News? Off twitter:

[Margo37]

While evidence is being discussed there are two distinctly different hurdles to leap in civil and criminal complaints...

In a civil suit it may proceed with only a "preponderance of the evidence"..

Criminal however requires "clear and convincing evidence".

The first is the civil suit and after that the criminal suit was my understanding and that the first would be heard before Tampa.
The lawyers were quite confident judging by the radio interview.

I hope too this goes somewhere, we've been disappointed so many times. Wish the MSM could be held to account somehow too but read elsewhere that's not possible yet they covered up a lot.

 

[trey4sports]

oh god. this shit makes us look bad.

 

[jay_dub]

oh god. this shit makes us look bad.

So says the guy with the tin foil avatar.

Sorry, I'm not picking on you. It's just funny to read that while looking at the pic.

 

[jcannon98188]

So says the guy with the tin foil avatar.

Sorry, I'm not picking on you. It's just funny to read that while looking at the pic.

My first thought too

 

[jay_dub]

My first thought too

 

[tod evans]

The first is the civil suit and after that the criminal suit was my understanding and that the first would be heard before Tampa.
The lawyers were quite confident judging by the radio interview.

I hope too this goes somewhere, we've been disappointed so many times. Wish the MSM could be held to account somehow too but read elsewhere that's not possible yet they covered up a lot.

In lawyer talk the attitude of the fellow speaking on the radio is described as "bluster" or "puffery"......

Just as the spokesman for the RNC is exhibiting the same behavior...

What I find to be VERY relevant is the team at lawyers for RP is doing the work pro-bono.

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

oh god. this shit makes us look bad.

lol

 

[jbauer]

Are you kidding? No one wanted to run against Obama the 1st time through. You could have put ANYONE including Ron on the "R" ticket and lost to Obama because people were sick of the R's in 08.

Devil's advocate: if Romney has any pull whatsoever over votes going his way, why wouldn't he take advantage of this in the '08 election?

 

[bcreps85]

Are you kidding? No one wanted to run against Obama the 1st time through. You could have put ANYONE including Ron on the "R" ticket and lost to Obama because people were sick of the R's in 08.

As I recall, the conclusion in the vote flipping thread on this was essentially that nobody wanted to run against Obama, but Mitt also couldn't afford an overly weak showing if he wanted to run this time around. He pulled enough votes his way to not have a pathetic showing, and then gracefully bowed out and turned the vote flipper up to 11 for 2012.

Nobody could have beaten Obama or Hillary in '08, not even Ron. It was all a hoax, but they marketed him very well...

 

[Barrex]

.....I imagine they will make the argument that this was unintentional when it is brought up in the court case....

Well, I'd guess that their story will be that they made the ballots but didn't test them and the whole ordeal was just one big accident.

You shoot someone on accident. What will happen to you?
You destroy someones property worth millions by accident. What will happen to you?
I exaggarated (or not) a little bit but are you getting where I am going with it?

In lawyer talk the attitude of the fellow speaking on the radio is described as "bluster" or "puffery"......

Just as the spokesman for the RNC is exhibiting the same behavior...

What I find to be VERY relevant is the team at lawyers for RP is doing the work pro-bono.

It is nothing unusual for lawyers to blow in their horns especially in "highly public" cases. You know what they say: "Public opinion is a permeating influence, and it exacts obedience to itself; it requires us to drink other men's thoughts, to speak other men's words, to follow other men's habits." Reality is that public opinion counts and lawyers use it as weapon in courtrooms from Roman Republic till today...


Pro-bono is certainly giving our side some good "karma" (oh God I forgot word that I originally wanted to use on all 3 languages...senility here I come...)

 

[Mini-Me]

As I recall, the conclusion in the vote flipping thread on this was essentially that nobody wanted to run against Obama, but Mitt also couldn't afford an overly weak showing if he wanted to run this time around. He pulled enough votes his way to not have a pathetic showing, and then gracefully bowed out and turned the vote flipper up to 11 for 2012.

Nobody could have beaten Obama or Hillary in '08, not even Ron. It was all a hoax, but they marketed him very well...

I find that explanation plausible, but Romney poured way too much of his own money into the 2008 race for me to be totally convinced he intended it to be a trial run all along. I suspect he thought he could beat Hillary (because so much of America reviles her) but saw the writing on the wall as Obama gained steam later on, then realized it would be wise to bow out. I'm not so sure about Hillary, but I would at least agree with you that no Republican could have beaten Obama in 2008. I think it might be interesting to compare statistical voting patterns between the early and later primaries from 2008, to see whether there were early irregularities that "went away" later on.

It's also worth noting that the Bain connection could be a red herring, even if the machines are rigged. It's entirely possible that the machines are rigged not in favor of Romney specifically but in favor of whomever the RNC puppeteers wish. A preference for Romney this year could hypothetically be incidental and due more to his media prominence from the beginning than to his camp's involvement. The algorithm itself could have also changed from 2008 to 2012 or been implemented for the first time this cycle.

The statistical abnormalities in the 2012 ballot data are interesting to me, but they also raise the question: Why on earth would vote riggers risk choosing an algorithm that gradually becomes stronger over the course of the day, instead of an algorithm that flips a relatively constant percentage of votes throughout the day? Then again, I just thought of three reasons that could answer that question too:

• Maybe it simply wasn't thought out very well from a statistical point of view, such that the programmer never expected anyone might notice a problem. It's not exactly the kind of thing you can broadcast to a huge team of people, so they can doublecheck it from every angle.
• Maybe it's adaptive, so the programmer didn't have to hardcode thresholds based on a guess. An early guess of Ron Paul support might have put it too low and made the flipping insufficient, and an overestimate could run the danger of being way too obvious in counties with low turnout. Ramping up the flipping as time goes on (as the total number of ballots increases) would fix this, and the algorithm would partially mask itself by appearing to reflect different voter preferences in small and large districts (where the votes take longer to tally)...at least until further comparisons refuted this conclusion.
• Maybe they didn't care whether any statistical abnormalities would show up. I mean, why wouldn't they thumb their nose at their victims when they know everyone is conditioned not to believe in "conspiracy theories?"

Anyway, I'm just musing here...
EDIT: ...based on a gross misunderstanding of the charts, apparently!

 

[bcreps85]

You shoot someone on accident. What will happen to you?
You destroy someones property worth millions by accident. What will happen to you?
I exaggarated (or not) a little bit but are you getting where I am going with it?

I understand where you are coming from, and completely agree. That doesn't mean others will though. My bet is that they will try to play the "it was an accident" sympathy card. Something along the lines of "Oh, we're so sorry...we're older and not familiar with vote counting machines and modern technology like the youngsters. It was just a simple mistake and these Ron Paul people blew it way out of proportion and we even got death threats! My family is too afraid to get a decent night's sleep...", etc etc.

We saw it in Maine with Cheater Charlie...we'll probably see it here. Franky, I don't even care if a few of these were honest mistakes (no way in hell they all were)...people who are idiots of that magnitude shouldn't be within a million miles of our elections.

 

[bcreps85]

... I think it might be interesting to compare statistical voting patterns between the early and later primaries from 2008, to see whether there were early irregularities that "went away" later on...

Anyway, I'm just musing here...

RonRules would be the person with the charts to compare the data you are wanting to compare. The anomalies were definitely present in '08, but I'm not sure if anyone has looked at specifically what you are saying here. As far as your assertion that more votes are stolen later in the day, neither chart axis in that thread reflects time. It isn't that more votes are flipped later in the day, it's more votes being flipped in precincts where more people voted. To me that is interesting because it makes no logical sense in taking a risk to flip a few votes where only 50 people vote. On the other hand, it might make more sense to take a risk if you can steal 10,000 from a specific location, etc etc. As I recall, it was like clockwork that if a precinct had over X amount of votes (somewhere around 240 if I recall), Romney suddenly got a huge boost that got larger the larger the precinct got.

Plenty of theories emerged on why this could be, but none of it stood up to analysis. It was suggested that people in more populous areas might prefer Romney, for example, and to see if that was true someone took poll data that had data for Rural, Urban, and Suburban areas from three states and averaged them out...low and behold, Paul was similarly preferred (within 1%) in all of these areas. So was Romney.

I can't say for sure if the thread is the "smoking gun", but I can say there are enough peculiarities to make me go "hmmmm".

 

[Mini-Me]

Are you sure we're talking about the same charts? On the charts I was looking at, I was under the impression the X axis measured votes counted (and reported), and the Y axis measured each candidate's share of support at that stage in the counting...which would make the X axis function as a measure of time. Larger districts would tend to be reported later (since they have more votes), so the X axis would also indirectly vary from "only small districts counted" at the left and "all districts counted" at the far right. We could be talking about different charts though.

Ah, I see: We're probably talking about the same charts, but one of us is indeed confused about the X axis. It depends on whether "votes counted" means "votes counted over time" or "votes counted in the district this data point applies to." I actually have no idea which, since I haven't read enough of the threads...hrm.

 

[bcreps85]

Are you sure we're talking about the same charts? On the charts I was looking at, I was under the impression the X axis measured votes counted (and reported), and the Y axis measured each candidate's share of support at that stage in the counting...which would make the X axis function as a measure of time. Larger districts would tend to be reported later (since they have more votes), so the X axis would also indirectly vary from "only small districts counted" at the left and "all districts counted" at the far right.

If you're talking about the hundred page thread on vote flipping, then I'm sure we are talking about the same thing. The X axis was sorted by precinct from least votes to most votes, not the order in which votes came in. Logic would dictate that smaller precincts would report first, but there are plenty of reasons why that may not happen. He got all of the data well after the polls were closed...they are generally just in a .csv format that does not reflect when the votes came in, and therefore there is no way to put any measure of time into the charts. Feel free to ask RonRules if you don't' believe me, but time was not reflected in those charts.

 

[Mini-Me]

If you're talking about the hundred page thread on vote flipping, then I'm sure we are talking about the same thing. The X axis was sorted by precinct from least votes to most votes, not the order in which votes came in. Logic would dictate that smaller precincts would report first, but there are plenty of reasons why that may not happen. He got all of the data well after the polls were closed...they are generally just in a .csv format that does not reflect when the votes came in, and therefore there is no way to put any measure of time into the charts. Feel free to ask RonRules if you don't' believe me, but time was not reflected in those charts.

Ah, okay. That was just starting to dawn on me as I looked more at the charts. I took "votes counted" to mean, "votes counted over time," when it really means, "votes counted in the precinct or district this data point applies to." I believe you now. EDIT: Actually, it doesn't even mean that...the X axis is cumulative, just not in an "over time" way, but in terms of successively summed precinct totals (presumably ordered by precinct size). No wonder I misunderstood it...

In that case, the data clearly shows lower Ron Paul support and higher Romney support in larger districts, which is what the detractors have argued all along (Romney is more popular in cities, and Ron Paul is less popular in cities). I've read proponents of the vote flipping hypothesis argue that additional data rejects the legitimacy of these demographic differences...do you know where I should look to find that again?

EDIT: Ah, I see. Historical data is used to dispute any legitimate correlation between precinct size and voter support for particular candidates, because the phenomenon is isolated to the 2012 elections, the 2008 elections, and an election in Louisiana where the guy in charge of the election just so happened to end up in jail for fraud. Any correlation at all is anomalous, whereas such a strong and pervasive correlation makes this election a statistical impossibility. Clearly, something is very different about the 2008 and 2012 elections. I suppose the alternative to fraud is that Ron Paul's unique candidacy has introduced a new and drastic correlation between candidate support and precinct size...but that explanation falls somewhat flat, since Romney's upward slope only comes at Ron Paul's expense in most states, and it comes at others' expense on occasion as well.

I'm up to speed now. It's amazing how much better I understand the whole argument now that I'm reading the charts from the right perspective...sheesh. At this point I think my biggest question is, "If this is the result of fraudulent counting, why would the caucus states appear to show this same correlation?" drummergirl suggests that if fraud is occurring, it must not be occurring so much with the local ballot counts as with the central tabulators. I'm several months behind, but the mystery thickens.

 

[bcreps85]

...I'm up to speed now. It's amazing how much better I understand the whole argument now that I'm reading the charts from the right perspective...sheesh. At this point I think my biggest question is, "If this is the result of fraudulent counting, why would the caucus states appear to show this same correlation?" drummergirl suggests that if fraud is occurring, it must not be occurring so much with the local ballot counts as with the central tabulators. I'm several months behind, but the mystery thickens.

We definitely don't have all the answers. Frankly, all I can say for sure is that *SOMETHING* strange seems to be occurring in recent elections according to these charts. Even if one argues that it doesn't show fraud, nobody seems to be able to explain why it is different from the vast majority of analyzed elections or why it always benefits Romney in these past two elections. For me that last part is key. If it were Gingrich in Georgia, for example, then Santorum in Missouri, I'd think that it might be something related to whoever has huge pull in a state...

The thing about the pattern is that it isn't always the same. There is a fairly recent post within the last 5-10 pages where RonRules makes a hypothesis about the three main patterns he sees in the charts and what he believes could be causing them. One of them he believes occurs when votes are manually flipped, one for when he believes ballot boxes are stuffed, and one for when he believes a computer somewhere is doing it (whether it is the tabulator, voting machine itself, or the SCYTL servers that these are all routed through over seas nobody has a clue).

As for why this would still happen in caucus states, just follow the foul play, back room counts, missing votes, extra votes, etc etc.

 

[libertyjam]

USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press
Today's Federal Case News Details My Investigation Of Bain Capitol's Hidden Ownership Of Company That Makes Voting Machines Switching Votes

^^^that is the guy who was tweeting about the 'upcoming case' now filed to unbind delegates, weeks before it happened. I mention that only as a reason I think he may actually have information about this.

today-
USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

If I was contacted by the FBI, even last night, about some election fraud evidence, I could not tell you - such investigations are secret

 

[sailingaway]

today-
USA_Patriot_Press ‏@USA_Free_Press

If I was contacted by the FBI, even last night, about some election fraud evidence, I could not tell you - such investigations are secret

well, between the tweet I posted and this last one, I learned to be a little wary of his tweets, but I haven't known him to actually lie about something, usually there was a truth in there somewhere.

 

[libertyjam]

well, between the tweet I posted and this last one, I learned to be a little wary of his tweets, but I haven't known him to actually lie about something, usually there was a truth in there somewhere.

I thought it was pretty much determined that this is Richard's tweets, or maybe his assistant?