Re: Mass voter fraud for dummies
Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2020 10:48 pm
Permanent Portfolio Forum
https://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/
https://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11559
Yeah...
NNT (that is, me): Assume that a coin is fair, i.e., has an equal probability of coming up heads or tails when flipped. I flip it ninety-nine times and get heads each time. What are the odds of my getting tails on my next throw?
Dr. John: Trivial question. One half, of course, since you are assuming 50 percent odds for each and independence between draws.
NNT: What do you say, Tony?
Fat Tony: I’d say no more than 1 percent, of course.
NNT: Why so? I gave you the initial assumption of a fair coin, meaning that it was 50 percent either way.
Fat Tony: You are either full of crap or a pure sucker to buy that “50 pehcent” business. The coin gotta be loaded. It can’t be a fair game
(Translation: It is far more likely that your assumptions about the fairness are wrong than the coin delivering ninety-nine heads in ninety-nine throws.)
Exactly.Mark Leavy wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 1:24 am Fat Tony
NNT (that is, me): Assume that a coin is fair, i.e., has an equal probability of coming up heads or tails when flipped. I flip it ninety-nine times and get heads each time. What are the odds of my getting tails on my next throw?
Dr. John: Trivial question. One half, of course, since you are assuming 50 percent odds for each and independence between draws.
NNT: What do you say, Tony?
Fat Tony: I’d say no more than 1 percent, of course.
NNT: Why so? I gave you the initial assumption of a fair coin, meaning that it was 50 percent either way.
Fat Tony: You are either full of crap or a pure sucker to buy that “50 pehcent” business. The coin gotta be loaded. It can’t be a fair game
(Translation: It is far more likely that your assumptions about the fairness are wrong than the coin delivering ninety-nine heads in ninety-nine throws.)
Interesting parable. A few alternative aphorisms:Mark Leavy wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 1:24 am Fat Tony
NNT (that is, me): Assume that a coin is fair, i.e., has an equal probability of coming up heads or tails when flipped. I flip it ninety-nine times and get heads each time. What are the odds of my getting tails on my next throw?
Dr. John: Trivial question. One half, of course, since you are assuming 50 percent odds for each and independence between draws.
NNT: What do you say, Tony?
Fat Tony: I’d say no more than 1 percent, of course.
NNT: Why so? I gave you the initial assumption of a fair coin, meaning that it was 50 percent either way.
Fat Tony: You are either full of crap or a pure sucker to buy that “50 pehcent” business. The coin gotta be loaded. It can’t be a fair game
(Translation: It is far more likely that your assumptions about the fairness are wrong than the coin delivering ninety-nine heads in ninety-nine throws.)
News flash... votes do not have the same 50/50 probability as a coin flip does. Sure there are only 2 choices, but in voting the "coin" is always weighted to the side of the more "popular" of the two figures (especially in areas that skew heavily to one side or the other). This greatly reduces the odds to the point where they are actually pretty probable. Comparing a random coin toss to discretionary votes is apples to oranges.Mountaineer wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 10:15 am The probability of obtaining 100 heads as a result of flipping a fair coin 100 times is 1/(2^100) = 1/1267650600228229401496703205376 (1 on 1 nonillion 267 octillion 650 septillion 600 sextillion 228 quintillion 229 quadrillion 401 trillion 496 billion 703 million 205 thousand 376).
YMMV![]()
I think we were discussing just 99 times heads and 1 tails. It has to be only half that!Mountaineer wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 10:15 am The probability of obtaining 100 heads as a result of flipping a fair coin 100 times is 1/(2^100) = 1/1267650600228229401496703205376 (1 on 1 nonillion 267 octillion 650 septillion 600 sextillion 228 quintillion 229 quadrillion 401 trillion 496 billion 703 million 205 thousand 376).
YMMV![]()
For all PRACTICAL purposes, in the same ballpark as the example I posted.SomeDude wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 10:19 amI think we were discussing just 99 times heads and 1 tails. It has to be only half that!Mountaineer wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 10:15 am The probability of obtaining 100 heads as a result of flipping a fair coin 100 times is 1/(2^100) = 1/1267650600228229401496703205376 (1 on 1 nonillion 267 octillion 650 septillion 600 sextillion 228 quintillion 229 quadrillion 401 trillion 496 billion 703 million 205 thousand 376).
YMMV![]()
![]()
What are the chances Biden got 577k of votes and Trump got 3k in several huge vote dumps in PA as the data scientists pointed out in the hearing? Can you figure that out Mountaineer?
Agree, but the point of the analogy is that Fat Tony knows something is up because 99 out 100 is just so lopsided.pmward wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 10:18 amNews flash... votes do not have the same 50/50 probability as a coin flip does. Sure there are only 2 choices, but in voting the "coin" is always weighted to the side of the more "popular" of the two figures (especially in areas that skew heavily to one side or the other). This greatly reduces the odds to the point where they are actually pretty probable. Comparing a random coin toss to discretionary votes is apples to oranges.Mountaineer wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 10:15 am The probability of obtaining 100 heads as a result of flipping a fair coin 100 times is 1/(2^100) = 1/1267650600228229401496703205376 (1 on 1 nonillion 267 octillion 650 septillion 600 sextillion 228 quintillion 229 quadrillion 401 trillion 496 billion 703 million 205 thousand 376).
YMMV![]()
Right. And too many people here attribute a vote for Biden to mean support for Biden. Like I've seen people here say "there's no way Biden was the most popular politician of all time." Could it just be Trump was the most unpopular politician of all time across the whole population? Trump had the worst approval rating of any president in history. Sure he has an emphatic and very vocal base. But they are still a minority. Across the whole of the population, Trump was not a very popular president. I mean the pro-Trumpers "TDS" theory proves that they even know this. If hating Trump is such that they label an epidemic after it, is it really surprising he lost? A lot of votes for Biden were more votes for not-Trump than they were votes for Biden.glennds wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 11:29 amAgree, but the point of the analogy is that Fat Tony knows something is up because 99 out 100 is just so lopsided.pmward wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 10:18 amNews flash... votes do not have the same 50/50 probability as a coin flip does. Sure there are only 2 choices, but in voting the "coin" is always weighted to the side of the more "popular" of the two figures (especially in areas that skew heavily to one side or the other). This greatly reduces the odds to the point where they are actually pretty probable. Comparing a random coin toss to discretionary votes is apples to oranges.Mountaineer wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 10:15 am The probability of obtaining 100 heads as a result of flipping a fair coin 100 times is 1/(2^100) = 1/1267650600228229401496703205376 (1 on 1 nonillion 267 octillion 650 septillion 600 sextillion 228 quintillion 229 quadrillion 401 trillion 496 billion 703 million 205 thousand 376).
YMMV![]()
Here Biden took what looks to be 52% of the popular vote. So my point is that the "It's so lopsided I just know something is rigged" principle doesn't apply. In the overall scheme of things, it was still a close election.
I'd go further and say WAY more than "a lot".pmward wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 11:38 amRight. And too many people here attribute a vote for Biden to mean support for Biden. Like I've seen people here say "there's no way Biden was the most popular politician of all time." Could it just be Trump was the most unpopular politician of all time across the whole population? Trump had the worst approval rating of any president in history. Sure he has an emphatic and very vocal base. But they are still a minority. Across the whole of the population, Trump was not a very popular president. I mean the pro-Trumpers "TDS" theory proves that they even know this. If hating Trump is such that they label an epidemic after it, is it really surprising he lost? A lot of votes for Biden were more votes for not-Trump than they were votes for Biden.glennds wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 11:29 amAgree, but the point of the analogy is that Fat Tony knows something is up because 99 out 100 is just so lopsided.pmward wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 10:18 amNews flash... votes do not have the same 50/50 probability as a coin flip does. Sure there are only 2 choices, but in voting the "coin" is always weighted to the side of the more "popular" of the two figures (especially in areas that skew heavily to one side or the other). This greatly reduces the odds to the point where they are actually pretty probable. Comparing a random coin toss to discretionary votes is apples to oranges.Mountaineer wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 10:15 am The probability of obtaining 100 heads as a result of flipping a fair coin 100 times is 1/(2^100) = 1/1267650600228229401496703205376 (1 on 1 nonillion 267 octillion 650 septillion 600 sextillion 228 quintillion 229 quadrillion 401 trillion 496 billion 703 million 205 thousand 376).
YMMV![]()
Here Biden took what looks to be 52% of the popular vote. So my point is that the "It's so lopsided I just know something is rigged" principle doesn't apply. In the overall scheme of things, it was still a close election.
I'm sick...I just can't help myself.Mountaineer wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 11:48 am https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/20 ... _team.html
Interesting article.
Psychological projection is a defense mechanism in which the ego defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities by denying their existence in themselves by attributing them to others.
I am thinking you really might have Stage 4 TDS. The article was about the view of THE (alleged) US cyber security expert and you devolved it into another bash Trump screed. I could be wrong, and if so just please ignore my perspective.doodle wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:21 pmI'm sick...I just can't help myself.Mountaineer wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 11:48 am https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/20 ... _team.html
Interesting article.
How does one explain that the paper vote recounts in Georgia almost perfectly matched the computer count? From my understanding, each vote tallied on the computer had a corresponding paper ballot that was spit out at time of voting as a receipt to individual and handed in to election officials. If the machine counts were hacked, then there would have been a discrepancy with paper ballots...which there wasn't.
Also, do you believe there was massive fraud in the Iowa caucus against Trump? Or in the general election in 2016 where Trump claims he won the popular vote as well if you remove all the illegal votes? Do you think that Trump might be prone to lying and cheating in order to win...whether that be a game golf, primary elections, business, or general elections? Do you think that it might be a characteristic of his personality to do this? That instead of fraud across multiple states, voting systems, legislatures, and election committees that Trump could actually just be lying? Seems like if I were going to make a bet on whether incredibly complex (and poorly thought out fraud...given most likely senate loss) were to exist or Trump lost and is just lying...I'd probably bet on the latter.
En7ImnCWEAQZ9jh.jpeg
En7ImnEXUAMN6-l.jpeg
We know based on his behavior that Trump has a fragile ego and narccisitic traits. If I had to guess, I think that this psychological defense mechanism comes into play here.
Psychological projection is a defense mechanism in which the ego defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities by denying their existence in themselves by attributing them to others.
Since our system is not based on popular vote, fraud only needs to occur in a few cities in a few states. It will make results in those cities look statistically impossible though, and that's what the data experts are pointing out at these hearings.
That really is the question, isn't it. Like there is a definite line that would be crossed where I would recognize there is fraud. I'm not so sure on the other side. just like Trump, they had their mind made up there was fraud before the election even happened; before it was even possible for there to be fraud.doodle wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:52 pm At what point will you admit that Biden rightfully won? If supreme court hears the case? Or has that court been compromised as well. I'm just trying to gauge whether there is any amount of evidence that will be persuasive enough for you to dismiss fraud claims.
There are still people who believe the moon landing is fake, the trade towers was an inside job, the earth is flat. I recognize no amount of evidence is sufficient for some....
pmward wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:56 pmThat really is the question, isn't it. Like there is a definite line that would be crossed where I would recognize there is fraud. I'm not so sure on the other side. just like Trump, they had their mind made up there was fraud before the election even happened; before it was even possible for there to be fraud.doodle wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:52 pm At what point will you admit that Biden rightfully won? If supreme court hears the case? Or has that court been compromised as well. I'm just trying to gauge whether there is any amount of evidence that will be persuasive enough for you to dismiss fraud claims.
There are still people who believe the moon landing is fake, the trade towers was an inside job, the earth is flat. I recognize no amount of evidence is sufficient for some....
I'm right there with you. The burden is always on the accuser to prove guilt. It's never on the accused to prove innocence. The inability for an accuser to prove guilt in itself is the very proof of innocence.doodle wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 1:25 pmpmward wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:56 pmThat really is the question, isn't it. Like there is a definite line that would be crossed where I would recognize there is fraud. I'm not so sure on the other side. just like Trump, they had their mind made up there was fraud before the election even happened; before it was even possible for there to be fraud.doodle wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:52 pm At what point will you admit that Biden rightfully won? If supreme court hears the case? Or has that court been compromised as well. I'm just trying to gauge whether there is any amount of evidence that will be persuasive enough for you to dismiss fraud claims.
There are still people who believe the moon landing is fake, the trade towers was an inside job, the earth is flat. I recognize no amount of evidence is sufficient for some....
I wouldn't care except that it's allegations lacking evidence are corrosive to our institutions and democracy moving forward. I want the truth as well, I just place the burden on Trump especially considering his past propensity to cry fraud and history of lying and cheating. So far, besides elaborate statistical analysis that I'm not qualified to interpret I haven't seen anything convincing. The statistical analysis that has been posted here up until now has all been throughly debunked however....so past track record isn't good. I'm really relying on institutions and courts to sort this out. I'm shocked that when DOJ and Barr come out defending elections results that so many people are so quick to dismiss him as a liar and throw him under bus given Trump's past propensity to lie. I'm truly curious, when will it be enough evidence to convince some people? I really hope this goes to supreme court for the good of country. I'm afraid though that even that wouldn't be enough.
I'm 100% with you here. Aligns with historical behavior, facts, and logic!doodle wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:21 pmI'm sick...I just can't help myself.Mountaineer wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 11:48 am https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/20 ... _team.html
Interesting article.
How does one explain that the paper vote recounts in Georgia almost perfectly matched the computer count? From my understanding, each vote tallied on the computer had a corresponding paper ballot that was spit out at time of voting as a receipt to individual and handed in to election officials. If the machine counts were hacked, then there would have been a discrepancy with paper ballots...which there wasn't.
Also, do you believe there was massive fraud in the Iowa caucus against Trump? Or in the general election in 2016 where Trump claims he won the popular vote as well if you remove all the illegal votes? Do you think that Trump might be prone to lying and cheating in order to win...whether that be a game of golf, primary elections, business, or general elections? Do you think that it might be a characteristic of his personality to do this? That instead of fraud across multiple states, voting systems, legislatures, and election committees that Trump could actually just be lying? Seems like if I were going to make a bet on whether incredibly complex (and poorly thought out fraud...given most likely senate loss) were to exist or Trump lost and is just lying...I'd probably bet on the latter.
En7ImnCWEAQZ9jh.jpeg
En7ImnEXUAMN6-l.jpeg
We know based on his behavior that Trump has a fragile ego and narccisitic traits. If I had to guess, I think that this psychological defense mechanism comes into play here.
Psychological projection is a defense mechanism in which the ego defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities by denying their existence in themselves by attributing them to others.