No I understand both the intent of your original post and your intent now. It’s a lazy MO you all repeat ad naseum on this board.
Grown ups are talking.
The problem with your little theory is Clinton won the popular vote.
No, you don’t understand the intent of my post.
I was calling you a partisan hack who omits with the intent to deceive.
That’s not a problem with my theory. Glad you joined. You’re better at this than the other two.
That’s certainly what you think will make you look better now.
btw, you still haven’t stated whether or not you think he’s a liar. Only that you didn’t use the word liar. Which falls under your lazy MO.
How is it not. A bit difficult to claim voter when suppression when you got the most votes.
Is the presidency decided by popular vote? I’ll bet you’ve asked me this verbatim.
You you think they suppressed the electoral college?
Yeah, I’m really worried about looks on an anonymous message board. Careful, that bit of biography that shows up in every written work is showing.
Don’t have any idea if he’s lying or not. I stopped reading at:
Wylie did not provide specific evidence of voter suppression campaigns taking place in the US.
he just gave his opinion… “that was my understanding”.
enough to get libs all spun up. Not enough to be held accountable. Typical lib.
Neither me nor the article mentioned the presidency.
Ah, so what election are you both mentioning?
Do black voter suppression campaigns only offend in certain elections? Which ones?
You’d have to ask Christopher Wylie. I never worked for Cambridge Analytica but I do know they are a criminal group with ties to both the GOP and Russian interests who would benefit greatly from denying black people the vote, so I currently have no reason not to believe him.
That’s why I’m surprised you both called him a liar. It seems risky for him to lie about that.
You know they are a criminal group?
Yeah. You do too. It just doesn’t suit you to admit it.
I think we’ve safely established that mind reading isn’t your forte.
or reading reading