- 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: Zuckerberg’s CTCL had the night of her life in CO. Came from 15 points down and won by 20
Posted on 7/2/22 at 8:38 am to jimmy the leg
Posted on 7/2/22 at 8:38 am to jimmy the leg
She doesn’t even work for GP.
0
Posted on 7/2/22 at 8:38 am to jimmy the leg
The first sentence of the article contains the descriptor “private election mafia.”
If that choice of terminology does not make you question the objectivity of the author, you have just confirmed that you too lack any objectivity at all.
If that choice of terminology does not make you question the objectivity of the author, you have just confirmed that you too lack any objectivity at all.
Posted on 7/2/22 at 8:39 am to AggieHank86
quote:
1. Mike O’Donnell was the only male in a 3-person race against two women. Like it or not, that got him some votes.
Perhaps, but 28%?
I mean, unless this election TOTALLY flew under the radar, then that amount doesn’t make sense to me.
quote:
2. Pam Anderson has name recognition, even if she is not THAT Pam Anderson. People are idiots.
Perhaps, but 43%?
I mean, unless this election TOTALLY flew under the radar, then that amount doesn’t make sense to me.
quote:
3. Anderson was NOT a “write-in. This is misinformation. She was on the ballot.
Okay, but she still barely made it onto the ballot if what was reported is correct. Imagine not even going to the state Republican convention, and then winning a statewide office.
Posted on 7/2/22 at 8:39 am to AggieHank86
Sound analysis of the data.
Posted on 7/2/22 at 8:40 am to AggieHank86
quote:
The first sentence of the article contains the descriptor “private election mafia.”
If that choice of terminology does not make you question the objectivity of the author, you have just confirmed that you too lack any objectivity at all.
You know how I know you failed to read it...
I bet most, like me... understand it.
Posted on 7/2/22 at 8:41 am to Jjdoc
If that election system is not transparent and auditable,
then it is reasonable to presume its results are corrupt
then it is reasonable to presume its results are corrupt
Posted on 7/2/22 at 8:42 am to AggieHank86
Cant believe i upvoted. Makes sense but that should only account for 10% of ballots at most. When the swing was 35% with all of the other available info? Something’s afoot
This post was edited on 7/2/22 at 8:44 am
Posted on 7/2/22 at 8:44 am to Jjdoc
quote:
Popular conservative and MAGA candidate Tina Peters was leading in the polls and had a 15 point lead on her closest competitor Pam Anderson.
I was told polls are bullshite. Like when Trump was behind in the polls.
Posted on 7/2/22 at 8:46 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Thoughtful people examine ALL of the possibilities.
You're not thoughtful, you're a buffoon.
Just so we're clear.
Posted on 7/2/22 at 8:46 am to jimmy the leg
quote:
Perhaps, but 28%?
I mean, unless this election TOTALLY flew under the radar, then that amount doesn’t make sense to me.
Exactly. He went from ZERO in polling to 28% on election day.
139 people were following his campaign on Twitter. The most interaction he got on his 1,300 campaign tweets was 4 “likes” on his June 27th tweet; most of them had zero interaction.
quote:
Perhaps, but 43%?
I mean, unless this election TOTALLY flew under the radar, then that amount doesn’t make sense to me.
Exactly. Her social media presence was as bad as the guys!
She was BROKE. Zero dollars.
She had a $5,665 balance in her campaign coffers. According to liberal site Colorado Pols, “this surprisingly anemic fundraising is just more evidence that [Pam Anderson] is a candidate without a constituency…”
Two days after that assessment, Colorado Pols considered Anderson’s campaign dead-on-arrival and added that: “Peters’ strong performance further underscores Anderson’s weakness in this race
Posted on 7/2/22 at 8:47 am to TrueTiger
quote:
If that election system is not transparent and auditable,
then it is reasonable to presume its results are corrupt
You got to have people willing to take that on.
Posted on 7/2/22 at 8:49 am to Jjdoc
"I don't like the results, therefore... fraud"
It is the exact playbook said over and over and over by Republicans. It gets old really fast.
It is the exact playbook said over and over and over by Republicans. It gets old really fast.
Posted on 7/2/22 at 8:49 am to Turbeauxdog
quote:I provided an objective look at the available data.
buffoon
You hurled gratuitous insults.
Yes, one of us is a buffoon.
Posted on 7/2/22 at 8:51 am to AggieHank86
quote:
If that choice of terminology does not make you question the objectivity of the author, you have just confirmed that you too lack any objectivity at all.
Only I didn’t mention the author in terms of objectivity. Suggesting I did is yet another example of
“lying Hank“
exposing your ugly side.
I referenced the data points.
As noted, your oppositional defiance leads me to believe that you are on the...
Posted on 7/2/22 at 8:51 am to AggieHank86
quote:
I provided an objective look at the available data.
No. You provided an alternate hypothesis. You explained no data.
Posted on 7/2/22 at 8:51 am to AggieHank86
quote:
I provided an objective look at the available data.
Not really.
quote:
You hurled gratuitous insults.
Yes, one of us is a buffoon.
He was right.
Just like you can't follow the story well enough to even know who wrote what.
Posted on 7/2/22 at 8:52 am to Jjdoc
They were not going to let Tina Peters win under any circumstance. Jena Griswold had Tina’s home and office raided as well as some of her employees.
This post was edited on 7/2/22 at 9:34 am
Posted on 7/2/22 at 8:52 am to Tigers0918
quote:
Number of Posts: 700
Registered on: 2/4/2020
Shill time!
Posted on 7/2/22 at 8:52 am to Jjdoc
quote:
If that election system is not transparent and auditable, then it is reasonable to presume its results are corrupt
Simple concept but they claim its a threat to democracy. It has to be open source and we do have the tech to be able to monitor in real time. Mind boggling
This post was edited on 7/2/22 at 8:54 am
Posted on 7/2/22 at 8:53 am to jimmy the leg
quote:
quote:
If that choice of terminology does not make you question the objectivity of the author, you have just confirmed that you too lack any objectivity at all.
Only I didn’t mention the author in terms of objectivity. Suggesting I did is yet another example of
This guy doesn't even know what he is reading! Does not know who wrote what.
Page 2 of 7
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News