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?

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?!?!
LOLOLOL

ShortBus, in what asylum do you reside where 3.13 rounds to 4???

embarrassed-gif.489110
I never said that. You're just dodging the original question. You said 5% but it was 2%...nothing to see here....
Actually, the difference is due to the question of the poll. The poll I referenced as who would you vote for between Trump and Biden. So that 5% includes not only people who voted third party but also people who chose not to vote at all. And again, it's a poll -- not an exact number.

But back to your idiocy.... So your answer is 3.64%. The actual figure is 3.51%

(66.08-63.76)/66.08=3.51

Your math is backwards. You're actually calculating the increase from 63.76 to 66.08 and idiotically calling it a decrease.

(66.08-63.76)/63.76=3.64

And you actually project it's others who are a retard.

rotfl-gif.288736
What? Show that poll
Biden +7.2 was way off. Correct?
No, incorrect. Off? Yes. "way off," no.

Again, that was just a head-to-head matchup. Still, polls predicted on average a 7.2 point victory for Biden. Actual gap was 4.5 points.

A difference of 2.7. The average margin of error was 2.85. So the difference fell within margin of error.

-----------------------------------------------------​

But tell me more about how a drop from 66.08 to 63.76 is a 3.64% decrease....

Since even Yahoo finance says you're a fucking imbecile....

View attachment 489163
I used the denominator not numerator. Ooops. Mistakes happen. For instance your birth.
LOLOL

You did it over and over and over. Even worse for you, you claim to be a banker. You even continued making the mistake after I tried correcting you.

Looks like you need to add your own name to your signature line.


rotfl-gif.288736
It was an Excel error. I cant Do em in my head. Whooopti doo…you still can’t explain why so many didn’t vote 3rd party in 2020
No, it was your error. You're the one who put the figures into Excel wrong. What a sad moron you are for blaming Excel for your stupidity.

Shit, and to show what an abject imbecile you are, you actually claimed going from hitting 40 home runs in a season to 15 is a decrease of 167%. :cuckoo:

Forget that you employed the wrong formula for that calculation ... the result you came up with alone should have clued you in that something was amiss as you can't have a drop of more than 100% in home runs.

I even tried to help you by pointing that out, but you persisted anyway. Even worse, projecting that I was the retard while you're posting retarded math. Had you even an ounce of character, you'd apologize for insulting others for your own mistakes.
Error and it does work the other way. My formula was just fucked up. Mistakes happen retarded parrot. Can’t always be perfect. My HR example was correct. You can have more than a 100% increase. Character? A dude told you that he found your term of shortbus offensive as his kid took one and you told him to fuck off. He ended up leaving the site. That’s character. You’re a fucking mongoloid.
 

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?
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?!?!
LOLOLOL

ShortBus, in what asylum do you reside where 3.13 rounds to 4???

embarrassed-gif.489110
I never said that. You're just dodging the original question. You said 5% but it was 2%...nothing to see here....
Actually, the difference is due to the question of the poll. The poll I referenced as who would you vote for between Trump and Biden. So that 5% includes not only people who voted third party but also people who chose not to vote at all. And again, it's a poll -- not an exact number.

But back to your idiocy.... So your answer is 3.64%. The actual figure is 3.51%

(66.08-63.76)/66.08=3.51

Your math is backwards. You're actually calculating the increase from 63.76 to 66.08 and idiotically calling it a decrease.

(66.08-63.76)/63.76=3.64

And you actually project it's others who are a retard.

rotfl-gif.288736
What? Show that poll
Biden +7.2 was way off. Correct?
No, incorrect. Off? Yes. "way off," no.

Again, that was just a head-to-head matchup. Still, polls predicted on average a 7.2 point victory for Biden. Actual gap was 4.5 points.

A difference of 2.7. The average margin of error was 2.85. So the difference fell within margin of error.

-----------------------------------------------------​

But tell me more about how a drop from 66.08 to 63.76 is a 3.64% decrease....

Since even Yahoo finance says you're a fucking imbecile....

View attachment 489163
I used the denominator not numerator. Ooops. Mistakes happen. For instance your birth.
LOLOL

You did it over and over and over. Even worse for you, you claim to be a banker. You even continued making the mistake after I tried correcting you.

Looks like you need to add your own name to your signature line.


rotfl-gif.288736
It was an Excel error. I cant Do em in my head. Whooopti doo…you still can’t explain why so many didn’t vote 3rd party in 2020
No, it was your error. You're the one who put the figures into Excel wrong. What a sad moron you are for blaming Excel for your stupidity.

Shit, and to show what an abject imbecile you are, you actually claimed going from hitting 40 home runs in a season to 15 is a decrease of 167%. :cuckoo:

Forget that you employed the wrong formula for that calculation ... the result you came up with alone should have clued you in that something was amiss as you can't have a drop of more than 100% in home runs.

I even tried to help you by pointing that out, but you persisted anyway. Even worse, projecting that I was the retard while you're posting retarded math. Had you even an ounce of character, you'd apologize for insulting others for your own mistakes.
Error and it does work the other way. My formula was just fucked up. Mistakes happen retarded parrot. Can’t always be perfect. My HR example was correct. You can have more than a 100% increase. Character? A dude told you that he found your term of shortbus offensive as his kid took one and you told him to fuck off. He ended up leaving the site. That’s character. You’re a fucking mongoloid.
LOLOL

You can't have more than a 100% drop in home runs. Fuck, are you ever retarded. That was your claim. Even after showing you what an idiot you are, you were still insisting in digging your high heels in to resist learning.

Moron, regarding home runs, the absolute worst you can do in your example is go from 40 home runs in one season to ZERO home runs in the next. That's a 100% drop. It doesn't go above 100%.

Holy fucking shit, you're even more retarded than I gave you credit for. This is why you're known as ShortBus. Because you're a fucking retard.

"A dude told you that he found your term of shortbus offensive as his kid took one and you told him to fuck off. He ended up leaving the site. That’s character. You’re a fucking mongoloid."

ShortBus, that was SC Patriot and he still posting here. And why are you blaming others for your own lack of character?

Why are you demonstrating over and over and over what a flaming idiot you are??

And why don't I see your own name in your signature list. You fucked up worse than any of the names you have in there now.

:abgg2q.jpg:
 

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?!?!
LOLOLOL

ShortBus, in what asylum do you reside where 3.13 rounds to 4???

embarrassed-gif.489110
I never said that. You're just dodging the original question. You said 5% but it was 2%...nothing to see here....
Actually, the difference is due to the question of the poll. The poll I referenced as who would you vote for between Trump and Biden. So that 5% includes not only people who voted third party but also people who chose not to vote at all. And again, it's a poll -- not an exact number.

But back to your idiocy.... So your answer is 3.64%. The actual figure is 3.51%

(66.08-63.76)/66.08=3.51

Your math is backwards. You're actually calculating the increase from 63.76 to 66.08 and idiotically calling it a decrease.

(66.08-63.76)/63.76=3.64

And you actually project it's others who are a retard.

rotfl-gif.288736
What? Show that poll
Biden +7.2 was way off. Correct?
No, incorrect. Off? Yes. "way off," no.

Again, that was just a head-to-head matchup. Still, polls predicted on average a 7.2 point victory for Biden. Actual gap was 4.5 points.

A difference of 2.7. The average margin of error was 2.85. So the difference fell within margin of error.

-----------------------------------------------------​

But tell me more about how a drop from 66.08 to 63.76 is a 3.64% decrease....

Since even Yahoo finance says you're a fucking imbecile....

View attachment 489163
I used the denominator not numerator. Ooops. Mistakes happen. For instance your birth.
LOLOL

You did it over and over and over. Even worse for you, you claim to be a banker. You even continued making the mistake after I tried correcting you.

Looks like you need to add your own name to your signature line.


rotfl-gif.288736
It was an Excel error. I cant Do em in my head. Whooopti doo…you still can’t explain why so many didn’t vote 3rd party in 2020
No, it was your error. You're the one who put the figures into Excel wrong. What a sad moron you are for blaming Excel for your stupidity.

Shit, and to show what an abject imbecile you are, you actually claimed going from hitting 40 home runs in a season to 15 is a decrease of 167%. :cuckoo:

Forget that you employed the wrong formula for that calculation ... the result you came up with alone should have clued you in that something was amiss as you can't have a drop of more than 100% in home runs.

I even tried to help you by pointing that out, but you persisted anyway. Even worse, projecting that I was the retard while you're posting retarded math. Had you even an ounce of character, you'd apologize for insulting others for your own mistakes.
Error and it does work the other way. My formula was just fucked up. Mistakes happen retarded parrot. Can’t always be perfect. My HR example was correct. You can have more than a 100% increase. Character? A dude told you that he found your term of shortbus offensive as his kid took one and you told him to fuck off. He ended up leaving the site. That’s character. You’re a fucking mongoloid.
LOLOL

You can't have more than a 100% drop in home runs. Fuck, are you ever retarded. That was your claim. Even after showing you what an idiot you are, you were still insisting in digging your high heels in to resist learning.

Moron, regarding home runs, the absolute worst you can do in your example is go from 40 home runs in one season to ZERO home runs in the next. That's a 100% drop. It doesn't go above 100%.

Holy fucking shit, you're even more retarded than I gave you credit for. This is why you're known as ShortBus. Because you're a fucking retard.

"A dude told you that he found your term of shortbus offensive as his kid took one and you told him to fuck off. He ended up leaving the site. That’s character. You’re a fucking mongoloid."

ShortBus, that was SC Patriot and he still posting here. And why are you blaming others for your own lack of character?

Why are you demonstrating over and over and over what a flaming idiot you are??

And why don't I see your own name in your signature list. You fucked up worse than any of the names you have in there now.

:abgg2q.jpg:
You can have more than a 100% gain is what I said and no he is not. You’re a mongoloid.
 

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?
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?!?!
LOLOLOL

ShortBus, in what asylum do you reside where 3.13 rounds to 4???

embarrassed-gif.489110
I never said that. You're just dodging the original question. You said 5% but it was 2%...nothing to see here....
Actually, the difference is due to the question of the poll. The poll I referenced as who would you vote for between Trump and Biden. So that 5% includes not only people who voted third party but also people who chose not to vote at all. And again, it's a poll -- not an exact number.

But back to your idiocy.... So your answer is 3.64%. The actual figure is 3.51%

(66.08-63.76)/66.08=3.51

Your math is backwards. You're actually calculating the increase from 63.76 to 66.08 and idiotically calling it a decrease.

(66.08-63.76)/63.76=3.64

And you actually project it's others who are a retard.

rotfl-gif.288736
What? Show that poll
Biden +7.2 was way off. Correct?
No, incorrect. Off? Yes. "way off," no.

Again, that was just a head-to-head matchup. Still, polls predicted on average a 7.2 point victory for Biden. Actual gap was 4.5 points.

A difference of 2.7. The average margin of error was 2.85. So the difference fell within margin of error.

-----------------------------------------------------​

But tell me more about how a drop from 66.08 to 63.76 is a 3.64% decrease....

Since even Yahoo finance says you're a fucking imbecile....

View attachment 489163
I used the denominator not numerator. Ooops. Mistakes happen. For instance your birth.
LOLOL

You did it over and over and over. Even worse for you, you claim to be a banker. You even continued making the mistake after I tried correcting you.

Looks like you need to add your own name to your signature line.


rotfl-gif.288736
It was an Excel error. I cant Do em in my head. Whooopti doo…you still can’t explain why so many didn’t vote 3rd party in 2020
No, it was your error. You're the one who put the figures into Excel wrong. What a sad moron you are for blaming Excel for your stupidity.

Shit, and to show what an abject imbecile you are, you actually claimed going from hitting 40 home runs in a season to 15 is a decrease of 167%. :cuckoo:

Forget that you employed the wrong formula for that calculation ... the result you came up with alone should have clued you in that something was amiss as you can't have a drop of more than 100% in home runs.

I even tried to help you by pointing that out, but you persisted anyway. Even worse, projecting that I was the retard while you're posting retarded math. Had you even an ounce of character, you'd apologize for insulting others for your own mistakes.
Error and it does work the other way. My formula was just fucked up. Mistakes happen retarded parrot. Can’t always be perfect. My HR example was correct. You can have more than a 100% increase. Character? A dude told you that he found your term of shortbus offensive as his kid took one and you told him to fuck off. He ended up leaving the site. That’s character. You’re a fucking mongoloid.
LOLOL

You can't have more than a 100% drop in home runs. Fuck, are you ever retarded. That was your claim. Even after showing you what an idiot you are, you were still insisting in digging your high heels in to resist learning.

Moron, regarding home runs, the absolute worst you can do in your example is go from 40 home runs in one season to ZERO home runs in the next. That's a 100% drop. It doesn't go above 100%.

Holy fucking shit, you're even more retarded than I gave you credit for. This is why you're known as ShortBus. Because you're a fucking retard.

"A dude told you that he found your term of shortbus offensive as his kid took one and you told him to fuck off. He ended up leaving the site. That’s character. You’re a fucking mongoloid."

ShortBus, that was SC Patriot and he still posting here. And why are you blaming others for your own lack of character?

Why are you demonstrating over and over and over what a flaming idiot you are??

And why don't I see your own name in your signature list. You fucked up worse than any of the names you have in there now.

:abgg2q.jpg:
You can have more than a 100% gain is what I said and no he is not. You’re a mongoloid.
LOLOL

You're fucking deranged, ShortBus. We were talking about decreases, not increases. And yes, he is. He posted just a few hours ago.

And why don't I see your name in your signature list? Exactly how big of a hypocrite are you?

:abgg2q.jpg:
 

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?!?!
LOLOLOL

ShortBus, in what asylum do you reside where 3.13 rounds to 4???

embarrassed-gif.489110
I never said that. You're just dodging the original question. You said 5% but it was 2%...nothing to see here....
Actually, the difference is due to the question of the poll. The poll I referenced as who would you vote for between Trump and Biden. So that 5% includes not only people who voted third party but also people who chose not to vote at all. And again, it's a poll -- not an exact number.

But back to your idiocy.... So your answer is 3.64%. The actual figure is 3.51%

(66.08-63.76)/66.08=3.51

Your math is backwards. You're actually calculating the increase from 63.76 to 66.08 and idiotically calling it a decrease.

(66.08-63.76)/63.76=3.64

And you actually project it's others who are a retard.

rotfl-gif.288736
What? Show that poll
Biden +7.2 was way off. Correct?
No, incorrect. Off? Yes. "way off," no.

Again, that was just a head-to-head matchup. Still, polls predicted on average a 7.2 point victory for Biden. Actual gap was 4.5 points.

A difference of 2.7. The average margin of error was 2.85. So the difference fell within margin of error.

-----------------------------------------------------​

But tell me more about how a drop from 66.08 to 63.76 is a 3.64% decrease....

Since even Yahoo finance says you're a fucking imbecile....

View attachment 489163
I used the denominator not numerator. Ooops. Mistakes happen. For instance your birth.
LOLOL

You did it over and over and over. Even worse for you, you claim to be a banker. You even continued making the mistake after I tried correcting you.

Looks like you need to add your own name to your signature line.


rotfl-gif.288736
It was an Excel error. I cant Do em in my head. Whooopti doo…you still can’t explain why so many didn’t vote 3rd party in 2020
No, it was your error. You're the one who put the figures into Excel wrong. What a sad moron you are for blaming Excel for your stupidity.

Shit, and to show what an abject imbecile you are, you actually claimed going from hitting 40 home runs in a season to 15 is a decrease of 167%. :cuckoo:

Forget that you employed the wrong formula for that calculation ... the result you came up with alone should have clued you in that something was amiss as you can't have a drop of more than 100% in home runs.

I even tried to help you by pointing that out, but you persisted anyway. Even worse, projecting that I was the retard while you're posting retarded math. Had you even an ounce of character, you'd apologize for insulting others for your own mistakes.
Error and it does work the other way. My formula was just fucked up. Mistakes happen retarded parrot. Can’t always be perfect. My HR example was correct. You can have more than a 100% increase. Character? A dude told you that he found your term of shortbus offensive as his kid took one and you told him to fuck off. He ended up leaving the site. That’s character. You’re a fucking mongoloid.
LOLOL

You can't have more than a 100% drop in home runs. Fuck, are you ever retarded. That was your claim. Even after showing you what an idiot you are, you were still insisting in digging your high heels in to resist learning.

Moron, regarding home runs, the absolute worst you can do in your example is go from 40 home runs in one season to ZERO home runs in the next. That's a 100% drop. It doesn't go above 100%.

Holy fucking shit, you're even more retarded than I gave you credit for. This is why you're known as ShortBus. Because you're a fucking retard.

"A dude told you that he found your term of shortbus offensive as his kid took one and you told him to fuck off. He ended up leaving the site. That’s character. You’re a fucking mongoloid."

ShortBus, that was SC Patriot and he still posting here. And why are you blaming others for your own lack of character?

Why are you demonstrating over and over and over what a flaming idiot you are??

And why don't I see your own name in your signature list. You fucked up worse than any of the names you have in there now.

:abgg2q.jpg:
You can have more than a 100% gain is what I said and no he is not. You’re a mongoloid.
LOLOL

You're fucking deranged, ShortBus. We were talking about decreases, not increases. And yes, he is. He posted just a few hours ago.

And why don't I see your name in your signature list? Exactly how big of a hypocrite are you?

:abgg2q.jpg:
I used my example as an increase and what was SC Patriots last post? Haven’t seen him. Ever since you told him to fuck off and you didn’t care about his special needs child.
 

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?
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?!?!
LOLOLOL

ShortBus, in what asylum do you reside where 3.13 rounds to 4???

embarrassed-gif.489110
I never said that. You're just dodging the original question. You said 5% but it was 2%...nothing to see here....
Actually, the difference is due to the question of the poll. The poll I referenced as who would you vote for between Trump and Biden. So that 5% includes not only people who voted third party but also people who chose not to vote at all. And again, it's a poll -- not an exact number.

But back to your idiocy.... So your answer is 3.64%. The actual figure is 3.51%

(66.08-63.76)/66.08=3.51

Your math is backwards. You're actually calculating the increase from 63.76 to 66.08 and idiotically calling it a decrease.

(66.08-63.76)/63.76=3.64

And you actually project it's others who are a retard.

rotfl-gif.288736
What? Show that poll
Biden +7.2 was way off. Correct?
No, incorrect. Off? Yes. "way off," no.

Again, that was just a head-to-head matchup. Still, polls predicted on average a 7.2 point victory for Biden. Actual gap was 4.5 points.

A difference of 2.7. The average margin of error was 2.85. So the difference fell within margin of error.

-----------------------------------------------------​

But tell me more about how a drop from 66.08 to 63.76 is a 3.64% decrease....

Since even Yahoo finance says you're a fucking imbecile....

View attachment 489163
I used the denominator not numerator. Ooops. Mistakes happen. For instance your birth.
LOLOL

You did it over and over and over. Even worse for you, you claim to be a banker. You even continued making the mistake after I tried correcting you.

Looks like you need to add your own name to your signature line.


rotfl-gif.288736
It was an Excel error. I cant Do em in my head. Whooopti doo…you still can’t explain why so many didn’t vote 3rd party in 2020
No, it was your error. You're the one who put the figures into Excel wrong. What a sad moron you are for blaming Excel for your stupidity.

Shit, and to show what an abject imbecile you are, you actually claimed going from hitting 40 home runs in a season to 15 is a decrease of 167%. :cuckoo:

Forget that you employed the wrong formula for that calculation ... the result you came up with alone should have clued you in that something was amiss as you can't have a drop of more than 100% in home runs.

I even tried to help you by pointing that out, but you persisted anyway. Even worse, projecting that I was the retard while you're posting retarded math. Had you even an ounce of character, you'd apologize for insulting others for your own mistakes.
Error and it does work the other way. My formula was just fucked up. Mistakes happen retarded parrot. Can’t always be perfect. My HR example was correct. You can have more than a 100% increase. Character? A dude told you that he found your term of shortbus offensive as his kid took one and you told him to fuck off. He ended up leaving the site. That’s character. You’re a fucking mongoloid.
LOLOL

You can't have more than a 100% drop in home runs. Fuck, are you ever retarded. That was your claim. Even after showing you what an idiot you are, you were still insisting in digging your high heels in to resist learning.

Moron, regarding home runs, the absolute worst you can do in your example is go from 40 home runs in one season to ZERO home runs in the next. That's a 100% drop. It doesn't go above 100%.

Holy fucking shit, you're even more retarded than I gave you credit for. This is why you're known as ShortBus. Because you're a fucking retard.

"A dude told you that he found your term of shortbus offensive as his kid took one and you told him to fuck off. He ended up leaving the site. That’s character. You’re a fucking mongoloid."

ShortBus, that was SC Patriot and he still posting here. And why are you blaming others for your own lack of character?

Why are you demonstrating over and over and over what a flaming idiot you are??

And why don't I see your own name in your signature list. You fucked up worse than any of the names you have in there now.

:abgg2q.jpg:
You can have more than a 100% gain is what I said and no he is not. You’re a mongoloid.
LOLOL

You're fucking deranged, ShortBus. We were talking about decreases, not increases. And yes, he is. He posted just a few hours ago.

And why don't I see your name in your signature list? Exactly how big of a hypocrite are you?

:abgg2q.jpg:
I used my example as an increase and what was SC Patriots last post? Haven’t seen him. Ever since you told him to fuck off and you didn’t care about his special needs child.
Not my problem you're too retarded to use the forum's search feature, ShortBus. But then, someone too stupid to perform simple math isn't really expected to.

:abgg2q.jpg:
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
134,270
Reaction score
16,106
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
Didn’t read your entire long winded post as you tried to explain statistics with your stupidity. A lot more people voted in 2020 than 2016.

Did you need someone's help with the big words, Princess Bignose?

More people voted because they wanted to get rid of Trump. You don't get rid of Trump because you piss away your vote on a third party. That's what people realized.

So comparing 2012 to 2020, yes, the Libertarian Children and the Green Commies got MORE votes. Compared to 2016, they got less because no one liked either candidate and they were assured Hillary was going to win.



And by 3mil I was giving a round number.

Well, don't give a round number. Give exact numbers. You are supposedly in an industry were accuracy is important. "Hey, Bob, Remember when I told you that you had 3 million in profit, it was actually 2.6."
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
134,270
Reaction score
16,106
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
The fact that you subscribe to Disney+ is insane.

Um, you mean other than that's the place to get Star Wars and Marvel content....

I mean, I keep asking them to do a Princess Bignose Feature, but the ADL would get upset.

Douchebag. I ll Ask again. How many more people voted in 2020 compared to 2016!? Trump got a lot more votes too. Has nothing to do with HRC or BHO. You are so stupid it hurts.

Uh, yeah, Trump got more votes because white people are kind of stupid. Incumbents always improve their performance, unless there's a third party siphoning off votes (Like John Anderson did to Carter in 1980 or Ross Perot did to Bush Sr. in 1992). Heck, even Bush Jr., who got us into a recession, started a war based on a lie, and was you know, kind of a moron, STILL got more votes in 2004 than he did in 2000. Kerry got a lot more votes than Gore did.

Voter participation increased, but in Trump's case, his percentage did not. He got the same less than 47% that he got in 2016, the same 47% the Weird Mormon Robot got in 2012.

The only reason he "won" in 2016 was because a lot of stupid people pissed away their votes on third parties. Because they were told Hillary had this in the bag and because they were told a lot of lies that using the wrong email server was the worst thing ever.

No, no, having to walk around with a mask for a year is the worst thing ever, while being worried some angry rioters are going to burn down your house and you might get pink-slipped. That's the worst thing ever.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
134,270
Reaction score
16,106
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
That’s subjective. So 2016 wasn’t important? I am speaking basic statistics, retarded parrot. How many more people voted in 2020 vs. 2016?

People didn't think 2016 was important. Voter participation was at a low point. (59% compared to 66% in 2020, or 61% in 2004) I suspect a lot of people who voted for Trump in 2016 never expected him to win and were horrified about the truly awful job he did.

But the hardest thing for people to do is admit they made a mistake. "Yup, I voted for the racist idiot, because I was petty and stupid. I have learned the error of my ways".

Nope. "I'm going to vote for Trump again, even after he let hundreds of thousands of people die, cost tens of millions of jobs, and had riots in the streets because I will never, ever admit my liberal uncle was right!!!"
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
134,270
Reaction score
16,106
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
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.

Again, it makes perfect sense if you realize the spikes for third parties in 2016 were protest votes, and not a sudden embrace of fringe political movements.

If you take out 2016, the Libertarians and Greens get about the same percentage of fringe voters every year.

The Greens

2008 0.1%
2012 0.4%
2016 1.1%
2020 0.3%

Libertarians

2008 - 0.4%
2012 - 0.99%
2016 - 3.27%
2020 - 1.18%

So you can see from the above - 2008 was a LOW point for Third Parties, because with the Great Recession, and an incredibly popular candidate like Obama, there was really no reason to piss away your vote on a third party. It was a consequential election, and people treated it seriously.

2016 was the opposite. you had two candidates no one really liked. Hillary strong-armed her way to the nomination, Trump got the nomination because the Moderates and Conservatives couldn't agree on an alternative candidate. All the polls said Hillary was going to win, easily, so a lot of people felt confident in voting for a third party as a protest.

Then Trump won because we still use a bizarre system devised by slave rapists who just wanted to go home in 1787.

2020, people realized that we didn't have the luxury of voting third party. Still, more people did it than did in 2008 or 2012.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
134,270
Reaction score
16,106
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
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

Not really. Third parties don't get a consistent percentage. If they did, there would still be a Reform Party siphoning away a healthy percentage of the vote.

In 1992, the Reform Party (or Ross Perot's candidacy) got 17% of the vote. In 1996 it got 8.4%.

Did you know it's still around doing stuff? I didn't even know they fielded a candidate after 2004, when Ralph Nader hijacked the nomination after the Greens didn't want to get blamed for Bush again.

But, yes, they have fielded a candidate in every election since. Their best performance since 2004 was in - you guess it - 2016 when they got a whopping 0.02% of the vote.

Now, this brings up another point. Candidates. The Libertarians and Greens realized they got a lot of the blame for Trump in 2016 (deservedly so) and decided to go with C-List candidates in 2020.

Say what you want about Gary Johnson, he was a credible candidate. He was a governor, he had a running mate who had also been a governor, and frankly, despite the weird political beliefs, probably would have treated the job seriously. No crazy 3 AM Tweets.

Jo Jorganson? Who the fuck is Jo Jorganson?
 

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?
Trump was defrauded. What is going on in AZ is proof. Much more proof than Democrats ever needed.
Why don't you numbnuts take it to court? Oh yeah, because even the Republican-leaning Supreme Court laughed it out of court!!! That's why!
 

Magnus

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
472
Reaction score
319
Points
173
That’s subjective. So 2016 wasn’t important? I am speaking basic statistics, retarded parrot. How many more people voted in 2020 vs. 2016?

People didn't think 2016 was important. Voter participation was at a low point. (59% compared to 66% in 2020, or 61% in 2004) I suspect a lot of people who voted for Trump in 2016 never expected him to win and were horrified about the truly awful job he did.

But the hardest thing for people to do is admit they made a mistake. "Yup, I voted for the racist idiot, because I was petty and stupid. I have learned the error of my ways".

Nope. "I'm going to vote for Trump again, even after he let hundreds of thousands of people die, cost tens of millions of jobs, and had riots in the streets because I will never, ever admit my liberal uncle was right!!!"
Rump not only lost the presidency but under his watch, Republicans lost both houses of Congress. Heck, he managed to pull a defeat out of possible victory in the Georgia Senate seats!!

I tell ya, Rump is the best thing to happen for Democrats. He has single-handedly brought the Republican party to ruin and made them a laughing stock of the world. . I always have a sneaky feeling that Rump is on Obama's payroll. That has to be the explanation.
 

Lastamender

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2011
Messages
15,504
Reaction score
10,644
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.
Why don't you numbnuts take it to court? Oh yeah, because even the Republican-leaning Supreme Court laughed it out of court!!! That's why!
That won't stop the audit. Fail, troll.
 

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?
Trump was defrauded. What is going on in AZ is proof. Much more proof than Democrats ever needed.
Why don't you numbnuts take it to court? Oh yeah, because even the Republican-leaning Supreme Court laughed it out of court!!! That's why!
That won't stop the audit. Fail, troll.
LOL. What audit? The circus that you guys are cooking up now in Arizona? Hahahahahah!!!!!

Thanks for the laugh, dummy. Nah, we won't stop the audit. Go for it. In fact, keep auditing away. But at the end of it all, Biden will still be at the WH a genuine winner and your orange douche-bag will still be in Florida a genuine loser. Get it now?
 

OldLady

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
69,076
Reaction score
19,087
Points
2,220
By the metric presented, he was really popular. He gained votes overall in his reelection bid. In the EC where it really counts, he didn't do what he did four years earlier, get enough states.
Yeah no shit. Obviously he didn’t get enough states. But the point is that he didn’t because something shady happened. When you look at Biden’s numbers compared to Obama’s and trump’s it makes literally zero sense and can’t even statistically be possible. And that’s to say nothing of the fact that trump was winning all the swing states by a good margin at 3am November 4th until the count stopped and the mail in votes were brought it. So the narrative we’re being asked to accept is that trump was handily winning until somehow a remainder of mail in votes brought it were almost entirely all for Biden. You don’t have to be a trump supporter to recognize how ridiculous this is
So you're using cherry picked pictures to undertake your deep analysis? And the dumbest objection in the book, "Trump was winning until 2 am!" Yeah, that's when states got done counting mail in ballots, and because T**** told Repubs not to vote by mail, most of those ballots were for Biden. People had been telling us for weeks that this is how it would go, it's how it went, and the gd T**** loons immediately screamed SOMETHING'S WRONG!!!

You truly belong on the short bus. Adjust the crystals under your bed or something. You need intervention.
 
OP
Paulie

Paulie

Diamond Member
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
40,679
Reaction score
6,300
Points
1,830
By the metric presented, he was really popular. He gained votes overall in his reelection bid. In the EC where it really counts, he didn't do what he did four years earlier, get enough states.
Yeah no shit. Obviously he didn’t get enough states. But the point is that he didn’t because something shady happened. When you look at Biden’s numbers compared to Obama’s and trump’s it makes literally zero sense and can’t even statistically be possible. And that’s to say nothing of the fact that trump was winning all the swing states by a good margin at 3am November 4th until the count stopped and the mail in votes were brought it. So the narrative we’re being asked to accept is that trump was handily winning until somehow a remainder of mail in votes brought it were almost entirely all for Biden. You don’t have to be a trump supporter to recognize how ridiculous this is
So you're using cherry picked pictures to undertake your deep analysis? And the dumbest objection in the book, "Trump was winning until 2 am!" Yeah, that's when states got done counting mail in ballots, and because T**** told Repubs not to vote by mail, most of those ballots were for Biden. People had been telling us for weeks that this is how it would go, it's how it went, and the gd T**** loons immediately screamed SOMETHING'S WRONG!!!

You truly belong on the short bus. Adjust the crystals under your bed or something. You need intervention.
The pictures also include words that are facts. But focus on the pictures :rolleyes:

It doesn’t matter what trump said about mail in ballots, many states including mine literally only allowed mail in. We were denied the right to show up and cast our ballot in person while 500 people shopped inside of a Walmart
 

Magnus

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
472
Reaction score
319
Points
173
By the metric presented, he was really popular. He gained votes overall in his reelection bid. In the EC where it really counts, he didn't do what he did four years earlier, get enough states.
Yeah no shit. Obviously he didn’t get enough states. But the point is that he didn’t because something shady happened. When you look at Biden’s numbers compared to Obama’s and trump’s it makes literally zero sense and can’t even statistically be possible. And that’s to say nothing of the fact that trump was winning all the swing states by a good margin at 3am November 4th until the count stopped and the mail in votes were brought it. So the narrative we’re being asked to accept is that trump was handily winning until somehow a remainder of mail in votes brought it were almost entirely all for Biden. You don’t have to be a trump supporter to recognize how ridiculous this is
So you're using cherry picked pictures to undertake your deep analysis? And the dumbest objection in the book, "Trump was winning until 2 am!" Yeah, that's when states got done counting mail in ballots, and because T**** told Repubs not to vote by mail, most of those ballots were for Biden. People had been telling us for weeks that this is how it would go, it's how it went, and the gd T**** loons immediately screamed SOMETHING'S WRONG!!!

You truly belong on the short bus. Adjust the crystals under your bed or something. You need intervention.
The pictures also include words that are facts. But focus on the pictures :rolleyes:

It doesn’t matter what trump said about mail in ballots, many states including mine literally only allowed mail in. We were denied the right to show up and cast our ballot in person while 500 people shopped inside of a Walmart
From your avatar, you seem to be from NJ. The same state I live in. Now, which part of NJ denied you voting rights?
 
OP
Paulie

Paulie

Diamond Member
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
40,679
Reaction score
6,300
Points
1,830
By the metric presented, he was really popular. He gained votes overall in his reelection bid. In the EC where it really counts, he didn't do what he did four years earlier, get enough states.
Yeah no shit. Obviously he didn’t get enough states. But the point is that he didn’t because something shady happened. When you look at Biden’s numbers compared to Obama’s and trump’s it makes literally zero sense and can’t even statistically be possible. And that’s to say nothing of the fact that trump was winning all the swing states by a good margin at 3am November 4th until the count stopped and the mail in votes were brought it. So the narrative we’re being asked to accept is that trump was handily winning until somehow a remainder of mail in votes brought it were almost entirely all for Biden. You don’t have to be a trump supporter to recognize how ridiculous this is
So you're using cherry picked pictures to undertake your deep analysis? And the dumbest objection in the book, "Trump was winning until 2 am!" Yeah, that's when states got done counting mail in ballots, and because T**** told Repubs not to vote by mail, most of those ballots were for Biden. People had been telling us for weeks that this is how it would go, it's how it went, and the gd T**** loons immediately screamed SOMETHING'S WRONG!!!

You truly belong on the short bus. Adjust the crystals under your bed or something. You need intervention.
The pictures also include words that are facts. But focus on the pictures :rolleyes:

It doesn’t matter what trump said about mail in ballots, many states including mine literally only allowed mail in. We were denied the right to show up and cast our ballot in person while 500 people shopped inside of a Walmart
From your avatar, you seem to be from NJ. The same state I live in. Now, which part of NJ denied you voting rights?
In person. Read it again.
 

OldLady

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
69,076
Reaction score
19,087
Points
2,220
By the metric presented, he was really popular. He gained votes overall in his reelection bid. In the EC where it really counts, he didn't do what he did four years earlier, get enough states.
Yeah no shit. Obviously he didn’t get enough states. But the point is that he didn’t because something shady happened. When you look at Biden’s numbers compared to Obama’s and trump’s it makes literally zero sense and can’t even statistically be possible. And that’s to say nothing of the fact that trump was winning all the swing states by a good margin at 3am November 4th until the count stopped and the mail in votes were brought it. So the narrative we’re being asked to accept is that trump was handily winning until somehow a remainder of mail in votes brought it were almost entirely all for Biden. You don’t have to be a trump supporter to recognize how ridiculous this is
So you're using cherry picked pictures to undertake your deep analysis? And the dumbest objection in the book, "Trump was winning until 2 am!" Yeah, that's when states got done counting mail in ballots, and because T**** told Repubs not to vote by mail, most of those ballots were for Biden. People had been telling us for weeks that this is how it would go, it's how it went, and the gd T**** loons immediately screamed SOMETHING'S WRONG!!!

You truly belong on the short bus. Adjust the crystals under your bed or something. You need intervention.
The pictures also include words that are facts. But focus on the pictures :rolleyes:

It doesn’t matter what trump said about mail in ballots, many states including mine literally only allowed mail in. We were denied the right to show up and cast our ballot in person while 500 people shopped inside of a Walmart
That doesn't mean there was any fraud involved, Paulie. That's the heart of the problem with your whole argument. Saying "Well, mail in voters might have because Trump had bigger crowds" when President Biden never had a rally due to Covid, is just plain dumb.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$280.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days