Moderator: coldharvest
Kurt wrote:But it was under oath.
Does that mean anything?
Kurt wrote:https://www.npr.org/2022/06/23/1107178582/doj-jan-6-committee-trump-election-fraud-claims
A "quick calculation"
But it was under oath.
Does that mean anything?
Tarkan wrote:Kurt wrote:https://www.npr.org/2022/06/23/1107178582/doj-jan-6-committee-trump-election-fraud-claims
A "quick calculation"
But it was under oath.
Does that mean anything?
Not really. It's a little too precise and narrow to be believable. There's an inherent error rate in the balloting process, independent of malfeasance and incompetence, and it's a lot higher than 0.0063%.
Kurt wrote:Tarkan wrote:Kurt wrote:https://www.npr.org/2022/06/23/1107178582/doj-jan-6-committee-trump-election-fraud-claims
A "quick calculation"
But it was under oath.
Does that mean anything?
Not really. It's a little too precise and narrow to be believable. There's an inherent error rate in the balloting process, independent of malfeasance and incompetence, and it's a lot higher than 0.0063%.
How did you come up with "a lot higher than 0.0063%"
These were places with a recount. So they would have had before vs. after and a quick calculation could determine the error rate.
I've made "quick calculations" about uptime for like a 443 day period. Then average uptime. When you got numbers in front of you a quick calculation can be done.
Kurt wrote:That is why he said it was the most error free election. He knew that .0063% was an anomaly but that was the data he was given.
Now I know you are gonna be all like "Anomaly! Deep State made the election too perfect! thus proving it was stolen"
But it also is possible that generations of poll workers actually had their shit together enough to make this election less error prone than others.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 44 guests