This is all wishful thinking. Nothing more. Hilary was running against 3 people early, and only one person for the vast majority of time. Trump ran against 17 people, and 2 right up to the second to last week of the primaries. Are yoi seriously making such a lame argument, as this?
Had any of the following people grabbed Trump's platform, not only would they have easily won the GOP Primary, but they'd beat Lyin' Crooked Hillary by 25+ points: 1. Jeb Bush 2. Marco Rubio 3. John Kasich 4. Rand Paul And dozens of unnamed others. Dozens and dozens. And these are not stupid people (or, they have smart people around them, is better said) who saw exactly how Trump was beating their brains out. So, why didn't they seize his most effective points, very early on? Because they are all owned by the GOPe, and who simply don't want most of what Trump's promising to do. What happened to Bernie with the DNC not only could have easily - far more easy - happened to Trump - they actually were brazen about trying to stop him.
Lame argument? He had more people in the primaries vote against him than for him. Sounds like a reasonable assessment to counter the idea of some massive popular movement. But, it's good that he got 14 million votes. He'll need another 50 million or so to win in November. Be careful about the wishful thinking, too. You've done quite a bit.
Do you want me to ask TennTra to come in here and smash you with his math? Because it'd take him about 1.4576 nanoseconds to get you BTFO. Listen to yourself. You're getting desperate and weird. Just between me and you, Un...be honest...you know the gig is up for ol' Lyin' Crooked Hillary, don't you? Deep down, don't you already know it's checkmate?
I think the claim was "Trump got more primary votes than anyone ever." He had 2 million less than Clinton this year. That makes the claim wrong, and the argument not really an argument at all.
What? Have you hit your head? Every claim has been that he got the most GOP primary votes of all-time. And he did. And by a lot. Since when did Lyin' Crooked Hillary run in the GOP Primary? Because if she didn't - then this is silliness, pure and simple.
I'm not a math wizard, but I'm sure I can count without using my fingers. Numbers are weird? And, no, not checkmate. The wikileaks issue was a possible game changer, which I stated to you that I thought Trump needed or he was going to lose most assuredly, but, as I also noted, this thing will fluctuate until November (Barring something else major happening.). So, as it stands, based upon the wikileaks issue, I'm going from 70-30 Hillary to about 55-45, maybe 50-50. The debates will be interesting. I know the Republicans will boast that their candidate will destroy the Democrat, as they claimed would happen in 2012, but I wouldn't be so sure. It will be fascinating, for sure.
I'm assuming English is both of our first languages. Seems pretty straight forward, to me. You're getting weird.
You have argued just the opposite, that nothing much will change between now and November, and repeatedly. No shame in playing out the hand, but I'll assume that you already know.
I'm not a legal expert, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't cover allowing Russia to hack e-mails of American politicians within our own country to influence presidential elections.
They already have them. They hacked the hacker who hacked the DNC / Clintons. Their hands are clean. Why is the problem the hack, and not the lacksadaisical security that both DNC and Clinton's (illegally) employed?
Oh, you posted before you read that bit in the upper right. Knock that out real quick. By the way...how do you think that Gucifer was so quickly apprehended and turned over to the US? Answer: This. Do you think that Russia has a duty to turn over an actual person, and not some emails? Besides, stop worrying. I'm certain that there isn't anything damaging to Lyin' Crooked Hillary in those emails, anyway.
No, no, no. Stop misrepresenting my argument. You said I was saying this. I did not. I said it would fluctuate somewhat, but not turn into the avalanche you suggested unless there was something new and major to affect that movement. This was due to the fact that the candidates were, unusually, well known by now with most people having already made their decision. Trump, I said, would need a game changer and, as soon as the wikileaks thing came out, I said this was it, which, safe to say, neither of us knew was coming. You were saying that everyone would start realizing that Hillary was terrible and the wagon would fall off. You can go back and check it. Go ahead and witness the truth.
