What will the Supreme Court do with the Texas case?

[Libertarian666]

This question should be pretty relevant right now.

[Cortopassi]

tech, I will give you guys one thing, you are doing a damn good job of at least keeping me on edge biting my nails thinking OMG, is this really going to happen, are they really going to do this?

And let's play a game, if it does happen, what do you think will happen after? Let's see how many of these state vs. state lawsuits democrat run states can think up against the others for perceived injustices or whatever the term is.

Then we'll get to hear you talk about states rights again I bet.

[Cortopassi]

You've got a aptitude for math, tech. Can you explain the math here from the Texas filing?
------------------------
The probability of former Vice President
Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant
States—Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin—independently given President Trump’s
early lead in those States as of 3 a.m. on November 4,
2020, is less than one in a quadrillion, or 1 in
1,000,000,000,000,000. For former Vice President
Biden to win these four States collectively, the odds of
that event happening decrease to less than one in a
quadrillion to the fourth power (i.e., 1 in
1,000,000,000,000,0004). See Decl. of Charles J.
Cicchetti, Ph.D. (“Cicchetti Decl.”) at ¶¶ 14-21, 30-31.
See App. 4a-7a, 9a.

[D1984]

You've got a aptitude for math, tech. Can you explain the math here from the Texas filing?
------------------------
The probability of former Vice President
Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant
States—Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin—independently given President Trump’s
early lead in those States as of 3 a.m. on November 4,
2020, is less than one in a quadrillion, or 1 in
1,000,000,000,000,000. For former Vice President
Biden to win these four States collectively, the odds of
that event happening decrease to less than one in a
quadrillion to the fourth power (i.e., 1 in
1,000,000,000,000,0004). See Decl. of Charles J.
Cicchetti, Ph.D. (“Cicchetti Decl.”) at ¶¶ 14-21, 30-31.
See App. 4a-7a, 9a.

See https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... -michigan/

A nice case of GIGO if ever there was one...when you start from wrong assumptions you shouldn't be surprised when you get a wildly wrong answer.

[SomeDude]

You've got a aptitude for math, tech. Can you explain the math here from the Texas filing?
------------------------
The probability of former Vice President
Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant
States—Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin—independently given President Trump’s
early lead in those States as of 3 a.m. on November 4,
2020, is less than one in a quadrillion, or 1 in
1,000,000,000,000,000. For former Vice President
Biden to win these four States collectively, the odds of
that event happening decrease to less than one in a
quadrillion to the fourth power (i.e., 1 in
1,000,000,000,000,0004). See Decl. of Charles J.
Cicchetti, Ph.D. (“Cicchetti Decl.”) at ¶¶ 14-21, 30-31.
See App. 4a-7a, 9a.

I'm not sure how they reached these numbers but here's a logical way to measure it. Say you've got 1 million votes in and its 510k for Trump and 490k for Biden. Then after election day you "find" 21k more votes and they're all for Biden. So in the end its 511k for Biden and 510k for Trump. Nothing suspicious about the final numbers.....

However, the chance that the first million were 51-49 Trump and the last 20k were all Biden (or statistically significantly different) is statistically impossible. The probability is measurable and i bet very simple for a statistician.

The "fact" that it happened in multiple places makes it more impossible (if something can be less possible than impossible).

If you believe the impossible happened you have something wrong with your brain or your heart.

This also applies to blacks in inner cities voting are certain percentage and turnout a certain way in thousands of urban centers then mysteriously being completely different in a few cites.

Again, probably very simple to measure and slam dunk proof of fraud unless a person doesn't understand the concept of statistical probability (or is a dem).

[doodle]

You've got a aptitude for math, tech. Can you explain the math here from the Texas filing?
------------------------
The probability of former Vice President
Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant
States—Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin—independently given President Trump’s
early lead in those States as of 3 a.m. on November 4,
2020, is less than one in a quadrillion, or 1 in
1,000,000,000,000,000. For former Vice President
Biden to win these four States collectively, the odds of
that event happening decrease to less than one in a
quadrillion to the fourth power (i.e., 1 in
1,000,000,000,000,0004). See Decl. of Charles J.
Cicchetti, Ph.D. (“Cicchetti Decl.”) at ¶¶ 14-21, 30-31.
See App. 4a-7a, 9a.

I'm not sure how they reached these numbers but here's a logical way to measure it. Say you've got 1 million votes in and its 510k for Trump and 490k for Biden. Then after election day you "find" 21k more votes and they're all for Biden. So in the end its 511k for Biden and 510k for Trump. Nothing suspicious about the final numbers.....

However, the chance that the first million were 51-49 Trump and the last 20k were all Biden (or statistically significantly different) is statistically impossible. The probability is measurable and i bet very simple for a statistician.

The "fact" that it happened in multiple places makes it more impossible (if something can be less possible than impossible).

If you believe the impossible happened you have something wrong with your brain or your heart.

This also applies to blacks in inner cities voting are certain percentage and turnout a certain way in thousands of urban centers then mysteriously being completely different in a few cites.

Again, probably very simple to measure and slam dunk proof of fraud unless a person doesn't understand the concept of statistical probability (or is a dem).

All of this coming from the statistical genius whose analysis put Biden at a less than 2% chance. So far absolutely nothing you have said or proclaimed as 'fact' has panned out in the least A normal person would go back to the drawing board and reevaluate at that point, but you just keep plunging deeper into the rabbit hole. Why should anyone take what you say seriously anymore?

[SomeDude]

You've got a aptitude for math, tech. Can you explain the math here from the Texas filing?
------------------------
The probability of former Vice President
Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant
States—Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin—independently given President Trump’s
early lead in those States as of 3 a.m. on November 4,
2020, is less than one in a quadrillion, or 1 in
1,000,000,000,000,000. For former Vice President
Biden to win these four States collectively, the odds of
that event happening decrease to less than one in a
quadrillion to the fourth power (i.e., 1 in
1,000,000,000,000,0004). See Decl. of Charles J.
Cicchetti, Ph.D. (“Cicchetti Decl.”) at ¶¶ 14-21, 30-31.
See App. 4a-7a, 9a.

I'm not sure how they reached these numbers but here's a logical way to measure it. Say you've got 1 million votes in and its 510k for Trump and 490k for Biden. Then after election day you "find" 21k more votes and they're all for Biden. So in the end its 511k for Biden and 510k for Trump. Nothing suspicious about the final numbers.....

However, the chance that the first million were 51-49 Trump and the last 20k were all Biden (or statistically significantly different) is statistically impossible. The probability is measurable and i bet very simple for a statistician.

The "fact" that it happened in multiple places makes it more impossible (if something can be less possible than impossible).

If you believe the impossible happened you have something wrong with your brain or your heart.

This also applies to blacks in inner cities voting a certain percentage and turnout a certain way in thousands of urban centers then mysteriously being completely different in a few cites.

Again, probably very simple to measure and slam dunk proof of fraud unless a person doesn't understand the concept of statistical probability (or is a dem).

[doodle]

Again, probably very simple to measure and slam dunk proof of fraud unless a person doesn't understand the concept of statistical probability (or is a dem).

Apparently you don't.... Improbable happens all the time.

Of course the numbers you cite are utter bullshit

[Mark Leavy]

Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.

9186E9B7-8BAA-4A38-BD40-48C6EF3DB235.jpeg (317.03 KiB) Viewed 1379 times