"Donald Trump is attacking President Obama…...
-
when the president is trolling people and liberals fall for it as usual…
-
He is no longer President Obama, he is FORMER President Obama, traitor and disgrace to the country. He lied and cheated and murdered and screwed over our economy and he just sucks. So if Trump is attacking Obama, I'm totally grateful.
-
I think Obama acted in the last month of his term because e knew Trump wouldn't, and wanted to send a message to Russia for the good of the country. It appears that Michael Flynn's efforts to reassure the Russians about these sanctions and his subsequent lies about it to the VP and FBI are what got him into trouble. And what's with Jared wanting to use the Russian embassy to communicate with the Kremlin? And Trump's refusal to criticize Putin when he throws all of our other allies under the bus? There's a lot of fishiness in this administration when it comes to all things Russia.
You really aren't very good at debating.
This is too easy.
Everything you said above is quite flimsy.. and ignores the fact that Obama did noting BEFORE the election when it would have made a difference. You know why he didn't? Well.. I'm not going to waste the reason in a reply to you.. I will reveal the reason in a NEW TOPIC. -
The left; Obama knew about and allowed Russia to mess with US elections, but so what, let's blame Trump.
-
The left; Obama knew about and allowed Russia to mess with US elections, but so what, let's blame Trump.
How did Obama "allow" the Russians to meddle? The hacking of John Podesta's emails and the DNC had already occurred before anyone knew it was Russia and Obama's administration announced it was Russia on October 6. Meanwhile, Trump was on the campaign trail, quoting from every leaked email and proclaiming giddily "I love WikiLeaks!" Now who was facilitating the Russians meddling with our elections?
-
Nobody from the DNC cooperated with the FBI''s investigation into the hacking. In fact, they refused to cooperate. You'd know that if you watched the hearings.
Trump had a less than 3% chance to win, so Democrats didn't care.
"News" and social media outlets conspired to bury news that made Hillary and liberals look bad, while promoting stories, true or not, that made Trump look bad.
-
Nobody from the DNC cooperated with the FBI''s investigation into the hacking. In fact, they refused to cooperate. You'd know that if you watched the hearings.
Trump had a less than 3% chance to win, so Democrats didn't care.
"News" and social media outlets conspired to bury news that made Hillary and liberals look bad, while promoting stories, true or not, that made Trump look bad
You are not telling me anything new. I have watched the hearings. The FBI was calling the computer help desk at the DNC and never contacted any of the leadership. But I'm sure the DNC could have done better. I'l; agree that no one thought Trump could win and the democrats got complacent, but I don't think they buried any anti-Hilary stories. The email private server was all over the news, and the chants of "lock her up!" got as much coverage as anything else. And you want to talk about social media? What about the stories that she had Parkinson's or was dying or Pizzagate? Her associates were mysteriously dying, she was taking millions from foreign powers, that the Clinton foundation only gave 10% to charity? You have a selective memory.
Trump won, because among other things, he owned grabbing women by the pussy and completely ignored calls to release his tax returns. -
Just because leftist outlets buried the stuff, doesn't mean everyone did.
-
Just because leftist outlets buried the stuff, doesn't mean everyone did.
What leftist outlets buried what stories? One example will suffice.
-
Facebook admitted they buried stuff. They created a special algorithm to do it.
-
Facebook admitted they buried stuff. They created a special algorithm to do it.
Facebook is so shitty and yes, they did admit to burying stuff. No disagreements on that.
-
I will admit my ignorance on Facebook's algorithms, but were they trying to bury all negative stories on Hillary or the unsubstantiated "fake news" ones I referenced above?
-
I will admit my ignorance on Facebook's algorithms, but were they trying to bury all negative stories on Hillary or the unsubstantiated "fake news" ones I referenced above?
They ended up blocking a lot of conservative and non-partisan stories that contained factual criticisms of Hillary. I've seen some of those reports and there was nothing fake about them. Yes, fake news stories were blocked but so were a lot of legitimate ones. They've claimed to have made changes but they haven't. Facebook is very biased and if Zuckerberg runs for president and gains the Democratic nomination, I will not vote Democrat in 2020. That would mean the Democratic Party has lost its way in the same manner the Republican Party did in 2016, allowing someone wholly unqualified and clearly incompetent to serve as its nominee. We already have a maniac in office, we don't need another.
-
The left; Obama knew about and allowed Russia to mess with US elections, but so what, let's blame Trump.
What could have Obama have done that wouldn't have gotten him slammed by Trump and the right? Any action he took would have been seen as interference with the election.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login