Current Events > Trump was closer to flipping New York red than Kamala was flipping Texas blue.

(+) Yeah! (+)

NatsuSama posted...

You definitely didn't track what I was trying to say at all given you definitely skipped over the first 2 paragraphs.....

I didn't say anything about that being the sole reason though. You said you have evidence that millions of Dems stayed home, which there is none. There is no evidence a higher turnout of people would have changed anything statistically speaking.

Typing this in a rush so excuse my spelling and not organizing my post as I'm just posting straight from my brain as a rough draft. Hoping someone reads this as well.

As a Texan and son of illegal parents before people take everything out of context. We have a saying with us latinos/hispanics. "The worse enemy of a latino is another latino." Any other latino/hispanic CEman here can confirm this. Texas leaders played chess and everybody else played checkers.

I've been meaning to make a topic about this for awhile even before the election but didn't have time to put it into words but Trump didn't do anything the Democrats did it themselves.

How the fuck do you accept majority of the immigrants that Texas was sending to NY? Give them free housing by renting out several hotels that take away from tourists that bring in fucking money to your city/state. Then they give them a shit load of money a month for 3+ years.

If that wasn't enough they have an option which many did to move to another state which was either a blue or swing state that does the exact same fucking thing that NY does.

They go to NY apply to get a visa to work takes months sometimes even years from background checks, etc...they give them the fucking option to go to another state/City and RESTART the whole fucking process while our money keeps paying for them.

This is why the swing states went red too.

These people didn't stay locked in waiting for visas they went out to look for jobs while receiving money and taking away jobs from the latinos already here by lowering their cost of work for cheaper affecting the rest of the latinos around them.

If anyone is interested in a second part regarding why some latinos didn't go vote hence millions of voters missing I can do a 2nd post which isn't going to be as long I think and as to why they put up with Trump as well.

NatsuSama posted...

Trump in 2020 got approx 74 million votes.
Trump in 2024 has approx 72 million votes
Biden in 2020 got approx 82 million votes
Kamala in 2024 has approx 68 million votes rounding up.

This goes right back to we don't have all the votes yet. Trump is going to end up with more than 74 million votes.

@InfinityMonster

I didn't say anything about that being the sole reason though. You said you have evidence that millions of Dems stayed home, which there is none. There is no evidence a higher turnout of people would have changed anything statistically speaking.

Again, no I did not say this.

You even admitted just posts ago you got me confused with someone else thinking I said Dems in specific.

You are massively confused with keeping up with your own posts.

I said lower turnout is ONE, not the sole, but ONE of many reasons Kamala loss. Voter turnout went down, not up for tje Democrat President. That is a fact. Less people not voting is not boon for Kamala and its a mathematical fact turnout went down.

You are insistent on arguing some claim I never said. I never claimed Democrats in specific voted less. In fact I pointed out several times now its a moot angle to even argue. I also pointed out Registered Democrat =/= Voted for a Democrat. I also made it very clear several times now voter turnout going down is not the sole reason she lost. That also means by default I never argued turnout ALONE would change the election. Do you not understand what, "turnout isn't the only reason she lost" means? Because apparently you really dont.

NatsuSama posted...

Again, no I did not say this.

You even admitted just posts ago you got me confused with someone else thinking I said Dems in specific.

You are massively confused with keeping up with your own posts.

What? That was a completely different poster that said that (ssjevot). I never said I confused you. I first responded to your post with the bogus numbers you were touting as evidence of low Dem turnout.

NatsuSama posted...

I said lower turnout is ONE, not the sole, but ONE of many reasons Kamala loss. Voter turnout went down, not up for tje Democrat President. That is a fact. Less people not voting is not boon for Kamala and its a mathematical fact turnout went down.

There is no proof of this because statistically speaking, turnout for Trump went down also.

What you don't understand and can't admit is that you were using false numbers to make a point, which fell apart because they're false.

Your OP is "The fact of the matter is less people voted. Mathematically it still affects results", which is false. "Mathematically speaking", 1 million more people wouldn't change anything about the results at all. They would be identical.

InfinityMonster posted...

What? That was a completely different poster that said that (ssjevot). I never said I confused you. I first responded to your post with the bogus numbers you were touting as evidence of low Dem turnout.

Reading can't be this difficult for you.

Again for the umpteenth time now, none of my post say specifically Democrats voters. You keep slcircling to "specifically Democrats" and you have been told many times now, "not specifically Democrats" as it's a moot point to even argue given turnout was down, period.

Try your best to follow along this time.

Stating a mathematical fact that less people voted this election does not mean specifically Democrats. You are insisting on specifically Democrats, and this was never said by me.

The numbers I "touted" wasn't bogus numbers just because you don't like it. Those are the factual numbers for 2020, and the at the time of that post, the numbers for 2024. Turnout factually went down. Less people showed up to vote to vote compared to 2024.

81 million (2020) to 68 (2020) million means turnout went down for the Democrat presidential candidate.
74 million (2020) to 72 (2020) million means turnout went down for the Republican presidential candidate.
The turnout overall and especially for the Democrat Presidential candidate is down, not up.

That is a simple fact that anyone with first grade math skills can deduct. Now also follow along because past post your next go to is this false idea that I'm saying lower turnout is the sole reason she lost. I never said this either. There is multiple reasons Kamala lost 2024. No where did I say lower turnout is the only reason she lost which by default address the other argument you keep turning to about changing the election.

NatsuSama posted...

Reading can't be this difficult for you.

Again for the umpteenth time now, none of my post say specifically Democrats voters. You keep slcircling to "specifically Democrats" and you have been told many times now, "not specifically Democrats" as it's a moot point to even argue given turnout was down, period.

Try your best to follow along this time.

Stating a mathematical fact that less people voted this election does not mean specifically Democrats. You are insisting on specifically Democrats, and this was never said by me.

The numbers I "touted" wasn't bogus numbers just because you don't like it. Those are the factual numbers for 2020, and the at the time of that post, the numbers for 2024. Turnout factually went down.

81 million (2020) to 68 (2020) million means turnout went down for the Democrat presidential candidate.
74 million (2020) to 72 (2020) million means turnout went down for the Republican presidential candidate.

That is a simple fact that anyone with first grade math skills can deduct.

I mean, you're the one here confusing different people.

The numbers are bogus. The 2024 numbers are not final, so making any inferences from it will lead to a false conclusion.

1 million less people simply means there would have been 480k more Harris votes and 510k Trump votes. It does NOT affect the results unless you can show proof it was in key areas. If turnout was identical to 2020, the results would still be 51-48. Even if 10 million more people voted, it would still be 51-48.

InfinityMonster posted...

The numbers are bogus. The 2024 numbers are not final, so making any inferences from it will lead to a false conclusion.

1 million less people simply means there would have been 480k more Harris votes and 510k Trump votes. It does NOT affect the results unless you can show proof it was in key areas. If turnout was identical to 2020, the results would still be 51-48. Even if 10 million more people voted, it would still be 51-48.

The numbers are not bogus just because you don't like the numbers. Turnout as we speak is down for the Democrat presidential candidate, and down overall for the 2024 election. That is currently a mathematical fact.

And I'm definitely not confusing you as you are still as we speak arguing about something irrelevant to my post that I also never said.

No one has argued turnout alone is the sole reason she lost, and I have repeated that many times to the point I've lost count. Yet here you are still arguing about that turnout alone wouldn't change the results. It's more fascinating than anything else at this point.

NatsuSama posted...

The numbers are not bogus just because you don't like the numbers. Turnout as we speak is down for the Democrat presidential candidate, and down overall for the 2024 election. That is currently a mathematical fact.

They objectively are bogus because like 10 million votes still haven't been counted. They mean nothing as of now.

NatsuSama posted...

And I'm definitely not confusing you as you are still as we speak arguing about something irrelevant to my post that I also never said.

You literally said I said something someone else did.

NatsuSama posted...

No one has argued turnout alone is the sole reason she lost, and I have repeated that many times to the point I've lost count. Yet here you are still arguing about that turnout alone wouldn't change the results. It's more fascinating than anything else at this point.

No one is saying any of that in the first place. I'm proving you wrong on the false inferences you're making from incomplete numbers. This is statistics 101.

Aztex posted...

Typing this in a rush so excuse my spelling and not organizing my post as I'm just posting straight from my brain as a rough draft. Hoping someone reads this as well.

As a Texan and son of illegal parents before people take everything out of context. We have a saying with us latinos/hispanics. "The worse enemy of a latino is another latino." Any other latino/hispanic CEman here can confirm this. Texas leaders played chess and everybody else played checkers.

I've been meaning to make a topic about this for awhile even before the election but didn't have time to put it into words but Trump didn't do anything the Democrats did it themselves.

How the fuck do you accept majority of the immigrants that Texas was sending to NY? Give them free housing by renting out several hotels that take away from tourists that bring in fucking money to your city/state. Then they give them a shit load of money a month for 3+ years.

If that wasn't enough they have an option which many did to move to another state which was either a blue or swing state that does the exact same fucking thing that NY does.

They go to NY apply to get a visa to work takes months sometimes even years from background checks, etc...they give them the fucking option to go to another state/City and RESTART the whole fucking process while our money keeps paying for them.

This is why the swing states went red too.

These people didn't stay locked in waiting for visas they went out to look for jobs while receiving money and taking away jobs from the latinos already here by lowering their cost of work for cheaper affecting the rest of the latinos around them.

If anyone is interested in a second part regarding why some latinos didn't go vote hence millions of voters missing I can do a 2nd post which isn't going to be as long I think and as to why they put up with Trump as well.

True as far as it goes.

I gave my vote to ,la for my sake. I do not know either one. It is nothing personal to me. It seems to be personal to you. I think you should have been impersonal and made the choice best for your family's future. Chances are you and your family will be all right, though, because so many enemies and so little time.

It helps knowing where you come from. Thank you. Please consider that taking care of your family is more important than getting payback. The pro-immigrant organizations that are fighting Trump will help those who need it regardless of who you voted for.