Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[CGVT]

But maybe, just maybe, they had to await the delivery of the Biden votes from the North Korean Ship to Maine and then hurry them to the swing state.

Jesus.

[THE_WIZARD_]

No voter fraud. None.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Do you believe in Santa Claus too?

[Mike]

How about Santa Fraud?

[Dr. Strangelove]

[TABLE="align: center, border: 0, cellpadding: 6, cellspacing: 0"]
[TR]
[TD]Professor in Texas lawsuit: Odds of Biden winning all four contested states ‘less than one in a quadrillion to the fourth power’


Joe Biden’s “victory” that was manufactured in the early morning hours following Election Day was improbable. We knew that. But when we put the numbers to the test based on known data and reliable prediction models, it turns from improbable to outright impossible according to a professor named in the lawsuit filed with the Supreme Court by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

Rutgers Professor Charles J. Cicchetti, Ph.D., worked out the numbers based on the lead President Trump had before vote counting was suddenly and inexplicably halted in the late hours on Election Day, only to be resumed in some cases without observers present.

Here is a very good refutation of the Cicchetti "analysis"

https://reason.com/volokh/2020/12/09...ity-at-scotus/

To arrive at Cicchetti's numbers requires you to make 2 hugely wrong assumptions:

1) Voters in 2020 had the EXACT same voting preferences as in 2016.

2) Voters who voted in-person have the EXACT same voting preferences as people who voted by mail.

As the author points out, you could have created an equally eye-popping statistic showing it's a statistical impossibility that Trump could win PA or WI in 2016 if you start on the assumption the final numbers "ought" to look identical to 2012.

[Mike]

Exactly. His model is based on historical norms. There were 100,000,000 votes cast prior to Election Day this year and one candidate told his supporters to vote in person. There is no historical data for that.

But what we learned is that when one candidate tells his supporters to not vote absentee, the absentee ballots tend to heavily favor the opponent. SCIENCE!!

[THE_WIZARD_]

Funny shit.

Continue.

[Mike]

Have you heard the one about Palmetto Barbie?

[THE_WIZARD_]

No

[Dr. Strangelove]

Here's a very critical takedown of the Texas lawsuit from Andy McCarthy, a guy who rarely criticizes Trump directly.

If you want to continue living in a fantasyland where this is a rock solid suit certain of victory, don't read it.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/12/texass-frivolous-lawsuit-seeks-to-overturn-election-in-four-other-states/

[THE_WIZARD_]

It's an exercise in futility. Of course fraud happened. More than a regular election for several reasons. Problem is it's not going to be provable to overturn anything...and they know it.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Donald Trump said he stole the Iowa caucus in 2016.

He spread rumors that his dad had helped assassinate Kennedy.

He questioned his citizenship and spread rumors that he'd actually been born in Canada.

He mocked his wife's looks

And yet here's Ted Cruz, a staunch "strict constructionist", happily volunteering to attach his name to another trash lawsuit that seeks to disenfranchise 20 million people.

You can argue that he knows it's a trash lawsuit and it'll never reach that point so he's actually not agreeing to much, but he's attaching his name to it and publicly urging it forward all the same.

Just in case anyone was still mistaken and thought Cruz had anything resembling a spine, integrity, or dignity.

[THE_WIZARD_]

...you know for $100 I know a guy that would put you to sleep...

[Mike]

Is it Ted Cruz’s dad?

[froot loops]

If fraud occured, it should be brought up in court.

[AlabamAlum]

Is it Ted Cruz’s dad?

The Canadian Grandpa Munster.