The Non-mandate
-
Hmmm, I dont know. in 2016, President Trump won 306 electoral votes. At that time, he called it a "landslide of historical levels"
If VP Biden wins that states he is currently leading, he will have 306 electoral votes.
So, per President Trump, it would be a "landslide of historical levels"
LOL
-
I’m loving the non mandate. Maybe we can get a bit away from government being the cause and solution to all of this country’s problems.
A sort of government time-out (though in terms of legislation, very little happens in the last 4 years except for the tax cuts by budget reconciliation, and COVID bailouts)
-
Trump had less than negative 2 million mandate.
Biden has over 3.5 million mandate.
Biden‘s mandate is at least 5.5 million greater than Trump’s.@Axtremus said in The Non-mandate:
Trump had less than negative 2 million mandate.
Biden has over 3.5 million mandate.
Biden‘s mandate is at least 5.5 million greater than Trump’s.Ah, the old popular vote saw. Remind me again, when was Mandate Hillary elected?
-
Hmmm, I dont know. in 2016, President Trump won 306 electoral votes. At that time, he called it a "landslide of historical levels"
If VP Biden wins that states he is currently leading, he will have 306 electoral votes.
So, per President Trump, it would be a "landslide of historical levels"
LOL
@taiwan_girl said in The Non-mandate:
Hmmm, I dont know. in 2016, President Trump won 306 electoral votes. At that time, he called it a "landslide of historical levels"
If VP Biden wins that states he is currently leading, he will have 306 electoral votes.
So, per President Trump, it would be a "landslide of historical levels"
LOL
Except Trump had his by 0200, day after the election. Biden has to manufacture his, taking a bit longer.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@taiwan_girl said in The Non-mandate:
Hmmm, I dont know. in 2016, President Trump won 306 electoral votes. At that time, he called it a "landslide of historical levels"
If VP Biden wins that states he is currently leading, he will have 306 electoral votes.
So, per President Trump, it would be a "landslide of historical levels"
LOL
Except Trump had his by 0200, day after the election. Biden has to manufacture his, taking a bit longer.
@Jolly said in The Non-mandate:
@taiwan_girl said in The Non-mandate:
Hmmm, I dont know. in 2016, President Trump won 306 electoral votes. At that time, he called it a "landslide of historical levels"
If VP Biden wins that states he is currently leading, he will have 306 electoral votes.
So, per President Trump, it would be a "landslide of historical levels"
LOL
Except Trump had his by 0200, day after the election. Biden has to manufacture his, taking a bit longer.
Jolly, do you honestly believe that this election is unfair and is being won unfair?
(everything I have read is that there has been no proof. Alot of "accusing" but no evidence to back it up)
-
@Jolly said in The Non-mandate:
@taiwan_girl said in The Non-mandate:
Hmmm, I dont know. in 2016, President Trump won 306 electoral votes. At that time, he called it a "landslide of historical levels"
If VP Biden wins that states he is currently leading, he will have 306 electoral votes.
So, per President Trump, it would be a "landslide of historical levels"
LOL
Except Trump had his by 0200, day after the election. Biden has to manufacture his, taking a bit longer.
Jolly, do you honestly believe that this election is unfair and is being won unfair?
(everything I have read is that there has been no proof. Alot of "accusing" but no evidence to back it up)
@taiwan_girl said in The Non-mandate:
@Jolly said in The Non-mandate:
@taiwan_girl said in The Non-mandate:
Hmmm, I dont know. in 2016, President Trump won 306 electoral votes. At that time, he called it a "landslide of historical levels"
If VP Biden wins that states he is currently leading, he will have 306 electoral votes.
So, per President Trump, it would be a "landslide of historical levels"
LOL
Except Trump had his by 0200, day after the election. Biden has to manufacture his, taking a bit longer.
Jolly, do you honestly believe that this election is unfair and is being won unfair?
(everything I have read is that there has been no proof. Alot of "accusing" but no evidence to back it up)
It's typical Dem playbook.
Withhold the urban votes until everything else comes in, and then start counting the urban "votes" at 4AM or maybe as late as 6AM. That way, you know how many you have to have. Sometimes, they have to "find" 50,000 here or 100,000 there. The election will be won by the Dem candidate, even if some precincts will have much higher turn-out rates than the rest of the state of the precincts go 90%+ for the Dem candidate.
A Republican usually has to win states by a big enough margin, that the urban Dem machine has no plausible way to cheat.
-
@taiwan_girl said in The Non-mandate:
@Jolly said in The Non-mandate:
@taiwan_girl said in The Non-mandate:
Hmmm, I dont know. in 2016, President Trump won 306 electoral votes. At that time, he called it a "landslide of historical levels"
If VP Biden wins that states he is currently leading, he will have 306 electoral votes.
So, per President Trump, it would be a "landslide of historical levels"
LOL
Except Trump had his by 0200, day after the election. Biden has to manufacture his, taking a bit longer.
Jolly, do you honestly believe that this election is unfair and is being won unfair?
(everything I have read is that there has been no proof. Alot of "accusing" but no evidence to back it up)
It's typical Dem playbook.
Withhold the urban votes until everything else comes in, and then start counting the urban "votes" at 4AM or maybe as late as 6AM. That way, you know how many you have to have. Sometimes, they have to "find" 50,000 here or 100,000 there. The election will be won by the Dem candidate, even if some precincts will have much higher turn-out rates than the rest of the state of the precincts go 90%+ for the Dem candidate.
A Republican usually has to win states by a big enough margin, that the urban Dem machine has no plausible way to cheat.
@Jolly said in The Non-mandate:
@taiwan_girl said in The Non-mandate:
@Jolly said in The Non-mandate:
@taiwan_girl said in The Non-mandate:
Hmmm, I dont know. in 2016, President Trump won 306 electoral votes. At that time, he called it a "landslide of historical levels"
If VP Biden wins that states he is currently leading, he will have 306 electoral votes.
So, per President Trump, it would be a "landslide of historical levels"
LOL
Except Trump had his by 0200, day after the election. Biden has to manufacture his, taking a bit longer.
Jolly, do you honestly believe that this election is unfair and is being won unfair?
(everything I have read is that there has been no proof. Alot of "accusing" but no evidence to back it up)
It's typical Dem playbook.
Withhold the urban votes until everything else comes in, and then start counting the urban "votes" at 4AM or maybe as late as 6AM. That way, you know how many you have to have. Sometimes, they have to "find" 50,000 here or 100,000 there. The election will be won by the Dem candidate, even if some precincts will have much higher turn-out rates than the rest of the state of the precincts go 90%+ for the Dem candidate.
A Republican usually has to win states by a big enough margin, that the urban Dem machine has no plausible way to cheat.
Sorry, I just dont see it happening. In this current world, where anyone and everyone will write a book/go on TV/go on the radio/post on internet their most deepest secrets, you are expecting this vast conspiracy around the nation to be a secret by every one? It must be coordinated, and you have all these workers in on it, but no one says anything?
Sorry, just dont think it is possible. You may not like the results, but I do believe that they are true.
-
Jolly it was literally a white house decision to get the Republican PA legislature to block early counting of mail-in votes.
Otherwise it would have been like Florida. Initial Biden lead at 7pm report (since absentee would have been pre-counted) followed by Trump catch up over time as same day ballots were counted.
-
@Jolly said in The Non-mandate:
@taiwan_girl said in The Non-mandate:
@Jolly said in The Non-mandate:
@taiwan_girl said in The Non-mandate:
Hmmm, I dont know. in 2016, President Trump won 306 electoral votes. At that time, he called it a "landslide of historical levels"
If VP Biden wins that states he is currently leading, he will have 306 electoral votes.
So, per President Trump, it would be a "landslide of historical levels"
LOL
Except Trump had his by 0200, day after the election. Biden has to manufacture his, taking a bit longer.
Jolly, do you honestly believe that this election is unfair and is being won unfair?
(everything I have read is that there has been no proof. Alot of "accusing" but no evidence to back it up)
It's typical Dem playbook.
Withhold the urban votes until everything else comes in, and then start counting the urban "votes" at 4AM or maybe as late as 6AM. That way, you know how many you have to have. Sometimes, they have to "find" 50,000 here or 100,000 there. The election will be won by the Dem candidate, even if some precincts will have much higher turn-out rates than the rest of the state of the precincts go 90%+ for the Dem candidate.
A Republican usually has to win states by a big enough margin, that the urban Dem machine has no plausible way to cheat.
Sorry, I just dont see it happening. In this current world, where anyone and everyone will write a book/go on TV/go on the radio/post on internet their most deepest secrets, you are expecting this vast conspiracy around the nation to be a secret by every one? It must be coordinated, and you have all these workers in on it, but no one says anything?
Sorry, just dont think it is possible. You may not like the results, but I do believe that they are true.
@taiwan_girl said in The Non-mandate:
It must be coordinated, and you have all these workers in on it, but no one says anything?
Sorry, just dont think it is possible. You may not like the results, but I do believe that they are true.
That's how it worked where I grew up.
Everyone knew everyone since kindergarten.
Nobody said anything.
There was nobody to say anything to.
-
They're going to start using the term 'moral victory' at this rate.
