(09-24-2020 10:02 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: It's funny when you can't admit to making a mistake.
What mistake? Not including a link? The article didn't need one so why am I held to a standard that they're not? I have to PROVE my opinion, but the news can just claim facts without proof?
Quote:Your posts tend to ramble and not make much sense like this one. I can clearly see the fury and anger as you typed...LOL
My post doesn't amble at all. It's just thorough. Anger at what? Stupid people? Stupid people don't make me angry. They make me sad.
Quote:Dude, you claimed someone "rigged the data" with NO evidence. The voter registration clearly asks for your race. Regardless if it's optional or that someone could lie, the state will have racial information to make the statement they did.
The state didn't make the statement... a reporter did, loosely referring to non-specific 'state data'.
I'd like to see the actual data. If you'll note... the form claims Hispanic as being a ethnicity, not a race... so they would likely be 'other' on the racial section. Asians are also often included in 'white' counts... but not here. Since the data makes absolutely no sense... unless you think black people can't follow instructions... then I'd like to see the actual data.
Quote:And nowhere did I say here that signatures did not matter. This change merely says that when the signature is not done properly that it's sent back to the voter for them to correct it. Nowhere does it nor I say any vote should count without that valid signature!
Also, why does the article need to prove what the state elections data is? Or are you also accusing the AP of lying with no evidence to support it?
Finally, I'm not calling anyone stupid. I prepare my moms tax return every year and twice she's sent it in without signing it, even though I clearly told her to.
So you're associating me with the OP, despite the fact that I said nothing about it.
You, Tom... very clearly are supporting the comment I disputed. You've provided no evidence to support your claim and that's okay to you... but I have to prove it, right? Just as i said, I think they rigged the analysis (or took advantage of misleading information) in order to tell the story they want to tell. Yes, I see the AP do this every day.
The comment only has meaning if there is a charge of racism in some way. Otherwise, what difference does it make? Is requiring a signature racist? Is having rules racist? Are black people less inclined, able or willing to follow clear instructions than whites? Are they (I'm assuming) more elderly and forgetful like your mother than whites? Unless you find ANY of those things to be true, then the comment is meaningless.
I doubt it is true because a) no evidence is given to support it b) you would be rejecting the ballot before the registration information were investigated c) it's about what ISN'T there (signatures or witnesses) and not what IS (an ethnic name or knowledge of ethnicity and d) I don't believe any of the above things to be true.
Apparently you do. That's a logical conclusion. I understand you're embarrassed by that revelation, but its still true. The soft bigotry of low expectations. The author is trying to imply a racist cause and you are supporting him... in no small part bit because you don't challenge his claim... you don't consider that it can't possibly come in to play in this instance.... and you only require proof from the challenge.
I do find it funny that you use an example of someone filling out someone else's forms... forms I suspect she doesn't fully understand. MAYBE some of the reasons those ballots aren't signed is because their son filled them out, told them to sign them and they forgot.... now when they challenge the ballot, they'll find a real person on the other end and accept it... but simply using your example that you volunteered, THEY didn't vote... Their son voted twice.
Odd that you say my post rambles and makes no sense, but then you literally respond to every single line... because of course it was all directly on point... your feigned indignation notwithstanding.
You tell me, Tom... Since the determination to reject these ballots comes from one simple, non-racial determination of whether or not they signed the form and had a witness.... before they even bother to look at someone's ethnicity...
YOU TELL ME why you think 46% of the ballots missing that information come from black people (the OP claim that I dispute and you support)