Political Debate Thread

I've heard conversation coming out of animal pens that is more intelligent than what is going on in here.
m121c
Posts: 2942
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 5:36 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by m121c »

jlv wrote: Thu Dec 17, 2020 1:42 am What I mean is he needed to show up with a list of names. Not numbers or statistics. Show up in court and say "Aaron Aaronson voted and here is his obituary from earlier this year." Do that 10,000 times and the challenge is a completely different story.
Who are we to say they haven't? In the instance of Nevada, the fight was over the timing and procedures in which the data was presented, not the data itself, which was also presented under seal due to confidential information (assuming this info truly was confidential voter identification information). It's not really a stretch when you read the court decisions to believe no honest look is being done.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay. So I wanted to do my own "surface" level look into this and not just be talking off what others are saying. The GOP of Nevada released a witness affidavit that claims the following:

“Last night Biden-Harris representatives knocked on my door looking for a “B. Good” and saying that there is a problem with his ballot. Mr. Good is the former resident at my rental house and moved to Sacramento in May. My Vote, per Ballottrax, was counted and my information and address was updated when I moved in to this residence after him. I am the only resident that has lived here since May.”

Source: https://nevadagop.org/out-of-state-voters/

They then say Mr. B. Good voted. They go as far to say as you can check for yourself:
https://www.washoecounty.us/voters/elec ... eports.php

As someone who things digging through data is fun, I decided to waste an hour of my life and prove this false. I figured with an isolated county, with a gender, first initial, and last name, it would be rather easy to find this person. I was right, it was.

In fact I found 3 other people at the same address as Mr. B Good, and I found some interesting things. Allow me to walk you through my process:

Step 1) I went through and took a look at the subject Mr. B.Good:

Fact: B. Good did vote by mail, and as stated by the witness, he voted from Sacramento California.

Challenge Attempt 1: I looked to see any challenges to his vote. There were none. His registration last changed in October 2018. Washoe county reports sending the ballot on 9/14 and receiving it into the system on 10/21. I tracked this ballot through BallotTrax and it says the received date was 10/26. Weird that this data does not match up, but I will chalk this up to the overly complex mail in ballot system.

Challenge Attempt 2: Maybe he is a college student? The rules are generally laxed for us. He is currently 30 years old (which means nothing), but I find it hard to believe the case that a 30 year old would have his family home in CA and either moved back for the summer or just graduated (for reference CA is listed as birth state). I could find no information that supports he is a college student, but that certainly does not prove he is not.

Step 2) Next I went to the likely person (J. Bates age 32) who gave this statement that B. Good had moved out of state... I say likely person because this person updated their registration on 4/26/2020... they allege they moved in May. This person was an in-person early voter, for some reason they are listed as an unverified voter in the data. Maybe this means signature match so it would be a no if you vote in person?

Step 3) I moved on to the next person. Now again, this is a duplex. Looking this up in the Washoe county assessor database, its a 2 unit duplex so two different persons or family's can be living there at once. I should note all 4 of these people that voted from this address do not share the same last name, nor do they share the same last name as the duplex owner (as per the assessor database). This next person (E. Morrison age 35 also unverified) is recorded as voting twice. Now whether or not the vote counted both times I am not sure, but it is in the the voter turnout data for Washoe County....

All I know from this data is:
- E. Morrison was sent a mail in ballot (like all voters in NV). This ballot was challenged as "undeliverable mail" per Washoe county records. However, this ballot was recorded as being sent on 9/14 and recorded as received on 10/16. Why this would have been recorded would be a question for Washoe. I am guessing that this received data was a bounce back from the USPS but was recorded as a challenged vote. Doesn't mean this is a fraudulent vote or that it was counted at all.
- E. Morrison went to an early voting location on 10/27 and voted from this very address that was recorded as undeliverable. Now to vote in person this year (https://www.nvsos.gov/sos/home/showdocument?id=8842) you had to bring your mailed ballot in to surrender it or sign that you would not mail your ballot. I suppose it is reasonable to assume the county knew of the issue since the ballot would have been received a week prior, thus allowed E. Morrison to vote.

Another reasonable explanation to this would be the E. Morrison figured out they did not get their mail in ballot, thus went and voted in person at a EV location. The question remains why this is recorded and what is meant by "received". The reason I question this will make more sense below.

Step 4) The last person on at this address voted by mail, was recorded as verified, but their mail address was to a PO box roughly 50 miles away. This person is 41 years old, has no recorded birth place in the voter turnout data, and no recorded phone number.

Again, it is not outside the norm for college "kids" not related to one another to share a rental unit and vote from the same address. I would be in this category. What is odd is the separate PO box mailing address and that the ages for all these individuals are 30 and above. Another odd factoid is of the ones I suspect to NOT be the witness, their voter registration was last updated right before the midterm elections in 2018. However, proof of fraud cannot not rely on oddities. From this little exercise it seems to me the GOP of NV is closer to the truth than they are a lie here. It leads me to believe they have names, but there is no guarantee to that, and I guess there is no guarantee those names would check out to be factually fraudulent votes. Further investigation seems to be needed.... The data shows that he did vote by mail, he did vote from a different state, and there is good indication that the witness who gave this statement did at least update their voter registration around the same time this guy supposedly moved out and they moved in.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, I want to address the questions I raised about what counts and what does not count, and the reasoning behind that. I was not expecting to go down this whole rabbit hole when I started... but as questions began to pop up from the exercise above, I couldn't resist.

Per November 16th, the certified and canvassed vote results are here: https://www.washoecounty.us/voters/elec ... esults.php. To be fair it does state that these results are based on the best data available.. which would bring me to believe there is alternative data to what I went through as you will see (or so I hope). Anyway, It states:

- 252,142 is the total vote count.
- 252,563 is the total turn out report. (for a whopping number of 80%+ turnout) :|
- 304,224 is the number of registered voters.

Now that seems innocent enough. They record the correct number of under votes to if you go into the dashboard.

Now their turnout report page: https://www.washoecounty.us/voters/elec ... eports.php. They report:

- If you take the cumulative early voting & mail in/absentee cumulative total (213,670) and add that to the cumulative election day totals (16,758,); the result is 230,428 total votes.
-13,281 ballots were recorded as challenges

Comparing their published turnout data to the election results, there is a 22,135 vote difference between the results (higher end) and the published turn out. If we conclude the challenges are not included... well the number get's higher. We can chalk this up to latency in updating as this was last updated on Nov. 11th and the allowable ballot curing deadline was Nov. 12th. So all the challenges could possibly have been cured but the numbers still don't even come close. So either there is a missing turnout category here or I failed to add the right numbers, please feel free to double check.

Now from the spreadsheet last updated on Nov. 11th that you can download (as I did) I found this:

- There were 303,679 rows of data
- There were 3,838 duplicate voter I.D.'s.
- There were 13,203 challenges (11,759 with duplicate voter ID's removed). This gives me the idea this list is an account of every ballot regardless it were counted as a vote.
- 67,028 ballots were not returned.

Now, if you remove the total number of challenges, duplicate voter IDs, and unreturned ballots you yield 221,056. Hey that's not bad, pretty close to the published numbers in the tables. I mean it's almost 10,000 votes short but we can factor in some uncertainty and maybe it's from this best data available source :lol: Still really shy of that final vote count. Even if you take a conservative approach and assume all challenges were cured and there were no rejections you would not meet that 250,000. I think we should all agree that ballots that are not recorded as being received or have duplicate voter ID's should be counted... so what's wrong? This would be less head scratching if the number was OVER the vote count... it's reasonable to assume rejections, challenges, people being caught double voting, etc. and you coulda assume the number to twiddle down to the count they published. However, how would it go up?!

So what happened between November 11th and November 16th? The only logical explanation outside of the data being totally wrong, is that Washoe is missing a category of votes in the data, or half of those "unreturned" ballots were recorded but never reported as such. This leads to very similar issue in GA. Again, as "proof of fraud" this ain't it, but "proof of no fraud", this ain't it either chief.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know you want names and not numbers. Numbers are not full indications nor prosecutable terms for fraud, but they can be used them as indicators something is not right here. None of these numbers are matching. It's absurd those numbers can be looked at and deemed as normal election errors, abnormalities, etc. and be certified. We are not talking a vote here or a vote there. The margin of victory was ~34,000 votes, yet here we have one county with massively mismatched numbers that are approaching that margin. Why is it so hard to agree that both extremes (fraud/no fraud) are wrong "truths" and that we actually don't know with out further investigation.

Really there are only a few arguments to be made here. Either the data is wrong on either the published results, the published turnout, or the provided spreadsheet data (or combination of all). Which, if true, the defense that Trump simply turned out tons of angry libs from his trolling seems even weaker as it is based on flawed data. We are supposed to believe the turnouts are proof that this election was as free, fair, and beautiful as ever? I mean if the data is flawed, then in turn, that argument is flawed.

Another argument I suppose is that I am lying and manipulating these numbers, to that I assure you I am not. A valid perspective though would be my methodology is flawed, which could be fair. I feel I took a pretty logical and simple approach to this. I don't think the analysis would have to be very detailed if the election is so transparent and obviously free/fair. I see no reason why the numbers should be that far off from what they provide to what they report as canvassed results.

I would enjoy some feedback or alternative perspective as to what is missing here with this analysis. My point is the courts already want to stay out of election matters, many are fought on procedural and statutory reasons (which I am not arguing against) but to use their decisions as proof that the merit is simply a lie/weak is flat out wrong.
TeamHavocRacing
Posts: 7796
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 5:52 am
Team: Havoc Racing
Contact:

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by TeamHavocRacing »

m121c wrote: Thu Dec 17, 2020 7:52 pmIt's not really a stretch when you read the court decisions to believe no honest look is being done.
This is what I mean by your absolute failure to see the actual truth. Your idea of honesty is really fucked up. Perfect example of the blindness I described. When Putin and Mitch The Muppet are congratulating Sleepy Joe and you're still scratching away...you might be a redneck.
Image
jlv wrote:If it weren't for Havoc I'd have been arguing with the 12 year olds by myself.
m121c
Posts: 2942
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 5:36 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by m121c »

I began to look further into this. I wanted to see what the state of Nevada turnout report by county looked like.
https://www.nvsos.gov/sos/home/showdocument?id=9054

For Washoe they report (as of 11/25/20):

- 306,033 registered voters, almost 2,000 more voters (per 11/25/20) than what Washoe reports as their canvassed results on 11/16/20.

Note, Washoe has a counter updated today that shows ~312,000 registered voters. As you will see below, that is expected. There are a small number of same day registrants always. I would expect much less this year but that is just me.

- 265,295 total votes, almost 12,000 more votes (per 11/25/20) than what Washoe reports as their canvassed results on 11/16/20.

It is reasonable to assume that the total number of votes does not equal the total number of votes for President. Not everyone has an interest in that. 12,000? Eh maybe? Who knows, I won't say one vote total is more accurate than the other. IF it's the states though... then your differences become larger. Remember: They certified off these numbers.

- 22,727 election day in person voters, which is not much more than reported originally in the turnout report (16,758). Again it is reasonable to assume this would slightly increase due to provisional and same day registrant ballots.

- 87% active voter turnout vs. 84% as reported by the county.

No analysis needed, this number is bananas. Especially when you take into account that Nevada clearly did not vet their voter rolls prior to sending out all these ballots.

- They claim a 55% return rate of mail in ballots (145,424 total) which would equal ~137,000 ballots not returned and a total of ~266,000 ballots mailed out in total. In contrast, the county report says there were only 117,937 absentee/mail in ballots received *as of Nov 2nd*.

My analysis of the turn out reports shows the total number of sources by type of MAIL (this should be all categories of mail/absentee.. military or otherwise) is 208,893. I saw some email vote types and such but the number was very small. Assume + 5000 and that's being very liberal with the numbers here. The number of mail type ballots without a return date was still 67,028 (almost 50% difference than the report). The number of non voter ID duplicated, valid return date, mail type ballots is close to the count reported by the state with 138,511 (this includes challenges). This number drops to 126,770 with challenges factored out. Doesn't really match the turnout report by the county, and doesn't really match the full report by the state. I guess if you would like to assume there is a large enough margin of error to be in either... that would egregious to me but that is my opinion.

The only way the turnout data can be over the official vote count is by A) Remove duplicates and B) remove all challenges. But If I factor out any ballots that do not have a return date (again 60,000+) then it falls under the reported vote count. This combined with the fact of the large discrepancies in mail in voter numbers leads me to believe the problem is there.

What are the possibilities here? They found tens of thousands of mail in ballots perceived to be not returned? They actually recorded those mail in ballots but never recorded the day the were received? And if any of those two are true, is just a matter of poor management and data recording, or is chaos induced errors, fraud, etc.

What's odd is the counties own numbers are not matching with itself. This isn't just a difference between the state and the county. Their turnout reports are not seemingly matching the turnout spreadsheet, and neither of those are seemingly matching to the official results by precincts in the statement of the vote release (Source). The statement of the vote, which would be the certified officials results is the only consistent number that corresponds to the state published county results.

How can we have any meaningful analysis on an election if the data the officials themselves release and certify seemingly doesn't agree? I mean you can surely make the argument large scale elections in a country as big and complex as the US is difficult to get perfect and there will be errors and the like. The question is, what is the threshold of mismatch before we start to at least question things and deem this unacceptable?
m121c
Posts: 2942
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 5:36 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by m121c »

TeamHavocRacing wrote: Thu Dec 17, 2020 9:40 pm *Another terrible, pathetic, weak jab with no substance because I have no good points*
Come on Havoc. I know numbers are scary but please try to follow along instead of pluck out a little statement you can take a subjective and highly biased take on.

Numbers being mismatched is considered to be certifiable and honest in your world? Now I know you definitely can't discern your ass from your mouth.
jlv
Site Admin
Posts: 13925
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:39 am
Team: No Frills Racing
Contact:

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by jlv »

Maybe this explains the short count?

* NOTE: Above lists in Excel do not include information about voters who have requested to have their address and phone number withheld from the public.

Not sure if that means they aren't in the list or they just left the address blank.

Trump definitely should have challenged stuff like your B. Good example. That he didn't shows how incompetent the challenge was. If he systematically found cases like that and challenged them his lawsuits would not have been the joke that they turned out to be. But finding 30,000 of those is a long row to hoe.
Josh Vanderhoof
Sole Proprietor
jlv@mxsimulator.com
If you email, put "MX Simulator" in the subject to make sure it gets through my spam filter.
m121c
Posts: 2942
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 5:36 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by m121c »

jlv wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 3:58 am Maybe this explains the short count?

* NOTE: Above lists in Excel do not include information about voters who have requested to have their address and phone number withheld from the public.

Not sure if that means they aren't in the list or they just left the address blank.

Trump definitely should have challenged stuff like your B. Good example. That he didn't shows how incompetent the challenge was. If he systematically found cases like that and challenged them his lawsuits would not have been the joke that they turned out to be. But finding 30,000 of those is a long row to hoe.
Im guessing it was. The NV GOP was one to bring notice to that example. They might have the preliminary numbers and yet to verify the names? Idk.

And to that data disclaimer.. That could explain it, embarrassing I didn't see that. Do you want think 30,000 people knew they had they option to not be apart of the list? I mean its possible.. but the numbers still don’t seem right. The counties turnout report tables are not the same to the result report. It could explain my excel data missing numbers but you would think their tabulated published numbers would include those?

This also could explain voter #4 too. Voter number 4 in the B. Good example had no info like DOB, Birth place, or phone number.
m121c
Posts: 2942
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 5:36 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by m121c »

Now that I think of it, this might explain the 10,000 vote difference between the published tables and the excel data. Tightens the gap but not by much, especially if you expand the vote totals to the reported results by the state.

So either Im missing another disclaimer (good catch), something with the data is not updated/missing, or something happened from the 11th to the 16th Im not catching.

Also didnt mean for my questions to sound combative in the last post. Im genuinely curious. I tried going into the data with an open mind but of course thats hard to do with a preconceived bias. Ultimately, this seems really odd. Even if that disclaimer explains the short count, theres still some errors. You can’t make up 100% of that gap and also meet the reported percentage of returned mail in ballots. That gap is much larger than the short count.
TeamHavocRacing
Posts: 7796
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 5:52 am
Team: Havoc Racing
Contact:

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by TeamHavocRacing »

m121c wrote: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:01 pmI know numbers are scary.
When they amount to something that is significant, sure. Show me something that has a real impact on the outcome. "Throw out the votes!" is hilarious. Not moving on is truly hurting the right, like JLV said. There sure is clamor. Rats scurrying around on a sinking garbage scow. Drain the swamp indeed.
jlv wrote:If it weren't for Havoc I'd have been arguing with the 12 year olds by myself.
m121c
Posts: 2942
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 5:36 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by m121c »

Let's get bold and make some "at best" estimates. With the following assumptions:

- The excel data is flawed and it is true that there is missing data due to people electing to not share their information
- Thus, I will say that the reported turnout cumulative totals on the Washoe county turnout report page are accurate. Should be important to note that their tables of data (although claimed to be updated daily) only account (from my observation) numbers up to 4pm on election day. Hard to use that as fact... but if they want to play keepers of the truth, I will hold them to it.
- All challenges were cured, and there were no rejections

That leaves us with this:

213,670 (total mail/absentee & early votes) + 16,758 (election day total as of 4pm) = 230,428

Let's go with the published canvassed results to figure the short count as we know those are the certified county results AND they are for president. 252,142 - 230,428 = 21,714.

Hhhmmm okay. That's best case, no rejections, no challenges, no errors, etc. etc. Alright this number accounts for most of election day (up to 4pm, probably assume +1-5000 after 4pm?) so we should assume that to make up the short count it would be close 100% mail in ballots. That's reasonable I think, after all we are just playing around with the numbers here.

So let's focus on the mail in ballots. They report as of Nov. 2nd 117,937 total. My Nov 11th excel data shows a little more at 138,511 (challenges/rejections not factored in.. very conservative), and the reported number by the state was 145,424 with a 55% return rate. You might be thinking, hey look! If you use the data from the state and subtract the numbers you are using from the turnout report on the 2nd, you get a number close to the short count which is 20,574, with some uncertainty you can very well make the assumption the gap is now closed. You might be thinking, well gap closed then case closed, clearly they received almost 20,000 ballots after the 2nd. You might be right, but let's go even furtherrrrrrrrr.

Now again, the state also reports Washoe had a 55% return rate which would mean to say they had a total of about 266,000 ballots sent out from the total of 300,000+ registered voters. I wont argue why there is seemingly a fight between the county/state on the true number of registered voters.. it really shouldn't be that hard. I digress.

Moving on, there is no published number of what was sent out by Washoe that I could find. As much as I don't want to use the turnout excel data for this, I think it's valid to use for hypotheticals as it is the only data available seemingly past Nov. 2nd on absentee/mail ins and the numbers are closer. After all the website does say it is data of "Turnout Report Including Mail ballots received after Election Day (Nov 3) and by Nov 10 that are postmarked November 3."

Alright, so that data says there was 208,893 ballots by type MAIL. Remember, these are ballots on the turnout report that have no return date, duplicate votes, challenges, etc. If you make the assumption that the short count is made up 100% by accepted mail in ballots after the 2nd, the total number only jumps up to 230,607. That still leaves a gap of 35,000+ votes for the total estimated number of sent out ballots. That would mean 35,000+ mail in ballots would HAVE to be unreturned/not surrendered mail in ballots to make up the gap that accounts for reported return rate percentage, and these ballots would have to be in the category of not being on the excel data sheet due to privacy (if that is truly the case and it's just not certain redacted information) or they were completely lost and for some reason never put on the voter turnout.

What does this all mean? Well, to believe there is missing data due to privacy and also missing mail in ballots after the 3rd, thus this accounts for the short count, you would have to make the following assumptions:

- 57,107 total mail in ballots were not recorded in the excel sheet for privacy or for the fact they are unaccounted for/unreturned. This one seems odd to me.. I would agree there is no point in recording a ballot on the turnout sheet that effectively didn't "turn out" but there are 60,000 ballots on that list with no return date. :?
- Of those 51,197, the return rate on those was only 38% (assume +/- 1000 or so in here for challenges, rejections, etc.)

There was also a vote type in the excel sheet that was by "EMAIL", this I assume was by fax. There were only maybe 500 of those. Probably assume a very liberal margin of error to be 5000.

I don't know about anyone else, but I am having a hard time making those perfect assumptions. It really shouldn't be this difficult to verify, or at least come close, to the numbers the county and states are reporting as official numbers. I could understand if it were maybe 5,000. I mean that's not crazy to assume, elections are complicated, especially one fueled with procedural chaos both by mail in ballots and litigations. But 20,000+ offset in the 2nd largest county in the state is wild to me. That deserves answers before we could ever think about certifying that vote. I would love to know what goes on behind the scenes to certify. If their public information clearly isn't matching and this was brought up in the courts, you would think the state would be very open to transparency and allow data analysis to be completely open and transparent. Why the push back? To they have little confidence that their actual updated dated doesn't match either?

You can run the ballots you counted over and over again in a recount and get the same result. However, if your voter turnout data does not match your results data, there must be answers to what happened in between that. Again, It would be reasonable if the count was over the total count of votes. There are always rejections, challenges, ineligible votes, etc. that get removed from the final turnout numbers. But an short count?

The case would have to be one or some of the following:

1) There is a great number of people not on the list due to privacy and certain information just isn't redacted. Why they wouldn't at least record the voter id, general name, or just the fact they voted would seem fishy to me. We are looking for honesty, transparency, and certifiable numbers here.

2) Many of the mail ins on the turnout report with no return date were actually received but for some reason there is no log of it on the turnout. This would lead me to believe there is a chain of custody/procedural problem. These too could fill the short count, but I don't believe they should if they don't say when they came back. I mean some of the undeliverable mail challenges have dates. There were more ballots with no return date than there were marked as undeliverable or NO BT (Did not return ballot). In fact, there are only 11 NO BT's on the turnout report. :lol:

3) A huge amount of mail in/absentee ballots came in after election day postmarked for the 3rd and yet also were not on the excel sheet. (Whether rightfully or suspiciously) These are the majority that fill the short count, yet to meet the return rate estimate, these would have to have a 38% acceptance rate and for some reason also not be recorded on the excel sheet.

This just means the numbers themselves are not even matching up. I have no reasonable access to factor out possible deceased voters or USPS address change records to factor out out of state voters. You could reasonably expect these numbers to get worse.
jlv
Site Admin
Posts: 13925
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:39 am
Team: No Frills Racing
Contact:

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by jlv »

It won't be possible to make it add up without the redacted voters. It's not going to be off by tens of thousands. Can't say I like the way the private registrations are done either. They should at least publish it with the names removed. I'm sure it'd be possible to get the unredacted list if you were one of the candidates.

You might wonder why Trump hasn't done this considering he's collected over $200M for the election dispute and only spent around $10M. It's almost like he doesn't actually believe it and he's just trying to con republicans.

Well, at least the billion dollar campaign war chest was well spent. Right?

Meanwhile, in Georgia...
Josh Vanderhoof
Sole Proprietor
jlv@mxsimulator.com
If you email, put "MX Simulator" in the subject to make sure it gets through my spam filter.
TeamHavocRacing
Posts: 7796
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 5:52 am
Team: Havoc Racing
Contact:

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by TeamHavocRacing »

In light of recent pardons, vetoes and general ass-hat, Fuck-The-USA behavior, I'm reminded of this...
m121c wrote: Fri Nov 13, 2020 7:16 pmWhat would you consider as productive activity? I see a Republican president carrying out Republican policy (for the most part).
Congrat-u-fucking-lations! This is wherre your vote really counts and matters. Thanks again! Good luck on your bright political future.
jlv wrote:If it weren't for Havoc I'd have been arguing with the 12 year olds by myself.
DBRider251
Posts: 1563
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 5:38 pm
Team: LCQ Studios

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by DBRider251 »

TeamHavocRacing wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 5:34 am Not moving on is truly hurting the right
I hate to revive this thread, but I just can't stop laughing at this.
TeamHavocRacing wrote:it's all the liberals fault
TeamHavocRacing
Posts: 7796
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 5:52 am
Team: Havoc Racing
Contact:

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by TeamHavocRacing »

That's ok. It's your loss.
jlv wrote:If it weren't for Havoc I'd have been arguing with the 12 year olds by myself.
m121c
Posts: 2942
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 5:36 am
Location: Iowa

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by m121c »

TeamHavocRacing wrote: Thu Dec 24, 2020 8:04 pm In light of recent pardons, vetoes and general ass-hat, Fuck-The-USA behavior, I'm reminded of this...
m121c wrote: Fri Nov 13, 2020 7:16 pmWhat would you consider as productive activity? I see a Republican president carrying out Republican policy (for the most part).
Congrat-u-fucking-lations! This is wherre your vote really counts and matters. Thanks again! Good luck on your bright political future.
If it's making you angry, I am going to say it more Pro-USA behavior than the contrary.
DBRider251
Posts: 1563
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 5:38 pm
Team: LCQ Studios

Re: Political Debate Thread

Post by DBRider251 »

Crazy to hear "Not my President" for 4 years, then want to preach acceptance and moving on. Truly mind boggling.
TeamHavocRacing wrote:it's all the liberals fault
Post Reply