America's retaliation against Russian hacking.

New Hampshire state senator floats Russian vodka ban at state liquor stores.

That will teach them.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C10iX9ZXgAAlXkZ.jpg:large

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

I wrote:

It's questionable how much of an impact the email content had on the election,

I don't think there were any new bombshells in the e-mail, but how can Democrats argue that the Russian e-mail hacking helped Trump if there wasn't any damaging information within them?

Can't have it both ways.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

So what?

For decades, virtually every liberal candidate was Soviet Moscow's candidate. There's always going to be one they prefer over the other and it doesn't make their preferred candidate (McGovern, Mondale, Clinton, Trump et al) a Russian stooge

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I wrote:
It's questionable how much of an impact the email content had on the election,

I don't think there were any new bombshells in the e-mail, but how can Democrats argue that the Russian e-mail hacking helped Trump if there wasn't any damaging information within them?

Can't have it both ways.

The Comey letter sent 10 days before the election didn't result in any damaging information either Finn, but it still had an effect on the election.

Sometimes the effect is just the constant reminder, the headlines having to be written, the beating of the drum. That's the very reason that Wikileaks released the emails over the course of a month instead of one big dump.

Weaselly behavior outta you.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

The Comey letter sent 10 days before the election didn't result in any damaging information either Finn, but it still had an effect on the election.

Sometimes the effect is just the constant reminder, the headlines having to be written, the beating of the drum. That's the very reason that Wikileaks released the emails over the course of a month instead of one big dump.

I'm sure there is a story behing the Comey letter, but I doubt that any of yet knows all the details. It is a fact that his unusual and obviously forced representation of the (oddly absent) Justicce Department in the hearings with the House oversight committee on this matter, and his tortured rationalization to them for not recommending an indictment, resulted in intense pressure on him during the session, and assurances to them that he would indeed reopen the iunvestigsation if any significant new evidence emerged.

New evidence did indeed emerge on the Huma/Weiner computer, that was significant both for its contend and in the fact that it was available to the now infamous former NY congressman. It is reasonable to assume that was a factor in Comey's reopening of the investigation.

All of this was a direct consequence of Hillary's self serving viouations of law and Department procedure (issued by herself) in the e mail matter. No one did it to her.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

maporsche wrote:

The Comey letter sent 10 days before the election didn't result in any damaging information either Finn, but it still had an effect on the election.

Sometimes the effect is just the constant reminder, the headlines having to be written, the beating of the drum. That's the very reason that Wikileaks released the emails over the course of a month instead of one big dump.

I'm sure there is a story behing the Comey letter, but I doubt that any of yet knows all the details. It is a fact that his unusual and obviously forced representation of the (oddly absent) Justicce Department in the hearings with the House oversight committee on this matter, and his tortured rationalization to them for not recommending an indictment, resulted in intense pressure on him during the session, and assurances to them that he would indeed reopen the iunvestigsation if any significant new evidence emerged.

New evidence did indeed emerge on the Huma/Weiner computer, that was significant both for its contend and in the fact that it was available to the now infamous former NY congressman. It is reasonable to assume that was a factor in Comey's reopening of the investigation.

All of this was a direct consequence of Hillary's self serving viouations of law and Department procedure (issued by herself) in the e mail matter. No one did it to her.

1 Reply

Hillary Clinton spent about a billion dollars of donors' money trying to influence the election, primarily via TV ads "exposing" Trump. And she was quite successful, actually.

Her efforts did in fact have a powerful influence on the election results. She got Trump elected.

2 Replies

@layman,

$1.2 billion to be more precise, but who cares? That's $1.2 billion progressive idiots won't have to spend on future progressive idiocy.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

Did you have a comment to make here? I almost gave you credit for the cogent assessment of georgeob1.

Sneaky girl.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

$1.2 billion to be more precise, but who cares? That's $1.2 billion progressive idiots won't have to spend on future progressive idiocy.

Bad investment for those poor saps, eh, Finn?

It brings to mind some lyrics from an old blues tune:

"I went to the racetrack....placed my bet.....
My hard luck, that horse aint in yet..."

1 Reply

@layman,

Clearly, but their financial loss is our gain. Their pockets aren't unlimited.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Yeah, my connection failed and my comment didn't travel well. But, I've enjoyed reading all of the brilliant comments by the Trump fan boys so I think I will just continue to read you and Georgeob rewrite history and ape Trumps line of scrupulous honesty.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Actually, in 1972 the Soviets endorsed President Nixon for re-election and dismissed George McGovern as a "right-wing Social Democrat." I'm not making this up. At least that's what I read in a newspaper that endorsed Nixon. Perhaps the Soviets were more impressed with Nixon's skills in the realm of foreign policy.

1 Reply

@wmwcjr,

Maybe. I bet they were unimpressed with his B & E skills.

1 Reply

@roger,

heh heh heh heh heh

0 Replies

@layman,

she got 2.84 million more votes than he did.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

she got 2.84 million more votes than he did.

Hehehehe...

Yeah, Hilly Clinton could be elected President of California, where there were estimated to be 3 million non-citizens voting, anytime, sho nuff. I think she got 90% of the vote there.

Prior to that time, when the entire county (excluding California) had reported their votes, Trump was leading her in the popular vote--not that that is even relevant, of course. And that total included the second most populous state in the union, New York, which also went about 90% for Clinton.

If only they had let the entire country of Mexico vote in our election, I bet she would have won!

Nice try, cheese-eater.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Stop lying all the time. It's gona **** your mental health if you do it for too long.

Too late.

0 Replies

@layman,

How do you reckon non-citizens were able to vote in California? You don't have to answer right away, I can wait until you check with the Republican power house Rush Limbaugh so you don't repeat last weeks lie, I'm curious to learn what this week's lie is. Maybe in a week or two, you will share what you think it means to call someone a cheese eater. It's so remarkably inventive, fresh and dumb.

2 Replies

@glitterbag,

I been through all that in another thread, eh, Glitter. If you wanted to know, you could start with looking at California's Dept. of Motor Vehicle site. Their rules allow any non-citizen to get a driver's license, with the promise that they will never be subject to deportation because of it, and getting a license automatically registers them as a voter.

No proof of citizenship is required to vote there.

By the way, I think the current estimates now show that over 50% of California's inhabitants are of hispanic descent. Many of them are actually Mexican citizens.

3 Replies

America's retaliation against Russian hacking.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know