But how is statistical evidence of fraud also "state action" @thebrodys

I forgot about her

😂

Some of the discussion is over my head. I admit that, which is why I was asking for help in understanding it all.

I’ll have a listen later 👍🏼

Oh gosh...I didn’t know that was said. I need to look that up.

Her name is Dr. Stella Immanuel

Also just because you have a case (assuming that there is such statistical evidence) doesn't mean you can throw stuff out, because, as Robert explained many times, usually you have to show a remedy that is less damaging than the problem (fraud)

Lmao I will never forget that woman and her bizarre rant on the steps.

Lol. That was crazy..

Succubuses, no?

Hilarious though

It gets me how everyone on the right states as fact that rampant fraud happened. And those on the left always refers to it as unfounded. Neither is correct. There has been some fraud, but no proof yet that it is widespread or of enough scale to impact the results.

Did you guys see the "amulet cures corona" paper I linked here

Oh hilarity of the highest order.

No. Please repost.

@TaLoN132 You're doing the thing you said you don't want to do.

https://retractionwatch.com/2020/10/29/amulets-may-prevent-covid-19-says-a-paper-in-elsevier-journal-they-dont/

Ty!

The response is even better than the paper

I actually skimmed the paper to debunk it but the discussion is above my understanding

I'm fickle that way... Which thing is it that I didn't want to do? There are so many of them.

Broadly generalizing and categorizing people based on their political leanings.

Lmao 'His non-answer:'

You are right... Not all... A preponderance of media and pundits.

@thebrodys so yea the flaw I see is that:

A. the statistical evidence may not be convincing.

B. If it is convincing, just showing fraud doesn't implicate the "state action"

Half yes it's nice to not brush them but having every single argument be on neutral ground makes sides obsolete

C. Even if it does implicate state action, what is the expected remedy? @thebrodys

@realz That is pricelessly classic, textbook woospeak. The second they use 'quantam'-anything, you know you're on a wild ride.

My preferred remedy is to not have to listen to Biden for 4 years or 4 months, however long he lasts

It sounds like it but the paper itself was too complicated for me to make a determination from my limited knowledge

Lost me at that point 🙈

🤣

'No Biden at any cost' is no bueno.

Kamala laughing and her face expressions is no better either

Biden... will last 4 years. Dont worry

@thebrodys I'm at 33:15.... He just stated categorically that they can prove something statistically. I skipped to the point where you suggested. Did he offer the proof of fraud on the scale of millions of votes before this? If not, I am always skeptical when people offer statistics as proof, because for that to be true, the data set has to be pristine.

Corpsed fully decompose after roughly 2 years

> It sounds like it but the paper itself was too complicated for me to make a determination from my limited knowledge
@realz Yup. That's the whole idea. Lol

Lol.

he used "last for" I had to use it