After Secret Service finds Donald did not incite assassination, liberals continue

S

Seahawk

12
After the secret service finds Trump did not threaten or incite assassination against Hillary, liberals will still talk about it as if it were fact.
 
CNN lies.....reports are bulllshit.....

CNN reported that the Secret Service had had "more than one conversation" with the campaign about the comments, though it was unclear with whom. The campaign told the Secret Service that any violent implications were unintentional, according to the network.

No such meeting or conversation ever happened - a made up story by "low ratings" @CNN.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 10, 2016

Reuters just announced that Secret Service never spoke to me or my campaign. Made up story by @CNN is a hoax. Totally dishonest.


Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article95005207.html#storylink=cpy
 
Didn't Reuters only say they didn't talk to Trump? CNN said they talked to his campaign. Of course it was an anonymous official and if the stories were reversed, liberals wouldn't believe it for one second.
 
Here's the deal. At this point, everyone has seen the comments. I've watched a lot of commentary on it. It's hardly just "liberals" who think he was insinuating something. In fact, I've only seen the die-hard Trump supporters try to pretend it was something different.

I don't know why it's a debate. I absolutely don't think Trump was seriously trying to do anything but "joke around" in his own inimitable way. But that's who he is. His meaning, even in the context of a joke, was clear.

I don't think it's an outrage, based on that context. But I think it's a very good indication of what kind of leader we're going to get if he's elected.
 
Thing1 said:
Here's the deal. At this point, everyone has seen the comments. I've watched a lot of commentary on it. It's hardly just "liberals" who think he was insinuating something. In fact, I've only seen the die-hard Trump supporters try to pretend it was something different.

I don't know why it's a debate. I absolutely don't think Trump was seriously trying to do anything but "joke around" in his own inimitable way. But that's who he is. His meaning, even in the context of a joke, was clear.

I don't think it's an outrage, based on that context. But I think it's a very good indication of what kind of leader we're going to get if he's elected.
Click to expand...

Yes, a knee-jerk, loose lipped, immoral retard.
 
Thing1 said:
Here's the deal. At this point, everyone has seen the comments. I've watched a lot of commentary on it. It's hardly just "liberals" who think he was insinuating something. In fact, I've only seen the die-hard Trump supporters try to pretend it was something different.

I don't know why it's a debate. I absolutely don't think Trump was seriously trying to do anything but "joke around" in his own inimitable way. But that's who he is. His meaning, even in the context of a joke, was clear.

I don't think it's an outrage, based on that context. But I think it's a very good indication of what kind of leader we're going to get if he's elected.
Click to expand...

I've listened to the part of his speech a few times and consider the fact the secret service doesn't believe he incited or threatened to assassinate her and come to the conclusion that it really does not rise to the level of an actual threat or incitement. As I've said before, if it was anyone but Trump, I would have laughed it off as liberal stupidity, but it is Trump.

I don't care if he didn't mean it, a President needs to be careful with his words and can't say stupid crap like that. The fact so many believe his comments could be a threat, is proof of just how stupid this guy is with words. What if he is president and talking about foreign policy and because he can't articulate or really means what someone could think his words say, is dangerous.

At the same time, I think it is dishonest for liberals to claim it as fact. The repubs I've seen criticize him, don't claim he said it as fact, rather that his words could be construed as saying that. That is a big difference in people like Trollcat claiming over and over that it is a fact and that he has done it twice.
 
Thing1 said:
Here's the deal. At this point, everyone has seen the comments. I've watched a lot of commentary on it. It's hardly just "liberals" who think he was insinuating something. In fact, I've only seen the die-hard Trump supporters try to pretend it was something different.

I don't know why it's a debate. I absolutely don't think Trump was seriously trying to do anything but "joke around" in his own inimitable way. But that's who he is. His meaning, even in the context of a joke, was clear.

I don't think it's an outrage, based on that context. But I think it's a very good indication of what kind of leader we're going to get if he's elected.
Click to expand...

THIS!
 
Thing1 said:
Here's the deal. At this point, everyone has seen the comments. I've watched a lot of commentary on it. It's hardly just "liberals" who think he was insinuating something. In fact, I've only seen the die-hard Trump supporters try to pretend it was something different.

I don't know why it's a debate. I absolutely don't think Trump was seriously trying to do anything but "joke around" in his own inimitable way. But that's who he is. His meaning, even in the context of a joke, was clear.

I don't think it's an outrage, based on that context. But I think it's a very good indication of what kind of leader we're going to get if he's elected.
Click to expand...

I agree, his meaning was clear.....the 2nd amendment crowd is large and as a voting group may be able to stop Hillary from being elected, thus stopping her from packing the SC with more nitwits like Sotomayor, Ginsberg, and Kagan....morons that think the Constitution and be re-interrupted on a whim....
Even the Secret Service didn't take the statement in any negative way, only idiot lefties of either party did....
 
Seahawk said:
Didn't Reuters only say they didn't talk to Trump? CNN said they talked to his campaign. Of course it was an anonymous official and if the stories were reversed, liberals wouldn't believe it for one second.
Click to expand...

Got a link to that ?
 
Seahawk said:
Didn't Reuters only say they didn't talk to Trump? CNN said they talked to his campaign. Of course it was an anonymous official and if the stories were reversed, liberals wouldn't believe it for one second.
Click to expand...

Seahawk said:
It is in your link.

Sent from my LG-D631 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Thats what CNN is saying and Trump is denying....I thought you had a link to the Reuters report....sorry ....
 
NOVA said:
Thats what CNN is saying and Trump is denying....I thought you had a link to the Reuters report....sorry ....
Click to expand...
Your own article says it and the Reuters link is in your article that you linked to. Did you even read your link?

Sent from my LG-D631 using Tapatalk
 
Seahawk said:
I've listened to the part of his speech a few times and consider the fact the secret service doesn't believe he incited or threatened to assassinate her and come to the conclusion that it really does not rise to the level of an actual threat or incitement. As I've said before, if it was anyone but Trump, I would have laughed it off as liberal stupidity, but it is Trump.

I don't care if he didn't mean it, a President needs to be careful with his words and can't say stupid crap like that. The fact so many believe his comments could be a threat, is proof of just how stupid this guy is with words. What if he is president and talking about foreign policy and because he can't articulate or really means what someone could think his words say, is dangerous.

At the same time, I think it is dishonest for liberals to claim it as fact. The repubs I've seen criticize him, don't claim he said it as fact, rather that his words could be construed as saying that. That is a big difference in people like Trollcat claiming over and over that it is a fact and that he has done it twice.
Click to expand...

The fatal weakness behind the outrage is found in the 'could be construed' aspect. What Trump said could mean A B or C. The straight forward interpretation would be that Trump meant 'the second amendment people could stop Hillary'---in the courts or the voting booth.

Here's where the irony comes in: if you have preconceived notions about Trump being violent; or if you yourself have violent tendencies, then you could go for the less obvious interpretation and conclude Trump was implying something sinister.

So, liberals and violent prone individuals share a common trait insofar as how they interpret Trump lol.

I'm confident the Secret Service dropped it for the same reason: the listener needs to read something into the statement that most probably wasn't intended. And if that's the standard, then they're going to waste man hours parsing political statements looking for things that could maybe be construed as an incitement to violence.

And they probably didn't care for the idea of being used as a bludgeon against Trump by the democrats and the media. Specifically, CNN.

Kudos to their proffessionalism.
 
^ it always was Clinton Spin ( they were on it like white on rice) amped up, and kept going by the servile press.

3 days later the BULLSHIT stops, but that's 3 days of Spin ruling the news cycle -
instead of the Clinton Foundation, or Trumps economic speech
 
Seahawk said:
Your own article says it and the Reuters link is in your article that you linked to. Did you even read your link?

Sent from my LG-D631 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Seahawk
Didn't Reuters only say they didn't talk to Trump? CNN said they talked to his campaign. Of course it was an anonymous official and if the stories were reversed, liberals wouldn't believe it for one second.
Click to expand...

Here is what Reuters said....
a federal official familiar with the matter told Reuters that there had been no formal conversations between the Secret Service and the Trump campaign.

Reuters is saying that the SS didn't talk to the Trump CAMPAIGN, they didn't mention anything about talking to Trump himself.....
one way or another.....

I though you had a link where Reuters actually said they didn't talk to Trump....sorry about any misunderstanding.....
If they didn't talk to the Trump campaign its safe to assume they didn't talk to Trump personally in private either....
 
NOVA said:
Originally Posted by Seahawk

Here is what Reuters said....
a federal official familiar with the matter told Reuters that there had been no formal conversations between the Secret Service and the Trump campaign.

Reuters is saying that the SS didn't talk to the Trump CAMPAIGN, they didn't mention anything about talking to Trump himself.....
one way or another.....

I though you had a link where Reuters actually said they didn't talk to Trump....sorry about any misunderstanding.....
If they didn't talk to the Trump campaign its safe to assume they didn't talk to Trump personally in private either....
Click to expand...

From your link:

But another federal official told Reuters Wednesday that the Secret Service had not had formal conversations with the Republican nominee about his comments.
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article95005207.html#storylink=cpy

I guess your link is wrong then.
 
anatta said:
^ it always was Clinton Spin ( they were on it like white on rice) amped up, and kept going by the servile press.

3 days later the BULLSHIT stops, but that's 3 days of Spin ruling the news cycle -
instead of the Clinton Foundation, or Trumps economic speech
Click to expand...

It's been an issue-less election so far.
 
Seahawk said:
Didn't Reuters only say they didn't talk to Trump? CNN said they talked to his campaign. Of course it was an anonymous official and if the stories were reversed, liberals wouldn't believe it for one second.
Click to expand...

An anonymous woman told me you were a disgrace and she was sorry she ever gave birth to you
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top