Message from @realz
Discord ID: 781625321594028083
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
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
He doesn't say that it is provable though
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3WPBupdKfw context ^^
He assumes that you can prove things with statistics but not pin it on something like Dominion
In the beginning he does talk about Sydney Powell and how she has fallen into a trap in some of the things sheβs said
Did you start from 26:00?
no
Yeah...
All this statistics. Is done as a hypothesis.. to show ways of how could fraud be committed.. but Zero evidence
Wrong reply... Yes to starting at 26:00
Ack. Like I said he doesn't rely on Powell
Thatβs not necessarily true. It can be proven that it happened, but it will take a long time to prove WHO did it. Dr. Corsi, does talk about that