g5000
Diamond Member
- Nov 26, 2011
- 127,147
- 70,886
- 2,605
It's called selective leaking, dipshit. Just look how much dirt about Trump has been made public since. That would have definitely given Clinton a 49 state sweep.Wikileaks wasn't "meddling," moron. It was just making facts public. You support that, don't you?New poll: 34 percent 'less likely' to vote for Clinton after new email revelationsView attachment 288307It should not.Should the vote count if they have illegals?
Should a vote count if a foreign government has been shown to have influenced the results?
All during the summer and fall of 2016, the pseudocons were celebrating the effect the meddling was having on the election.
Suck on it libs. Hillary is done for. She just can't win if one third of her voters are considering voting for someone else.
The Clintonites of the forum live in denial.
And how many are much more likely to vote for Trump as result? Many, many...
That means 1/3 of them were going to vote for HIllary. You can't win an election when 1/3 of your supports jump ship.
Hillary is done. Stick a fork in her.
"And how many are much more likely to vote for Trump as result? Many, many..."
"Hillary is done. Stick a fork in her."
Now that the tards know Russia was behind those leaks which affected the outcome, they are trying to pretend it had NO impact.
Sorry, but I"m not as stupid or as forgetful as you tards are.
My point stands. If Russia had not intervened, Trump would not have won. You tards were celebrating the results of that interference, and then afterwards tried to claim their meddling had no impact once you learned Russia was behind it.
Unfortunately for you, my memory is way better than your deliberately dumbed down memories.