2024 Presidential Race

[VOLS INC.]

View attachment 697169

Caption this photo

“Ya wanna skip the meeting and watch The View instead?”

 

[LouderVol]

Which only serves to make a one year jump LESS of an anomaly......and the repubs. 11 million jump more of an anomaly.

so your argument is that the reason Biden's 11 million jump isn't questionable is because of Obama's popularity 8 years previously?

but the R's jump coinciding with the D's jump is questionable?

 

[luthervol]

so your argument is that the reason Biden's 11 million jump isn't questionable is because of Obama's popularity 8 years previously?

but the R's jump coinciding with the D's jump is questionable?

Nope.
My argument is that it is beyond stupid to claim that only one side has numbers that are questionable.

Which is exactly what trumpers are attempting to do.

 

[volfanhill]

View attachment 697169

Caption this photo

“Did you see LG is an independent now??”

"I really liked the part where you forced them to run Kamala bc you endorsed her right away. You schlonged them with that one."

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

View attachment 697169

Caption this photo

“Did you see LG is an independent now??”

"You realize my landslide made @evillawyer AWOL from Volnation??"

 

[LouderVol]

Nope.
My argument is that it is beyond stupid to claim that only one side has numbers that are questionable.

Which is exactly what trumpers are attempting to do.

Given the candidates, I agree that both sides numbers are questionable.

The American voting scheme is a relatively closed system, we didn't change the voting laws, we didn't experience some huge population boom or bust. The input (politics) are relatively consistent. now every year there are tons of variables so you never expect things to really stay the same, but given the consistency in the system one would expect to find trends that could be followed.
the point was the R number follows a trend, yes there is variation, but that is to be expected.
the point was the D number DOESN'T follow a trend, and is nothing but variable, that is not to be expected, and thus raises questions.

so far there has been no decent explanation to explain the Dem's lack of trend. The previous two times they out performed Trump, the third time they didn't. something changed, and the only explanation we have heard from main stream Dems is that even more people than we thought are racist/mysgonists. I don't know about you, but that doesn't explain anything to me.

do you agree with their explanation, or do you have one of your own to start explaining the lack of a trend?

 

[OrangeTsar]

Your numbers look wrong - see above

Rebub numbers went down from '04 to '08 (so repubs did have a downturn and trends obviously reverse)
and repubs had an 11million jump from '16 to '20. (17.5% increase)
Dems went up by 10 million from '04 to '08. (17% increase) So it's not like it's unprecedented.
Dems went up by 11.5 million from '08 to '20. (16.7% increase)

Here’s one thing to keep in mind going forward. When your party’s single greatest unifying issue is the joy of killing their own offspring; you only have two remaining options to remain relevant long term. 1) import millions of new voters and find ways to get them the right to vote (hence the democrat feverish determination to totally eliminate the concept of a “border” altogether) or 2) cheat.
Looks like Trump is about to stymie option 1 so what is the new strategy going to be?

 

[luthervol]

Given the candidates, I agree that both sides numbers are questionable.

The American voting scheme is a relatively closed system, we didn't change the voting laws, we didn't experience some huge population boom or bust. The input (politics) are relatively consistent. now every year there are tons of variables so you never expect things to really stay the same, but given the consistency in the system one would expect to find trends that could be followed.
the point was the R number follows a trend, yes there is variation, but that is to be expected.
the point was the D number DOESN'T follow a trend, and is nothing but variable, that is not to be expected, and thus raises questions.

so far there has been no decent explanation to explain the Dem's lack of trend. The previous two times they out performed Trump, the third time they didn't. something changed, and the only explanation we have heard from main stream Dems is that even more people than we thought are racist/mysgonists. I don't know about you, but that doesn't explain anything to me.

do you agree with their explanation, or do you have one of your own to start explaining the lack of a trend?

I'm simply not buying your whole "trend" angle.

The repubs vote total went up ONE MILLION from 2004 to 2016. And then 11 million from 2016 to 2020.
Votes going up one million over a period of 4 elections is hardly a trend of a growing vote total.
That's less than 1% growth per election.....and then 17.5% growth from '16 to '20...that is NOT the continuation of a trend.

 

[luthervol]

Here’s one thing to keep in mind going forward. When your party’s single greatest unifying issue is the joy of killing their own offspring; you only have two remaining options to remain relevant long term. 1) import millions of new voters and find ways to get them the right to vote (hence the democrat feverish determination to totally eliminate the concept of a “border” altogether) or 2) cheat.
Looks like Trump is about to stymie option 1 so what is the new strategy going to be?

That's such a dumb post my only response will be to say "that's a really dumb post".

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

 

[TrippieRedd]

Get stuck with Thune.

Gonna go cry myself to sleep.

 

[Majors]

View attachment 697169

Caption this photo

“Did you see LG is an independent now??”

And then Evillawyer said “Trump has opened up the firehose of lies. You know what that means: He knows he's losing”. And then she went MIA, you know JD broke her with the childless, cat lady comment. It was wonderful, beautiful..he broke her in. She was nasty to the VN posters.

 

[LouderVol]

I'm simply not buying your whole "trend" angle.

The repubs vote total went up ONE MILLION from 2004 to 2016. And then 11 million from 2016 to 2020.
Votes going up one million over a period of 4 elections is hardly a trend of a growing vote total.
That's less than 1% growth per election.....and then 17.5% growth from '16 to '20...that is NOT the continuation of a trend.

Again, its because you ignore the context, or at the very least cherry pick your data.

the Rs went down first, then have been rising. you are choosing data points to make it only a 1 million gain, when I could do the same thing and say its a 3 million gain, just by pushing it one year. that type of cherry picking gets us nowhere, which is why I look at the trends.

its a slightly greater than 1% growth per election cycle, and then the big jump. the big jump they actually grew from. which says it wasn't a fluke.

the dems have no steady growth before their expansion, they're trend had been a decrease then a neutral hold. nothing to indicate things should go up at all. if you want to call into question BOTH sides growth in 2020, that is one thing. but that is not what you are doing.

you are looking at the side that had growth before the big jump, the big jump, and then maintained the big jump and actually even grew it, and trying to say that it should be questioned.

but you think the side that had a decrease, a hold, then the big jump, then a decrease from the big jump, is above reproach.

If Trump and Kamala's 2024 results were flipped it would make Trump's 2020 results look questionable, why vindicating Kamala. but that's not what happened. we got the opposite, which is why there are only questions about Kamala/Biden/D results and not Trumps.

 

[OrangeTsar]

That's such a dumb post my only response will be to say "that's a really dumb post".

Please identify what factual deficiency renders it “dumb”.
There are three possible plausible places that would make an argument invalid: facts, assumptions, or conclusions. Which do you assert that I have incorrect?

 

[luthervol]

Again, its because you ignore the context, or at the very least cherry pick your data.

the Rs went down first, then have been rising. you are choosing data points to make it only a 1 million gain, when I could do the same thing and say its a 3 million gain, just by pushing it one year. that type of cherry picking gets us nowhere, which is why I look at the trends.

its a slightly greater than 1% growth per election cycle, and then the big jump. the big jump they actually grew from. which says it wasn't a fluke.

the dems have no steady growth before their expansion, they're trend had been a decrease then a neutral hold. nothing to indicate things should go up at all. if you want to call into question BOTH sides growth in 2020, that is one thing. but that is not what you are doing.

you are looking at the side that had growth before the big jump, the big jump, and then maintained the big jump and actually even grew it, and trying to say that it should be questioned.

but you think the side that had a decrease, a hold, then the big jump, then a decrease from the big jump, is above reproach.

If Trump and Kamala's 2024 results were flipped it would make Trump's 2020 results look questionable, why vindicating Kamala. but that's not what happened. we got the opposite, which is why there are only questions about Kamala/Biden/D results and not Trumps.

We're just talking in circles now.
You accuse me of cherry picking data points and then immediately say the dems trend BEGAN with a decrease. ...lol
That's only because they had a huge increase in 2008. The trend for dems seems to be that they have big fluctuations.
The trend for repubs is a stagnant growth and then one big explosion.

And then you again accuse me of holding the dems above reproach. That's simply not true.
I'm simply calling out the idiocy of looking at the numbers and claiming it implicates the dems while saying nothing about the repubs. It implicates both or neither......and I don't care which one people pick.

 

[Franklin Pierce]

EXCLUSIVE: Kamala Harris's Campaign Paid Thousands To Nail Artist Tahvya Krok whose clients include Megan Thee Stallion, Benny Blanco and JLo​

Was Kamala Harris hiding something under those classy pumps and Converse All Stars – her alternating footwear of choice during her failed presidential campaign?

Could it really be that Joe Biden’s veep has a little toenail fetish that only she – and presumably husband Doug Emhoff – knows about?

How else can you explain the fact that her election spending includes some $5,000 to a California nail artist who specializes in really funky designs?





Tahvya Krok specializes in hyper-realistic, funky nail art and has a studio in South Pasadena, California

Kamala Harris campaign paid thousands to funky toenail artist

The Kamala Harris $1 billion campaign had some puzzling spending, - including $5,000 to a California nail artist whose persian carpet on Benny Blanco's toenails went viral.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[luthervol]

Please identify what factual deficiency renders it “dumb”.
There are three possible plausible places that would make an argument invalid: facts, assumptions, or conclusions. Which do you assert that I have incorrect?

"When your party’s single greatest unifying issue is the joy of killing their own offspring;"
That one sentence alone is so stupid and repulsive I'm shocked you made it.
I think I may have vastly overestimated both your intellect and character.

very trumpish

 

[LouderVol]

We're just talking in circles now.
You accuse me of cherry picking data points and then immediately say the dems trend BEGAN with a decrease. ...lol
That's only because they had a huge increase in 2008. The trend for dems seems to be that they have big fluctuations.
The trend for repubs is a stagnant growth and then one big explosion.

And then you again accuse me of holding the dems above reproach. That's simply not true.
I'm simply calling out the idiocy of looking at the numbers and claiming it implicates the dems while saying nothing about the repubs. It implicates both or neither......and I don't care which one people pick.

why would it only be both or neither? I would understand that stance if they both had the same results, and paths to those results. but there are two different results, and different paths to those results. there absolutely could be a difference in the perception of those two different results, and the different paths to the results.

 

[LouderVol]

"When your party’s single greatest unifying issue is the joy of killing their own offspring;"
That one sentence alone is so stupid and repulsive I'm shocked you made it.
I think I may have vastly overestimated both your intellect and character.

very trumpish

I see this similar to the argument about why the civil war started.
One side says it was about slavery. the other side said no it wasn't, it was about state's rights. a state's right to do what...slavery.
one side says this is about not killing babies. the other side said no it wasn't its about a woman's right to choose. a woman's right to choose what...kill their babies.

 

[Majors]

Gaetz as AG is a bold move. 180 from turtle Garland.

 

[VOLS INC.]

Gaetz as AG is a bold move. 180 from turtle Garland.

And by 180 you mean he’s not gonna instruct his staff to go after parents that speak up in school board meetings?

Bye bye Garland.

 

[OrangeTsar]

"When your party’s single greatest unifying issue is the joy of killing their own offspring;"
That one sentence alone is so stupid and repulsive I'm shocked you made it.
I think I may have vastly overestimated both your intellect and character.

very trumpish

You can obviously disagree with my characterization of the MOTIVATION of the people in question; but I don’t see any factual problem with the result. Democrats DO eliminate a large number of potential future voters through the process of abortion. Do you disagree with that assertion?
And in terms OF the motivation; democrats in my lifetime have went from the Clinton era desire to have abortions be “safe, legal, and RARE” to today’s exhortations to “celebrate your abortion”.

In “Shout Your Abortion,” a Celebration of Life - YES! Magazine Solutions Journalism

Discover insightful articles on In “Shout Your Abortion,” a Celebration of Life. Join us in exploring solutions for a just, sustainable, and compassionate world. #In “Shout Your Abortion,” a Celebration of Life

www.yesmagazine.org

Do you find that disturbing? I surely do. The party that just concluded a convention in which they ghoulishly provided a mobile abortion clinic like it was a food truck serving fish tacos should have told you everything you need to know about today’s democrat party.

 

[luthervol]

why would it only be both or neither? I would understand that stance if they both had the same results, and paths to those results. but there are two different results, and different paths to those results. there absolutely could be a difference in the perception of those two different results, and the different paths to the results.

?????????????????????????????????????WTH????????????????????????????????????????
My final comment will be.....................
Anyone who looks at the numbers and concludes that it somehow implicates the dems but not the repubs is either an idiot, a right-wing fanatic, or both.

Feel free to have the last word. I promise to do my best to not respond.

 

[Vol423]

Goat yoga...who is the Congressional moron that fought to get that important item added to legislation?

Shocker: Senator Sara Gelser, Democrat from Corvallis, Oregon

'Goat yoga' bill draws support, skepticism

Therapy and exercise classes involving livestock could be permitted in Oregon’s exclusive farm use zones under a bill that’s drawn skepticism from agriculture and farmland protection groups.

www.capitalpress.com

 

[Vol423]

"When your party’s single greatest unifying issue is the joy of killing their own offspring;"
That one sentence alone is so stupid and repulsive I'm shocked you made it.
I think I may have vastly overestimated both your intellect and character.

very trumpish

I would say that at least 80% of Kamala's campaign commercials running in AZ, a swing state, for the last month prior to the election were about abortion.