100% of votes for Obama in a hundred precincts

Yes. Thank you for finally reading your own post.

The fact that you would rather run and hide than discuss those same sources tells me that you either haven't read them or you not willing to have an intellectually honest discussion regarding them.

I've already addressed the OP. If you can't engage in the discussion that you have pretended to be interested in, flailing in desperation to avoid any actual discussion and running away to try to find something else, that's not my problem.

 

I was halfway interested in the topic, I'm not at all interested in your flailing about. It's boring to me but I assume you find it compelling.

 

Then why can't you defend it using facts?

I'd ask for evidence, but you are now willing to engage in that discussion

 

That's why you are unable to comprehend the facts. As I understand you do not contest your academic placement.

So explain how precincts with a 100% vote had been an unambiguous sign of voter fraud in Russia and suddenly lost statistical significance in US.

 

He has this on his website

 

Which means you do not understand my point

 

Perhaps you do not understand your point yourself. You wanted citations and peer review. You got school, degree, and GPA. A more useful information.

 

You've made no academic argument. No academic response is required.


So explain how precincts with a 100% vote had been an unambiguous sign of voter fraud in Russia and suddenly lost statistical significance in US.[/QUOTE]
[/quote]You failed to read your own link. The link about Russia is not based on "precincts" going 100% one way or the other. Please try reading links if you are going to post them. I can try to simplify this if you still don't get it.

 

It isn't the same method. Please actually read your own links. If you can't read your links, then don't post them. If you are going to spread braindead conspiracy theories, at least make them interesting.

 

It is exactly the same method. The text is identical beyond replacing "EP" with "Obama" and replacing the numbers with the Michigan ones.

 

Logical fallacy - appeal to authority and believe me his “academic achievements” are pretty unimpressive and do not look all that authentic

 

That's what you did when asked for citations and peer review.

Believe you rather than the academic transcript?

 

The link shows that 34 of those precincts had over 100 (hundred) voters (7 in Michigan, 12 in New York, and 15 in Louisiana).

 

The link shows these were in fact miniature districts many of which had only 1 voter, and even if come has 100 it still means nothing when those voters are in all-black districts and most likely most didn't even vote.

What's the point of bringing up stuff like that? Well, the point is to play people like you into thinking its some kind of conspiracy, and based on the comments its working like a charm.

 

There were only 10 precincts with one vote (9 in NY and 1 in Louisiana). And 34 with over 100 voters. Why 10 is "many" and 34 merely "some?"

Most did not vote and the ballots were stuffed like in this video https://rumble.com/v1iuvdk-shocking...en-footage-of-ballot-trafficking-in-detr.html

And means nothing because they would vote for Obama anyway. Or should have vote anyway. Because progressive people voted for Obama?

In the case of Russian elections such anomalies were considered a sign of fraud by Washington Post.

 

They are miniature districts either way

Rumble....

Yes, people in black miniature districts either vote for Obama or don't vote at all. Some, I am sure, voted for McCain, but of course they are not on that list because......well, because they voted for McCain

Its miniature districts with as few as 1 voter vs Russian places with tens of thousands of voters, or in Saddam's Iraq, millions of them.

 

I don't remember. But couple of my posts had been memory-holed today:

Of course, any "insinuation" could be destroyed by posting a transcript.