OLD SMTC SOB wrote:
eric a blair wrote:You would be happy if a hostile dictatorship meddled with our elections.
understood.
Sick, but understood.
It never happened, as much as you'd like to think it did. You did take the bait though.
you're the guy who said you'd tip your hat to the russians had they interfered in our elections.
you stand by that, really?
if that were in a newspaper, quoting you, you ok truly ok with that?
OLD SMTC SOB wrote:
OLD SMTC SOB wrote:It never happened, as much as you'd like to think it did. You did take the bait though.
No comments about how HRC should have been President, based on her "years of public service" her impeccable track record as a wonderful human being and stellar career as first lady in chief and SOS? Anyone care to try and make that a coherent argument?
the HRC debate is old and done.
I really hope you can't tempt me into debating this thing.
Let's just say that there has never been an ounce of proof that she is corrupt or in fact a bad person. All your 'I know a guy' and 'I read the fake news about her' is just talk talk talk, with absolutely zero evidence.
zilch. You have chosen to believe the gossip and propaganda. You would be an excellent North Korean citizen, with your willingness to believe what you are told.
She's been investigated for 40 years and they've found nothing, nothing, nothing. Nothing.
But sure, she's a criminal enterprise. I mean really. Grow up.
eric a blair wrote:
OLD SMTC SOB wrote:It never happened, as much as you'd like to think it did. You did take the bait though.
you're the guy who said you'd tip your hat to the russians had they interfered in our elections.
you stand by that, really?
if that were in a newspaper, quoting you, you ok truly ok with that?
How do you know i'm a guy? But I digress...........Number one, they didn't and number two I'd deny that I said it, just like any good Democrat. Number three, I don't own a hat. At least one I can tip.
eric a blair wrote:
OLD SMTC SOB wrote:No comments about how HRC should have been President, based on her "years of public service" her impeccable track record as a wonderful human being and stellar career as first lady in chief and SOS? Anyone care to try and make that a coherent argument?
the HRC debate is old and done.
I really hope you can't tempt me into debating this thing.
Let's just say that there has never been an ounce of proof that she is corrupt or in fact a bad person. All your 'I know a guy' and 'I read the fake news about her' is just talk talk talk, with absolutely zero evidence.
zilch. You have chosen to believe the gossip and propaganda. You would be an excellent North Korean citizen, with your willingness to believe what you are told.
She's been investigated for 40 years and they've found nothing, nothing, nothing. Nothing.
But sure, she's a criminal enterprise. I mean really. Grow up.
Please..............As far as being a criminal enterprise, thats not my assessment. But I believe my FBI agent cousin. And as far as the propaganda, thats all fact, and well documented over many previous years. Shes a despicable human being as is her philandering husband. Suffice it to say that its all ancient history..........as she isn't, and will never be President of the good ol USA. And that I'm gleeful about. The only thing I now worry about is that her daughter, from all reports I've seen, may be being groomed to enter politics. Of course in a heavily Democratic state. More of the same.
Good to see Trump rewarding the Rust Belt voters who helped put him into office. Don't worry about that weird taste in your drinking water, fellow patriots; it's just freedom.
http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2017/03/trump_great_lakes_epa_cuts.html
Abuse of power. Obama's secret slush fund to bankroll leftist groups.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/justices-liberal-slush-fund-1449188273
Obama spying on political enemies like a good communist. This is wrong.
eric a blair wrote:But sure, she's a criminal enterprise. I mean really. Grow up.
There's a valid point hidden in the Right's Clinton hyperbole. There is no question either one of them could ever qualify for sainthood. Are they dirtier than the average status-seeking Republican? Probably not.
It would be nice if Americans preferred more staid politicians who got work done, but they don't. So many seem to prefer the name calling. It's unfortunate, but, that's where we seem to be.
The Gallant Pig Man wrote:
Good to see Trump rewarding the Rust Belt voters who helped put him into office. Don't worry about that weird taste in your drinking water, fellow patriots; it's just freedom.
http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2017/03/trump_great_lakes_epa_cuts.html
That doesn't even scratch the surface. Trump has gone lock-step establishment as of late since they control whether or not he will be investigated for treason.
On the other side, we have Pooty, who could whip out the pee pee if Trump doesn't bend over and remove sanctions. The one certainty here is that when the smoke clears, the forgotten man will be the same or worse off. And he'll have no one to blame but himself.
ItsBaddude wrote:
Obama spying on political enemies like a good communist. This is wrong.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/03/mark-levin-obama-used-police-state-tactics-undermine-trump/
It gets worse:
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/03/02/valerie-jarrett-moves-obama-plot-against-trump-dc-mansionhttp://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2015/06/communism-in-jarretts-family/George Orwell wrote:
ItsBaddude wrote:Obama spying on political enemies like a good communist. This is wrong.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/03/mark-levin-obama-used-police-state-tactics-undermine-trump/It gets worse:
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/03/02/valerie-jarrett-moves-obama-plot-against-trump-dc-mansionhttp://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2015/06/communism-in-jarretts-family/
By any objective, non-emotional, data driven standard, Obama is a better American that trump. Trump got in bed with a communist, atheist, dictator for personal gain. By all accounts, our forefathers would unanimously charge treason and call for capital punishment.
sovereign citizen wrote:
http://i.imgur.com/WZGDqfI.jpg
Damn, does Dwumpf where a diaper? That's quite a donk. Pooty must like the big booty.
Obama's calm and rational demeanor, and soothing, measured tones masked a deep-seated hatred for this country and it's institutions. I'm sorry to hear he fooled you, but he wouldn't have fooled our founding fathers.Orange Mango wrote:
George Orwell wrote:It gets worse:
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/03/02/valerie-jarrett-moves-obama-plot-against-trump-dc-mansionhttp://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2015/06/communism-in-jarretts-family/By any objective, non-emotional, data driven standard, Obama is a better American that trump. Trump got in bed with a communist, atheist, dictator for personal gain. By all accounts, our forefathers would unanimously charge treason and call for capital punishment.
And he wants to be taken seriously while quoting Breitbart and Fox News!
moran
Ok, I see. You want me to do the work, which I will not.
National polls are skewed because in some of the big states with large democratic congressional races, republicans don't even think is worth voting. I would argue that if national votes counted towards the presidential race, and seeing that the state polls under-counted republicans, that Trump could have won the national vote. Anyways, the point is that the national numbers do not matter in a presidential election. I don't know why you even bring it up to infer that Trump did not really win.
The NYT predicted that Hillary would win 322 electoral votes; she only got 232. Big mistake.
The NYT predicted that the democrats would take the senate.
The following nonsense is published as a matter of fact. Typical left wing bullsh*t, you don't know what you are talking about and I do.
"The Upshot’s elections model suggests that Hillary Clinton is favored to win the presidency, based on the latest state and national polls. A victory by Mr. Trump remains possible: Mrs. Clinton’s chance of losing is about the same as the probability that an N.F.L. kicker misses a 37-yard field goal."
Now you expect me to believe any numbers they published? They predicted Trump would get 42.8% of the votes with 2.5% margin of error. He got 46.4%.
Hillary was predicted at 45.9% and got 48.5%. They got both wrong.
If you think this is bad, it gets worse. Sam Wang, a scientists from Princeton, predicted the chance of Clinton winning is greater than 99%. He actually claimed that state polling are the most accurate and that is the only polls they use.
It turns out Pelosi has been lying about not having contact with Russian officials. Probably plotting on how to get Hillary elected.
She should resign along with Schumer.
George Orwell wrote:
Obama's calm and rational demeanor, and soothing, measured tones masked a deep-seated hatred for this country and it's institutions. I'm sorry to hear he fooled you, but he wouldn't have fooled our founding fathers.
Having a different vision for the country is a matter of opinion and ideology, not treason. Just like Trump's agenda isn't treason. But getting in bed with one of America's biggest adversaries to win an election, with plans to help the country out afterwords, is treason by any non-emotional, fact-based standard.
I'm trying to figure out why the trumpites are attacking Obama.
Obama isn't president. He spent six of his eight years with a Republican House/Senate. If he needed to be investigated, surely they would have done it.
But there is nothing. And he's no longer in office.
Deflecting, I guess.
