Trump Thread (cont.)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I DO have my facts straight. He also turned DOWN the offer of extra security twice! That can’t be denied. It happened. It’s a fact. It was also his choice to go to Benghazi. Hillary didn’t send him. Every three years, diplomats have to choose three places they WANT to be stationed. Stevens must have chosen Libya at one point. And please refrain from saying I’m blaming the victims. I’m not. But Benghazi wasn’t Hillary’s fault. It was the fault of the terrorists who attacked the compound in Benghazi. It was a tragedy. Terrorist attacks have become an unavoidable reality in the world today. Who was to blame for the Boston Marathon attack? Hillary? Of course not. It was the fault of the terrorists who planned it and carried it out. Same for Benghazi.
The failure to provide security for Stevens and others in Benghazi was only a part of a bigger picture; a sordid part, yes, but only a part.

For still unfathomable reasons, Hillary Clinton and Obama attacked Libya, whose government was, at that point, cooperating with the U.S. regarding terrorism. They didn’t ask congress about it or even tell congress. They just did it. Obama now admits it was a mistake, but Hillary Clinton doesn’t. What didn’t Obama know, going in, that Hillary did know? Well, she was getting “intelligence” reports from Sidney Blumenthal, a sometime Clinton Foundation employee and longtime Clinton operative, who was working on oil deals in Libya at the time. What deals, and with whom?

So, why did the U.S. attack Libya? Perhaps Obama, a fan of the “Arab Spring” (all revolutions are good) didn’t really know the game, since he didn’t know about the Blumenthal/Clinton dialogue and would have opposed had he known.

So now, Obama says it was a mistake to attack Libya, and Obama is not one to admit mistakes lightly. So that leaves Hillary Clinton as the only architect who has no regrets.

Stevens also requested more and better security. He didn’t outright refuse it at all times, as some who want to blame the victim say. At a point, the Brits got out, warning the U.S. government that there was no real security. Stevens then communicated that the situation was not secure. And what security did the government provide? Local terrorist groups who, not surprisingly, took a powder or perhaps even joined the “bad guys” when the shooting started.

And what was Stevens doing in a war zone anyway? We are given to understand he was trying to “buy back” weapons provided to the terrorists by the U.S. government, to send to insurgents in Syria; insurgents who we were later given to understand were Al Quaeda affiliates and who, as we speak, are fighting each other.

And then Clinton lied about the Benghazi attack. Why? Was it to give cover to having put those terrorists in power to begin with? “Oh, you see, those people are like little children. Insult their religion and they’ll attack, so there is no foreign policy failure here.” Perhaps she just didn’t want to admit America backed the wrong horse, and certainly didn’t want anybody to wonder why we did.

Trey Gowdy & Co seem to have gone down the same rabbit trail Hillary Clinton laid out for them. But did nothing come of it? We don’t know, and we won’t know until the FBI gets finished digging into the same subject matter. Who got the FBI interested in Blumenthal? Certainly not the STate Department.

That the whole Libya/Benghazi episode was an astonishing failure cannot be seriously denied. That we were trying to set up a gun running operation is beyond denial. What is not known is why we went to war against Libya in the first place, since it was clearly against America’s interest to do that. Did Blumenthal (and therefore the Clintons) have an undisclosed interest in the deposition of Khaddaffi?

We don’t know. Possibly the FBI investigation will at least find traces of the trail.

But no matter what, this is not just a matter of arguing whether Stevens did or did not request real security or when he did or why.
 

I hope we get to celebrate a “Down with Hillary and Debbie” Day! 😉
Well, for starters, the Website is very prejudiced against all Democrats, not just Hillary. They would do anything to trash her.

If there is “overwhelming evidence,” one wonders why no reliable news stations are reporting it or why no indictment is forthcoming.

It’s one person’s opinion is all. We just have to wait and see. I still think no indictment will be forthcoming and Hillary will be the next president of the US. Whether it’s a close win or a landslide depends on whether her rival is Trump or Cruz. If Trump does not reach 1,237, I’m guessing it will be Cruz. She would win in a landslide then.
 
I swear, this whole primary season, it feels like every Republican is trying to lose.
I don’t know, Donald Trump said “I don’t think I’ve made mistakes. Every time somebody said I made a mistake, they do the polls and my numbers go up, so I guess I haven’t made any mistakes."

So who’s to say, perhaps his 70% disapproval is part of a master plan that we don’t understand.
 
Well, for starters, the Website is very prejudiced against all Democrats, not just Hillary. They would do anything to trash her.

If there is “overwhelming evidence,” one wonders why no reliable news stations are reporting it or why no indictment is forthcoming.

It’s one person’s opinion is all. We just have to wait and see. I still think no indictment will be forthcoming and Hillary will be the next president of the US. Whether it’s a close win or a landslide depends on whether her rival is Trump or Cruz. If Trump does not reach 1,237, I’m guessing it will be Cruz. She would win in a landslide then.
I think the GOP is beginning to worry that they have nothing else to say. When even the Koch brothers are saying Hillary is the best candidate remaining, you know there is some panic going on.
 
The failure to provide security for Stevens and others in Benghazi was only a part of a bigger picture; a sordid part, yes, but only a part.

For still unfathomable reasons, Hillary Clinton and Obama attacked Libya, whose government was, at that point, cooperating with the U.S. regarding terrorism. They didn’t ask congress about it or even tell congress. They just did it. Obama now admits it was a mistake, but Hillary Clinton doesn’t. What didn’t Obama know, going in, that Hillary did know? Well, she was getting “intelligence” reports from Sidney Blumenthal, a sometime Clinton Foundation employee and longtime Clinton operative, who was working on oil deals in Libya at the time. What deals, and with whom?

So, why did the U.S. attack Libya? Perhaps Obama, a fan of the “Arab Spring” (all revolutions are good) didn’t really know the game, since he didn’t know about the Blumenthal/Clinton dialogue and would have opposed had he known.

So now, Obama says it was a mistake to attack Libya, and Obama is not one to admit mistakes lightly. So that leaves Hillary Clinton as the only architect who has no regrets.

Stevens also requested more and better security. He didn’t outright refuse it at all times, as some who want to blame the victim say. At a point, the Brits got out, warning the U.S. government that there was no real security. Stevens then communicated that the situation was not secure. And what security did the government provide? Local terrorist groups who, not surprisingly, took a powder or perhaps even joined the “bad guys” when the shooting started.

And what was Stevens doing in a war zone anyway? We are given to understand he was trying to “buy back” weapons provided to the terrorists by the U.S. government, to send to insurgents in Syria; insurgents who we were later given to understand were Al Quaeda affiliates and who, as we speak, are fighting each other.

And then Clinton lied about the Benghazi attack. Why? Was it to give cover to having put those terrorists in power to begin with? “Oh, you see, those people are like little children. Insult their religion and they’ll attack, so there is no foreign policy failure here.” Perhaps she just didn’t want to admit America backed the wrong horse, and certainly didn’t want anybody to wonder why we did.

Trey Gowdy & Co seem to have gone down the same rabbit trail Hillary Clinton laid out for them. But did nothing come of it? We don’t know, and we won’t know until the FBI gets finished digging into the same subject matter. Who got the FBI interested in Blumenthal? Certainly not the STate Department.

That the whole Libya/Benghazi episode was an astonishing failure cannot be seriously denied. That we were trying to set up a gun running operation is beyond denial. What is not known is why we went to war against Libya in the first place, since it was clearly against America’s interest to do that. Did Blumenthal (and therefore the Clintons) have an undisclosed interest in the deposition of Khaddaffi?

We don’t know. Possibly the FBI investigation will at least find traces of the trail.

But no matter what, this is not just a matter of arguing whether Stevens did or did not request real security or when he did or why.

The security that was made to Amb. Stevens was made up of local - hired protection.
There wasn’t enough to meet the organized attack nor were they capable of defeating the enemy. The White House and the Office of Secretary of State had hung those serving our nation, out to dry!

Very low priority was given to his requests - ignored completely over requests to communicate the status of matters involving Benghazi/Tripoli. The puzzle pieces will be solved once the hidden communications and lies are revealed.

Benghazi is the standard of corruption that Obama/Clinton have perpetrated on America.
 

Benghazi is the standard of corruption that Obama/Clinton have perpetrated on America.
The Clinton standard may well exceed that of Obama by quite a lot. Obama doesn’t admit mistakes. For him to do that with the Libyan adventure is extremely unusual and interesting. During the war on Libya, he didn’t know Hillary was communicating intelligence about Libya with Blumenthal; something Obama had forbidden. But Obama does know it now, and he might know a lot more than that about it now.
 
And you don’t think there’s a lot Hillary can throw in Trump’s face with all his flip-flopping on issues and his refusal to release his tax returns? Maybe he’s not nearly as rich as he’d have us believe? Or maybe he donates heavily to pro-abortion groups like PP? Maybe he paid no tax at all? We don’t know because even though the IRS says Trump can release his taxes, he refuses to do so, giving various excuses. I think the two are pretty evenly matched with ammunition. If Trump will be Hillary’s worst nightmare, then Hillary will be Trump’s worst nightmare as well.
And yet, when I hear someone feeding us the line that Trump would have a better chance of winning in Nov than Cruz does, that person is very often a Democrat.
 
The electorate has chosen to ignore all of the baggage that comes with Hillary and/or they can just brush it over because she is a Democrat and/or a woman.
Tomorrow when they hand me the ballot, Hillary Clinton’s name won’t be on it.
 
I have to wonder that, too. If it was post number, they could have opened a new thread for the others when they closed the old ones. Now we’re restricted to Trump! Or talking about all the candidates on one thread, which gets confusing.
Opening a new one is what they did for Trump. 🤷
 
Why did this thread stay open while the others were closed?
I don’t know anything that everyone else doesn’t; but I note that one thread that was very much about abortion didn’t mention abortion in the title.
 

The security that was made to Amb. Stevens was made up of local - hired protection.
There wasn’t enough to meet the organized attack nor were they capable of defeating the enemy. The White House and the Office of Secretary of State had hung those serving our nation, out to dry!

Very low priority was given to his requests - ignored completely over requests to communicate the status of matters involving Benghazi/Tripoli. The puzzle pieces will be solved once the hidden communications and lies are revealed.

Benghazi is the standard of corruption that Obama/Clinton have perpetrated on America.
And most importantly no help was sent when Obama and Clinton knew he was under attack. Regardless of their spin it they had no idea how long the ambassador could hold out so it is reprehensible that they didn’t dispatch help whether they thought it could get there in time or not. Of course they did not do this because it was an election year and Obama was claiming terror was under control and no more “boot on the ground” were needed. Stevens died so Obama would not lose a few points in he polls. In their minds a small price to pay.

I know Hillary supporters say this is old news and nobody care but in the heightened scrutiny in an reaction and an aggressive Trump pounding away at her I think it could do real damage
 
Why did this thread stay open while the others were closed?
IDK, but fwiw I personally rather liked the one-thread-per-candidate system. When I think about some of the news stories about which posters started threads back in February … well, read these titles for yourself:
  • “Trump dominates with huge turnouts, wide base of support”
  • “Melania Trump: I don’t approve of Donald’s language”
  • “Jeff Sessions endorses Donald Trump in major blow to Ted Cruz”
  • “Donald Trump Wins Nevada Caucuses, Collecting Third Straight Victory”
  • “Influential Christian newspaper urges evangelicals to dump ‘misogynist’ Trump”
  • “Political science professor forecasts Trump as general election winner”
  • “Melania Trump: I followed the law as immigrant”
  • “Donald Trump: We’re going to ‘open up’ libel laws”
  • “Donald Trump muses about Marco Rubio’s eligibility to run for president”
  • “Donald Trump hires Mike Huckabee’s daughter as senior adviser”
  • “Donald Trump to Foreign Workers for Florida Club: You’re Hired”
 
He said it’s possible that Clinton will be a better option than the GOP candidate. And referencing Trump, Koch said his plan would “destroy free society.” It’s not hard to read between those lines.
If so then I don’t know where this came from:
When even the Koch brothers are saying Hillary is the best candidate remaining, you know there is some panic going on.
 
Why did this thread stay open while the others were closed?
Robert Bay has set up threads for each of the candidates and he wants articles about those candidates posted to that thread. Nothing nefarious-he is trying to make a very difficult moderating time a little easier
 
I think the GOP is beginning to worry that they have nothing else to say. When even the Koch brothers are saying Hillary is the best candidate remaining, you know there is some panic going on.
If the Koch Brothers support Hillary Liberal heads will be exploding all over the country:D
 
If the Koch Brothers support Hillary Liberal heads will be exploding all over the country:D
I doubt they will actually come out for her publically, because it would be difficult for both their supporters and hers. But I do find his comments telling.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top