Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Cookie Monster

Massive Voter Fraud

431 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Manwon Lender
17 minutes ago, bee said:


those 2 votes out of a random sample of 100... represents 3% (because the one that was flipped from Trump to Biden took one away from Trump as well as adding one to Biden ).....if the same % is found in the 2,500 sample then the % of fraudulent votes is more than the % that Biden won by.....

the significance is ... (quote from end of tweets below...)

 

"Thus if 3% fraud rate remains on larger sample Trump easily wins Arizona. "........ :w00t:
 

 

Please explain how a random sampling of 100 votes where two are found to be problematic adds up to 3% of 100???

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
18 minutes ago, bee said:


those 2 votes out of a random sample of 100... represents 3% (because the one that was flipped from Trump to Biden took one away from Trump as well as adding one to Biden ).....if the same % is found in the 2,500 sample then the % of fraudulent votes is more than the % that Biden won by.....

the significance is ... (quote from end of tweets below...)

 

"Thus if 3% fraud rate remains on larger sample Trump easily wins Arizona. "........ :w00t:
 

 

Oh poor poor bee, nopity.gif.e6f41f1ec38bbbbc2fb03b5501907e3d.gif

you missed that word "if",

And its higly unlikely that 3% is steady and would go in trumps favor on a scale that would help him not be the big loser,

Didnt this

20201204_041618.png.1b1fbd507ded65455137c65184532e2a.png

 

Clue you in at all?

Well, you trump worshippers are great at grasping. lol.gif.d96299663c888fa71041ad7914249d79.gif

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RAyMO
11 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Debunked how?

1. the suitcases word was deliberately chosen - that's the start - they are not suitcases - they are standard ballot boxes. 

2. the ballots had been removed from their envelopes and processed while news media and election observers for the Republican Party and Trump campaign were present

3. The media and party observers were never told to leave because counting was over for the night - they followed the envelope processers out of the room. wrong decision on observers part at most

4. The observers were free to return at anytime, Georgia law allows observers, but does not require them to be there for ballots to be counted

ps why would anyone do what is claimed when being observed 24/7 by cctv?

original source epoch times - should have been enough of a clue. 

Edited by RAyMO
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
5 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

random sampling

^^^ that,

The trump worshippers have to clue what it means,  i inagine bee thinks it means a taste of every item on the golden corral buffet dessert bar.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
22 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

That is utterly bizarre. 

I bet the excuse will be ‘we wanted to do our job without the bullying from Teumplings”.

WTH is a "teumpling" ?  that IS uttery bizarre confused2.gif.01873e7acdf54622842871a119bcf8d3.gif

Edited by the13bats
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RAyMO
5 hours ago, Bavarian Raven said:

But they weren't suppose to be there during that time period.

who told you that?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
32 minutes ago, bee said:


those 2 votes out of a random sample of 100... represents 3% (because the one that was flipped from Trump to Biden took one away from Trump as well as adding one to Biden ).....if the same % is found in the 2,500 sample then the % of fraudulent votes is more than the % that Biden won by.....

the significance is ... (quote from end of tweets below...)

 

"Thus if 3% fraud rate remains on larger sample Trump easily wins Arizona. "........ :w00t:
 

 

Nope...

Quote

On Thursday, the parties presented their findings. Of the 1,626 duplicates reviewed, one contained a Trump vote that was counted for Biden. Five others contained votes for Trump that weren't counted at all, and two contained votes for Biden that weren't counted.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/12/03/arizona-republican-party-lawsuit-overturn-election-results-goes-trial/3794819001/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manwon Lender
10 minutes ago, the13bats said:

WTH is a "teumpling" ?  that IS uttery bizarre confused2.gif.01873e7acdf54622842871a119bcf8d3.gif

I think that a Teumpling is a Big Fat Orange Dumpling that has President Trumps face on it, they are all the rage at the White House!!!!:P What I dont understand in Bee's post is that out of 100 randomly elected ballots 2 were found to have problems, now how does two ballots out of a 100 become 3% of the ballots selected. I am pretty sure that 2 ballots out of a 100, would actually be 2 %, but maybe I have lost my ability to do very simple math!!!:unsure:

I am pretty dam sure she just parroted the comments on that Tweet and didn't take the time to do the simple math herself!!!:no:

Take care my brother

Edited by Manwon Lender

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quillius
21 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

Please explain how a random sampling of 100 votes where two are found to be problematic adds up to 3% of 100???

the 3% is based on the swing...

to simplify, lets say 100 votes and its 50/50.

If 1 of those votes (1%) was to be flipped from one to the other (rather than being dismissed all together) then this would become 51/49 which is 2% swing.

Hence how 2 becomes 3 or as above 1 becomes 2...

Albeit the last post by duck has totally different numbers......so I am a tad lost but thought I would just explain how Bees 3% based on 2 votes was perfectly correct as far as 'maths' are concerned.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quillius
3 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

I think that a Teumpling is a Big Fat Orange Dumpling that has President Trumps face on it, they are all the rage at the White House!!!!:P What I dont understand in Bee's post is that out of 100 randomly elected ballots 2 were found to have problems, now how does two ballots out of a 100 become 3% of the ballots selected. I am pretty sure that 2 ballots out of a 100, would actually be 2 %, but maybe I have lost my ability to do very simple math!!!:unsure:

I am pretty dam sure she just parroted the comments on that Tweet and didn't take the time to do the simple math herself!!!:no:

Take care my brother

as per my last post

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee
6 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

 

that is a look at duplicate ballots specifically and not part of the random ballot examination that I was quoting about and that turned up an initial discrepancy of 3%...in 100 ballots....

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
38 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Out of a random selection of 100 votes? There’s a need I think at least for the random sample to be expanded to 1000.

I think in most states, could be wrong, margin of error is expected to be + or - 3%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RAyMO
12 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

This seemed like the most appropriate place to post this but apparently a lawsuit was filed in Arizona asking for an audit of duplicate votes over allegations of fraud involving said ballots.

 

36 minutes ago, bee said:

.if the same % is found in the 2,500 sample then the % of fraudulent votes is more than the % that Biden won by.....

the review was according to Darkhunter of duplicate votes - effectively the review was checking the accuracy of transcription. 

Despite what the twit states the 3% is not reflective of the overall votes - it reflects only those the which were duplicated. 

12 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

In Arizona a duplicate ballot is when a ballot fails to be read by the counting machine for any reason and a poll worker duplicates the ballot exactly on a new ballot that will hopefully be read by the machine.

 Biden won Arizona by 10,400 - so if that 3% was to hold which is debateable. 

More on this

After the team found two errors on duplicate ballots, Wilenchik filed a motion asking to expand the duplicate ballot review. Maricopa County officials stepped in and allowed the team to review an additional 1,526 duplicates on Wednesday evening. 

On Thursday, the parties presented their findings. Of the 1,626 duplicates reviewed, one contained a Trump vote that was counted for Biden. Five others contained votes for Trump that weren't counted at all, and two contained votes for Biden that weren't counted.  

Extrapolating Trump's net gain of six votes from the 1,626-ballot sample and applying it to all If the error rate from this week's inspection held, Trump would gain about 195 votes statewide. 

so basically another red herring. 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
4 minutes ago, bee said:

 

that is a look at duplicate ballots specifically and not part of the random ballot examination that I was quoting about and that turned up an initial discrepancy of 3%...in 100 ballots....

 

Or is it?  Notice don't give any other details?

Can this be corrobrated on .gov?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
2 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I think in most states, could be wrong, margin of error is expected to be + or - 3%.

WTF.... really? That’s crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
25 minutes ago, the13bats said:

WTH is a "teumpling" ?  that IS uttery bizarre confused2.gif.01873e7acdf54622842871a119bcf8d3.gif

A “trumpling” written by a tired idiot who doesn’t proof read.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter B
26 minutes ago, the13bats said:

WTH is a "teumpling" ?  that IS uttery bizarre confused2.gif.01873e7acdf54622842871a119bcf8d3.gif

It's proof that E is next to R on the keyboard...

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
3 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

A “trumpling” written by a tired idiot who doesn’t proof read.

Oooh okay...cheers2.gif.0f51db2aebbc68dbc1e9b7edb91cf5ed.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
35 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

1. the suitcases word was deliberately chosen - that's the start - they are not suitcases - they are standard ballot boxes. 

2. the ballots had been removed from their envelopes and processed while news media and election observers for the Republican Party and Trump campaign were present

3. The media and party observers were never told to leave because counting was over for the night - they followed the envelope processers out of the room. wrong decision on observers part at most

4. The observers were free to return at anytime, Georgia law allows observers, but does not require them to be there for ballots to be counted

ps why would anyone do what is claimed when being observed 24/7 by cctv?

original source epoch times - should have been enough of a clue. 

People do stoopid stuff on camera all the time.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
3 minutes ago, Peter B said:

It's proof that E is next to R on the keyboard...

Okay guys, i thought it was some new attempt at insult he dreamed up shrug.gif.a41857e3577c2a6b2be6fb3d87f1ecb6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee
1 minute ago, Golden Duck said:

Or is it?  Notice don't give any other details?

Can this be corrobrated on .gov?

the random sample that turned up 3% irregularity was not specific to duplicate ballots..

from your link..

"But a review of more than 1,600 duplicate ballots "


https://ovi.csg.org/ballot-duplication-what-it-is-what-it-is-not-and-why-we-are-talking-about-it-in-2020/

According to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), ballot duplication is the process for replacing damaged or improperly marked ballots (i.e., the voting system cannot read the ballot) with a new ballot that preserves the voter’s intent. The ballot duplication processes create a “clean ballot” with the voter’s choices that can be read by ballot tabulation equipment. The process also ensures that the original voter-marked ballot is retained for the record including any required auditing. It is the duplicated or transcribed “clean ballot,” and not the damaged one, that is counted by tabulation equipment.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter B
11 hours ago, and then said:

Drip...drip...drip

https://www.theepochtimes.com/state-farm-arena-footage-shows-poll-workers-staying-behind-pulling-out-suitcases-with-ballots_3603293.html?utm_source=news&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2020-12-03-3

This CCTV video may be sufficient to charge those who were observed unloading SUITCASES of ballots.  Gee, I wonder if these designated "poll workers" will be willing to spend years in jail rather than just tell the truth?  Somehow, I doubt it.

 

10 hours ago, and then said:

Hmmm... I'm not hearing any excuses for this, yet.  I guess their media haven't told them how to react or to counter these facts.  

Can you guess what my next sentence will be?

Something along the lines of "Let's see what the courts rule"?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats
3 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

People do stoopid stuff on camera all the time.

Yep, they sure do...

OIP.GwpqrwCQaf-1DtdbIMe3RwHaFC?w=193&h=1

smilielol5(2).gif.1034bd5f5351f2f7cec8082f5fa4943d.gif

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee
8 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I think in most states, could be wrong, margin of error is expected to be + or - 3%.

 

just to make a general observation - on that point about margins of error...

if that is so..... then you would think that a candidate would need to have more than a 3% lead to win...?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
2 minutes ago, the13bats said:

Yep, they sure do...

OIP.GwpqrwCQaf-1DtdbIMe3RwHaFC?w=193&h=1

smilielol5(2).gif.1034bd5f5351f2f7cec8082f5fa4943d.gif

Eeeeewwwwwww.......

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.