Mathematically impossible to have won Pennsylvania

Utterly mathematically impossible for Biden to have won Pennsylvania
These are the numbers from a mathematician.
On just the absentee ballots : even if Biden revived 80 percent of independent vote and 20 percent of Republican vote - he still would have lost !!
Its virtually over a 99.9 percent chance that T won Pennsylvania by hundreds of thousands

No way Biden could get 30 percent of republican vote and 90 percent of independent Lol


That's the problem and why this is going nowhere in the courts I think: note the words: NEARLY impossible. That means UNLIKELY. Or more specifically: UNLIKELY, but POSSIBLE. I know the stats of the election make Biden's win sound about as likely as catching lightning in a bottle---- nothing makes sense, it stinks to high heaven, but what the COURTS care about is EVIDENCE that it DIDN'T happen or COULDN'T have happened.

Saying that an event is NEARLY impossible is at best purely CIRCUMSTANTIAL. Like overturning a call on the football field, the courts will likely need CONCLUSIVE PROOF they can hold in their hands in order to justify overturning a presidential election as fraud.
This is not a football game !!
THis is the future of American democracy and we have ample evidence
 

Maybe these states have access to better and more accurate information than talk radio and Trumpster websites.
They know it’s a fraud and they’re doing everything possible to not acknowledge anything
 

Maybe these states have access to better and more accurate information than talk radio and Trumpster websites.

Yes they do. In PA 0.0% of the mail in ballots thrown out, in contrast to the historical average of 1%, and 3% for new voters.

But move along, nothing to see here. Just make generic bullshit statements without backing them up with anything. I thought claims required evidence, but that standard is apparently only adhered to when convenient.
 
Last edited:

Maybe these states have access to better and more accurate information than talk radio and Trumpster websites.

Yes they do. In PA 0.00% of the mail in ballots thrown out, in contrast to the historical average of 1%, and 3% for new voters.

But move along, nothing to see here. Just make generic bullshit statements without backing them up with anything. I thought claims required evidence, but that standard is apparently only adhered to when convenient.
Or, perhaps the "evidence" you have been provided by your "news" sources is distorted, exaggerated, or simply made up out of thin air, by people who have a vested professional interest in doing so.

Those people are not difficult to identify.
 

Maybe these states have access to better and more accurate information than talk radio and Trumpster websites.

Yes they do. In PA 0.00% of the mail in ballots thrown out, in contrast to the historical average of 1%, and 3% for new voters.

But move along, nothing to see here. Just make generic bullshit statements without backing them up with anything. I thought claims required evidence, but that standard is apparently only adhered to when convenient.
Or, perhaps the "evidence" you have been provided by your "news" sources is distorted, exaggerated, or simply made up out of thin air, by people who have a vested professional interest in doing so.

Those people are not difficult to identify.

That data is from the "official sources" you tout.

Besides that, you really have NO evidence for your claim. You are now accusing the mathematician of doing his math wrong. I find that unlikely, but believe that if you wish.
 

Maybe these states have access to better and more accurate information than talk radio and Trumpster websites.

Yes they do. In PA 0.00% of the mail in ballots thrown out, in contrast to the historical average of 1%, and 3% for new voters.

But move along, nothing to see here. Just make generic bullshit statements without backing them up with anything. I thought claims required evidence, but that standard is apparently only adhered to when convenient.
Or, perhaps the "evidence" you have been provided by your "news" sources is distorted, exaggerated, or simply made up out of thin air, by people who have a vested professional interest in doing so.

Those people are not difficult to identify.

That data is from the "official sources" you tout.
I wouldn't try to convince someone like you of anything. I just thought I'd toss that out there.

Good luck with this.
 

Maybe these states have access to better and more accurate information than talk radio and Trumpster websites.

Yes they do. In PA 0.00% of the mail in ballots thrown out, in contrast to the historical average of 1%, and 3% for new voters.

But move along, nothing to see here. Just make generic bullshit statements without backing them up with anything. I thought claims required evidence, but that standard is apparently only adhered to when convenient.
Or, perhaps the "evidence" you have been provided by your "news" sources is distorted, exaggerated, or simply made up out of thin air, by people who have a vested professional interest in doing so.

Those people are not difficult to identify.

That data is from the "official sources" you tout.
I wouldn't try to convince someone like you of anything. I just thought I'd toss that out there.

Good luck with this.

You couldn't convince anyone with the pure speculation.

Find the data he used, re-run the analysis, find a mistake... or find someone else who did that. Otherwise it's just pure speculation. As for the ballot rejection rates, the information has been out there since the election and has not been explained - other than by some democrat organization lobbying for extremely sketchy standards.

Because when mass mail in hits - that's what we need - no standards at all on the votes. It's because of the pandemic, if we don't remove all standards the pandemic mutates and kills us all. Something like that was the thought process - so far so that an unconstitutional law was passed.
 
He did not win. Fraudulent votes were counted. The signatures... 0.00% rejection rate, unheard of in the history of mail in voting.


And therein lies the rub, Norm: Because the fraudulent ballots were counted, the state has deemed them VALID. Whether by stupidity or clever malfeasance, many states opened the doors WIDE OPEN to voting using Covid as their justification to the point that a scribble on the back of a pack of matches counts as a ballot.

ON THE SURFACE, the idea of the mail-ins seemed good enough--- the premise was that so many people WOULD NOT VOTE and be afraid to go to the poll because of the virus that they wanted to offer them an alternative.

IN THEORY, the result should have been a number of total people voting in this election fairly close to normal, perhaps just slightly down.

INSTEAD, we saw historic all time highs! Many states reporting MORE THAN 100% TURNOUT! That shouldn't have happened.

So does this mean that:
  1. A lot of people don't normally vote but would when they can mail one in? To a degree, mail in ballots have ALWAYS been available, if you had good reason you couldn't go to the poll.
  2. A lt of ballots were cast only because of the relaxed laws?
The problem is that the Democrats did POORLY in this election, and Biden did poorly as well. The one place he did well was in four voting districts over a 5 hour period where a massive deluge came in for him, all by mail in ballots!

It has been said that many Trump voters went to the poll to be sure their vote counted, but if you were a Biden voter and really wanted to vote AGAINST Trump, wouldn't you want your vote to count to?

IT IS A STATISTICAL ANOMALY that so many people of ONE PARTY but not the other would have one voting preference over the other. The problem is that once the envelop is opened and separated from the ballot, the damage is done.
 
Last edited:
He did not win. Fraudulent votes were counted. The signatures... 0.00% rejection rate, unheard of in the history of mail in voting.


And therein lies the rub, Norm: Because the fraudulent ballots were counted, the state has deemed them VALID. Whether by stupidity or clever malfeasance, many states opened the doors WIDE OPEN to voting using Covid as their justification to the point that a scribble on the back of a pack of matches counts as a ballot.

ON THE SURFACE, the idea of the mail-ins seemed good enough--- the premise was that so many people WOULD NOT VOTE and be afraid to go to the poll because of the virus that they wanted to offer them an alternative.

IN THEORY, the result should have been a number of total people voting in this election fairly close to normal, perhaps just slightly down.

INSTEAD, we saw historic all time highs! Many states reporting MORE THAN 100% TURNOUT! That shouldn't have happened.

So does this mean that:
  1. A lot of people don't normally vote but would when they can mail one in? To a degree, mail in ballots have ALWAYS been available, if you had good reason you couldn't go to the poll.
  2. A lt of ballots were cast only because of the relaxed laws?
The problem is that the Democrats did POORLY in this election, and Biden did poorly as well. The one place he did well was in four voting districts over a 5 hour period where a massive deluge came in for him, all by mail in ballots!

It has been said that many Trump voters went t the poll to be sure their vote counted, but if you were a Biden voter and really wanted to vote AGAINST Trump, wouldn't you want your vote to count to?

IT IS A STATISTICAL ANOMALY that so many people of ONE PARTY but not the other would would have one voting preference over the other. The problem is that once the envelop is opened and separated from the ballot, the damage is done.

On the surface the mail in idea is a terrible, terrible idea. This is not the first time the farce has been questioned - and of course it's been outlawed elsewhere. If foreign countries tried to use this process Biden would probably invade them. Not to mention in PA it was likely unconstitutional according to the judge's injunction.

... unless, people want to cheat... Then it's a great idea.

PA used mail in voting in 2016 as well. They just did not remove all standards to catch fraud.
 
I hope these group therapy sessions are helping ya'll deal with your feels.
It is making me way more angry and infuriated that the USA is an official banana republic
You know those people you trust to tell you what's happening? They want you this way. It makes them more money.
I have common sense and logic and can connect the dots !!
Entire election was so fraudulent it would have had Reagan losing
 
On the surface the mail in idea is a terrible, terrible idea. This is not the first time the farce has been questioned - and of course it's been outlawed elsewhere. If foreign countries tried to use this process Biden would probably invade them. Not to mention in PA it was likely unconstitutional according to the judge's injunction.

Unless, people want to cheat... Then it's a great idea.
I have common sense and logic and can connect the dots !!
What I'm saying is that those dots may not be fully real.

And what we are saying is that they may be real. Certainly you have failed to refute any of it.

And when they may be real, they should be looked at. The signatures should be verified - as was promised in GA by the way... just for the promise to mystically disappear, I wonder why.

It's not rocket science.
 
I hope these group therapy sessions are helping ya'll deal with your feels.
It is making me way more angry and infuriated that the USA is an official banana republic
You know those people you trust to tell you what's happening? They want you this way. It makes them more money.
I have common sense and logic and can connect the dots !!
Entire election was so fraudulent it would have had Reagan losing
What I'm saying is that those dots may not be fully real.
4 major cities all stopping their counts is unprecedented
I knew right there ..something was up
 

Forum List

Back
Top