Reply #67: I just copied that segment from the prior post as a lead-in to mine.

[TruthIsAll]

The Bush deviation was 2.16%. Why don't you just accept that and move on to the relevance of THAT statistic?

You keep pushing up a straw man - trying to make it appear that there is a contradiction when there is none. THE BUSH DEVIATION WAS 2.16%. PERIOD.

DO YOU OBJECT TO MY USE OF THE DEVIATION IN THE PROBABILITY CALCULATION?

YOUR ATTEMPT TO MAKE AN ISSUE OF THIS NON-ISSUE IS VERY TYPICAL OF THOSE WHO ALWAYS ATTEMPT TO DIVERT FROM THE FACTS THAT REALLY MATTER - SUCH AS THE 2.16% DEVIATION BEING BEYOND THE MARGIN OF ERROR.

WHY DON'T YOU DISCUSS THAT 2.16% STATISTIC?
WHY DON'T YOU DISCUSS THE RELATED PROBABILITY?

IF YOU HAVE A SUBSTANTIVE PROBLEM WITH THE MOE, THE DEVIATION OR THE PROBABILITY, LET'S HEAR IT.

YOU ARE NEW TO THIS FORUM.
HOPEFULLY, YOU'LL HAVE NEW INSIGHTS INTO ELECTION FRAUD.
FOCUSING ON INCONSEQUENTIAL MINUTIA IS NOT PRODUCTIVE- IT ONLY INHIBITS DISCUSSION.