread quickly spiraled downhill, here are the questions I'd like answered as soon as you have a chance to do so:

1. Why hasn't Ben Swann run a story if there is so much truth to this? He was interested in doing one, interested in looking at data, then didn't run a story. Is he part of the conspiracy?

2. Why are independent pollsters who poll before primaries and caucuses so darn right, as reflected by the Real Clear Politics average?

3. Where is the empirical data to support a stronger presence of Ron Paul support than shown by the final results?

4. Why hasn't a large clamor erupted from news websites that are friendly to fringe and conspiratorial causes, like InfoWars?

5. If this were true it would be the story of the century for some small-time reporter looking to make it big. Where are the news stories about these claims, where is the media coverage even from the independent outlets?

6. The 9/11 conspiracy, which has been proven false repeatedly, nonetheless has plenty of professors, researchers, scientists to endorse its claims. Why hasn't the vote flipping fraud conspiracy realized a large number of endorsements from scientists, mathematicians, statisticians, and people who would be in a position to lend credibility to the claims?

Most of these are appeals to authority

We don't take kindly to authority round these parts, no sir.

 

[1836]

Stop demanding that others do your work for you. Go get the answers yourself troll.

LOL.

If you guys aren't willing to answer serious questions from a serious critic, then your "analysis" has no footing whatsoever.

The other fellow RonRules just posted that 5 university professors from some university backed up your claims, and yet he is content to not name anyone because apparently, just claiming professors are endorsing you without naming anyone is good enough.

I'm asking real questions because I give a damn. If the theory proves to be correct, I'll be right there with you defending it. But I have my questions, too.

As I mentioned, whenever someone makes a claim, the burden of proof is on them.

I can say "we are all actually reptilian beings from another dimension," and then say to you "now prove that I'm not right." Can you see how horribly ridiculous that kind of thing is? And that's why asking someone to prove a negative is never done by intellectually rigorous claims.

 

[drummergirl]

Ok. What are the names of these professors? What university?

Since you apparently can't read, it's UC Riverside. Read the thread or stfu.

 

[1836]

Most of these are appeals to authority

We don't take kindly to authority round these parts, no sir.

You're correct! You're a smart fellow. I loved logic in college.

Nonetheless, while I phrased these questions poorly, there are legitimate questions within the statements.

 

[Oddone]

Algorithmic vote analyzers, they're ever so pious. Are they doing real science or confirming their bias?

 

[drummergirl]

This from a pretender who claims to know something about the way Texas was born.

I suppose if you'd been there in 1836, you'd have told Travis to prove that Santa Ana was coming.

LOL.

If you guys aren't willing to answer serious questions from a serious critic, then your "analysis" has no footing whatsoever.

The other fellow RonRules just posted that 5 university professors from some university backed up your claims, and yet he is content to not name anyone because apparently, just claiming professors are endorsing you without naming anyone is good enough.

I'm asking real questions because I give a damn. If the theory proves to be correct, I'll be right there with you defending it. But I have my questions, too.

As I mentioned, whenever someone makes a claim, the burden of proof is on them.

I can say "we are all actually reptilian beings from another dimension," and then say to you "now prove that I'm not right." Can you see how horribly ridiculous that kind of thing is? And that's why asking someone to prove a negative is never done by intellectually rigorous claims.

 

[1836]

Since you apparently can't read, it's UC Riverside. Read the thread or stfu.

Where are the professors, are they willing to come out of the closet or are they just anonymous? Because anonymous claims don't make for very much of a convincing endorsement.

 

[1836]

Algorithmic vote analyzers, they're ever so pious. Are they doing real science or confirming their bias?

Whatever side you are on on this topic, well done. Well done.

 

[RonRules]

Ok. What are the names of these professors? What university?

I told you what university. Read my posts. Check the Stats dept and the Poli-Sci dept. Both quite famous depts. I don't like posting people's names in forums, without prior permission.

We are taking full burden of proof responsibility, evidenced by hundreds of statistical charts, calculations and tables. And several reports.

What have YOU done?

 

[1836]

This from a pretender who claims to know something about the way Texas was born.

I suppose if you'd been there in 1836, you'd have told Travis to prove that Santa Ana was coming.

Ad hominem attacks don't really make your theory any more convincing.

Still waiting on the names of those professors and answers to those questions. Thanks.

 

[drummergirl]

Where are the professors, are they willing to come out of the closet or are they just anonymous? Because anonymous claims don't make for very much of a convincing endorsement.

You seriously expect people who already have full schedules and students and final exams to come onto a forum like this and deal with the likes of you?

You can't event show a shred of respect for your fellow human beings.

Go back under your bridge.

 

[1836]

I told you what university. Read my posts. Check the Stats dept and the Poli-Sci dept. Both quite famous depts. I don't like posting people's names in forums, without prior permission.

We are taking full burden of proof responsibility, evidence by hundreds of statistical charts, calculations and tables.

What have YOU done?

I've posted some reasonable, critical questions, asked you to explain why independent pollsters unaffiliated with Edison came to relatively correct conclusions before the vote was held, and I've explained to you that asking someone to prove a negative is really shitty for your argument, because the burden of proof is on you.

I've also asked you to quote me some credible authorities in academia to back up your claims.

I'm doing a lot for the liberty movement.

 

[1836]

You seriously expect people who already have full schedules and students and final exams to come onto a forum like this and deal with the likes of you?

You can't event show a shred of respect for your fellow human beings.

Go back under your bridge.

More ad hominem attacks. Again, not very convincing in context of how your argument is claimed to be so factual.

I don't expect nor even care if a single professor came on here and argued for your side.

But if some professors would be willing to put their names on statements relating to your analysis and your theory, then I suppose that would add a lot of credibility to your argument. Also, the article that you wrote, would you be willing to submit it to peer-reviewed journals?

 

[Oddone]

Personal attacks are always the first sign of a failed argument.

 

[1836]

Let me reiterate that while I am very critical, I have absolutely nothing against you guys personally. This is all about your argument, which seems to be false to me, in light of some things I have pointed out. I have also pointed out that I feel this is a conspiracy which hurts the movement. I have done all of this honestly and without playing politics as to my true feelings.

I have no doubt that you guys are ardent Ron Paul supporters and probably really good folks.

But if we are not able to have a serious discussion without you guys resorting to ad hominem attacks on me personally, that's not going to help your argument.

I'm interested in getting the information out there, and getting the facts to light. This has taken up a lot of space on the forum, and so I'm interested.

I apologize if you've taken any of this personally, apparently so. I have not made any statements about you guys personally, other than to challenge your argument. I don't claim to be the smartest person in the world or the room, I'm asking questions from a critical perspective.

 

[drummergirl]

You don't act like a real Texan.

And I'm serious; go answer your own rhetorical questions. Unless of course you are too lazy.

Apparently you are quite lazy intellectually speaking, because you only come on these threads once in a blue moon. You spout a bunch of pseudo-logical BS that has no bearing on the topic, create pages of crap for the analysts to sort thru, and get all butt hurt because we call you on your load of manure.

You want to know why Ben Swann hasn't touched this? Go ask him; I have no idea. I've never met the man. You expect me to read a man's mind? Are you insane? Really? I'm supposed to have magic answers for you because you cry like a baby?

Go back under your bridge.

Ad hominem attacks don't really make your theory any more convincing.

Still waiting on the names of those professors and answers to those questions. Thanks.