Blame the Russians?

[Flash]

[Q

The point isn't that the election was a choice between a giant douche and shit sandwich, it was. The point is the wiki leaked hacked emails was a story every day, It was a story every day because people were interested.

I got stoned and voted for the libertarian guy, I don't know why........

I don't think very many people changed their minds because of the Wikileaks. Not enough to turn the vote in any state.

The Real Clear Politics average of all the polls showed no real change for Crooked Hillary between pre leaks and election day.

The leaks were a good thing. It showed how corrupt the DNC and Crooked Hillary were. However, I doubt anybody that had been planning to vote for the Crooked Hillary ***** changed their mind because of the leaks. Maybe a few Bernie voters were pissed about the primary manipulation by Crooked Hillary but that was about it.

 

[BlindBoo]

Let's wait and find out what the CIA says Russian actually did and let's see how they came to that conclusion. Then decide.

Why????

Not only is story bogus- although I recognize how desperately you need some way to assuage your angst....

...but, arguendo, even if they did.....the leaks/hacks had NO....not any......efficacy.


Need proof?

Sure:

....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????

Speak up, doggie!

Why? Mostly because I have no crystal ball that allows me to see all. That and I found their Oct. 7th statement vague enough for Moscow to maintain an air of innocence in the whole matter.

1. Strange response,doggie.....the question asked was "...where is any....ANY....result due to Russia, Putin, Wiki, or Mickey Mouse????"
And your response is "Why? Mostly because I have no crystal ball that allows me to see all."

Jeeeezzzz.....must everything be repeated in tiny words to you Leftists???

2. I documented that correlation between the leaks/stories and the election is less than zero.....it is, in fact, a negative correlation:
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.


...and you refuse to see that.
You must be a reliable Democrat voter, huh?

Your question was why, not where.

Why wait for the facts?

 

[BlindBoo]

[Q

The point isn't that the election was a choice between a giant douche and shit sandwich, it was. The point is the wiki leaked hacked emails was a story every day, It was a story every day because people were interested.

I got stoned and voted for the libertarian guy, I don't know why........

I don't think very many people changed their minds because of the Wikileaks. Not enough to turn the vote in any state.

The Real Clear Politics average of all the polls showed no real change for Crooked Hillary between pre leaks and election day.

The leaks were a good thing. It showed how corrupt the DNC and Crooked Hillary were. However, I doubt anybody that had been planning to vote for the Crooked Hillary ***** changed their mind because of the leaks. Maybe a few Bernie voters were pissed about the primary manipulation by Crooked Hillary but that was about it.

Regardless of what anyone thinks about them, they were a thing. Of course to the never Trump/Hillary movements it didn't matter.

What else do they have on other Russian actions?

 

[TheDude]

HILLARY LOST...

It's the Russians' fault.
It's the Republicans' fault.
It's Julian Assange's fault.
It's Hillary's campaign staff's fault.
It's Hillary's Ex-State Dept Staff's fault.
It's Huma Abedin's Fault.
It's Ant'ny Weiner's fault.
It's James Comey's fault.

The only one who has not been blamed so far is the only one who is to blame...

HILLARY CLINTON

You forgot a few. No doubt I have as well:

It's the angry white man's fault.
It's the Christian's fault.
It's the white women's fault.
It's because Republicans hate blacks.
It's because Hillary is a woman.
It's the Constitution's fault.
The media treated Hillary unfairly.
Trump lied.
Fox News.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's wait and find out what the CIA says Russian actually did and let's see how they came to that conclusion. Then decide.

Why????

Not only is story bogus- although I recognize how desperately you need some way to assuage your angst....

...but, arguendo, even if they did.....the leaks/hacks had NO....not any......efficacy.


Need proof?

Sure:

....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????

Speak up, doggie!

Why? Mostly because I have no crystal ball that allows me to see all. That and I found their Oct. 7th statement vague enough for Moscow to maintain an air of innocence in the whole matter.

1. Strange response,doggie.....the question asked was "...where is any....ANY....result due to Russia, Putin, Wiki, or Mickey Mouse????"
And your response is "Why? Mostly because I have no crystal ball that allows me to see all."

Jeeeezzzz.....must everything be repeated in tiny words to you Leftists???

2. I documented that correlation between the leaks/stories and the election is less than zero.....it is, in fact, a negative correlation:
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.


...and you refuse to see that.
You must be a reliable Democrat voter, huh?

Your question was why, not where.

Why wait for the facts?

I gave you the facts:
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.


And the conclusion issssssss???????

(Drumroll....)

 

[PoliticalChic]

HILLARY LOST...

It's the Russians' fault.
It's the Republicans' fault.
It's Julian Assange's fault.
It's Hillary's campaign staff's fault.
It's Hillary's Ex-State Dept Staff's fault.
It's Huma Abedin's Fault.
It's Ant'ny Weiner's fault.
It's James Comey's fault.

The only one who has not been blamed so far is the only one who is to blame...

HILLARY CLINTON

You forgot a few. No doubt I have as well:

It's the angry white man's fault.
It's the Christian's fault.
It's the white women's fault.
It's because Republicans hate blacks.
It's because Hillary is a woman.
It's the Constitution's fault.
The media treated Hillary unfairly.
Trump lied.
Fox News.

One bleat we'll never hear from the Left: "It's God's fault!!!"

 

[BlindBoo]

Let's wait and find out what the CIA says Russian actually did and let's see how they came to that conclusion. Then decide.

Why????

Not only is story bogus- although I recognize how desperately you need some way to assuage your angst....

...but, arguendo, even if they did.....the leaks/hacks had NO....not any......efficacy.


Need proof?

Sure:

....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????

Speak up, doggie!

Why? Mostly because I have no crystal ball that allows me to see all. That and I found their Oct. 7th statement vague enough for Moscow to maintain an air of innocence in the whole matter.

1. Strange response,doggie.....the question asked was "...where is any....ANY....result due to Russia, Putin, Wiki, or Mickey Mouse????"
And your response is "Why? Mostly because I have no crystal ball that allows me to see all."

Jeeeezzzz.....must everything be repeated in tiny words to you Leftists???

2. I documented that correlation between the leaks/stories and the election is less than zero.....it is, in fact, a negative correlation:
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.


...and you refuse to see that.
You must be a reliable Democrat voter, huh?

Your question was why, not where.

Why wait for the facts?

I gave you the facts:
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.


And the conclusion issssssss???????

(Drumroll....)

The conclusion is obvious. The facts you provided are not the ones I'm waiting on before making any conclusion.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why????

Not only is story bogus- although I recognize how desperately you need some way to assuage your angst....

...but, arguendo, even if they did.....the leaks/hacks had NO....not any......efficacy.


Need proof?

Sure:

....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????

Speak up, doggie!

Why? Mostly because I have no crystal ball that allows me to see all. That and I found their Oct. 7th statement vague enough for Moscow to maintain an air of innocence in the whole matter.

1. Strange response,doggie.....the question asked was "...where is any....ANY....result due to Russia, Putin, Wiki, or Mickey Mouse????"
And your response is "Why? Mostly because I have no crystal ball that allows me to see all."

Jeeeezzzz.....must everything be repeated in tiny words to you Leftists???

2. I documented that correlation between the leaks/stories and the election is less than zero.....it is, in fact, a negative correlation:
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.


...and you refuse to see that.
You must be a reliable Democrat voter, huh?

Your question was why, not where.

Why wait for the facts?

I gave you the facts:
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.


And the conclusion issssssss???????

(Drumroll....)

The conclusion is obvious. The facts you provided are not the ones I'm waiting on before making any conclusion.

"The conclusion is obvious."

....that the leaks/hacks had zero effect on the vote.