- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Orange County Releases Official Vote Count One Precinct Has 120% Turnout
Posted on 12/4/18 at 8:20 am to buckeye_vol
Posted on 12/4/18 at 8:20 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
I don’t understand this point when 494 thousand of the 1.56 million registered voters (31.7%) are not registered as R or D. So taking the R and D registration statistics and comparing them to the vote totals of the R and D candidates and completely ignoring the other third of the registered voters doesn’t make sense.
Yeah, this is pretty retarded
1
Posted on 12/4/18 at 8:37 am to upgrayedd
It's in the link, but apparently one precinct had 540ish votes cast in the election from a registered voter pool of 465. Not sure why the OP didn't include that graphic in his post as well and I've never quite got the hang of posting images on here.
Posted on 12/4/18 at 8:44 am to BBONDS25
quote:
The article says ONE PRECINCT was at 120%. Again, you fail to grasp a simple concept and make an argument that is completely irrelevant.
quote:
And how does talking about the total number of registered voters in the county change the point of the article that one precinct showed 120% turnout?
There's a reason the image supposedly showing "120% turnout" has the column title cut off. It's 1) because gateway pundit is dogshit and 2) because the denominator is "Party Member Registration", not total registered voters in the precinct.
That is the exact same issue Texridder and Buckeye bring up about the general point of the article, noting that over 30% of those registered apparently don't affiliate with a party. The same problem applies to that percentage calculation for this precinct.
You can see this clearly if you follow the OC official vote count link in the GP article and look at Precinct 38083. Something they're obviously not expecting their contributing authors- let alone their readers- to do.
quote:
damn dude...you are just consistently whiffing with your “arguments”. It’s fascinating.
Nice self-own.
This thread is a fantastic example of people believing and doubling down on obvious bullshite.
Posted on 12/4/18 at 8:55 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:
Nice self-own. This thread is a fantastic example of people believing and doubling down on obvious bullshite.
Dummy.
My first post.
quote:
The article says ONE PRECINCT was at 120%. Again, you fail to grasp a simple concept and make an argument that is completely irrelevant. I am not saying I believe the GP claim....but damn dude...you are just consistently whiffing with your “arguments”. It’s fascinating.
The report is 3200 pages long. You confident you have a grasp on its contents?
Regardless... my post to texridder was simply pointing out that the OP was referring to one precinct, and he cited stats for the entire county. Never did I state the OP was factually correct. Simply that Tex was arguing an irrelevant point. Which was true.
I haven’t read the 3200 page report and neither have you. Yet you are confident in Your conclusion has been reached. I have made no conclusion. In fact I specifically said I wasn’t saying I believed GP’s claim. So spare me your BS about what this thread does or doesn’t represent.
I’m sure Tex appreciates you white knighting, though.
This post was edited on 12/4/18 at 9:05 am
Posted on 12/4/18 at 9:04 am to BBONDS25
quote:
You confident you have a grasp on its contents?
I am certain that the numbers used to get the 120% figure for that precinct are used incorrectly and misleadingly, in support of a narrative that we want to believe.
quote:
my post to texridder was simply pointing out that the OP was referring to one precinct, and he cited stats for the entire county ||| Tex was arguing and irrelevant point.
The party registration vs total registration issue is the exact same highly relevant issue. You insisted on focusing on the "120" precinct, even though the same issue obviously applies.
You were just trying to dunk on him, and you failed horribly.
quote:
I haven’t read the 3200 page report and neither have you
I eagerly await your presentation on some relevant detail from it that supports OP or shows Tex/Buckeye's point to be irrelevant either to the precinct or to the whole.
quote:
I’m sure Tex appreciates you white knighting, though.
Well that's nice. I'm talking to you though, not him.
Posted on 12/4/18 at 9:07 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:
eagerly await your presentation on some relevant detail from it that supports OP or shows Tex/Buckeye's point to be irrelevant either to the precinct or to the whole.
Self evident. The claim is regarding one precinct. How does posting stats regarding the entire county support a disprove a claim about a precinct?
Oh and...in case you missed it. My first post in this thread:
quote:
I am not saying I believe GP’s claim
So why would you say this about my post?:
quote:
This thread is a fantastic example of people believing and doubling down...
Self-owned?
This post was edited on 12/4/18 at 9:08 am
Posted on 12/4/18 at 9:08 am to BBONDS25
quote:
How does posting stats regarding the entire county support a disprove a claim about a precinct?
Because we see immediately, if we look, that the basis for these calculations doesn't use total registered voters at any level. They use something necessarily smaller- significantly smaller.
This post was edited on 12/4/18 at 9:10 am
Posted on 12/4/18 at 9:10 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:
Because we see immediately, if we look, that the basis for these calculations doesn't use total registered voters at any step.
Not what Tex did in his FIRST post. The one I responded to.
Also...why would you say my post was a fantastic example of someone believing, when I specifically said I wasn’t saying I was believing?!
You were just trying to get a slam dunk and you failed miserably.
Posted on 12/4/18 at 9:13 am to BBONDS25
quote:
why would you say my post was a fantastic example of someone believing
meanwhile, in reality:
quote:
This thread is a fantastic example of people believing and doubling down on obvious bullshite.
Even now, you're acting as though your retort to Tex applies, when you must know that the same issue, which I have now repeated a few times, applies at the precinct level.
quote:
ou were just trying to get a slam dunk and you failed miserably.
Maybe you ought to read the thread again. See the stuff where Tex gets accused of embarrassing himself by being totally correct
This post was edited on 12/4/18 at 9:14 am
Posted on 12/4/18 at 9:17 am to Revelator
quote:
If they allow the results of the election to stand, none of this matters.
Now you are beginning to see the Truth, which is that the USA is doomed.
Posted on 12/4/18 at 9:18 am to RockyMtnTigerWDE
quote:
That time has come and passed already
Yes, I agree. IMHO, it is now too late.
Posted on 12/4/18 at 9:20 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:
This thread
ok. You weren’t trying to say anything about me. The rest of the diatribe, yes....but the last sentence...no. Nowhere in tex’s First post did he point out the distinction between registered voters in the report and total registered voters. He Only pointed out the number was 71 not 120. That was the basis for his argument...which was irrelevant.
You whiffed in your “slam dunk” on me and you whiffed on your white knighting. What’s the third strike going to be?
This post was edited on 12/4/18 at 9:22 am
Posted on 12/4/18 at 9:29 am to BBONDS25
quote:
You weren’t trying to say anything about me.
I meant exactly what I said when I said it, although you've included yourself into that now. You have doubled-down several times on Texridder's point being irrelevant, despite knowing now that the exact same issue makes the 120 precinct figure bullshite. Why would this NOT affect counts at the precinct level when that's how they're all done?
quote:
Nowhere in tex’s First post did he point out the distinction between registered voters in the report and total registered voters. He Only pointed out the number was 71 not 120. That was the basis for his argument...which was irrelevant.
He showed clearly that the number of registered voters was larger than what the GP article presented. Again, when counts are at precinct level, how could the reason for this discrepancy ever be irrelevant?
quote:
You whiffed in your “slam dunk” on me and you whiffed on your white knighting. What’s the third strike going to be?
Translation: shut up shut up shut up please shut up
Posted on 12/4/18 at 9:34 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:
Translation: shut up shut up shut up please shut up
What’s the old saying about buying you for what you are worth and selling you for what you think you’re worth? Don’t flatter yourself. I’m laughing at your white knight attempt. You are giving waaaaaay to much credit to Tex if you think he was making the distinction you are. You mean what you say...no inferences allowed, but you have no problem inferring when it gives you a chance to white knight. Just a little consistency would go a long way.
This post was edited on 12/4/18 at 9:35 am
Posted on 12/4/18 at 9:41 am to BBONDS25
quote:
your white knight attempt
what is this even supposed to mean? i told you, i'm talking to you not him
quote:
You mean what you say...no inferences allowed
you can infer whatever makes you feel good man. you can't say that i said something when i didn't say it though. don't be mad at me for that!
quote:
Just a little consistency would go a long way
cry all you want, tex's point applies fully to the precinct level, and for the exact same reason, and nothing you whine about regarding my style will change thatThis post was edited on 12/4/18 at 9:42 am
Posted on 12/4/18 at 9:46 am to 90proofprofessional
Style?
I imagine that includes skinny jeans and coordinating fedoras.
I imagine that includes skinny jeans and coordinating fedoras.
Posted on 12/4/18 at 9:52 am to roadGator
quote:
I imagine that
bet you do
Posted on 12/4/18 at 9:53 am to 90proofprofessional
People that gin up voter fraud are not doing the country any favors. All they do is take focus off real fraud issues and help foster a lack of trust in our institutions. This article appears to be mixing apples and oranges and is BS.
Posted on 12/4/18 at 10:00 am to doubleb
quote:
All they do is take focus off real fraud issues and help foster a lack of trust in our institutions.
Exactly, and this kind of shite needs to be destroyed before people run around with it. Even when we want to hear it. In fact, especially when we want to hear it.
We fail our own side when bad info like this garbage is allowed to just fester
Posted on 12/4/18 at 10:26 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:
and this kind of shite needs to be destroyed before people run around with it
Do you take the same stance on Russian collusion or just things you don't like?
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News