Wow, Trump ripping Hillary a new one

[easyt65]

Ridiculous.

Sht happens, people get killed, doesn't mean Hillary has made decisions she did with some sort of crystal ball as to this tragic outcome.

Hillary and Obama, like everyone else, knew there was a call for a terrorist attack on 9/11/12 - the anniversary of 9/11/01. Gee - who could have seen that coming and thought that day was significant?

The administration new about the middle-east-wide call for terrorist attacks against US facilities.
- In the end 20 were attacked on 9/11/12 - 2 overrun.

Every other nation pulled their people out....except for Obama / Hillary....even after 2 previous terrorist attacks in the weeks prior to 9/11/12, the last one leaving a 4-foot whole in the Benghazi compound wall.

Instead of giving Stephens more security as he had asked for SEVERAL HUNDRED TIMES Hillary ended up STRIPPING HIM OF 14 MEMBERS OF HIS SECURITY TEAM - AFTER THE 2 TERRORIST ATTACKS.
- Stephens e-mail to Hillary warned that if there was a 3rd coordinated attack he would die.

...but shit happens, right? 2 terrorist attacks, a 4-foot hole in the compound wall, a terrorist threat for 9/11/12, knowing the military can not get there in time if another serious attack happens, hundreds of requests for additional security, 14 members of his security team stripped...

THAT'S A LOT OF SHIT...and it didn't 'just' happen. These were direct results of Hillary (and Obama's) Clinton's direct actions!

Obama and Hillary argued who the best would be to call in case of an event like Benghazi, and when that moment came they both went AWOL, hunkering down and figuring out how to save their own asses.

Hillary and Obama both lied.
They threw the 1st Amendment under the bus declaring it was a filmmaker's fault and that he had to be arrested for creating that movie.

Of course THAT shit 'just happened', too.

 

[easyt65]

see how you lie? i'm not loyal to party over country, liar.

I showed you 2 pictures.
I asked you simple questions.
You couldn't answer them honestly.
You refused to answer and instead continued to 'Lie, Deny, and justify' to protect Hillary.

Don't worry, you don't have to attack me to try to make excuses / justify your actions. Everyone saw. I could care less what you do, especially now that you have proven you can't be honest, not even with yourself.

As I said. Good luck with that. have a great day. God bless.

 

[Valerie]

yeah, bless your heart.. liar.

 

[AntonToo]

Ridiculous.

Sht happens, people get killed, doesn't mean Hillary has made decisions she did with some sort of crystal ball as to this tragic outcome.

Hillary and Obama, like everyone else, knew there was a call for a terrorist attack on 9/11/12 - the anniversary of 9/11/01. Gee - who could have seen that coming and thought that day was significant?

The administration new about the middle-east-wide call for terrorist attacks against US facilities.
- In the end 20 were attacked on 9/11/12 - 2 overrun.

Every other nation pulled their people out....except for Obama / Hillary....even after 2 previous terrorist attacks in the weeks prior to 9/11/12, the last one leaving a 4-foot whole in the Benghazi compound wall.

Instead of giving Stephens more security as he had asked for SEVERAL HUNDRED TIMES Hillary ended up STRIPPING HIM OF 14 MEMBERS OF HIS SECURITY TEAM - AFTER THE 2 TERRORIST ATTACKS.
- Stephens e-mail to Hillary warned that if there was a 3rd coordinated attack he would die.

...but shit happens, right? 2 terrorist attacks, a 4-foot hole in the compound wall, a terrorist threat for 9/11/12, knowing the military can not get there in time if another serious attack happens, hundreds of requests for additional security, 14 members of his security team stripped...

THAT'S A LOT OF SHIT...and it didn't 'just' happen. These were direct results of Hillary (and Obama's) Clinton's direct actions!

Obama and Hillary argued who the best would be to call in case of an event like Benghazi, and when that moment came they both went AWOL, hunkering down and figuring out how to save their own asses.

Hillary and Obama both lied.
They threw the 1st Amendment under the bus declaring it was a filmmaker's fault and that he had to be arrested for creating that movie.

Of course THAT shit 'just happened', too.

I don't see a single sane reason why Hillary/Obama would have any interest AT ALL to do any of the things you claim they did. Their core interest, even from purely political perspective was to protect Americans, so again why the hell would they do things you claim they did?

You can say they failed to protect someone, but saying that they made a conscious decision to get those people killed is a special kind of story requiring special kind of explanation.

 

[easyt65]

I don't see a single sane reason why Hillary/Obama would have any interest AT ALL to do any of the things you claim they did.

I don't claim - they are documented. The links have been provided numerous times, repeatedly. Look 'em up...or don't. I don't care.

 

[mudwhistle]

I called it “reheated pablum”….did you hear anything new in this speech? The “Clinton Cash” book quotations seem as though he just discovered the book.

The DISCREDITED book you mean!

Yep.....they're factual, thus discredited by pundits and spokespersons who support this wonderful woman who has been attacked all of her professional life.

Gandi move the fuck over. Here comes Hillary.

The AUTHOR discredited his own book!!!!!

Suuuuuuuuuuure he did.

 

[mudwhistle]

Ridiculous.

Sht happens, people get killed, doesn't mean Hillary has made decisions she did with some sort of crystal ball as to this tragic outcome.

Hillary and Obama, like everyone else, knew there was a call for a terrorist attack on 9/11/12 - the anniversary of 9/11/01. Gee - who could have seen that coming and thought that day was significant?

The administration new about the middle-east-wide call for terrorist attacks against US facilities.
- In the end 20 were attacked on 9/11/12 - 2 overrun.

Every other nation pulled their people out....except for Obama / Hillary....even after 2 previous terrorist attacks in the weeks prior to 9/11/12, the last one leaving a 4-foot whole in the Benghazi compound wall.

Instead of giving Stephens more security as he had asked for SEVERAL HUNDRED TIMES Hillary ended up STRIPPING HIM OF 14 MEMBERS OF HIS SECURITY TEAM - AFTER THE 2 TERRORIST ATTACKS.
- Stephens e-mail to Hillary warned that if there was a 3rd coordinated attack he would die.

...but shit happens, right? 2 terrorist attacks, a 4-foot hole in the compound wall, a terrorist threat for 9/11/12, knowing the military can not get there in time if another serious attack happens, hundreds of requests for additional security, 14 members of his security team stripped...

THAT'S A LOT OF SHIT...and it didn't 'just' happen. These were direct results of Hillary (and Obama's) Clinton's direct actions!

Obama and Hillary argued who the best would be to call in case of an event like Benghazi, and when that moment came they both went AWOL, hunkering down and figuring out how to save their own asses.

Hillary and Obama both lied.
They threw the 1st Amendment under the bus declaring it was a filmmaker's fault and that he had to be arrested for creating that movie.

Of course THAT shit 'just happened', too.

I don't see a single sane reason why Hillary/Obama would have any interest AT ALL to do any of the things you claim they did. Their core interest, even from purely political perspective was to protect Americans, so again why the hell would they do things you claim they did?

You can say they failed to protect someone, but saying that they made a conscious decision to get those people killed is a special kind of story requiring special kind of explanation.

The last thing Hillary and Obama have in mind is protecting Americans. They think they're people of the world. We shouldn't have silly borders. We should just give all of the brown people on the planet all of our stuff.

 

[easyt65]

If Hillary and Obama gave a damn about American lives they would be addressing the unbelievable gun violence / murder rate in Chicago...they are not.

 

[Valerie]

DONALD TRUMP’S LIE-A-PALOOZA

 

[Valerie]

CTR STATEMENT ON DONALD TRUMP’S SPEECH OF LIES

 

[edthecynic]

I called it “reheated pablum”….did you hear anything new in this speech? The “Clinton Cash” book quotations seem as though he just discovered the book.

The DISCREDITED book you mean!

Yep.....they're factual, thus discredited by pundits and spokespersons who support this wonderful woman who has been attacked all of her professional life.

Gandi move the fuck over. Here comes Hillary.

The AUTHOR discredited his own book!!!!!

Suuuuuuuuuuure he did.

He sure did!
Don't believe the lies of your MessiahRushie that his book was never discredited.


STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you have any evidence that she actually intervened in this issue?

SCHWEIZER: No, we don’t have direct evidence.

 

[Camp]

Trump kicked his own ass in his stupid speech. He showed a complete lack of understanding and knowledge about all the subjects he touched on.

 

[320 Years of History]

It may well be he just discovered that book. It's clear Trump's accusations relied heavily on it. What's also clear is that neither he nor his campaign staff followed the Reagan doctrine of "trust, but verify." That's a damn shame because so many others have and the book and its author has been discredited for well over a year now.

• “Clinton Cash” Debunked
  
• 'Clinton Cash' Author Previously Involved In Discredited Shirley Sherrod Smear Campaign
  
• 'Clinton Cash' author owes Hillary Clinton an apology
  
• Twenty-Plus Errors, Fabrications, And Distortions In Peter Schweizer's Clinton Cash
  
• Clinton Cash Crushed By Facts As Author Admits He Has No Evidence Of Clinton Crimes

In typical Trump form, the man is pitifully and dereisorilly locked into a pattern of saying damn near anything without bothering to confirm whether it's true.

Trump has the nerve to have called Ted Cruz "Lyin' Ted." In his speech today, he asserted that Mrs. Clinton is a "world class liar." Excuse me? Since when does the pot get to call the kettle black? According to PolitiFact, 59% of Trump's checked claims have been deemed false or "Pants on Fire" false, versus 12% for Clinton.

Donald Trump:

• True: 2%
• Mostly True: 7%
• Half True: 15%
• Mostly False: 17%
• False: 40%
• Pants on Fire: 19%

Hillary Clinton:

• True: 23%
• Mostly True: 28%
• Half True: 21%
• Mostly False: 15%
• False: 11%
• Pants on Fire: 1%

I mean really: 9% true or mostly true compared to just over 50% true or mostly true. For cryin' out loud! The man has more false and "pants on fire" claims, at nearly 60%, than Mrs. Clinton has true or mostly true. I'm sorry, but that sort of thing doesn't happen by accident. If there's an inveterate liar in the campaign, it's Trump.

Correct the record.org is a Hillary Superpac you know.

Nuff said.

It is, I do know that, and the reason I listed it is because it presents the various claims in a very well organized layout. That said....but...

• Look at the content they use to refute the noted claims. It's not just them saying so and leaving it at that. You'll note they provide a link to the source for each of their refutations.
• The content from Correct the Record isn't the only source I cited. Check the others if that's what you prefer. I provided five sources that roundly show the claims in that book to be specious. I did that precisely because I know that Correct the Record is a Clinton superpac.

It is not a objective or non-biased source.

It is a Hillary Superpac, thus not to be trusted.

Off Topic:
Red:

1. The truth and its context don't become less true or less relevant because speaker is biased or not. As a recipient of a message, it's one's burden to examine the content any speaker/writer delivers.
2. If you don't want to read and verify the content at Correct the Record, fine. That's on you...it's layout and linking of sources makes it easiest to do, but if you don't want to avail yourself of that facility, don't. I provided four additional sources. They aren't the only four that exist that rigorously show the mendacity in claims one finds in that book for what they are, taradiddles.

The fact of the matter is that I don't especially care for Mrs. Clinton or Trump. The candidates whom I did like lost their primary bids, so I'm left, as everyone else is, choosing between two people, neither of whom I'd like to see in the White House. That means I have to bother to check pretty much everything both of them says, or that is said on their behalf. You should do the same, and one way to do that is to get over the Correct the Record listing and use one or more of the many others that exist to do just that.

Only a fool listens to a known propaganda arm of Hillary Clinton. That's the first flag to go up. Every single time somebody tells me what I already know is bullshit I question the source. You can't change my mind by using references that are already suspect themselves and have proved in the past to be nothing but propaganda from other liberally biased sources. This is how they perpetuate the constant misinformation we get from 90% of the media. You'd be better served to ignore this site completely and just Google the topics yourself, then you can objectively look through what's out there. Better yet avoid Google because they use algorithms that steer us away from anything that shows Hillary in a negative light. Bing is much more reliable.

Look. I've already told you I don't care which of the several sources I shared you use. They all have checked the facts and each did so independently. They aren't even the only entities that have objectively and rigorously done so.

Do you really want to engage me in a serious discussion, or do you just want to harp on and pick at one of the multiple sources of the same information that I provided?

If the latter, just tell me outright so I can commence ignoring you, and you I if that suits you. I don't have time or interest in your failure to look at anything but that one petty thing about which you want to complain. So, either respond to me with something topically germane, cogent, credible and substantive that shows the invalidity of the refutations noted at the various sites I liked (other than Correct the Record, since you don't like that one's enumeration), if that be what you want to do, or don't respond to me. Most importantly, don't ever respond to me with the puerile BS of the ilk, tenor and caliber that you have been thus far. I'm not here to entertain myself by trifling with folks, least of all you.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Wayne Barrett calls Trump Tower “a monument to the mob.”

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

• 
  The Discredited Books Behind Trump's Speech

 

[candycorn]

He's going to pull jobs out of a hat.

Ta Da!

Actually, he has. Thousands of them.

Hillary claims to be able to create jobs....yet she doesn't really know how....well...except to and hire people to build things at the cost of the taxpayer

But then again...a monkey can do that. You know. Take from Peter to pay paul and then say you created income for paul.

The chinese and mexicans making his branded shirts are well employed.

He says he is going to cut taxes and then rebuild infrastructure, the military, and triple the size of the INS JBT (Jack Booted Thug) contingent…. Any clue how your messiah will do that?

His vision will increase the debt. I never doubted it.

He was not my fist choice....but I am sorry.....Clinton has shown me that she sees the general electorate as a bunch of unintelligent, non thinking people with her inane explanations of some of her actions, I can never consider voting for her.

When I vote for Trump, I will be voting for the cabinet around him. Not for him.

Not much different from me…

Good Point.

I won’t be voting for Hillary…will be voting for the 4-5 Supreme Court justices she will appoint…that is my main motivation; center/left jurists.

and I wish to see center right.

And that is what this election is all about. The ideological direction of the country. And lets be real....it will come down to the independents.

It's over (if we're being real). Trump is not going to get indies or a sizable portion of any voting block that is in play

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

• 
  Trump’s Benghazi Lies Came From Fox News

 

[mudwhistle]

Correct the record.org is a Hillary Superpac you know.

Nuff said.

It is, I do know that, and the reason I listed it is because it presents the various claims in a very well organized layout. That said....but...

• Look at the content they use to refute the noted claims. It's not just them saying so and leaving it at that. You'll note they provide a link to the source for each of their refutations.
• The content from Correct the Record isn't the only source I cited. Check the others if that's what you prefer. I provided five sources that roundly show the claims in that book to be specious. I did that precisely because I know that Correct the Record is a Clinton superpac.

It is not a objective or non-biased source.

It is a Hillary Superpac, thus not to be trusted.

Off Topic:
Red:

1. The truth and its context don't become less true or less relevant because speaker is biased or not. As a recipient of a message, it's one's burden to examine the content any speaker/writer delivers.
2. If you don't want to read and verify the content at Correct the Record, fine. That's on you...it's layout and linking of sources makes it easiest to do, but if you don't want to avail yourself of that facility, don't. I provided four additional sources. They aren't the only four that exist that rigorously show the mendacity in claims one finds in that book for what they are, taradiddles.

The fact of the matter is that I don't especially care for Mrs. Clinton or Trump. The candidates whom I did like lost their primary bids, so I'm left, as everyone else is, choosing between two people, neither of whom I'd like to see in the White House. That means I have to bother to check pretty much everything both of them says, or that is said on their behalf. You should do the same, and one way to do that is to get over the Correct the Record listing and use one or more of the many others that exist to do just that.

Only a fool listens to a known propaganda arm of Hillary Clinton. That's the first flag to go up. Every single time somebody tells me what I already know is bullshit I question the source. You can't change my mind by using references that are already suspect themselves and have proved in the past to be nothing but propaganda from other liberally biased sources. This is how they perpetuate the constant misinformation we get from 90% of the media. You'd be better served to ignore this site completely and just Google the topics yourself, then you can objectively look through what's out there. Better yet avoid Google because they use algorithms that steer us away from anything that shows Hillary in a negative light. Bing is much more reliable.

Look. I've already told you I don't care which of the several sources I shared you use. They all have checked the facts and each did so independently. They aren't even the only entities that have objectively and rigorously done so.

Do you really want to engage me in a serious discussion, or do you just want to harp on and pick at one of the multiple sources of the same information that I provided?

If the latter, just tell me outright so I can commence ignoring you, and you I if that suits you. I don't have time or interest in your failure to look at anything but that one petty thing about which you want to complain. So, either respond to me with something topically germane, cogent, credible and substantive that shows the invalidity of the refutations noted at the various sites I liked (other than Correct the Record, since you don't like that one's enumeration), if that be what you want to do, or don't respond to me. Most importantly, don't ever respond to me with the puerile BS of the ilk, tenor and caliber that you have been thus far. I'm not here to entertain myself by trifling with folks, least of all you.

This is a serious discussion and you want to take the word of Hillary's propagandists. I've learned over the years that expecting truth from Hillary in any shape or form is a lost cause, and anyone who still gives credence to her is showing a great deal of gullibility. Fool me once shame on you.....fool me twice....shame on me.

Albert Einstein once said it's easier to fool someone than it is to convince them they've been made a fool of, so we're done here.

 

[bripat9643]

Watched the whole speech.

reheated pablum

Truth, in other words.

 

[Camp]

Watched the whole speech.

reheated pablum

Truth, in other words.

What did Trump say that was truthful?