The Trump Presidency

[Schmelzer]

The entire argument on that site is based on the mail in and absentee votes swinging more heavily toward Biden than the "analyst" said they expected.

No, they were not. Looks like you have not read the link. The analysis takes into account that there are such differences between mail votes and usual votes. They have not made expectations, but considered statistics and particular statistical outliers. They identified four extreme outliers out of 8,954 individual updates which decided about the winner of the whole election, and compared them with all other updates, as in those states, as in the whole US. So, among those in the comparison group were also a lot of those with mail votes and absentee votes.

Just to clarify this, quote the part which shows that "the entire argument is based on the mail in and absentee votes swinging more heavily toward Biden". Or we have here another case to name you a liar.

You apparently think the Republican attempts to block, discard, disqualify, delay, and otherwise prevent the counting of, the huge number of mail in and absentee ballots people cast in this election, were innocent?

No, I couldn't care less. The picture of the US as a banana republic where both sides steal and fake votes on a massive scale and where the winner is who has made more fake votes is even more attractive.

Notice how the "analyst" in your link there was especially concerned about the timing of the vote count, the lateness of the swing toward Biden in the States they chose to focus on - claiming that was evidence of Democratic manipulation - when for several weeks leading up to the vote Republican Party officials and office holders had been filing court cases and pushing legislation and issuing rules enforcing the timing of the count in exactly those States.

He was not especially concerned, he mentioned it as additional elements which made those few exceptional vote updates suspicious independently.

 

[iceaura]

He was not especially concerned, he mentioned it as additional elements which made those few exceptional vote updates suspicious independently.

He devoted substantial typing to that nonsense. He put some of his sentences on the topic in italics, for emphasis, and bolded others, normally something done to draw special attention.

I assumed lots of typing and emphasis like that indicates concern - but you claim he was not concerned, ok. Maybe you know the guy?

Nevertheless: Whether he was concerned or not he spent enough time on it, and went into enough detail (graphs, little arrows, etc) to make it clear that he either had not bothered to check on why the results came in when they did, or he was intentionally deceiving his readership about that matter. The same old question of the rightwing authoritarian media feeds: Are they lying, or are they stupid.

No, I couldn't care less.

Yes, you could. You could care enough less to avoid posting silly mistakes about which Party was implicated in the obvious attempts to commit electoral fraud. Instead, you post as if the evidence of fraud implicated the Democrats instead of the Party actually and quite openly committing it.

The picture of the US as a banana republic where both sides steal and fake votes on a massive scale and where the winner is who has made more fake votes is even more attractive.

Meanwhile the reality of the situation - what happened in the real world, in which we saw a multi-million dollar and multi-State Republican effort to steal the election as they had in the past - does not attract you at all.

Just to clarify this, quote the part which shows that "the entire argument is based on the mail in and absentee votes swinging more heavily toward Biden". Or we have here another case to name you a liar.

Misquotes like that are hard to excuse as honest mistakes. You didn't use the quote function, which would have been faster and easier; you didn't even copy/paste - instead you type out stuff I did not post and put it in quote marks as if I had posted it. That's a lot of trouble - what for? Do you think I will take your juvenile threat of namecalling more seriously if it's based on a misquote?

As for my actual posting:

The entire argument on that site is based on the mail in and absentee votes swinging more heavily toward Biden than the "analyst" said they expected.

I already did provide sufficient quotation - see the quote in the post you are replying to.

You fell for a particularly ugly and obvious media feed from the source you deny, is all. You demonstrated the accuracy of my assessment of your gullibility, and your inability to handle statistical argument at any level. And there's nothing you can or will do to change that.

Your inability to make a case for your link's dumbass argument from (and to, of course) ignorance, other than your standard namecalling, will not change by my finding more quotes. And that is probably easy to show - look at your (future, I'm predicting) response, if any, to these:

This is one such case: Our analysis finds that a few key vote updates in competitive states were unusually large in size and had an unusually high Biden-to-Trump ratio. We demonstrate the results differ enough from expected results to be cause for concern.

The basic intuition is: big margins are one thing, and so are super-skewed results, but it’s weird to have them both at the same time, as they generally become inversely related as either value increases.

Readers might ask: Why are you measuring the ratio? Why not measure the difference between the vote proportions (or, equivalently, their percentages). The answer to this lies in what we are looking for, i.e. evidence of fraud or foul play which manifests in extremely unusual outcomes.

This election represents an extraordinary and unique opportunity for election integrity analysts and the application of statistical fraud detection research, as it is likely the first national election in American history, at the very least, where the general public has had access to time-series election data.

If it follows the intuition that there as an inverse relationship between the margins of an update and its ratio, we should expect to see a large cluster of data with a few points above, below, to the left and right, and virtually no points in either the top right

Absent a compelling explanation of why this particular update -- at such a crucial time, in a crucial state, which improved Biden’s standing in the state so dramatically -- also had non-two-party votes performing so unusually relative to Trump votes, it seems unlikely that this vote update reflects an honest accounting of the legitimate votes.

Bold in the originals, btw - the kind of thing I took to be an expression of "concern", although I admit I did no mindreading at your level of expertise.

 

[(Q)]

See an analysis of these strange jumps: https://votepatternanalysis.substack.com/p/voting-anomalies-2020

Only a misinformed, ignorant fool would think that the Dems have not stolen the election.

That link is laughable. The author, along with others who were stunned that the election didn't follow Benfords Law, haven't figured out that election results do not follow any particular patterns or laws, they never have and never will.

And as Iceaura explains, this was all predicted before hand. You're a Johnny-come-lately.

 

[Schmelzer]

That link is laughable. The author, along with others who were stunned that the election didn't follow Benfords Law, haven't figured out that election results do not follow any particular patterns or laws, they never have and never will.

In other words, you are simply in denial. There are no patterns or laws (despite the fact that those pictures in the link show quite impressive patterns), so that there is nothing to care about.

Iceaura has observed that I did not follow full scientific quote standards, instead of

Just to clarify this, quote the part which shows that "[t]he entire argument [...] is based on the mail in and absentee votes swinging more heavily toward Biden [...]".

I simply wrote

Just to clarify this, quote the part which shows that "the entire argument is based on the mail in and absentee votes swinging more heavily toward Biden".

Sorry for handling such postings with lower quality standards than scientific articles.
The funny thing is how iceaura used this irrelevant formality to write a lot of text suggesting this has been done with some evil intent:

Misquotes like that are hard to excuse as honest mistakes. You didn't use the quote function, which would have been faster and easier; you didn't even copy/paste - instead you type out stuff I did not post and put it in quote marks as if I had posted it. That's a lot of trouble - what for? Do you think I will take your juvenile threat of namecalling more seriously if it's based on a misquote?

LOL. I did use copy/paste. Which is much easier than quoting if the original is already on another page. The result was

Just to clarify this, quote the part which shows that "The entire argument on that site is based on the mail in and absentee votes swinging more heavily toward Biden".

Then I corrected the text by replacing "The" with "the" and deleting "on that site" as irrelevant (being clear from the context anyway) using the mouse and CTRL-X. So, no trouble at all, simply laziness to conform to all formal quoting standards. I think it is no accident that iceaura has hidden the content of that "misquote". Else, the "[m]isquotes like that are hard to excuse as honest mistakes" suggestion would be obviously laughable: omitting "on that site" with the evil intention of what?

The argument against that link to the election fraud analysis is, first of all, quite weak, comparable in its power with ad hominem: If the other arguments of the author are fine, why would one bother about some possibly misguided emphasis? Then, even this weak argument is simply invalid:

He devoted substantial typing to that nonsense. He put some of his sentences on the topic in italics, for emphasis, and bolded others, normally something done to draw special attention.

"that nonsense" refers to "... was especially concerned about the timing of the vote count, the lateness of the swing toward Biden in the States they chose to focus on - claiming that was evidence of Democratic manipulation".

Let's see. "lateness" 0 occurrences in the text. "timing" one, an aside without any emphasis:

Critics point to suspicious vote counting practices, extreme differences between the two major candidates’ vote counts, and the timing of the vote updates, among other factors, to cast doubt on the legitimacy of some of these spikes.

Once we have starting word counting let's also look as your "based on the mail in and absentee votes swinging more heavily toward Biden than the "analyst" said they expected" claim.
"absentee": 0 occurrence, "mail-in" 5:

... (for either mail-in votes or all votes) ...
... other updates (or other updates with mail-in ballots) ...
One would also need to believe that mail-in ballots, which have generally been understood to be more pro-Biden, sometimes substantially so, were counted in their entirety in these regions. While this data set does not provide breakdowns of how many votes in each update came from different types of votes, it is extremely surprising that we do not see smaller vote updates with mail-in votes which favor Biden more heavily.
...
It would be extremely surprising if all mail-in ballots in the two most favoring Biden counties in the state, Dane and Milwaukee County, were entirely contained in this batch, and so it raises the question as to why we didn’t see even more pro-Biden updates in smaller, higher-variance vote updates in these heavily Democratic areas.

The first two show places where the author cares about the difference, the remaining are part of an argumentation which shows btw that the author has expected mail-in votes being prejudiced toward Biden 'sometimes substantially so", and argues that if these four updates would be fine, we would have to expect some smaller even more pro-Biden updates.

But, ok, word count is not ideal, the author may have used other words than "timing" and "lateness" meaning essentially the same. But I see you have some quotes made below yourself. So let's start with the emphasized ones:

This is one such case: Our analysis finds that a few key vote updates in competitive states were unusually large in size and had an unusually high Biden-to-Trump ratio. We demonstrate the results differ enough from expected results to be cause for concern.
...
The basic intuition is: big margins are one thing, and so are super-skewed results, but it’s weird to have them both at the same time, as they generally become inversely related as either value increases.
...
Absent a compelling explanation of why this particular update -- at such a crucial time, in a crucial state, which improved Biden’s standing in the state so dramatically -- also had non-two-party votes performing so unusually relative to Trump votes, it seems unlikely that this vote update reflects an honest accounting of the legitimate votes.

None of them was about mail/absentee votes. The unusually large things were also unusually large in comparison with all the other mail/absentee votes elsewhere in the US. The second quote is about the method used to identify the most suspect updates in this paper, the "at the same time" obviously means "in the same update". The third has at least "crucial time" in it. But it emphasizes why a third strangeness found before - the non-two-party votes unusually good relative to Trump - is not an irrelevant aside but makes this update highly suspect. The message would have been the same in the following variant: "Absent a compelling explanation of why this particular update -- suspect for independent reasons -- also had non-two-party votes performing so unusually relative to Trump votes, it seems unlikely that this vote update reflects an honest accounting of the legitimate votes". So, the emphasis is not on the time here too.

So, we have nothing here indicating much concern about this timing argument.

Whether he was concerned or not he spent enough time on it, and went into enough detail (graphs, little arrows, etc) to make it clear that he either had not bothered to check on why the results came in when they did, or he was intentionally deceiving his readership about that matter.

You forget the more important variant that for the analysis done the time when these updates came in is irrelevant. That this time is also suspect was only worth to be mentioned as an aside, as an independent indication, that's all. The statistics considered all the 8,954 vote updates and did not use their time in the analysis.

 

[Bells]

No. The disastrous way of handling the lists of voters (which can contain dead voters and so on) is a fact, lack of control over votes per mail is a fact too - mentioning only weak points admitted even by pro-Biden Western media. This is even below a banana republic level of security.

Trumper's keep referring to 'the list' of dead voters, but are yet to actually prove anything.

Their attempts thus far have included naming and shaming people who are actually still alive, but share the same name as the deceased.

It is also why they have consistently refused to rely on 'the list' in court, just as they have consistently refused to allege fraud in court..

And I would recommend you to face the fact that Trump supporters are not as stupid as you present them.

They are not only downright stupid, they are also ridiculous.

For 2 weeks, Trump and his supporters went on and on about how more votes than voters in Michigan.. They flooded all platforms with it. Then it comes out that the moron who made the allegations that they all jumped on was looking at the votes cast in Michigan and comparing it to the population of counties in Minnesota.. Sidney Powell is still using the utter and absolute crap show of that evidence in her current filings.

When that was outed in court, they immediately jumped on another and even more ridiculous conspiracy. That a Canadian company provided voting machines, using software designed for Chavez in Venezuela, gave these machines to the US to use in its elections, apparently appropriated by the Democrats (while forgetting it was also used in many states where Trump won but apparently no fraud there!), and affected only Trump voters and nothing else down the ticket.. The software used was by a Spanish company that they declare had secret servers in Germany that was raided by the US military... None of this happened. But they believe it did.

Meanwhile, these complete and utter morons have forgotten that Trump has a history of declaring fraud each time he loses or something does not go his way.

He declared "fraud" and demanded the votes be disregarded when Ted Cruz beat him in the Iowa caucus. He declared "fraud" when he lost the popular vote in the 2016 election.

So I don't think "stupid" goes far enough in describing Trump supporters.. I suggest you look at the Four Seasons Landscaping, in their 'manure' section for starters..

No, I couldn't care less. The picture of the US as a banana republic where both sides steal and fake votes on a massive scale and where the winner is who has made more fake votes is even more attractive.

So sayeth the Russian propaganda troll..

 

[CptBork]

You think I have to care much about something what happened many years before I started support Putin? At a time almost everything was yet plausible in Russia given that it was made completely corrupt during Yeltsin time (with a lot of US support)? I have not cared at all at that time, I would not have cared at that time even about further subdivisions of Russia (last but not least I'm not a Russian), and a posteriori the evidence proposed at that time does not look decisive enough to decide if there was really something wrong or if this was simply one of the first propaganda operations against Putin.

No one in the Russian government, including Putin himself, disputes that mere days after the apartment bombings which were blamed on Chechens, Russian federal agents were caught placing live explosives in a populated apartment building without informing any of the residents or the local police who ended up catching them. Putin pardoned them when they were caught, no one was punished. Is it normal in a functional society to train your federal police by secretly using live explosives in populated buildings where hundreds could die from a rookie mistake?

The more interesting thing is that CptBork has to go back to such times long ago, when Russia was yet highly corrupt, to find something (what actually happens, like the Navalny fake, seems so obviously faked that even CptBork will not touch it), while I have fun with the actual news:

You talk about Adolf Hitler all the time like he's still alive running Germany and causing trouble, so if Hitler still matters to you then why wouldn't Putin? Are you ok with Putin randomly murdering a few hundred or a few thousand Russian civilians if that helps him get elected, is that a worthwhile sacrifice to you?

 

[(Q)]

In other words, you are simply in denial. There are no patterns or laws (despite the fact that those pictures in the link show quite impressive patterns), so that there is nothing to care about.

In denial of what? Day after day goes by where Trumps imbecilic legal team keeps getting laughed out of court for their frivolous nonsense. Trump is so unhinged that even his own top level supporters are calling him and his legal goons out as an embarrassment.

Are you sure you're not the one in denial?

 

[Tiassa]

​

Are you ok with Putin randomly murdering a few hundred or a few thousand Russian civilians if that helps him get elected, is that a worthwhile sacrifice to you?

I don't really know if our neighbor understands the existential gut punch that strikes when a head of state justifies the murder of one's people. Sure, in my case, it seems a lot stranger when we consider the tyrant is apparently one of us, but so it goes.

Still, yeah, Putin has justified the murder of people like me according to his own closet-generated self-loathing, and our neighbor is, as near as we can tell, incapable of comprehending the implications. What Schmelzer doesn't understand is that by Putin's own standard, the Russian tyrant deserves nothing more than rebar to the teeth. It's the rest of us, who believe in better things than Schmelzer or Putin, who would afford them a better world. And if Schmelzer is not capable of comprehending the implications, then, sure, it is the duty of better people to carry him.

​

 

[river]

trump is a psychopath . He still has not tried to save his people , just himself . He should be arrested for Treason .

 

[Quantum Quack]

it is the duty of better people to carry him.

Yeah, it's the common dilemma of those who face the burden of supporting those who would tear them down. Anachists like Schmelzer can only exist if there are regulations to fight against and yet, with out regulation their baser instincts would destroy their own world.

The ideal of living with out regulation fails to deal with the reason why regulation is needed to begin with. That being to provide regulation to those, always present in any society, who can not offer their community self-responsibility. Those that continuously blame others for their own predicament and are totally self focused and selfish.
Admiring persons who are beyond regulation such as Trump and Putin demonstrates the only form of anarchy that only dictators can enjoy. Every one else pays for their privilege.

 

[Quantum Quack]

trump is a psychopath . He still has not tried to save his people , just himself . He should be arrested for Treason .

At a time when the USA desperately needs someone at the helm he is playing golf, and even though he is more or less in a caretaker role he has even reneged on that responsibility, intending to leave the USA in so much chaos as possible when he is forced to leave office on Jan 20th.
Suffice to say that Covid waits for no one and even 1 day can make all the difference let alone 40 + days of AWOL leadership.

 

[river]

At a time when the USA desperately needs someone at the helm he is playing golf, and even though he is more or less in a caretaker role he has even reneged on that responsibility, intending to leave the USA in so much chaos as possible when he is forced to leave office on Jan 20th.
Suffice to say that Covid waits for no one and even 1 day can make all the difference let alone 40 + days of AWOL leadership.

trump has been AWOL since January of 2020 .

 

[Schmelzer]

Trumper's keep referring to 'the list' of dead voters, but are yet to actually prove anything.

Whatever. The mem about the dead voters is out in the world. This is what matters, live with that fact.

They are not only downright stupid, they are also ridiculous.

I like this. I give you reasonable, civilized recommendations, simply because it would be amoral to give you recommendations which would harm you, even if you support US imperialism and are therefore my political enemy. Fortunately, you don't want to hear those recommendations, and your reaction will lead you into the opposite, wrong, harmful for US Americans, direction. But that's your problem.

Are you sure you're not the one in denial?

I don't care much about who is the real winner, and don't have to. So there is no base for such a thing like denial.

Ok, I have to admit here that I'm not completely neutral, I would like to see Trump winning via the Supreme Court based on that Rep majority there, simply because this would be the worst case scenario for the US - one could expect the immediate command to BLM to start an anti-Trump revolution. But I can live nicely with the second best option, Biden in power but despised by half of the US for stealing the elections, and the mem of US voting being worse than in banana republics being out in the world. The only scenario I would not have liked would have been a landslide victory for Biden. But this obviously has not happened. Instead, I have got with https://votepatternanalysis.substack.com/p/voting-anomalies-2020 a nice thing to troll US propagandists.

What makes the actual scenario less harmful for the US is that the Trumpists will not start a revolution, given they are more civilized than BLM. But that scenario is harmful enough too: It is quite obvious that Biden will be unable to gain the support of the Trump voters, moreover, he will be faced with another problems - the Dem radicals, AOC and so on, will fight for power inside the Dems. This will become really funny.

CptBork and Tiassa try to win propaganda points by reviving a dubious story from times when Russia was yet completely corrupt and where one could indeed imagine things like those placing those explosives simply bought by the terrorists. Of course, both favor only one imaginable conspiracy theory - Putin himself has done those bombings as a false flag operation. As if such an operation would have been necessary to motivate the Russians. Ok, this is what one expects from them. But their belief into this conspiracy theory seems so strong that they seem to imagine that I share this belief too:

Are you ok with Putin randomly murdering a few hundred or a few thousand Russian civilians if that helps him get elected, is that a worthwhile sacrifice to you?

I don't really know if our neighbor understands the existential gut punch that strikes when a head of state justifies the murder of one's people.

The mirror answer would be "once you think it is ok that Bush started 9/11 given that it made it easier to justify the Patriot act and start wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, what is your problem?" But I prefer the answer that I simply don't believe your beloved conspiracy theory.

 

[LaurieAG]

Yeah, it's the common dilemma of those who face the burden of supporting those who would tear them down. Anachists like Schmelzer can only exist if there are regulations to fight against and yet, with out regulation their baser instincts would destroy their own world.

The ideal of living with out regulation fails to deal with the reason why regulation is needed to begin with. That being to provide regulation to those, always present in any society, who can not offer their community self-responsibility. Those that continuously blame others for their own predicament and are totally self focused and selfish.
Admiring persons who are beyond regulation such as Trump and Putin demonstrates the only form of anarchy that only dictators can enjoy. Every one else pays for their privilege.

Huh? https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-30/lawyer-x-nicola-gobbo-report-margaret-mcmurdo/12933364

 

[(Q)]

I don't care much about who is the real winner, and don't have to. So there is no base for such a thing like denial.

Ok, I have to admit here that I'm not completely neutral, I would like to see Trump winning via the Supreme Court based on that Rep majority there, simply because this would be the worst case scenario for the US - one could expect the immediate command to BLM to start an anti-Trump revolution. But I can live nicely with the second best option, Biden in power but despised by half of the US for stealing the elections, and the mem of US voting being worse than in banana republics being out in the world. The only scenario I would not have liked would have been a landslide victory for Biden. But this obviously has not happened. Instead, I have got with https://votepatternanalysis.substack.com/p/voting-anomalies-2020 a nice thing to troll US propagandists.

But, Biden did not steal the election nor is Trump going to win via the Supreme Court as that would mean the SC is corrupt and democracy has been stomped into the ground. There are far too many people, including GOP leaders who would never let that happen.

It's really very simple. Many Americans had enough of Trump these past four years and want him out, so they did what a democratic country does, they voted him out, that's how it works. The fact that Trump can't handle anything where he doesn't get his way is irrelevant, that only demonstrates what everyone already knows about him; narcissistic behavior.

The claims of voter fraud are only echoed by those who are angry, ignorant and brainwashed by right wing media. So far, there is nothing anyone has produced to change that fact.

 

[Tiassa]

The mirror answer would be "once you think it is ok that Bush started 9/11 given that it made it easier to justify the Patriot act and start wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, what is your problem?" But I prefer the answer that I simply don't believe your beloved conspiracy theory.

Do you ever not fail?

For all your make believe, perhaps you might try making sense. I know that's not a high priority for a boasting potsherd troll, especially five and a half years in. Then again, you're still trying.

 

[(Q)]

"This Conspiracy" is a direct quote from the unhinged Rudy Giuliani referring to the Democratic conspiracy to cheat the election system by millions of votes during his opening statement to the faux hearing in Arizona.

What's hilarious is that he's sitting there insulting Arizona.

 

[(Q)]

Jenna Ellis has asked the Arizona Legislature to toss the results out the door and take the authority to throw the election based on the "Faithless Electors" clause in the Constitution.

 

[iceaura]

The only scenario I would not have liked would have been a landslide victory for Biden. But this obviously has not happened.

Five million votes objective, another two or three million overtly stolen from him, millions more suppressed, and in the face of a President and a national Party willing to spread a plague virus among their own constituents to suppress the vote - that's at least a landslide, in the modern era.
Trump was avalanched.

What makes the actual scenario less harmful for the US is that the Trumpists will not start a revolution, given they are more civilized than BLM.

They aren't. They kill people. They intentionally spread diseases among their political enemies. They set up torture prisons. They separate infants from their mothers and put children in wire kennels. They tell lies about other people, and organize bullying operations against those who can't defend themselves.
And they have already started one Civil War, threatened to start another, and re-launched key aspects of the terrorist operations they were running all through the 1900s.

Whatever. The mem about the dead voters is out in the world. This is what matters, live with that fact.

It's been out in the US for your entire life. It's a standing joke of US politics - partly because it used to have a small basis in reality, in a few cities, mostly because it makes easy cartoon fodder. Nobody takes it seriously in a modern national election except Republican guppies - gullible foreigners prominent among them.
Meanwhile the content of it doesn't matter. It's just another in a near infinite list of invented claims and interchangeable slanders from the fountain of bullshit that is a typical fascist movement. The only significance is this: if they can get enough people to repeat some bs about the mail in vote count they jacked around, they can once again deflect attention from the fact that every record and TV footage and cell phone grab showed long lines in Dem districts much more than in Rep ones for the tenth consecutive election. The Overton Window of election fraud has been moved so far in the US that such lines are presented as normal in Presidential elections.

I don't care much about who is the real winner, and don't have to. So there is no base for such a thing like denial.

As always, when cornered.
And yet when I agree with you - when I agree that you have no base in reality for any of your claims about the US, no knowledge of US physical or historical fact, and no interest in acquiring any - you deny even that.

There is only one source for the claim that Trump won this election. You will post anything it feeds you right here on this forum.

 

[iceaura]

Iceaura has observed that I did not follow full scientific quote standards,

You edited the quote and changed its meaning, put the edited version in quotes as if it were my wording, and then used that altered meaning as the basis of your response to me - the standards you failed to follow in all that were a long way from "full scientific".

And the context in which you did that was this: I have objected to your use of paraphrases, repeatedly, for years now, because you cannot paraphrase accurately. I have recommended that you quote, rather than paraphrase. But now we see you can't quote accurately, either - which is odd, because unlike a careful paraphrase an accurate quote is less work for you than a jiggered one. You had to go to extra trouble to change my post like that.

My guess is that you don't know, yourself, why you went to that extra work. By now that tactic is a reflex, for you.

Then I corrected the text by replacing "The" with "the" and deleting "on that site" as irrelevant (being clear from the context anyway)

Like I said - extra trouble, to get it wrong.
The correct text was the original. The qualification "on that site" was not irrelevant - as your response showed. And you presented your edit job as my words, as a quote.

I did use copy/paste.

What you posted was not a copy.

If the other arguments of the author are fine, why would one bother about some possibly misguided emphasis?

They weren't.
And the misguided emphasis was central to the main argument.

The argument against that link to the election fraud analysis is, first of all, quite weak,

It's lethal. That's the most obvious reason you changed it, and have yet to acknowledge the original.

Let's see. "lateness" 0 occurrences in the text. "timing" one, an aside without any emphasis:

So? Those were my words, describing your link's goofball "argument". The description is accurate.

None of them was about mail/absentee votes.

Some were. They were the source of several updates.

So, we have nothing here indicating much concern about this timing argument.

His entire argument was based on the timing of the pro-Biden vote, compared with his alleged "expectations". If the pro-Biden vote had come in at the same time as the main body of votes, rather than in those late updates, he would have had no argument about the Dems committing fraud - instead he would have been stranded in trying to explain his expectations.

So, the emphasis is not on the time here too.

The emphasis is on the "updates", there and throughout.

The unusually large things were also unusually large in comparison with all the other mail/absentee votes elsewhere in the US.

And they were in different States, and they involved different kinds and sources of delay, and they were from gerrymandered districts, and so forth. So?

But, ok, word count is not ideal, the author may have used other words than "timing" and "lateness" meaning essentially the same.

Why are you confusing the link author's words with mine? The link author was not describing his own argument - he was making it (to his embarrassment, if he has any capable friends who can gently point out what a pile of manure he made out of a fairly simple and explicitly predicted matter).

You forget the more important variant that for the analysis done the time when these updates came in is irrelevant.

You mean for the different analysis that could have been done, and made less obvious nonsense - one in which he ignored the timing, abandoned the attempt to imply fraud by emphasizing the timing, ignored the entire matter of whether the votes were "updates" or not, and simply compared his expectations with the final geographical distribution of the votes.

The only problem he would have had then is that his expectations were complicated and mistaken, and it would have been hard to imply fraud from them in the necessary propaganda sense - at least, Democratic Party fraud (Republican Party fraud was of course apparent throughout, starting with the fact that the pro-Biden vote count was disproportionately hampered and delayed and reduced by rejected and discarded votes, including the fact that gerrymandered districts are expected to show the pattern he claims is anomalous, and nailed down by the fact that the pattern he found surprising had been predicted for weeks by the lefty blogosphere on quite ordinary grounds of observed Republican fraud and its likely effects).

The time when those votes were counted is central to his "argument" that they indicate deliberate, election night, significant, fraud. He needs that timing to motivate the claimed fraud - Biden was behind, the Dems needed x number iof votes to catch up, the Dems somehow on the spot manipulated the vote count to give them that many votes. That's why he led off with graphs of timelines - to justify his choice of which Districts and States to focus on, without inadvertently revealing that his entire analysis is garbage (essentially, he is demonstrating the existence of gerrymandering and the goal of mail in vote suppression by Republican State legislatures - that's not news).