Silly man, I was the one that set the contextof the discussion,
Yes, you did.
you replied to the context that I set
I replied, yes. You were unable to contextualise my response and this is why you have difficulty in following the discussion.
It appears you have an impulsive compulsive disorder that makes you post without contextualising.
It has drawn out this thread trying to get you to contextualise but I expect that might be impossible for you. But we''l see.
that of the Dems 19% uncommitted vote in Minnesota.
You thought it was a fantastic thing because you said:
Biden's facing a massive election issue..
That's what you said.
A massive election issue would mean fro the Presidency, would it not?
You don't get voted President by winning Minnesota. Unless you think you do. Do you?
Now subdue your impulsive compulsive disorder and realise the Presidency isn't won with just Minnesota.
I get what you mean with the 19% of uncommitted. That's not in dispute with the contextualisation in these posts. It's the massive, like really you said massive election issue
I then pointed out to you that it might not be as massive as you think going on the results of 2012 from those uncommitted votes.
It's obvious this is a really difficult thing for you to contextualise but try putting aside your compulsive implusive disorder that makes you respond without thinking. and think on it. Allow it to sink in. Take a deep breath and contextualise it is at is.
I'll repost my post to help you. Deep breath in!
More voted uncommitted against Obama in 2012
6 hours ago — Yes, there was a protest vote in Minnesota. But in other states that voted on Tuesday, 2012 was way worse for the Democratic incumbent.
Ok, s l o w l y, B i d e n m a y n o t b e f a c i n g a m a s s i v e e l e c t i o n i s s u e !
More voted uncommitted against Obama in 2012 and oddly enough, he became President, again.
Got it?
I hope so.
You've made yourself look foolish enough so far.
