Because all computers have to use some sort of tangible data to produce a "random" result.

You can see it was based on time in older systems like the NES.

So it was easily manipulated.

https://gcpdot.com/

If that’s the case then it should follow you believe that trumps legal team should be able to have a hearing in which their evidence can be presented and their witnesses can be cross examined from both sides, and the defendants witnesses can be cross examined from both sides

@AdvanceManExtraordinaire, you just advanced to level 4!

Interesting stuff if you care to look into it.

Just claiming people don’t understand things while bumbling around with benfords law does not mean I don’t understand the system

I think we’d both agree that you wouldn’t send the murderer to jail based solely on your affidavit without a trial, right?

you clearly don't if you think affidavits and witnesses aren't sources evidence

@SPEARS re read what I have said and the come back

you never provide any sources or citations, all you have is rhetoric that has no substance and shows you clearly misunderstand how the legal system works

@AdvanceManExtraordinaire I don’t think what has been presented so far in the courts , (not the sham public hearings) meets the threshold to start evidentiary hearing. So far all we have are opinions and speculation that would get crushed in a cross examination @AdvanceManExtraordinaire

Sources do help. 🤔

@SPEARS everything I have said is common knowledge

LOL james you are going to be absolutely horrified and shocked once you find out how prosecuting attorneys operate, if you ever do

You are gonna be horrified and shocked when you learn affidavits is meaningless on its own

no criminal would ever see justice if the legal system worked like you keep insisting it does

no one is arguing this. the only person saying this is you projecting it onto us

https://youtu.be/Q_get06-tgo @SPEARS this is the quality of affidavits presented in court

Ok... so credible employees including democrats and election workers with decades of experience witnessing a crime that has mathematical data supporting their claims isn’t enough to have a hearing. What else would you like to see in order to earn the hearing?

No , all I said was affidavits are meaningless if it’s all you got @SPEARS it’s you that is projecting

@AdvanceManExtraordinaire define credible

@AdvanceManExtraordinaire It would appear only a selfie from Biden giving a thumbs up and holding up a handful of empty ballots could be credible evidence.

@AdvanceManExtraordinaire In my opinion, the analyses of the Edison Research NEP data feed to the NYT that I have seen so far appear to assume that all data collected by NEP is received directly from the source Voting System. I have seen no stipulation or accommodation for the fact that a significant amount of that data was collected manually with humans making phone calls directly to precincts to get preliminary numbers and then those numbers being later superseded by data scraped from Sec of State sites that publish preliminary results intermixed with some automated feeds. Because of this less than consistent method of gathering the data and the haphazard way that it is managed through the night. I reject the notion that anyone could with any degree of certainty be able to tell that data was indicative of fraud. They are starting with a false premise based on an incorrect assumption. You can know this, because they do not acknowledge anywhere that the intercepted data is anything other than an accurate representation of the data that resided in the voting systems. It simply was not.

Also all the math is based on certain presupposes axioms after the fact, as with braynard you have to be willing to trust his data set (that he gathered on his own) @AdvanceManExtraordinaire

interesting james. lets hold the mail in votes to the same standard then. because we know at least one mail in vote is fraudelent we should throw out all of the mail in votes.

@yetiCodes like I said before voter fraud has been proven in the past

@SPEARS that is the basis of the trump team argument

@AdvanceManExtraordinaire We aren't the arbiters of what qualifies for a hearing. We have people for that. People who know more than we do about a lot of things that are appropriately applicable here. It isn't up to us and that isn't by accident of for bad reasons.

this was almost 2 weeks ago and its obviously a biased judge. if this was the PA one this judge was debunked by a higher court

All biased judges haha

So many excuses

Trump appointed judges are biased

Federalist society judges are biased

I understand this. Seeing as it’s a piece of the puzzle, do you think it deems being formally investigated is the question, given that If fraud did indeed occur, then the data do show exactly what is expected.

George w bush appointed judges are biased

If you're human, you're probably biased.

@Kpgmr72, you just advanced to level 2!

@AdvanceManExtraordinaire I have no problem with going to court so far it’s all speculation and would get destroyed in a cross examination for being just that

I disagree that we should always defer to the justice system. Again I can bring examples of when the justice system got rulings wrong.