Hilary, the Democrats, and the media
 

If you want to know why people like me are fed up, watch this 60-second video. Just 60 seconds.

In the first 3 seconds, Hilary says she has been briefed "on the bombings" in NYC. So far, so good.

NOT 60 SECONDS LATER, a reporter asks Hilary if she wants to take the opportunity to bash Trump for referring to the violence in the SAME EXACT WAY, as bombings. Naturally, Hilary trashed Trump, saying he needs to get his facts first before referring to it as a bombing, which again, is exactly what she did, 50 seconds before.

Spence? WDMSO? Paul?

I could never write this script. No one in the media, or in the Hilary camp, sees anything hypocritical here. She is such a reprehensible witch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKA9L6IQvoQ

Then, the NYPD says that the bombing suspect is named Ahmad Kahn Rahami. But the mayor says it's not terrorism. Nah, he's probably a Benedictine monk, not an Islamic jihadist.

Atta boy, Columbo. DiBlasio is a real sharpie...

I'm so fed up with the media. What ever happened to real journalism ? I mean real non-biased fact based investigative journalism? It's gone. And because of that, these people are free to deceive.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Timeline Jim, timeline.

Saturday night while New York and New Jersey we're dealing with bombs and casualties, your dear leader was bashing Trump and making Islamic extremist jokes to the black caucus .
How's that for timing?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Please elaborate?

There is a timeline according to which, Trump jumped the gun by calling it a bomb, but Hilary was brilliant for calling it a bomb? Is that what it is?

Maybe Trump (like Hilary when she flip-flopped on whether Benghazi was a terror attack or a crowd expressing it's displeasure with an internet video) was simply responding to the latest intel he was given. Isn't that how you justified Hilary's flip-flopping? Why doesn't Trump get the same courtesy from you?

What I don't get, is that there is SO MUCH legitimate criticism you can heap on him. Why do libs need to make stuff up? The guy bragged about the size of his hands in a presidential debate, marking an historic low in political discourse. That's fair game, hit him with that.

Who ever said she was brilliant for calling it a bombing? The entire story is about Trump jumping the gun to play on people's fears.

I'm just glad they (likely) got the guy before he could kill any one.

So when Trump called it a bombing, all we knew was that it was an explosion, that's what you are saying? When he called it a bombing, there was no credible evidence to support that?

Can you back that up? I see a lot of general criticism here by you, but no facts to support said criticism. How do you know what Trump had been told about the event, at the time he called it a bombing? Or are you just assuming he screwed it up.

Also, since I don't think you responded on the other thread...you criticized Trump for profiting from other people's loss. How is that worse, than say, a defense lawyer cashing a nice paycheck, for defending someone who raped a child?

I just can't wait, to hear your explanation...

Have you ever been critical of her? Can you point to a specific time where you think she screwed up?

This was media crap; should Trump have been more careful with saying bombing, maybe. Is this a big deal, no, it shouldn't be. At least this time he didn't immediately tweet before even offering condolences and the bodies were still warm (thankfully no one died in these attacks) about 'thanks for telling me I was right about Islamic terrorism'

I have no idea what case you are referring to, but the jist is...?
She was a defense attorney, and her client was accused of rape.

Did he run up and down the courtroom aisle laughing about raping a child admitting he was guilty while she just danced and said 'hey look at me, making money off raped kids?'? Did he not deserve a fair trial? Public defenders get paid all the time to defend people like that, do you despise them as well? Sometimes #^&#^&#^&#^&ty people have funds and a private attorney is hired to defend them as their job. Sometimes those #^&#^&#^&#^&ty people go free, and yes, that sucks.

She won one for the bad guy . She seems to be on the wrong side of right way too often . Some see this as a problem .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes Jim, at the time Trump said that it was just a reported unknown explosion. He jumped the gun to promote fear then this morning congratulated himself for it.

He has a mental disorder.

Please do some homework on this subject.

She was a lawyer, I don't hold her doing the best job she can for a client against her.

She knew he was guilty when she took the case. She didn't have to take it .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Is this a big deal, no, it shouldn't be. "

It's not a big deal that 95% of the media is in the bag for one political party?


"I have no idea what case you are referring to, but the jist is...?"

The jist is this (and I think you knew it already, because you are pretty sharp)...if Spence doesn't like it when Trump profits off of other people's losses, I would genuinely like to know how the heck he reconciles that, with the fact that Hilary profited off of the rape of a little girl. Unless she was this guy's court-appointed attorney, then there is nothing in the ethics of the bar (pretend lawyers have ethics for a minute) that obligates an attorney to agree to represent every client that walks in the door. She calls herself a feminist? i don' t think Gloria Allred would have defended the guy.

If Hilary can profit from the misery of others, why can't Trump? Is that an unfair question?

I despise Trump as a person. I am not defending him, so you don't need to list his ethical flaws. I am asking why there is such an obvious, glaring, double-standard between what she gets away with, and what he gets away with. Telling me he's a jerk, doesn't come close to answering the question I asked.


"Did he not deserve a fair trial? "

For the millionth time...boy, liberals have a really hard time responding to what others actually say. I never said we should execute the guy without due process. I said that as a result of this case, she profited from someone else's misery. So if Spence implies that such sleazy profiteering renders one unfit to be POTUS, why does Spence only apply that standard to the GOP?

"Sometimes those #^&#^&#^&#^&ty people go free, and yes, that sucks"

That's right. So there is nothing unfair, to hold the people who benefit from that, responsible for their actions. Or at least, to hold them to the same standard, regardless of their political party.

I don't have a huge issue with what Hilary did in that case. What I have an issue with, is saying that it's OK if she profits from someone else's pain, but it's wrong when Trump does it.

and then I think she married him....

"Yes Jim, at the time Trump said that it was just a reported unknown explosion."

Boy, the information sources you must have! When Hilary kept flip-flopping on the cause of the Benghazi attack, you somehow knew that she wasn't flip-flopping for political convenience...rather, you knew that she was always simply responding to the latest intelligence. That must be a secret source of information, because despite the fact that I asked you many times, you chose not to share that data with me.

And here, you somehow know what Trump was aware of, and what he wasn't aware of, when he said it was a bomb. It couldn't be that someone told him by then it was a bomb, because if that were the case, you couldn't accuse him of fear-mongering. Nope, you have a source inside the Trump camp that's as knowledgeable as your source inside the Hilary camp, who told you that he had no valid reason to believe it was a bomb when he said such.

Amazing. And so fortunate for you, that these amazing sources that you won't reveal, always seem to praise Hilary, and always seem to paint Trump as an idiot. What a coincidence.

It's a coincidence. Right?

MAYBE Trump has access to better information than what's reported on TV.

She was asked by the Judge to take the case. That's not something you'd refuse lightly...Aren't even rapists presumed innocent until proven guilty?

Wait, we're talking about Hillary Clinton. I forgot...

Hilary certainly didn't break any laws in doing what she did. But as far as I know, neither did Trump in his business deals, bankruptcies, etc. So again, why the double standard? Why do you give Hilary a pass, but criticize Trump for profiting from the misery of others?

Yes she is guilty but it hasn't been proven yet (At least to you ) 😁
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She is also on tape as saying this, and then laughing about it...

"I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs."


Hah hah hah, you knew he was guilty of raping a 12 year old girl. Again, someone has to defend the guy. Not everyone would laugh about it.

Jim, she was laughing in the interview because the guy passed a polygraph and then ended up pleading guilty in the case!

I just read on reddit that the clown tech who managed hillarys server logged on to Reddit and asked how to wipe a server and to make sure the sender's name would be permenently deleted. He thought he was being anonymous but his user name was linked to his real name. This could be the smoking gun.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The same guy who forgot to change her email retention policy on server then panicked and tried to delete after he was told not to? That's not much of a smoking gun.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe she should put her IT people through a "Grueling Vetting Process" before she hires them...

Oh....wait.....different process
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Otherwise known as the scapegoat
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Since Jim Likes to hear things that are not there I will attempt to explain this for him since he ask me directly

yes she referred to the incident as a bombing clearly after she was briefed on the Matter she stated as much

she then stated "he needs to get his facts first before referring to it as a bombing Donald did not and she went on to explain the pitfalls of such un informed declarations .untill the whole incident has been clarified . I can clearly see the pitfalls panic, retribution the list is endless.. you can't?

Jim your Blind Hatred is on display once again

yet Trump shows hes not POTUS material hence his current statement.. Mr Trump says it is "sad" that Mr Rahami, a naturalised US citizen, will receive medical care and legal representation

Its SAD?? really That treatment and due process towards a scum bag like him. Is what makes America great and separates us from them...

Mr Rahami, who is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt is now going to cost us millions and millions . Do you want to know who's paying for that, look in the mirror . If Hillary gets in he will be tried in American court system if Trump gets in he will have a military trial and when found guilty , executed .
Yet another reason to vote for Trump
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

oh boy :huh:

hey, didn't this administration off a us citizen(s) without any "due process"?

American citizen or is that to hard for you to understand

Hillary get in things get done as the laws requires

Trump extrajudicial punishment

I get it

Wonder if he's on the 2 shots to the back of the head suicide watch ???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

let me know when this happens on US soil

not in some tent in another country and not a known terrorist

in June 2014, a previously classified memorandum issued by the United States Department of Justice was released, justifying al-Awlaki's death as a lawful act of war.

I think there is precedent on killing American citizens that are enemies to the country. research

BTW...how many more of these "rare" attacks have to occur before you realize we are at war ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He didn't say it was illegal. He didn't say it was wrong. He said it was sad. What makes America great is not only the sad necessity of affording due process to scumbags, but the ability to say that it is sad.

Some guys have a double standard. Who remembers Hillarys opinion on why Benghazi occurred. Presidential material.....to whom?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The short list. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.c45e7107db1a
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"yes she referred to the incident as a bombing clearly after she was briefed on the Matter she stated as much "

That is fair. Here is my question to you (I asked Spence, he dodged). How can you possibly know what Trump was briefed on, at the time he said it was a bombing? Maybe someone in the FBI told him "it was a bomb".

"she went on to explain the pitfalls of such un informed declarations "

So when she repeatedly flip-flopped on the cause of the Benghazi attack, clearly she didn't have all the facts. Right? So are you equally critical of her, for making "uninformed declarations"? You see, I also believe that leaders have a responsibility not to leap to conclusions. But unlike liberals, I apply that consistently to both Republicans and Democrats.

"Jim your Blind Hatred is on display once again "

Guilty as charged. I hate these dishonest, hypocritical liberals, and their puppets in the media. They are undermining the concept of a free democracy, and abusing the freedoms that many have fought to secure. They don't question anything she says, and endlessly dump on him.

"yet Trump shows hes not POTUS material"

But someone who claims she came under sniper fire, when what she actually faced was a smiling child handing her a flower, is POTUS material? Again, the glaring, obvious, demonstrable hypocrisy.

Here is where you and I are very different. I can agree with you that he's an obnoxious ass. He made fun of John McCain's imprisonment, he made fun of Carly Fiorina's face, and he bragged that his hands are larger than Marco Rubio's (that was the most appalling thing I have seen at a debate). He's morally bankrupt.

But so is she. She claimed that Bill wasn't cheating on her, but that the GOP was framing him. She attacked the character of his victims, yet she claims to be a feminist. She makes tens of millions from Wall Street speeches, but claims she is opposed to crony capitalism and a rigged system that favors insiders. Her and her husband stole thousands of dollars worth of stuff form the White House on their way out, and claimed they were broke. She voted for the Iraq War, then claimed that the Surge could never provide benefits that Petreus claimed it would provide (and she called him a liar for making the predictions he made, which of course turned out to be true). She lied about coming under sniper fire, and refuses to admit she lied. The email situation speaks for itself, and when pressed, she blamed it on the nearest black guy, Colin Powell. When asked if her server had been 'scrubbed', she made a wiping gesture and said "you mean with a cloth", as if she didn't know what the reporter was asking. The day after the DOJ announced no charges, her team said they would consider keeping Loretta Lynch on as AG. She criticizes Trump and Pence for not denouncing David Duke, while at the same time she kisses the ring of Al Sharpton. She claims to have collapsed from pneumonia, minutes after shaking hands with folks, including children, at a rally. Then she calls me deplorable. That's POTUS material? To say that half of those who disagree with you, are deplorable? She says tens of millions of ordinary Americans are deplorable, but you say that I am the hatemonger, not her. That makes sense.

Trump is more crass and sophomoric in his language, no question, than she is. But they are both morally bankrupt scumbags. Liberals trash Trump for all of his transgressions, and turn a blind eye to all of hers. That's what I cannot stand.

Please tell me where I am wrong, exactly. I don't engage in idiotic conspiracy theories such as who she had murdered, but I do engage in facts. So if any one of those things, are things that "I am hearing that are not there", by all means, enlighten me.

Today, the fabricated liberal outrage is that Donald Trump Jr compared suffering human beings to pieces of candy. Did he say "I think refugees are the ethical equivalent of candy"? Of course not. What he said, regarding the risk of letting in refugees, is this...if I gave you a bowl of 100 Skittles and said that 1 was poisoned, how many would you let your kids eat?

I have used that analogy. Like Trump, I was accused of comparing candy to human beings. It matters not to liberals, that I never said anything remotely like that. But calling me a hatemonger, is a lot easier than trying to make me wrong.

Liberals aren't interested in winning the debate. They want to cancel the debate. Because they are smart enough to realize that they can never, ever win a fair debate. Not only can they never win, they can't even avoid looking like morons and like monsters, because their policy positions are that inane and amoral.

So instead of explaining why their positions are morally superior to mine, they just keep saying it. Over and over and over, until it is assumed to be true.

I grew up between New Haven and Bridgeport, CT. I have seen firsthand what 40 years of unchecked liberalism has done for those people. Because I take a principled position that they deserve better, I am called a hater. That's the best liberals can do.

Again, to my point with this post. How do we know what Trump was told, or not told, when he said it was a bomb?

Also, mayor DiBlasio said right from the start, that there was no evidence this was Islamic terrorism. How many liberals are saying he should have kept his idiotic mouth shut until the investigation was done? I haven't heard one. Because, again, only conservatives are held to that standard. Again, the glaring hypocrisy.

It's OK when she flip-flops, when she offers explanations that are (1) clearly not based on all the facts, and (2) also happened to be very self-serving (don't blame me, it was a spontaneous response to a video, it wasn't anything we could have predicted)

She claims she was confused about sniper fire, because she was "tired". Well, if she gets elected POTUS, she won't always be able to get 10 hours of sleep. So if we believe that she was just tired (an no one believes that), why shouldn't we concerned that if she's tired in the future, she won't confuse a girl scout selling cookies with a sniper, and yell at her Secret Service agents "there's a sniper! Shoot her!".

You can't have it both ways. Unless you are a liberal, in which case you can have it as many ways as is convenient for you.

They both suck.

End of story.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bingo.

trumps job is to make everyone relieved when she beats him in November. If she was running against someone else who is less of a fraudulent con artist, she'd probably loose. This speaks volumes about how corrupt our media sources are and how they have propped up trump the whole way. And Hillary for that matter.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device