Anonymous wrote:In addition, Fairfax County has 35K absentee ballots for Yes. On the dot. 80.30%
Yeah, sure....
Anonymous wrote:Breakdown is interesting.
Election day votes:
No - 55 %
Yes - 45%
Early in person votes:
Yes - 52%
No - 48%
Early by Mail Votes:
Yes - 73%
No - 27%
What are the odds? Not that great.....
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It’s confirmed YES!
Weird to celebrate an outcome that forces roughly half of the people in the state to traffick their votes in favor of a cause they do not support.
Cry harder.
As someone who didn't vote for Trump but did vote for Youngkin, I'm not crying, I just think it's low class.
So…I guess you voted for Sears?
Let's just say I didn't have a strong favorite in that race.
Because you are brain dead? Sears was the worst candidate to ever be nominated in VA literally in the last 75 years.
Sorry, I know this is petty, but if we're comparing brains, I have zero doubt that mine's way more capable than yours.
I mean, if you looked and Spanberger and Sears and couldn't pick a strong favorite, that does not reflect well on your, uh, capable brain.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Rest of Virginia should seceed. What a travesty.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It’s confirmed YES!
Weird to celebrate an outcome that forces roughly half of the people in the state to traffick their votes in favor of a cause they do not support.
What does this even mean?
Classic tactic of pretending you don't understand the obvious because there's nothing you can say against it.
“Trafficking votes” is supposed to be obvious?
Yes?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It’s confirmed YES!
Weird to celebrate an outcome that forces roughly half of the people in the state to traffick their votes in favor of a cause they do not support.
Cry harder.
As someone who didn't vote for Trump but did vote for Youngkin, I'm not crying, I just think it's low class.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:A 51/49 vote, that ends with a 10/1 result. Appalling.
It’s trumps doing. He started this in Texas
Oh well. Too bad, so sad.
Texas was barely 65% and it was legal based on population growth this is totally illegal
A map that turns major blue cities into 1-3 districts is neither legal nor based on "population growth." You're seriously stupid.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It’s confirmed YES!
Weird to celebrate an outcome that forces roughly half of the people in the state to traffick their votes in favor of a cause they do not support.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:A 51/49 vote, that ends with a 10/1 result. Appalling.
It’s trumps doing. He started this in Texas
Oh well. Too bad, so sad.
Texas was barely 65% and it was legal based on population growth this is totally illegal
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:A 51/49 vote, that ends with a 10/1 result. Appalling.
It’s trumps doing. He started this in Texas
Oh well. Too bad, so sad.
Yep liberals are saying, they started it! Reminds me of what I used to hear in kindergarten. Are liberals just bratty cry babies?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Rest of Virginia should seceed. What a travesty.
Write to your representative to support Congressional Democrats' proposals to ban partisan gerrymandering nationwide.
Otherwise, stop whining. These are the rules your side insists on playing by.
You didn't game this out very well. If we just do this for every state now in the same manner to be "FAIR" lol, Republicans likely end up gaining seats.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It’s confirmed YES!
Weird to celebrate an outcome that forces roughly half of the people in the state to traffick their votes in favor of a cause they do not support.
Yes and it makes sense that the majority of the nova Democrats are mentally unstable reckless driving fingerpointing. They started it phrasing cry babies
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It’s confirmed YES!
Weird to celebrate an outcome that forces roughly half of the people in the state to traffick their votes in favor of a cause they do not support.
What does this even mean?
Classic tactic of pretending you don't understand the obvious because there's nothing you can say against it.
“Trafficking votes” is supposed to be obvious?