If true you wouldn't keep debating yourself until you've rubbed yourself raw on this forum every single day.I do not debate with KOOKs.
See post #16When lefties can't attack the content of an article, they are stuck having to attack the source. When lefties attack the source, it just validates the article.
Refuted in post #16If true you wouldn't keep debating yourself until you've rubbed yourself raw on this forum every single day.
The fact is you can't refute it so this is the type of trash personal attacks you resort to that the mods ignore.
The facts are that Texas got two and Florida got one. Where is your evidence of another for Texas and Florida? Your opinion isn't worth shit.Relating to "Post #16" and "the implication that there was corruption involved was a lie".
"Texas and Florida should each have received an additional seat in the House. Rhode Island and Minnesota should each have lost a congressional seat—but didn’t. Colorado was given an additional seat it didn’t deserve."
Next time just go with "i know you are but what am I"... we know along with posting debunked talking points and pretending you "proved things" it is all you are capable of.The Trumplican party appreciates yours. See post #16.
You continue to pull your accusations out of thin air and ignore when proven wrong.
You are unable to actually address the points in post #16. In the absence of a point by point response how in hell can you claim those facts are debunked?Next time just go with "i know you are but what am I"... we know along with posting debunked talking points and pretending you "proved things" it is all you are capable of.
You're as delusional as you are loyal.
boo hoo hoo - you wanna debate a point - use a legitimate source.If true you wouldn't keep debating yourself until you've rubbed yourself raw on this forum every single day.
The fact is you can't refute it so this is the type of trash personal attacks you resort to that the mods ignore.
Post #16 does nothing to address or in any way disprove the subject of the OP...which is that the undercounted states were, by in large, red states and that the ones that were overcounted were, by in large, blue states.You are unable to actually address the points in post #16. In the absence of a point by point response how in hell can you claim those facts are debunked?
I posted facts on which states were allocated additional seats or lost seats. That proves the attempt to claim a corrupt census was an attempt to favor democrats is simply bullshit.Post #16 does nothing to address or in any way disprove the subject of the OP...which is that the undercounted states were, by in large, red states and that the ones that were overcounted were, by in large, blue states.
Everything you're positing attempts to divert attention from the intent of the OP. But, we're used to you trying to hijack posts to spin it to your narrative.
- Undercount: Arkansas (-5.04%), Florida (-3.48%), Illinois (-1.97%), Mississippi (-4.11%), Tennessee (-4.78%) and Texas (-1.92%).
- Overcount: Delaware (+5.45%), Hawaii (+6.79%), Massachusetts (+2.24%), Minnesota (+3.84%), New York (+3.44%), Ohio (+1.49%), Rhode Island (+5.05%) and Utah (+2.59%).
Again...you dodge the subject of the OP (not surprising)...which was and still is; can you dispute the below or not? The below shows a favor in counting for blue states and unfavorable for red states...by in large.I posted facts on which states were allocated additional seats or lost seats. That proves the attempt to claim a corrupt census was an attempt to favor democrats is simply bullshit.
And what about that, to you, suggests corruption?Again...you dodge the subject of the OP (not surprising)...which was and still is; can you dispute the below or not? The below shows a favor in counting for blue states and unfavorable for red states...by in large.
Now, if you wish to discuss what happened where regarding who got what and who lost what, that's your right...on your own post. Quit trying to hijack this post and spin it to your liking.
- Undercount: Arkansas (-5.04%), Florida (-3.48%), Illinois (-1.97%), Mississippi (-4.11%), Tennessee (-4.78%) and Texas (-1.92%).
- Overcount: Delaware (+5.45%), Hawaii (+6.79%), Massachusetts (+2.24%), Minnesota (+3.84%), New York (+3.44%), Ohio (+1.49%), Rhode Island (+5.05%) and Utah (+2.59%).
You claimed corruption intended to favor blue states and yet the changes in representatives shows that isn't true.Again...you dodge the subject of the OP (not surprising)...which was and still is; can you dispute the below or not? The below shows a favor in counting for blue states and unfavorable for red states...by in large.
Now, if you wish to discuss what happened where regarding who got what and who lost what, that's your right...on your own post. Quit trying to hijack this post and spin it to your liking.
- Undercount: Arkansas (-5.04%), Florida (-3.48%), Illinois (-1.97%), Mississippi (-4.11%), Tennessee (-4.78%) and Texas (-1.92%).
- Overcount: Delaware (+5.45%), Hawaii (+6.79%), Massachusetts (+2.24%), Minnesota (+3.84%), New York (+3.44%), Ohio (+1.49%), Rhode Island (+5.05%) and Utah (+2.59%).
Again....you dodge the subject of the OP (not surprising)...which was and still is; can you dispute the below or not? Am I not typing slow enough for you to comprehend?You claimed corruption intended to favor blue states and yet the changes in representatives shows that isn't true.
Proof? Show your source for either that claim or evidence of corruption.Again....you dodge the subject of the OP (not surprising)...which was and still is; can you dispute the below or not? Am I not typing slow enough for you to comprehend?
- Undercount: Arkansas (-5.04%), Florida (-3.48%), Illinois (-1.97%), Mississippi (-4.11%), Tennessee (-4.78%) and Texas (-1.92%).
- Overcount: Delaware (+5.45%), Hawaii (+6.79%), Massachusetts (+2.24%), Minnesota (+3.84%), New York (+3.44%), Ohio (+1.49%), Rhode Island (+5.05%) and Utah (+2.59%).
Had the red states not been undercounted and the blue states overcounted, the blue states could have lost more representatives and the red states gained...correct? I'm not going to play your stupid little games.
I don't need to prove sh*t, but did provide you a source that red states were undercounted and blue states overcounted. I threw out an assertion based on what I read in the Forbes article, from what the Census Bureau reported. You questioned it...without providing a source for your disagreement or that there is evidence there wasn't corruption.Proof? Show your source for either that claim or evidence of corruption.
I disagreed that there was any sign of corruption...you ignore the fact that the census department reported the errors. You also ignore which states gained or lost seats.I don't need to prove sh*t, but did provide you a source that red states were undercounted and blue states overcounted. I threw out an assertion based on what I read in the Forbes article, from what the Census Bureau reported. You questioned it...without providing a source for your disagreement or that there is evidence there wasn't corruption.
You know...like when your side supported that the Hunter laptop was Russian disinformation, and the Steele dossier was factual...and left it to us to prove otherwise. Which they now have on both of those.
Wow - now you are threatening me with violence. Obviously because you lack the skills to debate in a civilized manner.Deleted
But hey - if the shoe fits.......You can wait until hell freezes over - I do not debate with KOOKs.
Trying to veil an attack is still an attack. Don't call other posters kooks....especially when your posts are littered with more insane kookery than anyone. Clear enough?By the way I did NOT call the poster a kook.