Trump v Biden 2020,The insurrection (pt 6) Read OP

Sweetemotion

Overheal wrote: »

Needs work. How about JoeJoes?

Change the second J with a H.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Washington Post and others since this election ended revealed two-thirds of registered voters cast a ballot during this election. Since there are only 212 million registered voters in America 2020, we reading that to about 140 million votes to be shared between them

Must be registered to cast a legitimate mail in ballot/absentee ballot. Prove your existence at the counting/poll station. There be others permitted to vote but if they’re not registered, there’re not eligible.

Since Trump got 74 million recorded votes in 2020, Biden share should be 66 million votes? Somehow 14 million non registered voters got added to his vote tally? Does not make sense unless they're dirty tricks at play.

Basic internet search reveals there are in fact 239.2 million eligible voters in 2020.

Why do you fall for such crap? It’s really easy to verify things first.

Overheal

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Change the second J with a H.

Hojo is a final fantasy 7 character and Mojojojo, I should NOT need to tell you, is a Powerpuff Girls villain.

JoeJoes is fine.

ohnonotgmail

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Washington Post and others since this election ended revealed two-thirds of registered voters cast a ballot during this election. Since there are only 212 million registered voters in America 2020, we reading that to about 140 million votes to be shared between them

Must be registered to cast a legitimate mail in ballot/absentee ballot. Prove your existence at the counting/poll station. There be others permitted to vote but if they’re not registered, there’re not eligible.

Since Trump got 74 million recorded votes in 2020, Biden share should be 66 million votes? Somehow 14 million non registered voters got added to his vote tally? Does not make sense unless they're dirty tricks at play.

the washington post did not say that. you have posted the same nonsense that was posted on the CT forum and probably got it from the same source. Have you read the washington post article? This is the one https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/elections/voter-turnout/

the 66.2% is a percentage of ELIGIBLE votes not REGISTERED voters.

did it not occur to you that somebody that seems so obviously wrong might actually be wrong? did you verify what it said? I'm guessing not.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

Basic internet search reveals there are in fact 239.2 million eligible voters in 2020.

Why do you fall for such crap? It’s really easy to verify things first.

An individual must be registered for the counter to establish they have right to vote. There comparing mail ballot envelope identifications with a certified voting roll. Your basic research finding is irrelevent if there not signed up/registerd for the 2020 Election.

Smee_Again

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

An individual must be registered for the counter to establish they have right to vote. There comparing mail ballot envelope identifications with a certified voting roll. Your basic research finding is irrelevent if there not signed up/registerd for the 2020 Election.

What percentage of registered voters voted?

Cheerful Spring2

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

An individual must be registered for the counter to establish they have right to vote. There comparing mail ballot envelope identifications with a certified voting roll. Your basic research finding is irrelevent if there not signed up/registerd for the 2020 Election.

The percentile in the article was explicitly stated as based upon eligible voters rather than registered.. You would likely find similar percentiles for previous elections. So what relevance does the point have? Are you disputing the fact that there are 239 million eligible voters and 66.8% of them voted?

extra gravy

Smee_Again wrote: »

A few lads here going for suicide by mod.

After the latest stories of Trump being talked out of a military coup, funnelling nearly a billion dollars of campaign funds through a company set up by his son in law on which his daughter in law sits on the board they know there’s nothing left to defend.

They're all crawling out of the woodwork tonight. Doing as dear leader does, trying to change the narrative to deflect away from his corruption and sedition. I expect nothing else from the cultists at this stage, they used to be mildly entertaining but now they're just sad.

ohnonotgmail

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

An individual must be registered for the counter to establish they have right to vote. There comparing mail ballot envelope identifications with a certified voting roll. Your basic research finding is irrelevent if there not signed up/registerd for the 2020 Election.

you're wrong. very wrong. again. accept you have either misread the WAPO or probably not read the original at all and move on to the next stupid theory.

ExMachina1000

Smee_Again wrote: »

funnelling nearly a billion dollars of campaign funds through a company set up by his son in law on which his daughter in law sits on the board

So Trump assisted by that rat like son in law of his and others have funneled half of the election funds (600 million dollars) into a shell company also involving Pence"s son. 2 companies were set up and paid by the Trump campaign for "services "

Is that the story you are referring to?
This is from 2016 not the re election right?

ohnonotgmail

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

So Trump assisted by that rat like son in law of his and others have funneled half of the election funds (600 million dollars) into a shell company also involving Pence"s son. 2 companies were set up and paid by the Trump campaign for "services "

Is that the story you are referring to?
This is from 2016 not the re election right?

no, from this election. the company was set up in 2018.

Tell me how

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Racist human turd of a human being that he is.

At least he didn't advocate that 5 black guys be put to death.
Or have to be brought to court because he refused to rent a property to black people.
Or have black employees removed from his casino when high rollers were gambling.

He is going to be such an improvement in tone and diplomacy from the reality show actor who was hopelessly out of his depth for the last 4 years.

ExMachina1000

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

no, from this election. the company was set up in 2018.

Are you sure?

Is it a 2020 election campaign or fighting the court cases?

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

He pretty much told BLM to go f*ck themselves too..

Haven't you been doing that for 8 months?
Does that mean you are racist?

ohnonotgmail

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Are you sure?

Is it a 2020 election campaign or fighting the court cases?

very sure thanks.

Smee_Again

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

So Trump assisted by that rat like son in law of his and others have funneled half of the election funds (600 million dollars) into a shell company also involving Pence"s son. 2 companies were set up and paid by the Trump campaign for "services "

Is that the story you are referring to?
This is from 2016 not the re election right?

Yes but it was set up in 2018.

Link https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/kushner-trump-family-shell-company-b1776359.html

ExMachina1000

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/kushner-trump-family-shell-company-b1776359.html

Is this it?

Looks like they cant be touched either. King grift.
Theft without breaking the law. Circumventing the law actually.
That Kushner is a horrible pos anyway.

Nothing will happen

ohnonotgmail

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/kushner-trump-family-shell-company-b1776359.html

Is this it

can you not figure that out for yourself? it seems very clear to me.

Cheerful Spring2

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the washington post did not say that. you have posted the same nonsense that was posted on the CT forum and probably got it from the same source. Have you read the washington post article? This is the one https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/elections/voter-turnout/

the 66.2% is a percentage of ELIGIBLE votes not REGISTERED voters.

did it not occur to you that somebody that seems so obviously wrong might actually be wrong? did you verify what it said? I'm guessing not.

212 Million registered voting citizens in 2020.

The estimate turn out is 158 million people- 2020- with 54 million who chose to still not vote in 2020

Why would anyone decide to use an eligible vote report to calculate numbers? Make no sense? You have 54 million registered citizens who are eligible to vote.

I don’t know if democrats are doing this to hide their math problem, but make more sense to take 66 percent turn out from the 212 million registered voters.

Smee_Again

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/kushner-trump-family-shell-company-b1776359.html

Is this it

That’s the one.

It’s no wonder the campaign had to pull TV advertising towards the end of the campaign, all the funds had been siphoned off to pay family members for “services”.

Aren’t they also being investigated for paying Ivanka consultancy fees for projects she was already working on as an employee of Trump?

Cheerful Spring2

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

212 Million registered voting citizens in 2020.

The estimate turn out is 158 million people- 2020- with 54 million who chose to still not vote in 2020

.Why would anyone decide to use an eligible vote report to calculate numbers? Make no sense? You have 54 million registered citizens who are eligible to vote.

I don’t know if democrats are doing this to hide their math problem, but make more sense to take 66 percent turn out from the 212 million registered voters.

The Washington Post explicitly stated the percentile is based on eligible voters.

Here's an article on the 2016 election that bases their numbers on eligible voters. That's the standard that's used, the rationale is because the percentile of people who can vote who chose to vote is an important reflection of engagement. So why are you choosing to not do basic research before arguing a point?
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/voter-turnout-2016-elections

Here's a cnn article from 2016 where they compare the numbers for multiple Elections based on eligible voters btw. So the line you're following is nonsense. https://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/popular-vote-turnout-2016/index.html

ExMachina1000

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

can you not figure that out for yourself? it seems very clear to me.

I added to my post

ohnonotgmail

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

212 Million registered voting citizens in 2020.

The estimate turn out is 158 million people- 2020- with 54 million who chose to still not vote in 2020

Why would anyone decide to use an eligible vote report to calculate numbers? Make no sense? You have 54 million registered citizens who are eligible to vote.

I don’t know if democrats are doing this to hide their math problem, but make more sense to take 66 percent turn out from the 212 million registered voters.

I'm overcome by the stupidity of your post. The WAPO quote a figure for turnout and based it on eligible voters. you misunderstand this and somehow it is their fault that you cannot read? there is no hiding here. they used the same calculation for previous elections. it is all there in the article. Did you actually read the article? do you understand the article? you are so convinced that there is a conspiracy you are willing to embarrass yourself. bad enough that you do it regularly in the CT forum but leave the CA forum to those of us who don't double-down on stupidity.

Fiery mutant

97D33580-D9B3-49EB-88D4-CEC2EB5B2C00.png

ohnonotgmail

Fiery mutant wrote: »

97D33580-D9B3-49EB-88D4-CEC2EB5B2C00.png

and?

Smee_Again

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

212 Million registered voting citizens in 2020.

The estimate turn out is 158 million people- 2020- with 54 million who chose to still not vote in 2020

Why would anyone decide to use an eligible vote report to calculate numbers? Make no sense? You have 54 million registered citizens who are eligible to vote.

I don’t know if democrats are doing this to hide their math problem, but make more sense to take 66 percent turn out from the 212 million registered voters.

Turnout is measured against eligible voters, you’re making a fool of yourself here.

Once we've settled on how to measure the number of people who voted, we need to compare it to the size of the eligible voting population, by calculating the turnout rate. The easiest comparison is with the voting age population (VAP)-that is, the number of people who are 18 and older according to U.S. Census Bureau estimates.

https://electionlab.mit.edu/research/voter-turnout

Cheerful Spring2

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I'm overcome by the stupidity of your post. The WAPO quote a figure for turnout and based it on eligible voters. you misunderstand this and somehow it is their fault that you cannot read? there is no hiding here. they used the same calculation for previous elections. it is all there in the article. Did you actually read the article? do you understand the article? you are so convinced that there is a conspiracy you are willing to embarrass yourself. bad enough that you do it regularly in the CT forum but leave the CA forum to those of us who don't double-down on stupidity.

You must have voter registration status in an election. If that's how they calculated their complete morons. I thought they had more sense the Washington Post and presumed they looked at the turn out numbers logically.

Eligible are not registered voters, you know this, or maybe not?

ohnonotgmail

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You must have voter registration status in an election. If that's how they calculated their complete morons. I thought they had more sense the Washington Post and presumed they looked at the turn out numbers logically.

Eligible are not registered voters, you know this, or maybe not?

of course I know that. but that is irrelevant. the WAPO quoted a turnout figure based on eligible voters. if they had quoted a turnout figure based on registered it would have been a different figure. are you capable of understanding that?

Sweetemotion

Tell me how wrote: »

At least he didn't advocate that 5 black guys be put to death.
Or have to be brought to court because he refused to rent a property to black people.
Or have black employees removed from his casino when high rollers were gambling.

He is going to be such an improvement in tone and diplomacy from the reality show actor who was hopelessly out of his depth for the last 4 years.

How does that make a man who helped pass a bill that targeted African Americans not racist?

Cheerful Spring2

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You must have voter registration status in an election. If that's how they calculated their complete morons. I thought they had more sense the Washington Post and presumed they looked at the turn out numbers logically.

Eligible are not registered voters, you know this, or maybe not?

Cool, so I've cited articles from 2016 where eligible voters are used for that percentile. I'm pretty confident that it's been used plenty for decades. It's important from the perspective of you're seeing what percentile of eligible voters are engaged. While 80% of registered voters voting sounds great for example, it fails to represent the reality that a huge proportion of voters haven't engaged with the process.

So the percentile acts as a more accurate representation of the reality. So I wouldn't say it's moronic at all.