Re: OT: Epstein: 'Conspiracy theorists' proved right again

BS stuff there affected the outcome.

60,000 votes. It's impossible to prove that the Russian intervention chang ed any votes at all,

Thank you for admitting the obvious.

but the Russians wouldn't have done it if they hadn't thought that it was g oing to have an effect, and the scale of their intervention was big enough that they could have influenced 60,000 votes where it mattered.

A hippo farting in Africa could affect the weather.....

no shit Sherlock, welcome to the internet.

main ignorant). Ignorance is scarier than theorizing- it's just plain DAR K in that branch.

ch!

e

er

jective is a distortion that bears no relation to any observable reality. It's DARK in that branch, ignoramus.

deplorables. There were three million fewer of them than there were of peop le who approved of Hillary, but not enough of them in the three states that won Trump the electoral college (where the Russians had been particularly active).

The simple fact is the Democrats picked a loser, a throwback to the past, nothing remotely like what the voters were looking for. They are in the process right now of making an even bigger mistake. Most of America does not want open borders, sanctuary cities and states, the elimination of ICE, more freebies. Worst of all, all those freaking Democrat morons raised their hands at the debate as being in favor of free healthcare for ILLEGAL ALIENS! So, if Trump wins again, who's to blame? Russians? ROFL

ROFL. I'll record that as equal to your constant denial that the libs here have been howling about Trump and Russian collusion since 2016. Silly, stupid lib.

Or course you are enabling Trump. You're still a member of the Republican Party, which 85% support Trump. They are in the process of nominating him again! And you refuse to answer the simple question;

What do you think would happen if 10 percent, 25 percent of the Republican Party withdrew their voter registration as Republicans?

I've added that to your running list of threats. At some point I will need to take it to the authorities, you could be the next El Paso nut case.

:

me BS stuff there affected the outcome.

ut 60,000 votes. It's impossible to prove that the Russian intervention cha nged any votes at all,

That you were asking for "proof" of a point that could never be proved?

going to have an effect, and the scale of their intervention was big enoug h that they could have influenced 60,000 votes where it mattered.

The classic example is a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil, but electi ons don't work the same way as the weather.

Political propaganda works, which is why politicians spend a lot of money o n it. The Russians clearly spent quite a bit on their Facebook advertising, and it clearly had some effect. That doesn't prove that it "won" Trump the electoral college, but his margin in actual votes cast wasn't large.

You asked, so presumably you weren't able to work it out for yourself.

remain ignorant). Ignorance is scarier than theorizing- it's just plain D ARK in that branch.

Ouch!

she

over

adjective is a distortion that bears no relation to any observable reality. It's DARK in that branch, ignoramus.

e deplorables. There were three million fewer of them than there were of pe ople who approved of Hillary, but not enough of them in the three states th at won Trump the electoral college (where the Russians had been particularl y active).

This is the story you like to tell yourself. That just makes you an idiot - nothing more.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Granting Trader4's intellectual short-comings, the police might well take a dim view of him wasting their time, and save DLUNU from having to take the trouble to find the twit.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

That figures, we have an angry poster here who has now graduated to making actual physical violence threats and you support him.

Nuff said on that one. and you think it's cool.

DLUNU clearly has anger management issues, and does waste time venting them.

The anger isn't a useful response to your persistent fatuity, but it is entirely understandable. If this were a moderated group, you wouldn't be allowed to waste the groups time, but it isn't, so we have to settle for regular derision.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Whoey Louie wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

No I did not.

Look, dumbfuck... you blurted what he was charged with the first time you pitched your fat assed bitch about it. I never said "what he was convicted for" ever.

I told you what he did. Then what they charged him with, which was actually aside from what he did. That is the part you seem to have a problem with.

And they could never charge Clinton with what they charged him with. He was charged under the UCMJ. She would have to be charged by the DOJ.

Maybe if you stop rolling around on the filthy floor you can clean the shit out of your eyes well enough to read. Oh that's right... you are shit, so there can be no cleaning.

Whoey Louie wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Outline the threat, idiot. There was no threat. I did not say "I will do this or that", I said I WOULD do this or that. BIG DIFFERENCE, you illiterate piece of shit.

They will laugh at you. You are a Usenet loon, and 99% of the shit folks say to you is 100% deserved.

Bill Sloman wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

I never said I would do any such thing as 'find him' or any other act. I said what *should* happen to him. I said what I would like to do to him. As far as I know, however, NYPD broomstick handles are not available. And he would never post his name and address, so he is an unknown entity. I'd have a hard time getting that NYPD stick up the ass of an unknown entity.

And I would likely have to make an insertion machine to get past the 2 foot thick ass cheeks just to get to the insertion point.

I stated what *should* happen to him. And that it would make a great youtube video.

Some threat... not.

Intellectual shortcomings doesn't begin to describe the stupidity level he has imposed upon himself. A common problem with children that 'grow up' numerically and gain some education, then toss it all out the door to become a political fanatic.

Whoey Louie wrote in news:5540eb5c-572b-4c65- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Show even one. You cannot.

You are a goddamned liar.

You are the kind of guy that needs to have his mouth mashed, and be sure to point out why so you might actually learn.

Guess what, dumbfuck... *that* was also NOT a threat.

Whoey Louie wrote in news:5540eb5c-572b-4c65- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

You are retarded enough to think that there was ever any actual threat. A common theme with 40 IQ dopes like you that dumbed it down to about a 20 IQ with your political fanaticism.

I can see you on the playground...

"I tell my mommy on youuuuu!"

Hell, no. I won't prove it, any more than you'll put your elbow in your ear, for similar reasons, as you well know

Yes, that's it exactly. Theorizing is the right way to consider alternatives to history, because repeating history is WAY too expensive. Theorizing is the right way, and I'm going there, and leaving you in the dust.

Given that the Republican Party 85% supports Trump and those most likely to quit are those that don't, such an event would mean 95 to 100% support for Trump in the Republican Party.

Is that the result you were hoping for?

--
  When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it.

whit3rd wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

+1

Of course if it was moderated, you;d be allowed to spew your BS though. Amazing how libs work.

So sad to see you two not getting along......

You can "theorize' all you want. The simple fact is it appears extremely unlikely that the Russians buying some Facebook ads changed anyone's minds. Those that want to theorize should go find some voters who the ads were targeted at and see if they even saw them or paid any attention to them. I suspect the reason no one is looking is that they know the likely answers. Everyone knew who Hillary was, who Trump was, both had been totally overexposed by election day. It's just that Democrats are sore losers and they can't accept that they picked a throwback, a defective candidate, that was so bad, even Trump the Horrible beat her.

Of course not. If 10% or 20% of Republicans terminated their registration as Republicans because they are disgusted with Trump and the party, the RNC and most Republicans would take note of that disaster, go into a panic and likely dump Trump. And regardless, those that leave would have a clear conscience and no longer be enabling Trump.

Yes, repeating history is WAY too expensive, BUT we do it all of the time...