calfoxwc Posted September 12, 2015 Report Share Posted September 12, 2015 Ever wonder why LIBERALS DO NOT want voter ID.? * In 59 voting districts in the Philadelphia region, Obama received 100% of the votes with not even a single vote recorded for Romney. (A mathematical and statistical impossibility). * In 21 districts in Wood County Ohio, Obama received 100% of the votes where GOP inspectors were illegally removed from their polling locations - and not one single vote was recorded for Romney. (Another statistical impossibility). * In Wood County Ohio, 106,258 voted in a county with only 98,213 eligible voters. * In St.Lucie County, FL, there were 175,574 registered eligible voters but 247,713 votes were cast. * The National SEAL Museum, a polling location in St. Lucie County, FL had a 158% voter turnout. * Palm Beach County, FL had a 141% voter turnout. * In one Ohio County, Obama won by 108% of the total number of eligible voters. NOTE: Obama won in every state that did not require a Photo ID and lost in every state that did require a Photo ID in order to vote . Imagine that..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted September 12, 2015 Report Share Posted September 12, 2015 Why "non-liberals" hate facts... Facts tend to get in the way of good fiction...In order as mindlessly pasted into OP...http://www.factcheck.org/2013/01/voting-conspiracies/ It’s not mathematically impossible. The 59 districts are in areas of (Philadelphia) that are mainly African American, as the Philadelphia Inquirer reported. And Obama received 93 percent of the black vote nationwide. In 2008, Obama received 100 percent of the vote in 57 districts in Philadelphia. So it was not that unusual that something similar happened this time around. In fact, Inquirer reporters had a tough time tracking down any registered Republicans in these areas. To be clear, these districts make up a small subset of all of Philadelphia. The 59 that went 100 percent for Obama in 2012 constitute 19,605 votes, just 3 percent of the total votes cast in the city. Actually, Obama didn’t get 100 percent of the vote in any district in Wood County, as anyone can clearly see on the election board’s website. Obama garnered 51.21 percent of the vote overall in the county. Actually, according to the Ohio Secretary of State data, 63,948 votes were cast for president in Wood County in 2012, with 32,802 votes for Obama, 29,704 for Romney, and 1,442 for other candidates. Once again, the figures in the email are completely off base. What the anonymous author is attempting to question is the number of registered voters in Wood County, a figure that is artificially high because of college students at Bowling Green State University remaining on the voter rolls. There were 108,014 registered voters in the county, according to the Secretary of State website. But the total population of Wood County is 126,355, with only about 99,000 of those over the age of 18. It’s simply not true that there were tens of thousands more votes cast than voters available in St. Lucie County. Whoever first started this falsehood misread a St. Lucie election board document showing that 249,095 “cards” were cast, and registered voters totaled 175,554. The supervisor of elections website explains that a “card” is one page, and the full “ballot” contained two pages. Total cards are not double the number of voters, as not every voter cast both pages (or “cards”). According to the (Palm Beach) County Supervisor of Elections website, the turnout for the presidential election was 69.56 percent. Which “Ohio County” might that be? There’s one in Kentucky, West Virginia and Indiana, for starters. But the 108 percent figure appears to be another misguided statistic from Wood County — in Ohio. The percentage can be derived by using the email’s bogus number for Election Day voters and its slightly off number for the county’s voting-age population. As we said, the email inflates voter turnout in Wood County by more than 40,000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted September 12, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 12, 2015 LOL. I sent the fact check stuff to my Father-in-law already, before I saw you posted it just now. It's fun, these forwarded emails, but I've sent him "eh...not true..." emails. Obamao still sucks though. And blacks still voted for him because they STILL thought he had a major twanger and would make poverty go away, and give them all a million welfare bucks. Nope. They got disappointed going on two terms now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted September 12, 2015 Report Share Posted September 12, 2015 Every chain email you receive, that you agree with, automatically becomes fact to you. Let's be real Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted September 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 13, 2015 Obviously, since you, the woodypeckerhead of the board, smart off and say that, therefore, it's not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted September 13, 2015 Report Share Posted September 13, 2015 https://youtu.be/7VBAEJlR4pk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted September 13, 2015 Report Share Posted September 13, 2015 Good video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted September 18, 2015 Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 Of course that million bucks thing is true... Any day now... cal, I used to regularly debunk e-mails I got from an old work buddy as part of some large cc: list he sent to... Of course I replied all... After a month or so the e-mails came to a bcc: distribution... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted September 18, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 My father-in-law just laughs about it - he says I am his fact-checker.... dammit. Always seems, though, that fact-checking is dynamic about conservatives' statements, and emails... and they don't factcheck hillary or obama ...negatively... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted September 18, 2015 Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 My father-in-law just laughs about it - he says I am his fact-checker.... dammit. Always seems, though, that fact-checking is dynamic about conservatives' statements, and emails... and they don't factcheck hillary or obama ...negatively... Fact - obama recently went to the arctic with bear grylls to highlight dangers of global warming Fact - obama recently gave shell the go ahead to drill for oil in the arctic Obama has been quite hypocritical there. His sustainable energy targets, while most likely better than any GOP president, are unambitious. There are plenty of things that I (and others) don't like about Obama. But that's like saying there are things I don't like about Andrew Luck - there's a lot of turnovers for example - but that doesn't mean I'd trade him for Brandon Weeden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted September 18, 2015 Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 You're someone's fact checker Cal? Geez... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted September 18, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 on occasion, when I get his emails. You... just like to sit back and take potshots at everything. It's gets really old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted September 18, 2015 Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 I thinks that's because you consider the fact checking of your posts as potshots lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted September 18, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 you cherry pick. had nothing to say, didn't "fact check" Chris's post. See, woodpecker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.