12gauge dave wrote: » This thread is unreal the poster above has called trump supporters morons.
12gauge dave wrote: » dr.fuzzenstein wrote: » That is an amazing stream of consciousness solid block of text. Almost auto-wrtiting I suspect. As an aside, isn't it funny that the only people who seem to spout things like snowflake, triggered, crying for your safe space are right wingers who got triggered because someone criticised Trump? Who's the snowflake here? Great pic on my FB this morning. Trigger Warning! This is the most offended ive ever felt on boards. I expected more from a political thread. If anyone supports trump they are made to feel stupid or below par intelligence and that is damn right unfair.
dr.fuzzenstein wrote: » That is an amazing stream of consciousness solid block of text. Almost auto-wrtiting I suspect. As an aside, isn't it funny that the only people who seem to spout things like snowflake, triggered, crying for your safe space are right wingers who got triggered because someone criticised Trump? Who's the snowflake here? Great pic on my FB this morning. Trigger Warning!
12gauge dave wrote: » I dont understand why liberals cant relax and enjoy the ride above all else Donald is a breath of fresh air the underdog who took on a whole political system that hated him and came out on top and is doing things his way. Would you rather listen to hillarys safe and boring regurgitated politically correct approach if she had won???
12gauge dave wrote: » Liberal/democrat/snowflake take your pick
Outlaw Pete wrote: » If he was lying why would he set up the Commission On Voter Fraud after he was elected? To prove himself wrong? Hardly. There were issues getting certain data from liberal states and they also began to get sued, so it was pointless to carry on. He then instructed the Department of Homeland Security to take up the case but they pretty much ignored it and have been focusing on the efforts of Russian hackers, surprise, surprise, as much like the FBI, they couldn't give a toss about perhaps Trump not getting as many votes as he should have. Hillary on the other hand, different story. Nope. Relevancy.
12gauge dave wrote: » I dont understand why liberals cant relax and enjoy the ride above all else Donald is a breath of fresh air the underdog who took on a whole political system that hated him and came out on top and is doing things his way. Would you rather listen to hillarys safe and boring regurgitated politically correct approach if she had won??? Enjoy it while it lasts. While i am a supporter i dont agree with everything he does but atleast hes not the same old story and like it or not he has changed the political landscape of america forever. The press has never been on a presidents back so much the man must be wondering what he has to do to get some brownie points with them, would liberals rather he started a war with russia and north korea or what is it they want from the man? Remember when there was outrage when he said he wouldnt accept election result if he lost and it was liberals who in turn couldnt and still cant accept the election result, rioting acting like criminals and throwing their toys out of the pram. If hillary had won republicans wouldnt of put on such an embarassing and rather disgusting show of protests etc and i thought liberals were suppose to be the more educated more open minded people compared to those backward bible belt people? Alot of hypocrisy going on if you ask me.
WinnyThePoo wrote: » Of course he was lying.
Hillary isn't the president. I thought you knew that. Why do you need to bring her up all the time? wait, don't bother answering. Whataboutry
Outlaw Pete wrote: » They weren't lies. He may have been wrong, but he wasn't lying. There was some legitimate concerns there. And you think he would be if Hillary won?
WinnyThePoo wrote: » Trump claimed massive voter fraud. There is no evidence to back up his lies.
Russian interference isn't the same.
Yet Mueller is investigating as you know
mcmoustache wrote: » If you're saying that social media campaigns and hacking and releasing information on the opposition doesn't have an effect on voting intentions, I've got a bridge to sell you.
I'm also curious about the claim that the evidence suggests that it had no effect. That's a fairly definitive claim. Particularly as more and more information is becoming available to the public and it's all going in one direction.
mcmoustache wrote: » What's with this obsession with liberals? Disliking Trump, a longtime Democrat, doesn't make one a liberal. I understand that it's simpler to interpret the world in binary terms but the world is more complicated than that.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Eh, no: How could the clip be pointless, and yet also address a point at the very same time?
Outlaw Pete wrote: » OAs for meddling alone, which all evidence so far says had no affect on the result: nobody has denied that took place, least of all me, so no need to ask me that question with regards to meddling. Nor Trump for that matter, as he has cited their meddling many many times. Took a pot shot at the Obama administration for letting it happen on their watch a bunch of times too.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » We have the document that's just nonsense. CIA can say what they like after the invasion but they did say Iraq had WMD. Read the key judgementshttps://fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd-nie.pdf
goodolegill wrote: » You may be right that some Democrats switched sides but the more nuanced theory is that there was a depressed vote on the Democratic side rather than a change of party affiliation. If the media run stories about how untrustworthy a candidate is - then people don't come out to vote, like what the GOP are trying to do with voter roles, if you can't convince people to vote for you. Make it difficult to vote for the other side. How did I ignore the DNC favouring Hillary, I even mentioned it in my original comment. She was a DEMOCRAT, Bernie was an INDEPENDENT - of course they favoured her. But it is not colluding with a foreign government.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » got it here https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB129/
WinnyThePoo wrote: » So your video was pointless?
Outlaw Pete wrote: » The video answers it. I know you don't think it does, but it does, from 1m 57s on.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Where is that document from? Can you link to where you got it?
mcmoustache wrote: » I'm not too upset, to be honest. I'm not a big fan of the US in a lot of ways. In any case, Mueller's first round of indictment already confirmed the origin of the social media operation. It wasn't just some patriotic Russians or soldiers on holiday. Who cares about a rigged primary of a private organisation? It's not ideal but it's also not the topic under discussion. I'm glad you finally agree, though, that this was GRU. I remember having to explain to you countless times that this was GRU while you were insisting that Guccifer 2.0 was romanian - despite speaking Romanian who forgets articles. Putin wouldn't send a check signed by himself. He also won't send it directly to the campaign. He instead uses his allies to donate to super PACS and organisations such as the NRA. One example is sanctioned Russian and Putin ally Alexandr Torshin who donated to the NRA and is a lifetime member. Strangely enough, his protege Mariia Butina was arrested over the weekend. I'm not going to dig up liks for you because in the past, you showed that you aren't bothered to read and just throw shít at the wall hoping that something sticke.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » This is nonsense because Trump won states that go to the Democrat side. He swayed voters on democrat side to switch. Losing these states hilary would have won. You ignoring the DNC deliberately pushed sanders out of the way they even gave her debate questions ahead of time so she looks good on camera against Sanders.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Of course, and he got criticized for it, by the very people that won't / can't accept that the result went the other way. Sweet sweet irony.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Freedom of information request for the document: it noted on top of the page.