Posted by gomiami1972 on 7/16/2018 10:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 7/16/2018 9:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 7/16/2018 9:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 7/16/2018 6:55:00 PM (view original):
Here is how this debate went:
CCCP: He's biased.
BL: Yes, but he clearly didn't let that impact his work.
CCCP: Well, if he had done that, he would have gotten fired, so HE'S BIASED.
BL: *Sigh*

The proof is in the pudding. Strzok clearly didn't do anything pre-election to favor Hillary. And yes, if he had no conviction for the law and everyone operated by their own political agendas he would have done more to favor Hillary. But the FBI is actually credible, and they are not deep state, SO THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Your only good argument is that Strzok changed the classification of the emails, but that's a big nothingburger to me. I don't think that was politically charged. You can argue right or wrong all you want, but an argument can certainly be made that he was right to change it.

Are you insane? It went nothing like that. LMAO.

Back to your safe space little boy.

Do you think PS re-opening the email investigation 11 days before the election hurt or helped HRC?

I don't think there were very many undecided about Clinton. The broth had been cooked by that time. The e-mail investigation now serves more as retrospective cover for a bad campaign as opposed to a solid reason for defeat, IMHO.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2018 10:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 7/16/2018 10:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 7/16/2018 9:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 7/16/2018 9:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 7/16/2018 6:55:00 PM (view original):
Here is how this debate went:
CCCP: He's biased.
BL: Yes, but he clearly didn't let that impact his work.
CCCP: Well, if he had done that, he would have gotten fired, so HE'S BIASED.
BL: *Sigh*

The proof is in the pudding. Strzok clearly didn't do anything pre-election to favor Hillary. And yes, if he had no conviction for the law and everyone operated by their own political agendas he would have done more to favor Hillary. But the FBI is actually credible, and they are not deep state, SO THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Your only good argument is that Strzok changed the classification of the emails, but that's a big nothingburger to me. I don't think that was politically charged. You can argue right or wrong all you want, but an argument can certainly be made that he was right to change it.

Are you insane? It went nothing like that. LMAO.

Back to your safe space little boy.

Do you think PS re-opening the email investigation 11 days before the election hurt or helped HRC?

Helped HRC. Like they say, "bad publicity is better than no publicity."

That’s insane. There was a direct correlation to a drop in the polls.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 7/16/2018 10:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 7/16/2018 9:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 7/16/2018 9:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 7/16/2018 6:55:00 PM (view original):
Here is how this debate went:
CCCP: He's biased.
BL: Yes, but he clearly didn't let that impact his work.
CCCP: Well, if he had done that, he would have gotten fired, so HE'S BIASED.
BL: *Sigh*

The proof is in the pudding. Strzok clearly didn't do anything pre-election to favor Hillary. And yes, if he had no conviction for the law and everyone operated by their own political agendas he would have done more to favor Hillary. But the FBI is actually credible, and they are not deep state, SO THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Your only good argument is that Strzok changed the classification of the emails, but that's a big nothingburger to me. I don't think that was politically charged. You can argue right or wrong all you want, but an argument can certainly be made that he was right to change it.

Are you insane? It went nothing like that. LMAO.

Back to your safe space little boy.

Do you think PS re-opening the email investigation 11 days before the election hurt or helped HRC?

I don't think there were very many undecided about Clinton. The broth had been cooked by that time. The e-mail investigation now serves more as retrospective cover for a bad campaign as opposed to a solid reason for defeat, IMHO.

Posted by strikeout26 on 7/16/2018 10:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 7/16/2018 9:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 7/16/2018 9:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 7/16/2018 6:55:00 PM (view original):
Here is how this debate went:
CCCP: He's biased.
BL: Yes, but he clearly didn't let that impact his work.
CCCP: Well, if he had done that, he would have gotten fired, so HE'S BIASED.
BL: *Sigh*

The proof is in the pudding. Strzok clearly didn't do anything pre-election to favor Hillary. And yes, if he had no conviction for the law and everyone operated by their own political agendas he would have done more to favor Hillary. But the FBI is actually credible, and they are not deep state, SO THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Your only good argument is that Strzok changed the classification of the emails, but that's a big nothingburger to me. I don't think that was politically charged. You can argue right or wrong all you want, but an argument can certainly be made that he was right to change it.

Are you insane? It went nothing like that. LMAO.

Back to your safe space little boy.

Do you think PS re-opening the email investigation 11 days before the election hurt or helped HRC?

Helped HRC. Like they say, "bad publicity is better than no publicity."

Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2018 10:15:00 PM (view original):
The big, reliable polls were right in this election. They had Clinton by 2-4 points and I think she won the popular vote by 2(?).

She was up by 4-6 when the news broke.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2018 10:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 7/16/2018 10:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 7/16/2018 9:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 7/16/2018 9:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 7/16/2018 6:55:00 PM (view original):
Here is how this debate went:
CCCP: He's biased.
BL: Yes, but he clearly didn't let that impact his work.
CCCP: Well, if he had done that, he would have gotten fired, so HE'S BIASED.
BL: *Sigh*

The proof is in the pudding. Strzok clearly didn't do anything pre-election to favor Hillary. And yes, if he had no conviction for the law and everyone operated by their own political agendas he would have done more to favor Hillary. But the FBI is actually credible, and they are not deep state, SO THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Your only good argument is that Strzok changed the classification of the emails, but that's a big nothingburger to me. I don't think that was politically charged. You can argue right or wrong all you want, but an argument can certainly be made that he was right to change it.

Are you insane? It went nothing like that. LMAO.

Back to your safe space little boy.

Do you think PS re-opening the email investigation 11 days before the election hurt or helped HRC?

Helped HRC. Like they say, "bad publicity is better than no publicity."

That’s insane. There was a direct correlation to a drop in the polls.

Posted by The Taint on 7/16/2018 10:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gomiami1972 on 7/16/2018 10:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 7/16/2018 9:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 7/16/2018 9:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 7/16/2018 6:55:00 PM (view original):
Here is how this debate went:
CCCP: He's biased.
BL: Yes, but he clearly didn't let that impact his work.
CCCP: Well, if he had done that, he would have gotten fired, so HE'S BIASED.
BL: *Sigh*

The proof is in the pudding. Strzok clearly didn't do anything pre-election to favor Hillary. And yes, if he had no conviction for the law and everyone operated by their own political agendas he would have done more to favor Hillary. But the FBI is actually credible, and they are not deep state, SO THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Your only good argument is that Strzok changed the classification of the emails, but that's a big nothingburger to me. I don't think that was politically charged. You can argue right or wrong all you want, but an argument can certainly be made that he was right to change it.

Are you insane? It went nothing like that. LMAO.

Back to your safe space little boy.

Do you think PS re-opening the email investigation 11 days before the election hurt or helped HRC?

I don't think there were very many undecided about Clinton. The broth had been cooked by that time. The e-mail investigation now serves more as retrospective cover for a bad campaign as opposed to a solid reason for defeat, IMHO.

Fair enough, but it in no way helped her cause or case. If there was any effect, it was negative and if the FBI was trying to cook the goose for HRC, they would have in no way re-opened it at that point. That's the real point here.

Posted by The Taint on 7/16/2018 10:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 7/16/2018 10:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 7/16/2018 9:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 7/16/2018 9:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 7/16/2018 6:55:00 PM (view original):
Here is how this debate went:
CCCP: He's biased.
BL: Yes, but he clearly didn't let that impact his work.
CCCP: Well, if he had done that, he would have gotten fired, so HE'S BIASED.
BL: *Sigh*

The proof is in the pudding. Strzok clearly didn't do anything pre-election to favor Hillary. And yes, if he had no conviction for the law and everyone operated by their own political agendas he would have done more to favor Hillary. But the FBI is actually credible, and they are not deep state, SO THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Your only good argument is that Strzok changed the classification of the emails, but that's a big nothingburger to me. I don't think that was politically charged. You can argue right or wrong all you want, but an argument can certainly be made that he was right to change it.

Are you insane? It went nothing like that. LMAO.

Back to your safe space little boy.

Do you think PS re-opening the email investigation 11 days before the election hurt or helped HRC?

Helped HRC. Like they say, "bad publicity is better than no publicity."

That's the dumbest thing I'll read all night. Cmon man.


Pizzagate was good also eh?

Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2018 10:24:00 PM (view original):
That’s not really the case. The polls were a measurement in time. They weren’t suggesting anything more than what they are, a snapshot.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2018 10:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 7/16/2018 10:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 7/16/2018 9:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 7/16/2018 9:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 7/16/2018 6:55:00 PM (view original):
Here is how this debate went:
CCCP: He's biased.
BL: Yes, but he clearly didn't let that impact his work.
CCCP: Well, if he had done that, he would have gotten fired, so HE'S BIASED.
BL: *Sigh*

The proof is in the pudding. Strzok clearly didn't do anything pre-election to favor Hillary. And yes, if he had no conviction for the law and everyone operated by their own political agendas he would have done more to favor Hillary. But the FBI is actually credible, and they are not deep state, SO THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Your only good argument is that Strzok changed the classification of the emails, but that's a big nothingburger to me. I don't think that was politically charged. You can argue right or wrong all you want, but an argument can certainly be made that he was right to change it.

Are you insane? It went nothing like that. LMAO.

Back to your safe space little boy.

Do you think PS re-opening the email investigation 11 days before the election hurt or helped HRC?

Helped HRC. Like they say, "bad publicity is better than no publicity."

That’s insane. There was a direct correlation to a drop in the polls.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2018 10:24:00 PM (view original):
That’s not really the case. The polls were a measurement in time. They weren’t suggesting anything more than what they are, a snapshot.

Posted by gomiami1972 on 7/16/2018 10:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/16/2018 10:24:00 PM (view original):
That’s not really the case. The polls were a measurement in time. They weren’t suggesting anything more than what they are, a snapshot.

OK, I'll concede that. Sometimes you can be quite logical. Even a blind squirrel...