For those who think the election doubters have no grounds-

More believable than Trump getting the most. But, hey, keep pretending that tears and eyerolling are a replacement for evidence. It's fun.

 

Yes it is. Why can't it be?

 

This wasn't the assertion.

 

What do you mean by "showing up again". Not only is the issue of poorly updated voter registration records not new, it hasn't really changed for years. The only reason it's "showing up" now is that partisan hacks like Judicial Watch are spinning it as evidence for some kind of election fraud.

The fact is that these figures aren't evidence of anything other than the voter registration (still) being out of date (or less likely those still possible, the localised population estimates in being incorrect). The also feeds back to your phrase "election doubters", which doesn't really mean anything. Before you even start talking about grounds or evidence, you need to clearly define what you are alleging. And as far as I can tell, that has never happened, certainly not at the national scale.

 

Legitimate claims, affidavits and statements from individuals working within the voting system, including statistics experts analyses, have been out since the election of 2020, but people like you have been deeply in denial about those facts. Humans wearing priest-like black robes, known as judges, have abdicated their duties. So too did most members of Congress, as pointed out in Brunson v. Adams which SCOTUS put in File 13.

The election was rigged, and 2000 Mules proved it in only 5 major cities.

 

Feel free to bring up even one of those affidavits and we can talk about it. You won't. And 2000 Mules was dumber than a lobotomized pet rock. But you won't ask yourself why they provided NO video evidence of their claims, despite having millions of minutes of footage.

 

I learned decades ago that one cannot reason with a human in denial, or one living under a rock.

You can lead a man to knowledge, but you cannot make him think.

 

You can't lead a man to knowledge when you have no knowledge to share on this topic. There's a reason you are too frightened to discuss it and have to run and hide when asked for evidence. I learned decades ago that this kind of garbage is always how conspiracy theorists operate. Without fail. Flat earthers, Holocaust deniers, 9/11 truthers, Trump supporters. They are all the same.

 

We understand that all those who got sucked in resent anyone pointing it out. Double down so you can continue to claim you didn't sink the ship.

 

So we agree that it is stupid to claim that "the number of registered voters . . . exceed the number of voters in a district." Glad we are on the same page. I wish the Trump supporters would catch up.

 

You've posted this picture before as if it is "proof" of something.

You have no idea what that is inside the circle. It could be Star Trek fan fiction for all you know.

This is how the MAGA people operate. They find some image that they think makes some kind of point and posts it without even attempting to verify that it means what they think it means.

We had an entire thread about how Letitia James was supposed to be "conspiring with the White House" because her name appears on the official White House visitor logs. A simple check showed that all three visits were for legitimate reasons (no Trump involved) and she was there with dozens and sometimes hundreds of other people.

 

If you zoom in really close you will see it says "Top secret classified information"

 

No, it does not.

 

You might need a bigger monitor then, not my problem

 

"Got sucked in to" what exactly? I'm not making any assertions about the validity of any election here, I'm just discussing yours.

Not that you responded to any of that; Do you have any relevant comments on the question of exactly what you are alleging happened in the 2020 election and what the fact of long-running poor management of voter registration records is meant to be evidence of?

 

Nah... done playing the game, any links you won't read and I'll not bothering or wasting my time...

 

I think you are doing 180s. If the registered voters exceed the number of voters that is a major problem with an election. And don't try to get away with the claim only by one!

 

No, now you are doing a 180 and switching back to your previous claim, which still doesn't work. The number of registered voters always exceeds the number of votes in every US election. A child can easily understand why: because not everyone who is registered to vote actually votes.

 

You continue to confuse yourself with imprecise language.

From the OP...."Judicial Watch announced today that a September 2020 study revealed that 353 U.S. counties had 1.8 million more registered voters than eligible voting-age citizens. In other words, the registration rates of those counties exceeded 100% of eligible voters."

This is not referring to there being more people registered than actually voted. It is referring to their being more registered voters than eligible voters.

There is nobody that is suspicious because there are more registered voters than people that voted. Of course not every person that is registered is going to vote, typically that number is like 65% of registered voters that vote in a particular election. There would be however, justified suspicion if in fact there are more registered voters than people eligible to vote. Maybe there is an explanation, but it surely would deserve diligent follow up. You can point to dead people being on the voting rolls as something that ameliorates that a tiny bit, but dead people on voting rolls is nowhere near enough to make up for the 1/3 plus eligible voters that do not register.

You and I discussed this in depth yesterday, and even now, you STILL are confused as to what is being discussed in the OP. You spend so much time insisting that the other person is wrong that you neglect to even try to grasp what it is that is being said. You are arguing against a point that nobody has raised. There is some imprecise language that has been used by yourself and others that is leading to this confusion.

 

Lol, that's cute. I was the one calling out the mistake in language bud.

 

And since you didn't read the post I responded to: " If the registered voters exceed the number of voters that is a major problem with an election"

 

You have been making this same mistake since the first page of this thread when you said...."There are always more registrations than voters. Every time. A child can explain why very easily. Do you require this?"

That was your response to the OP saying ""Judicial Watch announced today that a September 2020 study revealed that 353 U.S. counties had 1.8 million more registered voters than eligible voting-age citizens. In other words, the registration rates of those counties exceeded 100% of eligible voters."

That is YOUR misunderstanding of the OP. Nobody else's. Because you made that mistake, people assumed that your statement is that there are always more people registered than there are eligible voters, since that was the concept you were arguing against and based on your imprecise language or imprecise interpretation (take your pick), that is what has led to this confusion.

Nobody is suspicious because the number of people voting is less than the number of people registered. That is so blatantly obvious that others assumed you used the word voters as shorthand to refer to eligible voters so that your rebuttal actually comported with the concept in the OP.

Five pages in and several conversation later, you continue to push the same mistake you made on page 1.

 

You might need to post an better picture, not my problem.

You want to make the claim that it says "Top Secret" then it's up to you to back up the claim.

 

The ONLY way to know how many "eligible voters" are in a county is to count the number of registered voters.

If you are doing it any other way you are only estimating the number of eligible voters which can then lead to errors like this.

 

Also, if it's off due to shenanigans, who is to say it was shenanigans against rather than for Trump?