When will I.B. quit being a liar?

So IB has touted the LA county has 3,25 million more voters than it should. So let's break down the numbers.

Let's start with the national average percentage of adults in the USA. Below is a link and and excerpt, the first thing you need to extrapolate is what the number of eligible voters should be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogr...ed_States#Ages

http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/unit...under-18#table

Voter registration[edit]
Population and registered voters
Total population[19] 9,787,747
Registered voters[34][note 1] [B]4,865,403[/B] 49.7%
Democratic[34] 2,486,479 51.1%
Republican[34] 1,048,507 21.6%
Democratic–Republican spread[34] +1,437,972 +29.5%
Independent[34] 109,055 2.2%
Green[34] 24,534 0.5%
Libertarian[34] 25,808 0.5%
Peace and Freedom[34] 24,950 0.5%
Americans Elect[34] 2,583 0.1%
Other[34] 262,180 5.4%
No party preference[34] 881,307 18.1%

Los Angeles County vote
by party in presidential elections[33]
Year_ GOP___________ DEM ____________ Others
2016 22.41% 769,743 71.76% 2,464,364 5.83% 200,201

So if you take the national average and compare it to LA county you will find the numbers are well within the expected results The average is over 75% voting age in California and La county has less than 50% registered. IB is a Pedant and a Liar. I have shown him the numbers and he still touts his bullshit as a tagline.

Never. He’s like Twitler only a bigger chickenshit.

So IB has touted the LA county has 3,25 million more voters than it should. So let's break down the numbers.

Let's start with the national average percentage of adults in the USA. Below is a link and and excerpt, the first thing you need to extrapolate is what the number of eligible voters should be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogr...ed_States#Ages

http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/unit...under-18#table


So if you take the national average and compare it to LA county you will find the numbers are well within the expected results The average is over 75% voting age in California and La county has less than 50% registered. IB is a Pedant and a Liar. I have shown him the numbers and he still touts his bullshit as a tagline. [/SIZE] Originally Posted by MT Pockets

Your dependency on Wikipedia becomes you, M T Brain Socket. The U.S. Census is what every other intelligent researcher would turn to as a credible source, M T Brain Socket. Furthermore, M T Brain Socket, the article explicitly says "eligible voters" -- "144% of the total number of resident citizens of voting age"; not "registered voters" as you are stupidly and equivocatingly arguing, you lying POS. Keep sucking, M T Brain Socket, that's what cock-sucking lib-retards like you do best, M T Brain Socket.

Never. He’s like Twitler only a bigger chickenshit. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Your dependency on Wikipedia becomes you, M T Brain Socket. The U.S. Census is what every other intelligent researcher would turn to as a credible source, M T Brain Socket. Furthermore, M T Brain Socket, the article explicitly says "eligible voters" -- "144% of the total number of resident citizens of voting age"; not "registered voters" as you are stupidly and equivocatingly arguing, you lying POS. Keep sucking, M T Brain Socket, that's what cock-sucking lib-retards like you do best, M T Brain Socket.




Originally Posted by I B Hankering

So let me see where you got your numbers. LOL! I already know dipshit. You have been sucking the "Judicial Watch's" dick is where.
144% of 10 million is much greater than the amount that voted you fucking idiot. Only 49.7% registered to vote. And only 3.5 million voted total. And there was about 10 million citizens. About 7.5 million could have voted idiot!
My numbers are correct. You should have said 1.25 million or .5 million. It was easy to spot bullshit. Then again pretty much everything you say is some kind of hyperbolic garbage.

So let me see where you got your numbers. LOL! I already know dipshit. You have been sucking the "Judicial Watch's" dick is where.
144% of 10 million is much greater than the amount that voted you fucking idiot. Only 49.7% registered to vote. And only 3.5 million voted total. And there was about 10 million citizens. About 7.5 million could have voted idiot!
My numbers are correct. You should have said 1.25 million or .5 million. It was easy to spot bullshit. Then again pretty much everything you say is some kind of hyperbolic garbage. Originally Posted by MT Pockets

The hyper-link to the U.S. census was already provided in a previous post, M T Brain Socket. You're proving that the old adage about self-abuse making you blind is true, M T Brain Socket.

"My tabulation of Judicial Watch's state-by-state results yielded 462 counties where the registration rate exceeded 100 percent. There were 3,551,760 more people registered to vote than adult U.S. citizens who inhabit these counties."


"But California's San Diego County earns the enchilada grande. Its 138 percent over-registration translates into 810,966 ghost voters. Los Angeles County's 112 percent rate equals 707,475 over-registrations. Beyond the official data that it received, Judicial Watch reports that L.A. County employees "informed us that the total number of registered voters now stands at a number that is a whopping 144 percent of the total number of resident citizens of voting age."

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/c...adult-citizens

Intelligent researchers use the most up to date credible information. The numbers I posted came from Los Angeles county's own records. They are the most up to date
A researcher who expects a certain result uses whatever data he can find that supports his preconceived results.
I've already pointed out you using outdated data (lower population and a higher percentage of under 18) found in the 2010 census is an attempt at adding your little piece of bullshit to the mix.
The 2016 LA county numbers are valid.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...htmlstory.html

You rely on information from Judicial Watch. The information they show no data to back up and refuse to show details of how they analyzed. To top it all off and to show the bias of Judicial Watch, check the content of the site. How much taxpayer money will they waste on their bullshit lawsuits?

Your dependency on Wikipedia becomes you, M T Brain Socket. The U.S. Census is what every other intelligent researcher would turn to as a credible source, M T Brain Socket. Furthermore, M T Brain Socket, the article explicitly says "eligible voters" -- "144% ofThat's right douche-bag. Eligible voters is a known number (age being one of the requirements to be eligible. All over 18 people aren't eligible). Registered voters is a known number. The number of people who voted is a known number.
The 144% is a number JW came up with. They won't reveal how they arrived at 144%. It, like you, are the obvious weak links to your bias. Your reliance on Joseph Smith like, pulled out of a black bag numbers, undermines any claim you might make that isn't completely vetted.
It's like you claiming to have written a novel. When asked to produce it, you show us a dictionary. It's all in there you'll say.

the total number of resident citizens of voting age"; not "registered voters" as you are stupidly and equivocatingly arguing, you lying POS. Keep sucking, M T Brain Socket, that's what cock-sucking lib-retards like you do best, M T Brain Socket.






Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Intelligent researchers use the most up to date credible information. The numbers I posted came from Los Angeles county's own records. They are the most up to date
A researcher who expects a certain result uses whatever data he can find that supports his preconceived results.
I've already pointed out you using outdated data (lower population and a higher percentage of under 18) found in the 2010 census is an attempt at adding your little piece of bullshit to the mix.
The 2016 LA county numbers are valid.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...htmlstory.html

You rely on information from Judicial Watch. The information they show no data to back up and refuse to show details of how they analyzed. To top it all off and to show the bias of Judicial Watch, check the content of the site. How much taxpayer money will they waste on their bullshit lawsuits? Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

You're a special kind of stupid, masterdickmuncher. Using the numbers from the 2016 "estimates", subtracting only the "22.2%" (as opposed to 2010's "24.5%") "not of voting age" population, you insist on using results in an even greater difference: 3.8 million, you stupid mutha fucker. Another thing, you jackass mutha fucker, Judicial Watch trusts its numbers enough to deliver them into a court of law for judicial review, you cunt-faced dick-sucker. Your numbers can't even standup to scrutiny on a hooker board, masterdickmuncher.

You're a special kind of stupid drunk, masterdickmuncher. Using the numbers from the 2016 "estimates", subtracting only the "22.2%" (as opposed to 2010's "24.5%") "not of voting age" population, you insist on using results in an even greater difference: 3.8 million, you stupid drunk mutha fucker. Another thing, you jackass drunk mutha fucker, Judicial Watch trusts its numbers enough to deliver them into a court of law for judicial review, you cunt-faced drunk dick-sucker. Your numbers can't even standup to scrutiny on a hooker board, drunk masterdickmuncher. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

ftfy

BAHAHAAAAAA

So not only are you guys looking stupid, you claim a drunk is making you look stupid. And the wacky cunt can't think of anything to add except the word "drunk".
What a douche-bag.

Didn't you get banned for being stupid?
Oh that's right. It wasn't your fault.

ftfy

BAHAHAAAAAA Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

So not only are you guys looking stupid, you claim a drunk is making you look stupid. And the wacky cunt can't think of anything to add except the word "drunk".
What a douche-bag.

Didn't you get banned for being stupid?
Oh that's right. It wasn't your fault. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

24.5% X 9,800,000 = 2,401,000.
22.2% X 10,137,000 = 2,250,414.
I insist on using the correct numbers, not the ones that look best.
Which brings us to your 144%. The number all of your calculations spring from. A number supplied by JW. A number they won't explain what data backs up that claim or explain how they arrived at it. They won't explain to the officials in LA county or any other county in California.
The funniest thing you said as you sucked 144% of their dick was they trust their numbers enough to file suit with them. What a joke.
An intelligent researcher challenges unsupported data and questions why they would not release their methods.
Does that bother you? Of course not. You believe Kelly instead of the video. You suck 144% and demand more.
Come back when you can prove your source info and you aren't repeating the same old debunked shit.

You're a special kind of stupid, masterdickmuncher. Using the numbers from the 2016 "estimates", subtracting only the "22.2%" (as opposed to 2010's "24.5%") "not of voting age" population, you insist on using results in an even greater difference: 3.8 million, you stupid mutha fucker. Another thing, you jackass mutha fucker, Judicial Watch trusts its numbers enough to deliver them into a court of law for judicial review, you cunt-faced dick-sucker. Your numbers can't even standup to scrutiny on a hooker board, masterdickmuncher. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

When you have nothing else to say, you go with what you know

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

When you have nothing else to say, you go with what you know Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

in your case .. that would be ..