Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
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...
|
"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.