President Joe Biden

thirteenknots said:
If Biden Won why did he and his worthless administration block so many
honest inquiries into the election results.
Now at this present moment you have more than five States with provable
electioneering on Nov 3rd 2020.

If Trump lost as you state, then openness about ALL of the results including
the Dominion usage and functions should have been released for ALL of
America to review. But that is NOT the case, never in history has election data
been hidden/destroyed/ blocked by DEMOCRAT judges and Lawyers.
Click to expand...

Are you really that much of a sucker? Or are you just lying?
 
espola said:
Are you really that much of a sucker? Or are you just lying?
Click to expand...
That accounted for 255,000 “excess” votes for Mr. Biden above what would be expected, Mr. Lott said. His paper has been accepted for publication in Public Choice, a peer-reviewed journal specializing in the intersection of economics and political science.
 
Multi Sport said:
That accounted for 255,000 “excess” votes for Mr. Biden above what would be expected, Mr. Lott said. His paper has been accepted for publication in Public Choice, a peer-reviewed journal specializing in the intersection of economics and political science.
Click to expand...

Do you mean John Lott? (Or perhaps Mary Rosh?)

"Lott’s claims, however, do not withstand scrutiny. Using Lott’s own data, we show in SI Appendix, section G that the specification he uses to analyze absentee voting patterns produces different conclusions depending on the entirely arbitrary order in which counties are entered in the dataset. Briefly, Lott posits that, if absentee ballots were correctly handled, the difference in Trump support across a boundary that separates a Democratic county from a Republican county should be similar to the difference in Trump support across a boundary that separates one Republican county from another. But Lott’s conclusion depends entirely on the order in which the differences are computed for the Republican–Republican pairs. The conclusion is reversed when an alternative and equally justified order is used."

 
espola said:
Do you mean John Lott? (Or perhaps Mary Rosh?)

"Lott’s claims, however, do not withstand scrutiny. Using Lott’s own data, we show in SI Appendix, section G that the specification he uses to analyze absentee voting patterns produces different conclusions depending on the entirely arbitrary order in which counties are entered in the dataset. Briefly, Lott posits that, if absentee ballots were correctly handled, the difference in Trump support across a boundary that separates a Democratic county from a Republican county should be similar to the difference in Trump support across a boundary that separates one Republican county from another. But Lott’s conclusion depends entirely on the order in which the differences are computed for the Republican–Republican pairs. The conclusion is reversed when an alternative and equally justified order is used."

Click to expand...
So was that peer reviewed?
 
espola said:
Do you mean John Lott? (Or perhaps Mary Rosh?)

"Lott’s claims, however, do not withstand scrutiny. Using Lott’s own data, we show in SI Appendix, section G that the specification he uses to analyze absentee voting patterns produces different conclusions depending on the entirely arbitrary order in which counties are entered in the dataset. Briefly, Lott posits that, if absentee ballots were correctly handled, the difference in Trump support across a boundary that separates a Democratic county from a Republican county should be similar to the difference in Trump support across a boundary that separates one Republican county from another. But Lott’s conclusion depends entirely on the order in which the differences are computed for the Republican–Republican pairs. The conclusion is reversed when an alternative and equally justified order is used."


As usual your throwing mud on the wall has only left you covered in cra
Click to expand...
espola said:
Do you mean John Lott? (Or perhaps Mary Rosh?)

"Lott’s claims, however, do not withstand scrutiny. Using Lott’s own data, we show in SI Appendix, section G that the specification he uses to analyze absentee voting patterns produces different conclusions depending on the entirely arbitrary order in which counties are entered in the dataset. Briefly, Lott posits that, if absentee ballots were correctly handled, the difference in Trump support across a boundary that separates a Democratic county from a Republican county should be similar to the difference in Trump support across a boundary that separates one Republican county from another. But Lott’s conclusion depends entirely on the order in which the differences are computed for the Republican–Republican pairs. The conclusion is reversed when an alternative and equally justified order is used."

Click to expand...
As usual your throwing mud on the wall technique has left upu covered in crap..

So what sports ".. were formerly known as women's sports ".

"Russia spys on all foreign tourist"
 
Multi Sport said:
So was that peer reviewed?
Click to expand...

PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) is an official journal of the National Academy of Sciences. Articles published there have a better reputation than anything published in Public Choice, a commercial venture published by Springer, a private for-profit company.
 
espola said:
PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) is an official journal of the National Academy of Sciences. Articles published there have a better reputation than anything published in Public Choice, a commercial venture published by Springer, a private for-profit company.
Click to expand...
So that's a no then... I thought so.
 
Multi Sport said:
So that's a no then... I thought so.
Click to expand...

You have an interesting thought process.

According to the "Authors info and affiliations" block of the PNAS article -- "Edited by Kenneth A. Shepsle, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, and approved August 30, 2021 (received for review February 22, 2021)".

Apparently, this is something new for you, so allow me to walk you through the usual process of peer review. The authors submitted the article to PNAS for review February 22, 2021. The primary editor for PNAS for this article was Dr. Kenneth A. Shepsle at Harvard*. In the usual practice for serious journals, he sent the article out for review by others he knew to be knowledgable in the field. In the interest of honest research and debate, the names of the reviewers are not disclosed (not even to the original authors) unless they do so voluntarily. Dr. Shepsle suggested modifications based on the reviews and his own reading of the article, the edited article was approved August 30, 2021, and published in PNAS November 2, 2021.

*https://scholar.harvard.edu/kshepsle/biocv

It is interesting to note that in Dr. Shepsle's CV is the statement "He was editor of Public Choice".

I now return you to your alternate universe.
 
espola said:
You have an interesting thought process.

According to the "Authors info and affiliations" block of the PNAS article -- "Edited by Kenneth A. Shepsle, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, and approved August 30, 2021 (received for review February 22, 2021)".

Apparently, this is something new for you, so allow me to walk you through the usual process of peer review. The authors submitted the article to PNAS for review February 22, 2021. The primary editor for PNAS for this article was Dr. Kenneth A. Shepsle at Harvard*. In the usual practice for serious journals, he sent the article out for review by others he knew to be knowledgable in the field. In the interest of honest research and debate, the names of the reviewers are not disclosed (not even to the original authors) unless they do so voluntarily. Dr. Shepsle suggested modifications based on the reviews and his own reading of the article, the edited article was approved August 30, 2021, and published in PNAS November 2, 2021.

*https://scholar.harvard.edu/kshepsle/biocv

It is interesting to note that in Dr. Shepsle's CV is the statement "He was editor of Public Choice".

I now return you to your alternate universe.
Click to expand...


We are lucky that you are not on live video.
It's bad enough that the current " Resident "
lies constantly while he wipes his slobber from
the corner of his mouth, but now you post the
above drivel as some sort of support for your
nonexistent logic.

Aren't you the same age or older than Pudding
Brain Joe?

By the way your " Resident " just authorized the
release of 1 Million Barrels of Oil a day for the
next 6 months from the SPR.
That " approximately " 180 Million Barrels with
a current level of 568 Million Barrels in the SPR.
That leaves 388 Million Barrels left in the SPR after
Sept 30, 2022 if they don't add a drop.

When adjusted for the present level of implied demand, SPR levels
are already at their lowest levels since 2002, with just 33 days of supply.


1648752996676.png


It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that 33 Million Barrels is
May 3, 2022.

US Crude Oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Stocks (ycharts.com)

You and yours have saddled America with a Commodus, son of Joseph Bidenius
the Union slug.
 
thirteenknots said:
We are lucky that you are not on live video.
It's bad enough that the current " Resident "
lies constantly while he wipes his slobber from
the corner of his mouth, but now you post the
above drivel as some sort of support for your
nonexistent logic.

Aren't you the same age or older than Pudding
Brain Joe?

By the way your " Resident " just authorized the
release of 1 Million Barrels of Oil a day for the
next 6 months from the SPR.
That " approximately " 180 Million Barrels with
a current level of 568 Million Barrels in the SPR.
That leaves 388 Million Barrels left in the SPR after
Sept 30, 2022 if they don't add a drop.

When adjusted for the present level of implied demand, SPR levels
are already at their lowest levels since 2002, with just 33 days of supply.


View attachment 13154


It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that 33 Million Barrels is
May 3, 2022.

US Crude Oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Stocks (ycharts.com)

You and yours have saddled America with a Commodus, son of Joseph Bidenius
the Union slug.
Click to expand...

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com www.zerohedge.com
 
espola said:
You have an interesting thought process.

According to the "Authors info and affiliations" block of the PNAS article -- "Edited by Kenneth A. Shepsle, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, and approved August 30, 2021 (received for review February 22, 2021)".

Apparently, this is something new for you, so allow me to walk you through the usual process of peer review. The authors submitted the article to PNAS for review February 22, 2021. The primary editor for PNAS for this article was Dr. Kenneth A. Shepsle at Harvard*. In the usual practice for serious journals, he sent the article out for review by others he knew to be knowledgable in the field. In the interest of honest research and debate, the names of the reviewers are not disclosed (not even to the original authors) unless they do so voluntarily. Dr. Shepsle suggested modifications based on the reviews and his own reading of the article, the edited article was approved August 30, 2021, and published in PNAS November 2, 2021.

*https://scholar.harvard.edu/kshepsle/biocv

It is interesting to note that in Dr. Shepsle's CV is the statement "He was editor of Public Choice".

I now return you to your alternate universe.
Click to expand...
So still no...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top