wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 14:38:30 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 10:51:16 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 15:37:00 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

It was the lowest turnout sine 1996. It was Stupid Day, 2016.

Excuse me scooter but weren't there more votes cast in 2016 than in
the rest of the history of presidential campaigns?
Maybe CNN lied to me?

Well Bubba, 2016 was the lowest percentage of eligible voters since 1996.
Define election turnout however you like. Percentage of eligible voter
suits me just fine.

Is that eligible voter or registered voter?
It is funny how they are slicing and dicing the statistics without
acknowledging that these were the two most unpopular candidates in
recent history, if not the entire history of the republic.

The statistics are the acknowledgement. No other way to take it.

You are right. BOTH Clintons did not have the popularity to drive
turnout. So what?


Yup. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Alex wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/31/16 9:17 PM, Alex wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/30/16 7:47 PM, Alex wrote:
Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...
I confess to being a little torn on this. Not sure how I feel.

For the sake of argument, I'll stipulate that Russia was responsible
for hacking into the DNC email accounts and Hillary's campaign
manager's
account. Let's agree that the hacked emails were then made
available to
Wikileaks, as most claim.

For a while some Hillary supporters were suggesting that not only
were
the emails hacked but Russia also changed some of the wording in
them to
make matters worse for Hillary. Those claims died though after
copies
of the original emails were found on Anthony Weiner's laptop that he
shared with his wife.

So, what really caused Hillary to lose the election? I am
certainly not
advocating Russian hacking of personal emails but the act of hacking
isn't what caused her to lose. It was the content of the emails
that
caused her to lose.
Nothing to be confused about.
The Russian hackers had nothing to do with HRC's loss. They revealed
nothing but common politics and gossip.
The news media's drumbeat of HRC "corruption," and hammering her on
her
private State Department server, and Comey coming up with "new
emails" -
which weren't - made enough Bernie voters stay home.
The stupid voters came out, and carried the day for the pussy
grabber.
It was the lowest turnout sine 1996. It was Stupid Day, 2016.



Bitter, Kevin?


Well, no one is going to accuse you of being clever...about anything.

This isn't a comedy club.

Sure it is. You deplorables are hysterical.

Fantastic response!


Look what happened to the last person calling people deplorables.
Unemployed.

On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 9:49:50 PM UTC-6, Califbill wrote:
Alex wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/31/16 9:17 PM, Alex wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/30/16 7:47 PM, Alex wrote:
Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...
I confess to being a little torn on this. Not sure how I feel.

For the sake of argument, I'll stipulate that Russia was responsible
for hacking into the DNC email accounts and Hillary's campaign
manager's
account. Let's agree that the hacked emails were then made
available to
Wikileaks, as most claim.

For a while some Hillary supporters were suggesting that not only
were
the emails hacked but Russia also changed some of the wording in
them to
make matters worse for Hillary. Those claims died though after
copies
of the original emails were found on Anthony Weiner's laptop that he
shared with his wife.

So, what really caused Hillary to lose the election? I am
certainly not
advocating Russian hacking of personal emails but the act of hacking
isn't what caused her to lose. It was the content of the emails
that
caused her to lose.
Nothing to be confused about.
The Russian hackers had nothing to do with HRC's loss. They revealed
nothing but common politics and gossip.
The news media's drumbeat of HRC "corruption," and hammering her on
her
private State Department server, and Comey coming up with "new
emails" -
which weren't - made enough Bernie voters stay home.
The stupid voters came out, and carried the day for the pussy
grabber.
It was the lowest turnout sine 1996. It was Stupid Day, 2016.



Bitter, Kevin?


Well, no one is going to accuse you of being clever...about anything.

This isn't a comedy club.

Sure it is. You deplorables are hysterical.

Fantastic response!


Look what happened to the last person calling people deplorables.
Unemployed.

LOL

Califbill wrote:
Alex wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/31/16 9:17 PM, Alex wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/30/16 7:47 PM, Alex wrote:
Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...
I confess to being a little torn on this. Not sure how I feel.

For the sake of argument, I'll stipulate that Russia was responsible
for hacking into the DNC email accounts and Hillary's campaign
manager's
account. Let's agree that the hacked emails were then made
available to
Wikileaks, as most claim.

For a while some Hillary supporters were suggesting that not only
were
the emails hacked but Russia also changed some of the wording in
them to
make matters worse for Hillary. Those claims died though after
copies
of the original emails were found on Anthony Weiner's laptop that he
shared with his wife.

So, what really caused Hillary to lose the election? I am
certainly not
advocating Russian hacking of personal emails but the act of hacking
isn't what caused her to lose. It was the content of the emails
that
caused her to lose.
Nothing to be confused about.
The Russian hackers had nothing to do with HRC's loss. They revealed
nothing but common politics and gossip.
The news media's drumbeat of HRC "corruption," and hammering her on
her
private State Department server, and Comey coming up with "new
emails" -
which weren't - made enough Bernie voters stay home.
The stupid voters came out, and carried the day for the pussy
grabber.
It was the lowest turnout sine 1996. It was Stupid Day, 2016.



Bitter, Kevin?

Well, no one is going to accuse you of being clever...about anything.
This isn't a comedy club.
Sure it is. You deplorables are hysterical.
Fantastic response!

Look what happened to the last person calling people deplorables.
Unemployed.

And, likely, unemployable. Think she will be a draw on the speaking
circuit?

On 1/1/17 7:57 PM, Alex wrote:
Califbill wrote:
Alex wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/31/16 9:17 PM, Alex wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/30/16 7:47 PM, Alex wrote:
Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...
I confess to being a little torn on this. Not sure how I feel.

For the sake of argument, I'll stipulate that Russia was
responsible
for hacking into the DNC email accounts and Hillary's campaign
manager's
account. Let's agree that the hacked emails were then made
available to
Wikileaks, as most claim.

For a while some Hillary supporters were suggesting that not only
were
the emails hacked but Russia also changed some of the wording in
them to
make matters worse for Hillary. Those claims died though after
copies
of the original emails were found on Anthony Weiner's laptop
that he
shared with his wife.

So, what really caused Hillary to lose the election? I am
certainly not
advocating Russian hacking of personal emails but the act of
hacking
isn't what caused her to lose. It was the content of the emails
that
caused her to lose.
Nothing to be confused about.
The Russian hackers had nothing to do with HRC's loss. They
revealed
nothing but common politics and gossip.
The news media's drumbeat of HRC "corruption," and hammering
her on
her
private State Department server, and Comey coming up with "new
emails" -
which weren't - made enough Bernie voters stay home.
The stupid voters came out, and carried the day for the pussy
grabber.
It was the lowest turnout sine 1996. It was Stupid Day, 2016.



Bitter, Kevin?

Well, no one is going to accuse you of being clever...about anything.
This isn't a comedy club.
Sure it is. You deplorables are hysterical.
Fantastic response!

Look what happened to the last person calling people deplorables.
Unemployed.

And, likely, unemployable. Think she will be a draw on the speaking
circuit?


More and more, it looks as if the Trump Criminal Organization is going
to have to leave office because of conflicts, as in this one:

Trump's loans from Deutsche Bank AG, about $300 million, are at the
center of a delicate loan-restructuring discussion, which is under
investigation on several fronts by the U.S. Department of Justice.

The bank is trying to restructure some of Trump’s roughly $300 million
debt as part of an attempt to reduce any conflict of interest between
the loan and his presidency, according to a person familiar with the
matter. Normally, the removal of a personal pledge might lead to
more-stringent terms. But there is little normal about this interaction.
Trump’s attorney general will inherit an investigation of Deutsche Bank
related to stock trades for rich clients in Russia -- where Trump says
he plans to improve relations -- and may have to deal with a possible
multibillion-dollar penalty to the bank related to mortgage-bond
investigations.

Whatever terms a restructured loan might include, they will reflect the
complex new relationship spawned between Germany’s largest bank and its
highest-profile client. Ethicists say this concerns them.

- - - - -

Delicious.

On Sun, 1 Jan 2017 20:11:17 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote:

Delicious.

I am still surprised that you are so gleeful about president Pence.