|
Post by BOGC on Sept 18, 2024 19:33:46 GMT -5
Hillary Clinton and most of the Democratic party's candidates, officeholders, campaign staff, etc are themselves stuffed shirts full of Russian disinformation (or Chinese, or Iranian, etc).
|
|
|
Post by colt46 on Sept 18, 2024 20:02:18 GMT -5
Hillary is good with a hammer 🔨 on cell phones 📱!
|
|
|
Post by 1 Guest on Sept 18, 2024 21:18:00 GMT -5
Hillary is good with a hammer 🔨 on cell phones 📱! Yup, and, as Secretary of State, using BleachBit on her illegal basement server to delete 33K classified emails that were subpoenaed. That's a felon. And now the B!tch, who paid for the Steele Dossier and started the Russian Collusion Hoax, she lost regardless, is b!tching about disinformation on social media. LMAO!!!! She is deranged.
|
|
|
Post by The Babylon Bee on Sept 18, 2024 21:28:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by 1 Guest on Sept 18, 2024 21:36:24 GMT -5
Absolutely not. Just stating facts about what she did, are you clueless?
|
|
|
Post by Proof on Sept 18, 2024 21:49:15 GMT -5
And now the B!tch, who paid for the Steele Dossier and started the Russian Collusion Hoax, she lost regardless, is b!tching about disinformation on social media. LMAO!!!! She is deranged. Facts? You must be clueless. Or you are deliberately spreading disinformation. Where's your proof? Post it if you have it. If you don't have proof, then STFU.
|
|
|
Post by Springfield on Sept 18, 2024 21:51:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Looney Loomer on Sept 18, 2024 21:54:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by donkey on Sept 18, 2024 21:58:04 GMT -5
I have one question for everyone here who supports Trump. Please answer this question: In the Harris/Trump debate, who won? She was more rehearsed, but had little substance. Trump had more substance, but took the bait she laid out a few times. He also, as he stated tonight on Gutfeld, was trying to be classy and not go after the moderators during the debate for their clearly biased treatment. So what wins a debate? She was more rehearsed in terms of fine tailoring her word salads to still say nothing, but i n a more refined way. ROFL She succeeded in terms of baiting Trump, but not on anything of substance. She told multiple long debunked lies and mostly baited on unimportant nonsense. Ultimately, Trump addressed more substance Harris continued to be vague on most issues, and spent most of her time trying to bait Trump or reel off her standard non-answer word salads and give off cringe looks when Trump spoke. Nobody came away from that debate knowing anymore about her policy positions than before the debate, including her. lol She achieved looking more polished than normal when she spoke, but didnt achieve the most important things she needed to do....explain her policy positions, and if she changed them, explaining that. Polls show nobody gained or lost traction from the debate. It was mostly just a waste of time and a crappy debate. The biased moderators really nullified it's validity just on their own. I'd say nobody won. She baited Trump a few times, which is meaningless...who cares as the topics were unimportant and didnt contribute to a discussion of important policies for the voters to see. Trump did talk more policy, which is good, but took the bait more than he should have. But Trump's policies are well known, Harris's aren't. The debate really just didn't achieve anything of substance for either candidate.
|
|
|
Post by 1 Guest on Sept 18, 2024 22:09:16 GMT -5
I have one question for everyone here who supports Trump. Please answer this question: In the Harris/Trump debate, who won? She was more rehearsed, but had little substance. Trump had more substance, but took the bait she laid out a few times. He also, as he stated tonight on Gutfeld, was trying to be classy and not go after the moderators during the debate for their clearly biased treatment. Also worthy of note...Harris, had cringe looks on her face whenever Trump was talking. So what wins a debate? She was more rehearsed in terms of fine tailoring her word salads to still say nothing, but i n a more refined way. ROFL She succeeded in terms of baiting Trump, but not on anything of substance. She told multiple long debunked lies and mostly baited on unimportant nonsense. Ultimately, Trump addressed more substance Harris continued to be vague on most issues, and spent most of her time trying to bait Trump or reel off her standard non-answer word salads and give off cringe looks when Trump spoke. Nobody came away from that debate knowing anymore about her policy positions than before the debate, including her. lol She achieved looking more polished than normal when she spoke, but didnt achieve the most important things she needed to do....explain her policy positions, and if she changed them, explaining that. Polls show nobody gained or lost traction from the debate. It was mostly just a waste of time and a crappy debate. The biased moderators really nullified it's validity just on their own. I'd say nobody won. She baited Trump a few times, which is meaningless...who cares as the topics were unimportant and didnt contribute to a discussion of important policies for the voters to see. Trump did talk more policy, which is good, but took the bait more than he should have. But Trump's policies are well known, Harris's aren't. The debate really just didn't achieve anything of substance for either candidate. The real issue was that she KNEW that she wasn't going to be fact checked, that's why she told such blatant lies and the so-called moderators never called her out on anything. It pays to have a best friend in high places at ABC. They went after Trump and they even lied when they were fact-checking him! The fix was in, anyone who watched it and paid close attention knew what was going on. As far as Harris and Walz's policies go, understandably, she's not allowed to talk about what she wants to do, she's going to continue as she is until the election. It's up to people to do their homework.
|
|
|
Post by Gold Crypto! on Sept 18, 2024 22:10:26 GMT -5
Ronny Chieng is comedy gold (or comedy crypto)!
|
|
|
Post by donkey on Sept 18, 2024 22:12:56 GMT -5
She was more rehearsed, but had little substance. Trump had more substance, but took the bait she laid out a few times. He also, as he stated tonight on Gutfeld, was trying to be classy and not go after the moderators during the debate for their clearly biased treatment. Also worthy of note...Harris, had cringe looks on her face whenever Trump was talking. So what wins a debate? She was more rehearsed in terms of fine tailoring her word salads to still say nothing, but i n a more refined way. ROFL She succeeded in terms of baiting Trump, but not on anything of substance. She told multiple long debunked lies and mostly baited on unimportant nonsense. Ultimately, Trump addressed more substance Harris continued to be vague on most issues, and spent most of her time trying to bait Trump or reel off her standard non-answer word salads and give off cringe looks when Trump spoke. Nobody came away from that debate knowing anymore about her policy positions than before the debate, including her. lol She achieved looking more polished than normal when she spoke, but didnt achieve the most important things she needed to do....explain her policy positions, and if she changed them, explaining that. Polls show nobody gained or lost traction from the debate. It was mostly just a waste of time and a crappy debate. The biased moderators really nullified it's validity just on their own. I'd say nobody won. She baited Trump a few times, which is meaningless...who cares as the topics were unimportant and didnt contribute to a discussion of important policies for the voters to see. Trump did talk more policy, which is good, but took the bait more than he should have. But Trump's policies are well known, Harris's aren't. The debate really just didn't achieve anything of substance for either candidate. The real issue was that she KNEW that she wasn't going to be fact checked, that's why she told such blatant lies and the so-called moderators never called her out on anything. It pays to have a best friend in high places at ABC. They went after Trump and they even lied when they were fact-checking him! The fix was in, anyone who watched it and paid close attention knew what was going on. As far as Harris and Walz's policies go, understandably, she's not allowed to talk about what she wants to do, she's going to continue as she is until the election. It's up to people to do their homework. That's all true...totally agree. This debate was for the undecided independents in the swing states..a tiny sliver of the electorate. They are paying attention now, and as some panels revealed after the debate, they recognized the very clear bias from the moderators. Any of them looking to see what they could learn about Harris came away from the debate saying they learned nothing about her positions. So I think ultimately with that segment of people, the debate helps Trump.
|
|
|
Post by 1 Guest on Sept 18, 2024 22:15:30 GMT -5
And now the B!tch, who paid for the Steele Dossier and started the Russian Collusion Hoax, she lost regardless, is b!tching about disinformation on social media. LMAO!!!! She is deranged. Facts? You must be clueless. Or you are deliberately spreading disinformation. Where's your proof? Post it if you have it. If you don't have proof, then STFU. My proof is Jim Comey's statement about her deleted, classified, subpoenaed emails. If you weren't paying attention, that your problem. But I certainly understand why you'd want to deny what she did because she committed a felony. She's a cheating monster and still hasn't gotten over the fact that all of that cheating didn't pay off because people hate her.
|
|
|
Post by Proof on Sept 18, 2024 22:24:29 GMT -5
Facts? You must be clueless. Or you are deliberately spreading disinformation. Where's your proof? Post it if you have it. If you don't have proof, then STFU. My proof is Jim Comey's statement about her deleted, classified, subpoenaed emails. If you weren't paying attention, that your problem. But I certainly understand why you'd want to deny what she did because she committed a felony. She's a cheating monster and still hasn't gotten over the fact that all of that cheating didn't pay off because people hate her. So the answer is you cannot post proof. Then STFU. (Hating someone is not proof nor is it an answer.)
|
|
|
Post by 1 Guest on Sept 18, 2024 22:29:43 GMT -5
My proof is Jim Comey's statement about her deleted, classified, subpoenaed emails. If you weren't paying attention, that your problem. But I certainly understand why you'd want to deny what she did because she committed a felony. She's a cheating monster and still hasn't gotten over the fact that all of that cheating didn't pay off because people hate her. So the answer is you cannot post proof. Then STFU. (Hating someone is not proof nor is it an answer.) I can, but I won't, because you already know that it's the truth, you just won't admit it, unless perhaps you were in a coma during that time. And Yes, I hate her, because of what she did and because Comey said that although she was guilty, no prosecutor would prosecute her. He was director of the FBI, whether or not she was prosecuted was no up to him but he did it anyway. No surprise there.
|
|