Reply With Quote
I'm not denying anything, I'm just asking you to specify one crime.
I'm not denying anything, I'm just asking you to specify one crime.
You're implicitly denying Hillary's advantages through criminal enterprises.
Which criminal enterprises?
Which hardcore criminals?
What crimes?
We haven't started talking about associates. We can have that discussion after you name a crime.
For what purpose? You're not going to change your denial tactics. Can you point to any posts on this forum in which you've ceded Hillary's incredibly bad behavior?
Do you not know you're a re ? is that the problem?
This isn't about me, it's your failed thread.
This thread presupposes you're not a total tool and still in denial about Hillary's criminal proclivities. Sorry, losers.
You have spent an hour dancing for our amusement by predictably failing to specify the crimes alleged in your thread le, instead of one easy post that would own us all completely and salvage your claim and your reputation. You've chosen the former because you're either a masochist who craves embarrassment, or you're just full of . Thanks either way.
This thread presupposes you're not a total tool and still in denial about Hillary's criminal proclivities.
All you have to do is answer the questions.
What crimes?
Which hardcore criminals?
Which criminal enterprises?
My participation in this thread presupposes you don't know what you're talking about, and your continued participation proves it.
By the way, did you ever read up on William F. Buckley?
Of course not. Can't even spoon feed this baby.By the way, did you ever read up on William F. Buckley?
It goes beyond that. You have two parties that will behead each other in public if need be to secure power for themselves. The Clintons built an empire but Hillary wasn't really up to running it. She was shoe horned into that role via the Obama administration's gift position to her for being Bill's wife. Very few can shine like Bill did in the intense heat of the media spotlight for 8 years. Hillary is no Bill.
Actually, your participation is based upon standard denial of the obvious; hence, why I'm not playing your gay game.
I regarded this matter in the thread. Unsurprisingly, you didn't get that. A conservative advocate is not an "objective" media pundit, moron.
Wait, who do you consider an objective media pundit?
You keep telling yourself that and thinking anyone is convinced.
You didn't say anything about Buckley in that thread, you made this nonsensical claim to differentiate Rush Limbaugh from Bill O'Reilly, as though either of them is objective.
He was dead wrong in the primaries but he was the only one showing why Trump had a real chance by the time the general rolled around."Silver was always right about Trump, guys! He called it!"
I've heard this contrast before. I'm not sure how valid it is or how applicable it is. Did Hillary have more baggage than Bill? Arguably no. Hillary was the same game that had not worked for the last eight years; also, Bill didn't have to compete with social media. He had the corporate media running full interference.
Also, side point: I doubt Obama "gifted" Hillary anything. She stepped out in 2008 / Didn't run in 2012 with the understanding that 2016 was her year. It's probably why Biden didn't run.
IIRC, even after the Comey letter, 538 had Hillary's odds of winning at 78 percent. I wouldn't really say that's all that "close" even then. But we're regarding the time before the Comey letter. I think that video is fairly representative of what 538 was presenting; and in fact, you still haven't been able to point to anything in that video that put the race as "close".
Silver wrote a lot about the Clinton firewall in the midwest being fragile and something that could collapse under a small margin of error in the polls. He wrote about how the media didn't understand probability and that those states weren't the long string of coin flips the idiots at CNN treated it like. And 78% odds is hardly calling the election for Clinton (it was more like 70% on that dark morning of 11-9).
Hillary can't talk for . Bill got multiple blowjobs in the oval office, stuck a cigar up Monica's pussy and still Hillary believed him when he said "I did not have sex with that woman". Hillary can say "I had eggs for breakfast" and everyone thinks she's lying.
This is the honest to goodness truth. Hillary is just a ing boring speaker. Trump, Bill, and others have shown if you're either charismatic or able in Trump's case to hold people's attention for other reasons ("what will he say next?!?!") a lot of your transgressions don't even matter. No one talks about how boring Hillary was
78 percent even after the Comey letter. Before that, Nate had it in the 90's for Clinton. Sure, Nate covered some contingencies and even noted the significant possibility of a real battle in the day or so before the election. But the point still would be that he was not calling this election close after the debates and before the Comey letter. He is obviously therefore pretty definitively blaming the loss on the Comey letter. In fact, that's basically the le of his article.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
