titan said:

---

Not really so huge a stretch. From the entities descrbed just by going by when they did get powerful, vs a date prior where they were not so, can get an idea then when. But your suggestion that even Trump was `selected' defies ready acceptance. Its easy enough to believe of more milquetoast moments like 41, W, and Zero. And definitely this guy. Okay.

---

See, I believe Trump was selected for several reasons. He was the perfect guy to divide the country. By dividing the country, the elites control us. We're only dangerous when we're united in a cause. Trump was selected to destabilize the country. The purposeful leak of COVID further entrenched the divide in the country.

To me, you can go back decades and see how "decisions" were made by politicians that pretty clearly had been made by much higher powers that stood to make trillions off those decisions. The Vietnam war, War on terror, COVID, Russia and Ukraine. I mean you can go on and on.

eric76 said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Artorias said:

---

As soon as you explain these...

---

---

Simple explanation to look-up for people who are critical thinkers and do not want to end up at their predetermined conclusions.

Michigan and Pennsylvania count in-person votes first, and only once all the Election Day votes have been tallied do they begin to count the mail-in votes.

FiveThirtyEight published a graph of the jump in votes in Wisconsin at 8:27 a.m. EST on Nov. 4 on its election live blog (here) alongside this explanation by reporter Maggie Koerth: "Biden was down in Wisconsin before the Milwaukee absentee results came in early this morning. The boost pushed him up past Trump, but the race in this state is still very, very tight."

---

Simplistic analysis shows you know nothing about statistics or auditing. That is statistically impossible, and even a simpleton can see that something is wrong there.

You're not as smart as you think you are.

---

Statistically impossible, you say? On what do you base that conclusion? Do you imagine that every precinct in every county should be uniform?

---

Based on the opinion professional auditors. These are the kind of anomalies that they look at for something being wrong.

Yes I expect that when someone turns in a mass of votes that big chunks of them will not be 100% for biden. That's statistically impossible. That's like flipping a coin and getting heads 100's if not 1000's of times in a row. People don't vote like that.

Jmiller said:

---

Verified ballots of registered voters still count, regardless of how they were delivered.

---

Sure. My apologies. I meant to say illegal ballot harvesting. As in my response to Eric - if you blanket send out ballots to every registered voter, does the opportunity for illegally harvesting a ballot increase or decrease?

Plausible from that perspective. Though its interesting they felt the need to divide so much. Would have thought apathy that accompanies economic improvement would be more useful. Of course given that outline, it doesn't mean the deciders are especially witty.

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Artorias said:

---

As soon as you explain these...

---

---

Simple explanation to look-up for people who are critical thinkers and do not want to end up at their predetermined conclusions.

Michigan and Pennsylvania count in-person votes first, and only once all the Election Day votes have been tallied do they begin to count the mail-in votes.

FiveThirtyEight published a graph of the jump in votes in Wisconsin at 8:27 a.m. EST on Nov. 4 on its election live blog (here) alongside this explanation by reporter Maggie Koerth: "Biden was down in Wisconsin before the Milwaukee absentee results came in early this morning. The boost pushed him up past Trump, but the race in this state is still very, very tight."

---

In a race decided by that tight, Trump's tally should have gone up similarly to Biden's. Or maybe a 60/40 split. But that dump looks like it went 20:1 against Trump. It defies logic.

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Artorias said:

---

As soon as you explain these...

---

---

Simple explanation to look-up for people who are critical thinkers and do not want to end up at their predetermined conclusions.

Michigan and Pennsylvania count in-person votes first, and only once all the Election Day votes have been tallied do they begin to count the mail-in votes.

FiveThirtyEight published a graph of the jump in votes in Wisconsin at 8:27 a.m. EST on Nov. 4 on its election live blog (here) alongside this explanation by reporter Maggie Koerth: "Biden was down in Wisconsin before the Milwaukee absentee results came in early this morning. The boost pushed him up past Trump, but the race in this state is still very, very tight."

---

Simplistic analysis shows you know nothing about statistics or auditing. That is statistically impossible, and even a simpleton can see that something is wrong there.

You're not as smart as you think you are.

---

Yeah, they are unsourced graphics on an internet chat forum. Not sure why people are having a problem seeing that fact. jk. I know why.

---

Can't argue the point, so attack the source...

I guess that is a win.

Okay why didn't the republican cyber ninjas find any fraud? And don't say they destroyed the evidence because the votes were still there for them to count. The ninjas counted the votes and came to almost the exact same number as the officials on election night. There were NO duplicates and NO dead votes.

Stinky T said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

Verified ballots of registered voters still count, regardless of how they were delivered.

---

Sure. My apologies. I meant to say illegal ballot harvesting. As in my response to Eric - if you blanket send out ballots to every registered voter, does the opportunity for illegally harvesting a ballot increase or decrease?

---

If all the ballets returned were verified ballots of registered voters, why does that matter? I guess that is a philosophical question. Some people believe in greater voter participation and some people don't.

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Artorias said:

---

As soon as you explain these...

---

---

Simple explanation to look-up for people who are critical thinkers and do not want to end up at their predetermined conclusions.

Michigan and Pennsylvania count in-person votes first, and only once all the Election Day votes have been tallied do they begin to count the mail-in votes.

FiveThirtyEight published a graph of the jump in votes in Wisconsin at 8:27 a.m. EST on Nov. 4 on its election live blog (here) alongside this explanation by reporter Maggie Koerth: "Biden was down in Wisconsin before the Milwaukee absentee results came in early this morning. The boost pushed him up past Trump, but the race in this state is still very, very tight."

---

Simplistic analysis shows you know nothing about statistics or auditing. That is statistically impossible, and even a simpleton can see that something is wrong there.

You're not as smart as you think you are.

---

Yeah, they are unsourced graphics on an internet chat forum. Not sure why people are having a problem seeing that fact. jk. I know why.

---

Can't argue the point, so attack the source...

I guess that is a win.

---

Yeah, that's not what that saying means. Your source is literally no source at all.

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Artorias said:

---

As soon as you explain these...

---

---

Simple explanation to look-up for people who are critical thinkers and do not want to end up at their predetermined conclusions.

Michigan and Pennsylvania count in-person votes first, and only once all the Election Day votes have been tallied do they begin to count the mail-in votes.

FiveThirtyEight published a graph of the jump in votes in Wisconsin at 8:27 a.m. EST on Nov. 4 on its election live blog (here) alongside this explanation by reporter Maggie Koerth: "Biden was down in Wisconsin before the Milwaukee absentee results came in early this morning. The boost pushed him up past Trump, but the race in this state is still very, very tight."

---

Simplistic analysis shows you know nothing about statistics or auditing. That is statistically impossible, and even a simpleton can see that something is wrong there.

You're not as smart as you think you are.

---

Yeah, they are unsourced graphics on an internet chat forum. Not sure why people are having a problem seeing that fact. jk. I know why.

---

Can't argue the point, so attack the source...

I guess that is a win.

---

Yeah, that's not what that saying means. Your source is literally no source at all.

---

Have you sourced the explanation?

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Artorias said:

---

As soon as you explain these...

---

---

Simple explanation to look-up for people who are critical thinkers and do not want to end up at their predetermined conclusions.

Michigan and Pennsylvania count in-person votes first, and only once all the Election Day votes have been tallied do they begin to count the mail-in votes.

FiveThirtyEight published a graph of the jump in votes in Wisconsin at 8:27 a.m. EST on Nov. 4 on its election live blog (here) alongside this explanation by reporter Maggie Koerth: "Biden was down in Wisconsin before the Milwaukee absentee results came in early this morning. The boost pushed him up past Trump, but the race in this state is still very, very tight."

---

Simplistic analysis shows you know nothing about statistics or auditing. That is statistically impossible, and even a simpleton can see that something is wrong there.

You're not as smart as you think you are.

---

Yeah, they are unsourced graphics on an internet chat forum. Not sure why people are having a problem seeing that fact. jk. I know why.

---

Can't argue the point, so attack the source...

I guess that is a win.

---

Yeah, that's not what that saying means. Your source is literally no source at all.

---

Have you sourced the explanation?

---

For something that never happened? No, I have not. But ...

Look for yourself.

https://www.azsenaterepublicans.com/cyber-ninjas-report

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Artorias said:

---

As soon as you explain these...

---

---

Simple explanation to look-up for people who are critical thinkers and do not want to end up at their predetermined conclusions.

Michigan and Pennsylvania count in-person votes first, and only once all the Election Day votes have been tallied do they begin to count the mail-in votes.

FiveThirtyEight published a graph of the jump in votes in Wisconsin at 8:27 a.m. EST on Nov. 4 on its election live blog (here) alongside this explanation by reporter Maggie Koerth: "Biden was down in Wisconsin before the Milwaukee absentee results came in early this morning. The boost pushed him up past Trump, but the race in this state is still very, very tight."

---

Simplistic analysis shows you know nothing about statistics or auditing. That is statistically impossible, and even a simpleton can see that something is wrong there.

You're not as smart as you think you are.

---

Yeah, they are unsourced graphics on an internet chat forum. Not sure why people are having a problem seeing that fact. jk. I know why.

---

Can't argue the point, so attack the source...

I guess that is a win.

---

Yeah, that's not what that saying means. Your source is literally no source at all.

---

That graph was widely reported. Never has it been questioned until now. Months after the fact you pretend like it doesn't exist and it was made up. ok. sure you're being honest.

You have no argument. you're attacking the credibility of the info because you can't argue against it.

That is what you're saying. It is what it means. I understood your argument correctly. AGAIN, you're not levitating above the rest of us. You're not as smart as you think you are.

Fivethirtyeight reported it live. It was just the live data. https://texags.com/account/profile/146591/photos#&gid=1&pid=1

Jmiller said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Artorias said:

---

As soon as you explain these...

---

---

Simple explanation to look-up for people who are critical thinkers and do not want to end up at their predetermined conclusions.

Michigan and Pennsylvania count in-person votes first, and only once all the Election Day votes have been tallied do they begin to count the mail-in votes.

FiveThirtyEight published a graph of the jump in votes in Wisconsin at 8:27 a.m. EST on Nov. 4 on its election live blog (here) alongside this explanation by reporter Maggie Koerth: "Biden was down in Wisconsin before the Milwaukee absentee results came in early this morning. The boost pushed him up past Trump, but the race in this state is still very, very tight."

---

Simplistic analysis shows you know nothing about statistics or auditing. That is statistically impossible, and even a simpleton can see that something is wrong there.

You're not as smart as you think you are.

---

Yeah, they are unsourced graphics on an internet chat forum. Not sure why people are having a problem seeing that fact. jk. I know why.

---

Can't argue the point, so attack the source...

I guess that is a win.

---

Yeah, that's not what that saying means. Your source is literally no source at all.

---

Have you sourced the explanation?

---

For something that never happened? No, I have not. But ...

---

You're too smart for us.

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Artorias said:

---

As soon as you explain these...

---

---

Simple explanation to look-up for people who are critical thinkers and do not want to end up at their predetermined conclusions.

Michigan and Pennsylvania count in-person votes first, and only once all the Election Day votes have been tallied do they begin to count the mail-in votes.

FiveThirtyEight published a graph of the jump in votes in Wisconsin at 8:27 a.m. EST on Nov. 4 on its election live blog (here) alongside this explanation by reporter Maggie Koerth: "Biden was down in Wisconsin before the Milwaukee absentee results came in early this morning. The boost pushed him up past Trump, but the race in this state is still very, very tight."

---

Simplistic analysis shows you know nothing about statistics or auditing. That is statistically impossible, and even a simpleton can see that something is wrong there.

You're not as smart as you think you are.

---

Yeah, they are unsourced graphics on an internet chat forum. Not sure why people are having a problem seeing that fact. jk. I know why.

---

Can't argue the point, so attack the source...

I guess that is a win.

---

Yeah, that's not what that saying means. Your source is literally no source at all.

---

That graph was widely reported. Never has it been questioned until now. Months after the fact you pretend like it doesn't exist and it was made up. ok. sure you're being honest.

You have no argument. you're attacking the credibility of the info because you can't argue against it.

That is what you're saying. It is what it means. I understood your argument correctly. AGAIN, you're not levitating above the rest of us. You're not as smart as you think you are.

---

I have debunk several of the claims, and provided real sources, but sure you're being honest.

You don't want to provide specifics because you probably know they can be debunked like all the other accusations.

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Artorias said:

---

As soon as you explain these...

---

---

Simple explanation to look-up for people who are critical thinkers and do not want to end up at their predetermined conclusions.

Michigan and Pennsylvania count in-person votes first, and only once all the Election Day votes have been tallied do they begin to count the mail-in votes.

FiveThirtyEight published a graph of the jump in votes in Wisconsin at 8:27 a.m. EST on Nov. 4 on its election live blog (here) alongside this explanation by reporter Maggie Koerth: "Biden was down in Wisconsin before the Milwaukee absentee results came in early this morning. The boost pushed him up past Trump, but the race in this state is still very, very tight."

---

Simplistic analysis shows you know nothing about statistics or auditing. That is statistically impossible, and even a simpleton can see that something is wrong there.

You're not as smart as you think you are.

---

Yeah, they are unsourced graphics on an internet chat forum. Not sure why people are having a problem seeing that fact. jk. I know why.

---

Can't argue the point, so attack the source...

I guess that is a win.

---

Yeah, that's not what that saying means. Your source is literally no source at all.

---

That graph was widely reported. Never has it been questioned until now. Months after the fact you pretend like it doesn't exist and it was made up. ok. sure you're being honest.

You have no argument. you're attacking the credibility of the info because you can't argue against it.

That is what you're saying. It is what it means. I understood your argument correctly. AGAIN, you're not levitating above the rest of us. You're not as smart as you think you are.

---

I have debunk several of the claims, and provided real sources, but sure you're being honest.

You don't want to provide specifics because you probably know they can be debunked like all the other accusations.

---

I'm glad you're conceding, and I know you won't be able to argue the point. Have a nice night.

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Artorias said:

---

As soon as you explain these...

---

---

Simple explanation to look-up for people who are critical thinkers and do not want to end up at their predetermined conclusions.

Michigan and Pennsylvania count in-person votes first, and only once all the Election Day votes have been tallied do they begin to count the mail-in votes.

FiveThirtyEight published a graph of the jump in votes in Wisconsin at 8:27 a.m. EST on Nov. 4 on its election live blog (here) alongside this explanation by reporter Maggie Koerth: "Biden was down in Wisconsin before the Milwaukee absentee results came in early this morning. The boost pushed him up past Trump, but the race in this state is still very, very tight."

---

Simplistic analysis shows you know nothing about statistics or auditing. That is statistically impossible, and even a simpleton can see that something is wrong there.

You're not as smart as you think you are.

---

Yeah, they are unsourced graphics on an internet chat forum. Not sure why people are having a problem seeing that fact. jk. I know why.

---

Can't argue the point, so attack the source...

I guess that is a win.

---

Yeah, that's not what that saying means. Your source is literally no source at all.

---

That graph was widely reported. Never has it been questioned until now. Months after the fact you pretend like it doesn't exist and it was made up. ok. sure you're being honest.

You have no argument. you're attacking the credibility of the info because you can't argue against it.

That is what you're saying. It is what it means. I understood your argument correctly. AGAIN, you're not levitating above the rest of us. You're not as smart as you think you are.

---

I have debunk several of the claims, and provided real sources, but sure you're being honest.

You don't want to provide specifics because you probably know they can be debunked like all the other accusations.

---

I'm glad you're conceding, and I know you won't be able to argue the point. Have a nice night.

---

No, go ahead and provide a specific example and I'll debunk it right now.

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Artorias said:

---

As soon as you explain these...

---

---

Simple explanation to look-up for people who are critical thinkers and do not want to end up at their predetermined conclusions.

Michigan and Pennsylvania count in-person votes first, and only once all the Election Day votes have been tallied do they begin to count the mail-in votes.

FiveThirtyEight published a graph of the jump in votes in Wisconsin at 8:27 a.m. EST on Nov. 4 on its election live blog (here) alongside this explanation by reporter Maggie Koerth: "Biden was down in Wisconsin before the Milwaukee absentee results came in early this morning. The boost pushed him up past Trump, but the race in this state is still very, very tight."

---

Simplistic analysis shows you know nothing about statistics or auditing. That is statistically impossible, and even a simpleton can see that something is wrong there.

You're not as smart as you think you are.

---

Yeah, they are unsourced graphics on an internet chat forum. Not sure why people are having a problem seeing that fact. jk. I know why.

---

Can't argue the point, so attack the source...

I guess that is a win.

---

Yeah, that's not what that saying means. Your source is literally no source at all.

---

That graph was widely reported. Never has it been questioned until now. Months after the fact you pretend like it doesn't exist and it was made up. ok. sure you're being honest.

You have no argument. you're attacking the credibility of the info because you can't argue against it.

That is what you're saying. It is what it means. I understood your argument correctly. AGAIN, you're not levitating above the rest of us. You're not as smart as you think you are.

---

I have debunk several of the claims, and provided real sources, but sure you're being honest.

You don't want to provide specifics because you probably know they can be debunked like all the other accusations.

---

I'm glad you're conceding, and I know you won't be able to argue the point. Have a nice night.

---

No, go ahead and provide a specific example and I'll debunk it right now.

---

I already did. Explain how 1000's of votes all came in 100% for Biden. Go ahead. Explain a statistical impossibility. You can't.

Its like flipping a coin 1000's of times and getting heads every time. That what the straight line means....

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Artorias said:

---

As soon as you explain these...

---

---

Simple explanation to look-up for people who are critical thinkers and do not want to end up at their predetermined conclusions.

Michigan and Pennsylvania count in-person votes first, and only once all the Election Day votes have been tallied do they begin to count the mail-in votes.

FiveThirtyEight published a graph of the jump in votes in Wisconsin at 8:27 a.m. EST on Nov. 4 on its election live blog (here) alongside this explanation by reporter Maggie Koerth: "Biden was down in Wisconsin before the Milwaukee absentee results came in early this morning. The boost pushed him up past Trump, but the race in this state is still very, very tight."

---

Simplistic analysis shows you know nothing about statistics or auditing. That is statistically impossible, and even a simpleton can see that something is wrong there.

You're not as smart as you think you are.

---

Yeah, they are unsourced graphics on an internet chat forum. Not sure why people are having a problem seeing that fact. jk. I know why.

---

Can't argue the point, so attack the source...

I guess that is a win.

---

Yeah, that's not what that saying means. Your source is literally no source at all.

---

That graph was widely reported. Never has it been questioned until now. Months after the fact you pretend like it doesn't exist and it was made up. ok. sure you're being honest.

You have no argument. you're attacking the credibility of the info because you can't argue against it.

That is what you're saying. It is what it means. I understood your argument correctly. AGAIN, you're not levitating above the rest of us. You're not as smart as you think you are.

---

I have debunk several of the claims, and provided real sources, but sure you're being honest.

You don't want to provide specifics because you probably know they can be debunked like all the other accusations.

---

I'm glad you're conceding, and I know you won't be able to argue the point. Have a nice night.

---

No, go ahead and provide a specific example and I'll debunk it right now.

---

I already did. Explain how 1000's of votes all came in 100% for Biden. Go ahead. Explain a statistical impossibility. You can't.

Its like flipping a coin 1000's of times and getting heads every time. That what the straight line means....

---

It was a typo....lol

ETA: I would hate to be so dumb / ignorant that 1) I cannot see what is right in front of my face and 2) that I defend it almost as if I am proud for supporting a treasonous career piece of ****, backed by a shadow government.

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Artorias said:

---

As soon as you explain these...

---

---

Simple explanation to look-up for people who are critical thinkers and do not want to end up at their predetermined conclusions.

Michigan and Pennsylvania count in-person votes first, and only once all the Election Day votes have been tallied do they begin to count the mail-in votes.

FiveThirtyEight published a graph of the jump in votes in Wisconsin at 8:27 a.m. EST on Nov. 4 on its election live blog (here) alongside this explanation by reporter Maggie Koerth: "Biden was down in Wisconsin before the Milwaukee absentee results came in early this morning. The boost pushed him up past Trump, but the race in this state is still very, very tight."

---

Simplistic analysis shows you know nothing about statistics or auditing. That is statistically impossible, and even a simpleton can see that something is wrong there.

You're not as smart as you think you are.

---

Yeah, they are unsourced graphics on an internet chat forum. Not sure why people are having a problem seeing that fact. jk. I know why.

---

Can't argue the point, so attack the source...

I guess that is a win.

---

Yeah, that's not what that saying means. Your source is literally no source at all.

---

That graph was widely reported. Never has it been questioned until now. Months after the fact you pretend like it doesn't exist and it was made up. ok. sure you're being honest.

You have no argument. you're attacking the credibility of the info because you can't argue against it.

That is what you're saying. It is what it means. I understood your argument correctly. AGAIN, you're not levitating above the rest of us. You're not as smart as you think you are.

---

I have debunk several of the claims, and provided real sources, but sure you're being honest.

You don't want to provide specifics because you probably know they can be debunked like all the other accusations.

---

I'm glad you're conceding, and I know you won't be able to argue the point. Have a nice night.

---

No, go ahead and provide a specific example and I'll debunk it right now.

---

I already did. Explain how 1000's of votes all came in 100% for Biden. Go ahead. Explain a statistical impossibility. You can't.

Its like flipping a coin 1000's of times and getting heads every time. That what the straight line means....

---

What State and County? Go ahead. Be specific.

Nitro Power said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Artorias said:

---

As soon as you explain these...

---

---

Simple explanation to look-up for people who are critical thinkers and do not want to end up at their predetermined conclusions.

Michigan and Pennsylvania count in-person votes first, and only once all the Election Day votes have been tallied do they begin to count the mail-in votes.

FiveThirtyEight published a graph of the jump in votes in Wisconsin at 8:27 a.m. EST on Nov. 4 on its election live blog (here) alongside this explanation by reporter Maggie Koerth: "Biden was down in Wisconsin before the Milwaukee absentee results came in early this morning. The boost pushed him up past Trump, but the race in this state is still very, very tight."

---

Simplistic analysis shows you know nothing about statistics or auditing. That is statistically impossible, and even a simpleton can see that something is wrong there.

You're not as smart as you think you are.

---

Yeah, they are unsourced graphics on an internet chat forum. Not sure why people are having a problem seeing that fact. jk. I know why.

---

Can't argue the point, so attack the source...

I guess that is a win.

---

Yeah, that's not what that saying means. Your source is literally no source at all.

---

That graph was widely reported. Never has it been questioned until now. Months after the fact you pretend like it doesn't exist and it was made up. ok. sure you're being honest.

You have no argument. you're attacking the credibility of the info because you can't argue against it.

That is what you're saying. It is what it means. I understood your argument correctly. AGAIN, you're not levitating above the rest of us. You're not as smart as you think you are.

---

I have debunk several of the claims, and provided real sources, but sure you're being honest.

You don't want to provide specifics because you probably know they can be debunked like all the other accusations.

---

I'm glad you're conceding, and I know you won't be able to argue the point. Have a nice night.

---

No, go ahead and provide a specific example and I'll debunk it right now.

---

I already did. Explain how 1000's of votes all came in 100% for Biden. Go ahead. Explain a statistical impossibility. You can't.

Its like flipping a coin 1000's of times and getting heads every time. That what the straight line means....

---

It was a typo....lol

---

Timed exactly at the time they stopped counting for broken pipes.

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Artorias said:

---

As soon as you explain these...

---

---

Simple explanation to look-up for people who are critical thinkers and do not want to end up at their predetermined conclusions.

Michigan and Pennsylvania count in-person votes first, and only once all the Election Day votes have been tallied do they begin to count the mail-in votes.

FiveThirtyEight published a graph of the jump in votes in Wisconsin at 8:27 a.m. EST on Nov. 4 on its election live blog (here) alongside this explanation by reporter Maggie Koerth: "Biden was down in Wisconsin before the Milwaukee absentee results came in early this morning. The boost pushed him up past Trump, but the race in this state is still very, very tight."

---

Simplistic analysis shows you know nothing about statistics or auditing. That is statistically impossible, and even a simpleton can see that something is wrong there.

You're not as smart as you think you are.

---

Yeah, they are unsourced graphics on an internet chat forum. Not sure why people are having a problem seeing that fact. jk. I know why.

---

Can't argue the point, so attack the source...

I guess that is a win.

---

Yeah, that's not what that saying means. Your source is literally no source at all.

---

That graph was widely reported. Never has it been questioned until now. Months after the fact you pretend like it doesn't exist and it was made up. ok. sure you're being honest.

You have no argument. you're attacking the credibility of the info because you can't argue against it.

That is what you're saying. It is what it means. I understood your argument correctly. AGAIN, you're not levitating above the rest of us. You're not as smart as you think you are.

---

I have debunk several of the claims, and provided real sources, but sure you're being honest.

You don't want to provide specifics because you probably know they can be debunked like all the other accusations.

---

I'm glad you're conceding, and I know you won't be able to argue the point. Have a nice night.

---

No, go ahead and provide a specific example and I'll debunk it right now.

---

I already did. Explain how 1000's of votes all came in 100% for Biden. Go ahead. Explain a statistical impossibility. You can't.

Its like flipping a coin 1000's of times and getting heads every time. That what the straight line means....

---

What State and County? Go ahead. Be specific.

---

DeKalb, Wayne, Philadelphia ...try not letting your head cave in while you try your mental gymnastics sorting these

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Artorias said:

---

As soon as you explain these...

---

---

Simple explanation to look-up for people who are critical thinkers and do not want to end up at their predetermined conclusions.

Michigan and Pennsylvania count in-person votes first, and only once all the Election Day votes have been tallied do they begin to count the mail-in votes.

FiveThirtyEight published a graph of the jump in votes in Wisconsin at 8:27 a.m. EST on Nov. 4 on its election live blog (here) alongside this explanation by reporter Maggie Koerth: "Biden was down in Wisconsin before the Milwaukee absentee results came in early this morning. The boost pushed him up past Trump, but the race in this state is still very, very tight."

---

Simplistic analysis shows you know nothing about statistics or auditing. That is statistically impossible, and even a simpleton can see that something is wrong there.

You're not as smart as you think you are.

---

Yeah, they are unsourced graphics on an internet chat forum. Not sure why people are having a problem seeing that fact. jk. I know why.

---

Can't argue the point, so attack the source...

I guess that is a win.

---

Yeah, that's not what that saying means. Your source is literally no source at all.

---

That graph was widely reported. Never has it been questioned until now. Months after the fact you pretend like it doesn't exist and it was made up. ok. sure you're being honest.

You have no argument. you're attacking the credibility of the info because you can't argue against it.

That is what you're saying. It is what it means. I understood your argument correctly. AGAIN, you're not levitating above the rest of us. You're not as smart as you think you are.

---

I have debunk several of the claims, and provided real sources, but sure you're being honest.

You don't want to provide specifics because you probably know they can be debunked like all the other accusations.

---

I'm glad you're conceding, and I know you won't be able to argue the point. Have a nice night.

---

No, go ahead and provide a specific example and I'll debunk it right now.

---

I already did. Explain how 1000's of votes all came in 100% for Biden. Go ahead. Explain a statistical impossibility. You can't.

Its like flipping a coin 1000's of times and getting heads every time. That what the straight line means....

---

What State and County? Go ahead. Be specific.

---

"You can't look up really fast where all the anomalies happened, and so even though the graph clearly shows that something impossible happened, you cant prove it really fast in an internet debate."

Lame tactic. Dems pull this all the time. 2+2=4? source?

Its called the obvious data shows that all at the exact same time 1000's of votes came in 100% for biden. That is impossible, and it doesn't matter where it happened. There are graphs exactly like that, and what do you know it only happened in swing states that Trump had huge leads in, and they all stopped counting at 3AM and then mysteriously Biden got 1000's of votes that went 100% for him.

The burden of proof is on you. The fraud is obvious .

You still don't have a point other than "nuh uh" or "prove it".

You cannot argue against the statistical impossibility. You have no argument.

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Artorias said:

---

As soon as you explain these...

---

---

Simple explanation to look-up for people who are critical thinkers and do not want to end up at their predetermined conclusions.

Michigan and Pennsylvania count in-person votes first, and only once all the Election Day votes have been tallied do they begin to count the mail-in votes.

FiveThirtyEight published a graph of the jump in votes in Wisconsin at 8:27 a.m. EST on Nov. 4 on its election live blog (here) alongside this explanation by reporter Maggie Koerth: "Biden was down in Wisconsin before the Milwaukee absentee results came in early this morning. The boost pushed him up past Trump, but the race in this state is still very, very tight."

---

Simplistic analysis shows you know nothing about statistics or auditing. That is statistically impossible, and even a simpleton can see that something is wrong there.

You're not as smart as you think you are.

---

Yeah, they are unsourced graphics on an internet chat forum. Not sure why people are having a problem seeing that fact. jk. I know why.

---

Can't argue the point, so attack the source...

I guess that is a win.

---

Yeah, that's not what that saying means. Your source is literally no source at all.

---

That graph was widely reported. Never has it been questioned until now. Months after the fact you pretend like it doesn't exist and it was made up. ok. sure you're being honest.

You have no argument. you're attacking the credibility of the info because you can't argue against it.

That is what you're saying. It is what it means. I understood your argument correctly. AGAIN, you're not levitating above the rest of us. You're not as smart as you think you are.

---

I have debunk several of the claims, and provided real sources, but sure you're being honest.

You don't want to provide specifics because you probably know they can be debunked like all the other accusations.

---

I'm glad you're conceding, and I know you won't be able to argue the point. Have a nice night.

---

No, go ahead and provide a specific example and I'll debunk it right now.

---

I already did. Explain how 1000's of votes all came in 100% for Biden. Go ahead. Explain a statistical impossibility. You can't.

Its like flipping a coin 1000's of times and getting heads every time. That what the straight line means....

---

Let's say the impossible happened once. But it stretches credulity to state with certitude that it happened across multiple states and at roughly the same time periods. That's the sign of human intervention.

But that intervention could have been programmed earlier and then triggered in a drop and roll type algo. Big Biden spike then ballots after that are reported as Biden 51%-Trump 49% to keep the lead.

Not saying I completely buy into all of that but it sure does explain why the same pattern was repeated across multiple states. And then appeared to happen in the GOP primaries in Arizona, Georgia and Colorado.

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Artorias said:

---

As soon as you explain these...

---

---

Simple explanation to look-up for people who are critical thinkers and do not want to end up at their predetermined conclusions.

Michigan and Pennsylvania count in-person votes first, and only once all the Election Day votes have been tallied do they begin to count the mail-in votes.

FiveThirtyEight published a graph of the jump in votes in Wisconsin at 8:27 a.m. EST on Nov. 4 on its election live blog (here) alongside this explanation by reporter Maggie Koerth: "Biden was down in Wisconsin before the Milwaukee absentee results came in early this morning. The boost pushed him up past Trump, but the race in this state is still very, very tight."

---

Simplistic analysis shows you know nothing about statistics or auditing. That is statistically impossible, and even a simpleton can see that something is wrong there.

You're not as smart as you think you are.

---

Yeah, they are unsourced graphics on an internet chat forum. Not sure why people are having a problem seeing that fact. jk. I know why.

---

Can't argue the point, so attack the source...

I guess that is a win.

---

Yeah, that's not what that saying means. Your source is literally no source at all.

---

That graph was widely reported. Never has it been questioned until now. Months after the fact you pretend like it doesn't exist and it was made up. ok. sure you're being honest.

You have no argument. you're attacking the credibility of the info because you can't argue against it.

That is what you're saying. It is what it means. I understood your argument correctly. AGAIN, you're not levitating above the rest of us. You're not as smart as you think you are.

---

I have debunk several of the claims, and provided real sources, but sure you're being honest.

You don't want to provide specifics because you probably know they can be debunked like all the other accusations.

---

I'm glad you're conceding, and I know you won't be able to argue the point. Have a nice night.

---

No, go ahead and provide a specific example and I'll debunk it right now.

---

I already did. Explain how 1000's of votes all came in 100% for Biden. Go ahead. Explain a statistical impossibility. You can't.

Its like flipping a coin 1000's of times and getting heads every time. That what the straight line means....

---

What State and County? Go ahead. Be specific.

---

"You can't look up really fast where all the anomalies happen, and so even though the graph clearly shows that something impossible happened, you cant prove it really fast in an internet debate."

Lame tactic. Dems pull this all the time. 2+2=4? source?

Its called the obvious data shows that all at the exact same time 1000's of votes came in 100% for biden. That is impossible, and it doesn't matter where it happened. There are graphs exactly like that, and what do you know it only happened in swing states that Trump had huge leads in, and they all stopped counting at 3AM and then mysteriously Biden got 1000's of votes that went 100% for him.

The burden of proof is on you. The fraud is obvious .

You still don't have a point other than "nuh uh" or "prove it".

You cannot argue against the statistical impossibility. You have no argument.

---

Not true... he has the reputable USA Today fact checkers

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Artorias said:

---

As soon as you explain these...

---

---

This graph is the result of an error. The corrected graph shows that Trump also received votes at every recorded time.

https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/04/michigan-election-ballots-mail-absentee-hour-count-update/6161367002/

But I already know what your reply is. You'll say the dems got caught and erased the evidence like you always do.

It's impossible and it never happened, and you prove that by not providing a source.

Jmiller said:

---

Stinky T said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

Verified ballots of registered voters still count, regardless of how they were delivered.

---

Sure. My apologies. I meant to say illegal ballot harvesting. As in my response to Eric - if you blanket send out ballots to every registered voter, does the opportunity for illegally harvesting a ballot increase or decrease?

---

If all the ballets returned were verified ballots of registered voters, why does that matter? I guess that is a philosophical question. Some people believe in greater voter participation and some people don't.

---

I'm all for increased voter participation, but not through illegal means. If you disagree with that, the yeah, we aren't going to find any common ground for discussion.

Imagine liberals placed financial wagers on their political stances and accusations. They would all be bankrupt. Likewise, if you faded them with your own wagers you would have life changing wealth by now.

Jmiller said:

---

It's impossible and it never happened, and you prove that by not providing a source.

---

I gave you the live data. It wasn't an error.

You put a lot of faith in a lot of liars and believe in a lot of coincidences to believe that.

You're gaslighting.

DarkBrandon0111 said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Artorias said:

---

As soon as you explain these...

---

---

This graph is the result of an error. The corrected graph shows that Trump also received votes at every recorded time.

https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/04/michigan-election-ballots-mail-absentee-hour-count-update/6161367002/

But I already know what your reply is. You'll say the dems got caught and erased the evidence like you always do.

---

Convenient that lots of states made the same error after stopping counting at 3AM.

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Nitro Power said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Artorias said:

---

As soon as you explain these...

---

---

Simple explanation to look-up for people who are critical thinkers and do not want to end up at their predetermined conclusions.

Michigan and Pennsylvania count in-person votes first, and only once all the Election Day votes have been tallied do they begin to count the mail-in votes.

FiveThirtyEight published a graph of the jump in votes in Wisconsin at 8:27 a.m. EST on Nov. 4 on its election live blog (here) alongside this explanation by reporter Maggie Koerth: "Biden was down in Wisconsin before the Milwaukee absentee results came in early this morning. The boost pushed him up past Trump, but the race in this state is still very, very tight."

---

Simplistic analysis shows you know nothing about statistics or auditing. That is statistically impossible, and even a simpleton can see that something is wrong there.

You're not as smart as you think you are.

---

Yeah, they are unsourced graphics on an internet chat forum. Not sure why people are having a problem seeing that fact. jk. I know why.

---

Can't argue the point, so attack the source...

I guess that is a win.

---

Yeah, that's not what that saying means. Your source is literally no source at all.

---

That graph was widely reported. Never has it been questioned until now. Months after the fact you pretend like it doesn't exist and it was made up. ok. sure you're being honest.

You have no argument. you're attacking the credibility of the info because you can't argue against it.

That is what you're saying. It is what it means. I understood your argument correctly. AGAIN, you're not levitating above the rest of us. You're not as smart as you think you are.

---

I have debunk several of the claims, and provided real sources, but sure you're being honest.

You don't want to provide specifics because you probably know they can be debunked like all the other accusations.

---

I'm glad you're conceding, and I know you won't be able to argue the point. Have a nice night.

---

No, go ahead and provide a specific example and I'll debunk it right now.

---

I already did. Explain how 1000's of votes all came in 100% for Biden. Go ahead. Explain a statistical impossibility. You can't.

Its like flipping a coin 1000's of times and getting heads every time. That what the straight line means....

---

It was a typo....lol

---

Timed exactly at the time they stopped counting for broken pipes.

---

Fulton county release all the video and debunked that claim as did the multiple audits by third parties.
https://securevotega.com/fact-check/

Quote:

---

State Farm Arena
5:22am Videos of Discovery of Water Leak When Workers Arrive

In the 5:22am videos below, workers arrive in the State Farm Arena absentee ballot processing room first thing in the morning and see the leak for the first time. Workers move tables and ballots to prevent potential water damage, but no ballots or equipment are damaged.

6:30am Videos of Initial Clean Up Activities

In the 6:30am videos below, staff members wait for the water leak to be cleaned up. You can see them moving tables but not tampering with the ballots. Poll workers return to the room and wait to resume their work.

7:11am Videos of Carpet Vacuuming and Drying

In the 7:11 am videos below, workers are vacuuming and drying floors to finish up the cleaning process. Multiple people are present getting the room ready for the remainder of the day.

8:22am Videos of Re-setup of Room to Process Ballots

In the 8:22am videos below, workers begin to move and arrange the room to the original layout prior to the leak. They move tables and ballot containers for the counting processes. There were no "secret" suitcases. In the second video, with tables set in an "L" shape against a top to bottom window wall in the background, a man moves a table with a black tablecloth that clearly has nothing underneath it. At around 10:00 pm, poll workers will put empty absentee ballot containers underneath that table as they initially prepare to stop counting ballots for the night.

9:45pm-1:00am Videos of Workers Processing Ballots, Storing Legal Ballots, Removing Legal Ballots From Storage and Scanning

In the 9:45am-1:00am videos below, the room has now been reset, the water has been cleaned, and poll workers have continued processing legal ballots. In the second video, again with the L shaped tables set against a top to bottom window wall, at 9:57 pm, empty absentee ballot containers are brought into the room as poll workers prepare to stop counting for the night. The empty containers are filled with uncounted absentee ballots, closed, sealed, and then stored under the table at 10:06 pm in a room full of people (minute 12:37-21:52). The absentee ballot containers were stored under the table because poll workers thought they were done for the night. The containers were then taken out again at 11:02 pm for processing after the poll workers were told they needed to continue working. All ballots shown in the video have been legally verified. Numerous people are in the room witnessing the process.

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Nitro Power said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Jmiller said:

---

TxAgPreacher said:

---

Artorias said:

---

As soon as you explain these...

---

---

Simple explanation to look-up for people who are critical thinkers and do not want to end up at their predetermined conclusions.

Michigan and Pennsylvania count in-person votes first, and only once all the Election Day votes have been tallied do they begin to count the mail-in votes.

FiveThirtyEight published a graph of the jump in votes in Wisconsin at 8:27 a.m. EST on Nov. 4 on its election live blog (here) alongside this explanation by reporter Maggie Koerth: "Biden was down in Wisconsin before the Milwaukee absentee results came in early this morning. The boost pushed him up past Trump, but the race in this state is still very, very tight."

---

Simplistic analysis shows you know nothing about statistics or auditing. That is statistically impossible, and even a simpleton can see that something is wrong there.

You're not as smart as you think you are.

---

Yeah, they are unsourced graphics on an internet chat forum. Not sure why people are having a problem seeing that fact. jk. I know why.

---

Can't argue the point, so attack the source...

I guess that is a win.

---

Yeah, that's not what that saying means. Your source is literally no source at all.

---

That graph was widely reported. Never has it been questioned until now. Months after the fact you pretend like it doesn't exist and it was made up. ok. sure you're being honest.

You have no argument. you're attacking the credibility of the info because you can't argue against it.

That is what you're saying. It is what it means. I understood your argument correctly. AGAIN, you're not levitating above the rest of us. You're not as smart as you think you are.

---

I have debunk several of the claims, and provided real sources, but sure you're being honest.

You don't want to provide specifics because you probably know they can be debunked like all the other accusations.

---

I'm glad you're conceding, and I know you won't be able to argue the point. Have a nice night.

---

No, go ahead and provide a specific example and I'll debunk it right now.

---

I already did. Explain how 1000's of votes all came in 100% for Biden. Go ahead. Explain a statistical impossibility. You can't.

Its like flipping a coin 1000's of times and getting heads every time. That what the straight line means....

---

It was a typo....lol

---

Timed exactly at the time they stopped counting for broken pipes.

---

Fulton county release all the video and debunked that claim as did the multiple audits by third parties.
https://securevotega.com/fact-check/

Quote:

---

State Farm Arena
5:22am Videos of Discovery of Water Leak When Workers Arrive

In the 5:22am videos below, workers arrive in the State Farm Arena absentee ballot processing room first thing in the morning and see the leak for the first time. Workers move tables and ballots to prevent potential water damage, but no ballots or equipment are damaged.

6:30am Videos of Initial Clean Up Activities

In the 6:30am videos below, staff members wait for the water leak to be cleaned up. You can see them moving tables but not tampering with the ballots. Poll workers return to the room and wait to resume their work.

7:11am Videos of Carpet Vacuuming and Drying

In the 7:11 am videos below, workers are vacuuming and drying floors to finish up the cleaning process. Multiple people are present getting the room ready for the remainder of the day.

8:22am Videos of Re-setup of Room to Process Ballots

In the 8:22am videos below, workers begin to move and arrange the room to the original layout prior to the leak. They move tables and ballot containers for the counting processes. There were no "secret" suitcases. In the second video, with tables set in an "L" shape against a top to bottom window wall in the background, a man moves a table with a black tablecloth that clearly has nothing underneath it. At around 10:00 pm, poll workers will put empty absentee ballot containers underneath that table as they initially prepare to stop counting ballots for the night.

9:45pm-1:00am Videos of Workers Processing Ballots, Storing Legal Ballots, Removing Legal Ballots From Storage and Scanning

In the 9:45am-1:00am videos below, the room has now been reset, the water has been cleaned, and poll workers have continued processing legal ballots. In the second video, again with the L shaped tables set against a top to bottom window wall, at 9:57 pm, empty absentee ballot containers are brought into the room as poll workers prepare to stop counting for the night. The empty containers are filled with uncounted absentee ballots, closed, sealed, and then stored under the table at 10:06 pm in a room full of people (minute 12:37-21:52). The absentee ballot containers were stored under the table because poll workers thought they were done for the night. The containers were then taken out again at 11:02 pm for processing after the poll workers were told they needed to continue working. All ballots shown in the video have been legally verified. Numerous people are in the room witnessing the process.

---

---

Oooo you got me. Political hacks have fact checked me! The live data was wrong in multiple states all at the same time and miraculously after being way down biden started all of the sudden to be getting votes at a higher rate.

You provided an unsourced picture that anyone could have drawn up.

You are arguing in bad faith, Preacher.