What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Biden got 81 million votes because trump was just that unpopular and hated, right?

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
79,472
Reaction score
16,670
Points
2,210
~20mil more voted but 3 mil fewer voted for the Libertarian is insane?

That anyone voted for the LIbertarians is insane, but they just went back to their Pre-2016 % of the vote total.
The 2020 election was too important to throw away a vote on a 3rd party candidate.
That’s subjective. So 2016 wasn’t important? I am speaking basic statistics, retarded parrot. How many more people voted in 2020 vs. 2016?
All elections are important. Some, more than others. For the sake of America's future, 2020 was so important, it inspired some 25 million additional Americans to vote.
And yet the Libertarian got ~3mil fewer votes.
So?
So statistically speaking that doesn't make sense. I am sure you have your subjective thoughts on it but mathematically speaking it is bizarre.
There's nothing suspect about it. It reflects how important this election was that Americans didn't want to waste a vote on a candidate who had absolutely no chance.
Subjective. Mathematically speaking only if you just look at numbers it looks suspect. You need to learn the difference between objective and subjective, retarded parrot. Mathematics alone without context, it looks bizarre as my post stated. There are mathematical anomalies, I am not saying there was anything nefarious just that it looks odd simply from a statistical POV.

So statistically speaking that doesn't make sense. I am sure you have your subjective thoughts on it but mathematically speaking it is bizarre.
ShortBus, voting patterns are more than just numbers. :eusa_doh:
I am not discussing "patterns" retarded parrot. I am discussing mathematics. For example...of the total US population 6% are black males but the NBA is comprised of 85% of black males. There isn't anything nefarious there. The NBA is not racist. But to someone who doesn't live in the US or follow the NBA the mathematics would look odd. You once again don't understand the difference between subjective and objective. You are a very stupid retarded parrot.

View attachment 489080
"I am not discussing "patterns" retarded parrot."

LOL

I know, ShortBus, you're ignoring them. :lmao:
Explain the "pattern" between 2016 and 2020. What specifically are you referring to, retarded parrot?
Already explained it, ShortBus. If you weren't such a moron, you'd understand it.
Nope. You didn't. You gave a subjective response to what you believe it was. I can counter with a similar subjective response. Still don't know the difference between subjective and objective, eh retarded parrot?
Poor ShortBus, even before the election, it was predicted 3rd party candidates would do worse in 2020 than in 2016.

Polls reflected this. Between Hillary and Trump, polls showed them getting about 90% of the vote; leaving almost 10% for other candidates. But in 2020, polls showed Biden and Trump getting 95% of the vote, leaving half of what other candidates were predicted to get in 2016.
OK but 25mil more voted...so 5% of that is 1.25Mil already. Based on your math above, nearly 8mil should have gone to the 3rd party candidates. Libertarian barely got 2mil
Dumbfuck, again, you're counting all the 3rd party votes in 2016 and comparing them to one candidates vote in 2020. And again, there were 34 other candidates in 2020 besides the Democrat and Republican. And again, it was expected 3rd party candidates would do poorly in 2020.

face-palm-gif.278959


I'm no fan of Vox, but they called this one...


... they point out 3rd party candidates tend to do better in elections when there is no incumbent running. Yet another factor which eludes you.
Compare all 3rd party votes. How many voted 3rd party in 2016 vs. 2020, retarded parrot?
LOL

That's your job to figure out, ShortBus -- you're the one complaining about it. It's my job to point out you're a retard for comparing ALL third party candidates in 2016 with ONE candidate in 2020.

I did my job, now you do yours. :abgg2q.jpg:
Really? OK Retarded parrot.

Here you go....You said 5%....but only 2% voted 3rd party in 2020 when so many more voted overall. By your math it should have been a lot more or did you not say 5%? Retarded Parrot.

You lose again!

2016​
DJT65,853
48%​
HRC62,985
46%​
3rd7,157
5%​
Total135,995
100%​
2020​
Biden81,269
51%​
DJT74,217
47%​
3rd2,898
2%​
Total158,384
100%​

I also said 10% for 2016 but the actual number was half that at 5%. To that, I account for the margin of error among polls. Still see nothing unusual.
Your margin of error is 50%? LMAO

Retarded parrot. So 22.4mil more voted by 5mil fewer voted 3rd party and nothing to see here? The percentage of those voting 3rd party declined by 147%! But you don't see that as a statistical anomaly? Your polls predicted 8mil votes for 3rd party. Moron.
LOL

ShortBus ... how does something decrease by more than 100%??

face-palm-gif.278959
Don't dodge.....how do you explain this?

And to answer your question it is basic math....the delta is 147% not the number of votes you moron. What % of decrease is it when you go from 7 to 5?
You really are a moron. WOW

If I hit 40 home runs one season and 15 the next, what is my % of decline in home runs? It is 167%!

You are an idiot.
LOLOL

I've already explained it. Among the reasons, it was too important an election to throw away a vote AND it's typical for 3rd party candidates to get fewer votes in a race with an incumbent.

Of course, I'm explaining this to a fucking moron who actually thinks something can decrease more than 100%. :cuckoo:

And ShortBus, a drop from 7 to 5 is a 29% decrease, a drop from 40 to 15 is a 63% decrease, and a drop from 7,157 to 2,898 is 60%, not 147%.

And you claim to be in banking. :lmao:

View attachment 489110
LMAO....You cannot percents. You are an idiot.

what is 5*1.4?
LOLOL

7.

ShortBus, if something is worth 66.08 and drops 2.32 to 63.76, what percentage did that drop?
You are an idiot who doesn't understand math
Nah, you are. That's why you won't answer my question....

If something is worth 66.08 and drops 2.32 to 63.76, what percentage did that drop?

Answer that with two decimal places and I will expose what a flaming retard you are since nothing can decrease more than 100%.
4% retarded parrot.
LOL

I see you're either too retarded to understand what "two decimal places" means or you're too big of a pussy to answer the question.

:dance:
 

AzogtheDefiler

The Pale Orc
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2018
Messages
41,967
Reaction score
15,121
Points
2,260
Location
Boston, MA
~20mil more voted but 3 mil fewer voted for the Libertarian is insane?

That anyone voted for the LIbertarians is insane, but they just went back to their Pre-2016 % of the vote total.
The 2020 election was too important to throw away a vote on a 3rd party candidate.
That’s subjective. So 2016 wasn’t important? I am speaking basic statistics, retarded parrot. How many more people voted in 2020 vs. 2016?
All elections are important. Some, more than others. For the sake of America's future, 2020 was so important, it inspired some 25 million additional Americans to vote.
And yet the Libertarian got ~3mil fewer votes.
So?
So statistically speaking that doesn't make sense. I am sure you have your subjective thoughts on it but mathematically speaking it is bizarre.
There's nothing suspect about it. It reflects how important this election was that Americans didn't want to waste a vote on a candidate who had absolutely no chance.
Subjective. Mathematically speaking only if you just look at numbers it looks suspect. You need to learn the difference between objective and subjective, retarded parrot. Mathematics alone without context, it looks bizarre as my post stated. There are mathematical anomalies, I am not saying there was anything nefarious just that it looks odd simply from a statistical POV.

So statistically speaking that doesn't make sense. I am sure you have your subjective thoughts on it but mathematically speaking it is bizarre.
ShortBus, voting patterns are more than just numbers. :eusa_doh:
I am not discussing "patterns" retarded parrot. I am discussing mathematics. For example...of the total US population 6% are black males but the NBA is comprised of 85% of black males. There isn't anything nefarious there. The NBA is not racist. But to someone who doesn't live in the US or follow the NBA the mathematics would look odd. You once again don't understand the difference between subjective and objective. You are a very stupid retarded parrot.

View attachment 489080
"I am not discussing "patterns" retarded parrot."

LOL

I know, ShortBus, you're ignoring them. :lmao:
Explain the "pattern" between 2016 and 2020. What specifically are you referring to, retarded parrot?
Already explained it, ShortBus. If you weren't such a moron, you'd understand it.
Nope. You didn't. You gave a subjective response to what you believe it was. I can counter with a similar subjective response. Still don't know the difference between subjective and objective, eh retarded parrot?
Poor ShortBus, even before the election, it was predicted 3rd party candidates would do worse in 2020 than in 2016.

Polls reflected this. Between Hillary and Trump, polls showed them getting about 90% of the vote; leaving almost 10% for other candidates. But in 2020, polls showed Biden and Trump getting 95% of the vote, leaving half of what other candidates were predicted to get in 2016.
OK but 25mil more voted...so 5% of that is 1.25Mil already. Based on your math above, nearly 8mil should have gone to the 3rd party candidates. Libertarian barely got 2mil
Dumbfuck, again, you're counting all the 3rd party votes in 2016 and comparing them to one candidates vote in 2020. And again, there were 34 other candidates in 2020 besides the Democrat and Republican. And again, it was expected 3rd party candidates would do poorly in 2020.

face-palm-gif.278959


I'm no fan of Vox, but they called this one...


... they point out 3rd party candidates tend to do better in elections when there is no incumbent running. Yet another factor which eludes you.
Compare all 3rd party votes. How many voted 3rd party in 2016 vs. 2020, retarded parrot?
LOL

That's your job to figure out, ShortBus -- you're the one complaining about it. It's my job to point out you're a retard for comparing ALL third party candidates in 2016 with ONE candidate in 2020.

I did my job, now you do yours. :abgg2q.jpg:
Really? OK Retarded parrot.

Here you go....You said 5%....but only 2% voted 3rd party in 2020 when so many more voted overall. By your math it should have been a lot more or did you not say 5%? Retarded Parrot.

You lose again!

2016​
DJT65,853
48%​
HRC62,985
46%​
3rd7,157
5%​
Total135,995
100%​
2020​
Biden81,269
51%​
DJT74,217
47%​
3rd2,898
2%​
Total158,384
100%​

I also said 10% for 2016 but the actual number was half that at 5%. To that, I account for the margin of error among polls. Still see nothing unusual.
Your margin of error is 50%? LMAO

Retarded parrot. So 22.4mil more voted by 5mil fewer voted 3rd party and nothing to see here? The percentage of those voting 3rd party declined by 147%! But you don't see that as a statistical anomaly? Your polls predicted 8mil votes for 3rd party. Moron.
LOL

ShortBus ... how does something decrease by more than 100%??

face-palm-gif.278959
Don't dodge.....how do you explain this?

And to answer your question it is basic math....the delta is 147% not the number of votes you moron. What % of decrease is it when you go from 7 to 5?
You really are a moron. WOW

If I hit 40 home runs one season and 15 the next, what is my % of decline in home runs? It is 167%!

You are an idiot.
LOLOL

I've already explained it. Among the reasons, it was too important an election to throw away a vote AND it's typical for 3rd party candidates to get fewer votes in a race with an incumbent.

Of course, I'm explaining this to a fucking moron who actually thinks something can decrease more than 100%. :cuckoo:

And ShortBus, a drop from 7 to 5 is a 29% decrease, a drop from 40 to 15 is a 63% decrease, and a drop from 7,157 to 2,898 is 60%, not 147%.

And you claim to be in banking. :lmao:

View attachment 489110
LMAO....You cannot percents. You are an idiot.

what is 5*1.4?
LOLOL

7.

ShortBus, if something is worth 66.08 and drops 2.32 to 63.76, what percentage did that drop?
You are an idiot who doesn't understand math
Nah, you are. That's why you won't answer my question....

If something is worth 66.08 and drops 2.32 to 63.76, what percentage did that drop?

Answer that with two decimal places and I will expose what a flaming retard you are since nothing can decrease more than 100%.
4% retarded parrot.
LOL

I see you're either too retarded to understand what "two decimal places" means or you're too big of a pussy to answer the question.

:dance:
What the hell are you talking about?
 

Magnus

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
472
Reaction score
319
Points
173
View attachment 487283

Makes total sense. No reason whatsoever to question the legitimacy of the election results in any way :rolleyes:

It’s mind boggling to me that someone could look at this and critical thought doesn’t at the very least lead them to question a single thing about it. I can’t even ascertain how those numbers make any statistical sense if nothing else
Progressives live in a bubble. Denial is their bread&butter.
LOL. Sez the guy who follows a Denier-in-chief!!! Your fuhrer Rump still smarting over his loss, eh?
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
79,472
Reaction score
16,670
Points
2,210
~20mil more voted but 3 mil fewer voted for the Libertarian is insane?

That anyone voted for the LIbertarians is insane, but they just went back to their Pre-2016 % of the vote total.
The 2020 election was too important to throw away a vote on a 3rd party candidate.
That’s subjective. So 2016 wasn’t important? I am speaking basic statistics, retarded parrot. How many more people voted in 2020 vs. 2016?
All elections are important. Some, more than others. For the sake of America's future, 2020 was so important, it inspired some 25 million additional Americans to vote.
And yet the Libertarian got ~3mil fewer votes.
So?
So statistically speaking that doesn't make sense. I am sure you have your subjective thoughts on it but mathematically speaking it is bizarre.
There's nothing suspect about it. It reflects how important this election was that Americans didn't want to waste a vote on a candidate who had absolutely no chance.
Subjective. Mathematically speaking only if you just look at numbers it looks suspect. You need to learn the difference between objective and subjective, retarded parrot. Mathematics alone without context, it looks bizarre as my post stated. There are mathematical anomalies, I am not saying there was anything nefarious just that it looks odd simply from a statistical POV.

So statistically speaking that doesn't make sense. I am sure you have your subjective thoughts on it but mathematically speaking it is bizarre.
ShortBus, voting patterns are more than just numbers. :eusa_doh:
I am not discussing "patterns" retarded parrot. I am discussing mathematics. For example...of the total US population 6% are black males but the NBA is comprised of 85% of black males. There isn't anything nefarious there. The NBA is not racist. But to someone who doesn't live in the US or follow the NBA the mathematics would look odd. You once again don't understand the difference between subjective and objective. You are a very stupid retarded parrot.

View attachment 489080
"I am not discussing "patterns" retarded parrot."

LOL

I know, ShortBus, you're ignoring them. :lmao:
Explain the "pattern" between 2016 and 2020. What specifically are you referring to, retarded parrot?
Already explained it, ShortBus. If you weren't such a moron, you'd understand it.
Nope. You didn't. You gave a subjective response to what you believe it was. I can counter with a similar subjective response. Still don't know the difference between subjective and objective, eh retarded parrot?
Poor ShortBus, even before the election, it was predicted 3rd party candidates would do worse in 2020 than in 2016.

Polls reflected this. Between Hillary and Trump, polls showed them getting about 90% of the vote; leaving almost 10% for other candidates. But in 2020, polls showed Biden and Trump getting 95% of the vote, leaving half of what other candidates were predicted to get in 2016.
OK but 25mil more voted...so 5% of that is 1.25Mil already. Based on your math above, nearly 8mil should have gone to the 3rd party candidates. Libertarian barely got 2mil
Dumbfuck, again, you're counting all the 3rd party votes in 2016 and comparing them to one candidates vote in 2020. And again, there were 34 other candidates in 2020 besides the Democrat and Republican. And again, it was expected 3rd party candidates would do poorly in 2020.

face-palm-gif.278959


I'm no fan of Vox, but they called this one...


... they point out 3rd party candidates tend to do better in elections when there is no incumbent running. Yet another factor which eludes you.
Compare all 3rd party votes. How many voted 3rd party in 2016 vs. 2020, retarded parrot?
LOL

That's your job to figure out, ShortBus -- you're the one complaining about it. It's my job to point out you're a retard for comparing ALL third party candidates in 2016 with ONE candidate in 2020.

I did my job, now you do yours. :abgg2q.jpg:
Really? OK Retarded parrot.

Here you go....You said 5%....but only 2% voted 3rd party in 2020 when so many more voted overall. By your math it should have been a lot more or did you not say 5%? Retarded Parrot.

You lose again!

2016​
DJT65,853
48%​
HRC62,985
46%​
3rd7,157
5%​
Total135,995
100%​
2020​
Biden81,269
51%​
DJT74,217
47%​
3rd2,898
2%​
Total158,384
100%​

I also said 10% for 2016 but the actual number was half that at 5%. To that, I account for the margin of error among polls. Still see nothing unusual.
Your margin of error is 50%? LMAO

Retarded parrot. So 22.4mil more voted by 5mil fewer voted 3rd party and nothing to see here? The percentage of those voting 3rd party declined by 147%! But you don't see that as a statistical anomaly? Your polls predicted 8mil votes for 3rd party. Moron.
LOL

ShortBus ... how does something decrease by more than 100%??

face-palm-gif.278959
Don't dodge.....how do you explain this?

And to answer your question it is basic math....the delta is 147% not the number of votes you moron. What % of decrease is it when you go from 7 to 5?
You really are a moron. WOW

If I hit 40 home runs one season and 15 the next, what is my % of decline in home runs? It is 167%!

You are an idiot.
LOLOL

I've already explained it. Among the reasons, it was too important an election to throw away a vote AND it's typical for 3rd party candidates to get fewer votes in a race with an incumbent.

Of course, I'm explaining this to a fucking moron who actually thinks something can decrease more than 100%. :cuckoo:

And ShortBus, a drop from 7 to 5 is a 29% decrease, a drop from 40 to 15 is a 63% decrease, and a drop from 7,157 to 2,898 is 60%, not 147%.

And you claim to be in banking. :lmao:

View attachment 489110
LMAO....You cannot percents. You are an idiot.

what is 5*1.4?
LOLOL

7.

ShortBus, if something is worth 66.08 and drops 2.32 to 63.76, what percentage did that drop?
You are an idiot who doesn't understand math
Nah, you are. That's why you won't answer my question....

If something is worth 66.08 and drops 2.32 to 63.76, what percentage did that drop?

Answer that with two decimal places and I will expose what a flaming retard you are since nothing can decrease more than 100%.
4% retarded parrot.
LOL

I see you're either too retarded to understand what "two decimal places" means or you're too big of a pussy to answer the question.

:dance:
What the hell are you talking about?
LOLOLOL

You claim to be in banking but you don't know what "two decimal places" is??

Rounding off to the nearest hundredths is the same as rounding it to 2 decimal places. To round off a number to 2 decimal places, look at the digit in the thousandths place.
If the digit in the thousandths place is greater or equal to 5, the hundredths digit is increased by one unit. And if the digit in the thousandths place is equal to or less than 4, the digit in the hundredths places will remain unchanged.
To round off 2.9801 to the nearest hundredths:
And so, the answer is 2.98.

Now do you know what 2 decimal places is, ShortBus?

So? What's the answer? Using 2 decimal places what is percentage of the decrease from 66.08 to 63.76......
 

Lastamender

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2011
Messages
15,504
Reaction score
10,647
Points
1,250
View attachment 487283

Makes total sense. No reason whatsoever to question the legitimacy of the election results in any way :rolleyes:

It’s mind boggling to me that someone could look at this and critical thought doesn’t at the very least lead them to question a single thing about it. I can’t even ascertain how those numbers make any statistical sense if nothing else
Progressives live in a bubble. Denial is their bread&butter.
LOL. Sez the guy who follows a Denier-in-chief!!! Your fuhrer Rump still smarting over his loss, eh?
Trump was defrauded. What is going on in AZ is proof. Much more proof than Democrats ever needed.
 

Lastamender

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2011
Messages
15,504
Reaction score
10,647
Points
1,250
~20mil more voted but 3 mil fewer voted for the Libertarian is insane?

That anyone voted for the LIbertarians is insane, but they just went back to their Pre-2016 % of the vote total.
The 2020 election was too important to throw away a vote on a 3rd party candidate.
That’s subjective. So 2016 wasn’t important? I am speaking basic statistics, retarded parrot. How many more people voted in 2020 vs. 2016?
All elections are important. Some, more than others. For the sake of America's future, 2020 was so important, it inspired some 25 million additional Americans to vote.
And yet the Libertarian got ~3mil fewer votes.
So?
So statistically speaking that doesn't make sense. I am sure you have your subjective thoughts on it but mathematically speaking it is bizarre.
There's nothing suspect about it. It reflects how important this election was that Americans didn't want to waste a vote on a candidate who had absolutely no chance.
Subjective. Mathematically speaking only if you just look at numbers it looks suspect. You need to learn the difference between objective and subjective, retarded parrot. Mathematics alone without context, it looks bizarre as my post stated. There are mathematical anomalies, I am not saying there was anything nefarious just that it looks odd simply from a statistical POV.

So statistically speaking that doesn't make sense. I am sure you have your subjective thoughts on it but mathematically speaking it is bizarre.
ShortBus, voting patterns are more than just numbers. :eusa_doh:
I am not discussing "patterns" retarded parrot. I am discussing mathematics. For example...of the total US population 6% are black males but the NBA is comprised of 85% of black males. There isn't anything nefarious there. The NBA is not racist. But to someone who doesn't live in the US or follow the NBA the mathematics would look odd. You once again don't understand the difference between subjective and objective. You are a very stupid retarded parrot.

View attachment 489080
"I am not discussing "patterns" retarded parrot."

LOL

I know, ShortBus, you're ignoring them. :lmao:
Explain the "pattern" between 2016 and 2020. What specifically are you referring to, retarded parrot?
Already explained it, ShortBus. If you weren't such a moron, you'd understand it.
Nope. You didn't. You gave a subjective response to what you believe it was. I can counter with a similar subjective response. Still don't know the difference between subjective and objective, eh retarded parrot?
Poor ShortBus, even before the election, it was predicted 3rd party candidates would do worse in 2020 than in 2016.

Polls reflected this. Between Hillary and Trump, polls showed them getting about 90% of the vote; leaving almost 10% for other candidates. But in 2020, polls showed Biden and Trump getting 95% of the vote, leaving half of what other candidates were predicted to get in 2016.
OK but 25mil more voted...so 5% of that is 1.25Mil already. Based on your math above, nearly 8mil should have gone to the 3rd party candidates. Libertarian barely got 2mil
Dumbfuck, again, you're counting all the 3rd party votes in 2016 and comparing them to one candidates vote in 2020. And again, there were 34 other candidates in 2020 besides the Democrat and Republican. And again, it was expected 3rd party candidates would do poorly in 2020.

face-palm-gif.278959


I'm no fan of Vox, but they called this one...


... they point out 3rd party candidates tend to do better in elections when there is no incumbent running. Yet another factor which eludes you.
Compare all 3rd party votes. How many voted 3rd party in 2016 vs. 2020, retarded parrot?
LOL

That's your job to figure out, ShortBus -- you're the one complaining about it. It's my job to point out you're a retard for comparing ALL third party candidates in 2016 with ONE candidate in 2020.

I did my job, now you do yours. :abgg2q.jpg:
Really? OK Retarded parrot.

Here you go....You said 5%....but only 2% voted 3rd party in 2020 when so many more voted overall. By your math it should have been a lot more or did you not say 5%? Retarded Parrot.

You lose again!

2016​
DJT65,853
48%​
HRC62,985
46%​
3rd7,157
5%​
Total135,995
100%​
2020​
Biden81,269
51%​
DJT74,217
47%​
3rd2,898
2%​
Total158,384
100%​

I also said 10% for 2016 but the actual number was half that at 5%. To that, I account for the margin of error among polls. Still see nothing unusual.
Your margin of error is 50%? LMAO

Retarded parrot. So 22.4mil more voted by 5mil fewer voted 3rd party and nothing to see here? The percentage of those voting 3rd party declined by 147%! But you don't see that as a statistical anomaly? Your polls predicted 8mil votes for 3rd party. Moron.
LOL

ShortBus ... how does something decrease by more than 100%??

face-palm-gif.278959
Don't dodge.....how do you explain this?

And to answer your question it is basic math....the delta is 147% not the number of votes you moron. What % of decrease is it when you go from 7 to 5?
You really are a moron. WOW

If I hit 40 home runs one season and 15 the next, what is my % of decline in home runs? It is 167%!

You are an idiot.
LOLOL

I've already explained it. Among the reasons, it was too important an election to throw away a vote AND it's typical for 3rd party candidates to get fewer votes in a race with an incumbent.

Of course, I'm explaining this to a fucking moron who actually thinks something can decrease more than 100%. :cuckoo:

And ShortBus, a drop from 7 to 5 is a 29% decrease, a drop from 40 to 15 is a 63% decrease, and a drop from 7,157 to 2,898 is 60%, not 147%.

And you claim to be in banking. :lmao:

View attachment 489110
LMAO....You cannot percents. You are an idiot.

what is 5*1.4?
LOLOL

7.

ShortBus, if something is worth 66.08 and drops 2.32 to 63.76, what percentage did that drop?
You are an idiot who doesn't understand math
Nah, you are. That's why you won't answer my question....

If something is worth 66.08 and drops 2.32 to 63.76, what percentage did that drop?

Answer that with two decimal places and I will expose what a flaming retard you are since nothing can decrease more than 100%.
4% retarded parrot.
LOL

I see you're either too retarded to understand what "two decimal places" means or you're too big of a pussy to answer the question.

:dance:
What the hell are you talking about?
LOLOLOL

You claim to be in banking but you don't know what "two decimal places" is??

Rounding off to the nearest hundredths is the same as rounding it to 2 decimal places. To round off a number to 2 decimal places, look at the digit in the thousandths place.
If the digit in the thousandths place is greater or equal to 5, the hundredths digit is increased by one unit. And if the digit in the thousandths place is equal to or less than 4, the digit in the hundredths places will remain unchanged.
To round off 2.9801 to the nearest hundredths:
And so, the answer is 2.98.

Now do you know what 2 decimal places is, ShortBus?

So? What's the answer? Using 2 decimal places what is percentage of the decrease from 66.08 to 63.76......
How is that decimal point before your IQ?
 

Lastamender

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2011
Messages
15,504
Reaction score
10,647
Points
1,250
View attachment 487283

Makes total sense. No reason whatsoever to question the legitimacy of the election results in any way :rolleyes:

It’s mind boggling to me that someone could look at this and critical thought doesn’t at the very least lead them to question a single thing about it. I can’t even ascertain how those numbers make any statistical sense if nothing else
Progressives live in a bubble. Denial is their bread&butter.
LOL. Sez the guy who follows a Denier-in-chief!!! Your fuhrer Rump still smarting over his loss, eh?
Trump was defrauded. What is going on in AZ is proof. Much more proof than Democrats ever needed.
Link?
Click on "What's new" and look for the threads on AZ. You can do it. :clap2:
 

AzogtheDefiler

The Pale Orc
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2018
Messages
41,967
Reaction score
15,121
Points
2,260
Location
Boston, MA
~20mil more voted but 3 mil fewer voted for the Libertarian is insane?

That anyone voted for the LIbertarians is insane, but they just went back to their Pre-2016 % of the vote total.
The 2020 election was too important to throw away a vote on a 3rd party candidate.
That’s subjective. So 2016 wasn’t important? I am speaking basic statistics, retarded parrot. How many more people voted in 2020 vs. 2016?
All elections are important. Some, more than others. For the sake of America's future, 2020 was so important, it inspired some 25 million additional Americans to vote.
And yet the Libertarian got ~3mil fewer votes.
So?
So statistically speaking that doesn't make sense. I am sure you have your subjective thoughts on it but mathematically speaking it is bizarre.
There's nothing suspect about it. It reflects how important this election was that Americans didn't want to waste a vote on a candidate who had absolutely no chance.
Subjective. Mathematically speaking only if you just look at numbers it looks suspect. You need to learn the difference between objective and subjective, retarded parrot. Mathematics alone without context, it looks bizarre as my post stated. There are mathematical anomalies, I am not saying there was anything nefarious just that it looks odd simply from a statistical POV.

So statistically speaking that doesn't make sense. I am sure you have your subjective thoughts on it but mathematically speaking it is bizarre.
ShortBus, voting patterns are more than just numbers. :eusa_doh:
I am not discussing "patterns" retarded parrot. I am discussing mathematics. For example...of the total US population 6% are black males but the NBA is comprised of 85% of black males. There isn't anything nefarious there. The NBA is not racist. But to someone who doesn't live in the US or follow the NBA the mathematics would look odd. You once again don't understand the difference between subjective and objective. You are a very stupid retarded parrot.

View attachment 489080
"I am not discussing "patterns" retarded parrot."

LOL

I know, ShortBus, you're ignoring them. :lmao:
Explain the "pattern" between 2016 and 2020. What specifically are you referring to, retarded parrot?
Already explained it, ShortBus. If you weren't such a moron, you'd understand it.
Nope. You didn't. You gave a subjective response to what you believe it was. I can counter with a similar subjective response. Still don't know the difference between subjective and objective, eh retarded parrot?
Poor ShortBus, even before the election, it was predicted 3rd party candidates would do worse in 2020 than in 2016.

Polls reflected this. Between Hillary and Trump, polls showed them getting about 90% of the vote; leaving almost 10% for other candidates. But in 2020, polls showed Biden and Trump getting 95% of the vote, leaving half of what other candidates were predicted to get in 2016.
OK but 25mil more voted...so 5% of that is 1.25Mil already. Based on your math above, nearly 8mil should have gone to the 3rd party candidates. Libertarian barely got 2mil
Dumbfuck, again, you're counting all the 3rd party votes in 2016 and comparing them to one candidates vote in 2020. And again, there were 34 other candidates in 2020 besides the Democrat and Republican. And again, it was expected 3rd party candidates would do poorly in 2020.

face-palm-gif.278959


I'm no fan of Vox, but they called this one...


... they point out 3rd party candidates tend to do better in elections when there is no incumbent running. Yet another factor which eludes you.
Compare all 3rd party votes. How many voted 3rd party in 2016 vs. 2020, retarded parrot?
LOL

That's your job to figure out, ShortBus -- you're the one complaining about it. It's my job to point out you're a retard for comparing ALL third party candidates in 2016 with ONE candidate in 2020.

I did my job, now you do yours. :abgg2q.jpg:
Really? OK Retarded parrot.

Here you go....You said 5%....but only 2% voted 3rd party in 2020 when so many more voted overall. By your math it should have been a lot more or did you not say 5%? Retarded Parrot.

You lose again!

2016​
DJT65,853
48%​
HRC62,985
46%​
3rd7,157
5%​
Total135,995
100%​
2020​
Biden81,269
51%​
DJT74,217
47%​
3rd2,898
2%​
Total158,384
100%​

I also said 10% for 2016 but the actual number was half that at 5%. To that, I account for the margin of error among polls. Still see nothing unusual.
Your margin of error is 50%? LMAO

Retarded parrot. So 22.4mil more voted by 5mil fewer voted 3rd party and nothing to see here? The percentage of those voting 3rd party declined by 147%! But you don't see that as a statistical anomaly? Your polls predicted 8mil votes for 3rd party. Moron.
LOL

ShortBus ... how does something decrease by more than 100%??

face-palm-gif.278959
Don't dodge.....how do you explain this?

And to answer your question it is basic math....the delta is 147% not the number of votes you moron. What % of decrease is it when you go from 7 to 5?
You really are a moron. WOW

If I hit 40 home runs one season and 15 the next, what is my % of decline in home runs? It is 167%!

You are an idiot.
LOLOL

I've already explained it. Among the reasons, it was too important an election to throw away a vote AND it's typical for 3rd party candidates to get fewer votes in a race with an incumbent.

Of course, I'm explaining this to a fucking moron who actually thinks something can decrease more than 100%. :cuckoo:

And ShortBus, a drop from 7 to 5 is a 29% decrease, a drop from 40 to 15 is a 63% decrease, and a drop from 7,157 to 2,898 is 60%, not 147%.

And you claim to be in banking. :lmao:

View attachment 489110
LMAO....You cannot percents. You are an idiot.

what is 5*1.4?
LOLOL

7.

ShortBus, if something is worth 66.08 and drops 2.32 to 63.76, what percentage did that drop?
You are an idiot who doesn't understand math
Nah, you are. That's why you won't answer my question....

If something is worth 66.08 and drops 2.32 to 63.76, what percentage did that drop?

Answer that with two decimal places and I will expose what a flaming retard you are since nothing can decrease more than 100%.
4% retarded parrot.
LOL

I see you're either too retarded to understand what "two decimal places" means or you're too big of a pussy to answer the question.

:dance:
What the hell are you talking about?
LOLOLOL

You claim to be in banking but you don't know what "two decimal places" is??

Rounding off to the nearest hundredths is the same as rounding it to 2 decimal places. To round off a number to 2 decimal places, look at the digit in the thousandths place.
If the digit in the thousandths place is greater or equal to 5, the hundredths digit is increased by one unit. And if the digit in the thousandths place is equal to or less than 4, the digit in the hundredths places will remain unchanged.
To round off 2.9801 to the nearest hundredths:
And so, the answer is 2.98.

Now do you know what 2 decimal places is, ShortBus?

So? What's the answer? Using 2 decimal places what is percentage of the decrease from 66.08 to 63.76......
I know what decimals are you moron.
 

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
39,464
Reaction score
6,162
Points
1,130
View attachment 487283

Makes total sense. No reason whatsoever to question the legitimacy of the election results in any way :rolleyes:

It’s mind boggling to me that someone could look at this and critical thought doesn’t at the very least lead them to question a single thing about it. I can’t even ascertain how those numbers make any statistical sense if nothing else
Progressives live in a bubble. Denial is their bread&butter.
LOL. Sez the guy who follows a Denier-in-chief!!! Your fuhrer Rump still smarting over his loss, eh?
Trump was defrauded. What is going on in AZ is proof. Much more proof than Democrats ever needed.
Link?
Click on "What's new" and look for the threads on AZ. You can do it. :clap2:

"I got nuthin'", said the sad little Trumpster.
 

AzogtheDefiler

The Pale Orc
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2018
Messages
41,967
Reaction score
15,121
Points
2,260
Location
Boston, MA
~20mil more voted but 3 mil fewer voted for the Libertarian is insane?

That anyone voted for the LIbertarians is insane, but they just went back to their Pre-2016 % of the vote total.
The 2020 election was too important to throw away a vote on a 3rd party candidate.
That’s subjective. So 2016 wasn’t important? I am speaking basic statistics, retarded parrot. How many more people voted in 2020 vs. 2016?
All elections are important. Some, more than others. For the sake of America's future, 2020 was so important, it inspired some 25 million additional Americans to vote.
And yet the Libertarian got ~3mil fewer votes.
So?
So statistically speaking that doesn't make sense. I am sure you have your subjective thoughts on it but mathematically speaking it is bizarre.
There's nothing suspect about it. It reflects how important this election was that Americans didn't want to waste a vote on a candidate who had absolutely no chance.
Subjective. Mathematically speaking only if you just look at numbers it looks suspect. You need to learn the difference between objective and subjective, retarded parrot. Mathematics alone without context, it looks bizarre as my post stated. There are mathematical anomalies, I am not saying there was anything nefarious just that it looks odd simply from a statistical POV.

So statistically speaking that doesn't make sense. I am sure you have your subjective thoughts on it but mathematically speaking it is bizarre.
ShortBus, voting patterns are more than just numbers. :eusa_doh:
I am not discussing "patterns" retarded parrot. I am discussing mathematics. For example...of the total US population 6% are black males but the NBA is comprised of 85% of black males. There isn't anything nefarious there. The NBA is not racist. But to someone who doesn't live in the US or follow the NBA the mathematics would look odd. You once again don't understand the difference between subjective and objective. You are a very stupid retarded parrot.

View attachment 489080
"I am not discussing "patterns" retarded parrot."

LOL

I know, ShortBus, you're ignoring them. :lmao:
Explain the "pattern" between 2016 and 2020. What specifically are you referring to, retarded parrot?
Already explained it, ShortBus. If you weren't such a moron, you'd understand it.
Nope. You didn't. You gave a subjective response to what you believe it was. I can counter with a similar subjective response. Still don't know the difference between subjective and objective, eh retarded parrot?
Poor ShortBus, even before the election, it was predicted 3rd party candidates would do worse in 2020 than in 2016.

Polls reflected this. Between Hillary and Trump, polls showed them getting about 90% of the vote; leaving almost 10% for other candidates. But in 2020, polls showed Biden and Trump getting 95% of the vote, leaving half of what other candidates were predicted to get in 2016.
OK but 25mil more voted...so 5% of that is 1.25Mil already. Based on your math above, nearly 8mil should have gone to the 3rd party candidates. Libertarian barely got 2mil
Dumbfuck, again, you're counting all the 3rd party votes in 2016 and comparing them to one candidates vote in 2020. And again, there were 34 other candidates in 2020 besides the Democrat and Republican. And again, it was expected 3rd party candidates would do poorly in 2020.

face-palm-gif.278959


I'm no fan of Vox, but they called this one...


... they point out 3rd party candidates tend to do better in elections when there is no incumbent running. Yet another factor which eludes you.
Compare all 3rd party votes. How many voted 3rd party in 2016 vs. 2020, retarded parrot?
LOL

That's your job to figure out, ShortBus -- you're the one complaining about it. It's my job to point out you're a retard for comparing ALL third party candidates in 2016 with ONE candidate in 2020.

I did my job, now you do yours. :abgg2q.jpg:
Really? OK Retarded parrot.

Here you go....You said 5%....but only 2% voted 3rd party in 2020 when so many more voted overall. By your math it should have been a lot more or did you not say 5%? Retarded Parrot.

You lose again!

2016​
DJT65,853
48%​
HRC62,985
46%​
3rd7,157
5%​
Total135,995
100%​
2020​
Biden81,269
51%​
DJT74,217
47%​
3rd2,898
2%​
Total158,384
100%​

I also said 10% for 2016 but the actual number was half that at 5%. To that, I account for the margin of error among polls. Still see nothing unusual.
Your margin of error is 50%? LMAO

Retarded parrot. So 22.4mil more voted by 5mil fewer voted 3rd party and nothing to see here? The percentage of those voting 3rd party declined by 147%! But you don't see that as a statistical anomaly? Your polls predicted 8mil votes for 3rd party. Moron.
LOL

ShortBus ... how does something decrease by more than 100%??

face-palm-gif.278959
Don't dodge.....how do you explain this?

And to answer your question it is basic math....the delta is 147% not the number of votes you moron. What % of decrease is it when you go from 7 to 5?
You really are a moron. WOW

If I hit 40 home runs one season and 15 the next, what is my % of decline in home runs? It is 167%!

You are an idiot.
LOLOL

I've already explained it. Among the reasons, it was too important an election to throw away a vote AND it's typical for 3rd party candidates to get fewer votes in a race with an incumbent.

Of course, I'm explaining this to a fucking moron who actually thinks something can decrease more than 100%. :cuckoo:

And ShortBus, a drop from 7 to 5 is a 29% decrease, a drop from 40 to 15 is a 63% decrease, and a drop from 7,157 to 2,898 is 60%, not 147%.

And you claim to be in banking. :lmao:

View attachment 489110
LMAO....You cannot percents. You are an idiot.

what is 5*1.4?
LOLOL

7.

ShortBus, if something is worth 66.08 and drops 2.32 to 63.76, what percentage did that drop?
You are an idiot who doesn't understand math
Nah, you are. That's why you won't answer my question....

If something is worth 66.08 and drops 2.32 to 63.76, what percentage did that drop?

Answer that with two decimal places and I will expose what a flaming retard you are since nothing can decrease more than 100%.
4% retarded parrot.
LOL

I see you're either too retarded to understand what "two decimal places" means or you're too big of a pussy to answer the question.

:dance:
What the hell are you talking about?
LOLOLOL

You claim to be in banking but you don't know what "two decimal places" is??

Rounding off to the nearest hundredths is the same as rounding it to 2 decimal places. To round off a number to 2 decimal places, look at the digit in the thousandths place.
If the digit in the thousandths place is greater or equal to 5, the hundredths digit is increased by one unit. And if the digit in the thousandths place is equal to or less than 4, the digit in the hundredths places will remain unchanged.
To round off 2.9801 to the nearest hundredths:
And so, the answer is 2.98.

Now do you know what 2 decimal places is, ShortBus?

So? What's the answer? Using 2 decimal places what is percentage of the decrease from 66.08 to 63.76......
3.13% Retarded Parrot. What the fuck does that have to do with you being a fucking idiot.
 

Lastamender

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2011
Messages
15,504
Reaction score
10,647
Points
1,250
Trump was defrauded. What is going on in AZ is proof. Much more proof than Democrats ever needed.
Link? Oh wait, you don't do "evidence", do you?
Not evidence that has been deleted. But you do not turn the election over to a private company, which is what Maricopa county did. This has been proven by Dominion withholding passwords.
 

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
39,464
Reaction score
6,162
Points
1,130
Trump was defrauded. What is going on in AZ is proof. Much more proof than Democrats ever needed.
Link? Oh wait, you don't do "evidence", do you?
Not evidence that has been deleted. But you do not turn the election over to a private company, which is what Maricopa county did. This has been proven by Dominion withholding passwords.

Still nuthin? If the audit has revealed evidence of a vast left-wing conspiracy to steal the election, I'd sure like to see it.
 

Turtlesoup

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2020
Messages
7,679
Reaction score
8,757
Points
2,118
View attachment 487283

Makes total sense. No reason whatsoever to question the legitimacy of the election results in any way :rolleyes:

It’s mind boggling to me that someone could look at this and critical thought doesn’t at the very least lead them to question a single thing about it. I can’t even ascertain how those numbers make any statistical sense if nothing else
Yes, Trump was just that bad... Also the US Population increased by about 30 million people over the last decade. Did you consider that?
And biden still only won about 1/2 the counties that Obama did....BIDEN SO FUCKING LOSS---if you look at the chart, it is obvious cheating went on in the 477 counties showing for Biden...someone was tossing in a LOT OF EXTRA VOTES..
^^^ Another idiot

Counties don't elect presidents -- states do.
No but counties vote CONSISTENTLY...............If you see Biden lose around 400 counties less than the last dem winner (one that morons loved btw) then he wouldn't have been able to pick up the votes in the remaining 477. Losing the counties, THAT MANY COUNTIES, clearly shows that Biden was a very very unpopular candidate even among the dems. No fucking way, he won the election. To many of the dems previous won didn't even want him. Logic dictates that someone who loses that many counties would lose votes not gain votes in the remaining counties.

Tired of the dems and foreign trolls peeing on our legs and telling it is rain. We know what it is.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
79,472
Reaction score
16,670
Points
2,210
~20mil more voted but 3 mil fewer voted for the Libertarian is insane?

That anyone voted for the LIbertarians is insane, but they just went back to their Pre-2016 % of the vote total.
The 2020 election was too important to throw away a vote on a 3rd party candidate.
That’s subjective. So 2016 wasn’t important? I am speaking basic statistics, retarded parrot. How many more people voted in 2020 vs. 2016?
All elections are important. Some, more than others. For the sake of America's future, 2020 was so important, it inspired some 25 million additional Americans to vote.
And yet the Libertarian got ~3mil fewer votes.
So?
So statistically speaking that doesn't make sense. I am sure you have your subjective thoughts on it but mathematically speaking it is bizarre.
There's nothing suspect about it. It reflects how important this election was that Americans didn't want to waste a vote on a candidate who had absolutely no chance.
Subjective. Mathematically speaking only if you just look at numbers it looks suspect. You need to learn the difference between objective and subjective, retarded parrot. Mathematics alone without context, it looks bizarre as my post stated. There are mathematical anomalies, I am not saying there was anything nefarious just that it looks odd simply from a statistical POV.

So statistically speaking that doesn't make sense. I am sure you have your subjective thoughts on it but mathematically speaking it is bizarre.
ShortBus, voting patterns are more than just numbers. :eusa_doh:
I am not discussing "patterns" retarded parrot. I am discussing mathematics. For example...of the total US population 6% are black males but the NBA is comprised of 85% of black males. There isn't anything nefarious there. The NBA is not racist. But to someone who doesn't live in the US or follow the NBA the mathematics would look odd. You once again don't understand the difference between subjective and objective. You are a very stupid retarded parrot.

View attachment 489080
"I am not discussing "patterns" retarded parrot."

LOL

I know, ShortBus, you're ignoring them. :lmao:
Explain the "pattern" between 2016 and 2020. What specifically are you referring to, retarded parrot?
Already explained it, ShortBus. If you weren't such a moron, you'd understand it.
Nope. You didn't. You gave a subjective response to what you believe it was. I can counter with a similar subjective response. Still don't know the difference between subjective and objective, eh retarded parrot?
Poor ShortBus, even before the election, it was predicted 3rd party candidates would do worse in 2020 than in 2016.

Polls reflected this. Between Hillary and Trump, polls showed them getting about 90% of the vote; leaving almost 10% for other candidates. But in 2020, polls showed Biden and Trump getting 95% of the vote, leaving half of what other candidates were predicted to get in 2016.
OK but 25mil more voted...so 5% of that is 1.25Mil already. Based on your math above, nearly 8mil should have gone to the 3rd party candidates. Libertarian barely got 2mil
Dumbfuck, again, you're counting all the 3rd party votes in 2016 and comparing them to one candidates vote in 2020. And again, there were 34 other candidates in 2020 besides the Democrat and Republican. And again, it was expected 3rd party candidates would do poorly in 2020.

face-palm-gif.278959


I'm no fan of Vox, but they called this one...


... they point out 3rd party candidates tend to do better in elections when there is no incumbent running. Yet another factor which eludes you.
Compare all 3rd party votes. How many voted 3rd party in 2016 vs. 2020, retarded parrot?
LOL

That's your job to figure out, ShortBus -- you're the one complaining about it. It's my job to point out you're a retard for comparing ALL third party candidates in 2016 with ONE candidate in 2020.

I did my job, now you do yours. :abgg2q.jpg:
Really? OK Retarded parrot.

Here you go....You said 5%....but only 2% voted 3rd party in 2020 when so many more voted overall. By your math it should have been a lot more or did you not say 5%? Retarded Parrot.

You lose again!

2016​
DJT65,853
48%​
HRC62,985
46%​
3rd7,157
5%​
Total135,995
100%​
2020​
Biden81,269
51%​
DJT74,217
47%​
3rd2,898
2%​
Total158,384
100%​

I also said 10% for 2016 but the actual number was half that at 5%. To that, I account for the margin of error among polls. Still see nothing unusual.
Your margin of error is 50%? LMAO

Retarded parrot. So 22.4mil more voted by 5mil fewer voted 3rd party and nothing to see here? The percentage of those voting 3rd party declined by 147%! But you don't see that as a statistical anomaly? Your polls predicted 8mil votes for 3rd party. Moron.
LOL

ShortBus ... how does something decrease by more than 100%??

face-palm-gif.278959
Don't dodge.....how do you explain this?

And to answer your question it is basic math....the delta is 147% not the number of votes you moron. What % of decrease is it when you go from 7 to 5?
You really are a moron. WOW

If I hit 40 home runs one season and 15 the next, what is my % of decline in home runs? It is 167%!

You are an idiot.
LOLOL

I've already explained it. Among the reasons, it was too important an election to throw away a vote AND it's typical for 3rd party candidates to get fewer votes in a race with an incumbent.

Of course, I'm explaining this to a fucking moron who actually thinks something can decrease more than 100%. :cuckoo:

And ShortBus, a drop from 7 to 5 is a 29% decrease, a drop from 40 to 15 is a 63% decrease, and a drop from 7,157 to 2,898 is 60%, not 147%.

And you claim to be in banking. :lmao:

View attachment 489110
LMAO....You cannot percents. You are an idiot.

what is 5*1.4?
LOLOL

7.

ShortBus, if something is worth 66.08 and drops 2.32 to 63.76, what percentage did that drop?
You are an idiot who doesn't understand math
Nah, you are. That's why you won't answer my question....

If something is worth 66.08 and drops 2.32 to 63.76, what percentage did that drop?

Answer that with two decimal places and I will expose what a flaming retard you are since nothing can decrease more than 100%.
4% retarded parrot.
LOL

I see you're either too retarded to understand what "two decimal places" means or you're too big of a pussy to answer the question.

:dance:
What the hell are you talking about?
LOLOLOL

You claim to be in banking but you don't know what "two decimal places" is??

Rounding off to the nearest hundredths is the same as rounding it to 2 decimal places. To round off a number to 2 decimal places, look at the digit in the thousandths place.
If the digit in the thousandths place is greater or equal to 5, the hundredths digit is increased by one unit. And if the digit in the thousandths place is equal to or less than 4, the digit in the hundredths places will remain unchanged.
To round off 2.9801 to the nearest hundredths:
And so, the answer is 2.98.

Now do you know what 2 decimal places is, ShortBus?

So? What's the answer? Using 2 decimal places what is percentage of the decrease from 66.08 to 63.76......
3.13% Retarded Parrot. What the fuck does that have to do with you being a fucking idiot.
LOLOL

No, not 3.13, ShortBus. As an aside, before rounding to 2 decimal places, you said 4%, which is correct when rounding to a whole number.

So what kind of retarded math did you employ to round 3.13% to 4%???

:lmao::lmao::lmao:

Care to try again or would you like me to use your retarded math to show what retarded answer you would come up with?
 

AzogtheDefiler

The Pale Orc
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2018
Messages
41,967
Reaction score
15,121
Points
2,260
Location
Boston, MA
Trump was defrauded. What is going on in AZ is proof. Much more proof than Democrats ever needed.
Link? Oh wait, you don't do "evidence", do you?
Not evidence that has been deleted. But you do not turn the election over to a private company, which is what Maricopa county did. This has been proven by Dominion withholding passwords.

Still nuthin? If the audit has revealed evidence of a vast left-wing conspiracy to steal the election, I'd sure like to see it.
What is scary is likely the election was fair and that many people voted for a dead guy who in 4-mos. has led us into significant inflation, war in the Middle East, crisis at the border, crisis at the gas station due to Russian hackers who feel emboldened.


We voted for a weakling moron to take office.
 

Lastamender

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2011
Messages
15,504
Reaction score
10,647
Points
1,250
Trump was defrauded. What is going on in AZ is proof. Much more proof than Democrats ever needed.
Link? Oh wait, you don't do "evidence", do you?
Not evidence that has been deleted. But you do not turn the election over to a private company, which is what Maricopa county did. This has been proven by Dominion withholding passwords.

Still nuthin? If the audit has revealed evidence of a vast left-wing conspiracy to steal the election, I'd sure like to see it.
Nothing will be released, no results, until the audit is over. Inform yourself before you broach the subject again.
 

AzogtheDefiler

The Pale Orc
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2018
Messages
41,967
Reaction score
15,121
Points
2,260
Location
Boston, MA
~20mil more voted but 3 mil fewer voted for the Libertarian is insane?

That anyone voted for the LIbertarians is insane, but they just went back to their Pre-2016 % of the vote total.
The 2020 election was too important to throw away a vote on a 3rd party candidate.
That’s subjective. So 2016 wasn’t important? I am speaking basic statistics, retarded parrot. How many more people voted in 2020 vs. 2016?
All elections are important. Some, more than others. For the sake of America's future, 2020 was so important, it inspired some 25 million additional Americans to vote.
And yet the Libertarian got ~3mil fewer votes.
So?
So statistically speaking that doesn't make sense. I am sure you have your subjective thoughts on it but mathematically speaking it is bizarre.
There's nothing suspect about it. It reflects how important this election was that Americans didn't want to waste a vote on a candidate who had absolutely no chance.
Subjective. Mathematically speaking only if you just look at numbers it looks suspect. You need to learn the difference between objective and subjective, retarded parrot. Mathematics alone without context, it looks bizarre as my post stated. There are mathematical anomalies, I am not saying there was anything nefarious just that it looks odd simply from a statistical POV.

So statistically speaking that doesn't make sense. I am sure you have your subjective thoughts on it but mathematically speaking it is bizarre.
ShortBus, voting patterns are more than just numbers. :eusa_doh:
I am not discussing "patterns" retarded parrot. I am discussing mathematics. For example...of the total US population 6% are black males but the NBA is comprised of 85% of black males. There isn't anything nefarious there. The NBA is not racist. But to someone who doesn't live in the US or follow the NBA the mathematics would look odd. You once again don't understand the difference between subjective and objective. You are a very stupid retarded parrot.

View attachment 489080
"I am not discussing "patterns" retarded parrot."

LOL

I know, ShortBus, you're ignoring them. :lmao:
Explain the "pattern" between 2016 and 2020. What specifically are you referring to, retarded parrot?
Already explained it, ShortBus. If you weren't such a moron, you'd understand it.
Nope. You didn't. You gave a subjective response to what you believe it was. I can counter with a similar subjective response. Still don't know the difference between subjective and objective, eh retarded parrot?
Poor ShortBus, even before the election, it was predicted 3rd party candidates would do worse in 2020 than in 2016.

Polls reflected this. Between Hillary and Trump, polls showed them getting about 90% of the vote; leaving almost 10% for other candidates. But in 2020, polls showed Biden and Trump getting 95% of the vote, leaving half of what other candidates were predicted to get in 2016.
OK but 25mil more voted...so 5% of that is 1.25Mil already. Based on your math above, nearly 8mil should have gone to the 3rd party candidates. Libertarian barely got 2mil
Dumbfuck, again, you're counting all the 3rd party votes in 2016 and comparing them to one candidates vote in 2020. And again, there were 34 other candidates in 2020 besides the Democrat and Republican. And again, it was expected 3rd party candidates would do poorly in 2020.

face-palm-gif.278959


I'm no fan of Vox, but they called this one...


... they point out 3rd party candidates tend to do better in elections when there is no incumbent running. Yet another factor which eludes you.
Compare all 3rd party votes. How many voted 3rd party in 2016 vs. 2020, retarded parrot?
LOL

That's your job to figure out, ShortBus -- you're the one complaining about it. It's my job to point out you're a retard for comparing ALL third party candidates in 2016 with ONE candidate in 2020.

I did my job, now you do yours. :abgg2q.jpg:
Really? OK Retarded parrot.

Here you go....You said 5%....but only 2% voted 3rd party in 2020 when so many more voted overall. By your math it should have been a lot more or did you not say 5%? Retarded Parrot.

You lose again!

2016​
DJT65,853
48%​
HRC62,985
46%​
3rd7,157
5%​
Total135,995
100%​
2020​
Biden81,269
51%​
DJT74,217
47%​
3rd2,898
2%​
Total158,384
100%​

I also said 10% for 2016 but the actual number was half that at 5%. To that, I account for the margin of error among polls. Still see nothing unusual.
Your margin of error is 50%? LMAO

Retarded parrot. So 22.4mil more voted by 5mil fewer voted 3rd party and nothing to see here? The percentage of those voting 3rd party declined by 147%! But you don't see that as a statistical anomaly? Your polls predicted 8mil votes for 3rd party. Moron.
LOL

ShortBus ... how does something decrease by more than 100%??

face-palm-gif.278959
Don't dodge.....how do you explain this?

And to answer your question it is basic math....the delta is 147% not the number of votes you moron. What % of decrease is it when you go from 7 to 5?
You really are a moron. WOW

If I hit 40 home runs one season and 15 the next, what is my % of decline in home runs? It is 167%!

You are an idiot.
LOLOL

I've already explained it. Among the reasons, it was too important an election to throw away a vote AND it's typical for 3rd party candidates to get fewer votes in a race with an incumbent.

Of course, I'm explaining this to a fucking moron who actually thinks something can decrease more than 100%. :cuckoo:

And ShortBus, a drop from 7 to 5 is a 29% decrease, a drop from 40 to 15 is a 63% decrease, and a drop from 7,157 to 2,898 is 60%, not 147%.

And you claim to be in banking. :lmao:

View attachment 489110
LMAO....You cannot percents. You are an idiot.

what is 5*1.4?
LOLOL

7.

ShortBus, if something is worth 66.08 and drops 2.32 to 63.76, what percentage did that drop?
You are an idiot who doesn't understand math
Nah, you are. That's why you won't answer my question....

If something is worth 66.08 and drops 2.32 to 63.76, what percentage did that drop?

Answer that with two decimal places and I will expose what a flaming retard you are since nothing can decrease more than 100%.
4% retarded parrot.
LOL

I see you're either too retarded to understand what "two decimal places" means or you're too big of a pussy to answer the question.

:dance:
What the hell are you talking about?
LOLOLOL

You claim to be in banking but you don't know what "two decimal places" is??

Rounding off to the nearest hundredths is the same as rounding it to 2 decimal places. To round off a number to 2 decimal places, look at the digit in the thousandths place.
If the digit in the thousandths place is greater or equal to 5, the hundredths digit is increased by one unit. And if the digit in the thousandths place is equal to or less than 4, the digit in the hundredths places will remain unchanged.
To round off 2.9801 to the nearest hundredths:
And so, the answer is 2.98.

Now do you know what 2 decimal places is, ShortBus?

So? What's the answer? Using 2 decimal places what is percentage of the decrease from 66.08 to 63.76......
3.13% Retarded Parrot. What the fuck does that have to do with you being a fucking idiot.
LOLOL

No, not 3.13, ShortBus. As an aside, before rounding to 2 decimal places, you said 4%, which is correct when rounding to a whole number.

So what kind of retarded math did you employ to round 3.13% to 4%???

:lmao::lmao::lmao:

Care to try again or would you like me to use your retarded math to show what retarded answer you would come up with?
4% i(3.64%)...I rounded up if you use decimals and 3.13% if you don't I answered it both ways. WTF do you want from me??!?!?!?!?!

Now answer me. Why are you dodging. You said 5% would vote 3rd party but it was 2%? Were you just pulling numbers out of your ass?!?!
 

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
39,464
Reaction score
6,162
Points
1,130
Trump was defrauded. What is going on in AZ is proof. Much more proof than Democrats ever needed.
Link? Oh wait, you don't do "evidence", do you?
Not evidence that has been deleted. But you do not turn the election over to a private company, which is what Maricopa county did. This has been proven by Dominion withholding passwords.

Still nuthin? If the audit has revealed evidence of a vast left-wing conspiracy to steal the election, I'd sure like to see it.
Nothing will be released, no results, until the audit is over. Inform yourself before you broach the subject again.
Well, make up your mind. You said: "What is going on in AZ is proof." Were you just wrong, or lying?
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
79,472
Reaction score
16,670
Points
2,210
View attachment 487283

Makes total sense. No reason whatsoever to question the legitimacy of the election results in any way :rolleyes:

It’s mind boggling to me that someone could look at this and critical thought doesn’t at the very least lead them to question a single thing about it. I can’t even ascertain how those numbers make any statistical sense if nothing else
Yes, Trump was just that bad... Also the US Population increased by about 30 million people over the last decade. Did you consider that?
And biden still only won about 1/2 the counties that Obama did....BIDEN SO FUCKING LOSS---if you look at the chart, it is obvious cheating went on in the 477 counties showing for Biden...someone was tossing in a LOT OF EXTRA VOTES..
^^^ Another idiot

Counties don't elect presidents -- states do.
No but counties vote CONSISTENTLY...............If you see Biden lose around 400 counties less than the last dem winner (one that morons loved btw) then he wouldn't have been able to pick up the votes in the remaining 477. Losing the counties, THAT MANY COUNTIES, clearly shows that Biden was a very very unpopular candidate even among the dems. No fucking way, he won the election. To many of the dems previous won didn't even want him. Logic dictates that someone who loses that many counties would lose votes not gain votes in the remaining counties.

Tired of the dems and foreign trolls peeing on our legs and telling it is rain. We know what it is.
Some counties are as lightly populated with fewer than 1000 residents while larger ones are in the millions. Since conservatives populate smaller ones more than Liberals and vice-versa on larger ones, your stat is meaningless.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$280.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List