Are Republicans keeping their fingers crossed hoping plane was blown up by terrorists?

[Yousaidwhat]

Candy. I'm a Democrat. And I don't support Trump.

Stop thinking for me. It makes your head hurt.

If you're a democrat, you want somebody to think for you. You NEED somebody to think for you.

No. I'm a Democrat and I think for myself. I don't need someone to think for me.

I'M not a leftist or Socialist Democrat.

I'm probably the last of the conservative leaning Democrats remaining.

Why aren't you a full-blown Republican then? According to them, ALL Democrats are far left hippies.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Since I live in Maryland, the chances of getting anything accomplished are slim to none as a Republican.

As far as the Republican party goes, as you probably already know, they roll over and concede ground repeatedly, against the wishes and demands of the constituency.

They make promises that they don't keep and as far as I'm concerned are really no better than the Democrat party. They are one in the same. They are taking us in the same direction as the Democrat party, just at a slower rate.

I'm not a Trump supporter but despise Hillary Clinton. She is a lying hypocrite and I do believe my fellow soldiers were left behind in Benghazi and a lie was created to deflect from the actual events. We do not leave our soldiers behind.

I don't care how it happened. It happened.

I do not like or support "ANY" politician. I am, as I believe you are, stuck with voting for the one who will do the least harm to this nation.

I haven't any experience on message boards prior to USMB, but it is obvious I am being pushed more to the right and see comments here that make me pause and think I am most assuredly supporting the wrong party.

Well. He did ask.

I gave him an honest assessment.

Don't like the fact that I'm not in lockstep?

 

[mudwhistle]

The more fear, the better for Trump.

He will give the idiots the war they want since he, is an idiot.

If you hate war why do you support Obama?

Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, ......the guy has us in 3 wars right now.
Trump supporters are worried about being shot up at work by ISIS. You worry about cattle farts.

Then again Obama didn't start any of them.

Actually he did.

Libya, Syria, and now Iraq phase II.

(Afghanistan was over with and Obama restarted it btw)

No, Libya didn't start because of Obama, nore Syria, and nor did Iraq.

Then who has been president since 2009?

 

[LeftofLeft]

Trump fires back at Clinton over Muslim ban: 'Ask Hillary who blew up the plane last night'

What if it turns out to be mechanical failure. Will that make Republicans mad?

That sick logic cuts both ways. Gabriel Giffords shooting, Nadal Hassan shooting, San Bernardino Shooting, and Boston Bombing.... Left wingers immediately took to the stage saying that it was right wing, anti government white guys......unfortunately, in each of these terrorist acts it was Muslim terrorism or an Anarchist fitting the Occupy prototype. It was not until Charleston, SC shootings did the Left finally get a right wing wacko not seen since Timothy McVeigh.

 

[mudwhistle]

The more fear, the better for Trump.

He will give the idiots the war they want since he, is an idiot.

If you hate war why do you support Obama?

Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, ......the guy has us in 3 wars right now.
Trump supporters are worried about being shot up at work by ISIS. You worry about cattle farts.

Then again Obama didn't start any of them.

Actually he did.

Libya, Syria, and now Iraq phase II.

(Afghanistan was over with and Obama restarted it btw)

No, Libya didn't start because of Obama, nore Syria, and nor did Iraq.

True, I think Libya was all Hillary's doing. The Obama administration regrets their action, Clinton touts her lies as a success.

Obama regrets everything they fuck up privately but celebrate it publicly.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

How come none of you far rightwing nut jobs are calling for calm and for people to wait for all the facts like you do when some potentially racist story against blacks happen?

Did you see any Conservatives making this an issue, demanding this or that while the investigation is still on-going?

No.

What's the name of this thread and who started it again? Oh yeah, it was started by some dumbass, sick Liberal who could not wait to use tis tragedy as a political weapon with which to attack the GOP / Conservatives.

It's what rdean does.... politicizes everything by claiming someone else is politicizing something.

 

[hadit]

Politicians have a bad habit of very quickly proclaiming knowledge of event causes. You know, like claiming a clearly staged attack was a spontaneous response to a video. Trump is becoming a politician. Isn't it precious to watch him learn how to walk?

Obama said Benghazi was an act of terror the day after it happened. I guess that makes him the smartest guy in the room back then.

Are you saying he didn't have control over the people he sent out who basically said that was a lie? The official line was that the attack was caused by a video, yet you say he claimed it was an act of terror. Is he really that weak?

There was never an official line that the video caused the attack.

Secondly, since we don't have the perpetrators' to ask, no one knows for certain what role the video played.

Do you want to dispute that?

You can argue semantics all you want, but when the administration's talking heads maintain for weeks that the attacks were the spontaneous result of a video while, as you claim, the president maintains that they were an act of terror, something is clearly wrong in the chain of command. If the president was confident in what he said, no administration figure has any business saying otherwise. Don't you agree? Yet, there was no immediate retraction, no one was taken to the woodshed for publicly contradicting the president, and the video meme continued. You can't have it both ways. Either the president was on board with the video story, which makes his statement a lie, or he was not, which makes him an incredibly weak leader. Which is it?

"An incredibly weak leader" that just whooped the Republicans A$$ES for 8 straight years non-stop and got a lot of what he wanted done accomplished.

How do you feel about that?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

The two are not related, but you knew that. Trump is a strong leader. He could not have become the tycoon he is if her were not. Yet, he is not likely to whoop anyone's ass politically. Do you see where you wandered astray?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The more fear, the better for Trump.

He will give the idiots the war they want since he, is an idiot.

If you hate war why do you support Obama?

Syria, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, ......the guy has us in 3 wars right now.
Trump supporters are worried about being shot up at work by ISIS. You worry about cattle farts.

Then again Obama didn't start any of them.

Actually he did.

Libya, Syria, and now Iraq phase II.

(Afghanistan was over with and Obama restarted it btw)

No, Libya didn't start because of Obama, nore Syria, and nor did Iraq.

True, I think Libya was all Hillary's doing. The Obama administration regrets their action, Clinton touts her lies as a success.

Trump supported the Libya action, in fact, he pounded the table for it.

 

[Muhammed]

The more fear, the better for Trump.

He will give the idiots the war they want since he, is an idiot.

It is the Democrats who are the war mongers. They get the US into wars that have absolutely nothing to do with US national security. WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam....hell the Dems throw a hairy conniption when the US loses 4,000 soldiers In Iraq, but act like they didn't enslave US citizens to use as cannon fodder and lost 4,000 soldiers in ONE FUCKING DAY in Europe.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Trump fires back at Clinton over Muslim ban: 'Ask Hillary who blew up the plane last night'

What if it turns out to be mechanical failure. Will that make Republicans mad?

That sick logic cuts both ways. Gabriel Giffords shooting, Nadal Hassan shooting, San Bernardino Shooting, and Boston Bombing.... Left wingers immediately took to the stage saying that it was right wing, anti government white guys......unfortunately, in each of these terrorist acts it was Muslim terrorism or an Anarchist fitting the Occupy prototype. It was not until Charleston, SC shootings did the Left finally get a right wing wacko not seen since Timothy McVeigh.

You left out the two rightwing Bundy supporters who shot two cops in Nevada. Not to mention several other rightwing terrorist acts.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why aren't all the anti-Trump Republicans who are rolling over to support him putting principle ahead of party?

I guess it falls under the category of picking the lesser of 2 evils.

Yep. Democrats control 95% of our media, and their main function is trashing anyone who opposes the political establishment.

The Democrats control 95% of the media?

So what if that were true? The media is just a group of businesses. I guess that makes Democrats better businessmen than are Republicans.

No surprise there.

 

[bodecea]

Obama said Benghazi was an act of terror the day after it happened. I guess that makes him the smartest guy in the room back then.

Are you saying he didn't have control over the people he sent out who basically said that was a lie? The official line was that the attack was caused by a video, yet you say he claimed it was an act of terror. Is he really that weak?

There was never an official line that the video caused the attack.

Secondly, since we don't have the perpetrators' to ask, no one knows for certain what role the video played.

Do you want to dispute that?

You can argue semantics all you want, but when the administration's talking heads maintain for weeks that the attacks were the spontaneous result of a video while, as you claim, the president maintains that they were an act of terror, something is clearly wrong in the chain of command. If the president was confident in what he said, no administration figure has any business saying otherwise. Don't you agree? Yet, there was no immediate retraction, no one was taken to the woodshed for publicly contradicting the president, and the video meme continued. You can't have it both ways. Either the president was on board with the video story, which makes his statement a lie, or he was not, which makes him an incredibly weak leader. Which is it?

"An incredibly weak leader" that just whooped the Republicans A$$ES for 8 straight years non-stop and got a lot of what he wanted done accomplished.

How do you feel about that?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

The two are not related, but you knew that. Trump is a strong leader. He could not have become the tycoon he is if her were not. Yet, he is not likely to whoop anyone's ass politically. Do you see where you wandered astray?

If Drumpf is so strong, why does he cry like a little bitch every time someone says something "mean" about him?

 

[hadit]

Why aren't all the anti-Trump Republicans who are rolling over to support him putting principle ahead of party?

I guess it falls under the category of picking the lesser of 2 evils.

Yep. Democrats control 95% of our media, and their main function is trashing anyone who opposes the political establishment.

The Democrats control 95% of the media?

So what if that were true? The media is just a group of businesses. I guess that makes Democrats better businessmen than are Republicans.

No surprise there.

Aren't you really saying then that democrats are better propagandists than are Republicans? That's actually more believable.

 

[kaz]

Trump fires back at Clinton over Muslim ban: 'Ask Hillary who blew up the plane last night'

What if it turns out to be mechanical failure. Will that make Republicans mad?

And to think that just eight years ago it was you hoping for terrorist attacks

 

[hadit]

Are you saying he didn't have control over the people he sent out who basically said that was a lie? The official line was that the attack was caused by a video, yet you say he claimed it was an act of terror. Is he really that weak?

There was never an official line that the video caused the attack.

Secondly, since we don't have the perpetrators' to ask, no one knows for certain what role the video played.

Do you want to dispute that?

You can argue semantics all you want, but when the administration's talking heads maintain for weeks that the attacks were the spontaneous result of a video while, as you claim, the president maintains that they were an act of terror, something is clearly wrong in the chain of command. If the president was confident in what he said, no administration figure has any business saying otherwise. Don't you agree? Yet, there was no immediate retraction, no one was taken to the woodshed for publicly contradicting the president, and the video meme continued. You can't have it both ways. Either the president was on board with the video story, which makes his statement a lie, or he was not, which makes him an incredibly weak leader. Which is it?

"An incredibly weak leader" that just whooped the Republicans A$$ES for 8 straight years non-stop and got a lot of what he wanted done accomplished.

How do you feel about that?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

The two are not related, but you knew that. Trump is a strong leader. He could not have become the tycoon he is if her were not. Yet, he is not likely to whoop anyone's ass politically. Do you see where you wandered astray?

If Drumpf is so strong, why does he cry like a little bitch every time someone says something "mean" about him?

Because he's only now learning how to be a politician. He's not accustomed to having a hostile media intent on filming every grimace, every snort, every twitch, hoping to find something that can be magnified and twisted into a scandal. He'll get the hang of it, or not. Either way, it will be entertaining to watch Hillary go up against someone who's not afraid to get in the mud with her, unlike most Republicans.

 

[kaz]

Are you saying he didn't have control over the people he sent out who basically said that was a lie? The official line was that the attack was caused by a video, yet you say he claimed it was an act of terror. Is he really that weak?

There was never an official line that the video caused the attack.

Secondly, since we don't have the perpetrators' to ask, no one knows for certain what role the video played.

Do you want to dispute that?

You can argue semantics all you want, but when the administration's talking heads maintain for weeks that the attacks were the spontaneous result of a video while, as you claim, the president maintains that they were an act of terror, something is clearly wrong in the chain of command. If the president was confident in what he said, no administration figure has any business saying otherwise. Don't you agree? Yet, there was no immediate retraction, no one was taken to the woodshed for publicly contradicting the president, and the video meme continued. You can't have it both ways. Either the president was on board with the video story, which makes his statement a lie, or he was not, which makes him an incredibly weak leader. Which is it?

"An incredibly weak leader" that just whooped the Republicans A$$ES for 8 straight years non-stop and got a lot of what he wanted done accomplished.

How do you feel about that?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

The two are not related, but you knew that. Trump is a strong leader. He could not have become the tycoon he is if her were not. Yet, he is not likely to whoop anyone's ass politically. Do you see where you wandered astray?

If Drumpf is so strong, why does he cry like a little bitch every time someone says something "mean" about him?

I agree with that, he is a whining little bitch. Hillary and Obama are just as thin skinned, but that doesn't justify Trump doing it

 

[whitehall]

What a terrible thing to suggest. There is a lot of hatred on the left.

 

[kaz]

There was never an official line that the video caused the attack.

Secondly, since we don't have the perpetrators' to ask, no one knows for certain what role the video played.

Do you want to dispute that?

You can argue semantics all you want, but when the administration's talking heads maintain for weeks that the attacks were the spontaneous result of a video while, as you claim, the president maintains that they were an act of terror, something is clearly wrong in the chain of command. If the president was confident in what he said, no administration figure has any business saying otherwise. Don't you agree? Yet, there was no immediate retraction, no one was taken to the woodshed for publicly contradicting the president, and the video meme continued. You can't have it both ways. Either the president was on board with the video story, which makes his statement a lie, or he was not, which makes him an incredibly weak leader. Which is it?

"An incredibly weak leader" that just whooped the Republicans A$$ES for 8 straight years non-stop and got a lot of what he wanted done accomplished.

How do you feel about that?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

The two are not related, but you knew that. Trump is a strong leader. He could not have become the tycoon he is if her were not. Yet, he is not likely to whoop anyone's ass politically. Do you see where you wandered astray?

If Drumpf is so strong, why does he cry like a little bitch every time someone says something "mean" about him?

Because he's only now learning how to be a politician. He's not accustomed to having a hostile media intent on filming every grimace, every snort, every twitch, hoping to find something that can be magnified and twisted into a scandal. He'll get the hang of it, or not. Either way, it will be entertaining to watch Hillary go up against someone who's not afraid to get in the mud with her, unlike most Republicans.

That and Trump's a whiny little bitch. He sure dishes it out, he has no excuse:

 

[hadit]

You can argue semantics all you want, but when the administration's talking heads maintain for weeks that the attacks were the spontaneous result of a video while, as you claim, the president maintains that they were an act of terror, something is clearly wrong in the chain of command. If the president was confident in what he said, no administration figure has any business saying otherwise. Don't you agree? Yet, there was no immediate retraction, no one was taken to the woodshed for publicly contradicting the president, and the video meme continued. You can't have it both ways. Either the president was on board with the video story, which makes his statement a lie, or he was not, which makes him an incredibly weak leader. Which is it?

"An incredibly weak leader" that just whooped the Republicans A$$ES for 8 straight years non-stop and got a lot of what he wanted done accomplished.

How do you feel about that?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

The two are not related, but you knew that. Trump is a strong leader. He could not have become the tycoon he is if her were not. Yet, he is not likely to whoop anyone's ass politically. Do you see where you wandered astray?

If Drumpf is so strong, why does he cry like a little bitch every time someone says something "mean" about him?

Because he's only now learning how to be a politician. He's not accustomed to having a hostile media intent on filming every grimace, every snort, every twitch, hoping to find something that can be magnified and twisted into a scandal. He'll get the hang of it, or not. Either way, it will be entertaining to watch Hillary go up against someone who's not afraid to get in the mud with her, unlike most Republicans.

That and Trump's a whiny little bitch. He sure dishes it out, he has no excuse:

That's why it will be entertaining to watch the general election. Trump can't help himself. Hillary will get negative and nasty, that's a given, and he'll lash out at her, which Republicans generally do not do. Whether it'll help him or not is another issue, but I don't think Hillary is ready for someone who can be just as nasty, with minions like hers ready to do battle on his behalf. I predict the mods on this board are going to be very busy between July and November.

 

[easyt65]

If Drumpf is so strong, why does he cry like a little bitch every time someone says something "mean" about him?

Funny how when Trump stands up for himself Liberals call it 'crying like a little bitch' but when someone says anything about Hillary she throws a tantrum, pulls the 'gender' card, whines about a 'vast right wing conspiracy', & barks like a dog...behavior that draws nothing but silence from the left.

 

[easyt65]

"An incredibly weak leader" that just whooped the Republicans A$$ES for 8 straight years non-stop and got a lot of what he wanted done accomplished.

How do you feel about that?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

The two are not related, but you knew that. Trump is a strong leader. He could not have become the tycoon he is if her were not. Yet, he is not likely to whoop anyone's ass politically. Do you see where you wandered astray?

If Drumpf is so strong, why does he cry like a little bitch every time someone says something "mean" about him?

Because he's only now learning how to be a politician. He's not accustomed to having a hostile media intent on filming every grimace, every snort, every twitch, hoping to find something that can be magnified and twisted into a scandal. He'll get the hang of it, or not. Either way, it will be entertaining to watch Hillary go up against someone who's not afraid to get in the mud with her, unlike most Republicans.

That and Trump's a whiny little bitch. He sure dishes it out, he has no excuse:

That's why it will be entertaining to watch the general election. Trump can't help himself. Hillary will get negative and nasty, that's a given, and he'll lash out at her, which Republicans generally do not do. Whether it'll help him or not is another issue, but I don't think Hillary is ready for someone who can be just as nasty, with minions like hers ready to do battle on his behalf. I predict the mods on this board are going to be very busy between July and November.

Hillary already launched the 1st salvo...and Trump immediately shut her up by quickly posting a video of her 'presidentially' barking like a dog.

Unlike wussy GOP candidates form the past, Trump is not going to hold his tongue or pull his punches, which Hillary quickly learned to her surprise.

Hillary might want to try a brand new approach this time - avoid the negative poo slinging...because she has a lot more skeletons and a lot more baggage than Trump has.

Woof, woof, woof...