Search results for query: *

No moron, they're not. These numbers represent the number of times the system was accessed to verify a voter's identity using a social security number. That can be for a number of different reasons (as detailed in the article I posted) other than a new voter registration, and the same...

Fuck off, liar. They are government numbers. The numbers ARE NOT representing individual voter registrations like you keep falsely claiming they do. "The numbers being identified as individual voter registrations in Arizona, Texas and Pennsylvania are actually referencing the total number of...

Yep. This is what getting rid of Roe v Wade did to people unfortunate enough to be living in states with large Republican majorities in the state government. Now the same politicians that fought for this are trying to backpedal as fast as they can because it's not politically convenient.

-Maybe, just maybe, focus on why these incidents are happening, and why these deranged people are able to acquire their weapon of choice so easily? In the meantime hire more/better trained SROs if you want more security. Not teachers. - Ignoring the vast majority of educators (and parents)...

I don't have a hatred of guns. I have a hatred for gun nuts, whose only solution to gun violence always involves more guns. There's a reason why 70+% of teachers think this is a bad idea. Because it's a bad idea. You can add SROs and lock buildings. We've been doing it for years. And school...

Sad that you think that about so many of the teachers in these schools, considering the vast majority of them oppose batshit ideas like this.

Your "analysis" of the data is 100% incorrect. As I've proven over and over again in this thread. Sorry, but you don't get to keep ignoring that and acting like these numbers say what you think they say.

Would love to see your proof of this.

Thankfully I don't live in bumblefuck Tennessee, and there school districts around here are sane.

Big business is what is behind this law moron. You literally highlighted a local ordinance that protected workers that will be removed because of this law. I'm sure you didn't do it on purpose considering it's making a point that is the exact opposite of what you're trying to argue here, but...

No, I just don't want my child around someone I don't know all that well all day while they're armed. But keep living your fantasy tough guy life. Nobody's stopping you.

Exactly. It's vague as shit. Which is why localities that have extreme temperatures and outdoor working conditions (like those in Florida) passed clearer, more stringent worker protections through local ordinances. All now illegal.

My bad, I forgot you have the reading comprehension of a potato. That ordinance you highlighted, that was used in the article, is an example of what is now illegal in Florida because of this law, you dumb shit. Show me anywhere in this article or the text of the law where it says anything...

Bullshit. You can parrot the nonsense excuses the Florida Republicans are using to try to disguise this, but there's one reason they did this. Because big businesses told them to. “The intent of the bill is to ensure that employers have the ability to govern themselves and make sure they...

Fuck this. Especially the part where parents and coworkers don't have the right to know who is armed. Sorry, but I don't want my child being taught by someone concealing a handgun. And if I was a teacher I'd want to know if one of my coworkers was walking around armed. The people who see this...

This. Workforce Automakers with non-union workforce race to bump pay after UAW's record deals It's an attempt by these companies to head off the push for unionization, but a DIRECT result of the success of the UAW.

Could be the perfect new host for Man v Food.

Are you seriously that fuckin stupid? The election officials in the article I linked to literally explain it. I copied and pasted the relevant text here about it to make it easier for you. All of what I posted refutes your entire premise for this thread. The numbers exist. The numbers are...

Way to ignore all the rest of it moron. Are the people in charge of the elections in those states that were quoted in the article literally saying the way you're using the numbers here is WRONG, dated too? How about you just admit you "found" these numbers, with this narrative attached to them...

So the whole premise of your thread is that the number of "registrants" in swing states is suspicious. Except that the numbers you're using do not represent individual registrants, and the vast majority are verified through means other than this system. Quit lying, you hack. From the article...