What Happens When Liberals Lose Elections - WHO THEY ARE

[jc456]

What happens?
Well in 2000 when they lost they claimed the election was stolen from them (Florida).

In 2004 when they lost they claimed the election was stolen from them (Ohio).

In 2016 when they lost, they claimed the election was "hacked" and once again stolen from them.

What it comes down to, is the American left are whining narcisstic ball babies that when confronted with losing throw a collective nationwide temper tantrum, and will continue to do so as they burn and break things in the streets as they tell us all what immature little whining assholes they truly are.

Do you understand now? Democrats will say whatever election they don't win was stolen and illegitimate. This is just beginning.

 

[jc456]

Enough of the mentally unstable snowflake BULLSHIT about their overwhelming 'tolerance' and 'superiority' 'one minute followed my lengthy and relentless subversive diatribes - false accusations, false narratives, delusions, and lies about how Trump (the latest in a long line of Non-Liberals) is in league with Putin and the Russians, how he is a Nazi and compares him to Hitler.

- The Nazi / Hitler Comparison? Experts and historians have already declared the liberal comparison is 'UNFOUNDED', 'WITHOUT BASIS', 'NOT MERITED', and 'BITTER DELUSION'. These same experts remind everyone that this retarded accusation is NOT EVEN ORIGINAL! It is RECYCLED BULLSHIT they used against REAGAN and BUSH! Not only are their candidates old, tired, and washed-up - so is their rhetoric propaganda!
** Experts say Trump-Hitler comparisons are unfounded

- The connection between Trump and Putin? More DELUSIONAL, FALSE, MADE-UP crap designed to help snowflakes deal with the fact that Hillary LOST, that the Democrats suffered a 2nd straight 'historic, record-setting' loss, and that under Obama Democrats have continued to lose more than 1,000 political positions / seats across the United States. THERE IS NO CONNECTION - IT HAS BEEN PROVEN! As usual, though, Hate-filled, bitter, butt-hurt Liberal snowflakes don't let a little thing like FACT get in the way of a good lie and defensive coping mechanism.
** The FBI says there is no direct connection between Donald Trump and Russia

Let's address the REAL issue:

How badly did the liberals / Hillary want to win? Enough:
- For the DNC to rig their Primary to help Hillary beat Bernie Sanders
- For the DNC to engage in voter fraud during their Primary
- For the DNC to give Hillary debate questions in advance
- For Hillary to work with the Ukrainians on a briefing / narrative against Trump - one that turned out to be WRONG
- To have her campaign hire agencies who in turn hired people to intimidate, beat, & bloody Trump supporters

PRIOR to the election - when they thought they had the victory 'in the bag', Hillary Clinton arrogantly attacked Donald Trump's declaration that he would wait for the results of the election to declare 'CHALLENGING THE RESULTS OF THE ELCTION IS TO UNDERMINE THE PILLARS ON WHICH OUR DEMOCRACY RESTS'.

What a beautiful, emotional, powerful sentiment declared by Mrs. Clinton....too bad she didn't mean a damn word of it! She only said it because she thought there was no way she could lose the election.

AFTER the election, however, Liberals:
- Attempted to declare victory, citing Hillary had won the irrelevant Popular Vote
- Called for a RECOUNT (and Trump gained more votes)
- Attempted to flip Electoral College Voters into voting for Hillary .. even through extortion/intimidation/death threats
- Created the False 'Russia/Putin-Trump Connection' Narrative to undermine the legitimacy of the Trump administration - AGAIN, PROVEN TO BE FALSE!

As if all of these ATTEMPTS TO UNDERMINE THE PILLARS ON WHICH OUR DEMOCRACY RESTS was not enough, the 'tolerant', 'all-inclusive', 'Representative government' Liberals - who have represented / imitated Nazis more than Trump / Conservatives ever have, have gone full-tilt, completely-subversive, bat shit-crazy in an attempt to undermine the newly elected President and his administration...while claiming Trump and Conservatives are the problem:


Rioting

Looting

Vandalism

Fire-bombing a GOP HQ

Destruction of AMVET vehicles for attending Trump Inauguration

Muslim Immigrant Limo burned

Intimidation

Assault & Battery – beating and bloodying Trump supporters

Chasing down TEENS at Trump rallies and beating them for supporting Trump

Pulling people out of cars and beating them for having a Trump Bumper Sticker

Electoral College Voters ‘deluged’ with death threats for / if voting for Trump

Liberal Celebrities talking about wanting to blow up the WH


THIS, according to Liberals, is what 'Tolerance' looks like.
THIS is what 'accepting election results so as to defend and protect the pillars on which out democracy rests' looks like.
THIS, according to them is 'justifiable'

View attachment 108677
THIS, according to snowflakes, is defending
our democratic process and is justifiable.

View attachment 108678
THIS, according to Liberals, is how 'Tolerance'
is demonstrated.


Yet the nut jobs on this board continue to regurgitate the same old debunked lies and false accusations, continue to claim it is trump and the Conservatives acting like violent, oppressive 'Nazis' or Russian 'comrades'...




Enough of the Liberal BULLSHIT!

They and their arguments have been weighed, measured - by their own actions and words! They have 'convicted' and condemned themselves through those actions and words, no matter how much they attempt to 'lie, deny, or justify'!

LINKS:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/17/north-carolina-gop-headquarters-firebombed.html

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/01/multiple-videos-violence-erupts-deplorable-peaceful-protesters/

Undercover video shows Democrats saying they hire agitators to disrupt Donald Trump events

http://www.wnd.com/2016/11/electoral-college-voters-deluged-with-death-threats/

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/25/vandals-target-amvets-employees-with-hundreds-of-nails-and-screws-after-inauguration-parade/

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2147684/violence-erupts-across-the-us-as-pro-clinton-fans-riot-after-donald-trumps-shock-election-win/

http://www.dailywire.com/news/6279/how-american-left-made-political-violence-new-ben-shapiro

http://www.dailywire.com/news/10664/video-trump-voter-dragged-his-car-and-beaten-gang-chase-stephens

Allow me to interject. Let's read your first link. First paragraph. Hitler’s central ethos was hatred and scapegoating of the Jews, whose logical trajectory was the Holocaust. Trump is in contrast a strong Israel supporter.
Although undoubtedly true, your expert does something very curious. He fails to mention that Trump does do a healthy amount of scapegoating. In fact replace Jews with Illegal immigrants and you get all of a sudden a different picture.
Second paragraph.Hitler attempted a coup in 1923 before subverting the constitution in 1934. His entire modus operandi was street thuggery and crude violence. Trump has staged no such demonstrations.
Also true. On the other hand Trump rallies had a fair amount of violence and I know of several instances where the man on the podium far from calling for calmness. Called for punching and kicking out the people who were demonstrating.
third paragraph. Hitler when assuming power dismantled all constitutional limitations on the chancellorship; Trump claims he wants to restore constitutionalism — after Obama signed treaties without Senate concurrence, used pen and phone executive orders to override or ignore existing laws, ignored the War Powers act, gave passes to sanctuary cities and used federal agencies to bypass the congress to make de facto laws.. This one is stranger still. First it assumes that Trump isn't going to try to dismantle or subvert the constitution. How does a historian make that connection after 5 days? When he already is trying to delegitimize the result of an election he won and is in an open war with both press and reality? And what is Obama doing in a supposed historical comparison between Hitler and Trump? Granted I'm just an amateur historian and not like your first link said, an highly regarded historian but I can see he is both selective and even simply partisan in setting up his argumentation.
On to your second link. Are you sure you read it? I'll give you some exerts.
-The FBI says there is no definitive connection between Donald Trump and the Russian government
I highlighted the word definitive. In other words they suspect but aren't sure.
-In its investigation, the FBI also found no conclusive evidence of secret, deliberate communications between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank that was previously outlined by Slate on Monday.
Same deal. No conclusive evidence means the found something but they aren't sure.

do you know what an illegal person is? oh man, another one.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The Dems picked up seats in both houses…
HRC got 3 million more votes than your messiah.

A truckload of viagra couldn't help that flaccid response, sploogy.

 

[jc456]

The Dems picked up seats in both houses…
HRC got 3 million more votes than your messiah.

A truckload of viagra couldn't help that flaccid response, sploogy.

 

[forkup]

Allow me to interject. Let's read your first link. First paragraph. Hitler’s central ethos was hatred and scapegoating of the Jews, whose logical trajectory was the Holocaust. Trump is in contrast a strong Israel supporter.
Although undoubtedly true, your expert does something very curious. He fails to mention that Trump does do a healthy amount of scapegoating. In fact replace Jews with Illegal immigrants and you get all of a sudden a different picture.
Second paragraph.Hitler attempted a coup in 1923 before subverting the constitution in 1934. His entire modus operandi was street thuggery and crude violence. Trump has staged no such demonstrations.
Also true. On the other hand Trump rallies had a fair amount of violence and I know of several instances where the man on the podium far from calling for calmness. Called for punching and kicking out the people who were demonstrating.
third paragraph. Hitler when assuming power dismantled all constitutional limitations on the chancellorship; Trump claims he wants to restore constitutionalism — after Obama signed treaties without Senate concurrence, used pen and phone executive orders to override or ignore existing laws, ignored the War Powers act, gave passes to sanctuary cities and used federal agencies to bypass the congress to make de facto laws.. This one is stranger still. First it assumes that Trump isn't going to try to dismantle or subvert the constitution. How does a historian make that connection after 5 days? When he already is trying to delegitimize the result of an election he won and is in an open war with both press and reality? And what is Obama doing in a supposed historical comparison between Hitler and Trump? Granted I'm just an amateur historian and not like your first link said, an highly regarded historian but I can see he is both selective and even simply partisan in setting up his argumentation.
On to your second link. Are you sure you read it? I'll give you some exerts.
-The FBI says there is no definitive connection between Donald Trump and the Russian government
I highlighted the word definitive. In other words they suspect but aren't sure.
-In its investigation, the FBI also found no conclusive evidence of secret, deliberate communications between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank that was previously outlined by Slate on Monday.
Same deal. No conclusive evidence means the found something but they aren't sure.

Read it - you do nothing to disprove the facts: The comparison between Trump and Hitler / Nazis is unfounded. There is no connection proven between Putin/Russia and Trump.

For example: You try really hard to stretch the verbiage to make it seem like there might be ('The FBI says there is no definitive connection') but there isn't one.

Example: ' First it assumes that Trump isn't going to try to dismantle or subvert the constitution.'
- Obama DID do so, and you seem to try to say / assume Trump will. he hasn't.

I literally copy pasted the link directly. Assuming they quoted an official FBI report, something where I will assume the wording was carefully chosen, definitive is an important nuance. They didn't say no evidence, they said no definitive evidence.

If you choose to cite an article that cites in their own words an historian, the fact that he uses both selective argumentation and cites something that is irrelevant to what he's trying to argue.( using Obama in a comparison between Trump and Hitler) you make it very telling. If he would post what he is trying to argue as a peer reviewed article he would be ripped to shreds. Btw I can site quite a few comparisons not mentioned in the article. For instance. Trump rides a wave of discontent. A reaction to working class people feeling left behind by a government they feel doesn't represents them. Hitler rode a wave of discontent. A reaction to the treaty of Versailles that impoverished them and a feeling the Weimar Republic didn't represent them. It's a glaring similarity that any actual historian worth his salt can easily spot. By not mentioning it he identifies himself as not impartial, and the article as something that has no scientific value.

 

[boedicca]

When Leftists lose elections they view it as an attack on their Cult. They are Twoo BeWeeeevers, and blasphemers must die.

 

[jc456]

Allow me to interject. Let's read your first link. First paragraph. Hitler’s central ethos was hatred and scapegoating of the Jews, whose logical trajectory was the Holocaust. Trump is in contrast a strong Israel supporter.
Although undoubtedly true, your expert does something very curious. He fails to mention that Trump does do a healthy amount of scapegoating. In fact replace Jews with Illegal immigrants and you get all of a sudden a different picture.
Second paragraph.Hitler attempted a coup in 1923 before subverting the constitution in 1934. His entire modus operandi was street thuggery and crude violence. Trump has staged no such demonstrations.
Also true. On the other hand Trump rallies had a fair amount of violence and I know of several instances where the man on the podium far from calling for calmness. Called for punching and kicking out the people who were demonstrating.
third paragraph. Hitler when assuming power dismantled all constitutional limitations on the chancellorship; Trump claims he wants to restore constitutionalism — after Obama signed treaties without Senate concurrence, used pen and phone executive orders to override or ignore existing laws, ignored the War Powers act, gave passes to sanctuary cities and used federal agencies to bypass the congress to make de facto laws.. This one is stranger still. First it assumes that Trump isn't going to try to dismantle or subvert the constitution. How does a historian make that connection after 5 days? When he already is trying to delegitimize the result of an election he won and is in an open war with both press and reality? And what is Obama doing in a supposed historical comparison between Hitler and Trump? Granted I'm just an amateur historian and not like your first link said, an highly regarded historian but I can see he is both selective and even simply partisan in setting up his argumentation.
On to your second link. Are you sure you read it? I'll give you some exerts.
-The FBI says there is no definitive connection between Donald Trump and the Russian government
I highlighted the word definitive. In other words they suspect but aren't sure.
-In its investigation, the FBI also found no conclusive evidence of secret, deliberate communications between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank that was previously outlined by Slate on Monday.
Same deal. No conclusive evidence means the found something but they aren't sure.

Read it - you do nothing to disprove the facts: The comparison between Trump and Hitler / Nazis is unfounded. There is no connection proven between Putin/Russia and Trump.

For example: You try really hard to stretch the verbiage to make it seem like there might be ('The FBI says there is no definitive connection') but there isn't one.

Example: ' First it assumes that Trump isn't going to try to dismantle or subvert the constitution.'
- Obama DID do so, and you seem to try to say / assume Trump will. he hasn't.

I literally copy pasted the link directly. Assuming they quoted an official FBI report, something where I will assume the wording was carefully chosen, definitive is an important nuance. They didn't say no evidence, they said no definitive evidence.

If you choose to cite an article that cites in their own words an historian, the fact that he uses both selective argumentation and cites something that is irrelevant to what he's trying to argue.( no comparison between Trump and Hitler) you make it very telling. If he would post what he is trying to argue as a peer reviewed article he would be ripped to shreds. Btw I can site quite a few comparisons not mentioned in the article. For instance. Trump rides a wave of discontent. A reaction to working class people feeling left behind by a government they feel doesn't represents them. Hitler rode a wave of discontent. A reaction to the treaty of Versailles that impoverished them and a feeling the Weimar Republic didn't represent them. It's a glaring similarity that any actual historian worth his salt can easily spot. By not mentioning it he identifies himself as not impartial, and the article as something that has no scientific value.

not much to say here. but wow, you are a hater of your country. thanks for pointing it out for us. Take your love for hitler and go back to your cave.

 

[Seawytch]

It Isn’t Just Donald Trump. The Bush Campaign Plotted to Reject Election Results in 2000

 

[hadit]

The Dems picked up seats in both houses…
HRC got 3 million more votes than your messiah.

He's still president and his party still controls Congress.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Democrats need their own country where they always win elections.

 

[imawhosure]

Allow me to interject. Let's read your first link. First paragraph. Hitler’s central ethos was hatred and scapegoating of the Jews, whose logical trajectory was the Holocaust. Trump is in contrast a strong Israel supporter.
Although undoubtedly true, your expert does something very curious. He fails to mention that Trump does do a healthy amount of scapegoating. In fact replace Jews with Illegal immigrants and you get all of a sudden a different picture.
Second paragraph.Hitler attempted a coup in 1923 before subverting the constitution in 1934. His entire modus operandi was street thuggery and crude violence. Trump has staged no such demonstrations.
Also true. On the other hand Trump rallies had a fair amount of violence and I know of several instances where the man on the podium far from calling for calmness. Called for punching and kicking out the people who were demonstrating.
third paragraph. Hitler when assuming power dismantled all constitutional limitations on the chancellorship; Trump claims he wants to restore constitutionalism — after Obama signed treaties without Senate concurrence, used pen and phone executive orders to override or ignore existing laws, ignored the War Powers act, gave passes to sanctuary cities and used federal agencies to bypass the congress to make de facto laws.. This one is stranger still. First it assumes that Trump isn't going to try to dismantle or subvert the constitution. How does a historian make that connection after 5 days? When he already is trying to delegitimize the result of an election he won and is in an open war with both press and reality? And what is Obama doing in a supposed historical comparison between Hitler and Trump? Granted I'm just an amateur historian and not like your first link said, an highly regarded historian but I can see he is both selective and even simply partisan in setting up his argumentation.
On to your second link. Are you sure you read it? I'll give you some exerts.
-The FBI says there is no definitive connection between Donald Trump and the Russian government
I highlighted the word definitive. In other words they suspect but aren't sure.
-In its investigation, the FBI also found no conclusive evidence of secret, deliberate communications between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank that was previously outlined by Slate on Monday.
Same deal. No conclusive evidence means the found something but they aren't sure.

Read it - you do nothing to disprove the facts: The comparison between Trump and Hitler / Nazis is unfounded. There is no connection proven between Putin/Russia and Trump.

For example: You try really hard to stretch the verbiage to make it seem like there might be ('The FBI says there is no definitive connection') but there isn't one.

Example: ' First it assumes that Trump isn't going to try to dismantle or subvert the constitution.'
- Obama DID do so, and you seem to try to say / assume Trump will. he hasn't.

I literally copy pasted the link directly. Assuming they quoted an official FBI report, something where I will assume the wording was carefully chosen, definitive is an important nuance. They didn't say no evidence, they said no definitive evidence.

If you choose to cite an article that cites in their own words an historian, the fact that he uses both selective argumentation and cites something that is irrelevant to what he's trying to argue.( no comparison between Trump and Hitler) you make it very telling. If he would post what he is trying to argue as a peer reviewed article he would be ripped to shreds. Btw I can site quite a few comparisons not mentioned in the article. For instance. Trump rides a wave of discontent. A reaction to working class people feeling left behind by a government they feel doesn't represents them. Hitler rode a wave of discontent. A reaction to the treaty of Versailles that impoverished them and a feeling the Weimar Republic didn't represent them. It's a glaring similarity that any actual historian worth his salt can easily spot. By not mentioning it he identifies himself as not impartial, and the article as something that has no scientific value.

not much to say here. but wow, you are a hater of your country. thanks for pointing it out for us. Take your love for hitler and go back to your cave.

Look at that JC, the left is trying sooooo hard..........and most everyone is laughing, lol! That is what I am talking about, they have ZERO cred any longer.

Let them whine and wail, and laugh. I thought by now we would have to get serious, but so far, they have proven to be their own worst enemies; so far be it for us to stop them, hehehehehehehehehe.

Ya gotta love these people, and they do it on video too! They aren't going to learn any time soon, and that is very, very, good for us-)

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

It Isn’t Just Donald Trump. The Bush Campaign Plotted to Reject Election Results in 2000

Eisenhower was elected president in 1950... true!!

 

[forkup]

Allow me to interject. Let's read your first link. First paragraph. Hitler’s central ethos was hatred and scapegoating of the Jews, whose logical trajectory was the Holocaust. Trump is in contrast a strong Israel supporter.
Although undoubtedly true, your expert does something very curious. He fails to mention that Trump does do a healthy amount of scapegoating. In fact replace Jews with Illegal immigrants and you get all of a sudden a different picture.
Second paragraph.Hitler attempted a coup in 1923 before subverting the constitution in 1934. His entire modus operandi was street thuggery and crude violence. Trump has staged no such demonstrations.
Also true. On the other hand Trump rallies had a fair amount of violence and I know of several instances where the man on the podium far from calling for calmness. Called for punching and kicking out the people who were demonstrating.
third paragraph. Hitler when assuming power dismantled all constitutional limitations on the chancellorship; Trump claims he wants to restore constitutionalism — after Obama signed treaties without Senate concurrence, used pen and phone executive orders to override or ignore existing laws, ignored the War Powers act, gave passes to sanctuary cities and used federal agencies to bypass the congress to make de facto laws.. This one is stranger still. First it assumes that Trump isn't going to try to dismantle or subvert the constitution. How does a historian make that connection after 5 days? When he already is trying to delegitimize the result of an election he won and is in an open war with both press and reality? And what is Obama doing in a supposed historical comparison between Hitler and Trump? Granted I'm just an amateur historian and not like your first link said, an highly regarded historian but I can see he is both selective and even simply partisan in setting up his argumentation.
On to your second link. Are you sure you read it? I'll give you some exerts.
-The FBI says there is no definitive connection between Donald Trump and the Russian government
I highlighted the word definitive. In other words they suspect but aren't sure.
-In its investigation, the FBI also found no conclusive evidence of secret, deliberate communications between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank that was previously outlined by Slate on Monday.
Same deal. No conclusive evidence means the found something but they aren't sure.

Read it - you do nothing to disprove the facts: The comparison between Trump and Hitler / Nazis is unfounded. There is no connection proven between Putin/Russia and Trump.

For example: You try really hard to stretch the verbiage to make it seem like there might be ('The FBI says there is no definitive connection') but there isn't one.

Example: ' First it assumes that Trump isn't going to try to dismantle or subvert the constitution.'
- Obama DID do so, and you seem to try to say / assume Trump will. he hasn't.

I literally copy pasted the link directly. Assuming they quoted an official FBI report, something where I will assume the wording was carefully chosen, definitive is an important nuance. They didn't say no evidence, they said no definitive evidence.

If you choose to cite an article that cites in their own words an historian, the fact that he uses both selective argumentation and cites something that is irrelevant to what he's trying to argue.( no comparison between Trump and Hitler) you make it very telling. If he would post what he is trying to argue as a peer reviewed article he would be ripped to shreds. Btw I can site quite a few comparisons not mentioned in the article. For instance. Trump rides a wave of discontent. A reaction to working class people feeling left behind by a government they feel doesn't represents them. Hitler rode a wave of discontent. A reaction to the treaty of Versailles that impoverished them and a feeling the Weimar Republic didn't represent them. It's a glaring similarity that any actual historian worth his salt can easily spot. By not mentioning it he identifies himself as not impartial, and the article as something that has no scientific value.

not much to say here. but wow, you are a hater of your country. thanks for pointing it out for us. Take your love for hitler and go back to your cave.

Look at that JC, the left is trying sooooo hard..........and most everyone is laughing, lol! That is what I am talking about, they have ZERO cred any longer.

Let them whine and wail, and laugh. I thought by now we would have to get serious, but so far, they have proven to be their own worst enemies; so far be it for us to stop them, hehehehehehehehehe.

Ya gotta love these people, and they do it on video too! They aren't going to learn any time soon, and that is very, very, good for us-)

I love irony. In an OP trying to make a point about the left being intolerant. I'm getting attacked although I was very polite and to the point.

 

[imawhosure]

Allow me to interject. Let's read your first link. First paragraph. Hitler’s central ethos was hatred and scapegoating of the Jews, whose logical trajectory was the Holocaust. Trump is in contrast a strong Israel supporter.
Although undoubtedly true, your expert does something very curious. He fails to mention that Trump does do a healthy amount of scapegoating. In fact replace Jews with Illegal immigrants and you get all of a sudden a different picture.
Second paragraph.Hitler attempted a coup in 1923 before subverting the constitution in 1934. His entire modus operandi was street thuggery and crude violence. Trump has staged no such demonstrations.
Also true. On the other hand Trump rallies had a fair amount of violence and I know of several instances where the man on the podium far from calling for calmness. Called for punching and kicking out the people who were demonstrating.
third paragraph. Hitler when assuming power dismantled all constitutional limitations on the chancellorship; Trump claims he wants to restore constitutionalism — after Obama signed treaties without Senate concurrence, used pen and phone executive orders to override or ignore existing laws, ignored the War Powers act, gave passes to sanctuary cities and used federal agencies to bypass the congress to make de facto laws.. This one is stranger still. First it assumes that Trump isn't going to try to dismantle or subvert the constitution. How does a historian make that connection after 5 days? When he already is trying to delegitimize the result of an election he won and is in an open war with both press and reality? And what is Obama doing in a supposed historical comparison between Hitler and Trump? Granted I'm just an amateur historian and not like your first link said, an highly regarded historian but I can see he is both selective and even simply partisan in setting up his argumentation.
On to your second link. Are you sure you read it? I'll give you some exerts.
-The FBI says there is no definitive connection between Donald Trump and the Russian government
I highlighted the word definitive. In other words they suspect but aren't sure.
-In its investigation, the FBI also found no conclusive evidence of secret, deliberate communications between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank that was previously outlined by Slate on Monday.
Same deal. No conclusive evidence means the found something but they aren't sure.

Read it - you do nothing to disprove the facts: The comparison between Trump and Hitler / Nazis is unfounded. There is no connection proven between Putin/Russia and Trump.

For example: You try really hard to stretch the verbiage to make it seem like there might be ('The FBI says there is no definitive connection') but there isn't one.

Example: ' First it assumes that Trump isn't going to try to dismantle or subvert the constitution.'
- Obama DID do so, and you seem to try to say / assume Trump will. he hasn't.

I literally copy pasted the link directly. Assuming they quoted an official FBI report, something where I will assume the wording was carefully chosen, definitive is an important nuance. They didn't say no evidence, they said no definitive evidence.

If you choose to cite an article that cites in their own words an historian, the fact that he uses both selective argumentation and cites something that is irrelevant to what he's trying to argue.( no comparison between Trump and Hitler) you make it very telling. If he would post what he is trying to argue as a peer reviewed article he would be ripped to shreds. Btw I can site quite a few comparisons not mentioned in the article. For instance. Trump rides a wave of discontent. A reaction to working class people feeling left behind by a government they feel doesn't represents them. Hitler rode a wave of discontent. A reaction to the treaty of Versailles that impoverished them and a feeling the Weimar Republic didn't represent them. It's a glaring similarity that any actual historian worth his salt can easily spot. By not mentioning it he identifies himself as not impartial, and the article as something that has no scientific value.

not much to say here. but wow, you are a hater of your country. thanks for pointing it out for us. Take your love for hitler and go back to your cave.

Look at that JC, the left is trying sooooo hard..........and most everyone is laughing, lol! That is what I am talking about, they have ZERO cred any longer.

Let them whine and wail, and laugh. I thought by now we would have to get serious, but so far, they have proven to be their own worst enemies; so far be it for us to stop them, hehehehehehehehehe.

Ya gotta love these people, and they do it on video too! They aren't going to learn any time soon, and that is very, very, good for us-)

I love irony. In an OP trying to make a point about the left being intolerant. I'm getting attacked although I was very polite and to the point.

Nobody is attacking you personally. LOOK---------> If you said that Obama was 1/2 black, and I said no, he was 1/2 white, how am I/we attacking you? Nobody is LAUGHING at you, we are laughing at the lefts narrative. Now if you want to support and regurgitate such nonsense, then we will still laugh at it, but at the words, not you! You have just been deceived, and trust me, when you figure out the left has led you down the primrose path, you are going to be pissed just like the rest of us who used to be Democrats were!

I know, I know, you doubt me. That is no surprise! Just remember my words when it finally dawns on you. When it does, do society a favor and help a lefty get rid of his/her programming. That is all we are doing in all honesty. We know sooner or later some of you are going to investigate, and then the light will come on. Watch, if you are under 35 now, it will happen to you too!

 

[forkup]

Read it - you do nothing to disprove the facts: The comparison between Trump and Hitler / Nazis is unfounded. There is no connection proven between Putin/Russia and Trump.

For example: You try really hard to stretch the verbiage to make it seem like there might be ('The FBI says there is no definitive connection') but there isn't one.

Example: ' First it assumes that Trump isn't going to try to dismantle or subvert the constitution.'
- Obama DID do so, and you seem to try to say / assume Trump will. he hasn't.

I literally copy pasted the link directly. Assuming they quoted an official FBI report, something where I will assume the wording was carefully chosen, definitive is an important nuance. They didn't say no evidence, they said no definitive evidence.

If you choose to cite an article that cites in their own words an historian, the fact that he uses both selective argumentation and cites something that is irrelevant to what he's trying to argue.( no comparison between Trump and Hitler) you make it very telling. If he would post what he is trying to argue as a peer reviewed article he would be ripped to shreds. Btw I can site quite a few comparisons not mentioned in the article. For instance. Trump rides a wave of discontent. A reaction to working class people feeling left behind by a government they feel doesn't represents them. Hitler rode a wave of discontent. A reaction to the treaty of Versailles that impoverished them and a feeling the Weimar Republic didn't represent them. It's a glaring similarity that any actual historian worth his salt can easily spot. By not mentioning it he identifies himself as not impartial, and the article as something that has no scientific value.

not much to say here. but wow, you are a hater of your country. thanks for pointing it out for us. Take your love for hitler and go back to your cave.

Look at that JC, the left is trying sooooo hard..........and most everyone is laughing, lol! That is what I am talking about, they have ZERO cred any longer.

Let them whine and wail, and laugh. I thought by now we would have to get serious, but so far, they have proven to be their own worst enemies; so far be it for us to stop them, hehehehehehehehehe.

Ya gotta love these people, and they do it on video too! They aren't going to learn any time soon, and that is very, very, good for us-)

I love irony. In an OP trying to make a point about the left being intolerant. I'm getting attacked although I was very polite and to the point.

Nobody is attacking you personally. LOOK---------> If you said that Obama was 1/2 black, and I said no, he was 1/2 white, how am I/we attacking you? Nobody is LAUGHING at you, we are laughing at the lefts narrative. Now if you want to support and regurgitate such nonsense, then we will still laugh at it, but at the words, not you! You have just been deceived, and trust me, when you figure out the left has led you down the primrose path, you are going to be pissed just like the rest of us who used to be Democrats were!

I know, I know, you doubt me. That is no surprise! Just remember my words when it finally dawns on you. When it does, do society a favor and help a lefty get rid of his/her programming. That is all we are doing in all honesty. We know sooner or later some of you are going to investigate, and then the light will come on. Watch, if you are under 35 now, it will happen to you too!

not much to say here. but wow, you are a hater of your country. thanks for pointing it out for us. Take your love for hitler and go back to your cave

Really not an attack? And you did refer to him as he was your friend right

Look at that JC

So forgive me when I say I'm being attacked.

 

[imawhosure]

I literally copy pasted the link directly. Assuming they quoted an official FBI report, something where I will assume the wording was carefully chosen, definitive is an important nuance. They didn't say no evidence, they said no definitive evidence.

If you choose to cite an article that cites in their own words an historian, the fact that he uses both selective argumentation and cites something that is irrelevant to what he's trying to argue.( no comparison between Trump and Hitler) you make it very telling. If he would post what he is trying to argue as a peer reviewed article he would be ripped to shreds. Btw I can site quite a few comparisons not mentioned in the article. For instance. Trump rides a wave of discontent. A reaction to working class people feeling left behind by a government they feel doesn't represents them. Hitler rode a wave of discontent. A reaction to the treaty of Versailles that impoverished them and a feeling the Weimar Republic didn't represent them. It's a glaring similarity that any actual historian worth his salt can easily spot. By not mentioning it he identifies himself as not impartial, and the article as something that has no scientific value.

not much to say here. but wow, you are a hater of your country. thanks for pointing it out for us. Take your love for hitler and go back to your cave.

Look at that JC, the left is trying sooooo hard..........and most everyone is laughing, lol! That is what I am talking about, they have ZERO cred any longer.

Let them whine and wail, and laugh. I thought by now we would have to get serious, but so far, they have proven to be their own worst enemies; so far be it for us to stop them, hehehehehehehehehe.

Ya gotta love these people, and they do it on video too! They aren't going to learn any time soon, and that is very, very, good for us-)

I love irony. In an OP trying to make a point about the left being intolerant. I'm getting attacked although I was very polite and to the point.

Nobody is attacking you personally. LOOK---------> If you said that Obama was 1/2 black, and I said no, he was 1/2 white, how am I/we attacking you? Nobody is LAUGHING at you, we are laughing at the lefts narrative. Now if you want to support and regurgitate such nonsense, then we will still laugh at it, but at the words, not you! You have just been deceived, and trust me, when you figure out the left has led you down the primrose path, you are going to be pissed just like the rest of us who used to be Democrats were!

I know, I know, you doubt me. That is no surprise! Just remember my words when it finally dawns on you. When it does, do society a favor and help a lefty get rid of his/her programming. That is all we are doing in all honesty. We know sooner or later some of you are going to investigate, and then the light will come on. Watch, if you are under 35 now, it will happen to you too!

not much to say here. but wow, you are a hater of your country. thanks for pointing it out for us. Take your love for hitler and go back to your cave

Really not an attack? And you did refer to him as he was your friend right

Look at that JC

So forgive me when I say I'm being attacked.

Well then, if you actually feel that way, I apologize. I am being sincere, because I do not know you from Adam, and by the amount of your posts, I do not see you as an astro turfer........unless of course this is a second, or 3rd, or 4th account, lol.

Seriously, again, I apologize. My entreaties were meant for the left as a whole, and not you personally.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Democrats need their own country where they always win elections.

They already have it, North Korea.

 

[ding]

Hillary got trumped by Trump.

 

[forkup]

not much to say here. but wow, you are a hater of your country. thanks for pointing it out for us. Take your love for hitler and go back to your cave.

Look at that JC, the left is trying sooooo hard..........and most everyone is laughing, lol! That is what I am talking about, they have ZERO cred any longer.

Let them whine and wail, and laugh. I thought by now we would have to get serious, but so far, they have proven to be their own worst enemies; so far be it for us to stop them, hehehehehehehehehe.

Ya gotta love these people, and they do it on video too! They aren't going to learn any time soon, and that is very, very, good for us-)

I love irony. In an OP trying to make a point about the left being intolerant. I'm getting attacked although I was very polite and to the point.

Nobody is attacking you personally. LOOK---------> If you said that Obama was 1/2 black, and I said no, he was 1/2 white, how am I/we attacking you? Nobody is LAUGHING at you, we are laughing at the lefts narrative. Now if you want to support and regurgitate such nonsense, then we will still laugh at it, but at the words, not you! You have just been deceived, and trust me, when you figure out the left has led you down the primrose path, you are going to be pissed just like the rest of us who used to be Democrats were!

I know, I know, you doubt me. That is no surprise! Just remember my words when it finally dawns on you. When it does, do society a favor and help a lefty get rid of his/her programming. That is all we are doing in all honesty. We know sooner or later some of you are going to investigate, and then the light will come on. Watch, if you are under 35 now, it will happen to you too!

not much to say here. but wow, you are a hater of your country. thanks for pointing it out for us. Take your love for hitler and go back to your cave

Really not an attack? And you did refer to him as he was your friend right

Look at that JC

So forgive me when I say I'm being attacked.

Well then, if you actually feel that way, I apologize. I am being sincere, because I do not know you from Adam, and by the amount of your posts, I do not see you as an astro turfer........unless of course this is a second, or 3rd, or 4th account, lol.

Seriously, again, I apologize. My entreaties were meant for the left as a whole, and not you personally.

I have only 1 account. In general I pride myself to be respectful, to the point and capable of critically examining the arguments presented by both me and the people I talk to. This also entails me having little patience for those who are not capable of showing similar respect. Jc is one of those, you are not as far as I can judge. So apology accepted and I'll pose you a honest question. I know you generalise the left like I generalise the right. We are both partisan but can we agree that if you like Trump for instance say that millions of illegals voted without offering a shred of evidence, you are not doing yourself any favors? Isn't it worrying you in the slightest, that the most powerful man in the world has such an ego that the mere suggestion that he isn't infallible is enough to disregard what is good for himself and the country?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Enough of the mentally unstable snowflake BULLSHIT about their overwhelming 'tolerance' and 'superiority' 'one minute followed my lengthy and relentless subversive diatribes - false accusations, false narratives, delusions, and lies about how Trump (the latest in a long line of Non-Liberals) is in league with Putin and the Russians, how he is a Nazi and compares him to Hitler.

- The Nazi / Hitler Comparison? Experts and historians have already declared the liberal comparison is 'UNFOUNDED', 'WITHOUT BASIS', 'NOT MERITED', and 'BITTER DELUSION'. These same experts remind everyone that this retarded accusation is NOT EVEN ORIGINAL! It is RECYCLED BULLSHIT they used against REAGAN and BUSH! Not only are their candidates old, tired, and washed-up - so is their rhetoric propaganda!
** Experts say Trump-Hitler comparisons are unfounded

- The connection between Trump and Putin? More DELUSIONAL, FALSE, MADE-UP crap designed to help snowflakes deal with the fact that Hillary LOST, that the Democrats suffered a 2nd straight 'historic, record-setting' loss, and that under Obama Democrats have continued to lose more than 1,000 political positions / seats across the United States. THERE IS NO CONNECTION - IT HAS BEEN PROVEN! As usual, though, Hate-filled, bitter, butt-hurt Liberal snowflakes don't let a little thing like FACT get in the way of a good lie and defensive coping mechanism.
** The FBI says there is no direct connection between Donald Trump and Russia

Let's address the REAL issue:

How badly did the liberals / Hillary want to win? Enough:
- For the DNC to rig their Primary to help Hillary beat Bernie Sanders
- For the DNC to engage in voter fraud during their Primary
- For the DNC to give Hillary debate questions in advance
- For Hillary to work with the Ukrainians on a briefing / narrative against Trump - one that turned out to be WRONG
- To have her campaign hire agencies who in turn hired people to intimidate, beat, & bloody Trump supporters

PRIOR to the election - when they thought they had the victory 'in the bag', Hillary Clinton arrogantly attacked Donald Trump's declaration that he would wait for the results of the election to declare 'CHALLENGING THE RESULTS OF THE ELCTION IS TO UNDERMINE THE PILLARS ON WHICH OUR DEMOCRACY RESTS'.

What a beautiful, emotional, powerful sentiment declared by Mrs. Clinton....too bad she didn't mean a damn word of it! She only said it because she thought there was no way she could lose the election.

AFTER the election, however, Liberals:
- Attempted to declare victory, citing Hillary had won the irrelevant Popular Vote
- Called for a RECOUNT (and Trump gained more votes)
- Attempted to flip Electoral College Voters into voting for Hillary .. even through extortion/intimidation/death threats
- Created the False 'Russia/Putin-Trump Connection' Narrative to undermine the legitimacy of the Trump administration - AGAIN, PROVEN TO BE FALSE!

As if all of these ATTEMPTS TO UNDERMINE THE PILLARS ON WHICH OUR DEMOCRACY RESTS was not enough, the 'tolerant', 'all-inclusive', 'Representative government' Liberals - who have represented / imitated Nazis more than Trump / Conservatives ever have, have gone full-tilt, completely-subversive, bat shit-crazy in an attempt to undermine the newly elected President and his administration...while claiming Trump and Conservatives are the problem:


Rioting

Looting

Vandalism

Fire-bombing a GOP HQ

Destruction of AMVET vehicles for attending Trump Inauguration

Muslim Immigrant Limo burned

Intimidation

Assault & Battery – beating and bloodying Trump supporters

Chasing down TEENS at Trump rallies and beating them for supporting Trump

Pulling people out of cars and beating them for having a Trump Bumper Sticker

Electoral College Voters ‘deluged’ with death threats for / if voting for Trump

Liberal Celebrities talking about wanting to blow up the WH


THIS, according to Liberals, is what 'Tolerance' looks like.
THIS is what 'accepting election results so as to defend and protect the pillars on which out democracy rests' looks like.
THIS, according to them is 'justifiable'

View attachment 108677
THIS, according to snowflakes, is defending
our democratic process and is justifiable.

View attachment 108678
THIS, according to Liberals, is how 'Tolerance'
is demonstrated.


Yet the nut jobs on this board continue to regurgitate the same old debunked lies and false accusations, continue to claim it is trump and the Conservatives acting like violent, oppressive 'Nazis' or Russian 'comrades'...




Enough of the Liberal BULLSHIT!

They and their arguments have been weighed, measured - by their own actions and words! They have 'convicted' and condemned themselves through those actions and words, no matter how much they attempt to 'lie, deny, or justify'!

LINKS:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/17/north-carolina-gop-headquarters-firebombed.html

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/01/multiple-videos-violence-erupts-deplorable-peaceful-protesters/

Undercover video shows Democrats saying they hire agitators to disrupt Donald Trump events

http://www.wnd.com/2016/11/electoral-college-voters-deluged-with-death-threats/

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/25/vandals-target-amvets-employees-with-hundreds-of-nails-and-screws-after-inauguration-parade/

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2147684/violence-erupts-across-the-us-as-pro-clinton-fans-riot-after-donald-trumps-shock-election-win/

http://www.dailywire.com/news/6279/how-american-left-made-political-violence-new-ben-shapiro

http://www.dailywire.com/news/10664/video-trump-voter-dragged-his-car-and-beaten-gang-chase-stephens

Helpful hint. Making your posts longer won't make them less retarded. PoliticalChic has proven that beyond a reasonable doubt.