This is Why Trump Will Get Slaughtered in November

[Faun]

You're a bully.
I've read the book written by Mitchell Zuckoff and the brave men who fought in Benghazi, and I believe them. They were there; they saw their friends killed because the State Dept. (headed by Clinton) did not heed their calls for help.
Clinton claims Ambassador Stevens was her friend, yet he had not spoken to him in over a year, and he did not have the cell phone number or her infamous e-mail address.
She blamed the attack on a video. Some friend!

The narrative you are reading is simplistic. The facts are that a Democratic administration and a Republican congress could not agree to increase security at Benghazi. The fact is that the four were dead before anyone in DC were aware of the incident. The facts are that four died at embassies in this administration, more than sixty during Bush's time, and several hundred during Clinton's time. These are facts.

Here's another fact.

That's irrelevant, as the leader , YOU are responsible for what happened under your watch, and it only further exposes your weakness as a leader if you resort to "well other people did it too" type tactics to deflect from your own responsibility.

Yet the right re-elected George Bush as president after failing to protect America on 9.11.

 

[Faun]

That's true, but he also possibly puts several blue states into play.

Trump doesn't put ANY blue states in play

LOL yeah New York wouldn't be in play at all if it was Donald vs Hillary........

NY is not in play. It is in the Dem column.

Okay , all the experts say Trump COULD win NY , but Jake from USMB says otherwise, so he must be right.

Sure, he CAN, but barring a miracle, he won't. Hell, you CAN even with the lottery.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

You're a bully.
I've read the book written by Mitchell Zuckoff and the brave men who fought in Benghazi, and I believe them. They were there; they saw their friends killed because the State Dept. (headed by Clinton) did not heed their calls for help.
Clinton claims Ambassador Stevens was her friend, yet he had not spoken to him in over a year, and he did not have the cell phone number or her infamous e-mail address.
She blamed the attack on a video. Some friend!

The narrative you are reading is simplistic. The facts are that a Democratic administration and a Republican congress could not agree to increase security at Benghazi. The fact is that the four were dead before anyone in DC were aware of the incident. The facts are that four died at embassies in this administration, more than sixty during Bush's time, and several hundred during Clinton's time. These are facts.

Here's another fact.

That's irrelevant, as the leader , YOU are responsible for what happened under your watch, and it only further exposes your weakness as a leader if you resort to "well other people did it too" type tactics to deflect from your own responsibility.

Yet the right re-elected George Bush as president after failing to protect America on 9.11.

If you want to blame 911 on one man, go ahead. I guess.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

That's true, but he also possibly puts several blue states into play.

Trump doesn't put ANY blue states in play

LOL yeah New York wouldn't be in play at all if it was Donald vs Hillary........

NY is not in play. It is in the Dem column.

Okay , all the experts say Trump COULD win NY , but Jake from USMB says otherwise, so he must be right.

Sure, he CAN, but barring a miracle, he won't. Hell, you CAN even with the lottery.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I thinkk Trump was a mistake, but we'll see.

 

[Faun]

You're a bully.
I've read the book written by Mitchell Zuckoff and the brave men who fought in Benghazi, and I believe them. They were there; they saw their friends killed because the State Dept. (headed by Clinton) did not heed their calls for help.
Clinton claims Ambassador Stevens was her friend, yet he had not spoken to him in over a year, and he did not have the cell phone number or her infamous e-mail address.
She blamed the attack on a video. Some friend!

The narrative you are reading is simplistic. The facts are that a Democratic administration and a Republican congress could not agree to increase security at Benghazi. The fact is that the four were dead before anyone in DC were aware of the incident. The facts are that four died at embassies in this administration, more than sixty during Bush's time, and several hundred during Clinton's time. These are facts.

Here's another fact.

That's irrelevant, as the leader , YOU are responsible for what happened under your watch, and it only further exposes your weakness as a leader if you resort to "well other people did it too" type tactics to deflect from your own responsibility.

Yet the right re-elected George Bush as president after failing to protect America on 9.11.

If you want to blame 911 on one man, go ahead. I guess.

I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of many on the right. They blame Hillary for Benghazi. By that same measure, it's fair to blame Bush for 9.11.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

You're a bully.
I've read the book written by Mitchell Zuckoff and the brave men who fought in Benghazi, and I believe them. They were there; they saw their friends killed because the State Dept. (headed by Clinton) did not heed their calls for help.
Clinton claims Ambassador Stevens was her friend, yet he had not spoken to him in over a year, and he did not have the cell phone number or her infamous e-mail address.
She blamed the attack on a video. Some friend!

The narrative you are reading is simplistic. The facts are that a Democratic administration and a Republican congress could not agree to increase security at Benghazi. The fact is that the four were dead before anyone in DC were aware of the incident. The facts are that four died at embassies in this administration, more than sixty during Bush's time, and several hundred during Clinton's time. These are facts.

Here's another fact.

That's irrelevant, as the leader , YOU are responsible for what happened under your watch, and it only further exposes your weakness as a leader if you resort to "well other people did it too" type tactics to deflect from your own responsibility.

Yet the right re-elected George Bush as president after failing to protect America on 9.11.

If you want to blame 911 on one man, go ahead. I guess.

I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of many on the right. They blame Hillary for Benghazi. By that same measure, it's fair to blame Bush for 9.11.

I can't answer for people who disagree with me. The only thing I have personally said about Hillary and Benghazi is that I thought it was deplorable when she came out and said the families of the survivors were lying about what she told them.

 

[Dragonlady]

Who thi

LOL yeah New York wouldn't be in play at all if it was Donald vs Hillary........

NY is not in play. It is in the Dem column.

Okay , all the experts say Trump COULD win NY , but Jake from USMB says otherwise, so he must be right.

Some experts are saying that he could, but it is the same as saying Correll could become a communist. Not likely.

LOL that's what people said about him becoming the nominee to begin with. It all comes down to "can Hillary get women to come out an vote for her?"

If women dislike them both an just don't vote, that's advantage Trump. Hillary on the other hand MUST have them.

Who thinks women are just not going to vote. That is pie in the sky dreaming.

I know women who will turn out just to vote for Hillary to make sure Trump doesn't win.

And those people who are polled using only landlines - old people. I know of very few millenials who have land lines, and that demographic favors Hillary, who while not all that enamored of her, will come to see her in the coming months for who she is and not the lies that Republicans have been spewing repeatedly for the past 25 years.

The one thing that we can be sure of: If there was any evidence at all of Hillary's wrongdoing, the Republicans would have had her charged by now. When there's a cover-up, as per Nixon or Reaga, people of conscience, or those just seeking to save their own skins, will come forward to rat out the wrong-doing. That no one has come forward against Hillary, especially given that Republicans are always says she acts entitled, and untouchable, and nobody likes her, is a pretty clear indication that Republicans are lying just because you're stupid enough to believe them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You're a bully.
I've read the book written by Mitchell Zuckoff and the brave men who fought in Benghazi, and I believe them. They were there; they saw their friends killed because the State Dept. (headed by Clinton) did not heed their calls for help.
Clinton claims Ambassador Stevens was her friend, yet he had not spoken to him in over a year, and he did not have the cell phone number or her infamous e-mail address.
She blamed the attack on a video. Some friend!

The narrative you are reading is simplistic. The facts are that a Democratic administration and a Republican congress could not agree to increase security at Benghazi. The fact is that the four were dead before anyone in DC were aware of the incident. The facts are that four died at embassies in this administration, more than sixty during Bush's time, and several hundred during Clinton's time. These are facts.

I hope you don't mind that I choose to believe the men who fought in Benghazi over your prejudice. Calls for help went unheeded.

You may believe the false narrative, yes. The fact is the individuals were dead before those responsible for rescuing them were notified.

 

[Toro]

I just made a $100 bet with my best friend last night, who is an ardent Trump supporter, that Trump will lose the election in November. It will be the easiest money I make this year after last month's McGregor/Diaz bout.

I wish I could find a sucker like that!

 

[Vandalshandle]

I just made a $100 bet with my best friend last night, who is an ardent Trump supporter, that Trump will lose the election in November. It will be the easiest money I make this year after last month's McGregor/Diaz bout.

I wish I could find a sucker like that!

Names and address! I need a name and address!!!!!!!

 

[Dragonlady]

No, it wasn't Bush's doing. That's a left wing smear since it's all they have to offer. What helps a whole bunch is the popular media outlets polishing left wing shit and selling it as candy and blaming literally everything wrong on the right. People are tired of it and that's why Trump is leading.

Two things are wrong with this post:

It is all Bush's doing. He's the "Decider" who made the final decision to go into Iraq. He's claimed it, he owns it, it's only fools like you who want to blame others.

Popular media outlets don't have to "polish left wing shit" because the stench from the Republican wars, the Republican housing crisis, the Republican debt crisis, the Republican stock market collapse, and hemmoraging of millions of jobs to the Third World, drove them right into the Democrats' arms.

The Democrats, with a lot of obstruction from the Republicans, managed to stop the freefall loss of jobs, end both wars, help both the stock market and the housing market recover, reduce unemployment, and substantially reduce the deficit, while shrinking government, and reforming Health Care in America.

It's going to be difficult, if not impossible to sell those who vote Democrat on the idea that Obama has been a bad President, and talking endlessly about the deficits is not going to do it, nor is talking about stagnant wages, because Democrats know that the reason that wages haven't gone up, and nothing's been done about immigration reform, and nothing has been done about crumbling infrastructure, is because Republicans controlling both Houses of Congress have done nothing.

Regardless of who the Republicans have on offer this election, there is no one who could have defeated the Democrats. Until Republicans stop lying about their programs, and stop trying to peddle supply side economics (aka "voodoo economics" and "trickle down economics") as the answer to America's stagnant wages, you've got nothing.

Even Ronald Reagan acknowledged that his supply side economic theories were a bust in real life, and signed into law the biggest tax hike in US history. And yet Republicans are still promoting these failed right-wing taxation theories, which have already lead to the three biggest stock market crashes in World history, as the Holy Grail of economic reform.

The only people who will vote for Donald Trump, without a sound and viable economic policy, that doesn't involve tearing up trade treaties, or building walls, or slapping tariffs on imports, an immigration policy that doesn't violate the Constitution, and a sound foreign policy which doesn't involve violations of the Geneva Convention, or carpet bombing civilians, are the ones who have obtained the nomination for him, which is about 12% of the eligible voters, and those who are desperate to stop a Hillary Clinton Presidency. There are many more people who are desperate to stop a Trump Presidency, and the ramifications of such a Presidency, both at home and internationally.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Who thi

NY is not in play. It is in the Dem column.

Okay , all the experts say Trump COULD win NY , but Jake from USMB says otherwise, so he must be right.

Some experts are saying that he could, but it is the same as saying Correll could become a communist. Not likely.

LOL that's what people said about him becoming the nominee to begin with. It all comes down to "can Hillary get women to come out an vote for her?"

If women dislike them both an just don't vote, that's advantage Trump. Hillary on the other hand MUST have them.

Who thinks women are just not going to vote. That is pie in the sky dreaming.

I know women who will turn out just to vote for Hillary to make sure Trump doesn't win.

And those people who are polled using only landlines - old people. I know of very few millenials who have land lines, and that demographic favors Hillary, who while not all that enamored of her, will come to see her in the coming months for who she is and not the lies that Republicans have been spewing repeatedly for the past 25 years.

The one thing that we can be sure of: If there was any evidence at all of Hillary's wrongdoing, the Republicans would have had her charged by now. When there's a cover-up, as per Nixon or Reaga, people of conscience, or those just seeking to save their own skins, will come forward to rat out the wrong-doing. That no one has come forward against Hillary, especially given that Republicans are always says she acts entitled, and untouchable, and nobody likes her, is a pretty clear indication that Republicans are lying just because you're stupid enough to believe them.

The investigation is still ongoing and Republicans aren't in charge of it, the FBI is and by all accounts James Comey is personally running the show and no one doubts his integrity. If he recommends charges be made , you can bet there is ample evidence to convict, conversely he won't be part of any political cover up. But to claim that just because as of now there have been no charges means there is no case is stupid.

Of course you clued us into how stupid you are long ago.

 

[sakinago]

Trump looses UTAH (traditional red state) to Clinton.

No Republican candidate is losing Utah. It's the most Republican state in the country.

Polls have the two tied in UT. AZ too.

Trump puts several red states into play.

Watch GA, for instance.

That's true, but he also possibly puts several blue states into play.


One thing for sure, seeing two so disliked candidates go after each other is going to be entertaining.

What blue states!?!? He losses all of them terribly! Please cite a blue state that trump puts into play, I will even accept a tiny blue state that has no clout in the general election. Fair and balanced Is a terrible name for you, since you've probably came to the assumption on your own delusional perception of trump and his greatness.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Trump looses UTAH (traditional red state) to Clinton.

No Republican candidate is losing Utah. It's the most Republican state in the country.

Polls have the two tied in UT. AZ too.

Trump puts several red states into play.

Watch GA, for instance.

That's true, but he also possibly puts several blue states into play.


One thing for sure, seeing two so disliked candidates go after each other is going to be entertaining.

What blue states!?!? He losses all of them terribly! Please cite a blue state that trump puts into play, I will even accept a tiny blue state that has no clout in the general election. Fair and balanced Is a terrible name for you, since you've probably came to the assumption on your own delusional perception of trump and his greatness.

LOL here's a clue.

Trump wasn't my choice, but I do recognize that he is the obvious Republican nominee and think the notion that he will lose for sure despite what he's done in the primary is preposterous.

 

[Lilah]

You are in love with Hillary; therefore, your vision is skewed.
I'll take the word of the brave men who were actually in Benghazi .
I'll bet you believe the attack was the result of a video.

You putz. I'm not taking Hillary's word for it.

I'm taking the word of seven Republican-led investigations comprised of those who wanted to nail her in a coffin the most -- and even they could find nothing incriminating.

Oftentimes, a code of silence is issued.
BOMBSHELL: New email shows Pentagon tried to send ...

Who knows what you think that has to do with Hillary? Hillary didn't send that email, she didn't receive that email, she had absolutely nothing to do with it. Even worse for your dementia, even your link reveals that email was sent after Ambassador Stevens and Smith were killed.

As Secretary of State, what exactly did Hillary do? Nothing!

LOL

You run on that.

Meanwhile, that has nothing to do with your dementia over that email -- which had absolutely nothing to do with Hillary.

You run on your love for Hillary.

 

[Lilah]

You're a bully.
I've read the book written by Mitchell Zuckoff and the brave men who fought in Benghazi, and I believe them. They were there; they saw their friends killed because the State Dept. (headed by Clinton) did not heed their calls for help.
Clinton claims Ambassador Stevens was her friend, yet he had not spoken to him in over a year, and he did not have the cell phone number or her infamous e-mail address.
She blamed the attack on a video. Some friend!

The narrative you are reading is simplistic. The facts are that a Democratic administration and a Republican congress could not agree to increase security at Benghazi. The fact is that the four were dead before anyone in DC were aware of the incident. The facts are that four died at embassies in this administration, more than sixty during Bush's time, and several hundred during Clinton's time. These are facts.

I hope you don't mind that I choose to believe the men who fought in Benghazi over your prejudice. Calls for help went unheeded.

You may believe the false narrative, yes. The fact is the individuals were dead before those responsible for rescuing them were notified.

I believe the men who were actually in Benghazi You may call their account of what happened a false narrative, but I think they are American heroes.

 

[Dragonlady]

Who thi

Okay , all the experts say Trump COULD win NY , but Jake from USMB says otherwise, so he must be right.

Some experts are saying that he could, but it is the same as saying Correll could become a communist. Not likely.

LOL that's what people said about him becoming the nominee to begin with. It all comes down to "can Hillary get women to come out an vote for her?"

If women dislike them both an just don't vote, that's advantage Trump. Hillary on the other hand MUST have them.

Who thinks women are just not going to vote. That is pie in the sky dreaming.

I know women who will turn out just to vote for Hillary to make sure Trump doesn't win.

And those people who are polled using only landlines - old people. I know of very few millenials who have land lines, and that demographic favors Hillary, who while not all that enamored of her, will come to see her in the coming months for who she is and not the lies that Republicans have been spewing repeatedly for the past 25 years.

The one thing that we can be sure of: If there was any evidence at all of Hillary's wrongdoing, the Republicans would have had her charged by now. When there's a cover-up, as per Nixon or Reaga, people of conscience, or those just seeking to save their own skins, will come forward to rat out the wrong-doing. That no one has come forward against Hillary, especially given that Republicans are always says she acts entitled, and untouchable, and nobody likes her, is a pretty clear indication that Republicans are lying just because you're stupid enough to believe them.

The investigation is still ongoing and Republicans aren't in charge of it, the FBI is and by all accounts James Comey is personally running the show and no one doubts his integrity. If he recommends charges be made , you can bet there is ample evidence to convict, conversely he won't be part of any political cover up. But to claim that just because as of now there have been no charges means there is no case is stupid.

Of course you clued us into how stupid you are long ago.

The investigation into Hillary's emails began last summer. After 8 months, if there are no charges, or even a hint of something indictable, it would have been pounced on by now.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You're a bully.
I've read the book written by Mitchell Zuckoff and the brave men who fought in Benghazi, and I believe them. They were there; they saw their friends killed because the State Dept. (headed by Clinton) did not heed their calls for help.
Clinton claims Ambassador Stevens was her friend, yet he had not spoken to him in over a year, and he did not have the cell phone number or her infamous e-mail address.
She blamed the attack on a video. Some friend!

The narrative you are reading is simplistic. The facts are that a Democratic administration and a Republican congress could not agree to increase security at Benghazi. The fact is that the four were dead before anyone in DC were aware of the incident. The facts are that four died at embassies in this administration, more than sixty during Bush's time, and several hundred during Clinton's time. These are facts.

I hope you don't mind that I choose to believe the men who fought in Benghazi over your prejudice. Calls for help went unheeded.

You may believe the false narrative, yes. The fact is the individuals were dead before those responsible for rescuing them were notified.

I believe the men who were actually in Benghazi You may call their account of what happened a false narrative, but I think they are American heroes.

What you believe does not match the facts.

 

[Lilah]

You're a bully.
I've read the book written by Mitchell Zuckoff and the brave men who fought in Benghazi, and I believe them. They were there; they saw their friends killed because the State Dept. (headed by Clinton) did not heed their calls for help.
Clinton claims Ambassador Stevens was her friend, yet he had not spoken to him in over a year, and he did not have the cell phone number or her infamous e-mail address.
She blamed the attack on a video. Some friend!

The narrative you are reading is simplistic. The facts are that a Democratic administration and a Republican congress could not agree to increase security at Benghazi. The fact is that the four were dead before anyone in DC were aware of the incident. The facts are that four died at embassies in this administration, more than sixty during Bush's time, and several hundred during Clinton's time. These are facts.

I hope you don't mind that I choose to believe the men who fought in Benghazi over your prejudice. Calls for help went unheeded.

You may believe the false narrative, yes. The fact is the individuals were dead before those responsible for rescuing them were notified.

I believe the men who were actually in Benghazi You may call their account of what happened a false narrative, but I think they are American heroes.

What you believe does not match the facts.

I believe the soldiers who were in Benghazi. If the facts do not match, guess what must have happened.

 

[Synthaholic]

'"Drumpf has increased the enthusiasm for turning out to vote to stop his potential presidency," said Dr. David Damore, Sr. Analyst, Latino Decisions.'

Counting on folks to show up to vote against someone is not a winning strategy. It failed in 2004 when Democrats and minorities and Teh Gey really wanted to get Bush out of office.

Hillary is going to have to energize people to vote for her, and not just count on opposition to Drumpf.