You must have forgotten who decided that judicial appointments should not be subject to the filibuster. It wasn't Mitch McConnell. In fact it wasn't any Republican. It also didn't happen when Trump was President. No, it was Harry Reid, senator from Nevada, that wanted to get Obamas appointments confirmed without dealing with the Republican minority. That's why people say things like don't get rid of the filibuster, if you do, you won't be able to use it when the other side is in power.
Why in the world does Trump keep saying, ‘We don’t need the votes’? https://www.google.com/search?q=Tru...msung-gj-rev1&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
This seemed like a really poor analysis to me, but I've only taken a couple stats courses 35 years ago, so I found this on Reddit: The 1/2 ^ 88 figure, even under the asinine and factually wrong assumptions of independence and each state being an even coin flip, does not at all represent the odds (as improperly presented) that Donald Trump won the election legitimately. It represents the odds that trump won in the exact specific way that he did, which is an extremely important distinction. This is the same conceptual difference between the odds of you winning the lottery, and the aggregate odds of someone winning the lottery. If we conflate these two ideas, then it's impossible that anything ever has happened because we have to compute the joint probabilities of uncountably many variables taking precise values in a continuous sample space. And for any continuous random variable X, the probability of X taking any pointwise value in a set of measure zero is precisely zero. You even partially identified this point, but didn't make it clear how drastically that changes things. All this to say, the proper way to make this calculation, even assuming all those dumbass premises from the article, would be to use a binomial cumulative distribution function, not to take a pointwise probability. Give me a break. This thread has me shaken by the level of mathematical illiteracy. For the record, I hate Donald Trump and all his associates with every fiber of my being. This isn't bias speaking, it's just cold, objective mathematics revealing the inevitable truth that the article is a whole big load of bullshit, from which we can draw zero useful conclusions. Ragebait and nothing else.
That article only makes sense if the votes are determined completely randomly between Harris and Trump. In the real world, people choose who they vote for. Could you imagine them writing the same article about Reagan winning 49 states? Their minds would explode. Did Elon fire his space lasers back in time to 1984?
It's funny that I just had the same thought and did the math. Let's be very generous and assume Reagan had a 90% chance to win each state. 0.9 ^ 49 = .0057 Hmmm. Reagan had less than 1% chance of winning 49 states. This is very fishy, the election must have been rigged. Like the first article where they don't know tech and make bogus connections, in this article they don't know stats and draw poor conclusions. This is just not a case where you can multiply a series of individual event to get a probability. They are mathing wrong.
I don’t know if it is true, but there are some weird anomaly’s and a hand recount will simply answer that. Nothing wrong with a recount. Also I do believe Trump would cheat. DD
https://www.cbs42.com/business/pres...quested-in-lawsuit-challenging-2024-election/ The lawsuit marches on towards a hand recount. DD
It matters in a sense to make sure that nothing is compromised....just do the hand recount, let folks know the results were accurate and move on. DD
If it was hacked, what’s stopping them from doing the same thing in the midterms and then in 2028? we know Democrats will just accept the results and damn sure won’t do a January 6th republicans are moving like they’re not worried about future elections
Part 5 of the developing story. https://thiswillhold.substack.com/p...iPT_sZOj_dv4EBrl53_aem_b6pOe9dMc25NCQuvCcjA3Q DD
https://electiontruthalliance.org/analysis/pennsylvania/ The Election Truth Alliance is a non-profit, non partisan group that analyzes election fraud. Summary A combination of factors raise election integrity concerns in Pennsylvania. This includes, but is not limited to: Large-scale acquisition of names and street addresses of registered Pennsylvania voters occurred just before the 2024 U.S. Presidential election. This is concerning in light of severe election security breaches between 2020-2024, as such information (names and addresses of registered voters) could – in the wrong hands, with the right access – be used to falsify votes. Disruptions occurred across Pennsylvania on Election Day, potentially granting bad actors an opportunity to interfere with vulnerable election infrastructure. This includes bomb threats and machine failures, resulting in deviation from normal voting procedures. Comments made by Trump about “vote-counting computers” during a pre-inauguration rally in Washington, D.C. on January 19, 2025 – specifically, a reference to Elon Musk’s familiarity with such computer in relation to “winning Pennsylvania like in like a landslide”. Our analysis of Philadelphia, Allegheny, and Erie election results indicates patterns consistent with vote manipulation. These patterns are present in Election Day result data, but not in Mail-In Voting data, using multiple analytical approaches. This includes: Drop-Off Analysis. We compared Presidential election results to Senate election results relative to historic Pennsylvania voting trends. While the drop-off rate for Mail-In ballots is as expected, the drop-off difference for Election Day results is far more pronounced between the Democratic versus Republican candidates. One potential cause for a difference in drop-off rates is failure to interfere with multiple races to equal extents. Vote Share by Vote Count Analysis. We measured the share of the vote received by each Presidential candidate relative to the number of votes cast at a given precinct. In doing so we identified a disproportionate increase in the Republican candidate’s share of the vote in precincts where more votes were cast and counted. This is similar to what we saw in tabulator data from Clark County, Nevada, where machines that processed higher numbers of votes showed a visible skew in favor of the Republican candidate. Turnout Analysis. One candidate benefitting from unusually high turnout has been credibly associated with election fraud in other countries. In all three counties, we observed that the Republican presidential candidate received disproportionately more votes in precincts with unusually high turnout. A similar uptick in Trump votes in lower-turnout precincts is not present. Unusually high voter turnout may be cause for further scrutiny, in particular in relation to whether that turnout may have been artificially inflated through electronic ballot-stuffing. Hand Audits of Paper Voting Records Recommended. We are calling on state and local election officials in Pennsylvania to advocate for – and, for those with the authority to do so, undertake – full hand audits of paper voting records from the 2024 U.S. Presidential election in Pennsylvania. The goal of this exercise would be to ensure that paper ballot records match the reported vote totals, and that results as reported were not manipulated – electronically or otherwise. If nothing else, future elections must be safeguarded. The potential harm that could come from leaving an election unverified is far greater than the work it takes to conduct a hand-recount and verify the results. We are also launching a Call For Audits Toolkit to support regular people in reaching out to officials and representatives and add their voice to the call. https://www.newsweek.com/2024-election-results-lawsuit-documents-2091077 DD
