patrick.net

OK, downloaded it.

The most recent birthdates of voters:

2020
2020
2020
2020
7998

The oldest birthdates of voters:

1901
1901
1901
1901
1901
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1900
1898
1894

WTF?

To get those results:

cut -f8 PHILADELPHIA\ FVE\ 20201102.txt > birthdates.txt
cut -f3 -d\/ birthdates.txt | sort -r

Now Buzzfeed claims that 1/1/1800 is like somebody in the witness protection program as if it's 1979 and that's the only way to hide or restrict access because it's a PET terminal with no data storage or something.

But that doesn't account for 8/13/1854 or 9/20/1898 or whatever.

Spanish American War Vets for Biden! The hell with Spain! Remember the Maine! And don't build a wall!

www.youtube.com/embed/bu1Kcm0DJrU

www.youtube.com/embed/XAGkHQfXkiw

Joe Frazier, famous Boxer, voted in the 2020 election, even though he died 5 years ago.

www.youtube.com/embed/5oEOwPrM9dQ

NoCoupForYou says

www.youtube.com/embed/XAGkHQfXkiw

How much was that guy paid?

NoCoupForYou says

Joe Frazier, famous Boxer, voted in the 2020 election, even though he died 5 years ago.

www.youtube.com/embed/5oEOwPrM9dQ

Is he pulling this stuff out of his ass? Why didn’t he just whip out hunter Biden’s laptop and show it to everyone live on TV while he was at it?

No, he pulled it out of your ass.

@ Patrick - do you think the DOB's could be attributable to clerical error? What was the percentage of questionable / impossible DOB's relative to the entire data set?

***

I don't want to belive there was fraud, but I have seen several reports of statistical anomalies. If they are independently verifiable, especially if they tend to lean in one direction.... that is at least looking into.

This is exactly what we have the electoral college system for.

BoomAndBustCycle says

Is he pulling this stuff out of his ass? Why didn’t he just whip out hunter Biden’s laptop and show it to everyone live on TV while he was at it?

If Guiliani was lying, Buzzfeed or Vox or other Chinese Stooges would have "Debunked it" by now. Bet your ass he can prove that Joe Frazier and Will Smiths father both voted.

In fact, there was just a download of the entire Philly Voter Database here - Philly SELLS it to marketeers for money. Another thing they forgot about because they didn't expect to have to fraud enough votes to cover an almost million point deficit, only maybe 100 or 200k.

it seems that everybody knows already that voting fraud has been rampant in the big blue cities and California for a long time. For some reason, nobody has wanted to take a stand on it. So, what is unusual about this that it is the blatant Super Bowl of vote fraud over a Presidential election, sort of like the business as usual stuff squared. When so many politicians have gotten away with it for so long in so many venues, why would anybody think they couldn't get away with this? Bring in the hampers full of fake votes, the game is on.

Four things: 1. Were the ballots truly watermarked in such a way that the fraud can be proven? 2. Will the SCOTUS send the election to Congress for a vote? Every state has a single vote, so in the House it would be 27 to 22 in favor of Trump almost by default, with two maybes that wouldn't matter. The Senate would choose the VP. 3. If SCOTUS orders the States to nominate Electors, then Trump is also likely to win because he can campaign again, and would surely turn several of the stolen states back to him.4. Will we ever get transparent and trustworthy Presidential elections ever again, much less the lesser elections, or has voting, Stalin like, become completely nullified?

That's why Biden can't be inaugurated without another vote, or without any mail in not 100% verified, tossed out.

Why on Earth would the DNCCCP reform elections after winning by fraud?

If anything, AOC will write a bill "Finally Ending Voter Suppression in the USA" that mandates Ballot Harvesting, Same-Day Registration, Outdated Addresses On File, No Regular Voter Purges, And Mail-Ins Counted After In-Person Voting - if not mandating only Mail In voting in all 50 states, the House may well pass, and President Kamala will proudly sign calling it a victory against racist repression and voter suppression. And the media will cheer that "Reform"

Patrick says

The head of advertising for Facebook pointed out that Russian ads were all aimed at dividing Americans. The Russians seem to have succeeded quite well at that.

Patrick. You ACTUALLY believe this?

The "Russians" that were doing "advertisement" to "divide Americans" weren't even Russian. They were some people in an eastern block nation. Here's one of the "advertisments" they were making to "divide Americans"



It was just a bunch of people making click bait and memes.

BREAKING: Here is the signed affidavit from Erie, Pennsylvania @USPS Whistleblower Richard Hopkins that is now in the hands of Sen. Lindsey Graham and the Senate Judiciary Committee. #ExposeUSPS pic.twitter.com/mi993k9CAJ

— James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) November 8, 2020

Nomograph says

I get my news and information from a variety of mainstream sources that maintain high journalistic standards and which don't publish unverified stories and rumors.

Are you willing to name these confidential sources?

Nomograph says

My main sources of news are the The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.

Oh, those fine old standards of journalistic integrity.

Wall Street Journal - Media Bias/Fact Check
Search domain mediabiasfactcheck.com/wall-street-journal/https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/wall-street-journal/
Overall, we rate the Wall Street Journal Right-Center biased due to low biased news reporting in combination with a strong right biased editorial stance. We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting rather than High, due to anti-climate, anti-science stances, and occasional misleading editorials. (7/18/2016) Updated (M. Huitsing 08/15/2020)

So they are good except their "anti-science" stance.

New York Times - Media Bias/Fact Check
Search domain mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-times/https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-times/
Overall, we rate the New York Times Left-Center biased based on word and story selection that moderately favors the left, but highly factual and considered one of the most reliable sources for news information due to proper sourcing and well-respected journalists/editors.

A fine all around liberal rag.

Nomograph says

I get my news and information from a variety of mainstream sources that maintain high journalistic standards and which don't publish unverified stories and rumors. My main sources of news are the The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. I generally due my diligence with regard to fact checking, something that some folks here could do more of.

Why do you believe your sources? How do you fact check as an individual? Do you call or message them directly? You know what you're saying is pure BS or at least I hope so.

It's all bullshit and you know it. Not a knock but I feel like I'm turning into Richwicks at this point. I don't trust a fucking thing anymore.

Voter ID will fix all of this.

Nomograph says

Patrick says

The head of advertising for Facebook pointed out that Russian ads were all aimed at dividing Americans. The Russians seem to have succeeded quite well at that.

This was the unequivocal finding of the Mueller investigation, something we should all agree needs to be addressed. Trump, unfortunately, refused to take any action whatsoever, likely because it was largely favorable to him.

Goodness.

Remember Concord Management? That's the company that Robert Mueller indicted and accused of election interference, because he assumed they would never show up to defend themselves. Well, they did.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/07/in-major-blow-to-mueller-federal-judge-rebukes-mueller-and-doj-for-falsely-claiming-russian-bot-farm-linked-to-russian-government/

Mueller, for some reason decided not to pursue the case,

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-concord-idUSKBN21427H

All you have to do is remember some names, and look them up 6 months later.

Booger says

Voter ID will fix all of this.

Not happening with Biden. If Trump goes lame duck, interested to see what his scorched earth method reveals. Everyone is in the crosshairs. This could be epic.

Dems and Republicans are both to blame. Over the years, corruption in voting has been documented time an again and ignored. Both Republicans and Democrats have had a 'wink wink nod nod' attitude, with the idea that beneficiaries of both parties could sometimes get away with murder. The problem is, that creates a 'broken windows' policy that drags the whole process down to a moral and ethical abyss.
The Dems just decided that since the ethical and legal bar was so low, they would industrialize and assembly line the fake vote harvests in order to hold on to one party rule. The destructive character of the 'broken windows' has come full fore. The Dems are showing they can 'wink wink nod nod' with total abandon to any rule of law or decency.

There is no law without enforcement, and lack of enforcement itself can create a kind of precedent. Can the Trump election suddenly elevate the moral, legal and ethical standard again to prevail, or is it just a 'one shot' for situational logistics? Based on law, Trump should prevail, but trust in the system will not be restored. That lack of trust can eventually bring down the country, and the Hun will win anyway.

Ceffer says

The Dems are showing they can 'wink wink nod nod' with total abandon to any rule of law or decency.

Didn't they show it many times before in other areas like immigration enforcement and "gun control"?

Booger says

When did Biden call him a nigger? Is there a video of it or anything?

GreaterNYCDude says

@ Patrick - do you think the DOB's could be attributable to clerical error? What was the percentage of questionable / impossible DOB's relative to the entire data set?

***

I don't want to belive there was fraud, but I have seen several reports of statistical anomalies. If they are independently verifiable, especially if they tend to lean in one direction.... that is at least looking into.

This is exactly what we have the electoral college system for.

@GreaterNYCDude Well, if those names correspond to actual living voters, then maybe somehow their date of birth was just entered wrong.

But if those names correspond to actual dead people who somehow voted from the grave, then there was definitely fraud.

It would take some investigation to know for sure. Will that happen?

richwicks says

Patrick says

The head of advertising for Facebook pointed out that Russian ads were all aimed at dividing Americans. The Russians seem to have succeeded quite well at that.

Patrick. You ACTUALLY believe this?

Yes, I could find the interview with the guy. He was being intensely pressured to say that the Russians were supporting Trump. I'm pretty sure he was telling the truth, bravely.

Nomograph says

WookieMan says

I feel like I'm turning into Richwicks at this point. I don't trust a fucking thing anymore.

That is a dangerous place and will lead you to deep unhappiness. Clinging to false ideas is not the way to go.

yes tell me about that Russian collusion

FortWayneAsNancyPelosiHaircut says

yes tell me about that Russian collusion

It's so funny to see the Russian hoax get thrown right back in the Left's face when they think election fraud is a conspiracy theory.

WookieMan says

It's all bullshit and you know it. Not a knock but I feel like I'm turning into Richwicks at this point. I don't trust a fucking thing anymore.

You're just becoming aware.

Look, you know how painful it is to talk to people all over the world who constantly point out your nation's propaganda and to realize they are correct, in time, and then live for 20 years in the United States and trying to pass on the information to other US citizens and they simply don't believe you regardless of how much evidence you point out to them?

I do.

You are constantly gaslit. Just to keep my sanity I had to continue talking to these people for years, only to see my avenues of information diminish over time. You can't talk to a Syrian on Facebook now, or a Russian. People lose contact over time as well, or they disappear and you don't know what happened to them. I used to talk to an Iranian, until I realized I was placing him in danger by continuing to talk to him.

You can't trust anything - our "news" media and our "social networking sites" have not changed in over decade. YOU have. Welcome to my world.

There's a Russian I know at work, where I had a long 2 hour conversation about Syria, Ukraine, Russia, Libya - he gave me additional insight. He was genuinely surprised he met an American that knew what was going on, and I was desperately thankful to find another person that wasn't driven mad by propaganda. He's like "sure, you have a lot of propaganda here, but I make a lot of money here, and I really don't want to have to go back to Russia - but I can and might have to at some point". I got nowhere to go. I'll just sit back and watch the nation burn.

Nomograph says

WookieMan says

I feel like I'm turning into Richwicks at this point. I don't trust a fucking thing anymore.

That is a dangerous place and will lead you to deep unhappiness. Clinging to false ideas is not the way to go.

Argh.

If I'm incorrect about anything, please point it out and challenge me on it.

I would be OVERJOYED to be wrong, but I'm not.

I used to be quite a religious guy when I was a kid. Then I went into a hard science education and walked out of it as an atheist. You really can't contest Darwinism when you understand a genetic algorithm or AI. You can't believe the world is 5,000 years old when you understand various radioactive dating methods. You can't believe that you're in the "right" religion when you've been exposed to a dozen of them. I read about evolutionary biology then evolutionary psychology which gives a detailed hypothesis of how "morality" is constructed over time not only in human societies, but animal societies.

I used to talk to my cousin who thinks quite a lot like me, that has my same level of cynicism and abandoned the country as a result. In a conversation with him about 20 years ago the topic came up as to whether we would rather be miserable and know the truth, or be happy and ignorant. We both concluded we'd prefer to be miserable.

There is some, minimal, enjoyment in actually understanding the world as it truly is, but very few people do. They don't care. They prefer ignorance and I suppose it's true that it's bliss.

But it's not false, it's just you can't face reality. Very few people can.

And this:

Nomograph says

WookieMan says
Clinging to false ideas is not the way to go.

Can't you see, that is precisely what you are doing? They aren't even your own ideas.

But you're not really doing that are you? You are gaslighting people. I can immediately see it now. That's one gift I got now, I know pretty quickly if somebody is lying to me or attempting to deceive me or others.

I just caught a propagandist on youtube this morning. There is a group that follows a similar pattern when they produce propaganda on youtube. First, they respond to you multiple times to overwhelm your ability to respond to them - you fix this by consolidating their 5 responses to you into a single message, second they claim you don't know what you are talking about and ignore any evidence for your reasoning and won't explain their reasoning because they have a script to repeat, not reasoning, and finally, they are almost always invariably "new users" to the site and only discuss a single issue.

People whine that the Smith-Mundt Act was repealed under Obama, it didn't have to be, it hasn't been enforced for decades. Its repeal was just a signal to tell people "we will now be using propaganda against the population, openly".

richwicks says

Nomograph says

WookieMan says

I feel like I'm turning into Richwicks at this point. I don't trust a fucking thing anymore.

That is a dangerous place and will lead you to deep unhappiness. Clinging to false ideas is not the way to go.

Argh.

If I'm incorrect about anything, please point it out and challenge me on it.

I would be OVERJOYED to be wrong, but I'm not.

I used to be quite a religious guy when I was a kid. Then I went into a hard science education and walked out of it as an atheist. You really can't contest Darwinism when you understand a genetic algorithm or AI. You can't believe the world is 5,000 years old when you understand various radioactive dating methods. You can't believe that you're in the "right" religion when you've been exposed to a dozen of them. I read abou...

You can still believe in a creator or creating force which created the universe as you discover it.

mell says

You can still believe in a creator or creating force which created the universe as you discover it.

I can believe Santa Claus is hanging out on Neptune as well. I just don't have any evidence for it.

Default position is that any claim is false until evidence is made available to support an assertion.

You've heard of Occam's Razor haven't you? Most people think it means the simplest explanation is the most likely explanation. That's not Occam's Razor. It's the explanation with the least number of assumptions is most likely to be the correct explanation. An explanation that makes no assumptions must necessarily be correct.

I have no evidence I'm not a meat robot, and it's logical to think I am if a dog is or if a cow is. Perhaps as my mind deteriorates in age, I can stop thinking this way.

richwicks says

mell says

You can still believe in a creator or creating force which created the universe as you discover it.

I can believe Santa Claus is hanging out on Neptune as well. I just don't have any evidence for it.

Default position is that any claim is false until evidence is made available to support an assertion.

You've heard of Occam's Razor haven't you? Most people think it means the simplest explanation is the most likely explanation. That's not Occam's Razor. It's the explanation with the least number of assumptions is most likely to be the correct explanation. An explanation that makes no assumptions must necessarily be correct.

I have no evidence I'm not a meat robot, and it's logical to think I am if a dog is or if a cow is. Perhaps as my mind deteriorates in age, I can stop thinking this way.

How was the universe created then. By what force?

mell says

How was the universe created then. By what force?

I don't know but making any assumptions of what made it exist, that's the height of arrogance.

And if it's to be answered with "god did it" you end up with the same problem - what created god? You end up with the same unanswered question again.

I simply don't know what created the universe but here's something I bet you didn't know. We really don't have evidence of the big bang. Many of the predictions of that model are wrong.

www.youtube.com/embed/3KkhRibBllU

I think the theory is going to break down. Some scientists have claimed they have proved it couldn't have happened. Ultimately, it's simply unknowable, at least by me.

richwicks says

mell says

How was the universe created then. By what force?

I don't know but making any assumptions of what made it exist, that's the height of arrogance.

And if it's to be answered with "god did it" you end up with the same problem - what created god? You end up with the same unanswered question again.

I simply don't know what created the universe but here's something I bet you didn't know. We really don't have evidence of the big bang. Many of the predictions of that model are wrong.

www.youtube.com/embed/3KkhRibBllU

I think the theory is going to break down. Some scientists have claimed they have proved it couldn't have happened. Ultimately, it's simply unknowable, at least by me.

That's fine but it doesn't invalidate the possibility of a creator. Not knowing is more agnostic vs atheists claim they know there is none. Either way no need to convince each other. I just don't think religious beings are the simpletons they are being portrayed as. Some may be. But many scientists and discoverers were religious.

But many scientists and discoverers were religious.

True, but the motive for those brilliant people stemmed from something other than logic or the scientific method. Einstein's famous "God did not play dice with the universe" quote seemed to have more to do with his religious beliefs. Even so, it its turning out that the laws of chance seem to have overwhelming influence on the Universe, especially if one subscribes to quantum theory.

You can't believe the world is 5,000 years old when you understand various radioactive dating methods.

One not need even that level of education. A look at the Grand Canyon and a little common sense can tell you it took muck longer than 5,000 for all those layers of strata to build up, plus the time for the Colorado River to cut through them.