Someday you’re going to come out and actually POST your point about something instead of coyly suggesting it and the whole internet will blink out like someone pulled the Great Big Plug.
So…swing states aren’t states where neither party have a reliable majority of voters? Then what are swing states?
Did “they” already decide the results of the election? If so, why bother with the facade? Why not let California get a turn to be a swing state? Hell, turn Texas blue next time, to really freak the mundanes.
Simple explanation, that would be too easily noticed, and would go against the 92’ construct.
Your snide, one-line, content free posts are going beyond irritating. They have begun to smell like trolling,
If you have an actual thesis, post it in complete paragraphs, supported by actual evidence.
If you fail to do that, you are liable to forfeit your posting privileges.
[ /Moderating ]
And about time, too.
One only needs to look at the voting patterns since 92 to see the obvious.
It’s already been established the 92’ construct is a combination of Newt & urban migration.
Apparently you think this is so obvious that you don’t need to actually say what it is you’re implying, so I’m just going to go ahead and rebut you in advance.
There is no vast conspiracy controlling the electoral process.
Our current crop of swing states didn’t emerge because the Illuminati/Lizard People/Reverse Vampires/“international bankers”/World Wrestling Federation/etc. sat down and decided that this state would be red and this state would be blue because that was the best way to fool the marks. It happened organically because of social and economic circumstances and shifts in people’s values and priorities over the past several decades.
Donald Trump isn’t the Republican nominee because “They” wanted to make sure Clinton got elected, and Clinton isn’t the Democratic nominee because “They” want her in power for whatever sneaky agenda you think it is “They” want to pull off. The people voted for who they liked and this is what we ended up with.
Frankly, if there was some super-secret cabal controlling international politics, I’d expect them to be doing a much better job than the results we’ve been seeing.
Very true.
Are you saying that the question has been answered and that we can close this thread?
Because, if it is not, it is this sort of “minimalist” response that has flagged your participation as trolling.
[ /Moderating ]
So if McMullin wins Utah are you going to give up this “92 construct” thing or you going to find some tricky way to explain it as “all part of the plan”?
The 92’ construct will prevail.
So you acknowledge that a McMullin win breaks your theory?
It’s not a theory, it’s a proven design.
Utah isn’t part of it to my knowledge.
So you say. But maybe you should explain why Utah wasn’t part of it. Heck, you could perhaps even tell us who designed it and to what purpose.
I seriously doubt they can do that.
And we’re not going to get an answer from him now. Not that we would have if he wasn’t banned, but still.
Urban renewal gets a bad rap at times, but clearly it is necessary at times.