The corruption never ends...

[condorkristy]

When 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.

Looks legit to me.

 

[JohnJohnson]

I do not debate with KOOKs.

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.

 

[middleview]

When 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.

See post #16

 

[middleview]

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.

Refuted in post #16

 

[Rubberband_Charlie]

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."

 

[middleview]

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."

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.

• 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%).

Notice that there was no error in Florida's count. Texas would have had 55,872 more people...how would that rate another seat?
There was no error in the count in Colorado.

If there was an attempt to jimmy the count of representatives to favor democrats...how in hell did California lose a seat? How did Texas get two more?

 

[Sickofleft]

The Trumplican party appreciates yours. See post #16.

You continue to pull your accusations out of thin air and ignore when proven wrong.

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.

 

[middleview]

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.

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?

 

[PNWest]

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.

boo hoo hoo - you wanna debate a point - use a legitimate source.

And while I'm at it allow me to enlighten you as to what a personal attack is and is not:

If I were to say "YOU are SCUM" - that is a personal attack.
If I say "REPUBLCIANS ARE SCUM" - that is not a personal attack.

Learn the difference.

 

[Rubberband_Charlie]

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?

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.

• 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%).

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.

 

[middleview]

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.

• 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%).

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.

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.

 

[Rubberband_Charlie]

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.

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.

• 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%).

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.

 

[EatTheRich]

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.

• 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%).

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.

And what about that, to you, suggests corruption?

 

[middleview]

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.

• 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%).

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.

You claimed corruption intended to favor blue states and yet the changes in representatives shows that isn't true.

 

[Rubberband_Charlie]

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? 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.

 

[middleview]

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.

Proof? Show your source for either that claim or evidence of corruption.

 

[Rubberband_Charlie]

Proof? Show your source for either that claim or evidence of corruption.

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.

 

[middleview]

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.

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.

 

[PNWest]

Deleted

Wow - now you are threatening me with violence. Obviously because you lack the skills to debate in a civilized manner.

By the way I did NOT call the poster a kook. I said:

You can wait until hell freezes over - I do not debate with KOOKs.

But hey - if the shoe fits.......

 

[JohnJohnson]

By the way I did NOT call the poster a kook.

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?