Joni Ernst (Trump's possible VP) is very stupid

[MarcATL]

What makes her smart?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[A Perez]

So we agree that 1) Hillary was an Iraq War haw, and 2) Joni is a dumbass.
?

Are you voting for Hillary? Yes or no.

Yes, because on other issues (economy, immigration, global warming, etc. Hillary is to the left of Joni and I'm a liberal. Did you think this was like a hard question or something? Now you must say whether Joni is or isn't a dumbass.

I don't know much about Joni Ernst, but I do think you are a dumbass and as I suspected a hypocrite and a partisan hack. You have absolutely no credibility on this subject so you can go back to your playpen with the other children

Dont, was Cheney lying when he said Iraq had WMD in 2002? Joni doesn't think WMD were there at the time of the invasion. Pick a dumbass, dummy.

Joni Ernst wasn't a member of Congress until 2015. Hillary was and voted for the war so apparently she didn't think Cheney was lying and you are the dishonest and dishonorable hack who just admitted you will vote for her anyway

Do you think Cheney was lying? Joni does.
Do you agree with Joni in regards to Cheney being a liar?
Let's see if you have the balls OKTexas lacks. And don't answer by telling me that Hillary was wrong, because we all know she was.
I got you cornered, Chicken Little.
Cheney or Joni?

 

[amrchaos]

What do you think Saddam was killing the Kurds with...insults?

Helicopters.

 

[A Perez]

So did Hillary Clinton.

When did Saddam get rid of the WMD used against the Kurds?

Ugh, when he used them. DUAH

Wait, didn't you once claim that Saddam hid WMD in Syria just before the Iraq War? Don't make me go to the archives. Confess.

 

[OKTexas]

Wait. Didn't Bush say Saddam had WMD at the time of the invasion? Reagan was long gone by then. You have some explaining to do.

This poster's abysmal ignorance of history is simply astounding... so much for our tax dollars being put to good use in the public schools...

He's a LaRaza shill, what do you expect.

You need to pick, OKTexas. Cheney or Joni? You're not dodging this one.

I don't need to pick shit, that's Trumps job. Why do you hate military people who are proud of their service? Dumb ass.

Dear OKTexas. Iraq either had WMD in 2003 or did not. Your beloved Cheney said Saddam had them, while Jodi says she can't make that assertion.

Don't be a chicken and tell us what you know about Iraqi WMD so we can figure out who's the liar.

Grow balls. Cheney or Joni?

Who says anyone is a liar, to tell a lie you have to say something you know is not true. Maybe both believed what they said. Could they have been mistaken, yes, did they lie, I don't think so. So run along and put that in your dear leaders pecker and puff on it.

 

[Slyhunter]

So did Hillary Clinton.

When did Saddam get rid of the WMD used against the Kurds?

Make up your mind which side of the argument your taking.

 

[A Perez]

What do you think Saddam was killing the Kurds with...insults?

We Saddam using WMD on the Kurds on 2002?

 

[OKTexas]

So did Hillary Clinton.

When did Saddam get rid of the WMD used against the Kurds?

Ugh, when he used them. DUAH

Wait, didn't you once claim that Saddam hid WMD in Syria just before the Iraq War? Don't make me go to the archives. Confess.

That wasn't your question dumb ass, and I quote "When did Saddam get rid of the WMD used against the Kurds?" Are you really so stupid that you don't understand when you use a bullet, bomb or artillery shell you no longer have it, it's gone bye bye? When he used them against the Kurds, he got rid of the weapons he used against the Kurds, didn't he? Maybe you need a remedial ESL class.

 

[A Perez]

So did Hillary Clinton.

When did Saddam get rid of the WMD used against the Kurds?

Ugh, when he used them. DUAH

Wait, didn't you once claim that Saddam hid WMD in Syria just before the Iraq War? Don't make me go to the archives. Confess.

That wasn't your question dumb ass, and I quote "When did Saddam get rid of the WMD used against the Kurds?" Are you really so stupid that you don't understand when you use a bullet, bomb or artillery shell you no longer have it, it's gone bye bye? When he used them against the Kurds, he got rid of the weapons he used against the Kurds, didn't he? Maybe you need a remedial ESL class.

In February, you said Saddam hid WMD in Syria right before the 2003 invasion, flip flopper. Busted! Trump Just Walked Back His Statement About Bush and Iraq

 

[OKTexas]

So did Hillary Clinton.

When did Saddam get rid of the WMD used against the Kurds?

Ugh, when he used them. DUAH

Wait, didn't you once claim that Saddam hid WMD in Syria just before the Iraq War? Don't make me go to the archives. Confess.

That wasn't your question dumb ass, and I quote "When did Saddam get rid of the WMD used against the Kurds?" Are you really so stupid that you don't understand when you use a bullet, bomb or artillery shell you no longer have it, it's gone bye bye? When he used them against the Kurds, he got rid of the weapons he used against the Kurds, didn't he? Maybe you need a remedial ESL class.

In February, you said Saddam hid WMD in Syria right before the 2003 invasion, flip flopper. Busted! Trump Just Walked Back His Statement About Bush and Iraq

Once again that wasn't your question. Maybe you should ask your ESL teacher the proper way to phrase a question.

But feel free to quote me, no where on the page you linked said anything of the sort.

 

[Care4all]

So I looked up infor about this Ernst person. She once said that she believed Iraq had WMD.
But they didn't have WMD at the time we went in
She believes Iraq had WMD before we went in.

So wait. We invaded a country that had already gotten rid of WMD at an unspecified point in time?
In conclusion, Joni Ernst is an idiot who would make Sarah Palin sound like Albert Einstein.

Joni Ernst - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The same thing Hillary thought. Is Hillary very stupid or are you?

you know, here is what Hillary thought she was voting for, on her Iraq vote....reading what she said about it at the time, on the floor of the Senate....her reasoning was sound imo....a position I totally can understand.... her only problem, was GWBush was not a man of his word, and she believed, as the fairly new President of the USA, that he was.... I suppose you could say she should have known he was a lying piece of crapola....?

Hillary Clinton Told the Truth About Her Iraq War Vote

Clinton acknowledged, as she has on previous occasions, that she’d made a mistake. But she also offered an explanation for her vote, something she has rarely done in the past. President Bush, she told the audience, had made a “very explicit appeal” that “getting this vote would be a strong piece of leverage in order to finish the inspections.” In other words, a resolution to use force would prod Saddam Hussein into readmitting U.N. inspectors, so they could continue their mission of verifying whether or not he had destroyed his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons sites. In other words, Clinton was now claiming she voted the way she did in the interests of diplomacy; the problem was that Bush went back on his word—he invaded before giving the inspectors enough time.

Listening to her rationale Wednesday night, I didn’t know whether she was telling the truth. I had written many Slate columns about the Iraq debate and the ensuing war, but I couldn’t remember the details of then-Sen. Clinton’s position. Looking up those details now, I have come to a conclusion about the rationale she recited at the New Hampshire town hall: Hillary was telling the truth.

....


The evidence is clear. On Oct. 10, 2002, during the Senate debate on a resolution to authorize the use of force in Iraq, Clinton rose to express her highly qualified support. First, though, she criticized the idea of attacking Saddam then and there, either alone or “with any allies we can muster.” Such a course, she said, “is fraught with danger,” in part because “it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us,” legitimizing invasions that Russia might launch against Georgia, India against Pakistan, or China against Taiwan.

“So,” she continued, “the question is, how do we do our best to both diffuse the threat Saddam Hussein poses to his people, the region, including Israel, and the United States—and, at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations.”

She went on to say that there was “no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma” and that “people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposing conclusions.” But, she concluded, “I believe the best course is to go to the United Nations for a strong resolution” that calls “for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded” from Saddam.

“If we get the resolution the president seeks, and Saddam complies,” Clinton added, “disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. … If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.” This international support is “crucial,” she added, because, “after shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable.”

Then came, from today’s vantage, the key passage: “Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first … I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely—and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause—I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go away with delay will oppose any United Nations resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.”

She added, “This is a difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make. Any vote that may lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction. … My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose.” A vote for the resolution, she argued, “is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our president. And we say to him: Use these powers wisely and as a last resort.”

 

[Papageorgio]

Wow, what a bunch of BS to defend the liar Hillary.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

So I looked up infor about this Ernst person. She once said that she believed Iraq had WMD.
But they didn't have WMD at the time we went in
She believes Iraq had WMD before we went in.

So wait. We invaded a country that had already gotten rid of WMD at an unspecified point in time?
In conclusion, Joni Ernst is an idiot who would make Sarah Palin sound like Albert Einstein.

Joni Ernst - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The same thing Hillary thought. Is Hillary very stupid or are you?

you know, here is what Hillary thought she was voting for, on her Iraq vote....reading what she said about it at the time, on the floor of the Senate....her reasoning was sound imo....a position I totally can understand.... her only problem, was GWBush was not a man of his word, and she believed, as the fairly new President of the USA, that he was.... I suppose you could say she should have known he was a lying piece of crapola....?

Hillary Clinton Told the Truth About Her Iraq War Vote

Clinton acknowledged, as she has on previous occasions, that she’d made a mistake. But she also offered an explanation for her vote, something she has rarely done in the past. President Bush, she told the audience, had made a “very explicit appeal” that “getting this vote would be a strong piece of leverage in order to finish the inspections.” In other words, a resolution to use force would prod Saddam Hussein into readmitting U.N. inspectors, so they could continue their mission of verifying whether or not he had destroyed his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons sites. In other words, Clinton was now claiming she voted the way she did in the interests of diplomacy; the problem was that Bush went back on his word—he invaded before giving the inspectors enough time.

Listening to her rationale Wednesday night, I didn’t know whether she was telling the truth. I had written many Slate columns about the Iraq debate and the ensuing war, but I couldn’t remember the details of then-Sen. Clinton’s position. Looking up those details now, I have come to a conclusion about the rationale she recited at the New Hampshire town hall: Hillary was telling the truth.

....


The evidence is clear. On Oct. 10, 2002, during the Senate debate on a resolution to authorize the use of force in Iraq, Clinton rose to express her highly qualified support. First, though, she criticized the idea of attacking Saddam then and there, either alone or “with any allies we can muster.” Such a course, she said, “is fraught with danger,” in part because “it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us,” legitimizing invasions that Russia might launch against Georgia, India against Pakistan, or China against Taiwan.

“So,” she continued, “the question is, how do we do our best to both diffuse the threat Saddam Hussein poses to his people, the region, including Israel, and the United States—and, at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations.”

She went on to say that there was “no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma” and that “people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposing conclusions.” But, she concluded, “I believe the best course is to go to the United Nations for a strong resolution” that calls “for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded” from Saddam.

“If we get the resolution the president seeks, and Saddam complies,” Clinton added, “disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. … If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.” This international support is “crucial,” she added, because, “after shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable.”

Then came, from today’s vantage, the key passage: “Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first … I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely—and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause—I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go away with delay will oppose any United Nations resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.”

She added, “This is a difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make. Any vote that may lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction. … My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose.” A vote for the resolution, she argued, “is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our president. And we say to him: Use these powers wisely and as a last resort.”

You might be silly enough to type all that bullshit out but I'm certainly not dumb enough to bother reading it. Hang your idiotic partisan hat up, it's late.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So I looked up infor about this Ernst person. She once said that she believed Iraq had WMD.
But they didn't have WMD at the time we went in
She believes Iraq had WMD before we went in.

So wait. We invaded a country that had already gotten rid of WMD at an unspecified point in time?
In conclusion, Joni Ernst is an idiot who would make Sarah Palin sound like Albert Einstein.

Joni Ernst - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dare I say how much of a misogynist you are?

 

[Care4all]

So I looked up infor about this Ernst person. She once said that she believed Iraq had WMD.
But they didn't have WMD at the time we went in
She believes Iraq had WMD before we went in.

So wait. We invaded a country that had already gotten rid of WMD at an unspecified point in time?
In conclusion, Joni Ernst is an idiot who would make Sarah Palin sound like Albert Einstein.

Joni Ernst - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The same thing Hillary thought. Is Hillary very stupid or are you?

you know, here is what Hillary thought she was voting for, on her Iraq vote....reading what she said about it at the time, on the floor of the Senate....her reasoning was sound imo....a position I totally can understand.... her only problem, was GWBush was not a man of his word, and she believed, as the fairly new President of the USA, that he was.... I suppose you could say she should have known he was a lying piece of crapola....?

Hillary Clinton Told the Truth About Her Iraq War Vote

Clinton acknowledged, as she has on previous occasions, that she’d made a mistake. But she also offered an explanation for her vote, something she has rarely done in the past. President Bush, she told the audience, had made a “very explicit appeal” that “getting this vote would be a strong piece of leverage in order to finish the inspections.” In other words, a resolution to use force would prod Saddam Hussein into readmitting U.N. inspectors, so they could continue their mission of verifying whether or not he had destroyed his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons sites. In other words, Clinton was now claiming she voted the way she did in the interests of diplomacy; the problem was that Bush went back on his word—he invaded before giving the inspectors enough time.

Listening to her rationale Wednesday night, I didn’t know whether she was telling the truth. I had written many Slate columns about the Iraq debate and the ensuing war, but I couldn’t remember the details of then-Sen. Clinton’s position. Looking up those details now, I have come to a conclusion about the rationale she recited at the New Hampshire town hall: Hillary was telling the truth.

....


The evidence is clear. On Oct. 10, 2002, during the Senate debate on a resolution to authorize the use of force in Iraq, Clinton rose to express her highly qualified support. First, though, she criticized the idea of attacking Saddam then and there, either alone or “with any allies we can muster.” Such a course, she said, “is fraught with danger,” in part because “it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us,” legitimizing invasions that Russia might launch against Georgia, India against Pakistan, or China against Taiwan.

“So,” she continued, “the question is, how do we do our best to both diffuse the threat Saddam Hussein poses to his people, the region, including Israel, and the United States—and, at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations.”

She went on to say that there was “no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma” and that “people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposing conclusions.” But, she concluded, “I believe the best course is to go to the United Nations for a strong resolution” that calls “for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded” from Saddam.

“If we get the resolution the president seeks, and Saddam complies,” Clinton added, “disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. … If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.” This international support is “crucial,” she added, because, “after shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable.”

Then came, from today’s vantage, the key passage: “Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first … I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely—and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause—I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go away with delay will oppose any United Nations resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.”

She added, “This is a difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make. Any vote that may lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction. … My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose.” A vote for the resolution, she argued, “is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our president. And we say to him: Use these powers wisely and as a last resort.”

You might be silly enough to type all that bullshit out but I'm certainly not dumb enough to bother reading it. Hang your idiotic partisan hat up, it's late.

should I check this off as "staying ignorant is bliss" column? Well, ok fine then....

 

[A Perez]

When did Saddam get rid of the WMD used against the Kurds?

Ugh, when he used them. DUAH

Wait, didn't you once claim that Saddam hid WMD in Syria just before the Iraq War? Don't make me go to the archives. Confess.

That wasn't your question dumb ass, and I quote "When did Saddam get rid of the WMD used against the Kurds?" Are you really so stupid that you don't understand when you use a bullet, bomb or artillery shell you no longer have it, it's gone bye bye? When he used them against the Kurds, he got rid of the weapons he used against the Kurds, didn't he? Maybe you need a remedial ESL class.

In February, you said Saddam hid WMD in Syria right before the 2003 invasion, flip flopper. Busted! Trump Just Walked Back His Statement About Bush and Iraq

Once again that wasn't your question. Maybe you should ask your ESL teacher the proper way to phrase a question.

But feel free to quote me, no where on the page you linked said anything of the sort.

When someone said Iraq had no WMD, you responded that they were transported to Syria. Do you want the screenshot of your post along with the post you replied to?
Don't make me. You are embarrassed, OKTexas. And I'm loving it.

 

[A Perez]

So I looked up infor about this Ernst person. She once said that she believed Iraq had WMD.
But they didn't have WMD at the time we went in
She believes Iraq had WMD before we went in.

So wait. We invaded a country that had already gotten rid of WMD at an unspecified point in time?
In conclusion, Joni Ernst is an idiot who would make Sarah Palin sound like Albert Einstein.

Joni Ernst - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dare I say how much of a misogynist you are?

Wait. I hate Cheney. Am I a man hater too? Dumbass.

 

[FJO]

So I looked up infor about this Ernst person. She once said that she believed Iraq had WMD.
But they didn't have WMD at the time we went in
She believes Iraq had WMD before we went in.

So wait. We invaded a country that had already gotten rid of WMD at an unspecified point in time?
In conclusion, Joni Ernst is an idiot who would make Sarah Palin sound like Albert Einstein.

Joni Ernst - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A sack of hammers would make YOU look like Albert Einstein.

 

[A Perez]

So I looked up infor about this Ernst person. She once said that she believed Iraq had WMD.
But they didn't have WMD at the time we went in
She believes Iraq had WMD before we went in.

So wait. We invaded a country that had already gotten rid of WMD at an unspecified point in time?
In conclusion, Joni Ernst is an idiot who would make Sarah Palin sound like Albert Einstein.

Joni Ernst - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A sack of hammers would make YOU look like Albert Einstein.

Typical reply:

OP: Hey wingnut, did Saddam have WMD in 2002?
Wingnut : OP author is dumb.
OP: Answer?
Wingnut: You're dumb. I'm leaving.

W made you all shy dodgers.

 

[FJO]

Another obscure female governor from an obscure state.

These people never learn from their mistakes.

Another poster who does not know what she is talking about.

Joni Ernst is a Senator, not a Governor.

It is to be hoped that you learn from your mistakes.