Plus they don't realize that this is a LIVE site which continually updates.
Yes, I believe I said that it would change in Biden's favor. Which it did. You wanted to declare a recount when the vote total wasn't final. LOL at you.
Plus they don't realize that this is a LIVE site which continually updates.
YOU don't even realize this is a LIVE site! ROFLMBO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
49.6 - 48.9 was up before. this is a LIVE page. it has changed and will continue to. look in the upper right corner and see the "updating" bar running.
Those grapes were sour anyway.
He is dumber than fuck. When he saw your post about .3% difference in Wis and I pointed out that was 99% of the vote do you know what he said? Well, then that will make it a 1.3% difference for Biden. This is from the simpleton that claims to have a masters in economics. LMAO!
They run the country. It means your claim to "victory" here is hollow and meaningless. Just like your entire life.
I'm sorry your reading comprehension is lacking. I said it would change from the .3 figure, and by the time you looked at it, it had indeed changed to 1.3% I know that's a tough one for you to grasp, seeing as how you got your degree from a cracker jack box. You should aim lower. I'm out of your league.
Here is you post asshole: "No, Biden's lead went from .3 to 1.3. Just as I predicted it would. Bye Trump!!!". You can stop blubbering now, fucking idiot.
Sure glad you're here to tell me that, popeye. I thought the President had some kind of responsibility. Guess you straightened me out.
Yes. So which part of that sentence are you having trouble with?
I told you the vote count was 99%. What is 99% plus 1.3%? You fucking idiot.
OMFG you are a fucking moron. The difference WHEN YOU LOOKED was 1.3%. That was the gap between Biden and Trump. It was not .3%. Seriously, you might be the dumbest fuck on the internet.
Bullshit. The difference was .3%. Once again, stop trying to save face here. Yours was obviously ripped off a long time ago. Dumb fuck. All anyone has to do is go back and read the thread. You think lying is go to save you asshole? Some "economist". You cannot even do simple math as you have shown multiple times on threads.
No, the difference was 1.3% you dumb fuck. Are you suggesting that Biden just gained a point out of thin air? ROTFLMFAO!!
You are incapable of even going back and reading your own bullshit. Seriously, this is way over your head. The thread is clear, you are just posturing hoping no one can see how fucking stupid you are. Guess what Concart? You lost that ability a long fucking tme ago. Wimpy ass uneducated fuck.
Okay, bye popeye!!!!
I told you the vote count was 99%. What is 99% plus 1.3%? You fucking idiot.

No, the difference was 1.3% you dumb fuck. Are you suggesting that Biden just gained a point out of thin air? ROTFLMFAO!!
You always run away Concart when beaten. Wimpy uneducated fuck.
CNN just called Wisconsin for Biden...
We are on our way to inauguration. Another of my picks in the bag, I am at 100% so far.
There’s something really STRANGE about Wisconsin’s election results…
https://therightscoop.com/theres-something-really-strange-about-wisconsins-election-results/1) I am legitimately interested/confused by this. I checked, and the top number is indeed Wisconsin's active registered voter number as of Nov. 1. The bottom is approx. what has been counted. That is a (not feasible) 89% turnout. https://t.co/Meb8B9IH0f
— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) November 4, 2020
There were earlier reports you may have seen that showed Wisconsin’s registered voter totals at 3.1 million. But Strassel is right, it’s 3.6. I checked.
She continues…
2) The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is claiming a 71% state turnout. I'm not sure where it gets this, but that would make more sense, given even populous Milwaukee didn't exceed 83% turnout, and Dane lower. (Do math on what rest of state wud need to bump up state avg to 89)
— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) November 4, 2020
3) True, Wisconsin has same day voter registration. But to be at 71%, WI would have yesterday needed 900k same-day registrations. ( If I'm doing my math wrong–please tell me. 3,288,771 divided by 4,588,771 equals 71% . 4,588,771 minus 3,684,726 =900k)
— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) November 4, 2020
4) Is that possible/conceivable? That would be akin to increasing WI's registered voting population by up to 30%–in one day. It would also suggest that if those same-day registrations hadn't happened, WI would have had a ridiculously LOW turnout.
— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) November 4, 2020
5) I suppose it is possible WI's turnout was higher than 71% (again, not sure where MJS gets that). But that would be wild, given the state's own history and what we saw elsewhere yesterday. An even an 80% turnout would still require HUGE same-day registration.
— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) November 4, 2020
6)Surely a record/tally of those same-day registrations must exist. It would therefore seem a straightforward proposition to set the numbers/record straight?
Again, explain if I'm missing something. @WI_Elections
— Kimberley Strassel (@KimStrassel) November 4, 2020
He had to go back to work. He's a hood ornament on a short bus.