[Raev]

So first let me say that I am totally open to being convinced on all issues, and if you check my post history you can see that I left the Trump train long ago. I am not personally committed to any political position other than the gradual positive evolution of humanity. Anyway, let's try to raise the signal to noise ratio of this thread a few percent.

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

These tests are sensitive, they are not specific . . . could mean it was Trump who cheated and still lost.

I guess not, but you could be right here. I don't pretend to understand the intricacies of NWO politics and which crime families are currently working together.

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

when the expert explains their reasoning

If you reread my post, I specifically called them out for not explaining their reasoning. Let me repost their quotes:

Originally Posted by Theodore P. Hill

First, I’d like to stress that Benford’s Law can NOT be used to “prove fraud”. It is only a Red Flag test, that can raise doubts. E.g., the IRS has been using it for decades to ferret out fraudsters, but only by identifying suspicious entries, at which time they put the auditors to work on the hard evidence. Whether or not a dataset follows BL proves nothing.

Originally Posted by Walter Mebane

In any case, the 2BL test on its own should not be considered proof either that election fraud has occurred or that an election was clean. A significant 2BL test result can be caused by complications other than fraud. Some kinds of fraud the 2BL test cannot detect.

These quotes are simple statements of fact, and do not provide any evidence of anything, which is why I called them an appeal to authority. Also worth noting is that he is talking about the 2BL, when the 1BL is being used.

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Are those over 70 not worth being protected?

Surely we can agree that this is a question of economics and not a simple yes/no? For example, here the WHO talking about how we now have an additional 130 million people undernourished. And contrary to the WHO, this has nothing to do with the actual virus and everything to do with draconian lockdowns.

So yes, I care about Granny. I also care about 130 million people starving to death. Then we have to look at the mental health aspects. According to this random website depression has gone from 10% of the population to 30%. Isn't living longer while being miserable the wrong tradeoff? It's like the old joke about making up negative margins on volume.