Majority Says Biden's Speech Was a "Dangerous Escalation" Designed to "Incite Conflict"

[XponentialChaos]

Was that an attempt at an analogy?

It sure was. Good job. You get a cookie.

 

[XponentialChaos]

I condemn your Vegetable Messiah all the time, Simp.

So you are a hypocrite.

Got it.

 

[scruffy]

Not according to the state houses, judges, etc, just the rabid trumpers without proof or proof being needed.

Dude, professors of statistical mathematics ALL OVER THE WORLD have pointed out the impossibility of the 2020 election.

The one guy from MIT calculated the odds of Biden jumping from 69 million votes to 81 million votes in less than an hour, at SIX standard deviations out.

That's one MILLIONTH of one percent.

The team in Holland puts the figure closer to 7 SD, because they took into account the likelihood of simultaneous shutdown in five states all at once.

And, if you're a mathematician, you can see the problem BY INSPECTION. All you have to is look at the graphs. At the moment of the voting glitch, Biden's curve jumps (in math lingo, it's "discontinuous"), whereas Trump's curve is smooth.

That means Biden got 100% of the mail in vote, and that sir, is entirely fucking impossible

 

[White 6]

Dude, professors of statistical mathematics ALL OVER THE WORLD have pointed out the impossibility of the 2020 election.

The one guy from MIT calculated the odds of Biden jumping from 69 million votes to 81 million votes in less than an hour, at SIX standard deviations out.

That's one MILLIONTH of one percent.

The team in Holland puts the figure closer to 7 SD, because they took into account the likelihood of simultaneous shutdown in five states all at once.

And, if you're a mathematician, you can see the problem BY INSPECTION. All you have to is look at the graphs. At the moment of the voting glitch, Biden's curve jumps (in math lingo, it's "discontinuous"), whereas Trump's curve is smooth.

That means Biden got 100% of the mail in vote, and that sir, is entirely fucking impossible

Then how come your shitty lawyers wasted their time on the court house steps without presenting real evidense and in some cases in front of republican judges, delined to charge cheating?

 

[scruffy]

Then how come your shitty lawyers wasted their time on the court house steps without presenting real evidense and in some cases in front of republican judges, delined to charge cheating?

Good question. Excellent question.

I don't know. I wish I did.

I do know the judicial bar for election fraud is "very" high, you practically have to catch someone with a phony ballot in their hand, or a receipt or something.

Statistical evidence is considered inadmissible because there's no specificity attached to it. (It's kind of like making a generalized threat without a specific target, the law considers it "vague", and they tend to look at statistical reasoning the same way).

But, as a matter of simple common sense, if you tell me the odds are 5 or 10% I go meh... could go either way.

But if you tell me a millionth of one percent, I pay attention. That's like the size of an atom compared to a yardstick, it's many orders of magnitude. In my view that number equates with "statistically impossible".

 

[Nostra]

So you are a hypocrite.

Got it.

You asked for where I condemn child rapists, Simp.
WTF do you think inappropriate showers with his daughter is? Why do you think his son calls him “Pedo Peter”?

 

[Nostra]

It sure was. Good job. You get a cookie.

Yes, a piss poor attempt.

Try again, Slopehead.

 

[White 6]

Good question. Excellent question.

I don't know. I wish I did.

I do know the judicial bar for election fraud is "very" high, you practically have to catch someone with a phony ballot in their hand, or a receipt or something.

Statistical evidence is considered inadmissible because there's no specificity attached to it. (It's kind of like making a generalized threat without a specific target, the law considers it "vague", and they tend to look at statistical reasoning the same way).

But, as a matter of simple common sense, if you tell me the odds are 5 or 10% I go meh... could go either way.

But if you tell me a millionth of one percent, I pay attention. That's like the size of an atom compared to a yardstick, it's many orders of magnitude. In my view that number equates with "statistically impossible".

I just prefer proof. Always have.

 

[scruffy]

I just prefer proof. Always have.

Evidence is evidence.

According to the physicists there is a small but significant probability that the electrons in your body could be off in some faraway galaxy at this very moment.

There is EVIDENCE that this is the case, although no one can actually "prove it", because no one can measure an electron. (Heisenberg proved at least that much).

So now, what do YOU say? You're here, right? You are in fact here, you're not in some faraway galaxy. Are you going to call the physicists wrong?

The physicists can absolutely prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the electron is delocalized, and you're essentially asking them to "prove" that it's in one specific spot. They can't. The best they can do is tell you it'll be near that spot about a millionth of 1% of the time.

Is it real? Yes it's real. Is it proof? Well... ask a physicist s/he'll say yes, but you... you might say WTF are you talking about and start laughing.

 

[White 6]

Evidence is evidence.

According to the physicists there is a small but significant probability that the electrons in your body could be off in some faraway galaxy at this very moment.

There is EVIDENCE that this is the case, although no one can actually "prove it", because no one can measure an electron. (Heisenberg proved at least that much).

So now, what do YOU say? You're here, right? You are in fact here, you're not in some faraway galaxy. Are you going to call the physicists wrong?

The physicists can absolutely prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the electron is delocalized, and you're essentially asking them to "prove" that it's in one specific spot. They can't. The best they can do is tell you it'll be near that spot about a millionth of 1% of the time.

Is it real? Yes it's real. Is it proof? Well... ask a physicist s/he'll say yes, but you... you might say WTF are you talking about and start laughing.

Heisenberg was not on the ballet, so this time his uncertainty principle was worthless.

 

[scruffy]

Heisenberg was not on the ballet, so this time his uncertainty principle was worthless.

Statistical evidence is still evidence, and in this case it is so blatant and so significant that it has to be fully explained.

In public, in a credible manner.

Anything less is thoroughly inadequate.

They shouldn't be throwing people in jail for accusations of election fraud, they should be explaining the fraud and proving there isn't any.

Which they have NOT done.

And they're doing the exact opposite - they're marginalizing the question and even trying to prevent it's very discussion.

Bad optics. Very, very bad optics. Very amateur from a professional political standpoint

 

[XponentialChaos]

You asked for where I condemn child rapists, Simp.

And you didn’t show me an example of one of those posts, moron.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Yes, a piss poor attempt.

Try again, Slopehead.

I don’t need to try again. You already failed the first time and nobody cares what you think anyway.

 

[Nostra]

And you didn’t show me an example of one of those posts, moron.

So you are try to convince everyone I have never condemned Pedo Joe?

 

[XponentialChaos]

So you are try to convince everyone I have never condemned Pedo Joe?

Yet you can’t post evidence of you condemning child rapists when they aren’t on the left? According to your reasoning, that makes you a hypocrite.

Looks like you’re slowly figuring it out aren’t ya?

 

[Nostra]

Yet you can’t post evidence of you condemning child rapists when they aren’t on the left? According to your reasoning, that makes you a hypocrite.

Looks like you’re slowly figuring it out aren’t ya?

That’s not how it works, Simp.

You made a claim. I called you out. You couldn’t bring a link to back up your lies so you threw out this moronic child rapist deflection.

Tell you what, I challenged you first. You bring a post of yours condemning Hitlery Clitknot for claiming the 2016 election was stolen, then I’ll bring a post of mine condemning a libtard child rapist.

Man up, Simp. Bring your post.

GO!

Or continue to prove you are just a Dimtard hypocrite.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Tell you what, I challenged you first. You bring a post of yours condemning Hitlery Clitknot for claiming the 2016 election was stolen, then I’ll bring a post of mine condemning a libtard child rapist.

I didn’t say a post of yours condemning a libtard child rapist. I said to post an example of you condemning a child rapist who isn’t on the left.

How can you claim to be against child rapists if you can’t produce such a post? Because you’re a hypocrite.

 

[Nostra]

I didn’t say a post of yours condemning a libtard child rapist. I said to post an example of you condemning a child rapist who isn’t on the left.

How can you claim to be against child rapists if you can’t produce such a post? Because you’re a hypocrite.

Thanks for proving you never condemned Hitlery Clitknot for claiming the 2016 election was stolen from her.

Dismissed, Slopehead.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Thanks for proving you never condemned Hitlery Clitknot for claiming the 2016 election was stolen from her.

Dismissed, Slopehead.

Thanks for confirming that you can’t provide evidence that you ever condemned a child rapist on the right.

I guess that makes you a hypocrite according to your own reasoning.

 

[Sandy Shanks]

Things could get real interesting around here real quick.

First, as a consequence of Donald Trump's theft of classified documents, and the legal confrontation over the special master ordered by a late term judicial appointment by Trump.

Then we have the Jan. 6 committee starting up again soon. It is investigating Trump's coup attempt to overthrow the elected government.

All of this just in time for the November mid-terms.

More on that as CNN reports, "As the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, attack nears its final chapter, members plan to meet in person on Tuesday and one of the most pressing questions they’ll address is whether the committee should formally request that former President Donald Trump and former Vice President Mike Pence appear before them."

However, it is extremely unlikely that Trump will show up to defend himself from the charges made against him. He will offer some B.S. excuse that the panel is partisan and his appearance would be a sham.

The panel is partisan because Trump and the Republican minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, wanted it that way.

CNN continued, "Such appearances are exceedingly rare in US history. According to multiple sources, the committee does not expect either man to testify, but some members and staff believe the invitations should be extended for the record."

“How do you create a historic record without including formal requests for the two top witnesses,” said one source familiar to the committee’s work.

"Members of the committee, including Chairman Rep. Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat, have consistently said they’d like to hear from Pence and would welcome Trump’s testimony should he offer it on their terms but internal discussions about formally reaching out to both men has intensified in recent weeks now that the panel’s investigation will soon come to an end, the sources said.

"A source close to Pence’s team told CNN that there have been intermittent conversations between the committee and legal counsel for Pence, but nothing has changed, meaning it’s unlikely he would testify."