Turkey fans BOO during pre-match minute's silence for the victims of Paris attacks an

[Unregistered]

One should actually base their opinion on facts, not wishful thinking.

Aug 25, 2016
Hillary Clinton would have a 95% chance of winning the election if it were held today
https://www.businessinsider.com/clin...lection-2016-8


OCTOBER 10, 2016
As of last week, Clinton's White House chances 95 percent
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN12A1VK


November 6, 2016
Matthew Dowd: Clinton Has 95% Chance To Win
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...han_obama.html

Nothing incorrect about those polls. She got 3 million more votes than Trump. Lost because Trump got 70,000 more votes than her spread across three swing states.

70,000

[Unregistered]

It sure is. You still can not recognize Trump was elected exactly because of the schitt of those that came before him did, i.e., Clinton, Biden, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, etc., etc.

Speaking of Reid, talk about Karma biting you in the azz. In May 2018, Reid was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and chemotherapy damaged five of his vertebrae. He is now confined to a wheelchair. He's also permanently blind in one eye because of the fall on the exercise equipment. And he loss his case against said manufacturer of the exercise equipment.

[Unregistered]

Nothing incorrect about those polls. She got 3 million more votes than Trump. Lost because Trump got 70,000 more votes than her spread across three swing states.

70,000

I bet you didn't know that Hillary was behind in the popular vote until roadkill eating California's votes were counted.

[Unregistered]

As much as Con loves to live in the past how about if we visit the present?

Has any Con told us yet what they think about Trump’s Chief of Staff admitting on live tv that there was a quid pro quo?

Nope. Didn’t think so.

[Unregistered]

Trump was elected because a huge chunk of of the country couldn’t recognize an obvious malignant narcissistic Con Man when they saw one. (And because of 70,000 votes spread across 3 swing states... all states that Trump will lose in 2020, if he even makes it that far.)

Fortunately, the majority of Americans know a dirtbag Con Man when they see one.

Sounds to me after Hillary's little act yesterday that a huge chunk of the country made the right decision in not voting for the vindictive old battle ax. Of course we all saw her act in the 90s, but yesterday just confirmed we made the right decision.

[Unregistered]

As much as Con loves to live in the past how about if we visit the present?

Has any Con told us yet what they think about Trump’s Chief of Staff admitting on live tv that there was a quid pro quo?

Nope. Didn’t think so.

I think he spoke the truth. What was done is no different than what has been done before. Biden's a good example of that.

[Unregistered]

Wow. That’s at least the 3rd response to the David Duke post. That post obviously hit too close to home for Con.

Tinfoil hat sales have certainly gone up for those in Clinton’s orbit.

[Unregistered]

I think he spoke the truth. What was done is no different than what has been done before. Biden's a good example of that.

So if Mulvaney spoke the truth why did he then try to recant it?

Can’t you Cons ever get your stories straight? Lol!

[Unregistered]

Wow. That’s at least the 3rd response to the David Duke post. That post obviously hit too close to home for Con.

Keep counting. Here's another one for you.

Michael Tracey, British-American academic and producer with a specialty in public service broadcasting:

David Duke didn't even do anything noteworthy in the past day (not that he's ever noteworthy). Dem partisans just started screaming about him to deflect from Hillary's vile comments, and now "David Duke" is trending on Twitter. He's like a "get out of jail free" card.

Hillary's preferred narrative has always been that Russia deprived her of her rightful ascent to the presidency and she wants to make sure everybody views the next election through that same warped, conspiratorial prism.

If Tulsi is being controlled by Russia that's a National Security Threat because she's active military. Let's have Hillary follow through on her batsh*t rhetoric. Is she alleging that a Major in the National Guard is secretly doing the bidding of Russia?

Tulsi is obviously a public figure and the standards for defamation are high but I'd love to see her sue Hillary, Bakari Sellers, and anyone else who slanders her with the "Russian puppet" garbage. Let them try to substantiate their BS claim with evidence (hint, there is none).

"Russian asset" is a term that gets thrown around all the time by morons, but the idea of Tulsi being "groomed" is uniquely despicable (and legally actionable, potentially). It implies she is in direct contact with Russian agents who are surreptitiously controlling her campaign.

Perhaps Hillary will now surreptitiously fund a Tulsi Dossier to dig up foreign dirt that turns out to be laughable garbage.

Hillary's assertion that Jill Stein is a "Russian asset" is also a craven, debunked lie. Everyone who is inconvenient to the Democratic Party is now being surreptitiously controlled by Russia. That's the deranged political climate we're in, congrats to all who helped foster it."

[Unregistered]

So if Mulvaney spoke the truth why did he then try to recant it?

Can’t you Cons ever get your stories straight? Lol!

"Recant" or "clarify"? Again, everything you read is filtered through the liberal lens of media.

[Unregistered]

State Department Completes Its Investigation Into Hillary's Email Server: Found 588 Violations

According to the New York Times it wasn't done on purpose.

Incompetence, maybe, but not on purpose.

But of course, that assessment doesn't address the 33,000 missing emails.

[Unregistered]

What Mulvaney tried to do is a recant. Or a lie, if you prefer.

He clearly stated...again on live tv... that it was a quid pro quo. Now he’s doing the Con weasel thing and trying to say he didn’t say that.

There’e video of it. Go look it up. But it won’t matter to you.

[Unregistered]

Barack Obama: "America must never allow foreign intervention into our elections. Oh and I endorse Justin Trudeau as Prime Minister of Canada."

liberals = hypocrites

[Unregistered]

Democrats: "We need troops at the border!"

Trump: "Yes we do. The US Mexican border."

Democrats: "Not that border! The Syrian/Turkey border!"

liberal = hypocrites

[Unregistered]

What Mulvaney tried to do is a recant. Or a lie, if you prefer.

He clearly stated...again on live tv... that it was a quid pro quo. Now he’s doing the Con weasel thing and trying to say he didn’t say that.

There’e video of it. Go look it up. But it won’t matter to you.

I saw it. I agree with what he said. I don't need a liberal to try and tell me I saw something other than what I saw. I also saw what Biden said on video too. I see little difference than the interpretation of a liberal media that despises Trump and desperately wants him out of office.

You can't impeach a president for corruption when the system itself is corrupt.