Slo Biden "Wall will not stop the Corona virus"

[Ray From Cleveland]

Since you;re a raving idiot, you deserve this and nothing more.

Oh, now I've hurt your feelings...…..

You uneducated idiot. I’m laughing at you. The only one hurt here is you, seeing as you’re white knighting your boyfriend Slogo.

Well, if you find yourself on the losing end of an argument, attack the opponent personally. it is immature and transparent, but I'm a big boy, and I don't mind.

Seeing as I won, as proven in a prior post, your idiocy is even funnier. You have had your ass kicked. Now go comfort your boyfriend Slogo LITTLE BOY.

Come on, now. Just how many thousands of infected illegals have come to America? Enquiring minds want to know!

One is too many.

 

[DJT for Life]

Imagine the place we'd be in if Hillary was the President today. In spite of these health problems, the Democrats have been--and still are, fighting against Trump's travel bans. It wouldn't matter to them if 100,000 Americans died from something like this, as long as they can usher in people from all kinds of other countries.

It was a blessing from God that Trump beat Hillary.

Actually it was the fucked-up way the Electoral College works.

You mean the same way it's worked effectively for over 200 years? Now that Democrats are on the losing side of our structure, it's time to change the structure?

Umm....nnnnno, it hasn't worked this way for 200 years at all, might wanna invest in a history book.

No, I mean the way nobody, literally no candidate, could win a majority in AridZona, Nevada, Colorado, Utah, Minnesota, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia or those crucial states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan --- and yet ALL those states sent ALL their electoral votes to a pretender who could not convince the state to vote for him or her, that's what I mean. Less that 50% of the PV, yet 100% of the EV.

Now if that same EV comes up with less than 50% for a single choice (270) ---- they don't have a winner.
The states do though. Nothing like consistency in a standard.

Abraham Lincoln won with 39% of the popular vote.

Yep, in a field of four candidates. As opposed to two in 2016. 'Field' meaning candidates who got any EVs at all.

Even then the EC wasn't working as it does now. For instance New Jersey split its EVs between Lincoln and Douglas (the only EVs Douglas got besides Missouri), which is exactly what I just pointed out DID NOT happen in the states quoted. And not all the states had a popular vote anyway, so there was no complete popular vote to count. Besides which, Lincoln wasn't on ballots in the South because the Republican Party didn't print any there.

Nice try (I guess) but I know WAY too much about the election of 1860 to let that ooze by without the requisite context.

There were 4 candidates in 2016.

 

[Pogo]

Actually it was the fucked-up way the Electoral College works.

You mean the same way it's worked effectively for over 200 years? Now that Democrats are on the losing side of our structure, it's time to change the structure?

Umm....nnnnno, it hasn't worked this way for 200 years at all, might wanna invest in a history book.

No, I mean the way nobody, literally no candidate, could win a majority in AridZona, Nevada, Colorado, Utah, Minnesota, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia or those crucial states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan --- and yet ALL those states sent ALL their electoral votes to a pretender who could not convince the state to vote for him or her, that's what I mean. Less that 50% of the PV, yet 100% of the EV.

Now if that same EV comes up with less than 50% for a single choice (270) ---- they don't have a winner.
The states do though. Nothing like consistency in a standard.

Abraham Lincoln won with 39% of the popular vote.

Yep, in a field of four candidates. As opposed to two in 2016. 'Field' meaning candidates who got any EVs at all.

Even then the EC wasn't working as it does now. For instance New Jersey split its EVs between Lincoln and Douglas (the only EVs Douglas got besides Missouri), which is exactly what I just pointed out DID NOT happen in the states quoted. And not all the states had a popular vote anyway, so there was no complete popular vote to count. Besides which, Lincoln wasn't on ballots in the South because the Republican Party didn't print any there.

Nice try (I guess) but I know WAY too much about the election of 1860 to let that ooze by without the requisite context.

There were 4 candidates in 2016.

There were more than that, but there were NOT four candidates who got electoral votes.

But there WERE in 1860.

 

[DJT for Life]

You mean the same way it's worked effectively for over 200 years? Now that Democrats are on the losing side of our structure, it's time to change the structure?

Umm....nnnnno, it hasn't worked this way for 200 years at all, might wanna invest in a history book.

No, I mean the way nobody, literally no candidate, could win a majority in AridZona, Nevada, Colorado, Utah, Minnesota, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia or those crucial states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan --- and yet ALL those states sent ALL their electoral votes to a pretender who could not convince the state to vote for him or her, that's what I mean. Less that 50% of the PV, yet 100% of the EV.

Now if that same EV comes up with less than 50% for a single choice (270) ---- they don't have a winner.
The states do though. Nothing like consistency in a standard.

Abraham Lincoln won with 39% of the popular vote.

Yep, in a field of four candidates. As opposed to two in 2016. 'Field' meaning candidates who got any EVs at all.

Even then the EC wasn't working as it does now. For instance New Jersey split its EVs between Lincoln and Douglas (the only EVs Douglas got besides Missouri), which is exactly what I just pointed out DID NOT happen in the states quoted. And not all the states had a popular vote anyway, so there was no complete popular vote to count. Besides which, Lincoln wasn't on ballots in the South because the Republican Party didn't print any there.

Nice try (I guess) but I know WAY too much about the election of 1860 to let that ooze by without the requisite context.

There were 4 candidates in 2016.

There were NOT four candidates who got electoral votes.

But there WERE in 1860.

What does that have to do with anything.? There were 4 candidates on the ballot. 4 choices for Americans to select from. Your
original comment was there were only two candidates in 2016. There wasn't...there was 4.

I cannot control who they vote for. All I know is Lincoln became the 16th President and 61% of the electorate didn't want him
as President.

 

[Pogo]

Umm....nnnnno, it hasn't worked this way for 200 years at all, might wanna invest in a history book.

No, I mean the way nobody, literally no candidate, could win a majority in AridZona, Nevada, Colorado, Utah, Minnesota, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia or those crucial states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan --- and yet ALL those states sent ALL their electoral votes to a pretender who could not convince the state to vote for him or her, that's what I mean. Less that 50% of the PV, yet 100% of the EV.

Now if that same EV comes up with less than 50% for a single choice (270) ---- they don't have a winner.
The states do though. Nothing like consistency in a standard.

Abraham Lincoln won with 39% of the popular vote.

Yep, in a field of four candidates. As opposed to two in 2016. 'Field' meaning candidates who got any EVs at all.

Even then the EC wasn't working as it does now. For instance New Jersey split its EVs between Lincoln and Douglas (the only EVs Douglas got besides Missouri), which is exactly what I just pointed out DID NOT happen in the states quoted. And not all the states had a popular vote anyway, so there was no complete popular vote to count. Besides which, Lincoln wasn't on ballots in the South because the Republican Party didn't print any there.

Nice try (I guess) but I know WAY too much about the election of 1860 to let that ooze by without the requisite context.

There were 4 candidates in 2016.

There were NOT four candidates who got electoral votes.

But there WERE in 1860.

What does that have to do with anything.? There were 4 candidates on the ballot. 4 choices for Americans to select from. Your original comment was there were only two candidates in 2016. There wasn't...there was 4.

I cannot control who they vote for. All I know is Lincoln became the 16th President and 61% of the electorate didn't want him
as President.

Actually you don't know that number, because AGAIN, (a) the then-six-year-old Republican Party didn't run Lincoln in the South anyway, and (b) not all the states even held an election. The Constitution doesn't say anything about having to hold elections at all. And up to and through 1860 some states simply had their legislature appoint electors. No voters involved.

On a quick calculation, if you count Lincoln's popular vote in the states where he was actually ON the ballot and thus had numbers to compete with, he won roughly 63% of it.

And NO, my original comment was that there were two candidates who figured in the Electoral College, regardless how many were on the ballot. It's right there in the quote nest above.

 

[miketx]

dude, this thing is far from over. and walls cannot stop it.

Which part of slowing the transmission rate do you have trouble understanding? Are you related to the slow guy?

i am the one who repeatedly posted about mitigation and containment while most here treated this virus as a democratic plot. but I am also decidedly not the one using russia or israel having no official deaths as of now as an argument. that would be you.

That's not the argument I just made.

Do you agree that if the infected people can not cross the border, we will have less cases? If you don't, you and Joe have a lot in common.

from the OP:

"But apparently, a wall did stop anyone from dying in Russia or Israel."

i get that you are in full lobbying and exploitation mode using this pandemic to get your dream of a closed border, but you are setting yourself up for failure.

Why don't you just say you won't answer the question?

 

[lantern2814]

Since you;re a raving idiot, you deserve this and nothing more.

Oh, now I've hurt your feelings...…..

You uneducated idiot. I’m laughing at you. The only one hurt here is you, seeing as you’re white knighting your boyfriend Slogo.

Well, if you find yourself on the losing end of an argument, attack the opponent personally. it is immature and transparent, but I'm a big boy, and I don't mind.

Seeing as I won, as proven in a prior post, your idiocy is even funnier. You have had your ass kicked. Now go comfort your boyfriend Slogo LITTLE BOY.

Come on, now. Just how many thousands of infected illegals have come to America? Enquiring minds want to know!

Since they aren’t tested, you tell us how many aren’t you pathetic deflecting TDS sufferer.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Oh, now I've hurt your feelings...…..

You uneducated idiot. I’m laughing at you. The only one hurt here is you, seeing as you’re white knighting your boyfriend Slogo.

Well, if you find yourself on the losing end of an argument, attack the opponent personally. it is immature and transparent, but I'm a big boy, and I don't mind.

Seeing as I won, as proven in a prior post, your idiocy is even funnier. You have had your ass kicked. Now go comfort your boyfriend Slogo LITTLE BOY.

Come on, now. Just how many thousands of infected illegals have come to America? Enquiring minds want to know!

Since they aren’t tested, you tell us how many aren’t you pathetic deflecting TDS sufferer.

None of them are infected. See? I got my information from the same source you did!