@icedquinn it's only fraud if it elects the wrong person, otherwise it's just fortification of DEMOCRACY
so.. yeah. gonna just shrug while dems eat their crow.
@11112011 @icedquinn balance of probability the election was broadly fine imo, this sort of journalism from the guardian skeeves me the fuck out tho
@skells @11112011 i thought it was interesting how they all had that weird staccato pattern, esp. georgia having that weird F bump happen more than once. The amount of non-compliance with oversight was also not confidence inducing. And the amount of resistance to compliance with the audit (ex. trying to destroy evidence minutes before handing it to auditors) isn’t confidence inspiring.
In Salinas v Texas the court basically ruled you’re allowed to hold non-compliance and nervous responses as a sign of guilt.
@icedquinn @11112011
I know there's six ways til Sunday to cook up weird looking data but there was a lot of it and the suppression of the discussion makes everything look ten times worse.
I reckon both sides have played dodgy games for decades but the Democrats dialed it up to 11 for the last election. If there's a 5% chance that this stuff affected the election then you've got to improve that or you reap what you sow.
that article bragging about how they "fortified" the election was creepy af
problem is they're playing the innocent until proven guilty game. which is what courts use, but not what security teams use. if you use positive and negative empiricism, the negative arc looks absolutely fucking horrible right now (there is no proof of guilt, but there is a massive supply of actions being done that innocent people don't do)
@icedquinn @11112011 hit the nail on the head here imo
if your credibility is of the same order as trump's you've clearly shit the bed
@11112011 @icedquinn why is everything you say that isn't trolling impossible to read
@11112011 @icedquinn HAVE THE COURAGE OF YOUR CONVINCTIONS PATRICK, SPEAK YOUR MIND
