A historian says Trump's presidency is likely to be the second shortest in history

S

signalmankenneth

Verified User
Let's hope so, I don't think this country could survive four years of Trump?!!

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-...y-to-be-the-second-shortest-in-history-2017-2
lk021717dAPR.jpg
 
I find it amusing....the LEFT accusing Trump of having the Russians help him win the election in one breath, but declaring HRC as the actual winner due to a 3 million vote edge in the popular vote. Damn those Russians are smart...they figured out a method to have the one with 3 million LESS votes win in a landslide.

The logical conclusion. If Trump was in collusion with Russia to win the Electoral College vote......how is it that HRC was not in collusion with Russia when she won the popular vote by more than 3 million ballots?

Things that make you go......hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

How do liberals actually have the capacity to walk around by themselves with such a disconnect to logic and reason?:palm:
 
Ralph said:
I find it amusing....the LEFT accusing Trump of having the Russians help him win the election in one breath, but declaring HRC as the actual winner due to a 3 million vote edge in the popular vote. Damn those Russians are smart...they figured out a method to have the one with 3 million LESS votes win in a landslide.

The logical conclusion. If Trump was in collusion with Russia to win the Electoral College vote......how is it that HRC was not in collusion with Russia when she won the popular vote by more than 3 million ballots?

Things that make you go......hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

How do liberals actually have the capacity to walk around by themselves with such a disconnect to logic and reason?:palm:
Click to expand...

There is nothing in your above pile of mish-mosh that even remotely resembles logic and reason.

Nobody ever claimed Russia knew exactly what the outcome of their meddling would be or that it was guaranteed to even work the way they were hoping it would. They merely took their best shot at it by trying to sway public opinion against Clinton enough to tip the scales.

They got lucky and it worked.

Keep in mind.... 77,744 votes in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania are what separated Trump from victory or defeat. So that's all Putin had to do.... change the minds or sway the opinions of a miniscule fraction of voters in key swing states to get his puppet installed.

Your idiotic attempt at logical reasoning vis-a-vis why Clinton's popular vote win doesn't equate to her being in league with Russia too, just falls flat on its face.

Go back to your bong and the Sunday funny pages.
 
Nomad said:
There is nothing in your above pile of mish-mosh that even remotely resembles logic and reason.

Nobody ever claimed Russia knew exactly what the outcome of their meddling would be or that it was guaranteed to even work the way they were hoping it would. They merely took their best shot at it by trying to sway public opinion against Clinton enough to tip the scales.

They got lucky and it worked.

Keep in mind.... 77,744 votes in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania are what separated Trump from victory or defeat. So that's all Putin had to do.... change the minds or sway the opinions of a miniscule fraction of voters in key swing states to get his puppet installed.

Your idiotic attempt at logical reasoning vis-a-vis why Clinton's popular vote win doesn't equate to her being in league with Russia too, just falls flat on its face.

Go back to your bong and the Sunday funny pages.
Click to expand...

You left wing CHILDREN are so easy to debunk by a simple presentation of the documented FACTS IN EVIDENCE. You must be a product of public education.


Remember WHO WAS IN CHARGE of the intelligence in the year leading up to the election? Yet...Soetoro supposedly knew that Russia was attempting to hack HRC's campaign up to a year before the election...and HE DID NOTHING about it? Really? Someone is demonstrably lying their ass off.


Again....logic dictates "snowflake".....if HRC received 3 million more votes than Trump, clearly and unambiguously....nothing the Russians supposedly did "worked". The Russian accusation is simply a left wing ruse kept alive by the Soetoro administration moles in the intelligence community. These accusations have been ongoing for over 2 months, yet these supposed intelligence leaks have presented no testable evidence that the election was effected in any fashion.

Again....just how does this type of interference work where you have one candidate receiving more votes while helping the other candidate win via a Electoral College vote? Its simple. Just present the evidence other than some anonymous source that offers nothing but subjective accusations. You will not because you cannot. Its like the latest hit piece by the Times charging that the Presidents campaign staff was in direct contract with Russia at all times....and right in the article itself it unambiguously states that the accusation can't be proved. Within the article the Times admits that its printing FAKE NEWS because they feel like it.

Your propaganda buddies say it best, Feb. 14, 2017 THE NY TIMES, ".....The officials (intelligence) interviewed in recent weeks said they had seen no evidence of cooperation (between Russia and Trump's campaign staff over the past YEAR).

And the reason the Times gives for writing the story? Mr. Trump publicly stated he would like to see Russia help find the hidden e-mails of HRC. Really? A joke is the reason for treasonous statements to undermine the Commander in Chief of the United States of America. Simply take a picture and read the lips of Donald Trump....when making that statement, clearly in the context presented it was nothing more than political humor....I've seen worse taste in Sunday Times political Satire cartoons. In fact in context.....Trump references Saturday Night Live during the delivery of that JOKE. Notice the Grin...he looks real serious. Its all that liberals have....the twisting of the contextual message. I am sure that joke pissed off the liberal press, but Satire is engaged for that very purpose. LMAO

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intelligence-communications-trump.html?_r=0

 
Last edited:
It would be interesting to know Ronald Feinman's election prediction. It would give insight as to how reliable he is as a historian
 
jazz10 said:
It would be interesting to know Ronald Feinman's election prediction. It would give insight as to how reliable he is as a historian
Click to expand...

Another gutless sock account. I won't ask because I know you are too much of a coward to say who you really are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top