Ask Me Help Desk - Trump Approves Murder of American Journalist

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Many of us who voted for Trump did so for five reasons.

1. He was not named Hillary Clinton.
2. He was willing to address the terrible situation on our southern border.
3. He was willing to appoint people to the Supreme Court who actually believe in the Constitution.
4. He seemed to be concerned about the budget deficit.
5. He was going to revive the economy.

Results

1. Hooray!
2. Ongoing, but at least he is not just rehashing the failed policies of the past fifty years.
3. Doing well.
4. Lousy.
5. Fantastic so far.

His greatest asset is that he is not named Hillary Clinton. Have I already said that??

1. Hillary derangement syndrome. Cannot be cured, but may be worse than the alternative reality. Like jumping from the frying pan into the fire.
2. Not only has the problem been exacerbated from fearmongering steeped in racism, it's a real distraction from solutions to a much bigger problem. Narrowminded to say the least.
3. Conservatives don't care about the constitution, they just believe conservative judges will turn back the clock which is a fallacy not based on the constitution. If that's the hope, then it's a false one.
4. That's another fallacy as nothing has been done to address the BUDGET deficit, but much has been done to deepen it.
5. Just like the dufus conned and screwed people for his own gain so that no bank in America will lend him a nickel he takes a good growing economy and heads it toward bankruptcy.

That whole Hillary derangement syndrome has conservatives settling on following the lunacy of a lying cheating dufus and is convinced everything is better than when he opened his bigmouth. That's okay though as another election is just over the horizon and we get a chance for a course correction.

https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?ur...M2qNnvt2yA--~C

Quote:

1. Hillary derangement syndrome. Cannot be cured, but may be worse than the alternative reality. Like jumping from the frying pan into the fire.
2. Not only has the problem been exacerbated from fearmongering steeped in racism, it's a real distraction from solutions to a much bigger problem. Narrowminded to say the least.
3. Conservatives don't care about the constitution, they just believe conservative judges will turn back the clock which is a fallacy not based on the constitution. If that's the hope, then it's a false one.
4. That's another fallacy as nothing has been done to address the BUDGET deficit, but much has been done to deepen it.
5. Just like the dufus conned and screwed people for his own gain so that no bank in America will lend him a nickel he takes a good growing economy and heads it toward bankruptcy.

1. Maybe.
2. The usual liberal garbage of accusing people of racism when you have nothing else useful to say. Liberals have become so irresponsible in their never ending, knee-jerk accusations of racism for anyone and everyone that they have robbed the word of any meaning. Try thinking some instead. Build the wall.
3. Ignoring the Constitution in order to justify everything from abortion to gay marriage is what liberals are good at. Stick to the law.
4. You are right in that, but I doubt that you protested very much when your buddy Obama doubled the national debt in only eight years.
5. Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Still waiting for the dufus to act on the death of an American journalists.

Trump is leaving that to the Saudi

American journalist, killed in Turkey by the Saudis. What could possibly go wrong?

OK jurisdiction, evidence etc

That may take a while. Meantime enjoy a word from our sponsor...

https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/169/16932/1693288.gif

https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/169/16932/1693208.gif

LOL - perfect!

Oh how the right hollered about what Obama did, or hounded Hillary about everything, yet give this lying cheating dufus a pass for stuff that stinks to high hell and think the left and moderates are crazy. Imagine having TWO earners n the family working for OUR government right now. They'd be really screwed right now with many still having to show up for work for NO PAY.

A fool who doesn't care about his own citizens can hardly be expected to care about a journalist murdered on foreign soil by his buddy client can he? The thing about holding your nose and supporting this fool is you know you can never let go, and will be a mouth breather as long as he holds office.

For the rest of us who oppose the dufus, we have to endure his stink until we find out where the right hid the air freshener.

SOTU address is the most boring speech . Platitudes interupted by clapping seals while the other half in attendance sit on their hands or snooze. Go back to the old ways of POTUS sending a letter to Congress that they can ignore .

Quote:

For the rest of us who oppose the dufus, we have to endure his stink until we find out where the right hid the air freshener.

Anyone accustomed to tolerating the stench that surrounded Obama and the Clintons should have no problems with Trump.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Anyone accustomed to tolerating the stench that surrounded Obama and the Clintons should have no problems with Trump.

Obviously we do, just as you did with them. TIT FOR TAT.

Quote:

Obviously we do, just as you did with them. TIT FOR TAT.

I don't deny the many shortcomings of Trump, but I find it ridiculous to see you libs get so worked up about his problems when you were so strangely silent about Obama and Clinton. Again, it's all about politics. It has nothing to do with ethics and honesty, just politics. If it was really about ethics, then you would have been upset with Obama and Clinton. If that had been the case, then your criticisms of Trump wouldn't have such a hollow ring to them.

Hmm, maybe that's why I dismiss your utterings about them, because you cannot question the sleazy ethics and dishonesty of today's lying cheating dufus. You had 8 years to prove your case against Obama and half my lifetime to prove your case against Clinton. YOU failed miserably so now it's OUR turn.

Actually, there is no question about the IRS scandal, the Veterans Administration scandal, the doubling of the national debt in only 8 years, the Benghazi debacle, the Fast and Furious scandal, "I'll have more flexibility after the election", and the secret meeting with Bill Clinton by the AG, just to name a few. These are all proven instances of dishonesty, scandal, and poor job performance.

On Trump's side I would note his big mouth, continued deficit spending, and the ridiculous amount of turnover in administrative positions. As to Cohen and Flynn, what they did is on them, and there seems to have been no participation by Trump, but at least they are being held responsible for any wrong-doing they did. When did that ever happen with Obama?

NO EVIDENCE against Obama, and all those hearing into Benghazi by repubs revealed NO EVIDENCE against Hillary. Let's see if the dufus can stand up to as much scrutiny as they did. Sounds fair to me.

https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/cac...31/1693104.jpg

Quote:

On Trump's side I would note his big mouth, continued deficit spending, and the ridiculous amount of turnover in administrative positions.

Here's an idea, Trump should resurrect the Apprentice and put the participants to work in the cabinet, couldn't do any worse and they may come up with some innovative ideas to stop the revolving door. You're fired may not resonate so often

Quote:

NO EVIDENCE against Obama, and all those hearing into Benghazi by repubs revealed NO EVIDENCE against Hillary.

There was abundant evidence that her failure to act in an appropriate manner for weeks ahead of time, and the incredible inaction of Obama/Clinton the day of the attack led to the deaths of four Americans. Now did she break a law? Probably not, but her apalling incompetence was on display for everyone to see.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

There was abundant evidence that her failure to act in an appropriate manner for weeks ahead of time, and the incredible inaction of Obama/Clinton the day of the attack led to the deaths of four Americans. Now did she break a law? Probably not, but her apalling incompetence was on display for everyone to see.

Amazing how nobody blamed Bush for 9/11, but the righties will never let go of Benghazi, also on 9/11 when every embassy in the world has beefed up security. And why do the 4 service men who died in Syria not show the dufus's appalling incompetence? No need to answer, I'm familiar with conservative prejudice.

Quote:

Amazing how nobody blamed Bush for 9/11,

No one with even half a brain has ever suggested Bush could have avoided the attacks on 9/11, and certainly he has not been accused of standing around doing nothing while the attacks took place. It's a completely inaccurate comparison.

Now could BILL Clinton have done a better job in the eight years of his admin to have avoided the attacks? Hmmmm??

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

No one with even half a brain has ever suggested Bush could have avoided the attacks on 9/11, and certainly he has not been accused of standing around doing nothing while the attacks took place. It's a completely inaccurate comparison.

Now could BILL Clinton have done a better job in the eight years of his admin to have avoided the attacks? Hmmmm??

You have a poor memory, GWB was accused of dithering while the attacks took place, I remember well the pictures of him during that time during a school visit without his advisers he had no response

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

You have a poor memory, GWB was accused of dithering while the attacks took place, I remember well the pictures of him during that time during a school visit without his advisers he had no response

YouTube remembers it well. "My Pet Goat" was the book GWB was reading to Florida second graders.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7fs2duxjpE4

Someone making an excuse for him?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

No one with even half a brain has ever suggested Bush could have avoided the attacks on 9/11, and certainly he has not been accused of standing around doing nothing while the attacks took place. It's a completely inaccurate comparison.

Now could BILL Clinton have done a better job in the eight years of his admin to have avoided the attacks? Hmmmm??

Just asking what is the dufus doing to prevent attacks? Why have you not been as critical of him when our soldiers died in Syria AND Africa as you have about Hillary and Benghazi? I really want to know since a bad guy can easily get the drop on a good guy. Every president faces these challenges don't they, where the bad guys have the advantage of secret plans and preparation.

Didn't King Reagan have his Lebanon, and near assassination?

really ? revisionist would like us to believe that GW was unresponsive. What was he to do ? get up in the middle of a reading to kids ? What purpose would that have served ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

really ? revisionist would like us to believe that GW was unresponsive. What was he to do ? get up in the middle of a reading to kids ? What purpose would that have served ?

I'm not one of those though I may have made some disparaging comments in the past about his reaction, but I could see the "OH SH1T" look on his face. Looking back, everybody was in shock and confusion and scared to death. Later changing the focus to Saddam was a clear mistake.

As is oftentimes the case with libs, some of you are completely missing the point. GW was supposed to get up and do what? There was no reason to believe the first attack on the towers was a terrorist attack. The second one sealed the deal, but what was he to do about it at that point? Obama and Clinton, on the other hand, had MONTHS of pleas from the ambassador to do something about security and did NOTHING. Then they had hours and hours to respond and try to help and did NOTHING. Clinton was reduced to having nothing more to say than, "What difference at this point does it make?" Easy for her to say since she was still alive and a multi-millionaire.

Cowardice not to have had the ability to respond and not do it

Quote:

Cowardice not to have had the ability to respond and not do it

I know you love hyperbole, but your double negative above seems so say he would not do what he could not do.

.No Hilliary and Obama did not do what they could do, they could have rapidly responded from Italy, They could have responded from elsewhere in Libya. What happened is they did nothing as they didn't want their blown CIA operation to come out. Remember Mission Impossible. If you are caught we will disavow your actions

No attention to a potential crisis ahead of time. They could have done that. They could have responded to the many calls for help which came before the event. That's their job, to be sure security is provided. They failed to do so. It's also hard to imagine they could not have done something in the seven hours in which the attack took place. They did nothing. Suppose the attack had lasted 17 hours? They had no idea how long it would last, but they did nothing. Not acceptable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

As is oftentimes the case with libs, some of you are completely missing the point. GW was supposed to get up and do what? There was no reason to believe the first attack on the towers was a terrorist attack. The second one sealed the deal, but what was he to do about it at that point? Obama and Clinton, on the other hand, had MONTHS of pleas from the ambassador to do something about security and did NOTHING. Then they had hours and hours to respond and try to help and did NOTHING. Clinton was reduced to having nothing more to say than, "What difference at this point does it make?" Easy for her to say since she was still alive and a multi-millionaire.

Not only was your post debunked but full of inaccuracy so let me correct your conservative memory.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a7148706.html

Quote:

“With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans,” she said. “Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?”

You often speak of the 4 killed but never about the other 30 or so that were eventually evacuated. You still have not commented or treated the deaths in Africa or Syria with the same zeal you do with Benghazi. Wonder why?

My post is full of inaccuracies? In what way was it inaccurate? I have learned in the past that you love to post links to articles that have nothing to do with the subject or have nothing to say to back up your allegations. If my post was inaccurate, tell me how. Did HC say what I said she said? Yes, she did. It was entirely accurate. I speak of the 4 killed because they were killed and the fault lies with HC and BO. You might not like that, but it is true.

As to Syria and Africa, what deaths are you referring to? There have been deaths all over the world, and I have no doubt that they are practically all tragic. There have been tens of thousands of deaths in Syria alone, many of them U.S. military personnel. Perhaps we are right to at least start the initial process of withdrawing them.

Quote:

Did HC say what I said she said? Yes, she did. It was entirely accurate.

But you took it out of context and gave it an entirely different meaning.

Quote:

But you took it out of context and gave it an entirely different meaning.

In what way?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

But you took it out of context and gave it an entirely different meaning.

Thanks WG, that was my point. Conservatives were using her words against her without saying what she was referring to. Not only is that inaccurate, but disingenuous to boot, as you use the death of soldiers to further an anti Hillary agenda yet again, while completely ignoring the soldiers ambushed by militants in Niger, and recently in Syria under the dufus.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/niger-a...d-new-details/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ib/2591639002/

Is selective outrage an accurate description of your narrative, or you just did not know of these recent events?

You still haven't shown how my comments were inaccurate. She made a foolish comment. I realize what she was talking about and I listened to that part of the hearing. She was saying that whether it was a spontaneous demonstration (the lie the Obama admin put out) or a terrorist attack, "What difference does it make now?" In context, does that make the comment any less reprehensible? It doesn't to me. It made a LOT of difference to the families of the Americans who were killed, it likely made a difference during the election, and it still makes a lot of difference to me as an American. Perhaps you don't care, but many of us do. I don't say that in any frustration but just to try and provide some clarity and to point out that putting the quote in context does not make it any less foolish. In fact, to me it makes it more foolish in that she seemed to actually believe, at that point in time, that it was unimportant to place responsibility on the people whose inaction led to the disaster.

Your inaccuracies are reflected in the blame YOU assign, and what the actual investigations show. Your emotional yet understandable tirades pale in the face of the findings which are based not on your interpretation of random statements, but all the facts reviewed in proper contexts by knowledgeable and experienced experts, of which you are not sorry to say.

You are entitled to your opinion and feelings which I try to respect, but sometimes you push me to my limits of understanding them.

Quote:

Your inaccuracies are reflected in the blame YOU assign, and what the actual investigations show. Your emotional yet understandable tirades pale in the face of the findings which are based not on your interpretation of random statements, but all the facts reviewed in proper contexts by knowledgeable and experienced experts, of which you are not sorry to say.

And yet again, you are not able to identify a single specific area where I was inaccurate. Who is responsible for overseas consulates? The Sec. of State. Who did not take action despite many appeals from the people in Benghazi? HC.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

And yet again, you are not able to identify a single specific area where I was inaccurate. Who is responsible for overseas consulates? The Sec. of State. Who did not take action despite many appeals from the people in Benghazi? HC.

But but but there was a WALL!!! ...a number of physical security upgrades, such as the installation of concrete barriers to block unused gates, were made during 2012."
https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...n-refused-sec/