Virginias House of delegates is now 50-50

[Anonymous]

Someone filled in a bubble for each candidate and then "crossed out" Simonds name.

WHAT. THE. FUCK. Yeah, that's not shady or anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Someone filled in a bubble for each candidate and then "crossed out" Simonds name.

WHAT. THE. FUCK. Yeah, that's not shady or anything.

Nope, not at all. Should have known better than the believe Republicans would accept a loss with grace and dignity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone filled in a bubble for each candidate and then "crossed out" Simonds name.

WHAT. THE. FUCK. Yeah, that's not shady or anything.

Nope, not at all. Should have known better than the believe Republicans would accept a loss with grace and dignity.

You have zero evidence to support your assertion and how dare you question the motives of the judicial panel.

[Anonymous]

Ha, ha, lefties. Until you win the coin toss. Then ha, ha wingnuts.

[Anonymous]

Oh look, the GOP up to its tricks again. This just makes me even more determined for 2018.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know when\where the coin toss will take place?

[Anonymous]

It’s not going to be a coin toss, it will either be names put into a hat or draw straws. News reports suggest nothing will happen until next week because too many people are on vacation and the appropriate state officials need to come to some sort of agreement on how to proceed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone filled in a bubble for each candidate and then "crossed out" Simonds name.

WHAT. THE. FUCK. Yeah, that's not shady or anything.

Nope, not at all. Should have known better than the believe Republicans would accept a loss with grace and dignity.

You have zero evidence to support your assertion and how dare you question the motives of the judicial panel.

Did you look at the ballot at issue? Each of the marks in that race matched the way the person had marked their vote in another race. The only basis to conclude he intended to vote for Yancey is to presume that because someone voted Republican in the over races, he must have also intended to vote Republican in that race. Because no one ever votes a split ticket apparently. So corrupt, but anything to stay in power, I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone filled in a bubble for each candidate and then "crossed out" Simonds name.

WHAT. THE. FUCK. Yeah, that's not shady or anything.

Nope, not at all. Should have known better than the believe Republicans would accept a loss with grace and dignity.

You have zero evidence to support your assertion and how dare you question the motives of the judicial panel.

Did you look at the ballot at issue? Each of the marks in that race matched the way the person had marked their vote in another race. The only basis to conclude he intended to vote for Yancey is to presume that because someone voted Republican in the over races, he must have also intended to vote Republican in that race. Because no one ever votes a split ticket apparently. So corrupt, but anything to stay in power, I guess.

False. Did your temper tantrum make you feel better?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See what can happen when you give felons the right to vote?????

If you think that the Democratic tidal wave that is hitting this country as a result of the incredibly incompetent vile Presidency of Donald Trump is due to "felons being given a right to vote," you are dumber than he is.

A win by one vote, and you call this a “tidal wave?”
OK.

You chose a president who WON with -3M votes and you have a audacity to discount a 1 vote win? She is 3M+1 vote win ahead of the trumpard you chose.

Too bad she wasn't smart enough to understand she had to win the electoral college to win the office.

[Anonymous]

A friend of mine who serves as an election official said that the ballot in question would have been tossed in Fairfax.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone filled in a bubble for each candidate and then "crossed out" Simonds name.

WHAT. THE. FUCK. Yeah, that's not shady or anything.

Nope, not at all. Should have known better than the believe Republicans would accept a loss with grace and dignity.

You have zero evidence to support your assertion and how dare you question the motives of the judicial panel.

Did you look at the ballot at issue? Each of the marks in that race matched the way the person had marked their vote in another race. The only basis to conclude he intended to vote for Yancey is to presume that because someone voted Republican in the over races, he must have also intended to vote Republican in that race. Because no one ever votes a split ticket apparently. So corrupt, but anything to stay in power, I guess.

False. Did your temper tantrum make you feel better?

Wow, what a compelling counter argument. You made your point very effectively.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone filled in a bubble for each candidate and then "crossed out" Simonds name.

WHAT. THE. FUCK. Yeah, that's not shady or anything.

Nope, not at all. Should have known better than the believe Republicans would accept a loss with grace and dignity.

You have zero evidence to support your assertion and how dare you question the motives of the judicial panel.

Did you look at the ballot at issue? Each of the marks in that race matched the way the person had marked their vote in another race. The only basis to conclude he intended to vote for Yancey is to presume that because someone voted Republican in the over races, he must have also intended to vote Republican in that race. Because no one ever votes a split ticket apparently. So corrupt, but anything to stay in power, I guess.

False. Did your temper tantrum make you feel better?

NP here. I’ve seen the ballot. Everything PP said was correct. What makes that a temper tantrum???? The decision was supposed to be final and the republican candidate agreed, and then today they came back and said never mind, we contest. It’s so ridiculous, regardless of whether it’s a democrat or republican. That ballot was agreed upon yesterday to be invalid.

[Anonymous]

The ballot in question. The judges blatantly ignored the instructions on the ballot. How can they say it's a vote for the Republican? The Democrat is also marked.

[Anonymous]

^^ Sure looks like a vote for Yancey to me. Simmonds was crossed out. Voted also for other Republicans.