80,000 across 3 states doesn't tell us enough
Yes it does, unless you are talking to a foreigner who has no concept of the U.S. population.
"teen shot after accidentally" the next liberal psy-op
Posts
Total:
131
-->
@Kaitlyn
you colossal dummy.
You are the colossal dummy for not having an idea how populous the American states are. Even if it was our 3 least populous states, 80,000 votes over three states was a very small number. But you insisted on talking out of your ass after looking up the electoral vote count and not looking any deeper at the numbers. This is why you should read more and talk less.
There isn’t a single swing state in the US with a population under 1 million people.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
For example, if 40,000 of those votes came from Hawaii, it might not have been close at all. Hawaii has about 1.6 million people. If about 1/4 of them vote (since voting isn't compulsory in America), that means about 400,000 voted. 40,000 difference with only 400,000 voters is a *massive* percentage difference.Even if it was our 3 least populous states, 80,000 votes over three states was a very small number.
I literally just demonstrated to you that if one of those states was Hawaii, the split could easily represent 10% of the voters. 10% is nowhere near the fractions of percentages you listed earlier. 10% is a comfortable win.
-->
@Kaitlyn
I literally just demonstrated to you that if one of those states was Hawaii,
You are so clueless that you don’t know Hawaii isn’t even in the top ten smallest states by population.
We had about 160 million voters in the last 2 presidential elections. That’s about have the population - by state or nationally overall, including Hawaii
-->
@Kaitlyn
If about 1/4 of them vote
Again, as usual, you are way off in your assumptions. That’s how you got in this mess to begin with - poor, unrealistic assumptions.
60-80% of a state’s population is registered to vote.
and each state gets a 60-80% voter participation rate in presidential elections
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I literally just demonstrated to you that if one of those states was Hawaii,You are so clueless that you don’t know Hawaii isn’t even in the top ten smallest states by population.We had about 160 million voters in the last 2 presidential elections. That’s about have the population - by state or nationally overall, including Hawaii
I never claimed it was in the top ten smallest lol. Quote me or admit that you falsely made that accusation.
Again, we need to see individually how many people voted in Hawaii based on population percentage. You're doing the dumb thing again where you take the nationwide statistic and superimpose that onto a state.
I just gave a rough example to demonstrate what I was claiming; I never said the numbers were 100% accurate.
If about 1/4 of them voteAgain, as usual, you are way off in your assumptions. That’s how you got in this mess to begin with - poor, unrealistic assumptions.60-80% of a state’s population is registered to vote.and each state gets a 60-80% voter participation rate
Again, it's a rough estimate to demonstrate a hypothetical point. I never claimed all numbers were 100% accurate, dumbass.
Your 60-80% voter turnout rate is actually way off. The voter turnout for Hawaii was 42.5% 2016 United States presidential election in Hawaii - Wikipedia
That's how you got in this mess to begin with - poor, unrealistic assumptions.
-->
@Kaitlyn
The voter turnout for Hawaii was 42.5%
The population in HawIi was 1.4 million in 2016
As you can see from your Wiki post, one third of the state voted in 2016, not one quarter as you estimated.
396,000 of 1.4 million = 32%
Way off, way off.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
This is yet another post of yours wherein you dropped your argument.
I'm going to make a quick list of every argument/bare assertion you've dropped in this thread, just so others can see what kind of person you are:
It's entirely possible that a number of these shootings were performed in self-defense against criminals,Gee, if only someone or some organization tracked these events so we could know the circumstances of each shootingThere is no overall tally of circumstances involved in all shootings on that website, and clicking the individual links is rather time-consuming (especially to discover that the perpetrator is currently unknown).Again, you're free to demonstrate that these "mass shootings" were all done illegally and not in self-defense, since that's what you are claiming.
It took me less than a minute to find a citation.Uh no. It took you five posts, a day, and me literally holding your hand and repeatedly telling you what you needed to make your argument, in order for you to make your argument:
You're really trying to make fun of someone for being disabled, someone who potentially is disabled through serving his country in the military?He wasn’t disabled in his short military service before he was sent packing. He’s “disabled” because he can’t get anyone to hire him.It’s a great counterpoint because in America the people with the lowest education enlist in the military, and the army is at the bottom of the armed services.I, on the other hand was a Captain in the Marines and a helicopter pilot.
You're the only who was instructed like a little child,I’m the only who? A child? It seems you don’t know anything about children because god didn’t want you to be a Mom.I'm not religious, either.What was that about false assumptions again?
We can clearly see that you're trying quite hard to provoke me with lies and half-truths. I mean, you're doing this to the point of other people noticing your sexism "teen shot after accidentally" the next liberal psy-op (debateart.com) (which is surprising coming from a Roosevelt supporter -- Roosevelt was a big advocate of women's right).A more interesting question is why are you doing this? Does your wife ignore you at home? Do you like picking on girls? Or are you still stung from me having to hand-hold you through your argument, posting repeatedly as to why your figures didn't match the argument you were trying to make, in order to make it correctly?So even you consider yourself a girl instead of a womanThis is yet another instance of you dodging the question and accountability for what you said.
If about 1/4 of them voteAgain, as usual, you are way off in your assumptions. That’s how you got in this mess to begin with - poor, unrealistic assumptions.60-80% of a state’s population is registered to vote.and each state gets a 60-80% voter participation rateAgain, it's a rough estimate to demonstrate a hypothetical point. I never claimed all numbers were 100% accurate, dumbass.Your 60-80% voter turnout rate is actually way off. The voter turnout for Hawaii was 42.5% 2016 United States presidential election in Hawaii - WikipediaThat's how you got in this mess to begin with - poor, unrealistic assumptions.
-->
@Kaitlyn
Again, you're free to demonstrate that these "mass shootings" were all done illegally and not in self-defense, since that's what you are claiming.
Utter nonsense. These organizations are not tracking mass shootings conducted in self defense and I seriously doubt we have any mass shootings conducted in self defense in this country. What are you imagining here, a home invasion by multiple assailants and the homeowner shot them down? Are you stupid?
The circumstances of each mass shooting is described on the website, you can read it if you really believe your ridiculous idea.
-->
@Kaitlyn
It took me less than a minute to find a citation.
Again, once I went looking for a citation that would explain the obvious, that 80,000 votes over 3 swing states is a paltry victory, it took less than a minute to find.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Again, you're free to demonstrate that these "mass shootings" were all done illegally and not in self-defense, since that's what you are claiming.Utter nonsense. These organizations are not tracking mass shootings conducted in self defense and I seriously doubt we have any mass shootings conducted in self defense in this country. What are you imagining here, a home invasion by multiple assailants and the homeowner shot them down? Are you stupid?The circumstances of each mass shooting is described on the website, you can read it if you really believe your ridiculous idea.
No, I'm not going to do the work to make your argument for you. It's your job to provide the evidence to make your argument.
Feel free to address all of your other dropped arguments, too.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
It took me less than a minute to find a citation.Again, once I went looking for a citation that would explain the obvious, that 80,000 votes over 3 swing states is a paltry victory, it took less than a minute to find.
Wrong. It took you a day spread out across 5 posts. I also had to repeatedly tell you why your argument didn't prove what you were sayuing.
Repeating your argument of "it took me less than a minute" doesn't make it right.
-->
@Kaitlyn
No, I'm not going to do the work to make your argument for you.
You are the one with a stupid, ridiculous argument. That the mass shootings being tracked by these organizations may actually be examples of self defense.
I mean so stupid, so ridiculous. What country were you educated in? I have to know.
-->
@Kaitlyn
Wrong. It took you a day spread out across 5 posts.
No, you would have to assume each time you responded with a stupid comment, I went looking for an article from a credible source to illustrate the obvious to your wee female brain.
-->
@Kaitlyn
Here’s where you can see that the last 5 US presidential elections had an average voter turnout rate of 58% or higher.
See the turnout statistics spreadsheet in the column for turnout as a percentage of VEP. For 2016 it was 59.2%
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
No, I'm not going to do the work to make your argument for you.You are the one with a stupid, ridiculous argument. That the mass shootings being tracked by these organizations may actually be examples of self defense.I mean so stupid, so ridiculous. What country were you educated in? I have to know.
The way your website defines "mass shooting" is based on the number of people killed/injured. There isn't a qualifier as to whether the shooting was self-defence.
I clicked one of the links and they didn't even know who the perpetrator was, let alone why they shot people.
It's fair to guess that a lot of them are going to illegal homicides, but my point is that we don't know that. Again, you don't have the necessary data to make the argument you're making.
-->
@Kaitlyn
The way your website defines "mass shooting" is based on the number of people killed/injured. There isn't a qualifier as to whether the shooting was self-defence.
Well I’m sure they didn’t figure idiots like you would be reading their website. They also didn’t say that these shootings didn't take place during the American Civil War
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Wrong. It took you a day spread out across 5 posts.No, you would have to assume each time you responded with a stupid comment, I went looking for an article from a credible source to illustrate the obvious to your wee female brain.
It did take you a day. We can look at the timestamps. It took you a day to realize you needed to find those statistics to make those arguments.
Shame I didn't get to see your face turn bright red when you realized I was right.
Here’s where you can see that the last 5 US presidential elections had an average voter turnout rate of 58% or higher.See the turnout statistics spreadsheet in the column for turnout as a percentage of VEP. For 2016 it was 59.2%
Again, for the umpteenth time, the national average doesn't matter, in regards to the specific three states that you are talking about. What matters, believe it or not, are the statistics for the three states, you complete idiot.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
The way your website defines "mass shooting" is based on the number of people killed/injured. There isn't a qualifier as to whether the shooting was self-defence.Well they didn’t figure idiots like you would be reading their website.
Thank you for inadvertently admitting you didn't provide the evidence required to make your argument. Only your careless stupidity could help you to be right here.
-->
@Kaitlyn
It took you a day to realize you needed to find those statistics to make those arguments.
Only to a moron like you.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
It took you a day to realize you needed to find those statistics to make those arguments.Only to a moron like you.
If I'm the moron correcting you, what does make you? What's stupider than a moron?
-->
@Kaitlyn
Again, for the umpteenth time, the national average doesn't matter, in regards to the specific three states that you are talking about. What matters, believe it or not, are the statistics for the three states, you complete idiot.
we just started talking about turnout rates today. It has nothing to do with your original argument and “logic” about the three swing states.
-->
@Kaitlyn
If I'm the moron correcting you, what does make you? What's stupider than a moron?
If your correction is moronic, that still makes you the moron.
-->
@Kaitlyn
Thank you for inadvertently admitting you didn't provide the evidence required to make your argument.
What? You telling the world that a website on mass shootings might be tracking self defense incidents or wars or whatever nonsense you can come up with, and me admitting that the keepers of that website couldn’t possibly anticipate your moronic doubts about their data, isn’t helping your case.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Again, for the umpteenth time, the national average doesn't matter, in regards to the specific three states that you are talking about. What matters, believe it or not, are the statistics for the three states, you complete idiot.we just started talking about turnout rates today. It has nothing to do with your original argument and “logic” about the three swing states.
I noticed you tried to sneakily add in "swing" states with some of your previous posts, before you edited them soon after. Your original point never made that distinction: "That’s a lie. He won by a total margin of 80,000 votes in 3 states and he actually lost the overall popular vote." "teen shot after accidentally" the next liberal psy-op (debateart.com) .
Looks like you've been caught red-handed in the doggie-treat cupboard. Bad doggie!
If I'm the moron correcting you, what does make you? What's stupider than a moron?If your correction is moronic, that still makes you the moron.
Wrong.
Singular instances don't define people in their entirety, you gigantic moron.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Thank you for inadvertently admitting you didn't provide the evidence required to make your argument.What? You telling the world that a website on mass shootings might be tracking self defense incidents or wars or whatever nonsense you can come up with, and me admitting that the keepers of that website couldn’t possibly anticipate your moronic doubts about their data, isn’t helping your case.
What? Huh? Who? Where are my dentures?
You already said that the context was provided in the links, and now you're saying that the keepers of the website couldn't possibly keep track of it. Which is it, champ?
-->
@Kaitlyn
80,000 votes isn't a low number lol. It sure it a lot more than the landslide Clinton victory all the legacy media was predicting.
80,000 votes is a low number in any 3 states in America.
It’s an extremely low number in any 3 swing states in America, which is the only kind of state that could flip in an American Presidential election.
Right tootsie? Or again, are you too dumb to recognize the obvious? You’ll notice you are the only person to object to my statement, probably because anyone who follows politics already knew about the narrow Trump victory in the 3 swing states.
-->
@Kaitlyn
You already said that the context was provided in the links, and now you're saying that the keepers of the website couldn't possibly keep track of it. Which is it, champ?
Are you stupid? The keepers aren’t going to declare they are not tracking self defense shootings, wars, police shootings, or any other stupid idea you can think up. Because they don’t need to except for the rare idiot like yourself.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You already said that the context was provided in the links, and now you're saying that the keepers of the website couldn't possibly keep track of it. Which is it, champ?Are you stupid? The keepers aren’t going to declare they are not tracking self defense shootings, wars, police shootings, or any other stupid idea you can think up. Because they don’t need to except for the rare idiot like yourself.
Here's a relevant question: can a shooting that's results in multiple people dying ever be self-defence?
-->
@Kaitlyn
Singular instances don't define people in their entirety,
Unbelievable. Stop and think for a moment why that statement is so stupid for you in particular to say.