“While the ‘No’ vote was entered correctly at 11:19ET, the ‘Yes’ vote that appeared for 2 minutes on CNN was actually the ‘total’ vote of the combined ballots for Yes/No/ Santa Clara,” Farbman said in an email. “This error was entered at 11:19pm ET and corrected 2 minutes later at 11:21pm ET when we deleted the “total vote” in for ‘Yes’ and entered the correct ‘Yes’ vote.”
So yeah, it appears that the numbers were overinflated accidentally, and the drop in the numbers was the correction. Should have been x for no, and y for yes, but for two minutes, they accidentally showed x+y for yes, instead of just y.
Show me one time a "mistake" like this has ever been favorable to a Republican and maybe I'll give this the time of day. Every single time I've seen this happen it's favorable to Democrats. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.
Perhaps you're too young to remember George Bush winning a Presidency in a hotly-contested election that likely had some significant irregularities. That definitely went the GOP's way.
You know dude/dudette, sometimes you are further into left field than anyone else around here, as far as I can tell. :)
Which isn't a criticism, per se. It's just that you seem completely unsatisfied that people are largely boring and selfish, and manifest those behaviors in very predictable ways.
A boring, predictable world seems largely impossible to you. The bigger the problem seems to be, the bigger the cause MUST be. You seem unable to accept that big consequences can come from small causes.
So, in other words, you don't seem like much of a believe in chaos theory at all. The notion that a butterfly flapping its wings in Texas can cause a typhoon across the planet.
As I've said before, I do not use the term "conspiracy theorist" pejoratively. It's a person who has a theory that there is a conspiracy. Nothing inherently wrong with that.
And I have my own theories on how people tend to become "conspiracy theorists", because regardless of whether those conspiracies are proven to exist at some point or not, the same people who believe one conspiracy tend to believe in a lot of conspiracies.
I think being able to see pictures in clouds is a treasure of an ability, but it doesn't convince me that the clouds actually are forming those pictures. Just that you have an artistic mind capable of creating pictures in random data.
I'm curious, then. Do you actually have a personal deadline for this stuff? I know, nobody likes datefagging, but everyone here recognizes that Q is on a deadline of some sort, and if by November 2024 we don't see Democrats arrested and Trump back in office, then the Q plan isn't really materializing.
You don't have to tell me the details, but do you have a cutoff point in your own personal philosophy where you accept that Q isn't going to show back up? Because I can tell you I'll switch sides once I see The Storm, but that's easy for me. The Storm arriving will be loud and obvious. Arrests. Transfer of power. Gitmo. Whatever.
It's less easy and obvious to see that the Storm isn't actually coming if it's not. It's just going to be a day that you wake up and realize that you've been waiting for nothing, and everyone here at this point has to have at least entertained when that cutoff will be for them.
Best you can come up with for an example is over 20 years old and you can't even point out a specific irregularity, just "likely had" them. Pretty convincing, got me there bud. I'm a believer. /s
Oh, I have no intention of convincing you of anything. I’m not here to change minds. Just to understand how your minds are made up in the way they have been.
It's the null hypothesis. In order to advance another, you would need to demonstrate why their explanation is likely impossible or being mischaracterized.
It's not my excuse. It's theirs. But in a sense, yes, I do accept that humans are human and sometimes make simple mistakes. I've caught enough typos in your own posts to believe that you are human. I am human. They are human. We all make mistakes. Nothing to be ashamed of.
I understand why the world would be considerably more suspicious if you assume that your enemies and allies alike are machines whose behavior is compelled via a perfectly-tuned algorithm toward their objectives. I do not believe the world to work that way.
But I think it's a given that you and I don't quite see reality from the same perspective. So this should not be particularly shocking news to you that one of us is being fooled by our perceptions.
I'm not saying it's "acceptable." I'm saying that I do accept that it happens. What should the consequences be? I honestly don't care. That's not the kind of question I'm here to discuss.
But this is sort of a common theme for you guys.
It would be "unacceptable" for the military to perform a major ceremony in a way that Q people feel violates their expectations of how that ceremony is supposed to go. Or how they choose to handle problems. Or how they choose to wear their uniform.
But the mere fact that your interpretation of how things SHOULD be isn't mandating that reality actually works that way.
In reality, the military is largely made up of teenagers and young adults, some of whom are not even really interested in much more than getting college paid for or who did not feel mature enough to live on their own post-school without a structured life and use the military to grow up a bit.
So while you would find it "unacceptable" that the military is NOT the perfectly-tuned machine their commercials claim them to be, those of us with some experience find it hilarious that anyone here could expect the military to even properly clean a barracks "to standards", let alone carry out a Plan with the complexity that would be necessary for the Q stuff to still be active and secret at this point.
The military commercials will obviously show them being Super Awesome All the Time. But I don't believe propaganda. For someone who chastises me (mistakenly) about watching too much television, I would expect you to hold that same value.
Hell, you'd be lucky to find perfect haircut compliance in any unit that has more than a year out of basic.
Yes, I think people are human. I don't entertain a fantasy notion of reality in which Important People and People Doing Important Things are immune from mistakes. You guys watch like hawks, and will see those mistakes and variations and judgement calls, and assume it's part of a Plan, either black or white, rather than just humans being human.
I have enough experience with Important People (such as the military) to know that sometimes people are both chaotic and subject to the whims of chaos, and I'm apparently more comfortable with that than you are.
Why not? Fat-finger a number, then remove the number.
Here's the actual source of the story from the above screenshot:
https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-537000968712
So yeah, it appears that the numbers were overinflated accidentally, and the drop in the numbers was the correction. Should have been x for no, and y for yes, but for two minutes, they accidentally showed x+y for yes, instead of just y.
Show me one time a "mistake" like this has ever been favorable to a Republican and maybe I'll give this the time of day. Every single time I've seen this happen it's favorable to Democrats. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.
Perhaps you're too young to remember George Bush winning a Presidency in a hotly-contested election that likely had some significant irregularities. That definitely went the GOP's way.
You know dude/dudette, sometimes you are further into left field than anyone else around here, as far as I can tell. :)
Which isn't a criticism, per se. It's just that you seem completely unsatisfied that people are largely boring and selfish, and manifest those behaviors in very predictable ways.
A boring, predictable world seems largely impossible to you. The bigger the problem seems to be, the bigger the cause MUST be. You seem unable to accept that big consequences can come from small causes.
So, in other words, you don't seem like much of a believe in chaos theory at all. The notion that a butterfly flapping its wings in Texas can cause a typhoon across the planet.
As I've said before, I do not use the term "conspiracy theorist" pejoratively. It's a person who has a theory that there is a conspiracy. Nothing inherently wrong with that.
And I have my own theories on how people tend to become "conspiracy theorists", because regardless of whether those conspiracies are proven to exist at some point or not, the same people who believe one conspiracy tend to believe in a lot of conspiracies.
I think being able to see pictures in clouds is a treasure of an ability, but it doesn't convince me that the clouds actually are forming those pictures. Just that you have an artistic mind capable of creating pictures in random data.
I'm curious, then. Do you actually have a personal deadline for this stuff? I know, nobody likes datefagging, but everyone here recognizes that Q is on a deadline of some sort, and if by November 2024 we don't see Democrats arrested and Trump back in office, then the Q plan isn't really materializing.
You don't have to tell me the details, but do you have a cutoff point in your own personal philosophy where you accept that Q isn't going to show back up? Because I can tell you I'll switch sides once I see The Storm, but that's easy for me. The Storm arriving will be loud and obvious. Arrests. Transfer of power. Gitmo. Whatever.
It's less easy and obvious to see that the Storm isn't actually coming if it's not. It's just going to be a day that you wake up and realize that you've been waiting for nothing, and everyone here at this point has to have at least entertained when that cutoff will be for them.
Best you can come up with for an example is over 20 years old and you can't even point out a specific irregularity, just "likely had" them. Pretty convincing, got me there bud. I'm a believer. /s
Oh, I have no intention of convincing you of anything. I’m not here to change minds. Just to understand how your minds are made up in the way they have been.
That’s making the assumption that RINO Bush and the GOP were good! Bush winning was still communism winning, regardless if it was Bush or Gore.
How about it goes the way of the communist every time? That seems the most accurate, to me.
Eh, you and I are going to disagree on what actually constitutes a "communist." Do you just want to stick with anti-Trumper or something?
It's the null hypothesis. In order to advance another, you would need to demonstrate why their explanation is likely impossible or being mischaracterized.
It's not my excuse. It's theirs. But in a sense, yes, I do accept that humans are human and sometimes make simple mistakes. I've caught enough typos in your own posts to believe that you are human. I am human. They are human. We all make mistakes. Nothing to be ashamed of.
I understand why the world would be considerably more suspicious if you assume that your enemies and allies alike are machines whose behavior is compelled via a perfectly-tuned algorithm toward their objectives. I do not believe the world to work that way.
Well, it detaches from what YOU consider reality.
But I think it's a given that you and I don't quite see reality from the same perspective. So this should not be particularly shocking news to you that one of us is being fooled by our perceptions.
I'm not saying it's "acceptable." I'm saying that I do accept that it happens. What should the consequences be? I honestly don't care. That's not the kind of question I'm here to discuss.
But this is sort of a common theme for you guys.
It would be "unacceptable" for the military to perform a major ceremony in a way that Q people feel violates their expectations of how that ceremony is supposed to go. Or how they choose to handle problems. Or how they choose to wear their uniform.
But the mere fact that your interpretation of how things SHOULD be isn't mandating that reality actually works that way.
In reality, the military is largely made up of teenagers and young adults, some of whom are not even really interested in much more than getting college paid for or who did not feel mature enough to live on their own post-school without a structured life and use the military to grow up a bit.
So while you would find it "unacceptable" that the military is NOT the perfectly-tuned machine their commercials claim them to be, those of us with some experience find it hilarious that anyone here could expect the military to even properly clean a barracks "to standards", let alone carry out a Plan with the complexity that would be necessary for the Q stuff to still be active and secret at this point.
The military commercials will obviously show them being Super Awesome All the Time. But I don't believe propaganda. For someone who chastises me (mistakenly) about watching too much television, I would expect you to hold that same value.
Hell, you'd be lucky to find perfect haircut compliance in any unit that has more than a year out of basic.
Yes, I think people are human. I don't entertain a fantasy notion of reality in which Important People and People Doing Important Things are immune from mistakes. You guys watch like hawks, and will see those mistakes and variations and judgement calls, and assume it's part of a Plan, either black or white, rather than just humans being human.
I have enough experience with Important People (such as the military) to know that sometimes people are both chaotic and subject to the whims of chaos, and I'm apparently more comfortable with that than you are.
Audit Santa Clara, and validate the data feed.
I replied with the source of the story that the Tweet was referencing. Which was the fact check. Because I check sources.
There is no such thing as fat fingering an API data stream.