Yikes. Looks like someone had a meltdown here over the weekend.
- Thread starter WVUCOOPER
- Start date
OceanTide guy. He had a GREAT weekend in life. Is the OT board like 5 threads for you? lol
Please.
I have fun with friends, went to Concord Mills, and found out I was gifted a 1940's .300 Savage. I wasn't even on here.
I'm far less connected to this goofy board than others, but I was thinking previously this oceantide individual was (based on sheer number of entries) a new name for Gunny
Why do you always "brag" about how many folks you have on ignore? I mean why not just keep 'em on ignore and keep it to yourself, or better yet why even bother to log on and read only 10% of the folks who post on here?
Loopy... [eyeroll]
In today episode of "Wally" @CpEER discovers the true source of his own misery...
Question to you: Do you expect honesty and integrity from your employees? What's your company's policy on fraud or deceptive practices?
Then why are you so proud of Joe Biden's victory?
He knows I cheated atl, but he's too happy to admit it cause I won
Don't worry creepy Joe, all of your supporters on the Left are as sneaky & deceitful as YOU are.
Why do you always "brag" about how many folks you have on ignore? I mean why not just keep 'em on ignore and keep it to yourself, or better yet why even bother to log on and read only 10% of the folks who post on here?
Loopy... [eyeroll]
In today episode of "Wally" @CpEER discovers the true source of his own misery...
I typically amuse myself on this board when no one else is around to read
CPEER is the definition of soft. Physically and mentally.
@NYC_Eer ...just so you know, I'm not "picking" on you per se or singling you out...actually none of you on the Left can refute one item on my list of "10 irrefutable facts" proving Joe Biden cheated.
You just chose to ignore the list....however no one has factually rebutted one item on it.
Just FYI.....
No one can factually rebut anything on this list.....NO ONE
You just chose to ignore the list....however no one has factually rebutted one item on it.
Just FYI.....
No one can factually rebut anything on this list.....NO ONE
He "ignores" virtually everyone posting on this board, then brags about it. As if we're all supposed to be impressed with his ignorance? [eyeroll]
Can you honestly answer why the rampant cheating only yielded wins in the presidential race? Why Texas would file suit against a state for doing exactly the same thing Texas did, go against existing election law. Why no suits in Nebraska where they did mass mailings of ballots?@NYC_Eer ...just so you know, I'm not "picking" on you per se or singling you out...actually none of you on the Left can refute one item on my list of "10 irrefutable facts" proving Joe Biden cheated.
You just chose to ignore the list....however no one has factually rebutted one item on it.
Just FYI.....
No one can factually rebut anything on this list.....NO ONE
Or North Carolina where they allowed ballots 9-days after Election Day to be counted.....
I'll give it a stab.
I believe the fact so many ballots were only marked with a choice for President suggests they had to be quickly submitted during those near simultaneous shutdowns in WI, PA, GA, and MI, where Trump was well ahead and his leads had to be corrected. That incidentally did not occur anyplace else besides those specific areas where Biden was running behind and in danger of losing the election.
No real explanations were given for why those vote counts had to all suddenly be suspended, and why after the suspension all the poll observers were kicked out while the counts continued and Biden's totals suddenly began to climb? Prior to those vote count suspensions, Biden was losing badly and the overwhelming majority of votes were not going for him. Then suddenly, ALL of the absentee ballots which to that point had not been counted and ONLY those ballots were all suddenly counted in favor of him with only his name marked as the choice on the ballots! No other races were marked, so those particular ballots were not only unusual but defeated the entire purpose of voting absentee simply to select only one choice? I don't think even you can logically explain that. Can you?
Texas was concerned that States arbitrarily changing their existing election Laws and rules would disadvantage Texas voters as a precedent because State Legislatures by Law are the only entities entitled to make changes in election rules in response to wishes from their constituents and subject to their approval. When election officials do like they did in PA, WI, GA and MI, and suddenly reverse course after the established election Laws are already set by the Legislatures, then a State like Texas which tried to stick to the original wishes of its Legislature is placed in an inferior position relative to how its votes could have been handled and subsequently changed to its own advantages and candidates.
It would be like West Virginia agreeing to the Big 12's rules against in Conference transfers sitting out a year, then one of Texas' top recruits submitting to the transfer portal for immediate playing time at West Virginia and us allowing him to play v Texas against the established agreement of sitting out a year!
As for Nebraska, I'm not sure they were in violation of their State's rules against mass mailings of absentee ballots, but I know here in Georgia the S.O.S went around the State Legislature's rules regarding signature matches when he agreed to a consent decree that said signatures do not need to be authenticated (matched) before those ballots can be submitted. That was a clear violation of the Legislature's rules and it was NOT approved by the Legislature so the Texas lawsuit claimed those types of arbitrary changes were unfair to Texas voters who may have also sought absentee voting but were required to show signature match verification as directed by the Texas Legislature.
If you have States suddenly changing the existing rules without approval from their Legislatures who by Law are the only ones who can make those changes, then you'd have States arbitrarily trying to take advantage of larger populations like those in Texas just to either remain competitive or gain an unfair advantage on their votes. It's a matter of who sets election Law in this country, and under what rules?
You disagree with the Texas position? Care to tell me who else by Law is allowed to legally establish election Laws in this country if it's not the various State Legislatures?
I'm listening.
Last edited:
But Texas made the same "arbitrary" changes that went against election law. So did Nebraska. So did other states that joined in that suit.
If you are correct about cheating using ballots with votes only for president, then you should be able to show many more votes cast in that count than other races.
@WVU82 has posted all of that. No one reads him. I'm not aware of any "arbitrary" changes Texas or Nebraska made to their existing absentee ballot laws, can you please inform me?
Also why didn't you answer my question on who else is statutorily authorized to make election Laws in the States besides the Legislatures? That is the heart of the Trump Legal team's dispute.
Last edited:
excerpt:
In Michigan, for instance, Biden carried nearly 70,000 more votes than Gary Peters, who ran for Congress and won. The difference in the number of votes between Trump and John James, who challenged Peters and lost, on the other hand was only about 7,000 votes.
Similar anomalies were observed in Georgia, where Biden received a whopping 95,801 more total votes than one of the Democrat Senate candidates. Trump, meanwhile, only received 818 more total votes than the GOP Senate challenger.
...more
exerpt:
Twitter user "US Rebel" (@USRebellion1776), however, found that the number of votes cast for Joe Biden far exceeds those cast for that state's Senate candidates in swing states, while those cast for Trump and GOP Senators remains far closer.
...this pattern was highly unusual
excerpt:
Similarly, among those living in states with Senate races, the largest share of voters say they plan to vote for both Biden and the Democratic Senate candidate (42%) or Trump and the Republican Senate candidate (38%) in their state. A recent analysis of U.S. Senate elections since 2012 shows how rare it is for a Senate race to go a different way from a state’s votes in presidential elections. In 139 regular and special elections for the Senate since 2012, 88% have been won by candidates from the same party that won that state’s most recent presidential contest.
...more
excerpt
Biden’s historic vote total exceeds the total number of registered voters who actually voted by 13 million
In 2020, there were approximately 212 million registered voters. Of the registered voters, 66.2 percent actually voted. A total of 140.344 million registered voters cast their ballot for President. If President Trump received a historic 74 million votes, and none of his totals have been contested or proven fraudulent, then how did Joe Biden get over 80 million votes?
...more
Together, the two candidate’s combined vote total exceeds the total number of registered voters who cast their ballot by a whopping 13 million votes! This simple mathematical anomaly was brought forward by Bill Binney, of US Intel Fame. He pointed out that more people voted in the 2020 election nation-wide than were eligible to vote. If Trump’s uncontested total of 74 million votes is true, then there are only enough votes left to give Biden 66.344 million votes. Simple math shows that Donald Trump won in a landslide!
It’s time for Joe Biden and the Democrats to prove how they received an excess of 13 million votes!
So @mule_eer , can you reasonably or factually explain any of this?
Maybe he can atl...got to be at least some explanation?????
You're comparing number of votes for Biden to number of votes for other Democrats. The explanation for that is simple: a lot of people voted split tickets. You are using Pew polling prior to the election to try to back up what those polled planned to do. An election measures what they actually did.
excerpt:
In Michigan, for instance, Biden carried nearly 70,000 more votes than Gary Peters, who ran for Congress and won. The difference in the number of votes between Trump and John James, who challenged Peters and lost, on the other hand was only about 7,000 votes.
Similar anomalies were observed in Georgia, where Biden received a whopping 95,801 more total votes than one of the Democrat Senate candidates. Trump, meanwhile, only received 818 more total votes than the GOP Senate challenger.
...more
exerpt:
Twitter user "US Rebel" (@USRebellion1776), however, found that the number of votes cast for Joe Biden far exceeds those cast for that state's Senate candidates in swing states, while those cast for Trump and GOP Senators remains far closer.
...this pattern was highly unusual
excerpt:
Similarly, among those living in states with Senate races, the largest share of voters say they plan to vote for both Biden and the Democratic Senate candidate (42%) or Trump and the Republican Senate candidate (38%) in their state. A recent analysis of U.S. Senate elections since 2012 shows how rare it is for a Senate race to go a different way from a state’s votes in presidential elections. In 139 regular and special elections for the Senate since 2012, 88% have been won by candidates from the same party that won that state’s most recent presidential contest.
...more
excerpt
Biden’s historic vote total exceeds the total number of registered voters who actually voted by 13 million
In 2020, there were approximately 212 million registered voters. Of the registered voters, 66.2 percent actually voted. A total of 140.344 million registered voters cast their ballot for President. If President Trump received a historic 74 million votes, and none of his totals have been contested or proven fraudulent, then how did Joe Biden get over 80 million votes?
...more
Together, the two candidate’s combined vote total exceeds the total number of registered voters who cast their ballot by a whopping 13 million votes! This simple mathematical anomaly was brought forward by Bill Binney, of US Intel Fame. He pointed out that more people voted in the 2020 election nation-wide than were eligible to vote. If Trump’s uncontested total of 74 million votes is true, then there are only enough votes left to give Biden 66.344 million votes. Simple math shows that Donald Trump won in a landslide!
It’s time for Joe Biden and the Democrats to prove how they received an excess of 13 million votes!
So @mule_eer , can you reasonably or factually explain any of this?
Maybe he can atl...got to be at least some explanation?????
Your stats are wrong in terms of tabulating votes. The turnout rate is measured off the number of eligible voters. There are 239.2 million of those (18-years old and above). The turnout rate was 66.8% That gives you approximately 159.8 million votes cast. If Trump got 74 million of those, 85.8 million went to someone else.
Here's a link to Nebraska's mass mailing of mail-in applications to every registered voter:
https://omaha.com/news/state-and-re...cle_98d340c7-b4d1-57a9-8f4e-7098ed2397bd.html
And in the last 2 paragraphs of this one, they state that the TX governor changed the windows for early voting:
https://www.texastribune.org/2020/09/08/texas-voting-rules-lawsuit/
There weren't any instances in your examples of "split ticket" voting except in those contested areas where Biden's vote totals far exceeded those in other areas. Not even in the same State where the contested ballots are being challenged. Only in those specific areas did Biden's totals far exceed what he otherwise received. No one has adequately explained why those ongoing vote counts in only those areas needed to be suspended, (Trump in fact was running ahead in all of them, then lost all of them) and no one can explain why most of the votes that were counted after those suspensions resumed went to Biden. You have not either.
In addition, Biden's totals in those contested areas do not statistically line up with the totals he received from other areas. They are statistical anomalies which defy normal vote count patterns measured in other areas of the country. No where were the vote totals as pronounced as they were in those areas of contention and those areas only. You cannot explain that.
You also still have not explained who has statutory authority to change election Law in States once the Legislatures sets those Laws? The Nebraska example you provided was NOT a "change" in State election Law. In the Texas Law those adjustments were made consistent with the parameters set by the Texas Legislature. They were not "changes" in how those ballots were to be handled or received as in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...of_the_latest_election_fraud_information.html
Last edited:
This is wrong. The actual turnout rate measures the number of voters who actually voted vs the total number who were legally registered. More voters cast ballots than were legally registered. That is an undeniable fact. You cannot explain that.
MIT says you're wrong. The denominator is the VEP, Voting Eligible Population. That is defined as those who are citizens aged 18 or older who are not excluded from voting eligibility (felons mostly).
You cannot vote unless you are legally registered. (or you're not supposed to anyway)Felons cannot vote! So I don't know what you are referring to here?
There were only so many legally registered voters. Not everyone eligible to vote is/was registered. We only can measure those who actually voted vs those who were legally registered to vote (not "eligible" to vote..."registered" to vote) to determine what the % turnout was? The fact remains more folks voted than there were legally registered to vote.
I honestly don't understand why you're arguing otherwise?
Explain.
I'm arguing about how the rate is determined. We have a measure of the number of Americans who are eligible to vote. We have a measure of how many people voted. You divide the number who voted by the number eligible to vote, and that's your turnout rate. The number of registered voters does not factor into this. Because you are multiplying the number of registered voters by the turnout rate, you are undercounting the number of votes cast. That's why you are coming up short on your count. You can look it up. I did.
MIT Election Lab
OK Mule, assuming you are correct on this (you aren't but I'm giving you your argument to prove your point) please tell me who can vote that isn't legally registered? Wouldn't you by definition have to include folks who aren't legally registered to vote in order to make your numbers work?
Are you denying more folks voted than were legally registered to vote?
Anyone who is over 18, a citizen, not a felon or mentally incapacitated. It's clearly defined in the link. That's is your Voting Eligible Population(VEP). Some percentage of that population is registered to vote. A smaller percentage of that population actually votes. That last one is the voter turnout rate. Registration has nothing to do with that computation. It's basic arithmetic once you know the definition of the statistic.
I am denying that more folks voted than were legally registered to vote. That's based on the discussion we are having. The VEP is roughly 239.2 million. The number of votes cast was roughly 159.8 million. That's where you get the rate you quoted above of 66.8%.
Here's a question for you @mule_eer to settle our little dispute. Yes or No
Should we count folks who are not legally registered to vote as voters? In other words, regardless if they're registered or not, do they count in the actual numbers of folks who voted?
Example 9 million registered voters
13 million votes cast
20 million eligible voters
Do we determine the actual % of voters who cast ballots against the "registered" number or the "eligible" number?
Hope that simplifies it?
Should we count folks who are not legally registered to vote as voters? In other words, regardless if they're registered or not, do they count in the actual numbers of folks who voted?
Example 9 million registered voters
13 million votes cast
20 million eligible voters
Do we determine the actual % of voters who cast ballots against the "registered" number or the "eligible" number?
Hope that simplifies it?
Latest
-
01
WV Sports
West Virginia football final transfer portal review
-
02
WV Sports
Ross Hodge discusses roster building, crafting a team
-
03
WV Sports
Michael Hawkins brings another dimension to West Virginia's offense
-
04
WV Sports
Three players looking to bounce back for West Virginia
-
05
WV Sports
West Virginia fall camp is here. Join WVSports.com for 75% off