Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Press Secretary labels 2016 election STOLEN

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • New Press Secretary labels 2016 election STOLEN

    Weird. I thought you liberal clowns said elections can’t be rigged. Can’t be stolen.


    my have the hypocrites changed their tune from 2016 election to 2020 election.




  • #2
    Odd. I thought elections can’t be rigged.



    and yet here’s another stolen election.






    how come Twitter didn’t ban her for misinformation? Where’s the outrage for lying? ****ing morons.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by The1percentKid View Post
      Weird. I thought you liberal clowns said elections can’t be rigged. Can’t be stolen.


      my have the hypocrites changed their tune from 2016 election to 2020 election.



      Left thinks that’s okay. Also okay to harass and threaten SCOTUS.

      Complete bias. Just wondering when all the Republicans and independents will see that this is basically a war.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by The1percentKid View Post
        Odd. I thought elections can’t be rigged.



        and yet here’s another stolen election.






        how come Twitter didn’t ban her for misinformation? Where’s the outrage for lying? ****ing morons.
        It’s complete bias. Blatant. People are brainwashed.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Shellback88 View Post

          Left thinks that’s okay. Also okay to harass and threaten SCOTUS.

          Complete bias. Just wondering when all the Republicans and independents will see that this is basically a war.
          They cry and whine about one damn Jan day. Yet countless days we witness full harassment and violence from the left. Every single day.


          that’s OK though.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by The1percentKid View Post

            They cry and whine about one damn Jan day. Yet countless days we witness full harassment and violence from the left. Every single day.


            that’s OK though.
            They blatantly will not only not condemn, but encourage such behavior. Anything from DOJ? No. FBI? No. These agencies are completely in the pocket of the left.

            Comment


            • #7
              The 2016 election saw unprecedented interference by a foreign country.

              Was that the cause of Trumps victory?? I’d say it was more about running a fatally flawed dynasty candidate that people disliked, and assume would breeze to victory.

              Hubris.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by B-Large View Post
                The 2016 election saw unprecedented interference by a foreign country.
                Lolz. No it didn't. I always love it when people think some uber-cheese social media ads made significant impacts on electoral outcomes....

                If it was that easy to move votes around, the marketing pros who rake billions in trying to nudge the needle just a hair would be carpetbombing the campaign with it.

                And to whatever infinitesimal extent it made any difference, it was easily washed by the DNC flooding the media with unsubstantiated rumors supposedly from Russia but mostly from HFA's campaign offices.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post

                  Lolz. No it didn't. I always love it when people think some uber-cheese social media ads made significant impacts on electoral outcomes....

                  If it was that easy to move votes around, the marketing pros who rake billions in trying to nudge the needle just a hair would be carpetbombing the campaign with it.

                  And to whatever infinitesimal extent it made any difference, it was easily washed by the DNC flooding the media with unsubstantiated rumors supposedly from Russia but mostly from HFA's campaign offices.
                  https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/...rt_volume5.pdf

                  senate report documenting 2016 elections interference, investigated and completed by your party…

                  you should read it, or at least some it of… it’s really fascinating, and scary how corrosive social media is…

                  But you won’t, so don’t worry 👍

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by B-Large View Post

                    https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/...rt_volume5.pdf

                    senate report documenting 2016 elections interference, investigated and completed by your party…

                    you should read it, or at least some it of… it’s really fascinating, and scary how corrosive social media is…

                    But you won’t, so don’t worry 👍
                    You'll have to point out where that report actually defines the real-world electoral difference Russia made (outside of things falsely attributed to Russia like Hunter's Laptop)

                    And then deal with the reality that the DNC/HFA would not only take Russian assistance to win an election if it were available, but would fake intelligence out of Russia to whatever extent they thought it would help. As was done.

                    Baffles me how you can, on the one hand, decry the possibility of Russian leaks impacting the election, while on the other, spend the entire election cycle pimping (supposedly) Russian leaks. It's mind-boggling.

                    But the issue arching over all that is that you think Russian marketing is better than American marketing at moving votes?

                    Vlady won the election playing 5d Mad Men chess? Please. The days for backstopping everything against the Russian Boogeyman are over. If you have to appeal to that sad sack, has-been nation to rationalize why Hillary Clinton was unelectable, you've got bigger problems than the Disinformation Governance Board can help you with.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      On top of that, they completely turn their backs on the 2000 Mules documentary as completely false without even taking (any) time to review what it's about.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post

                        You'll have to point out where that report actually defines the real-world electoral difference Russia made (outside of things falsely attributed to Russia like Hunter's Laptop)
                        Why would he need to do that? Where did he say or suggest that it did?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Mozzafiato View Post

                          Why would he need to do that? Where did he say or suggest that it did?
                          Did you read the thread title?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Mozzafiato View Post

                            Why would he need to do that? Where did he say or suggest that it did?
                            Exactly. An unfriendly foreign power, the one who after that fact has invaded a sovereign country, attempted to interfere in our free and open elections.

                            that should infuriate every American. Was it successful is beside the point.

                            Trump won because of Democrat hubris. Obscene Hubris.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by B-Large View Post

                              Exactly. An unfriendly foreign power, the one who after that fact has invaded a sovereign country, attempted to interfere in our free and open elections.

                              that should infuriate every American. Was it successful is beside the point.

                              Trump won because of Democrat hubris. Obscene Hubris.
                              And I should've given credit for that answer... apologies.

                              But on the other hand, what Russia's doing isn't new at all. And honestly likely a much less serious effort than it's gone through in the past (pre-Gorbachev)

                              What's made it more threatening is the clown nature of our top tier political candidates, and the fact that they're essentially for sale, and it no longer even matters to them who's writing checks.

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                Originally posted by B-Large View Post
                                The 2016 election saw unprecedented interference by a foreign country.

                                Was that the cause of Trumps victory?? I’d say it was more about running a fatally flawed dynasty candidate that people disliked, and assume would breeze to victory.

                                Hubris.
                                Trump won because his America First policies resonated with Americans.....and also people were sick of the Clintons. LOL unprecedented interference. Not one investigation could prove that anything Russia did influenced American voters.

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post

                                  And I should've given credit for that answer... apologies.

                                  But on the other hand, what Russia's doing isn't new at all. And honestly likely a much less serious effort than it's gone through in the past (pre-Gorbachev)

                                  What's made it more threatening is the clown nature of our top tier political candidates, and the fact that they're essentially for sale, and it no longer even matters to them who's writing checks.
                                  Do you have any evidence to suggest that any prior POTUS had as many people in his inner circle having numerous connections and meetings with Russia as Trump's did, as detailed in the report?

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    Originally posted by Mozzafiato View Post

                                    Do you have any evidence to suggest that any prior POTUS had as many people in his inner circle having numerous connections and meetings with Russia as Trump's did, as detailed in the report?
                                    I only really have to look as far as his opponent, if we're being honest. In fact I can go back to guys like Deripaska to show that he personally was both framed as a good guy or a bad guy by the left depending on which team he was connecting with at the moment.

                                    Deripaska talking to Hillary? Oh, he's one of the good Russians... tempering those bad Russian influences in Putin's inner circle and moderating them for rational American interests.

                                    Oh, now he's talking to Trump? I guess he really was one of Putin's solid inner circle... obviously buying up Trump's allegiance to the Reds with dirt and grift! 😂

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post

                                      I only really have to look as far as his opponent, if we're being honest. In fact I can go back to guys like Deripaska to show that he personally was both framed as a good guy or a bad guy by the left depending on which team he was connecting with at the moment.

                                      Deripaska talking to Hillary? Oh, he's one of the good Russians... tempering those bad Russian influences in Putin's inner circle and moderating them for rational American interests.

                                      Oh, now he's talking to Trump? I guess he really was one of Putin's solid inner circle... obviously buying up Trump's allegiance to the Reds with dirt and grift! 😂
                                      Ok, let's say you're right about Hillary. Show me the laundry list that begins to compare to Manafort, Papadopoulos, Flynn, Gates, Stone, Cohen, Patten, Kilimnik, Sater, Page, etc.

                                      I've linked some handy charts for you below.

                                      https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...ssions-214868/

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        Originally posted by Mozzafiato View Post

                                        Ok, let's say you're right about Hillary. Show me the laundry list that begins to compare to Manafort, Papadopoulos, Flynn, Gates, Stone, Cohen, Patten, Kilimnik, Sater, Page, etc.

                                        I've linked some handy charts for you below.

                                        https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...ssions-214868/
                                        Heck I can get close to that many names in the Clinton Foundation alone. 🤣

                                        Throw in some sweet speaking fees to the man himself... a Podesta or two, and it's really not that difficult to arrive at the fact that we're dealing in the same league of sleaze... though maybe slightly more careful... Or maybe just more friends in media.

                                        Comment


                                        • #21
                                          Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post

                                          Heck I can get close to that many names in the Clinton Foundation alone. 🤣

                                          Throw in some sweet speaking fees to the man himself... a Podesta or two, and it's really not that difficult to arrive at the fact that we're dealing in the same league of sleaze... though maybe slightly more careful... Or maybe just more friends in media.
                                          How many indictments and plea deals?

                                          Comment


                                          • #22
                                            Originally posted by Mozzafiato View Post

                                            How many indictments and plea deals?
                                            Let's wait until Durham is done and then add them up.

                                            Comment


                                            • #23
                                              Originally posted by Mozzafiato View Post

                                              How many indictments and plea deals?
                                              How many no-testify immunity deals?

                                              You guys set the bar there.

                                              Comment


                                              • #24
                                                Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post

                                                How many no-testify immunity deals?

                                                You guys set the bar there.
                                                Okay, should we move on to indictments and plea deals involving Trump acolytes?

                                                Comment

                                                Working...
                                                X