Message from @realz
Discord ID: 781624739080437771
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.
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 π
π€£
'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
It got peer reviewed ... There were corrections suggested and accepted
lol
He will.. they have Regeneron.. and alot of new medicine we dont know about
Well they should start dosing him yesterday
But yea I can rant about papers, peer review and science credibility for an hour
Maybe he'll get the coofs too *plug in the TYT reaction of Trumo got the coofs*
I should have listened further... He thinks what Sidney Powell has asserted is true. It is demonstrably not true, in my opinion. So, his premise is not sound.
Page 59, section 122 in the GA filing starts talking about statistical evidence. If all that proves to be true..isnβt that enough?
@thebrodys, you just advanced to level 3!
I hope so