PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Lucifer on January 15, 2017, 11:37:44 AM
-
Here's a serious question for those who truly believed the Russians hacked and/or influenced the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election:
Can you please point out or cite, with credible references, just how the supposed hacking influenced the outcome of the election?
Please be specific as to what method was used and how exactly it changed the outcome (perceived).
-
Here's a serious question for those who truly believed the Russians hacked and/or influenced the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election:
Can you please point out or cite, with credible references, just how the supposed hacking influenced the outcome of the election?
Please be specific as to what method was used and how exactly it changed the outcome (perceived).
Regardless of who perpetrated the hacking, it did shine a light on a lot of the shenanigans (to be polite) that the Dem's participated in. That may have swung a few liberal votes away from Hillary. SOME liberals can show a conscience tempered by logic.
Of course, I don't believe for a minute that the Rs are lilly white (can we still say that without being called racist) and innocent, but the Rs don't get by with much that the press doesn't shine the light on. It required some sort of hacker to get to the truth about the Dems.
-
Which Liberal media outlets covered the DNC Scandal or the Hillary email stuff?
-
Here's a serious question for those who truly believed the Russians hacked and/or influenced the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election:
Can you please point out or cite, with credible references, just how the supposed hacking influenced the outcome of the election?
Please be specific as to what method was used and how exactly it changed the outcome (perceived).
Many many people who voted for Trump decided to do so at the last minute. Anything at all could have tripped the balance in favor of Trump so how do you quantify negative information against Hillary planted from Russian sources affecting the people sitting on the fence? Do you expect thousands of voters to come forward and say this or that story was the linchpin in their decision to vote for Trump and against Hillary? Get real. The election is over and no matter what you say, millions of Americans feel Trump is not their President. It's up to him to do a good job and prove them wrong. If all he does for the next four years is whine about why millions don't love him, then maybe those millions were right in believing he was not up to the job.
-
Regardless of who perpetrated the hacking, it did shine a light on a lot of the shenanigans (to be polite) that the Dem's participated in. That may have swung a few liberal votes away from Hillary. SOME liberals can show a conscience tempered by logic.
Of course, I don't believe for a minute that the Rs are lilly white (can we still say that without being called racist) and innocent, but the Rs don't get by with much that the press doesn't shine the light on. It required some sort of hacker to get to the truth about the Dems.
But my question is centered on the supposed Russian hacking. I have watched liberal pundits on the news talk programs keep repeating the liberal talking point of how the Russians supposedly influenced the outcome of the election, but when pressed on the proof or how exactly they influenced it, the liberals start citing esoteric evidence no where related to the question.
-
Many many people who voted for Trump decided to do so at the last minute.
Proof?
Anything at all could have tripped the balance in favor of Trump so how do you quantify negative information against Hillary planted from Russian sources affecting the people sitting on the fence?
Proof? Reference?
Do you expect thousands of voters to come forward and say this or that story was the linchpin in their decision to vote for Trump and against Hillary? Get real. The election is over and no matter what you say, millions of Americans feel Trump is not their President. It's up to him to do a good job and prove them wrong. If all he does for the next four years is whine about why millions don't love him, then maybe those millions were right in believing he was not up to the job.
Again, you can't even stay on subject. Please read the question carefully, and answer the question directly.
-
Many many people who voted for Trump decided to do so at the last minute.
I knew from the time Trump was nominated that I would vote for him. But I only shared that feeling here on PS. If my friends or relatives brought the topic up, I wouldn't eve address it with them because it would cause a fight. They refused to have any serious discussion. They dismissed any opinion different than the ones the NYT or CNN gave them.
-
Many many people who voted for Trump decided to do so at the last minute. ...
source?
-
Many many people who voted for Trump decided to do so at the last minute. Anything at all could have tripped the balance in favor of Trump so how do you quantify negative information against Hillary planted from Russian sources affecting the people sitting on the fence? Do you expect thousands of voters to come forward and say this or that story was the linchpin in their decision to vote for Trump and against Hillary? Get real. The election is over and no matter what you say, millions of Americans feel Trump is not their President. It's up to him to do a good job and prove them wrong. If all he does for the next four years is whine about why millions don't love him, then maybe those millions were right in believing he was not up to the job.
I know that, as a society, we are currently more focused on how people feel instead of dealing with reality and facts, so people can feel however they want. In the end, he will in fact be their president on January 20th. He doesn't have to prove to them that he is their president, but he does have to do a good job for the sake of the country.
-
Proof?
Proof? Reference?
Again, you can't even stay on subject. Please read the question carefully, and answer the question directly.
Polls indicated 15 percent of voters were undecided days away from the election. With Hillary leading Trump by around 6 percent, a good portion of those 15 percent undecided ended up voting for Trump. Google it yourself.
-
Polls indicated 15 percent of voters were undecided days away from the election. With Hillary leading Trump by around 6 percent, a good portion of those 15 percent undecided ended up voting for Trump. Google it yourself.
You are using the same polls that predicted hillary winning as proof that many people decided at the last minute?
-
Polls indicated 15 percent of voters were undecided days away from the election. With Hillary leading Trump by around 6 percent, a good portion of those 15 percent undecided ended up voting for Trump. Google it yourself.
No reference, no facts, just speculation on your part.
Please reread the question (slowly, take your time) and answer it directly. If you need help understanding the question, feel free to ask.
Can you please point out or cite, with credible references, just how the supposed hacking influenced the outcome of the election?
Please be specific as to what method was used and how exactly it changed the outcome (perceived).
-
Polls indicated 15 percent of voters were undecided days away from the election. With Hillary leading Trump by around 6 percent, a good portion of those 15 percent undecided ended up voting for Trump. Google it yourself.
Those polls probably included me in that 15%.
-
Since the FBI has yet to actually investigate russian hacking, or examine the DNC computers where it was alleged to have happened, it is easy to dismiss the entire charade an ANOTHER in a never ending series of distractions to keep people from realizing that the democrats lack substance, integrity, honesty, a clear message and/or much of an agenda beyond the embrace of stupid.
Everything else is rumor, accusation mongering and lies.
-
Since the FBI has yet to actually investigate russian hacking, or examine the DNC computers where it was alleged to have happened, it is easy to dismiss the entire charade an ANOTHER in a never ending series of distractions to keep people from realizing that the democrats lack substance, integrity, honesty, a clear message and/or much of an agenda beyond the embrace of stupid.
Everything else is rumor, accusation mongering and lies.
Do you think the FBI has not been investigating? Well even Mr. Trump seems convinced of Russian actions and since he's privy to the good stuff, I think I'll lean towards believing our Intel folks and leave you to your fantasies. I seem to recall Mr. Trump promising to reveal his own information refuting Russian involvement before his Friday intel brief. Maybe he was going to use Number7 as his proof. Everyone else feel free to cite Number7 as your source for believing the Russians had nothing to do with interfering in an American political campaign. I'm sure it will lend an appropriate amount of legitimacy to your arguments that its all a made up lie by liberals. There you have it, case closed.
-
Do you think the FBI has not been investigating? Well even Mr. Trump seems convinced of Russian actions and since he's privy to the good stuff, I think I'll lean towards believing our Intel folks and leave you to your fantasies. I seem to recall Mr. Trump promising to reveal his own information refuting Russian involvement before his Friday intel brief. Maybe he was going to use Number7 as his proof. Everyone else feel free to cite Number7 as your source for believing the Russians had nothing to do with interfering in an American political campaign. I'm sure it will lend an appropriate amount of legitimacy to your arguments that its all a made up lie by liberals. There you have, case closed.
Nice diatribe.
Are you ever going to address the original question in this thread, or just continue to obfuscate?
-
You're asking me to prove Russia was effective in electing Donald Trump as if it's being ineffective excuses it. You tell me how to prove what information individual voters thought significant enough to vote for one candidate or the other? Was it information provided by the FSB or was it an intense dislike of pants suits? It doesn't matter, Trump is P-E. What would be interesting and actionable to find out is did the Trump campaign work with Russia during the campaign or did Russia act by itself. Will Russia's attempts to help Trump result in reciprocity from the Trump administration? Stay tuned. Just today NATO nations have more to think about as to our (ie. Trump's) willingness to defend them from our new best friend, Vladmir.
-
You're asking me to prove Russia was effective in electing Donald Trump as if it's being ineffective excuses it.
The question was (again)
Can you please point out or cite, with credible references, just how the supposed hacking influenced the outcome of the election?
Please be specific as to what method was used and how exactly it changed the outcome (perceived).
So your statement above in no way correlates with the original question.
You tell me how to prove what information individual voters thought significant enough to vote for one candidate or the other?
What information are you alluding too?
Was it information provided by the FSB or was it an intense dislike of pants suits?
What information was provided by the FSB? Source?
It doesn't matter, Trump is P-E. What would be interesting and actionable to find out is did the Trump campaign work with Russia during the campaign or did Russia act by itself.
Again, can you provide a source or reference that actually proves that Russia acted in any way during the campaign? You keep alluding to a Russian connection but you have yet to cite one credible reference.
Will Russia's attempts to help Trump result in reciprocity from the Trump administration?
What attempt? Exactly what did Russia do to "help Trump"? Source? Reference?
-
Is it me or did Lucifer just wake from a coma?
-
Is it me or did Lucifer just wake from a coma?
It's you.
You seem perfectly willing to condemn Trump on the flimsiest non-evidence, but give Hillary every possible benefit of the doubt when confronted with mountains of extremely suspicious conduct.
-
Many many people who voted for Trump decided to do so at the last minute.
The major last minute information that might have influenced the election was due to time running out and the FBI's notice of the A Weiner investigation.
What this tells me is that 1) polls were wrong and/or 2) moderate voters found Clinton more offensive than Trump. Also recall that the only place that was really a miss was the rust belt. Union defectors decided the election and the media didn't know because they, like the Democrats took the rust belt for granted and didn't even poll there much.
BTW, in 2012 there were 21% undecided voters two weeks before the election.
-
It's you.
You seem perfectly willing to condemn Trump on the flimsiest non-evidence, but give Hillary every possible benefit of the doubt when confronted with mountains of extremely suspicious conduct.
What flimsiest of evidence? He's admitted self-dealing Trump foundation funds. He's admitted bribing politicians. I've watched him mock the disabled and denigrate veterans. I've listened to him talk of assaulting women because his fame allows him to get away with it. I've seen him lie to our face with evidence of the lie in front of him. Flimsiest of evidence? What is this, bizarro world where nothing is real?
But I digress, this thread wasn't about what I think of Trump. Lucifer wants proof that Russian hacking helped Trump's campaign. Then he went back to wanting proof Russians even did any hacking. He apparently refuses to believe any reports that our intelligence agencies have a consensus that they've concluded with high confidence that Russia conducted an information warfare campaign to benefit one candidate. He wants evidence. Ask his buddy Trump to get him a clearance since he obviously insists he has a need to know.
-
2) moderate voters found Clinton more offensive than Trump.
THIS. The email dumps may have exacerbated her image issues, but she had issues well before then.
Union defectors decided the election and the media didn't know because they, like the Democrats took the rust belt for granted and didn't even poll there much.
AND THIS. In my opinion, more this than the previous point. HRC was no friend of Unions, or Labor.
As for proof or sources of Russian hacking..that stuff is above my pay grade. If nearly all our intelligence agencies agree that Russian hackers are behind a campaign to attempt aiding in Trump's victory, then why would we get upset when our experts are in agreement? It doesn't delegitimize the election results.
I'm sure much to the chagrin of Democrats who took the Union vote for granted.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
-
As for proof or sources of Russian hacking..that stuff is above my pay grade. If nearly all our intelligence agencies agree that Russian hackers are behind a campaign to attempt aiding in Trump's victory, then why would we get upset when our experts are in agreement? It doesn't delegitimize the election results.
Again, if the Russians supposedly waged a campaign to "aid Trump", exactly what did they do? How did they "aid Trump"?
-
He apparently refuses to believe any reports that our intelligence agencies have a consensus that they've concluded with high confidence that Russia conducted an information warfare campaign to benefit one candidate.
OK, so what "information warfare" was conducted? How did it benefit Trump?
Post a link to show us how this was done.
-
The OP's own Messiah has admitted Russian involvement. Our current POTUS stated there was Russian involvement.
If that's not good enough for the OP, I strongly suggest hitting up those two individuals for more information. I'm sure either one would be happy to share.
As for me, I do trust when ALL the experts agree on something. That trust becomes galvanized when representatives from both parties verify their authenticity. I'm also stupid enough to know that some details, such as the ones the OP pines (whines?) for, may be presently classified and not for public dissemination.
I'm curious though why this is such a big deal. Get to the point.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
-
The OP's own Messiah has admitted Russian involvement. Our current POTUS stated there was Russian involvement.
If that's not good enough for the OP, I strongly suggest hitting up those two individuals for more information. I'm sure either one would be happy to share.
As for me, I do trust when ALL the experts agree on something. That trust becomes galvanized when representatives from both parties verify their authenticity. I'm also stupid enough to know that some details, such as the ones the OP pines (whines?) for, may be presently classified and not for public dissemination.
I'm curious though why this is such a big deal. Get to the point.
So we keep hearing how those rascally Russians "influenced" the campaign. We've heard from intelligence agencies (using very cryptic press releases) how the campaign was "influenced".
Yet we haven't been told or shown how this "influence" happened. Did the Russians take over a news agency? Did they take over and run a tv or cable outlet? Did they convince Hillary to delete 33,000 emails while under subpoena? Did they go door to door in the rust belt and force people to vote for Trump? Did they control the various polling companies to screw up their polling? Mind control?
How? People like you and Witless like to tell us that it happened, but yet you can't tell us how it happened. Doesn't that seem a bit strange?
I've yet to meet anyone who said "Ya know, I was going to vote Hillary, but at the last minute this "influence" came over me and I voted Trump! And I don't know why!"
-
Deny deny deny. It's your only answer to Russian interference having any effect on the outcome of the election. You claim you weren't influenced and yet you don't know what they did? Without knowledge of their actions, how can you say nothing they did influenced you? So deny they did anything. The only way to rationalize their actions had no effect without knowing exactly what they did is if you deny they did anything. It's all a left wing fiction because everyone in our intelligence agencies are liberal democrats--it's a requirement for the job. Yeah, that's the ticket, it never happened.
-
Witmo's delusions to the contrary, there are a plethora of actual reasons that HRC LOST the election to Donald Trump.
There is the never ending inconvenient failures of the welfare state to improve the lives of inner city, generational democrats.
There is the never ending lies and corruption of Bill and HRC, not just of years, but of decades. Do you remember the definition of 'is?'
Then there is the impossible task of counting people who haven't voted in years and years. Many voters fed up with the cesspool in DC went out to vote for Donald Trump because he wasn't raised in the political septic tank we call Washington.
They showed up in force and counted alongside generational union voters who changed sides to see if something good might come out of their vote, it was just enough to send Witmo into hysterics and delusional assurance of evil plots and even evil-er Russian intention.
That Witmo can't justify the cozy relationship the Clinton crime syndicate has with Russia in the area of uranium gifts is quite another question, but delusion takes all forms and Witmo seems to suffer from many of them.
Then there is the question of violence arranged and paid for by Soros on behalf of HRC and how that disgusted actual working/productive Americans. People reacted negatively to such outright and brazen attempts to take the election away from the voters and it helped many people decide to abandon the generational failures of the democrat party and see if something new and different might change things.
Hilary Clinton calling half the voters in the country a basket of deplorables, racists, homophobes and whatever other ignorance she babbled didn't help. Witmo agrees with her assessment therefore he can't see the problem with it.
Witmo is so determined to blame Russia and republicans because turning his sights at the truth will damage the lies he clings to like Obama claimed the rest of us were clinging to our patriotism, guns, God and religion.
Hilary LOST.
Trump didn't win nearly as much as the voters rejected everything she stood for. The woman couldn't even call Radical Islamic Terror what it was because she is so delusional about the lies of the progressive agenda.
People notice that stuff.
At least normal people do. I seriously doubt progressives are capable of rational examination of how stupid their platform of lies looks to non-progressives. That's why progressives have embraced violence against those of us who refuse to agree, or pretend to agree with their agenda. Progressives can't even call out the four cannibals in Chicago that tortured a young. special needs man for voting for Donald Trump.
There is special breed of mental illness when adults refuse to admit that is sickening, disgusting, vicious and damages their ability to communicate their political positions.
All I can say is, 'Keep It Up, Witmo and others. You are guaranteeing you will LOSE again in four years.'
-
Our media, the Democrats, our Educational system, and much of our government, in the modern era, has pushed a Progressive/Liberal agenda since the 1960's. Some of these policies, on the surface look altruistic, yet in reality are not only destructive but are designed to give government bureaucrats, and politicians more control, and power while taking away from the truly productive.
These policies have FAILED, and have been utterly destructive to much of society, especially the people that it was supposedly designed to help. All lies where people like the Clintons get RICH, and even more powerful. They need to be pulled out of their offices, and mansions, and tarred, and feathered. Not just Democrats either. McCain, Lindsay Graham, etc also.
-
Deny deny deny. It's your only answer to Russian interference having any effect on the outcome of the election.
I haven't denied anything. I've asked for examples (real) of exactly how they supposedly influenced the election. And as of today, no one has been able to cite one example.
You claim you weren't influenced and yet you don't know what they did?
So the Russians are behind the DNC's plan to run a sick old tired criminal named Clinton, and they deliberately had her run a terrible campaign? The Russians had Debbie Wasserman Schultz rig the DNC primaries as well? You are alleging this was all a Russian conspiracy to get people to vote for Trump?
Without knowledge of their actions, how can you say nothing they did influenced you?
That makes no sense whatsoever. I have never voted for a democrat, had absolutely no intention on voting (a) democrat and (b) sure as hell had no intention on voting for Hillary Clinton.
At the onset of the 2016 election I clearly stated (a) I did not under any circumstance want to see the Clinton's in the White House and (b) I would vote for whoever got the Republican nomination to prevent it.
So with that, using your "logic" the Russians must have been behind the DNC and the Clintons since you are convinced I somehow was influenced not to vote for her.
Can you not see how loopy that sounds?
So deny they did anything. The only way to rationalize their actions had no effect without knowing exactly what they did is if you deny they did anything.
It's easy to deny when no facts in evidence have been produced. Even you can't produce one fact.
It's all a left wing fiction because everyone in our intelligence agencies are liberal democrats--it's a requirement for the job. Yeah, that's the ticket, it never happened.
Had these intelligence agencies produced anything other than a lame press release filled with innuendo it may have been believable. The DNC claims they were hacked, but refused to let the FBI look into their servers for evidence. WikiLeaks has stated time and time again they did not work with the Russians. Podesta acknowledged he fell for a phishing scheme and his email password was "password". Hillary kept her insecure home brewed server in her house full of classified emails.
Those are facts, all verifiable.
Come back when you can offer up one solid fact instead of inane diatribes.
-
All I can say is, 'Keep It Up, Witmo and others. You are guaranteeing you will LOSE again in four years.'
I have to agree.
-
Deny deny deny. It's your only answer to Russian interference having any effect on the outcome of the election.
Well, if you cannot present evidence that Russian interference is why Hillary lost then do not expect us to prove the negative. You are making the assertion, our "deny" is reminding you that you have failed to back your assertion up with verifiable data.
The election now tells us the polls were off by a large amount. Personally, I believe that Republicans were under represented in certain states because they were less willing to participate in polls. At the same time we learned that many polling organizations corrected the raw polling data and skewed it toward Democrats. As a result, everyone believed that states such as Wisconsin and Michigan were solidly Democrat. If we had more accurate polling then Democrat expectations would not have been set for firmly and they would have an easier time accepting reality.
-
Sorry Witmo, you lost it for me with the "mock the disabled" as that is straight out of the alt-left playbook of talking points. You really have not researched that one well. Please show us the evidence of Trump mocking the disabled reporter and how he mimicked him exactly. Make sure that you don't look for instances of Trump using the same gestures when talking about folks other than that reporter becuase it won't help your case any.
-
Sorry Witmo, you lost it for me with the "mock the disabled" as that is straight out of the alt-left playbook of talking points. You really have not researched that one well. Please show us the evidence of Trump mocking the disabled reporter and how he mimicked him exactly. Make sure that you don't look for instances of Trump using the same gestures when talking about folks other than that reporter becuase it won't help your case any.
Bizarro world. I'll leave you to it. Good -bye.
-
Sorry Witmo, you lost it for me with the "mock the disabled" as that is straight out of the alt-left playbook of talking points. You really have not researched that one well. Please show us the evidence of Trump mocking the disabled reporter and how he mimicked him exactly. Make sure that you don't look for instances of Trump using the same gestures when talking about folks other than that reporter becuase it won't help your case any.
I have been looking for that video that showed Trump mocking all kinds of people with the flailing of arms and stupid voice. I have told my flaming liberal in-laws about it, but they don't believe me because it wasn't on MSNBC.
-
I have been looking for that video that showed Trump mocking all kinds of people with the flailing of arms and stupid voice. I have told my flaming liberal in-laws about it, but they don't believe me because it wasn't on MSNBC.
The media doesn't want you to find it. It would damage the image that they are promoting for Trump as an insensitive, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, sexist DEPLORABLE.
-
See the vid of trump mocking reporter,,, easy for me to find on utube
http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/11/26/donald-trump-mocks-reporter-with-disability-berman-sot-ac.cnn
-
Easy to find another side to the accusation, too. It is so easy for anyone, D or R, to cut and edit and take things out of context ... we really need to stay on our toes to know what the real story is.
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2016-08-31.html
-
I have been looking for that video that showed Trump mocking all kinds of people with the flailing of arms and stupid voice. I have told my flaming liberal in-laws about it, but they don't believe me because it wasn't on MSNBC.
ok, I found it.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/14/did-trump-really-mock-reporters-disability-videos-could-back-him-up.html#.WH0IaI3OyYk.email
On FOX of course.
-
https://www.catholics4trump.com/the-true-story-donald-trump-did-not-mock-a-reporters-disability/ (https://www.catholics4trump.com/the-true-story-donald-trump-did-not-mock-a-reporters-disability/)
Don't let Witmo see this, he's too close minded to understand.
-
So FNC cited Eppy's link as a source. I'll give the Catholics some credit: they went through a lot of due diligence to explain away his antics.
The fact remains: DJT needs to stop trying to be an entertainer. He will be POTUS in two days, NOT an impersonator extraordinaire.
If he doesn't make a turnaround and act accordingly, he will give his opponents all the ammunition they need.
And we will end up swearing Pence as POTUS 46.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
-
If he doesn't make a turnaround and act accordingly, he will give his opponents all the ammunition they need.
And we will end up swearing Pence as POTUS 46.
As I said in another thread, I agree. Also, I think I like Pence better anyway! Trump needs to grow up, and act Presidential, and not allow his emotions to often rule his statements.
-
So FNC cited Eppy's link as a source. I'll give the Catholics some credit: they went through a lot of due diligence to explain away his antics.
The fact remains: DJT needs to stop trying to be an entertainer. He will be POTUS in two days, NOT an impersonator extraordinaire.
If he doesn't make a turnaround and act accordingly, he will give his opponents all the ammunition they need.
And we will end up swearing Pence as POTUS 46.
It's a most interesting time to be alive. I'm sorry John McLaughlin isn't here to see it. I loved The McLaughlin Group show ... two liberals and two conservatives duking it out with John as moderator. He passed away last year at 90 or so. The show was refreshingly NOT an echo chamber.
Anyhoo, I agree with you about Trump, except that he has withstood so many slings, arrows and bullets that I am not sure what it would take to take him down. You can't say people are deluding themselves about him, really, it's just that he represents some hope of turning things around and actually solving some problems. We'll see, but ... the left is really not helping itself by seeing demons everywhere they look.
-
So FNC cited Eppy's link as a source. I'll give the Catholics some credit: they went through a lot of due diligence to explain away his antics.
The fact remains: DJT needs to stop trying to be an entertainer. He will be POTUS in two days, NOT an impersonator extraordinaire.
If he doesn't make a turnaround and act accordingly, he will give his opponents all the ammunition they need.
And we will end up swearing Pence as POTUS 46.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Two points:
Don't underestimate Trump's ability to survive. Liberals did that throughout the campaign and look where it got them.
Also, If we do wind up swearing in Pence as 46, that might just be a GOOD thing. As a matter of fact, I suspect we will swear him in as #46 in 8 years from now.
-
I found PROOF of Russian Hacking!!!!!
Witmo will be SO PROUD!!!!!
(https://scontent.ftpa1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15978078_371611069870630_3919956129233031933_n.jpg?oh=e63c8d9b3abd9d51ef088d8081431bfa&oe=59089F09)
-
I do not care if the Russians had a hand in the election, influence, tanking the Dems, or paying money to stuff the ballot box. The entire U S government are hippocrits for calling out Russia. Our government has repeatedly started or participated in conflicts abroad to dismantle governments we did not agree with.
Suck it up Dems. Pull your panties out of your ass and treat Trump as the duly elected U S president. If you have complaints, put someone up 4 years from now that has half a chance of beating and not someone who should have been indicted and jailed for the crap she's pulled.
At least give the man a chance to prove himself.
-
The funniest things in entertainment are coming out of the democrat party and progressive media these days.
Their ignorant ranting and insane hypocrisy is better than anything on TV, or at the movies.
One day the party is going to end and the whole country is going to realize how pathetic, weak, whiny, and dishonest the democrats have become and the 2016 election is going to look like a walk in that park compared to how bad they are going to get ripped when that happens.