(11-07-2020, 03:41 PM)NeptuneBeachBum Wrote:

(11-07-2020, 03:38 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: That's a garbage way to debate. But glad you could concede my point. If  you want to debate something else, we can do it in another thread.

Its only garbage from your perspective because logic is not on your side.  Their is more credibility to the SDNY's investigation than yours; and it will result in a real outcome.  You're just looking to find something controversial; they have already found something and are looking for unequivocal proof of guilt.

Stop talking about logic if you're not going to apply it yourself. Every single instance has it's own unique set of circumstances. SDNY's investigation is going to be uniquely different than what I am discussing, which includes the evidence specific to that case. I am not going to go down a rabbit trail arguing something that is distinctly different from this argument. You are bringing literally no evidence to support  your position, and, instead, you are relying on rhetoric to "win" the argument. Not interested. You want to talk about a completely different investigation, make a new thread, and we'll discuss it. I am making a case for reasonable suspicion by disparities unique to a few counties. I have not said there is fraud, only that it is suspicious and worthy of a closer look. You aren't refuting anything with evidence like historical examples. The one time you have referenced with Abrams I have conceded as a plausible explanation. This is an argument in a box, and your attempt to bring in an outside event to justify your position. Sorry if I don't take the bait. Don't be a tool.

---

Statistical anomalies are relevant when trying to deduce outcomes.

---