TrumPutinGate

[volfanjustin]

No I’m behind Trump now, he won and like I said above he’s been a positive surprise to me and I support him. Johnson or Trump both were outsiders.

And people like my vote are going to show up in 2020 too. I didn’t vote for Trump last time. If we continue as we have since 2016 I will do so next time though.

Sorry I wasn't talking about you directly, didn't mean for it to come across that away

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Or they dislike candidate B more than they dislike candidate A. This was the basis of many votes and this is where propaganda (both home grown and Ruskie) played the biggest role.

Gee, you think? Lol. You're real smart to figure that one out.

 

[ajvol01]

I'm just trying to imagine what you will do when Mueller takes down the NRA AND Trump, thus kicking out 2 pillars that support your belief system. I see early onset dementia in your future.

The hilarious part is that you actually believe this.

 

[Mick]

The hilarious part is that you actually believe this.

What's even funnier, you just got your a$$ handed to you in the Q thread.

 

[37L1]

What's even funnier, you just got your a$$ handed to you in the Q thread.

It certainly couldn't have been by you since you couldn't find your own with a searchlight and a bloodhound.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

It certainly couldn't have been by you since you couldn't find your own with a searchlight and a bloodhound.

Lol.

 

[NorthDallas40]

It certainly couldn't have been by you since you couldn't find your own with a searchlight and a bloodhound.

And a map and a GPS and a mag compass and a big ass red arrow pointing and saying “Mick’s ass is RIGHT HERE!”

 

[theFallGuy]

It's now almost March of 2019 but I keep hearing "Soon".

 

[NurseGoodVol]

You are equating legal donations to illegal foreign activity. Sorry if you BF can't handle himself and you feel the need to run interference for him.

You asked what Soros has done that Russia has done. I offered you exactly what Soros has done. Since you seem to be the expert on Russia I'm sure you can offer proof of what Russia has done, other that 4750 to fb for ads, that supported trump.

 

[volinbham]

Of course it had an impact. Enough to change the outcome? There's no way to say for sure. Why do swing voters vote as they do? Sometimes there's little rhyme or reason.

you say of course it had an impact - how do you know that? define the impact you speak of.

 

[volinbham]

I think you should put some time into the business aspect of spending millions of dollars in negative advertising if you know it has no effect. It's simple because there is mountains of evidence that suggests it works. It's a rather simple generally accepted truth really. The principal of "mudslinging" is evident in every election that has ever been, but it something that cannot be measured.

I didn't say I know it had no effect though I suspect that's the case.

I did say the fact that it hasn't been proven that it did not have an effect doesn't merit the assumption that it did.

Given that no evidence has been presented of any impact on voting choices (and we've been told that repeatedly including in the indictment) it's a lame ass argument to say "well we'll just never know so it's wrong to say it didn't have an impact". It's a stupid semantics game in the guise of a legitimate argument.

 

[Mick]

I didn't say I know it had no effect though I suspect that's the case.

I did say the fact that it hasn't been proven that it did not have an effect doesn't merit the assumption that it did.

Given that no evidence has been presented of any impact on voting choices (and we've been told that repeatedly including in the indictment) it's a lame ass argument to say "well we'll just never know so it's wrong to say it didn't have an impact". It's a stupid semantics game in the guise of a legitimate argument.

I also suspect that is the case.
You cannot measure the unmeasurable and you cannot present evidence of something that is unmeasurable; therefore, you cannot make any conclusion one way or the other. You're right though on the semantics of this argument. I will gladly accept an agreement that despite proof it had an effect, we both suspect it had an immeasurable impact.

 

[0nelilreb]

I also suspect that is the case.
You cannot measure the unmeasurable and you cannot present evidence of something that is unmeasurable; therefore, you cannot make any conclusion one way or the other. You're right though on the semantics of this argument. I will gladly accept an agreement that despite proof it had an effect, we both suspect it had an immeasurable impact.

 

[C-south]

I also suspect that is the case.
You cannot measure the unmeasurable and you cannot present evidence of something that is unmeasurable; therefore, you cannot make any conclusion one way or the other. You're right though on the semantics of this argument. I will gladly accept an agreement that despite proof it had an effect, we both suspect it had an immeasurable impact.

Yea but how much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck would?

 

[carlos86]

 

[C-south]

Dear Jesus no! Not polling data!

 

[hog88]

Hope his was better than you gave us.

 

[luthervol]

you say of course it had an impact - how do you know that? define the impact you speak of.

Just look at how many nuts in here believe Clinton is tainted because of the Uranium 1 conspiracy. There are so many firmly held opinions based on propaganda that no one will ever know how much a role the misinformation ultimately played in the individuals final vote. All that can be known with certainty is that it was enough to move some votes away from one candidate and to the other.

 

[0nelilreb]

Just look at how many nuts in here believe Clinton is tainted because of the Uranium 1 conspiracy. There are so many firmly held opinions based on propaganda that no one will ever know how much a role the misinformation ultimately played in the individuals final vote. All that can be known with certainty is that it was enough to move some votes away from one candidate and to the other.

I might agree with you simply because I see how many nuts in here believe what CNN and MSNBC tells them ( the ration of nut to lib is far arose on that by the way ) if all things were equal , but they weren’t . Hillary spend a life time building up her political image the voters knew her well and already knew if they liked and could trust her or not . Trump was the unknown in politics . People were willing to take a chance on the unknown in Trump than to vote for Hillary . Hillary was / is a horrible candidate for president ... you don’t need anymore proof than her not being able to beat Trump .

 

[Mick]

I might agree with you simply because I see how many nuts in here believe what CNN and MSNBC tells them ( the ration of nut to lib is far arose on that by the way ) if all things were equal , but they weren’t . Hillary spend a life time building up her political image the voters knew her well and already knew if they liked and could trust her or not . Trump was the unknown in politics . People were willing to take a chance on the unknown in Trump than to vote for Hillary . Hillary was / is a horrible candidate for president ... you don’t need anymore proof than her not being able to beat Trump .

Wait I thought the right always said they knew who they were voting for, They just knew who they were voting against.

 

[0nelilreb]

Wait I thought the right always said they knew who they were voting for, They just knew who they were voting against.

You sure do paint with a big brush . You can read in my post where I said she spent a life time building her image , it would stand to reason if I thought that image sucked I would vote against her .

 

[luthervol]

I might agree with you simply because I see how many nuts in here believe what CNN and MSNBC tells them ( the ration of nut to lib is far arose on that by the way ) if all things were equal , but they weren’t . Hillary spend a life time building up her political image the voters knew her well and already knew if they liked and could trust her or not . Trump was the unknown in politics . People were willing to take a chance on the unknown in Trump than to vote for Hillary . Hillary was / is a horrible candidate for president ... you don’t need anymore proof than her not being able to beat Trump .

Been through this debate 100 times. I doubt 101 will make a difference. It's like the 30 year olds in Iran who have grown up with 30 years of anti-USA propaganda. They feel completely justified in their hatred and believe it to be based on indisputable facts, and for the most part it was, but they were only shown a constant and exaggerated view of the negative.

 

[0nelilreb]

Been through this debate 100 times. I doubt 101 will make a difference. It's like the 30 year olds in Iran who have grown up with 30 years of anti-USA propaganda. They feel completely justified in their hatred and believe it to be based on indisputable facts, and for the most part it was, but they were only shown a constant and exaggerated view of the negative.

I’ll simplify it for you and even use your own feelings , logic , emotions and thought processes that you have sharped and honed over the years and put on display here with Trump ... sometimes people just know when a snake is a snake and can’t be trusted not to bite you . Hillary brings that hard wired response out in people . Again all the proof you need is the fact she couldn’t beat Trump .

 

[Mick]

Been through this debate 100 times. I doubt 101 will make a difference. It's like the 30 year olds in Iran who have grown up with 30 years of anti-USA propaganda. They feel completely justified in their hatred and believe it to be based on indisputable facts, and for the most part it was, but they were only shown a constant and exaggerated view of the negative.

In their defense they were told CNN and Hillary was the devil. Now the people most susceptible to propaganda want to demonize the very institutes that help keep america safe. They will be ready to burn the country down when the next D president is elected.

 

[0nelilreb]

In their defense they were told CNN and Hillary was the devil. Now the people most susceptible to propaganda want to demonize the very institutes that help keep america safe. They will be ready to burn the country down when the next D president is elected.

“ They” aren’t the ones that have mental breakdowns when “ their “ political favorite doesn’t win . Come on mick that one was way too easy . Start bringing some sliders instead of those arching softball pitches .