Trump - 4 more years of this at least...

[pritch]

All presidents do that, mere formality. J

We all know that. Trump's doing this off his long run up. This latest batch were relatively non-controversial, but as we count down the coming month some batches of pardons may cause rather more excitement.

His biggest problem is figuring out how to grant pardons to himself and his buddies who have not yet actually faced charges. The presidents pardon powers are very broad, but not so sweeping as to cover future crimes.

[mashman]

Elf 2 is pissed?

155,507,229(total votes) is smaller than 214,000,000 (total voters) How is that "12 million more than 100%"?

Stop looking for fraud, all of the people responsible for the election, many of them Republican, have said there was none. Certainly not eough to change an election result. Nobody with a full set of marbles is even looking now. It's only Marjorie Taylor Greene, Sidney Powell, a few other nutcases, and Trump.

"100% of eligible voters that turned out to vote"

There was a 'that' missing that I've added above. That's how it's 100% (143,380,000) + 12 million.

Actually, if you had have read the link you would have seen that someone is very much looking and approaching it correctly by providing a table that makes clear the terminology being used (Oh the english language of it all).

[mashman]

Around the same loop again.

The 67% turnout is of people eligible to vote, not all of them are necessarily registered to vote.

Or to put it another way - Trump can't understand how he got more votes than last time (and once again less than the other candidate) and still lost, but when the voter turnout increases by ~12% of the ~200 million eligible to vote, that's another 24 million votes for him to lose by.

Lies, damn lies and statistics. Mix and match your numbers to 'prove' your case.

Not quite this time. I shall explain. The table in the link uses the term registered voters as an equal term for eligible voters. As 650R points out, seeing the term used doesn't necessarily mean that those who are using the term are using it the way you want it to be used. The election numbers in the link clear this little mystery up.

With a population of 330+million, 65% of those people are eligible to vote/registered voters. That's 214+million eligible voters/registered voters (language of the link). Of that 214+million, 67% (66.2 in the article) of those guys turned up to vote. That makes 143+million people who are registered to vote. Where did the other 12 million votes come from?

[neels]

Not quite this time. I shall explain. The table in the link uses the term registered voters as an equal term for eligible voters. As 650R points out, seeing the term used doesn't necessarily mean that those who are using the term are using it the way you want it to be used. The election numbers in the link clear this little mystery up.

With a population of 330+million, 65% of those people are eligible to vote/registered voters. That's 214+million eligible voters/registered voters (language of the link). Of that 214+million, 67% (66.2 in the article) of those guys turned up to vote. That makes 143+million people who are registered to vote. Where did the other 12 million votes come from?

Nope, still the same mixing of terms to get the answer they want.

The link you posted starts with 66.2% of the voting eligible population, then gives a table of registered voters, then applies the percentage of voting eligible population to the number of registered voters to come up with the number that 'proves' their voter fraud theory.

Once sentence sums it up - "If we have 213.8 million registered voters in the US and 66.2% of all voters voted in the 2020 election" - different terms referring to different numbers meaning the conclusion is bollocks.

Perhaps they should change their page title from "Simple Math" to "Math for the Simple Minded"

[mashman]

Nope, still the same mixing of terms to get the answer they want.

The link you posted starts with 66.2% of the voting eligible population, then gives a table of registered voters, then applies the percentage of voting eligible population to the number of registered voters to come up with the number that 'proves' their voter fraud theory.

Once sentence sums it up - "If we have 213.8 million registered voters in the US and 66.2% of all voters voted in the 2020 election" - different terms referring to different numbers meaning the conclusion is bollocks.

Perhaps they should change their page title from "Simple Math" to "Math for the Simple Minded"

The table shows U.S. Population of 330ish million. That's every single man woman and child. Clearly not all 330ish million are eligible to vote, but 65% are. That 65% = 214ish million. Of that 65%, 66.2% turned up to vote. voting-eligible population is the same number as registered voters, not a different number that happens to have the same value.

[Bonez]

Your absence hasn't made you any smarter or more pleasant. No surprises there then. Ah well, starting a new ignore list takes but a minute.

Oh I'm sooo heart broken you nutjob.

Still riding everywhere at 170kph? And I guess ANTIFA are still "Peaceful Protestors". And 50hp motorcycles are unfit for traveling out side of city limits. and the list goes on and on and ...

[mashman]

So, out of 40 people world wide who are 112, the U.S. is still paying support to over 6 million of them. Whilst watching someone delivering evidence in one of the court sessions, one of the analysist spoke of the databases being used to validate eligible voters. I wonder how many of that 6 million submitted an vote :shifty

[neels]

The table shows U.S. Population of 330ish million. That's every single man woman and child. Clearly not all 330ish million are eligible to vote, but 65% are. That 65% = 214ish million. Of that 65%, 66.2% turned up to vote. voting-eligible population is the same number as registered voters, not a different number that happens to have the same value.

Yep you're right, the table shows the population of 330 million, and the number of registered voters, and what percentage of the total population that is. Not the number of eligible voters in each state, because that number wouldn't be useful to their argument.

Some even more simple maths. Total votes in 2016 = 128 million, increase in turnout in 2020 from 55% to 66%, so total number of expected votes 153 million, without accounting for the increase in total population and whatever percentage that adds.

See how the numbers just keep on adding up when you read them correctly

[mashman]

Yep you're right, the table shows the population of 330 million, and the number of registered voters, and what percentage of the total population that is. Not the number of eligible voters in each state, because that number wouldn't be useful to their argument.

Some even more simple maths. Total votes in 2016 = 128 million, increase in turnout in 2020 from 55% to 66%, so total number of expected votes 153 million, without accounting for the increase in total population and whatever percentage that adds.

See how the numbers just keep on adding up when you read them correctly

The 214ish million figure = total eligible voters as a percentage, 65%, of the total population. The author of the table has called that 214ish million people Number of Registered Voters. Not uncommon between sources. The numbers that are listed against each state in the table are the total "eligible voters in each state".

Nice extrapolation.

They do.

[neels]

The 214ish million figure = total eligible voters as a percentage, 65%, of the total population. The author of the table has called that 214ish million people Number of Registered Voters. Not uncommon between sources. The numbers that are listed against each state in the table are the total "eligible voters in each state".

I guess it depends where you get your numbers from, and whether the source is choosing to use the numbers that prove their case.

From a somewhat more reliable source, and on the reasonable assumption that the number of eligible voters hasn't decreased by 20 million in the last couple of years. Also interesting that these are the people who are quite likely to vote against the orange idiot.

According to The PEW Research Center, a nonpartisan American think tank based in Washington, DC, the number of people now eligible has grown exponentially in the last decade.

In 2000, a total of 193.4 million people could vote in the US, and by 2018 this had increased by 40.3 million to 233.7 million.

The centre encouragingly found non-white residents made up the bulk of new voters.

Their data shows Hispanic, Black and Asian voters account for more than three-quarters of the growth at 76 percent.

Nice extrapolation.

That's how maths works, if the percentage of something increases, the total number of the something increases....

Anyway, as the song goes, A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest

[mashman]

I guess it depends where you get your numbers from, and whether the source is choosing to use the numbers that prove their case.

From a somewhat more reliable source, and on the reasonable assumption that the number of eligible voters hasn't decreased by 20 million in the last couple of years. Also interesting that these are the people who are quite likely to vote against the orange idiot.

According to The PEW Research Center, a nonpartisan American think tank based in Washington, DC, the number of people now eligible has grown exponentially in the last decade.

In 2000, a total of 193.4 million people could vote in the US, and by 2018 this had increased by 40.3 million to 233.7 million.

The centre encouragingly found non-white residents made up the bulk of new voters.

Their data shows Hispanic, Black and Asian voters account for more than three-quarters of the growth at 76 percent.

The source is a link within the link. At the bottom of the page it lists the source of the statistics. Who to believe eh... especially given the proper bent nature of the current system.

That's how maths works, if the percentage of something increases, the total number of the something increases....

Anyway, as the song goes, A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest

Did you take into account Covid deaths.

No matter what the evidence says sometimes.

[R650R]

Could you imagine the media hysteria if the white racist supremistic Trump or Republican Party said this, Jesus Christ !!!!!

https://mobile.twitter.com/Undergrou...15238743674883

Basically Biden says by 2040 USA is doomed as whites will be a minority and blacks will have to learn to work with Mexicans who will outnumber them. Bet that's going down well with all the blacks who voted for him because " if you don't vote for me you ain't black"

Full video below

[pritch]

According to Twitter this morning, all West Wing staff at the White House have received an email advising them to clear all personal items from their office early in January. The necessary cartons and bags are their responsibility. When they depart they are to leave the office, the fridge and the microwave clean.

If any were sharing Trump's fantasy that they weren't actually leaving, that email should have burst their bubble.

[sugilite:Me]

According to Twitter this morning, all West Wing staff at the White House have received an email advising them to clear all personal items from their office early in January. The necessary cartons and bags are their responsibility. When they depart they are to leave the office, the fridge and the microwave clean.

If any were sharing Trump's fantasy that they weren't actually leaving, that email should have burst their bubble.

Well there is a turd in their morning cornflakes.
I'm really amused by all the magas still donating to Trumps slush fund. Ultimately they are just donating to the IRS, and other federal and state departments (who they deem to be deep state) - because those departments are simply going to take all that donated cash off Trump in the form of fines once he leaves office

[pritch]

A further observation on Trump's most recent pardons? That he pardoned a group of mercenaries who murdered fourteen people is not surprising, he's pardoned a convicted war criminal previously.

Rather more surprising is that he pardoned Papadopoulos. Trump is on record as saying he did not know Papadopoulos, he was just a guy who got the coffee.
And a pardon.

Update: A further 29 pardons today including Jared Kushner's dad and some more of Trump's buddies who were prosecuted following the Mueller investigation.