Thread Outing Hillrod Supporters

[sonofdaxjones]

It didn't sound like Trump was very supportive of the Libyan disaster.   

The simple facts are Hillites and related entities have come unhinged over Trumps words.  Meanwhile not only has Hillary revealed herself in words, she's revealed herself in action.  She's then tried to hyper spin both her words and her actions.   In fact, the Bernie leaning media entities have done the best job of pointing out that Hillary has been far worse in actual implemented policy, then any of the words coming out of Trumps mouth.  The same outlets have also pointed out the very slow and pillowy soft criticism of Hillary by most MSM outlets, if it even exits at all.   Meanwhile the same is jumping all over Trump instantly.

[Trim]

America should make the president job more attractive. That's what a business would do if a position drew such horrible applicants.

[Kat Kid]

I was unaware that the Secretary of State made foreign policy.  My understanding was she was an advisor and representative of the president in foreign affairs.

#words


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wetwillie]

America should make the president job more attractive. That's what a business would do if a position drew such horrible applicants.

The whole natural born citizen thing is severely limiting our applicant pool.

[sonofdaxjones]

I was unaware that the Secretary of State made foreign policy.  My understanding was she was an advisor and representative of the president in foreign affairs.

#words


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is absolutely no doubt that Hillary was one of the primary catalysts behind the Libyan debacle, and it is well documented that she and Panetta convinced Obama to hop on board the (ongoing) attempt to oust Assad very early in the process.    LOL at you trying to obfuscate and re-direct the reality of Hillary's involvement.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

I was unaware that the Secretary of State made foreign policy.  My understanding was she was an advisor and representative of the president in foreign affairs.

#words


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Remarkably, she was able to implement the insane and incoherent foreign policy of the imbecilic administration in a way so reckless and irresponsible as to maximize damage.

[Kat Kid]

I was unaware that the Secretary of State made foreign policy.  My understanding was she was an advisor and representative of the president in foreign affairs.

#words


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is absolutely no doubt that Hillary was one of the primary catalysts behind the Libyan debacle, and it is well documented that she and Panetta convinced Obama to hop on board the (ongoing) attempt to oust Assad very early in the process.    LOL at you trying to obfuscate and re-direct the reality of Hillary's involvement.

So the difference between Clinton's foreign policy and Trump's foreign policy is that Hillary Clinton was able to convince Obama to do things and Trump said the same things to Howard Stern and others?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sonofdaxjones]

I was unaware that the Secretary of State made foreign policy.  My understanding was she was an advisor and representative of the president in foreign affairs.

#words


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is absolutely no doubt that Hillary was one of the primary catalysts behind the Libyan debacle, and it is well documented that she and Panetta convinced Obama to hop on board the (ongoing) attempt to oust Assad very early in the process.    LOL at you trying to obfuscate and re-direct the reality of Hillary's involvement.

So the difference between Clinton's foreign policy and Trump's foreign policy is that Hillary Clinton was able to convince Obama to do things and Trump said the same things to Howard Stern and others?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So an interview on Howard Stern is akin to the will of the National Command Authority of the United States of America?    That Howard, man, dude is powerful!

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Let's not confuse how dangerous it is to "indicate" your support for a war months after it began with something as insignificant as directly overseeing the destabilization of the ME and then lying about it.

[LickNeckey]

It didn't sound like Trump was very supportive of the Libyan disaster.   

The simple facts are Hillites and related entities have come unhinged over Trumps words.  Meanwhile not only has Hillary revealed herself in words, she's revealed herself in action.  She's then tried to hyper spin both her words and her actions.   In fact, the Bernie leaning media entities have done the best job of pointing out that Hillary has been far worse in actual implemented policy, then any of the words coming out of Trumps mouth.  The same outlets have also pointed out the very slow and pillowy soft criticism of Hillary by most MSM outlets, if it even exits at all.   Meanwhile the same is jumping all over Trump instantly.

While I agree with the general premise of this post the fact that Trump continues to lob molotovs has something to do with it. 

[Kat Kid]

I was unaware that the Secretary of State made foreign policy.  My understanding was she was an advisor and representative of the president in foreign affairs.

#words


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is absolutely no doubt that Hillary was one of the primary catalysts behind the Libyan debacle, and it is well documented that she and Panetta convinced Obama to hop on board the (ongoing) attempt to oust Assad very early in the process.    LOL at you trying to obfuscate and re-direct the reality of Hillary's involvement.

So the difference between Clinton's foreign policy and Trump's foreign policy is that Hillary Clinton was able to convince Obama to do things and Trump said the same things to Howard Stern and others?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So an interview on Howard Stern is akin to the will of the National Command Authority of the United States of America?    That Howard, man, dude is powerful!

Your distinction between Hillary Clinton's and Donald Trump's foreign policy philosophy seems a distinction without a difference since they are running for president.  Their expressed views seem very relevant to how they would conduct themselves once they are in a position to actually exercise executive powers.

[sonofdaxjones]

We clearly already know how Hillary would conduct herself because her "views" have already been implemented in the form of national policy.   Just because you're mad that by every definition Hillary Clinton is a Neo-Con doesn't change reality.   In addition, your absurd attempts to co-mingle campaign rhetoric with actual national policy that has been implemented and executed and make it appear that both are one and the same is absurd.

[Kat Kid]

We clearly already know how Hillary would conduct herself because her "views" have already been implemented in the form of national policy.   Just because you're mad that by every definition Hillary Clinton is a Neo-Con doesn't change reality.   In addition, your absurd attempts to co-mingle campaign rhetoric with actual national policy that has been implemented and executed and make it appear that both are one and the same is absurd.

I have stated repeatedly that I won't vote for Hillary.  I am not a Hillary fan for many of the reasons you have expressed.  I just find it absurd to claim that Donald Trump is has not mirrored nearly perfectly the same positions that we both have critiqued Hillary for--(Iraq, Libya, etc.)

[sonofdaxjones]

We clearly already know how Hillary would conduct herself because her "views" have already been implemented in the form of national policy.   Just because you're mad that by every definition Hillary Clinton is a Neo-Con doesn't change reality.   In addition, your absurd attempts to co-mingle campaign rhetoric with actual national policy that has been implemented and executed and make it appear that both are one and the same is absurd.

I have stated repeatedly that I won't vote for Hillary.  I am not a Hillary fan for many of the reasons you have expressed.  I just find it absurd to claim that Donald Trump is has not mirrored nearly perfectly the same positions that we both have critiqued Hillary for--(Iraq, Libya, etc.)

I differentiate campaign words from actual policy.   

[LickNeckey]

We clearly already know how Hillary would conduct herself because her "views" have already been implemented in the form of national policy.   Just because you're mad that by every definition Hillary Clinton is a Neo-Con doesn't change reality.   In addition, your absurd attempts to co-mingle campaign rhetoric with actual national policy that has been implemented and executed and make it appear that both are one and the same is absurd.

Here is what I don't really understand.  Hillary is a terrible democratic presidential candidate largely because she is a moderate neocon republican.  I would think this election would be a republican win win but alas the partisanship is just to strong. 

[Kat Kid]

We clearly already know how Hillary would conduct herself because her "views" have already been implemented in the form of national policy.   Just because you're mad that by every definition Hillary Clinton is a Neo-Con doesn't change reality.   In addition, your absurd attempts to co-mingle campaign rhetoric with actual national policy that has been implemented and executed and make it appear that both are one and the same is absurd.

I have stated repeatedly that I won't vote for Hillary.  I am not a Hillary fan for many of the reasons you have expressed.  I just find it absurd to claim that Donald Trump is has not mirrored nearly perfectly the same positions that we both have critiqued Hillary for--(Iraq, Libya, etc.)

I differentiate campaign words from actual policy.

do you differentiate Senate votes from implementing Obama's policy as SOS?

[sonofdaxjones]

We clearly already know how Hillary would conduct herself because her "views" have already been implemented in the form of national policy.   Just because you're mad that by every definition Hillary Clinton is a Neo-Con doesn't change reality.   In addition, your absurd attempts to co-mingle campaign rhetoric with actual national policy that has been implemented and executed and make it appear that both are one and the same is absurd.

I have stated repeatedly that I won't vote for Hillary.  I am not a Hillary fan for many of the reasons you have expressed.  I just find it absurd to claim that Donald Trump is has not mirrored nearly perfectly the same positions that we both have critiqued Hillary for--(Iraq, Libya, etc.)

I differentiate campaign words from actual policy.

do you differentiate Senate votes from implementing Obama's policy as SOS?

I have analyzed it that closely.   I just know as SOS she was a strong guiding almost authoritative voice on multiple failed adventures in the ME, started us down the path of a new Cold War, and created so much animosity in Central and South America towards the US.   They literally left the US out of their latest PACT/Coalition/treaty of cooperation, unprecedented.   

[ChiComCat]

Is this the Dax premise?

Two job applicants:
Applicant A) Experience with the company but has consistently made the wrong choice
Applicant B) No experience with the company but historically agreed with making the same choices

I mean, both applicants suck but if I was hiring and these were the choices I guess I would go with B and hope they weren't as bad.  At the same time, you would have to accept Dax's premise to make your choice this way.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I think it stands to reason that if Donald didn't support Hillary's policies, then he wouldn't have donated money to her campaigns.

[sonofdaxjones]

I think it stands to reason that if Donald didn't support Hillary's policies, then he wouldn't have donated money to her campaigns.

Of course you're leaving out the fact that Hill and Bill are two of the biggest pay to play racketeers in US history.   What state was Hillary a senator from?  What city is the center of Trumps business holdings?   

[michigancat]

Is this the Dax premise?

Two job applicants:
Applicant A) Experience with the company but has consistently made the wrong choice
Applicant B) No experience with the company but historically agreed with making the same choices

I mean, both applicants suck but if I was hiring and these were the choices I guess I would go with B and hope they weren't as bad.  At the same time, you would have to accept Dax's premise to make your choice this way.

It would kind of be like choosing between Brad Korn and oscar Weber if Korn was more racist.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Guys, trump "indicated" on Howard Stern that he supported the Iraq war 9 months after it started. How can you not understand that's the exact same as voting as a senator for it to begin and starting WW3 in the ME??? It's the exact same thing, exactly!!!! Gawd, how can you be so naive and obtuse?!?!?

[Trim]

Is this the Dax premise?

Two job applicants:
Applicant A) Experience with the company but has consistently made the wrong choice
Applicant B) No experience with the company but historically agreed with making the same choices

I mean, both applicants suck but if I was hiring and these were the choices I guess I would go with B and hope they weren't as bad.  At the same time, you would have to accept Dax's premise to make your choice this way.

It would kind of be like choosing between Brad Korn and oscar Weber if Korn was more racist.

[sonofdaxjones]

Yep, giving an opinion in an interview with Howard Stern . . . exactly the same as leading the nation in creating a more dangerous world. 

#liblogic.

[Trim]

"a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by a government, party, business, or individual"