Even The Left Is Waking Up....

[NYcarbineer]

....and recognizing not to believe the Democrats, and especially the lying snake in the White House.

Here's "Rolling Stone" calling bs on Obama...


1. "Something About This Russia Story Stinks
....the American press is again asked to co-sign a dubious intelligence assessment

2. ....Obama administration announced a series of sanctions against Russia. Thirty-five Russian nationals will be expelled from the country.

3. President Obama issued a terse statement seeming to blame Russia




4. The New York Times was more aggressive, writing flatly, "Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking." It backed up its story with a link to a joint FBI/Homeland Security report that details how Russian civilian and military intelligence services (termed "RIS" in the report) twice breached the defenses of "a U.S. political party," presumably the Democrats.

5. This dramatic story puts the news media in a jackpot. Absent independent verification, reporters will have to rely upon the secret assessments of intelligence agencies to cover the story at all....news agencies seemed split on whether to unequivocally declare that Russian hacking took place, or whether to hedge bets and put it all on the government to make that declaration, using "Obama says" formulations.


6. ...[the FBI/Homeland Security] report is long on jargon but short on specifics. More than half of it is just a list of suggestions for preventive measures.

7. ....we don't learn much at all about what led our government to determine a) that these hacks were directed by the Russian government, or b) they were undertaken with the aim of influencing the election, and in particular to help elect Donald Trump.



8. If the American security agencies had smoking-gun evidence that the Russians had an organized campaign to derail the U.S. presidential election and deliver the White House to Trump, then expelling a few dozen diplomats after the election seems like an oddly weak and ill-timed response. Voices in both parties are saying this now." Taibbi: Something About This Russia Story Stinks




But don't worry....the stupidest among us will continue to believe the malicious, incompetent, dirt-eating low-life back-stabbing crypto-Islamist snake in the White House...


....won't you, Liberals?

Read my sigline, crazy person.

 

[tycho1572]

Matt? Mike's kid (Taibbi)? He lived in Russia for a while. Probably drank far too much rotten Vodka.


"Many reporters I know are..." Really? Many? Many that he knows?

"We all remember the WMD fiasco." "It's déjà vu all over again" is how one friend put it.
"Nothing quite adds up"

It all adds up. There were reports of Russian hacking a long time ago. Unlike the WMD fiasco, there is not a section of the intel community saying the intel is being massaged.

Why do people like you the OP want to side with the Russians? Do you hate an American President that much?

Sad. Rally Sad

There's no "siding" at all.


There is not a smidgen of proof of Russian influencing this election any more than there is a smidgen of Obama's either competence or honesty.


But....plenty of evidence that you are a dunce.

You're absolutely correct. Even the cyber security experts are saying the report on Russian hacking is laughable.

 

[Russ Alllah Gehry]

Why do so many who have such hatred for Obama want to side with the Russians?

Do they hate an American President that much?

Sad. Rally Sad

 

[francoHFW]

....and recognizing not to believe the Democrats, and especially the lying snake in the White House.

Here's "Rolling Stone" calling bs on Obama...


1. "Something About This Russia Story Stinks
....the American press is again asked to co-sign a dubious intelligence assessment

2. ....Obama administration announced a series of sanctions against Russia. Thirty-five Russian nationals will be expelled from the country.

3. President Obama issued a terse statement seeming to blame Russia




4. The New York Times was more aggressive, writing flatly, "Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking." It backed up its story with a link to a joint FBI/Homeland Security report that details how Russian civilian and military intelligence services (termed "RIS" in the report) twice breached the defenses of "a U.S. political party," presumably the Democrats.

5. This dramatic story puts the news media in a jackpot. Absent independent verification, reporters will have to rely upon the secret assessments of intelligence agencies to cover the story at all....news agencies seemed split on whether to unequivocally declare that Russian hacking took place, or whether to hedge bets and put it all on the government to make that declaration, using "Obama says" formulations.


6. ...[the FBI/Homeland Security] report is long on jargon but short on specifics. More than half of it is just a list of suggestions for preventive measures.

7. ....we don't learn much at all about what led our government to determine a) that these hacks were directed by the Russian government, or b) they were undertaken with the aim of influencing the election, and in particular to help elect Donald Trump.



8. If the American security agencies had smoking-gun evidence that the Russians had an organized campaign to derail the U.S. presidential election and deliver the White House to Trump, then expelling a few dozen diplomats after the election seems like an oddly weak and ill-timed response. Voices in both parties are saying this now." Taibbi: Something About This Russia Story Stinks




But don't worry....the stupidest among us will continue to believe the malicious, incompetent, dirt-eating low-life back-stabbing crypto-Islamist snake in the White House...


....won't you, Liberals?

And 17 intelligence agencies...You need some time off lol...

But the report also said it didn't influence the election. Care to comment on that?

It said there was no proof. Of course it's obvious. Pundits said the e-mails showed Hillary screwed Bernie, sold the State Dept and the Foundation, called Hispanics needy etc etc- FOR A YEAR. All bs.

Really....I don't know how someone who posts such stupidity can find his way back to that refrigerator box he calls home, each day.

Do you have a trained gorilla who leads you????

You trust HS grad coke head proven liars/pundits over our intelligence community. Brainwashed functional moron.

 

[PoliticalChic]

....and recognizing not to believe the Democrats, and especially the lying snake in the White House.

Here's "Rolling Stone" calling bs on Obama...


1. "Something About This Russia Story Stinks
....the American press is again asked to co-sign a dubious intelligence assessment

2. ....Obama administration announced a series of sanctions against Russia. Thirty-five Russian nationals will be expelled from the country.

3. President Obama issued a terse statement seeming to blame Russia




4. The New York Times was more aggressive, writing flatly, "Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking." It backed up its story with a link to a joint FBI/Homeland Security report that details how Russian civilian and military intelligence services (termed "RIS" in the report) twice breached the defenses of "a U.S. political party," presumably the Democrats.

5. This dramatic story puts the news media in a jackpot. Absent independent verification, reporters will have to rely upon the secret assessments of intelligence agencies to cover the story at all....news agencies seemed split on whether to unequivocally declare that Russian hacking took place, or whether to hedge bets and put it all on the government to make that declaration, using "Obama says" formulations.


6. ...[the FBI/Homeland Security] report is long on jargon but short on specifics. More than half of it is just a list of suggestions for preventive measures.

7. ....we don't learn much at all about what led our government to determine a) that these hacks were directed by the Russian government, or b) they were undertaken with the aim of influencing the election, and in particular to help elect Donald Trump.



8. If the American security agencies had smoking-gun evidence that the Russians had an organized campaign to derail the U.S. presidential election and deliver the White House to Trump, then expelling a few dozen diplomats after the election seems like an oddly weak and ill-timed response. Voices in both parties are saying this now." Taibbi: Something About This Russia Story Stinks




But don't worry....the stupidest among us will continue to believe the malicious, incompetent, dirt-eating low-life back-stabbing crypto-Islamist snake in the White House...


....won't you, Liberals?

And 17 intelligence agencies...You need some time off lol...

But the report also said it didn't influence the election. Care to comment on that?

It said there was no proof. Of course it's obvious. Pundits said the e-mails showed Hillary screwed Bernie, sold the State Dept and the Foundation, called Hispanics needy etc etc- FOR A YEAR. All bs.

Really....I don't know how someone who posts such stupidity can find his way back to that refrigerator box he calls home, each day.

Do you have a trained gorilla who leads you????

You trust HS grad coke head proven liars/pundits over our intelligence community. Brainwashed functional moron.

Watch this, you moron:

1. "The C.I.A.’s conclusion does not appear to be the product of specific new intelligence obtained since the election, several American officials, including some who had read the agency’s briefing, said on Sunday. Rather, it was an analysis of what many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence — evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments — that the Russians put a thumb on the scale for Mr. Trump, and got their desired outcome."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/11/us/politics/cia-judgment-intelligence-russia-hacking-evidence.html



Let me translate for you: it says you're a dupe.

Dupe: a victim of deception.

....your entire life.

 

[francoHFW]

There is not a smidgen of proof of Russian influencing this election...

Now THAT is crazy talk



All of America's intel agencies say differently

What will you do when the goofball Donald admits it;s true?

Do you have any reasoning power? really?
You wanna believe the report if it sez there was a hack job.
But you don't wanna report that same report if it sez it didn't influence the election.

A full year of e-mails being leaked and blown out of all proportion (proof she rigged Bernie, sold the St Dept !!!!!) had no effect? LOL. What proof do you want? It's obvious.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is not a smidgen of proof of Russian influencing this election...

Now THAT is crazy talk



All of America's intel agencies say differently

What will you do when the goofball Donald admits it;s true?

Do you have any reasoning power? really?
You wanna believe the report if it sez there was a hack job.
But you don't wanna report that same report if it sez it didn't influence the election.

A full year of e-mails being leaked and blown out of all proportion (proof she rigged Bernie, sold the St Dept !!!!!) had no effect? LOL. What proof do you want? It's obvious.

"A full year of e-mails being leaked and blown out of all proportion (proof she rigged Bernie, sold the St Dept !!!!!) had no effect?"

That's correct, you moron.

Here....let me prove it:

....the proof that this 'fake news' tale of Russia changing the course of our election....

a. The day before any leaks, wikileaks or otherwise, the RealClearPolitics had Hillary at 48%

b. The election result gave Hillary 48.08% per the election.

Soooo......where is any....ANY....result due to Russia, Putin, Wiki, or Mickey Mouse????



Does that neon light flashing IDIOT over your head keep you awake at night?

 

[tyroneweaver]

....and recognizing not to believe the Democrats, and especially the lying snake in the White House.

Here's "Rolling Stone" calling bs on Obama...


1. "Something About This Russia Story Stinks
....the American press is again asked to co-sign a dubious intelligence assessment

2. ....Obama administration announced a series of sanctions against Russia. Thirty-five Russian nationals will be expelled from the country.

3. President Obama issued a terse statement seeming to blame Russia




4. The New York Times was more aggressive, writing flatly, "Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking." It backed up its story with a link to a joint FBI/Homeland Security report that details how Russian civilian and military intelligence services (termed "RIS" in the report) twice breached the defenses of "a U.S. political party," presumably the Democrats.

5. This dramatic story puts the news media in a jackpot. Absent independent verification, reporters will have to rely upon the secret assessments of intelligence agencies to cover the story at all....news agencies seemed split on whether to unequivocally declare that Russian hacking took place, or whether to hedge bets and put it all on the government to make that declaration, using "Obama says" formulations.


6. ...[the FBI/Homeland Security] report is long on jargon but short on specifics. More than half of it is just a list of suggestions for preventive measures.

7. ....we don't learn much at all about what led our government to determine a) that these hacks were directed by the Russian government, or b) they were undertaken with the aim of influencing the election, and in particular to help elect Donald Trump.



8. If the American security agencies had smoking-gun evidence that the Russians had an organized campaign to derail the U.S. presidential election and deliver the White House to Trump, then expelling a few dozen diplomats after the election seems like an oddly weak and ill-timed response. Voices in both parties are saying this now." Taibbi: Something About This Russia Story Stinks




But don't worry....the stupidest among us will continue to believe the malicious, incompetent, dirt-eating low-life back-stabbing crypto-Islamist snake in the White House...


....won't you, Liberals?

And 17 intelligence agencies...You need some time off lol...

But the report also said it didn't influence the election. Care to comment on that?

It said there was no proof. Of course it's obvious. Pundits said the e-mails showed Hillary screwed Bernie, sold the State Dept and the Foundation, called Hispanics needy etc etc- FOR A YEAR. All bs.

Really....I don't know how someone who posts such stupidity can find his way back to that refrigerator box he calls home, each day.

Do you have a trained gorilla who leads you????

You trust HS grad coke head proven liars/pundits over our intelligence community. Brainwashed functional moron.

....and recognizing not to believe the Democrats, and especially the lying snake in the White House.

Here's "Rolling Stone" calling bs on Obama...


1. "Something About This Russia Story Stinks
....the American press is again asked to co-sign a dubious intelligence assessment

2. ....Obama administration announced a series of sanctions against Russia. Thirty-five Russian nationals will be expelled from the country.

3. President Obama issued a terse statement seeming to blame Russia




4. The New York Times was more aggressive, writing flatly, "Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking." It backed up its story with a link to a joint FBI/Homeland Security report that details how Russian civilian and military intelligence services (termed "RIS" in the report) twice breached the defenses of "a U.S. political party," presumably the Democrats.

5. This dramatic story puts the news media in a jackpot. Absent independent verification, reporters will have to rely upon the secret assessments of intelligence agencies to cover the story at all....news agencies seemed split on whether to unequivocally declare that Russian hacking took place, or whether to hedge bets and put it all on the government to make that declaration, using "Obama says" formulations.


6. ...[the FBI/Homeland Security] report is long on jargon but short on specifics. More than half of it is just a list of suggestions for preventive measures.

7. ....we don't learn much at all about what led our government to determine a) that these hacks were directed by the Russian government, or b) they were undertaken with the aim of influencing the election, and in particular to help elect Donald Trump.



8. If the American security agencies had smoking-gun evidence that the Russians had an organized campaign to derail the U.S. presidential election and deliver the White House to Trump, then expelling a few dozen diplomats after the election seems like an oddly weak and ill-timed response. Voices in both parties are saying this now." Taibbi: Something About This Russia Story Stinks




But don't worry....the stupidest among us will continue to believe the malicious, incompetent, dirt-eating low-life back-stabbing crypto-Islamist snake in the White House...


....won't you, Liberals?

Read my sigline, crazy person.

Looks like grassy knoll crap to me

 

[francoHFW]

There is not a smidgen of proof of Russian influencing this election...

Now THAT is crazy talk



All of America's intel agencies say differently

What will you do when the goofball Donald admits it;s true?

Do you have any reasoning power? really?
You wanna believe the report if it sez there was a hack job.
But you don't wanna report that same report if it sez it didn't influence the election.

A full year of e-mails being leaked and blown out of all proportion (proof she rigged Bernie, sold the St Dept !!!!!) had no effect? LOL. What proof do you want? It's obvious.

"A full year of e-mails being leaked and blown out of all proportion (proof she rigged Bernie, sold the St Dept !!!!!) had no effect?"

That's correct, you moron.

Here....let me prove it:

....the proof that this 'fake news' tale of Russia changing the course of our election....

a. The day before any leaks, wikileaks or otherwise, the RealClearPolitics had Hillary at 48%

b. The election result gave Hillary 48.08% per the election.

Soooo......where is any....ANY....result due to Russia, Putin, Wiki, or Mickey Mouse????



Does that neon light flashing IDIOT over your head keep you awake at night?

So she got no undecideds? LOL idiot.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is not a smidgen of proof of Russian influencing this election...

Now THAT is crazy talk



All of America's intel agencies say differently

What will you do when the goofball Donald admits it;s true?

Do you have any reasoning power? really?
You wanna believe the report if it sez there was a hack job.
But you don't wanna report that same report if it sez it didn't influence the election.

A full year of e-mails being leaked and blown out of all proportion (proof she rigged Bernie, sold the St Dept !!!!!) had no effect? LOL. What proof do you want? It's obvious.

"A full year of e-mails being leaked and blown out of all proportion (proof she rigged Bernie, sold the St Dept !!!!!) had no effect?"

That's correct, you moron.

Here....let me prove it:

....the proof that this 'fake news' tale of Russia changing the course of our election....

a. The day before any leaks, wikileaks or otherwise, the RealClearPolitics had Hillary at 48%

b. The election result gave Hillary 48.08% per the election.

Soooo......where is any....ANY....result due to Russia, Putin, Wiki, or Mickey Mouse????



Does that neon light flashing IDIOT over your head keep you awake at night?

So she got no undecideds? LOL idiot.

More votes AFTER the leaks.

...leaks...y'know.....like those that the air out of your cranium.

 

[francoHFW]

Now THAT is crazy talk



All of America's intel agencies say differently

What will you do when the goofball Donald admits it;s true?

Do you have any reasoning power? really?
You wanna believe the report if it sez there was a hack job.
But you don't wanna report that same report if it sez it didn't influence the election.

A full year of e-mails being leaked and blown out of all proportion (proof she rigged Bernie, sold the St Dept !!!!!) had no effect? LOL. What proof do you want? It's obvious.

"A full year of e-mails being leaked and blown out of all proportion (proof she rigged Bernie, sold the St Dept !!!!!) had no effect?"

That's correct, you moron.

Here....let me prove it:

....the proof that this 'fake news' tale of Russia changing the course of our election....

a. The day before any leaks, wikileaks or otherwise, the RealClearPolitics had Hillary at 48%

b. The election result gave Hillary 48.08% per the election.

Soooo......where is any....ANY....result due to Russia, Putin, Wiki, or Mickey Mouse????



Does that neon light flashing IDIOT over your head keep you awake at night?

So she got no undecideds? LOL idiot.

More votes AFTER the leaks.

...leaks...y'know.....like those that the air out of your cranium.

Right, she got 0.08% of the undecideds. Great argument. Yup, the main argument that she was corrupt did nothing. Duhhh...

 

[PoliticalChic]

Do you have any reasoning power? really?
You wanna believe the report if it sez there was a hack job.
But you don't wanna report that same report if it sez it didn't influence the election.

A full year of e-mails being leaked and blown out of all proportion (proof she rigged Bernie, sold the St Dept !!!!!) had no effect? LOL. What proof do you want? It's obvious.

"A full year of e-mails being leaked and blown out of all proportion (proof she rigged Bernie, sold the St Dept !!!!!) had no effect?"

That's correct, you moron.

Here....let me prove it:

....the proof that this 'fake news' tale of Russia changing the course of our election....

a. The day before any leaks, wikileaks or otherwise, the RealClearPolitics had Hillary at 48%

b. The election result gave Hillary 48.08% per the election.

Soooo......where is any....ANY....result due to Russia, Putin, Wiki, or Mickey Mouse????



Does that neon light flashing IDIOT over your head keep you awake at night?

So she got no undecideds? LOL idiot.

More votes AFTER the leaks.

...leaks...y'know.....like those that the air out of your cranium.

Right, she got 0.08% of the undecideds. Great argument. Yup, the main argument that she was corrupt did nothing. Duhhh...

Now...go over your math v e r y slowly.....

You are stating that she received MORE votes after the 'leaks,' yet you're trying to make the case that the leaks hurt her.
The whistle on that train of thought is barely audible….


Do you realize that to normal people you sound like Professor Irwin Corey explaining the infield fly rule in Farsi while under the influence of an amyl nitrate ampule…..?


When you formulate an explanation, be sure to begin with "Duh....eh...ah....."

 

[WaitingFor2020]

....and recognizing not to believe the Democrats, and especially the lying snake in the White House.

Here's "Rolling Stone" calling bs on Obama...


1. "Something About This Russia Story Stinks
....the American press is again asked to co-sign a dubious intelligence assessment

2. ....Obama administration announced a series of sanctions against Russia. Thirty-five Russian nationals will be expelled from the country.

3. President Obama issued a terse statement seeming to blame Russia




4. The New York Times was more aggressive, writing flatly, "Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking." It backed up its story with a link to a joint FBI/Homeland Security report that details how Russian civilian and military intelligence services (termed "RIS" in the report) twice breached the defenses of "a U.S. political party," presumably the Democrats.

5. This dramatic story puts the news media in a jackpot. Absent independent verification, reporters will have to rely upon the secret assessments of intelligence agencies to cover the story at all....news agencies seemed split on whether to unequivocally declare that Russian hacking took place, or whether to hedge bets and put it all on the government to make that declaration, using "Obama says" formulations.


6. ...[the FBI/Homeland Security] report is long on jargon but short on specifics. More than half of it is just a list of suggestions for preventive measures.

7. ....we don't learn much at all about what led our government to determine a) that these hacks were directed by the Russian government, or b) they were undertaken with the aim of influencing the election, and in particular to help elect Donald Trump.



8. If the American security agencies had smoking-gun evidence that the Russians had an organized campaign to derail the U.S. presidential election and deliver the White House to Trump, then expelling a few dozen diplomats after the election seems like an oddly weak and ill-timed response. Voices in both parties are saying this now." Taibbi: Something About This Russia Story Stinks




But don't worry....the stupidest among us will continue to believe the malicious, incompetent, dirt-eating low-life back-stabbing crypto-Islamist snake in the White House...


....won't you, Liberals?

Lmao! When I've quoted Matt Taibbi I get told what a liberal faggot, mullet-wrapper RS is. What a bunch of fucking hypocrites. And you are their queen.

 

[PoliticalChic]

....and recognizing not to believe the Democrats, and especially the lying snake in the White House.

Here's "Rolling Stone" calling bs on Obama...


1. "Something About This Russia Story Stinks
....the American press is again asked to co-sign a dubious intelligence assessment

2. ....Obama administration announced a series of sanctions against Russia. Thirty-five Russian nationals will be expelled from the country.

3. President Obama issued a terse statement seeming to blame Russia




4. The New York Times was more aggressive, writing flatly, "Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking." It backed up its story with a link to a joint FBI/Homeland Security report that details how Russian civilian and military intelligence services (termed "RIS" in the report) twice breached the defenses of "a U.S. political party," presumably the Democrats.

5. This dramatic story puts the news media in a jackpot. Absent independent verification, reporters will have to rely upon the secret assessments of intelligence agencies to cover the story at all....news agencies seemed split on whether to unequivocally declare that Russian hacking took place, or whether to hedge bets and put it all on the government to make that declaration, using "Obama says" formulations.


6. ...[the FBI/Homeland Security] report is long on jargon but short on specifics. More than half of it is just a list of suggestions for preventive measures.

7. ....we don't learn much at all about what led our government to determine a) that these hacks were directed by the Russian government, or b) they were undertaken with the aim of influencing the election, and in particular to help elect Donald Trump.



8. If the American security agencies had smoking-gun evidence that the Russians had an organized campaign to derail the U.S. presidential election and deliver the White House to Trump, then expelling a few dozen diplomats after the election seems like an oddly weak and ill-timed response. Voices in both parties are saying this now." Taibbi: Something About This Russia Story Stinks




But don't worry....the stupidest among us will continue to believe the malicious, incompetent, dirt-eating low-life back-stabbing crypto-Islamist snake in the White House...


....won't you, Liberals?

Lmao! When I've quoted Matt Taibbi I get told what a liberal faggot, mullet-wrapper RS is. What a bunch of fucking hypocrites. And you are their queen.

I notice that you are unable to quote me in any of that rant.

Hence...your post has no effect on disqualifying what I posted.


And...just to prove that I tell the truth and only the truth: you are a total imbecile.

Better?


Oh....and you can quote me.

 

[francoHFW]

A full year of e-mails being leaked and blown out of all proportion (proof she rigged Bernie, sold the St Dept !!!!!) had no effect? LOL. What proof do you want? It's obvious.

"A full year of e-mails being leaked and blown out of all proportion (proof she rigged Bernie, sold the St Dept !!!!!) had no effect?"

That's correct, you moron.

Here....let me prove it:

....the proof that this 'fake news' tale of Russia changing the course of our election....

a. The day before any leaks, wikileaks or otherwise, the RealClearPolitics had Hillary at 48%

b. The election result gave Hillary 48.08% per the election.

Soooo......where is any....ANY....result due to Russia, Putin, Wiki, or Mickey Mouse????



Does that neon light flashing IDIOT over your head keep you awake at night?

So she got no undecideds? LOL idiot.

More votes AFTER the leaks.

...leaks...y'know.....like those that the air out of your cranium.

Right, she got 0.08% of the undecideds. Great argument. Yup, the main argument that she was corrupt did nothing. Duhhh...

Now...go over your math v e r y slowly.....

You are stating that she received MORE votes after the 'leaks,' yet you're trying to make the case that the leaks hurt her.
The whistle on that train of thought is barely audible….


Do you realize that to normal people you sound like Professor Irwin Corey explaining the infield fly rule in Farsi while under the influence of an amyl nitrate ampule…..?


When you formulate an explanation, be sure to begin with "Duh....eh...ah....."

I'm afraid you're too stupid to deal with....Right, she got 0.08% of the undecideds. Great argument. Yup, the main argument that she was corrupt had no effect. Duhhh.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"A full year of e-mails being leaked and blown out of all proportion (proof she rigged Bernie, sold the St Dept !!!!!) had no effect?"

That's correct, you moron.

Here....let me prove it:

....the proof that this 'fake news' tale of Russia changing the course of our election....

a. The day before any leaks, wikileaks or otherwise, the RealClearPolitics had Hillary at 48%

b. The election result gave Hillary 48.08% per the election.

Soooo......where is any....ANY....result due to Russia, Putin, Wiki, or Mickey Mouse????



Does that neon light flashing IDIOT over your head keep you awake at night?

So she got no undecideds? LOL idiot.

More votes AFTER the leaks.

...leaks...y'know.....like those that the air out of your cranium.

Right, she got 0.08% of the undecideds. Great argument. Yup, the main argument that she was corrupt did nothing. Duhhh...

Now...go over your math v e r y slowly.....

You are stating that she received MORE votes after the 'leaks,' yet you're trying to make the case that the leaks hurt her.
The whistle on that train of thought is barely audible….


Do you realize that to normal people you sound like Professor Irwin Corey explaining the infield fly rule in Farsi while under the influence of an amyl nitrate ampule…..?


When you formulate an explanation, be sure to begin with "Duh....eh...ah....."

I'm afraid you're too stupid to deal with....Right, she got 0.08% of the undecideds. Great argument. Yup, the main argument that she was corrupt had no effect. Duhhh.

"I'm afraid you're too stupid to deal with...."

In a constellation of inane posts....this may be the winner.

"...she got 0.08% of the undecideds."


Let's review....
1. You claim Russians or someone released emails that influenced the election....for Trump
2.But...after the leaks, Bill's wife actually received more votes than she was going to get before the leaks.
3. Somehow...your explanation is that pro-Trump efforts caused undecided to vote for Bill's wife.
4. Hence the pro-Trump leaks convinced the undecided to vote for Hillary.



5. Now, do you understand why everyone who knows you says that there are things living on the bottom of ponds that are smarter than you are?