(03-31-2022, 03:41 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: Dude. You are posting an opinion piece that doesn't address any of the statistical anomalies in a peer-reviewed research paper. I took the time to read that garbage opinion piece that is basically one giant strawman. It doesn't even attempt to address the claims made in the report. Can we acknowledge the discrepancies before we jump to Qanon? Is that possible in today's day and age?

How was it peer reviewed and who did the peer review? What were their qualifications and possible biases?

I read the chapter about the nursing home anomalies and the essential conclusion (once you wade through the verbosity) was that 100% voting participation in nursing home residents in Wisconsin is not plausible because nursing home residents are old and feeble. There are also some allegations of ballot harvesting but not much outside of anecdotes to back it up.

A report by an individual that proves assertions made by the same individual prior to investigating an issue is well worth a healthy dose of skepticism.

The claims vof widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election have been debunked.

---