Personally, I think it would be a wasted effort because not having a polling location in itself doesn't mean fraud. Does it disincentivize? I don't know, I'm not a behavioral psychologist. Does it present an easier platform for fraud, absolutely.

to me its like they failed to do their duty and have an election, why dont we just all vote online, im sure that coming

I agree.

here casinos and bars and strip clubs are open, but not public schools or many churches, totally insane

its idiocracy

What's stupid is we normally vote at a veterans museum and in 2016 to vote it was set where nobody is ever within 6 feet anyway. It was the most awkward 100 ft walk, pale walls, very horror movie-like with a table at the end and two people sitting silently making zero facial expressions or really even acknowledging your existence like my life is about to be judged. (2016) 😂

So it didn't need to be closed.
Oh well. Better luck next time.

its scary what ppl will accept

https://youtu.be/rdrKCilEhC0

some are saying revolution 2.0, never gonna happen lol

Obedience experiment during the time of the Nuremberg trials.

my relative was a prosecutor at Nuremberg

https://www.theepochtimes.com/2020-election-investigation-who-is-stealing-america_3617562.html?utm_source=parler

a documentary worth watching

https://youtu.be/iFd3IszXd8g

wild

Well, knew this would be coming.

NO

Not not now, not maybe later. Never. You stupid phone.

Yep I got that notification

Absolutely not

That will be non-optional shortly amd is likely tracking under "anonymity" for internal data.

Such an eye opening study, I researched this in psychology and was both shocked and not at the same time if that makes sense

My assumption

I don't believe I would have done it. But I'm sure there is a variable that going into the video watching it already presents a bias outside the scope of the study. Has to be fully blind to the person actually making the decision.

I still don't think I would have done it.

That was the thing on why it would be unethical by today's standards is that the participants were not fully informed, but at the time they had to be

Had to be that way.

Otherwise its already a tampered result.

If he were to ask if they would do such a thing they would all say no absolutely not I would never deliver lethal shocks to another person

You'd know better.

Not even if I was told to

But from a psychological perspective the study proved that the use of the"scientist" figure allowed the participant to feel almost no guilt

yeah no way, but its scary

"Well it wasn't me doing this, I was just doing what I was told, he told me they would be fine"

I wear a mask because I don't find it morally compromising. But I do find it disturbing with the goal post moving because accept one thing then the next and next and next.

80% went all the way to the end of it

And that's how they get ya

@Discopainter, you just advanced to level 5!

That's how I mentally apply the mask to the milgrams experiment.

I'll look through this more later but I find this naive. First thing you learn when trying to model some complex mechanism (human behavior being about the most complex) is correlation does not imply causation. But this is precisely what they attempt here. Find some correlation that holds in the past and imply that should cause an effect now and thus if you don't see the effect fraud must have occurred. Second, they don't account for the possibility that something besides fraud might account for the difference in outcome. Take Arizona for example. Not only did they vote for Biden but they also voted for a Democratic Senator and by wider margin than for Biden. This was, no doubt, spurred on by Trump's dispute with John McCain (even after McCain's death) and Cindy McCain's endorsement of Biden and the Democratic Senator. John McCain was Arizona's beloved son and Trump trash talking him even after his death and McCain's widow endorsing Biden no doubt had a powerful effect on the vote. For the rest of the states, only GA regularly votes Republican (and the Dems narrowly lost the governor's race in 2018) so 2016 is really the outlier and 2020 represents a return to the norm. Note that their method tries to build a demographic model using all the counties from the country and then apply to these battle ground states but these states are the battle ground precisely because their demographics are not like the rest of the country. Lots of states are predictable and never close but not with these. Finally, 2020 is a unique year by any measure. Ask me in Jan who was going to win in a Biden versus Trump match-up and it was Trump hands down. Heck even last of March/first of April when Trump was holding daily meetings on the pandemic I would have predicted Trump. But by mid-summer, it was clear the tide had turned.