brycejones
Lifer
- Oct 18, 2005
- 29,873
- 30,673
- 136
He will fix 'the cyber' with one weird trick! Computer experts CAN'T BELIEVE IT!!!!
Putin has offered his help to fix the cyber.
He will fix 'the cyber' with one weird trick! Computer experts CAN'T BELIEVE IT!!!!
You mean they felt slighted by things that never happened.Don't forget the Bernie supporters that felt slighted by the actions of Clinton and the DNC that chose not to vote for Clinton or vote at all in this election.
The only people she demeaned were racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, and/or Islamaphobic. So we should be grateful that our president was chosen by those types of people.LMAO!!! Even if the Russians were behind the hacks of Podesta/DNC emails, there is 0 evidence that any voting machines were hacked. The fact of the matter is Clinton was an equally polarizing candidate as Trump and only a few thousand votes in several states made the difference. The people she demeaned and insulted ensured her defeat.
Trump is the kind of guy that chooses a password like "TheDonald666" because if anyone steals or cracks it he wants it to look and sound good.
You know Im right.
I guess someone should have let them know they weren't slighted by the DNC, oops too late the election is over.You mean they felt slighted by things that never happened.
The only people she demeaned were racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, and/or Islamaphobic. So we should be grateful that our president was chosen by those types of people.
Wait. Did you just say the hacking had no impact and then turn around and tell everyone not to forget how the hacked emails influenced people's opinion to not vote for Clinton?Don't forget the Bernie supporters that felt slighted by the actions of Clinton and the DNC that chose not to vote for Clinton or vote at all in this election.
Most these voter felt slighted long before the emails were released, these emails only backed up thier feelings.Wait. Did you just say the hacking had no impact and then turn around and tell everyone not to forget how the hacked emails influenced people's opinion to not vote for Clinton?
I changed the name of the actor and voila, your post could have been made by someone here on the right before the 2009 inauguration of Obama. The wording could have been identical.There simply is no getting around the fact that Obama is the exact same asshole dipshit arrogant mysoginistic narcissist insecure control freak that he is, was and will ever be despite his new job title.
Folks that voted for him keep insisting on applying lipstick, perfume and slapping fake pedigree papers on his persona in a very heroic yet futile effort to justify why they picked him as the leader of the most powerful and influential nation on this earth. And they're doing this despite the glaringly obvious fact that Obama's personally delivered promises to them have been clearly exposed as a pack of lies that were directly aimed at influencing their emotions, because the facts of his character and his true intentions were going to lead them away from him.
Well, try as they might in their efforts delude the rest of the nation as they have obviously deluded themselves, it's just an abject and pitifully wasted effort because time after time Obama keeps proving them wrong.
I changed the name of the actor and voila, your post could have been made by someone here on the right before the 2009 inauguration of Obama. The wording could have been identical.
That's great but she never accused anyone of being something they're not. That was just another fabrication like the one about the DNC screwing Bernie. That's all the GOP has had for awhile now. Fabrications. Good thing for them there is no shortage of gullible fools like you eager to believe in those fabrications.I guess someone should have let them know they weren't slighted by the DNC, oops too late the election is over.
Yes accusing people of being things they're not is a great way to win over people. I'm sure these people are not surprised that sore losers are still making these accusations.
I feel bad for the fools that found out Clinton wasn't the shoe in candidate they believed her to be and are still angry about the results today.That's great but she never accused anyone of being something they're not. That was just another fabrication like the one about the DNC screwing Bernie. That's all the GOP has had for awhile now. Fabrications. Good thing for them there is no shortage of gullible fools like you eager to believe in those fabrications.
I changed the name of the actor and voila, your post could have been made by someone here on the right before the 2009 inauguration of Obama. The wording could have been identical.
Don't give a shit about Clinton. I only care about every single person that didn't vote strategically against Trump. And yes, that means I'm angry that there are so many stupid people in our country.I feel bad for the fools that found out Clinton wasn't the shoe in candidate they believed her to be and are still angry about the results today.
LMAO!!! Even if the Russians were behind the hacks of Podesta/DNC emails, there is 0 evidence that any voting machines were hacked. The fact of the matter is Clinton was an equally polarizing candidate as Trump and only a few thousand votes in several states made the difference. The people she demeaned and insulted ensured her defeat.
Di-Hydrogen= two atoms of HydrogenIn 1997, Nathan Zohner, a 14-year-old student at Eagle Rock Junior High School in Idaho Falls, made the news when he based his science fair project on a warning similar to the one reproduced in the "Example" box above. Zohner's project, titled "How Gullible Are We?", involved presenting that warning about "the dangers of dihyrogen monoxide" to fifty ninth-grade students and asking them what (if anything) should be done about the chemical:
Forty-three students favored banning DHMO, six were undecided, and only one correctly recognized that 'dihydrogen monoxide' is actually plain old water. Zohner's analysis of the results he obtained won him first prize in the Greater Idaho Falls Science Fair; garnered him scads of attention from newspapers, magazines, radio and TV stations, universities, and congresspeople; and prompted the usual round of outcries about how our ignorant citizenry doesn't read critically and can be easily misled.
It's interesting to me that you are aware of this when a single story like this comes from the left but are completely blind to the avalanche of misleading propaganda just like this and much, much worse coming from the right.The Democrat party was relying on the ignorance of the common voter (especially liberal democrats) not looking in depth at an article in order to be able to differentiate between hacking e-mails and actually hacking voting machines,
and didn't try to clarify it when the liberal slanted media headlines were more or less "Russians Hack Elections" knowing.the general public would fall for it, reinforced by the Jill Stein recount that was supposedly done for "election integrity purposes".
This is one example how easily people can be manipulated based on presentation of a subject that a few minutes of research can clarify
http://www.snopes.com/science/dhmo.asp
Di-Hydrogen= two atoms of Hydrogen
Monoxide= one atom of oxygen
put it together you get H2O
If you can fool people over something innocuous as plain water by using a different name for it, imagine how easy it is to manipulate bitter Hillary supporters to believe that someone actually hacked voting machines when it actually was just e-mails by presenting it as "THE RUSSIANS HACKED ELECTIONS",
since in their mind there was no way Hillary could lose to someone like Trump.outside of vote tampering.
The Democrat party was relying on the ignorance of the common voter (especially liberal democrats) not looking in depth at an article in order to be able to differentiate between hacking e-mails and actually hacking voting machines,
and didn't try to clarify it when the liberal slanted media headlines were more or less "Russians Hack Elections" knowing.the general public would fall for it, reinforced by the Jill Stein recount that was supposedly done for "election integrity purposes".
Are you really trying to claim that a greater total number of people were insulted by things Clinton said than things Trump said? If not, it seems odd to say the election turned on insults.
Trollin, trollin, trollinNo he's implying that Trump voters are so particularly thin skinned that a moderate slight will cause them to abandon all previous principles. But he can't actually say that because macho tough guy over here can't bring himself to say anything negative about his macho tough guy peers.
Trollin, trollin, trollin
Sad that's all you add to the forum.
Look the sad little troll posted again