Economic misery index continues improv8ng

[pjmret]

Here is data that really smart people can understand:



Study Shows Impossible Anomalies Causing Biden ‘win’ in Michigan -- In 5 Seconds Biden Racked Up 140,000 | The Gateway Pundit | by Benjamin Wetmore 12-11-20



Study Shows Impossible Anomalies Causing Biden ‘win’ in Michigan — In 5 Seconds Biden Racked Up 140,000

By Benjamin Wetmore Dec. 11, 2020 5:51 pm

A recently published review of available election data shows: major voting machine manipulation in favor of Biden. In almost every Michigan precinct, Biden had exact 50-55% higher absentee totals than Trump. In 5 seconds, Biden’s total votes in Michigan went up 140,000 votes. In 9 problem Michigan Counties, the absentee votes between Trump and Biden are so similar that the study’s author says they are clear indications of vote machine manipulation.

“Statistically impossible.”

“The odds here, of all of this, are like winning the Powerball 65 times in a row.”

John Droz is a 40 year physicist by trade based in North Carolina, who has collected other researchers in other fields to examine the available voter data. He’s collected and published several reports online that provide shocking evidence of statistical impossibilities.

One of those anomalies, pictured, shows the rate of absentee voting by precinct between 2016 and 2020 for Hillary/Biden in blue, and Trump in red. In 2016 the differences are unrelated. But in 2020, for some reason, in both Oakland and Ingham counties, among several others, the rates of absentee voting between the two parties is clearly related when it should not be. According to Droz, this is some of the best evidence from statistical review that there were serious, systemic abnormalities in the 2020 Presidential election, and that the fraud was occurring at the machine and tabulator level.

There should be no reason why Trump absentee voters are voting at exactly the same reduced percentage as Biden absentee voters. Yet that trend exists in the data, as you can see.

the phase "impossible anomoly" is proof of stupidity. lol
as is "statistically impossible". that proves the author is a *****.
actual statisticians wouldn't use such words, since they don't make mathematical sense unless you can prove something can't possibly ever happen. which of course the author didn't.

quote a credible inedependent statistics expert who agrees with the above. lol.
but you won't

clue for morons - its not data if its opinions. duh.

 

[mark francis]

the phase "impossible anomoly" is proof of stupidity. lol
as is "statistically impossible". that proves the author is a *****.

No. Democrats who refuse to acknowledge facts supported by scientific statistics are the morons.

actual statisticians wouldn't use such words, since they don't make mathematical sense unless you can prove something can't possibly ever happen. which of course the author didn't.

The science of statistics and probability is a valid science.

quote a credible inedependent statistics expert who agrees with the above. lol.
but you won't

clue for morons - its not data if its opinions. duh.

No, I will not quote a leftist expert (the only kind of expert you apparently will accept as long as he totes the leftist political party line) willing to argue against scientific facts for political reasons.

 

[pjmret]

No. Democrats who refuse to acknowledge facts supported by scientific statistics are the morons.

The science of statistics and probability is a valid science.

No, I will not quote a leftist expert (the only kind of expert you apparently will accept as long as he totes the leftist political party line) willing to argue against scientific facts for political reasons.

no i accept independent credible ones.
let me know when you have one. but you never do. lol.

and yes, statistics is a valid science, but phrases like "statistical impossibility" are only used by statistical morons

 

[mark francis]

no i accept independent credible ones.
let me know when you have one. but you never do. lol.

and yes, statistics is a valid science, but phrases like "statistical impossibility" are only used by statistical morons

If you don't accept scientific reports you do not agree with you could at least attempt to refute them, if you are even able to.

 

[pjmret]

If you don't accept scientific reports you do not agree with you could at least attempt to refute them, if you are even able to.

let me know when you have actual scientific reports from actual credible independent scientists in their own field.

the fact taht someone labels something a "study" doesn't make it credible. lol.
but you morons fall for it every time. hahahahah

 

[mark francis]

let me know when you have actual scientific reports from actual credible independent scientists in their own field.

the fact taht someone labels something a "study" doesn't make it credible. lol.
but you morons fall for it every time. hahahahah

There are no "actual scientific reports" that are edited in order to conform only to questionable leftist narratives. Biased science is quasi-science, not real science.

 

[pjmret]

There are no "actual scientific reports" that are edited in order to conform only to questionable leftist narratives. Biased science is quasi-science, not real science.

of course there are actual scientific reports.
god you are so stupid. lol

 

[mark francis]

of course there are actual scientific reports.
god you are so stupid. lol

Biased reports that shade the truth are not trustworthy or accurate.