Liberal tried to assassinate Trump over fear he would become president

Didn't Obama write a book or two? Maybe Obama is Hitler.

Well, Mein Kampf was more of an ideological treatise lol.

Hitler spelled out to the world pretty much everything he had mind before he did it. One of the criticisms laid against Trump is he has no ideology.

Making America great again doesn't count lol.
 
You did avoid my question entirely.

Yes, there are crazy people. Remember Gifford when the left immediately blamed right wing rhetoric? What was your stance then?

I honestly agree with you about him being the President. I can't imagine him being watched 24/7 and dealing with it and then dealing with countries and heads of state that are not his employees. He is a CEO who seems to rule with a me, me, me, me approach and I'm the boss and that's it approach. He is not a CEO who I imagine inspires people to be better. But, he does run a billion dollar empire and is successful. Not sure that will correlate to being the President of the USA.

But each president has their own abilities and leadership style. Bush was a complete buffoon, yet he managed to keep the country intact for 8 years. I really believe that there are powers that be that control this country and the president, while not a figure head exactly, is allowed to drive the country in a certain direction, but the powers will not allow that direction to be off a cliff.

It wasn't rhetoric you idiot, Palin put a target on her face and she got shot.
No one on the left is as stupid as Palin
 
Well, Mein Kampf was more of an ideological treatise lol.

Hitler spelled out to the world pretty much everything he had mind before he did it. One of the criticisms laid against Trump is he has no ideology.

Making America great again doesn't count lol.

Lol, Hitler, lol Trump ,lol
 
It wasn't rhetoric you idiot, Palin put a target on her face and she got shot.
No one on the left is as stupid as Palin

Another lefty blaming rhetoric only from the right.

It was rhetoric and you are now in fact blaming Palin for Giffords shooting. But you won't hold anyone on the left for their incendiary rhetoric against Trump responsible.

Why the difference?
 
Another lefty blaming rhetoric only from the right.

It was rhetoric and you are now in fact blaming Palin for Giffords shooting. But you won't hold anyone on the left for their incendiary rhetoric against Trump responsible.

Why the difference?

What rhetoric liar ?
 
Well, Mein Kampf was more of an ideological treatise lol.

Hitler spelled out to the world pretty much everything he had mind before he did it. One of the criticisms laid against Trump is he has no ideology.

Making America great again doesn't count lol.
One would have serious doubts about Clinton's enlightenment over opposition to the TPP
She was calling it the "gold standard" until she ran up against Bernie. Being nothing but the consummate shape-shifter
she got rid of that political inconvenience in tie for the Clintonistas to annul that pesky matter.

Or we could check her Email about the decision making process that brought her there..oh wait..we can't

State Dept.: 75-year wait for Clinton aide emails
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/06/politics/clinton-emails-75-years/
 
You think that is not rhetoric, but pictures can be rhetoric. You directly stated that because Palin put a target on Gifford that this was why the shooter shot her.

You are wrong of course. But then, you're retarded.

It's a lie. Gifford's shooter was a certifiable loon that couldn't put two coherent sentences together.
 
One would have serious doubts about Clinton's enlightenment over opposition to the TPP
She was calling it the "gold standard" until she ran up against Bernie. Being nothing but the consummate shape-shifter
she got rid of that political inconvenience in tie for the Clintonistas to annul that pesky matter.

Or we could check her Email about the decision making process that brought her there..oh wait..we can't

State Dept.: 75-year wait for Clinton aide emails
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/06/politics/clinton-emails-75-years/

Hillary is the mother of target rich environments. If Trump can't take advantage of it he shouldn't be president.
 
Hillary is the mother of target rich environments. If Trump can't take advantage of it he shouldn't be president.

but she's crafty..as you can see State protects her, the media protect her, the DNC protects her.
WaPo is a personal hitman on Trump. She's got the PC crowd shouting down criticize as "misogynist"

Libya is complex and the Repubs fogged that all up with those idiotic Bengazi! hearings.
She's master deflector,and can drag it out to the point the public attention span of a gnat says "why are we talking about this?"
etc.
 
no that wasn't my answer on Trump - I didn't answer .Trump's current stated foreign policy is one of less engagement.
I'm not thrilled with his stance on the Korean peninsula, or willingness to leave NATO over budgets,
but I take that as the candidate talking and not as he would be as POTUS. same as deporting 11 million illegals.
One would hope getting into the WH and privy to national security matters would curtail such loose rhetoric.


You say you'd prefer "either Sanders or Clinton to Trump" but Sanders ( coalitions) and Clinton (invasive interventionism) couldn't be further apart.
So maybe you'd prefer a Democrat over Trump? I don't know what you mean the policies are all substantially different.

But you are completely wrong here (below), and it needs to be corrected:
If you look at source material - and I can show you more- it was Sanders who voted in favor of voted for a resolution condemning the systemic human rights abuses in Libya and "demanding democratic reforms" - nowhere did he vote for "regime change".

That was a Hillary invention after meeting the NTC's Jibril in Paris. At most Sanders voted for UN Resolution 1973 -
which was the no fly.
It wasn't the active bombing/Tomahawks and the command and control the US did as leader of NATO's war.
Again Clinton was chief architect and advocate for that role -she played an integral part - see State Dept's "Tic Toc on Libya"-
I linked last post
So the choice is her bellicosity or Trumps naïve loose rhetoric..which I agree is a shitty choice in general

I think you are making way to much of the way the press is handled by the campaigns. There is no "silencing by the Secret Service"

Don't you think that after a year we should have a firm grasp of what Trump would do as president. It's not the least bit qualifying to have to regard what he says as a candidate as unreliable.

I'm a registered Democrat as of this election cycle. I was previously registered as an Independent. But, here in Cali they don't allow voting in the Democrat primary unless you're a registered Democrat. Usually, yes, I do vote Democrat. However, I did support McCain for a short time until he chose Palin as a running mate. I don't really regard Hillary Clinton as an interventionist. One of sources said it best. She's the type of person that would rather get "caught trying" than doing nothing.

The Sanders/Hillary exchange on his vote for regime change was fact checked to be "mostly true". It is hardly a Hillary Clinton invention. Speaking of interventions though, I admire the creative vision of the term "chief architect" of the Libyan Civil war intervention. She was just one player. The president needs to be able to trust the judgment of their Sec of State. Obama appears to put more weight on Hillary Clinton's judgement than others. But, the choice is ultimately his. Hillary wasn't the president. Obama was. Her function was to implement his policies.

I can't ever recall any journalist in the past being man handled by the Secret Service because they stepped out of their designated area. You can call it what ever you want. But, that's not the sort of thing that a candidate for president should be encouraging and/or condoning. Trump campaign has a history of it. Including a journalist being aggressively jerked around by his campaign manage - which Trump condoned.
 
Last edited:
Don't you think that after a year we should have a firm grasp of what Trump would do as president. It's not the least bit qualifying to have to regard what he says as a candidate as unreliable.

I'm a registered Democrat as of this election cycle. I was previously registered as an Independent. But, here in Cali they don't allow voting in the Democrat primary unless you're a registered Democrat. Usually, yes, I do vote Democrat. However, I did support McCain for a short time until he chose Palin as a running mate. I don't really regard Hillary Clinton as an interventionist. One of sources said it best. She's the type of person that would rather get "caught trying" than doing nothing.

The Sanders/Hillary exchange on his vote for regime change was fact checked to be "mostly true". It is hardly a Hillary Clinton invention. Speaking of interventions though, I admire the creative vision of the term "chief architect" of the Libyan Civil war intervention. She was just one player. The president needs to be able to trust the judgment of their Sec of State. Obama appears to put more weight on Hillary Clinton's judgement than others. But, the choice is ultimately his. Hillary wasn't the president. Obama was. Her function was to implement his policies.

I can't ever recall any journalist in the past being man handled by the Secret Service because they stepped out of their designated area. You can call it what ever you want. But, that's not the sort of thing that a candidate for president should be encouraging and/or condoning. Trump campaign has a history of it. Including a journalist being aggressively jerked around by his campaign manage - which Trump condoned.
do you mean that dust up where that woman was reaching for Trump? The case was dismissed.
Clinton is an innate interventionist. She came up with the "Friends of Syria" nonscense. To be clear Obama's policy was " Assad Must Go"
but as sec of state she implemented that by shuttle diplomacy -weakening but not toppling assad and advantaging the Islamists..

Libya : look at what the "tic toc on Libya" states. That was composed by her OWN State Dept! They use "architect".
She was also chief advocate (read the NYTimes article)that swayed Obama.
Yes Rice was in the picture as UN Ambassador with her 'Viagra rape' lies, but Clinton came away from Paris determined
to intervene ( bomb) Qadaffi. She swayed Obam to go along..This is all documented.

PSI run a semi-blog/thread on Libya. You might like to poke around. Libya Civil War ~ 2014 to Present

Obama calls Libya his biggest mistake, but deflects the blame to Cameron and the aftermath.
In truth bombing Qaddafi who was an allie on the war on terror, and going along with Clinton was the mistake.
US/NATO took an allie ,under false premises of "humanitarian war" and turned it into a failed , terrorist state.

That's Clinton just like her vote for Iraq, and her "Friends of Syria: crap.
PS. I appreciated the honest discussion here.

Hillary Clinton had ‘ownership’ of U.S. Libya policy, own aide said
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/21/hillary-clinton-had-ownership-of-us-libya-policy-o/
 
Back
Top