Trump just said ON LIVE TV from Florida if the wall is not funded DACA is dead.

My argument is the more you campaign in a locale, the more votes you get, there.

It's not rocket science,
how come that doesn't always work for the local candidates?

I didn't specify the shape of the curve. Just that it's positive for votes, for an increase in time.

Of course one candidates curve may be steeper, or start from a higher spot making it impossible for the other candiate to catch up. But the simple trend is the more time and money any one individual spends, the more votes that individual gets on election day.
no, you never said anything accept that more time meant more votes. that is but an obvious lie otherwise no one would ever win. at some point one must have a message. do you know what clinton's was? No one else does. the one thing for sure we know following her whine tour is that she was owed it.
 
More time here, means less time there. It's not rocket science.
or he could have rearranged his calendar, he could have done many many things different and maintained the same time per locale. the thing pasty is you don't know. you will fking never know. and again, you still haven't produced that national popular vote yet. what election is that one?

Think about it. If Trump added 100 campaign hours in california, he would have to subtract that time from the swing states.

It's not rocket science, you can't be in two places at the same time
 
More time here, means less time there. It's not rocket science.
or he could have rearranged his calendar, he could have done many many things different and maintained the same time per locale. the thing pasty is you don't know. you will fking never know. and again, you still haven't produced that national popular vote yet. what election is that one?

Think about it. If Trump added 100 campaign hours in california, he would have to subtract that time from the swing states.

It's not rocket science, you can't be in two places at the same time
arghhhh dude you're arguing a nothing burger, and quite frankly, I'm full from nothing burgers.
 
Even a multi-billionaire can't defy the laws of nature. Spending less time in the swing states, means getting fewer votes there.

Just like spending more time in the swing states, means getting more votes there.

It's not rocket science.

LOL your argument is retarded, but since you insist lets play this out. Hillary is subject to the same limitations and losses you claim Trump is subject to correct? Oh but but but...but... :laugh::laugh::laugh:

My argument is the more you campaign in a locale, the more votes you get, there.

It's not rocket science,

And since Hillary is no more able to campaign than Trump is, why is this only a negative for Trump and not for Hillary? Hell at the rate she was falling down and having seizures I'm not sure she would have survived a national popular vote campaign.
 
Even a multi-billionaire can't defy the laws of nature. Spending less time in the swing states, means getting fewer votes there.

Just like spending more time in the swing states, means getting more votes there.

It's not rocket science.

LOL your argument is retarded, but since you insist lets play this out. Hillary is subject to the same limitations and losses you claim Trump is subject to correct? Oh but but but...but... :laugh::laugh::laugh:

My argument is the more you campaign in a locale, the more votes you get, there.

It's not rocket science,
how come that doesn't always work for the local candidates?

Dem's poured $50 million into a local congressional race and still lost.
 
More time here, means less time there. It's not rocket science.
or he could have rearranged his calendar, he could have done many many things different and maintained the same time per locale. the thing pasty is you don't know. you will fking never know. and again, you still haven't produced that national popular vote yet. what election is that one?

Think about it. If Trump added 100 campaign hours in california, he would have to subtract that time from the swing states.

It's not rocket science, you can't be in two places at the same time
maybe he doesn't need an additional 100 campaign hours if he is more efficient. ever hear of that word? again, arghhh more nothing burgers. talking about meaningless crap to make themselves forget about the butthurt they are feeling.
 
no, you never said anything accept that more time meant more votes. that is but an obvious lie otherwise no one would ever win. .

I said more votes, as in additional to the previous number. The election is decided by the popular vote total, or the most votes.
 
no, you never said anything accept that more time meant more votes. that is but an obvious lie otherwise no one would ever win. .

I said more votes, as in additional to the previous number. The election is decided by the popular vote total, or the most votes.
well more means more right? what is the difference in your post there? explain.
 
Dem's poured $50 million into a local congressional race and still lost.

But they got 10% more votes, than had they spent as much as previously.

So the rule holds true. More time, more money, more votes.

But as with any popular vote, it's the most votes that wins.
 
Think about it. If Trump added 100 campaign hours in california, he would have to subtract that time from the swing states.

It's not rocket science, you can't be in two places at the same time
maybe he doesn't need an additional 100 campaign hours if he is more efficient. ever hear of that word? .

If Trump could put in 100 more hours by being more efficient, why didn't he put those 100 hours into the swing states, and win them by more than just 80,000 votes.
 
He said and i quote "if the wall is not funded we will become the obstructionists"

A reaction to the blowback this morning?
80 percent of Americans want illegals to have legal status and/or a path to citizenship.

The majority of Americans also want stronger border security.

These are not contradictory positions.

Trump will grant amnesty to the DACA kids, and he will get a token brick or two for his wall.

I just wish I could see the faces of the pseudocons when Trump signs an amnesty bill.
80 percent? Yes, lets use polls as our savior :lol:
I can find polls that match that number that say the opposite. I am sure YOURS are more credible though LOL
 
Dem's poured $50 million into a local congressional race and still lost.

But they got 10% more votes, than had they spent as much as previously.

So the rule holds true. More time, more money, more votes.

But as with any popular vote, it's the most votes that wins.
and again they lost. doesn't matter what the count was junior, a loss is a loss is a loss. doesn't matter if you lose by a million or one.
 
I don't care what other Americans want. My priority is to my family and my business. That is what defines my opinions and my opinion is BUILD THE DAMN WALL

If they had to raise you taxes to pay for the wall. Woudl you still want it?
Yes

Would you oppose a middle class tax cut, in order to fund the wall?
put up bonds and we'll buy the bonds. and take a middle class tax cut.
 
I don't care what other Americans want. My priority is to my family and my business. That is what defines my opinions and my opinion is BUILD THE DAMN WALL

If they had to raise you taxes to pay for the wall. Woudl you still want it?
Yes

Would you oppose a middle class tax cut, in order to fund the wall?

Not likely that both will happen. We shall see but seems doubtful. Besides Mexico is going to pay for it "believe me!"
 

Forum List

Back
Top