Never Hillary

[ConradA24]

Keep fighting the good fight, #bern!

I don't know how to give rep on my phone. # old person

 

[Deleted member 848]

Why would anyone give merit to radical opinions by recognizing or responding to them? It's a shame the local media here has a thing for it. No real journalism anymore...

You seem to get worked up when anyone with REAL knowledge of a subject writes off your brainwashed rhetoric, then lash out childishly like ^ when they stoop down to your level of "pure demeaning, condescending rhetoric".

My advice: if you want to learn a thing or two then start listening to unbiased people like [MENTION=3073]#bern[/MENTION] who actually know what they are talking about and a little less to the highly biased, most often radical leftists who have a silver tongue that has convinced you of their extremist cause.

You can take the advice like a man or continue crying wolf when anyone with real knowledge makes you look a fool. Or were you begging #bern to give you an out so you could save face? That probably would have been gracious of him.

*grabs toilet paper*

 

[franklin]

Trump might have just won me over with his foreign policy alone:

"See they don't say it: I want Japan and Germany and Saudi Arabia and South Korea and many of the NATO states, nations, they owe us tremendously, we're taking care of all those people and what I want them to do is pay up."

"It's not like, gee whiz, nobody has them. So, North Korea has nukes. Japan has a problem with that. I mean, they have a big problem with that. Maybe they would in fact be better off if they defend themselves from North Korea."
Wallace asked, "With nukes?"

"Including with nukes, yes, including with nukes," Trump responded.

"Can I be honest with you? It's going to happen anyway," Trump said. "It's going to happen anyway. It's only a question of time. They're going to start having them or we have to get rid of them entirely."

https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/02/politics/donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-japan/index.html

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Trump might have just won me over with his foreign policy alone:

"See they don't say it: I want Japan and Germany and Saudi Arabia and South Korea and many of the NATO states, nations, they owe us tremendously, we're taking care of all those people and what I want them to do is pay up."

"It's not like, gee whiz, nobody has them. So, North Korea has nukes. Japan has a problem with that. I mean, they have a big problem with that. Maybe they would in fact be better off if they defend themselves from North Korea."
Wallace asked, "With nukes?"

"Including with nukes, yes, including with nukes," Trump responded.

"Can I be honest with you? It's going to happen anyway," Trump said. "It's going to happen anyway. It's only a question of time. They're going to start having them or we have to get rid of them entirely."

https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/02/politics/donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-japan/index.html

He would be a much more entertaining president than Hillary. No one can argue otherwise at this point, right? Millions would be tuning into the news every night to see what crazy things he'd done that day.

 

[Stoked]

He would be a much more entertaining president than Hillary. No one can argue otherwise at this point, right? Millions would be tuning into the news every night to see what crazy things he'd done that day.

Or what crazy things other countries have done in response...not a ride I really want to ride.

 

[Jonah]

Trump might have just won me over with his foreign policy alone:

"See they don't say it: I want Japan and Germany and Saudi Arabia and South Korea and many of the NATO states, nations, they owe us tremendously, we're taking care of all those people and what I want them to do is pay up."

"It's not like, gee whiz, nobody has them. So, North Korea has nukes. Japan has a problem with that. I mean, they have a big problem with that. Maybe they would in fact be better off if they defend themselves from North Korea."
Wallace asked, "With nukes?"

"Including with nukes, yes, including with nukes," Trump responded.

"Can I be honest with you? It's going to happen anyway," Trump said. "It's going to happen anyway. It's only a question of time. They're going to start having them or we have to get rid of them entirely."

https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/02/politics/donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-japan/index.html

The linked article is all about Trump already backtracking on Japan arming themselves with nukes, not only saying he never said it, but accusing Clinton of being a liar for saying he did.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

It's amazing that CNN would choose to headline the Benghazi report (released today) with No Bombshell. It appears that other media outlets are handling it similarly. The only reason I can imagine for this is that they want to protect Clinton.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/28/politics/benghazi-report-hillary-clinton/

The report definitively shows that the US Government knew it was a terrorist attack and not a mob action motivated by a video within moments of the attack beginning. The source for this was intercepted communications.

The people in the embassy repeatedly asked for assistance. In fact, for weeks before the event they had requested items including sandbags and machine guns, but their requests were denied because these things wouldn't look good. In the course of the attack men who were on standby to assist were alternately ordered to wear uniforms, and then change out of their uniforms because the administration was so concerned with how the rescue attempt would be perceived by locals. This happened four different times.

It boggles my mind that the US government stood by while these men were killed. Amazingly, during the 8 hour attack, no help was ever sent. Completely unconscionable.

 

[Stoked]

It's amazing that CNN would choose to headline the Benghazi report (released today) with No Bombshell. It appears that other media outlets are handling it similarly. The only reason I can imagine for this is that they want to protect Clinton.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/28/politics/benghazi-report-hillary-clinton/

The report definitively shows that the US Government knew it was a terrorist attack and not a mob action motivated by a video within moments of the attack beginning. The source for this was intercepted communications.

The people in the embassy repeatedly asked for assistance. In fact, for weeks before the event they had requested items including sandbags and machine guns, but their requests were denied because these things wouldn't look good. In the course of the attack men who were on standby to assist were alternately ordered to wear uniforms, and then change out of their uniforms because the administration was so concerned with how the rescue attempt would be perceived by locals. This happened four different times.

It boggles my mind that the US government stood by while these men were killed. Amazingly, during the 8 hour attack, no help was ever sent. Completely unconscionable.

This review was extremely partisan. Justified or not it was done for political reasons. That by itself makes me suspicious of it.

This report make claims like "It is not clear what additional intelligence would have satisfied either Kennedy or the Secretary in understanding the Benghazi mission compound was at risk -- short of an attack" but gives no basis for that claim.

I am supposed to just take their word? No thank you. I don't trust her but I don't trust them either.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

This review was extremely partisan. Justified or not it was done for political reasons. That by itself makes me suspicious of it.

This report make claims like "It is not clear what additional intelligence would have satisfied either Kennedy or the Secretary in understanding the Benghazi mission compound was at risk -- short of an attack" but gives no basis for that claim.

I am supposed to just take their word? No thank you. I don't trust her but I don't trust them either.

It shows that repeated requests for support were made by people in Benghazi and then denied by Washington for intelligence reasons, then concludes with the statement you just posted. I cannot see how you can interpret that as having no basis. I see it as a logical conclusion based on the facts.

And BTW, and attack obviously eventually did happen, and we now know that even that was not enough to convince Washington to send assets. The report includes records from a three hour meeting which Clinton led which was conducted during the attack. The concerns appear not to have been the urgency of getting support to our embassy staff, but instead fears over how whatever action we took was going to be perceived by people in Benghazi. We have become so used to this sort of thinking since Obama took office that it seems like it's no longer shocking when we learn about something like this. Very sad.

To say that it blows my mind that Clinton is on the doorstep to the presidency in the wake of this tragedy and all of these known facts is a huge understatement. She is probably the only candidate the Dems could put forth who Trump could beat. I think the media has done a terrible job of informing Americans about who Hillary is. It's like media malpractice. Trump, for all his faults, is an expert at getting attention and I bet he'll use a ton of it to inform citizens about this situation and others. Unlike you, I think most people will be shocked when they see the facts.

Of course, she will simultaneously be attacking him, and there is plenty of basis for that as well. I heard someone say it was going to be like a battle between Godzilla and Mega-Godzilla. I don't know who will win, but I'm pretty sure American citizens will lose. It's hard to believe that one of these two will soon be our president. I'm still hopeful that one or both of them will implode and be replaced by a saner choice before all is said and done. No matter how it plays out, I cannot imagine the circumstances where I would ever vote for Clinton.

 

[Stoked]

It shows that repeated requests for support were made by people in Benghazi and then denied by Washington for intelligence reasons, then concludes with the statement you just posted. I cannot see how you can interpret that as having no basis. I see it as a logical conclusion based on the facts.

And BTW, and attack obviously eventually did happen, and we now know that even that was not enough to convince Washington to send assets. The report includes records from a three hour meeting which Clinton led which was conducted during the attack. The concerns appear not to have been the urgency of getting support to our embassy staff, but instead fears over how whatever action we took was going to be perceived by people in Benghazi. We have become so used to this sort of thinking since Obama took office that it seems like it's no longer shocking when we learn about something like this. Very sad.

To say that it blows my mind that Clinton is on the doorstep to the presidency in the wake of this tragedy and all of these known facts is a huge understatement. She is probably the only candidate the Dems could put forth who Trump could beat. I think the media has done a terrible job of informing Americans about who Hillary is. It's like media malpractice. Trump, for all his faults, is an expert at getting attention and I bet he'll use a ton of it to inform citizens about this situation and others. Unlike you, I think most people will be shocked when they see the facts.

Of course, she will simultaneously be attacking him, and there is plenty of basis for that as well. I heard someone say it was going to be like a battle between Godzilla and Mega-Godzilla. I don't know who will win, but I'm pretty sure American citizens will lose. It's hard to believe that one of these two will soon be our president. I'm still hopeful that one or both of them will implode and be replaced by a saner choice before all is said and done. No matter how it plays out, I cannot imagine the circumstances where I would ever vote for Clinton.

What facts? What specific security requests were made that were denied and why? What specific security requests were made that were approved and why? When were those requests made, who made them and what was the already established time frame for decisions?

He is not going to win. It is not going to happen. He is already starting to fall behind. His numbers with latinos, blacks, women and millenials are so bad that it is impressive. It is going to be a massacre. Its not voting for her its voting against him.

 

[Gameface]

I don't think most Americans are unaware of the accusations the right has made about Hillary in regard to Benghazi. I don't think anyone is going to be shocked.

Conservatives paint it as though Hillary basically killed all those people. I think most everyone else sees it as a blunder that cost the lives of those in the embassy. But I think most also see it as a complicated situation. one in which there wasn't some perfect option just sitting on the table being intentionally ignored because Hillary is so incredibly evil and unAmerican. And I think most people are kind of warn out from conservatives constantly yelling and screaming wolf non-stop over every single thing they can get their hands on. I know I've pretty much tuned conservatives out. Why wouldn't I? Why should I continue to pay attention and give any consideration to the people who questioned Obama's U.S. citizenship, his religion, his service? Why would I want to listen to the constant hysterics over every minor failure of the Obama administration? Like holy ****, Obama is not perfect, Hillary is not perfect, mistakes have been made...oh the ****ing horror. Let me spend every waking moment obsessed over it and being up in arms that the rest of the country isn't also obsessed with it.

And before we go there...No one gives a **** about the emails.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

What facts? What specific security requests were made that were denied and why? What specific security requests were made that were approved and why? When were those requests made, who made them and what was the already established time frame for decisions?

He is not going to win. It is not going to happen. He is already starting to fall behind. His numbers with latinos, blacks, women and millenials are so bad that it is impressive. It is going to be a massacre. Its not voting for her its voting against him.

What facts? Either you don't want to look at any of the reports that have been written or you don't want to accept anything they say as fact. Here's an excerpt from the State Department's Accountability Review Board report (since you think the new report is so partisan).

“The number of Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) security staff in Benghazi on the day of the attack and in the months and weeks leading up to it was inadequate, despite repeated requests from Special Mission Benghazi and Embassy Tripoli for additional staffing. Board members found a pervasive realization among personnel who served in Benghazi that the Special Mission was not a high priority for Washington when it came to security-related requests, especially those relating to staffing. The insufficient Special Mission security platform was at variance with the appropriate Overseas Security Policy Board (OSPB) standards with respect to perimeter and interior security. Benghazi was also severely under-resourced with regard to certain needed security equipment, although DS funded and installed in 2012 a number of physical security upgrades.”

Repeated requests were made and denied. The reports bear that out.

 

[Gameface]

What facts? Either you don't want to look at any of the reports that have been written or you don't want to accept anything they say as fact. Here's an excerpt from the State Department's Accountability Review Board report (since you think the new report is so partisan).


Repeated requests were made and denied. The reports bear that out.

Can you compare that to the rest of the U.S. embassies? Was the situation at the Benghazi embassy fairly typical, somewhat irregular or a complete outlier?

How often does an embassy request additional security? How often is that request granted?

The stated facts have very little context. They do not in and of themselves lead me to believe anything intentionally negligent or malicious happened.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I don't think most Americans are unaware of the accusations the right has made about Hillary in regard to Benghazi. I don't think anyone is going to be shocked.

Conservatives paint it as though Hillary basically killed all those people. I think most everyone else sees it as a blunder that cost the lives of those in the embassy. But I think most also see it as a complicated situation. one in which there wasn't some perfect option just sitting on the table being intentionally ignored because Hillary is so incredibly evil and unAmerican. And I think most people are kind of warn out from conservatives constantly yelling and screaming wolf non-stop over every single thing they can get their hands on. I know I've pretty much tuned conservatives out. Why wouldn't I? Why should I continue to pay attention and give any consideration to the people who questioned Obama's U.S. citizenship, his religion, his service? Why would I want to listen to the constant hysterics over every minor failure of the Obama administration? Like holy ****, Obama is not perfect, Hillary is not perfect, mistakes have been made...oh the ****ing horror. Let me spend every waking moment obsessed over it and being up in arms that the rest of the country isn't also obsessed with it.

And before we go there...No one gives a **** about the emails.

Most people are aware of the accusations but not the evidence. Some people are so inoculated that the evidence doesn't matter to them. I'm unwilling to believe that the truth doesn't matter to most people, though.

That said, I understand why many people will react like Stoked did, turning the conversation to the importance of not electing Trump. My belief is that neither of the two major party candidates should even be under consideration based on their massive crop of warts. The only reason they are is that, in both cases, the argument can be made that the opposing candidate is even worse.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Can you compare that to the rest of the U.S. embassies? Was the situation at the Benghazi embassy fairly typical, somewhat irregular or a complete outlier?

How often does an embassy request additional security? How often is that request granted?

The stated facts have very little context. They do not in and of themselves lead me to believe anything intentionally negligent or malicious happened.

The embassy was under attack. This is not a situation where I can show you what happened when 20 other embassies were attacked. It is fortunately a very rare occurrence. It seems obvious to me, though, that when it does happen our nation should defend our citizens who have been put in harms way. A terrorist attack against them is indefensible.

But that is not what happened at all in this case. Soldiers were on standby, changing uniforms back and forth in an attempt to fit with a strategy believed to be palatable to the locals. Simultaneously a plan was hatched to blame the attack on a video despite undeniable evidence that was not the case. No help was ever sent. Then, in the wake of the deaths and with full knowledge that this was a planned and coordinated terrorist act, Hillary Clinton and others in the Obama administration told the nation and families of the survivors that a mob angered by this video was to blame. Our government jailed the maker of the video, knowing full well that he was not responsible for the attacks.

But I understand why Democrats do not want to allow any of this information to sink in. They are stuck with Hillary. I can see why they believe that defeating Trump is more important than electing a candidate they actually believe in.

 

[Stoked]

Most people are aware of the accusations but not the evidence. Some people are so inoculated that the evidence doesn't matter to them. I'm unwilling to believe that the truth doesn't matter to most people, though.

That said, I understand why many people will react like Stoked did, turning the conversation to the importance of not electing Trump. My belief is that neither of the two major party candidates should even be under consideration based on their massive crop of warts. The only reason they are is that, in both cases, the argument can be made that the opposing candidate is even worse.

Then you have failed dramatically to understand my point.

Also once again you have not listed the evidence. You posted what their conclusion of that evidence is. Yes I consider that state dept review to be more credible than the GOP led review. But it is how they see it instead of the evidence itself. As for the GOP led review, if you cannot see that was politically driven than I don't know what to tell you.

Also piss on both the candidates, I vehemently support neither. Me saying who I think will win and why is not a statement of support. It's a prediction.

I have also repeatedly said that trying to determine who is worse at this point is pretty foolish to me as either way we are hosed.

 

[The Thriller]

Why doesn't the GOP controlled house investigate for 2 years the cuts they made to security prior to the attack?

Why would the GOP house protect Clinton?

Lol, liberal media? What liberal media? America doesn't have liberal media.

The report found that even if forces had been deployed they wouldn't have reached the ambassador in time.

/end of discussion


Now when can we investigate the 13 embassy attacks and 60 dead under Bush? Don't their lives matter? You'd think the "liberal media" would be stressing that point.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Then you have failed dramatically to understand my point.

Also once again you have not listed the evidence. You posted what their conclusion of that evidence is. Yes I consider that state dept review to be more credible than the GOP led review. But it is how they see it instead of the evidence itself. As for the GOP led review, if you cannot see that was politically driven than I don't know what to tell you.

Also piss on both the candidates, I vehemently support neither. Me saying who I think will win and why is not a statement of support. It's a prediction.

I have also repeatedly said that trying to determine who is worse at this point is pretty foolish to me as either way we are hosed.

Okay, sorry for misunderstanding.

I'm not going to bother posting the evidence you are requesting either. It's in the report. As the excerpt from the State Department report makes clear, it is not in dispute that many requests were made and denied. Choose the report that you find credible. I can understand why you consider the most recent one partisan, but I believe it is factual. If you believe that's not the case then I'm interested in your evidence other than that Clinton and her supporters don't like it.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Why doesn't the GOP controlled house investigate for 2 years the cuts they made to security prior to the attack?

Why would the GOP house protect Clinton?

Lol, liberal media? What liberal media? America doesn't have liberal media.

The report found that even if forces had been deployed they wouldn't have reached the ambassador in time.

/end of discussion


Now when can we investigate the 13 embassy attacks and 60 dead under Bush? Don't their lives matter? You'd think the "liberal media" would be stressing that point.

Laughable analysis.

No report has concluded what you claim. The attack was at least 11 hours long. Do you think it happened on the moon? Of course we could have gotten assets there. None were ever sent. Instead they were sitting in an airplane changing clothes back and forth.

I'm not sure why you think Bush is relevant to this discussion. His wrongs, whatever they may be, do not excuse Hillary's.

As for media bias, you're only unaware of it because you don't want to be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States

 

[babe]

This review was extremely partisan. Justified or not it was done for political reasons. That by itself makes me suspicious of it.

This report make claims like "It is not clear what additional intelligence would have satisfied either Kennedy or the Secretary in understanding the Benghazi mission compound was at risk -- short of an attack" but gives no basis for that claim.

I am supposed to just take their word? No thank you. I don't trust her but I don't trust them either.

you deserve a stink for this position. Headlines should have been "Hillary Lied while Americans Died".

That is the fact, and that is why the House select committee was interested in getting the facts on the record. Dissing it as politics minimizes the importance of Americans actually knowing the truth of what their government has done.