aufan
Full Member
Posts: 199
|
Post by aufan on May 20, 2024 20:06:36 GMT
So you are saying the Zuckerbucks analysis Bevo posted was using false data? Fine with me. So I assume you’ll stop claiming Zuckerbucks impacted the election? Quite honestly the way you were utilizing the data did very little to prove the effect Zuckerburg had on the election in UGA. For this data to be relevant you would really need to know the vote counts from the votes that were casted through the Zuckerburg drop boxes and the ones that didn't. This data was not provided. Therefore the entire discussion was irrelevant from that point of view. Considering the data source used was false makes it even more irrelevant. To answer your questions the Zuckerbucks analysis did use false data. No I will not stop to claim Zuckerbucks impacted the election? We do know that the Zuckerbucks boxes were placed in place that were more heavily leaning democrats. Election outcomes in previous years comparing Georgia Elections vs US General Election Votes 2008 to 2012 Change in voter tournout GA:Dem -3.2% US:Dem -5.1% GA:Rep +1.2% US:Rep +1.6 % GA:Gen -1.1% US: Gen -2.0 2012 to 2016 Change in voter tournout GA:Dem +5.9% US:Dem 0% GA:Rep +0.5% US:Rep +3.3% GA:Gen -3.0% US:Gen +1.6% 2016 to 2020 Change in voter tournout GA:Dem +31.2% US:Dem +23.4% GA:Rep +17.8% US:Rep +17.8% GA:Gen +24.4% US:Gen +20.6% The amount of votes that Georgia cast for Joe Biden clearly out performed the General Election by a signficant margin and I do believe that Zuckerbucks had a lot to do with that. I was literally using the provided Zuckerbucks data to argue against Zuckerbucks impact, that is the only thing I was using the data for. Also, you do realize that Zuckerbucks were given to most other states? It wasn’t just in Georgia. Comparing Georgia to the general election doesn’t really implicate Zuckerbucks
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on May 21, 2024 14:02:08 GMT
This NY jury would liekly find Trump guilty even if Jesus himself took the stand and proclaimed Trump was innocent.
|
|
|
Post by ajbuckeye on May 21, 2024 19:28:17 GMT
Quite honestly the way you were utilizing the data did very little to prove the effect Zuckerburg had on the election in UGA. For this data to be relevant you would really need to know the vote counts from the votes that were casted through the Zuckerburg drop boxes and the ones that didn't. This data was not provided. Therefore the entire discussion was irrelevant from that point of view. Considering the data source used was false makes it even more irrelevant. To answer your questions the Zuckerbucks analysis did use false data. No I will not stop to claim Zuckerbucks impacted the election? We do know that the Zuckerbucks boxes were placed in place that were more heavily leaning democrats. Election outcomes in previous years comparing Georgia Elections vs US General Election Votes 2008 to 2012 Change in voter tournout GA:Dem -3.2% US:Dem -5.1% GA:Rep +1.2% US:Rep +1.6 % GA:Gen -1.1% US: Gen -2.0 2012 to 2016 Change in voter tournout GA:Dem +5.9% US:Dem 0% GA:Rep +0.5% US:Rep +3.3% GA:Gen -3.0% US:Gen +1.6% 2016 to 2020 Change in voter tournout GA:Dem +31.2% US:Dem +23.4% GA:Rep +17.8% US:Rep +17.8% GA:Gen +24.4% US:Gen +20.6% The amount of votes that Georgia cast for Joe Biden clearly out performed the General Election by a signficant margin and I do believe that Zuckerbucks had a lot to do with that. I was literally using the provided Zuckerbucks data to argue against Zuckerbucks impact, that is the only thing I was using the data for. Also, you do realize that Zuckerbucks were given to most other states? It wasn’t just in Georgia. Comparing Georgia to the general election doesn’t really implicate Zuckerbucks Yes I am aware that Zuckerberg did give to most states. I am also aware that by far Georgia received the most funding by far considering it's population is not even in the top 5. Funding per\capita Georgia 4.2 NJ 2.3 No others over 2 National Average 0.87 This is why I will continue to claim the Zuckerburg had an impact on the outcome of the election.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on May 21, 2024 20:38:33 GMT
Zucker Bucks DELIVERED the state of Georgia. It's without question.
In the counties that took it, overall turnout was UP 30%. In the counties that didn't, overall turnout was up only 10%.
Yes... what I originally said, way back when, was absolutely true.
And where was the money spent? Almost all in the heavily populated counties where Democrats had the largest margins of voters. Mostly in the counties around Atlanta. More than $10M JUST in Fulton County. How do you even spend $10M in ONE county.
THAT, is precisely how you change the outcome of an election.
Zuck Bucks generated around ~250k excess votes in a state Democrats shockingly won by ~11k. The discrepancy in the vote count in Fulton doesn't change what is obvious, to any HONEST person.
|
|
aufan
Full Member
Posts: 199
|
Post by aufan on May 22, 2024 6:30:23 GMT
I was literally using the provided Zuckerbucks data to argue against Zuckerbucks impact, that is the only thing I was using the data for. Also, you do realize that Zuckerbucks were given to most other states? It wasn’t just in Georgia. Comparing Georgia to the general election doesn’t really implicate Zuckerbucks Yes I am aware that Zuckerberg did give to most states. I am also aware that by far Georgia received the most funding by far considering it's population is not even in the top 5. Funding per\capita Georgia 4.2 NJ 2.3 No others over 2 National Average 0.87 This is why I will continue to claim the Zuckerburg had an impact on the outcome of the election. Are you still using the data from the Zuckerbucks analysis, the one you said was false data?
|
|
aufan
Full Member
Posts: 199
|
Post by aufan on May 23, 2024 19:17:51 GMT
Zucker Bucks DELIVERED the state of Georgia. It's without question. In the counties that took it, overall turnout was UP 30%. In the counties that didn't, overall turnout was up only 10%. Yes... what I originally said, way back when, was absolutely true. If what you said before were true, why have you reworded it? As for Zuckerbucks: They were highly effective in turning out more votes for Democrats. In Georgia, there was no such increase in the counties that didn't get the money. There sure was in the ones who did get the money. I’ve already disproven this - with your own data - that there was an increase in Democrat votes for non-Zuckerbucks counties. You are now rewording it by removing the word Democrat. Even so, I believe you are wrong in your calculations, as I have total voter turnout incease in Zuckerbucks counties of 27.8%, and 23.9% in non-Zuckerbucks counties. Using your data. No clue where you get 30% and 10%. And where was the money spent? Almost all in the heavily populated counties where Democrats had the largest margins of voters. Mostly in the counties around Atlanta. More than $10M JUST in Fulton County. How do you even spend $10M in ONE county. THAT, is precisely how you change the outcome of an election. Zuck Bucks generated around ~250k excess votes in a state Democrats shockingly won by ~11k. The discrepancy in the vote count in Fulton doesn't change what is obvious, to any HONEST person. Two points: I used the discrepancy in Fulton County as an example to point out buckeye’s error (where he did arithmetic using two conflicting data sources).. There is a discrepancy in every single county when comparing the two data sources. For the record, Zuckerbucks data matches the county level source I used. I have no problem using this data, and proving you’re wrong with it! Secondly, your mathematical errors aside, the concept of “excess votes” is silly. The entire point of Zuckerbucks was to make it easier for people to exercise their right to vote. I completely disagree with the conservative stance that fewer voters are better, that voting is not a right, and that voting should be arbitrarily limited. Claiming that Zuckerbucks increased voter turnout might resonate with conservatives as a negative, but not with a moderate like me.
|
|
aufan
Full Member
Posts: 199
|
Post by aufan on May 24, 2024 13:12:23 GMT
This NY jury would liekly find Trump guilty even if Jesus himself took the stand and proclaimed Trump was innocent. There is no better mental image of modern day Christianity than the thought of Jesus defending a person who cheated on their wife and paid money to cover up.
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on May 24, 2024 15:03:01 GMT
This NY jury would liekly find Trump guilty even if Jesus himself took the stand and proclaimed Trump was innocent. There is no better mental image of modern day Christianity than the thought of Jesus defending a person who cheated on their wife and paid money to cover up. Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins.
|
|
aufan
Full Member
Posts: 199
|
Post by aufan on May 24, 2024 17:21:54 GMT
There is no better mental image of modern day Christianity than the thought of Jesus defending a person who cheated on their wife and paid money to cover up. Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins. Might need to brush up on your Christian mythology. Though if Jesus showed up in the USA, how fast would republicans be calling for him to be deported? A brown, non-American socialist who says rich people won’t go to heaven? Can’t think of anything less Republican than that!
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on May 25, 2024 17:31:08 GMT
Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins. Might need to brush up on your Christian mythology. Though if Jesus showed up in the USA, how fast would republicans be calling for him to be deported? A brown, non-American socialist who says rich people won’t go to heaven? Can’t think of anything less Republican than that! Your premise is that Christians would reject Christ? Better lick that calf over again.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on May 25, 2024 17:39:11 GMT
Even so, I believe you are wrong in your calculations, as I have total voter turnout incease in Zuckerbucks counties of 27.8%, and 23.9% in non-Zuckerbucks counties. Using your data. No clue where you get 30% and 10%. There was an error in my calculations...I think my worksheet got corrupted when I was sorting at some point. My apologies. I went back and re-worked the data, twice.. and checked it at every point. I used the county data files you provided. It should be noted: the data for 2016 is still not exactly the same as the data in the ZB analysis, but it's very close. It seems odd to me that, 8 years later, we still can't find consistent data about the 2016 vote totals in Ga. Anyway, I believe your numbers there are also slightly off. Another Note: we've been talking about "turnout increases". Technically, that's not correct. We're looking at VOTE increases. "Turnout" is a % of registered voters. I don't have that data, although would be interesting to see. What I see is: For Republicans, in ZB$ counties, votes increased 17.3%. For NON-ZB$ counties, votes increased 21.1%For Democrats, in ZB$ counties, votes increased 35.4%. For NON-ZB$ counties, votes increased 32.2%A 3.2% increased vote totals might not look like much, but it is huge when you consider how much more heavily populated the ZB$ counties are, and how heavily they lean toward Democrat votes. In the ZB% counties, Democrats got 58.3% of the vote. Statewide, they only got 49.5% We will never know what the turnout WOULD have been if $48M had not dropped into Georgia, with the VAST majority of it going to the counties with the biggest bias toward Democrats. If the vote % increase had been the same in the ZB$ counties as the Non-ZB$ counties, Republicans would have gained nearly 88,000 votes. The entire point of Zuckerbucks was to make it easier for people to exercise their right to vote. That's what they say, yes. But apparently, they really only wanted to make it easier to vote in counties where Democrats have the largest built in advantage. That's election rigging. Can you imagine how you'd feel in November if Elon Musk spends $50M in Michigan, giving it to government officials responsible for running the election primarily in counties where Republicans have the largest advantage, and Trump wins by 11,000 and wins the Presidency as a result? I don't think you'd be calling it the "cleanest election in history". Although I do think our country would have a fighting chance to get back to fiscal sanity if the right to vote were limited to actual tax payers, I have long accepted that the country wants EVERYONE to vote. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have mechanisms and procedures to ensure that ballots are actually cast by the person whose name is associated with them. If there IS a mechanism to cast fake ballots, then no one can KNOW that their vote was not cancelled by someone who is cheating by filling out a ballot for someone else. How hard is it, really.... to find a polling place and go to it? We could make it a whole week. There's no need for 2+ months. That just provides time, an essential element for cheating. If a person physically can't go to a polling place, then sure...let them request a mail-in ballot. But, what's wrong with them just putting it back in the mail? Why do they need some special unsupervised drop box? How would they even get TO a dropbox? Wouldn't a mailbox be easier? We've reached a point where the loser in our elections no longer accepts the results. That's not just MAGA-trash, it started with ALGore and continued through Shrillary. There's ZERO chance Democrats will accept a Trump victory if it happens. People know are election systems are not secure. Why anyone would trust a fully electronic voting system is beyond me. ANYTHING can be hacked. The only protection against that is an actual paper trail of ballots that can be reviewed, if necessary. When people don't trust elections in a Democracy, it leads to trouble. If Democrats really cared about "saving Democracy", they'd get on board with some of the ideas for improving election security. The only logical opposition to having Voter ID, for example, is.... it makes cheating much harder. Who opposes it? LOL... well, there's your answer.
|
|
aufan
Full Member
Posts: 199
|
Post by aufan on May 25, 2024 20:58:16 GMT
Might need to brush up on your Christian mythology. Though if Jesus showed up in the USA, how fast would republicans be calling for him to be deported? A brown, non-American socialist who says rich people won’t go to heaven? Can’t think of anything less Republican than that! Your premise is that Christians would reject Christ? Better lick that calf over again. My premise is that republicans would reject Christ.
|
|
aufan
Full Member
Posts: 199
|
Post by aufan on May 25, 2024 21:50:08 GMT
Even so, I believe you are wrong in your calculations, as I have total voter turnout incease in Zuckerbucks counties of 27.8%, and 23.9% in non-Zuckerbucks counties. Using your data. No clue where you get 30% and 10%. There was an error in my calculations...I think my worksheet got corrupted when I was sorting at some point. My apologies. I went back and re-worked the data, twice.. and checked it at every point. I used the county data files you provided. It should be noted: the data for 2016 is still not exactly the same as the data in the ZB analysis, but it's very close. It seems odd to me that, 8 years later, we still can't find consistent data about the 2016 vote totals in Ga. Anyway, I believe your numbers there are also slightly off. Another Note: we've been talking about "turnout increases". Technically, that's not correct. We're looking at VOTE increases. "Turnout" is a % of registered voters. I don't have that data, although would be interesting to see. What I see is: For Republicans, in ZB$ counties, votes increased 17.3%. For NON-ZB$ counties, votes increased 21.1%For Democrats, in ZB$ counties, votes increased 35.4%. For NON-ZB$ counties, votes increased 32.2%A 3.2% increased vote totals might not look like much, but it is huge when you consider how much more heavily populated the ZB$ counties are, and how heavily they lean toward Democrat votes. In the ZB% counties, Democrats got 58.3% of the vote. Statewide, they only got 49.5% We will never know what the turnout WOULD have been if $48M had not dropped into Georgia, with the VAST majority of it going to the counties with the biggest bias toward Democrats. If the vote % increase had been the same in the ZB$ counties as the Non-ZB$ counties, Republicans would have gained nearly 88,000 votes. The entire point of Zuckerbucks was to make it easier for people to exercise their right to vote. That's what they say, yes. But apparently, they really only wanted to make it easier to vote in counties where Democrats have the largest built in advantage. That's election rigging. Can you imagine how you'd feel in November if Elon Musk spends $50M in Michigan, giving it to government officials responsible for running the election primarily in counties where Republicans have the largest advantage, and Trump wins by 11,000 and wins the Presidency as a result? I don't think you'd be calling it the "cleanest election in history". Although I do think our country would have a fighting chance to get back to fiscal sanity if the right to vote were limited to actual tax payers, I have long accepted that the country wants EVERYONE to vote. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have mechanisms and procedures to ensure that ballots are actually cast by the person whose name is associated with them. If there IS a mechanism to cast fake ballots, then no one can KNOW that their vote was not cancelled by someone who is cheating by filling out a ballot for someone else. How hard is it, really.... to find a polling place and go to it? We could make it a whole week. There's no need for 2+ months. That just provides time, an essential element for cheating. If a person physically can't go to a polling place, then sure...let them request a mail-in ballot. But, what's wrong with them just putting it back in the mail? Why do they need some special unsupervised drop box? How would they even get TO a dropbox? Wouldn't a mailbox be easier? We've reached a point where the loser in our elections no longer accepts the results. That's not just MAGA-trash, it started with ALGore and continued through Shrillary. There's ZERO chance Democrats will accept a Trump victory if it happens. People know are election systems are not secure. Why anyone would trust a fully electronic voting system is beyond me. ANYTHING can be hacked. The only protection against that is an actual paper trail of ballots that can be reviewed, if necessary. When people don't trust elections in a Democracy, it leads to trouble. If Democrats really cared about "saving Democracy", they'd get on board with some of the ideas for improving election security. The only logical opposition to having Voter ID, for example, is.... it makes cheating much harder. Who opposes it? LOL... well, there's your answer. First of all, congrats! You finally admitted that there were such increases for republicans in Georgia! After almost two months and multiple replies we can agree that you made a false statement that “In Georgia, there were no such increases that didn’t get the money”. Progress, finally! On asking if Elon Musk donated money for elections: if he only donated to Michigan, and that was the only piece of data, I would question things. But Zuckerbucks funded a lot of other states, and the data shows in some of them that republicans gained more than democrats. I am completely anti-billionaire. On a scale between the French (round them up and cut their heads off) and Jesus (they ain’t getting into heaven), I am much closer to the French, I’m not a billionaire defending apologist. . That being said, the data doesn’t show that Zuckerbucks were used intentionally to change the election. They were used to help fund allowing people to vote. And it’s no surprise that Georgia needed a lot of help: www.npr.org/2020/10/17/924527679/why-do-nonwhite-georgia-voters-have-to-wait-in-line-for-hours-too-few-polling-plI do agree we should have lots of time to vote. You say one week, but we can’t even get two hours passed by congress with the Time Off to Vote Act. Finally, these next parts are the most egregious and deceitful things you have said in this thread , so I must direct quote it on its own: We've reached a point where the loser in our elections no longer accepts the results. That's not just MAGA-trash, it started with ALGore and continued through Shrillary. While I appreciate you acknowledge that it is MAGA-trash, this is a garbage comparison. Hillary conceded the election in just a few days, saying "We owe him an open mind and a chance to lead. Our constitutional democracy enshrines the peaceful transition of power. We don't just respect that; we cherish it," Al Gore conceded after 36 days (and a legitimate supreme court case) saying “ The strength of American democracy is shown most clearly through the difficulties it can overcome.” At no point did they question democracy. To say Hillary or Gore didn’t accept the results of democracy is a lie. There's ZERO chance Democrats will accept a Trump victory if it happens. And I will end on this, classic projection. You are defending the “MAGA-trash” by assuming actions of democrats in the future? How about you join the ranks of reasonable people, and just reject MAGA-trash for being trash?
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on May 26, 2024 2:09:42 GMT
You finally admitted that there were such increases for republicans in Georgia! What?? I NEVER said "there were such increases for Republicans". I said the turnout for Democrats was higher in the counties where ZB money was spent. And, it was! Actually, turnout increase was LOWER for Republicans in the ZB$ counties, relative to the rest of the state. So, what you're claiming I said there is actually correct. Money was focused on counties where Democrats had the advantage. Turnout increased there, and it helped Democrats win. It's not really that hard to understand. You really have to delude yourself to not see what happened, and why. On asking if Elon Musk donated money for elections: if he only donated to Michigan, and that was the only piece of data, I would question things. But Zuckerbucks funded a lot of other states, and the data shows in some of them that republicans gained more than democrats. Really? In which state that mattered did Republicans benefit more? What I see, in ALL critical swing states, the Georgia strategy was effectively applied. It worked. They were used to help fund allowing people to vote. Yes... but 94% of it in counties where Democrats already had a natural advantage. Some people didn't have to do ANYTHING to vote. Others did it for them. What a great deal. Do you want to know why inner-city voters (Some of them are actually white) have to wait in line so long? It's because their local leaders are totally incompetent. And, they have difficulty finding enough responsible, trustworthy people to man the polling places. LOCAL precinct leaders determine the number of polling places. They have no one to blame but themselves. That said, having a longer time to vote would help, and I'd fully support that. Even two weeks. That's what we've been doing here in Kentucky. It's fine. Two months? No. Two weeks? Ok...I guess. we can’t even get two hours passed by congress with the Time Off to Vote Act. No state only allows two hours to vote. And, no one works two weeks without time off. For the handful of people that MIGHT, they could apply for a mail in ballot. Finally, these next parts are the most egregious and deceitful things you have said in this thread , so I must direct quote it on its own: To say Hillary or Gore didn’t accept the results of democracy is a lie. LOL Deceitful? There's nothing deceitful about what I said. If you can't handle the TRUTH, that's on you. Algore, to his credit, did make a nice concession speech... after fighting the results for more than a month. But polls clearly showed that Democrats thought Gore was the real winner. Just a few years later, Algore was indulging their belief with statements like this: I am Al Gore. I used to be the next president of the United States of America," he said....."My attitude is you win some and you lose some. Then there's that little known third category."www.smh.com.au/national/gore-jokes-about-losing-us-presidency-20051110-gdmeta.htmlSHillary, after taking a few hours to sober up, did make a concession speech. But then, she spent the next four years telling anyone who would listen that "Trump is an illegitimate President". How is that supporting democracy? www.yahoo.com/news/hillary-clinton-labels-trump-illegitimate-170547434.htmlEven HIGHER numbers of Democrat voters refused to accept Hillary's loss. Perhaps you've forgotten the riots in DC and the "pussy hat" rallies? VOTERS didn't believe it. Trump fought against the presumed fraud up until all his legal challenges were exhausted. Then, he left. Nobody had to send Marines in to drive him out. NOTHING about "supporting democracy" requires him to accept the fraud as fact. In fact, real support for democracy REQUIRES that he try to continue to expose the fraud and make people aware of how it was done. "MAGA-trash" was a sarcastic comment, making fun of the way people like Hillary, and you, and Hen depict Trump supporters. I'd like to think you understood that. Probably. But, I can't be sure with you.
|
|
aufan
Full Member
Posts: 199
|
Post by aufan on May 26, 2024 8:35:40 GMT
You finally admitted that there were such increases for republicans in Georgia! What?? I NEVER said "there were such increases for Republicans". I said the turnout for Democrats was higher in the counties where ZB money was spent. And, it was! Actually, turnout increase was LOWER for Republicans in the ZB$ counties, relative to the rest of the state. So, what you're claiming I said there is actually correct. Money was focused on counties where Democrats had the advantage. Turnout increased there, and it helped Democrats win. It's not really that hard to understand. You really have to delude yourself to not see what happened, and why. On asking if Elon Musk donated money for elections: if he only donated to Michigan, and that was the only piece of data, I would question things. But Zuckerbucks funded a lot of other states, and the data shows in some of them that republicans gained more than democrats. Really? In which state that mattered did Republicans benefit more? What I see, in ALL critical swing states, the Georgia strategy was effectively applied. It worked. They were used to help fund allowing people to vote. Yes... but 94% of it in counties where Democrats already had a natural advantage. Some people didn't have to do ANYTHING to vote. Others did it for them. What a great deal. Do you want to know why inner-city voters (Some of them are actually white) have to wait in line so long? It's because their local leaders are totally incompetent. And, they have difficulty finding enough responsible, trustworthy people to man the polling places. LOCAL precinct leaders determine the number of polling places. They have no one to blame but themselves. That said, having a longer time to vote would help, and I'd fully support that. Even two weeks. That's what we've been doing here in Kentucky. It's fine. Two months? No. Two weeks? Ok...I guess. we can’t even get two hours passed by congress with the Time Off to Vote Act. No state only allows two hours to vote. And, no one works two weeks without time off. For the handful of people that MIGHT, they could apply for a mail in ballot. Finally, these next parts are the most egregious and deceitful things you have said in this thread , so I must direct quote it on its own: To say Hillary or Gore didn’t accept the results of democracy is a lie. LOL Deceitful? There's nothing deceitful about what I said. If you can't handle the TRUTH, that's on you. Algore, to his credit, did make a nice concession speech... after fighting the results for more than a month. But polls clearly showed that Democrats thought Gore was the real winner. Just a few years later, Algore was indulging their belief with statements like this: I am Al Gore. I used to be the next president of the United States of America," he said....."My attitude is you win some and you lose some. Then there's that little known third category."www.smh.com.au/national/gore-jokes-about-losing-us-presidency-20051110-gdmeta.htmlSHillary, after taking a few hours to sober up, did make a concession speech. But then, she spent the next four years telling anyone who would listen that "Trump is an illegitimate President". How is that supporting democracy? www.yahoo.com/news/hillary-clinton-labels-trump-illegitimate-170547434.htmlEven HIGHER numbers of Democrat voters refused to accept Hillary's loss. Perhaps you've forgotten the riots in DC and the "pussy hat" rallies? VOTERS didn't believe it. Trump fought against the presumed fraud up until all his legal challenges were exhausted. Then, he left. Nobody had to send Marines in to drive him out. NOTHING about "supporting democracy" requires him to accept the fraud as fact. In fact, real support for democracy REQUIRES that he try to continue to expose the fraud and make people aware of how it was done. "MAGA-trash" was a sarcastic comment, making fun of the way people like Hillary, and you, and Hen depict Trump supporters. I'd like to think you understood that. Probably. But, I can't be sure with you. You said there were no such increases for republicans in Georgia that didn’t get the money, but you post data showing they did. I can’t help anymore here. Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Texas are states where Zuckerbucks counties grew less than non-Zuckerbucks counties. You are only narrowly focusing on Georgia because the data doesn’t support your rhetoric elsewhere. The data doesn’t support your narrative even in Georgia, as the change in voters is statistically not significant enough to show the influence of Zuckerbucks. I think you missed my point on the Time Off to Vote Act. We can’t get two hours mandatory time off from work passed. There is no willingness to make voting easier by republicans, because voter turnout is the enemy of republicans. I’m fine with means to make elections more secure, etc., but not arbitrarily difficult. It should be easy to exercise this right. And on MAGA-trash, I thought it was you coming to terms. Oh well. You found a joke that Al Gore made four years after the 2000 election, one that doesn’t even degrade democracy. And you equate that to Trump repeatedly lying about the election, telling his crowd to go fight like hell or we won’t have a country anymore? You have absolutely lost your mind to the MAGA-trash. You are absolutely right about one thing, the country is doomed people don’t trust elections. That is exactly why Trump is questioning elections, he doesn’t care about the country, just himself. I’ll donate my 401k to his campaign if you can find him on video saying we must out country before party, like Al Gore said. Even you admit that there is no easily discernible evidence of election fraud, that you are questioning the election results based on faith, intuition or a gut feeling. So I once again repeat my question that I’ve asked, what justification was there for Trump to claim, as fact, that he won the election and it was stolen from him through fraud? Answer? There is none. Trump intentionally destroyed faith in democracy because he is a self centered, sore loser who puts himself over the country. He is MAGA-trash. MAGA-trash puts party over country. And you support MAGA-trash intentionally destroying democracy with no easily discernible evidence, why? Because you think democrats want to ban gasoline powered cars? Laughable. But absolutely terrifying how effective the MAGA-trash propaganda is.
|
|