D
Deleted member 848
Guest
By that logic, neither does Ames (and there's been many critiques levied against him over the years.)
Never Hillary
- Thread starter Dr. Jones
- Start date
By that logic, neither does Ames (and there's been many critiques levied against him over the years.)
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
Like I said, I take it all with a grain of salt.
Why would anyone give merit to radical opinions by recognizing or responding to them? It's a shame the local media here has a thing for it. No real journalism anymore...
You seem to get worked up when anyone with REAL knowledge of a subject writes off your brainwashed rhetoric, then lash out childishly like ^ when they stoop down to your level of "pure demeaning, condescending rhetoric".
My advice: if you want to learn a thing or two then start listening to unbiased people like [MENTION=3073]#bern[/MENTION] who actually know what they are talking about and a little less to the highly biased, most often radical leftists who have a silver tongue that has convinced you of their extremist cause.
You can take the advice like a man or continue crying wolf when anyone with real knowledge makes you look a fool. Or were you begging #bern to give you an out so you could save face? That probably would have been gracious of him.
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
*grabs toilet paper*
Trump might have just won me over with his foreign policy alone:
"See they don't say it: I want Japan and Germany and Saudi Arabia and South Korea and many of the NATO states, nations, they owe us tremendously, we're taking care of all those people and what I want them to do is pay up."
"It's not like, gee whiz, nobody has them. So, North Korea has nukes. Japan has a problem with that. I mean, they have a big problem with that. Maybe they would in fact be better off if they defend themselves from North Korea."
Wallace asked, "With nukes?"
"Including with nukes, yes, including with nukes," Trump responded.
"Can I be honest with you? It's going to happen anyway," Trump said. "It's going to happen anyway. It's only a question of time. They're going to start having them or we have to get rid of them entirely."
https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/02/politics/donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-japan/index.html
"See they don't say it: I want Japan and Germany and Saudi Arabia and South Korea and many of the NATO states, nations, they owe us tremendously, we're taking care of all those people and what I want them to do is pay up."
"It's not like, gee whiz, nobody has them. So, North Korea has nukes. Japan has a problem with that. I mean, they have a big problem with that. Maybe they would in fact be better off if they defend themselves from North Korea."
Wallace asked, "With nukes?"
"Including with nukes, yes, including with nukes," Trump responded.
"Can I be honest with you? It's going to happen anyway," Trump said. "It's going to happen anyway. It's only a question of time. They're going to start having them or we have to get rid of them entirely."
https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/02/politics/donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-japan/index.html
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
He would be a much more entertaining president than Hillary. No one can argue otherwise at this point, right? Millions would be tuning into the news every night to see what crazy things he'd done that day.
Or what crazy things other countries have done in response...not a ride I really want to ride.
Jonah
Well-Known Member
The linked article is all about Trump already backtracking on Japan arming themselves with nukes, not only saying he never said it, but accusing Clinton of being a liar for saying he did.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
It's amazing that CNN would choose to headline the Benghazi report (released today) with No Bombshell. It appears that other media outlets are handling it similarly. The only reason I can imagine for this is that they want to protect Clinton.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/28/politics/benghazi-report-hillary-clinton/
The report definitively shows that the US Government knew it was a terrorist attack and not a mob action motivated by a video within moments of the attack beginning. The source for this was intercepted communications.
The people in the embassy repeatedly asked for assistance. In fact, for weeks before the event they had requested items including sandbags and machine guns, but their requests were denied because these things wouldn't look good. In the course of the attack men who were on standby to assist were alternately ordered to wear uniforms, and then change out of their uniforms because the administration was so concerned with how the rescue attempt would be perceived by locals. This happened four different times.
It boggles my mind that the US government stood by while these men were killed. Amazingly, during the 8 hour attack, no help was ever sent. Completely unconscionable.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/28/politics/benghazi-report-hillary-clinton/
The report definitively shows that the US Government knew it was a terrorist attack and not a mob action motivated by a video within moments of the attack beginning. The source for this was intercepted communications.
The people in the embassy repeatedly asked for assistance. In fact, for weeks before the event they had requested items including sandbags and machine guns, but their requests were denied because these things wouldn't look good. In the course of the attack men who were on standby to assist were alternately ordered to wear uniforms, and then change out of their uniforms because the administration was so concerned with how the rescue attempt would be perceived by locals. This happened four different times.
It boggles my mind that the US government stood by while these men were killed. Amazingly, during the 8 hour attack, no help was ever sent. Completely unconscionable.
This review was extremely partisan. Justified or not it was done for political reasons. That by itself makes me suspicious of it.
This report make claims like "It is not clear what additional intelligence would have satisfied either Kennedy or the Secretary in understanding the Benghazi mission compound was at risk -- short of an attack" but gives no basis for that claim.
I am supposed to just take their word? No thank you. I don't trust her but I don't trust them either.