Did he get frequent flyer miles And a bag of nuts ?

Werbung:
pjmret said:
yes you are. you have nothing that shows clinton did anything wrong but you go on and on about him. lol
Click to expand...
Epstein was murdered just like so many of Bill Clinton's former associates were mysteriously murdered under highly suspicious circumstances. Maxwell said Epstein had tapes of Bill Clinton having sex with a girl of questionable age at Epstein's place. That shows the Clintons had a serious motive to make sure Epstein did not threaten to release that evidence to the public to save himself during a trial.
 
mark francis said:
I don't need a judge to prove a peer-reviewed report is valid. If you want to disprove the report, feel free to employ a judge or anyone else to help you.
Click to expand...

yes you do. lol. one paper that uses statistics proves nothing. statistics is full of ASSumptions. duh

The journal Public Choice goes the way of Lancet and publishes a paper that is “riddled with errors” but comes to a political conclusion that they want to support.​

The journal Public Choice goes the way of Lancet and publishes a paper that is “riddled with errors” but comes to a political conclusion that they want to support. | Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science

statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu

Lott (2022) introduces ‘simple tests’ of voter fraud and applies them to measure the extent of fraud in the 2020 election. Using the tests, Lott (2022) claims to have discovered 10,000 extra votes for Biden in Pennsylvania and Georgia based on mishandling of absentee votes, 6,700 extra votes for Biden in Pennsylvania from inappropriate allowances for provisional votes, and 255,000 excess votes due to artificially large turnout across several counties in six key states. All three claims are demonstrably false: the first claim relies on a specification error that Lott (2022) inadvertently reintroduced into the analysis after we identified and corrected the same error in the first public draft of this paper; the second claim is based on analysis that, by its own logic, would show larger fraud in favor of Trump; the third depends on selective reporting, as Lott (2022) shows insignificant results when differential trends in turnout across states are acknowledged. As we document in the Appendix, Lott’s (2022) analysis is riddled with errors and fails to accurately report the research that was conducted. At several points the paper misstates the regression specification being used (as we confirm through replicating Lott’s (2022) results), misreports regression coefficients (always in a direction favorable to his argument), and incorrectly reports variables used to produce a result. After correcting these errors, we show Lott’s (2022) analysis fails to provide any evidence of voter fraud in the 2020 election.


lol that paper proves..nothing.
 
mark francis said:
I don't need a judge to prove a peer-reviewed report is valid. If you want to disprove the report, feel free to employ a judge or anyone else to help you.
Click to expand...

Grimmer writes:

Our paper documents a series of the problems with the paper that indicate it is extremely sloppy and Lott merely running models until he gets a preferred result . Beyond the massive issue (Lott’s estimating nonsensical coefficients), he claims to have used different variables in regressions than he does and even appears to have flipped the sign on some reported coefficients so that they are consistent with what he wants to show—that there was anti-Trump fraud.
Click to expand...

lol. that paper is full of errors. hahahahahahahha

which is why it hasn't gone anywhere else, like fox news. or to the courts.
 
mark francis said:
Epstein was murdered just like so many of Bill Clinton's former associates were mysteriously murdered under highly suspicious circumstances. Maxwell said Epstein had tapes of Bill Clinton having sex with a girl of questionable age at Epstein's place. That shows the Clintons had a serious motive to make sure Epstein did not threaten to release that evidence to the public to save himself during a trial.
Click to expand...

ah, the clinton murder list theory, a favorite of right wing morons. lol
 
pjmret said:
yes you do. lol. one paper that uses statistics proves nothing. statistics is full of ASSumptions. duh

The journal Public Choice goes the way of Lancet and publishes a paper that is “riddled with errors” but comes to a political conclusion that they want to support.​

The journal Public Choice goes the way of Lancet and publishes a paper that is “riddled with errors” but comes to a political conclusion that they want to support. | Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science

statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu

Lott (2022) introduces ‘simple tests’ of voter fraud and applies them to measure the extent of fraud in the 2020 election. Using the tests, Lott (2022) claims to have discovered 10,000 extra votes for Biden in Pennsylvania and Georgia based on mishandling of absentee votes, 6,700 extra votes for Biden in Pennsylvania from inappropriate allowances for provisional votes, and 255,000 excess votes due to artificially large turnout across several counties in six key states. All three claims are demonstrably false: the first claim relies on a specification error that Lott (2022) inadvertently reintroduced into the analysis after we identified and corrected the same error in the first public draft of this paper; the second claim is based on analysis that, by its own logic, would show larger fraud in favor of Trump; the third depends on selective reporting, as Lott (2022) shows insignificant results when differential trends in turnout across states are acknowledged. As we document in the Appendix, Lott’s (2022) analysis is riddled with errors and fails to accurately report the research that was conducted. At several points the paper misstates the regression specification being used (as we confirm through replicating Lott’s (2022) results), misreports regression coefficients (always in a direction favorable to his argument), and incorrectly reports variables used to produce a result. After correcting these errors, we show Lott’s (2022) analysis fails to provide any evidence of voter fraud in the 2020 election.


lol that paper proves..nothing.
Click to expand...
Desiring to interpret the facts differently does not force different interpretations of the facts.
 
pjmret said:
Grimmer writes:



lol. that paper is full of errors. hahahahahahahha

which is why it hasn't gone anywhere else, like fox news. or to the courts.
Click to expand...
Criticizing the publication reporting the facts does not serve as a refutation of the facts.
 
pjmret said:
i want to see any credible evidence that proves any of your conspiracy theories.
so far you've failed every time. lol
Click to expand...
The facts are there. You claim I have not proven them and you are right. I claim you have not disproven them and I am also right.
 
mark francis said:
The facts are there. You claim I have not proven them and you are right. I claim you have not disproven them and I am also right.
Click to expand...

if the paper had any merit it would be all over the place, moron, not dead in the water. lol
 
mark francis said:
The unusual number of mysterious deaths of former potential witnesses against the Clintons is not a theory but a fact.
Click to expand...

"mysterious" is not a fact, moron, but an opinion. lol.

why didn't trump's doj go after them for all those murders? oh because it just another stupid conspiracy theory :)
 
Werbung:
pjmret said:
if the paper had any merit it would be all over the place, moron. not dead in the water. lol
Click to expand...
Pointing out that leftist media outlets refuse to share the peer-reviewed report does not disprove it's facts and conclusions.
 

Similar threads

Devil505
President Obama's First Year Accomplishments
2 3
Replies
33
Views
2K
Phoenix68
Phoenix68
Back
Top