Hmmm, Maybe It's 'Sarcasm?'

[Kathianne]

After days of insisting that Obama and Hillary were founders of ISIS, he turns to tweeting. Again.





https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1980294624/DJT_Headshot_V2_bigger.jpgDonald J. TrumpVerified account‏@realDonaldTrump (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump)

Ratings challenged @CNN (https://twitter.com/CNN) reports so seriously that I call President Obama (and Clinton) "the founder" of ISIS, & MVP. THEY DON'T GET SARCASM?



3:26 AM - 12 Aug 2016








Problem is he 'wouldn't back down' earlier, when thrown a lifesaver:

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/08/12/donald-trump-yesterday-v-donald-trump-today/


Thursday morning, Hugh Hewitt had Donald Trump on as a guest, and gave him every opportunity to walk it back and clarify his remarks.


HH: I’ve got two more questions. Last night, you said the President was the founder of ISIS. I know what you meant. You meant that he created the vacuum, he lost the peace.

DT: No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS. I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton.

HH: But he’s not sympathetic to them. He hates them. He’s trying to kill them.

DT: I don’t care. He was the founder. His, the way he got out of Iraq was that that was the founding of ISIS, okay?

HH: Well, that, you know, I have a saying, Donald Trump, the mnemonic device I use is Every Liberal Really Seems So, So Sad. E is for Egypt, L is for Libya, S is for Syria, R is for Russia reset. They screwed everything up. You don’t get any argument from me. But by using the term founder, they’re hitting with you on this again. Mistake?

DT: No, it’s no mistake. Everyone’s liking it. I think they’re liking it. I give him the most valuable player award. And I give it to him, and I give it to, I gave the co-founder to Hillary. I don’t know if you heard that.

HH: I did. I did. I played it.

DT: I gave her the co-founder.

HH: I know what you’re arguing…

DT: You’re not, and let me ask you, do you not like that?

HH: I don’t. I think I would say they created, they lost the peace. They created the Libyan vacuum, they created the vacuum into which ISIS came, but they didn’t create ISIS. That’s what I would say.

DT: Well, I disagree.

HH: All right, that’s okay.

DT: I mean, with his bad policies, that’s why ISIS came about.

HH: That’s…

DT: If he would have done things properly, you wouldn’t have had ISIS.

HH: That’s true.

DT: Therefore, he was the founder of ISIS.

HH: And that’s, I’d just use different language to communicate it, but let me close with this, because I know I’m keeping you long, and Hope’s going to kill me.

DT: But they wouldn’t talk about your language, and they do talk about my language, right?


HH: Well, good point. Good point

[Gunny]

After days of insisting that Obama and Hillary were founders of ISIS, he turns to tweeting. Again.





https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1980294624/DJT_Headshot_V2_bigger.jpgDonald J. TrumpVerified account‏@realDonaldTrump (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump)

Ratings challenged @CNN (https://twitter.com/CNN) reports so seriously that I call President Obama (and Clinton) "the founder" of ISIS, & MVP. THEY DON'T GET SARCASM?



3:26 AM - 12 Aug 2016








Problem is he 'wouldn't back down' earlier, when thrown a lifesaver:

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/08/12/donald-trump-yesterday-v-donald-trump-today/

Somebody needs to take this idiot's phone away. And duct tape his mouth.

[Noir]

When is he gonna let us in on the 'my running for president was just a joke and all these media agencies and voters took it seriously, don't they have a sense of humour' joke?

[Kathianne]

Somebody needs to take this idiot's phone away. And duct tape his mouth.

Oh now he's saying that it might be a good idea to take US citizens accused of terrorism/links to gitmo and military tribunals. Really.

http://nypost.com/2016/08/12/americans-accused-of-terrorism-should-be-tried-at-gitmo-trump/



Americans accused of terrorism should be tried at Gitmo: Trump (http://nypost.com/2016/08/12/americans-accused-of-terrorism-should-be-tried-at-gitmo-trump/)

By Daniel Halper (http://nypost.com/author/daniel-halper/)

August 12, 2016 | 7:35am


United States citizens accused of terrorism should be tried by military tribunal at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, according to Donald Trump — offering support for a proposal which, under current federal law, is illegal.

“I would say they could be tried there, that would be fine,” Trump told the Miami Herald (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/donald-trump/article95144337.html) in an interview Thursday.

Current law does not allow US citizens to be tried by military tribunal at the offshore military base, and constitutional experts and several GOP lawmakers, including Sen. John McCain, have spoken out in the past about trying US citizens in military court.

“I know that they want to try them in our regular court systems,” Trump said, referring to the Obama administration’s preference, “and I don’t like that at all.”

Trump praised the military base as a good place to keep terrorists. “I want to make sure that if we have radical Islamic terrorists, we have a very safe place to keep them and we have a word,” he said.

The mogul accused Obama of being soft on terrorists, adding: “Those are words our president won’t even issue. He’s allowing people to get out that are terrible people. He’s allowing a lot of people out of Guantánamo that should not be released.”

The Guantánamo base has housed detained foreign terrorists since the George W. Bush administration. In his first campaign for president, Barack Obama pledged to close the military base on the first day of his administration.

[Kathianne]

Wow. Just did a bit of running around, come in and watch a bit of FOX. The Trump surrogate; long dark hair, petite, was saying in response to a question I didn't hear, 'Of course he was being sarcastic regarding Obama and Hillary founding ISIS. He was serious though that without them ISIS probably wouldn't exist.'

Houston, we have a problem.

[Trigg]

When is he gonna let us in on the 'my running for president was just a joke and all these media agencies and voters took it seriously, don't they have a sense of humour' joke?

so many people are sick to death of career politicians which is why Sanders did so well and why his followers are so vehemently against falling in line behind Hillary. I honestly think Bernie believed everything he said, which is scary in and of itself.

On the republican side you see the same thing. No one trusts politicians. Trump is seen as the anti-establishment candidate.

Even democrats dislike Hillary, this is Trumps election to loose.

[Noir]

so many people are sick to death of career politicians which is why Sanders did so well and why his followers are so vehemently against falling in line behind Hillary. I honestly think Bernie believed everything he said, which is scary in and of itself.

On the republican side you see the same thing. No one trusts politicians. Trump is seen as the anti-establishment candidate.

Even democrats dislike Hillary, this is Trumps election to loose.

Republicans have been duped in to 'trusting' a guy who repeatedly made statements in an interview which is subject to days of discussion and then turns around and is all 'how stupid of *you* I was being sarcastic'...that is were all this 'trust' is going?

Trump looks a lot more like a symptom than a cure.

[revelarts]

Um... maybe it's the liberal media twisting his words...
or not actually taking his actual words as what he says, because he's a strait shooter and tells it like it is, without PC words..... because he has a good brain...
or maybe they're just not getting that he doesn't really mean what he says that way... today...
...cough...:cheers2:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Oh now he's saying that it might be a good idea to take US citizens accused of terrorism/links to gitmo and military tribunals. Really.

http://nypost.com/2016/08/12/americans-accused-of-terrorism-should-be-tried-at-gitmo-trump/

Would be a damn good idea to stop protecting muslims and giving them extra special treatment since they are the known source for over 90% of the terrorism in the world today..
Were that true of the Christians then the obama administration would have already came down on them like a ton of bricks.

We should be asking why he is instead going the other direction as far and as fast as he can..

Could it be , he is one and seeks their total victory over we dumb-ass and gullible infidels??
Why yes, not only could it be --- but it is so obviously so!!!!! ...
Bastard is a damn traitor, and I truly pity all that do not see that glaringly obvious truth..

Anybody that thinks a true muslim is a patriotic or even a good American citizen walks in willful blindness IMHO.
The murdering cult known as Islam allows no such disobedience and spitting on its Koranic commands!
A fact, proven historically and everyday around the world now.
Truth, if I am a lying , then I AM A DYING..

PURE EVIL IS THAT FFING CULT, ITS ONLY GOAL IS DESTRUCTION OF ALL THAT IS NOT OF ISLAM. FACT...

1400+ years of history and reality both reveal the truth of my words...-Tyr

[DLT]

After days of insisting that Obama and Hillary were founders of ISIS, he turns to tweeting. Again.





https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1980294624/DJT_Headshot_V2_bigger.jpgDonald J. TrumpVerified account‏@realDonaldTrump (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump)

Ratings challenged @CNN (https://twitter.com/CNN) reports so seriously that I call President Obama (and Clinton) "the founder" of ISIS, & MVP. THEY DON'T GET SARCASM?



3:26 AM - 12 Aug 2016








Problem is he 'wouldn't back down' earlier, when thrown a lifesaver:

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/08/12/donald-trump-yesterday-v-donald-trump-today/


Well....with Trump....it's always either one of three things. Just a suggestion (ie most of his major issue policy stances), a joke or "sarcasm".

It's what you get with Donald. It's ALL you get with Donald. Other than, perhaps, an upset stomach.

[DLT]

Somebody needs to take this idiot's phone away. And duct tape his mouth.

There isn't enough duct tape in the cosmos for The Don's mouth. Seriously.

[DLT]

Um... maybe it's the liberal media twisting his words...
or not actually taking his actual words as what he says, because he's a strait shooter and tells it like it is, without PC words..... because he has a good brain...
or maybe they're just not getting that he doesn't really mean what he says that way... today...
...cough...:cheers2:

It's the nuance! Yeah....that's the ticket!

[DLT]

Oh now he's saying that it might be a good idea to take US citizens accused of terrorism/links to gitmo and military tribunals. Really.

http://nypost.com/2016/08/12/americans-accused-of-terrorism-should-be-tried-at-gitmo-trump/

He's just (finally) showing us his real/true fascist and totalitarian nature there. Make no mistake.....if he ever got the power, he would be an even bigger dick....er...dictator than Obama is and has been.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

He's just (finally) showing us his real/true fascist and totalitarian nature there. Make no mistake.....if he ever got the power, he would be an even bigger dick....er...dictator than Obama is and has been.

I disagree.
Only person even possibly capable of being a bigger enemy to this nation than obama is hillary.
She is totally corrupt and hates this nation.
She dreams of a socialist paradise with billions bowing down to and worshiping her.
Trump is not perfect but when compared to her he comes off light-years better.

And the obama likely hates this nation even worse than that witch..--Tyr

[Bilgerat]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9238&stc=1

[DLT]

I disagree.
Only person even possibly capable of being a bigger enemy to this nation than obama is hillary.
She is totally corrupt and hates this nation.
She dreams of a socialist paradise with billions bowing down to and worshiping her.
Trump is not perfect but when compared to her he comes off light-years better.

And the obama likely hates this nation even worse than that witch..--Tyr


duplicate

[DLT]

I disagree.
Only person even possibly capable of being a bigger enemy to this nation than obama is hillary.
She is totally corrupt and hates this nation.
She dreams of a socialist paradise with billions bowing down to and worshiping her.
Trump is not perfect but when compared to her he comes off light-years better.

And the obama likely hates this nation even worse than that witch..--Tyr


Yeah, but there again is that "degrees of evil" aspect. An aspect that my views have changed drastically on just recently, in fact. The lesser of two evils is still evil.

At one point I was resigned to yet and once again, holding my nose and voting Trump in order to vote against Hillary. What happened? Trump opened his piehole again and convinced me otherwise. Then, in addition, some of his more rabid supporters on other forums attacked me viciously for merely pointing out the obvious warts on the hideous frog that they've pushed at us conservatives. That just further cemented my stance ....the one Trump's own mouth had already created.

Sorry, but....on this we will have to agree to disagree on. Trump isn't in it to win it, and that fact will be more clearly illustrated over the next few months (if not sooner). I fully believe he's in it to throw shade to Hillary, and to destroy the conservative movement, and to make the GOP look like utter fools (already accomplished, in fact).

[jimnyc]

Yeah, but there again is that "degrees of evil" aspect. An aspect that my views have changed drastically on just recently, in fact. The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Be that as it may, as many think - one of them is GUARANTEED 100% to be the next president. That's a fact. So while maybe you hate both, and Trump is evil, but just less than her - one of them is still taking office come January. So while you see the lesser evil, and don't want to vote, one is still getting in, and if it's Hillary, you WILL see left leaning SC judges come into play, and you WILL see regulations on guns if not attempts at 2nd amendment changes.

Hell, I'm not even trying to change anyone's view that don't care for Trump. I understand if they don't like him, and see so many things wrong and all that jazz. But at the end of the day, no matter how much folks hate the choices - one WILL be in office. So it makes most sense to lessen the damage that will be incurred with another Clinton presidency.

And if worried about any conservative movement, indirectly helping Hillary take the office surely doesn't help those matters. The FACT is, no matter how much folks hate him, if he doesn't get in, then Hillary does. If folks think they are identical, then by all means avoid them both and it won't matter to you who wins. But otherwise, even a lesser evil is better than full on evil.

I know some don't want to hear about the "indirectly" helping, but it's true, and it's a fact.

[Kathianne]

Be that as it may, as many think - one of them is GUARANTEED 100% to be the next president. That's a fact. So while maybe you hate both, and Trump is evil, but just less than her - one of them is still taking office come January. So while you see the lesser evil, and don't want to vote, one is still getting in, and if it's Hillary, you WILL see left leaning SC judges come into play, and you WILL see regulations on guns if not attempts at 2nd amendment changes.

Hell, I'm not even trying to change anyone's view that don't care for Trump. I understand if they don't like him, and see so many things wrong and all that jazz. But at the end of the day, no matter how much folks hate the choices - one WILL be in office. So it makes most sense to lessen the damage that will be incurred with another Clinton presidency.

And if worried about any conservative movement, indirectly helping Hillary take the office surely doesn't help those matters. The FACT is, no matter how much folks hate him, if he doesn't get in, then Hillary does. If folks think they are identical, then by all means avoid them both and it won't matter to you who wins. But otherwise, even a lesser evil is better than full on evil.

I know some don't want to hear about the "indirectly" helping, but it's true, and it's a fact.


I can't speak for DLT, but for myself I have to ask myself, 'What happens if Hillary wins?' Obama + scandals. Without question. I'm pretty sure that will lead to more of what we have. That isn't good, no argument.

Then I ask, 'What happens if Trump wins?' Can't be certain and lots of red flags. He isn't for property rights of 'the regular people,' see Kelo. He has threatened various parts of the press-certainly a favorite whipping boy by all, but is and should be protected by the 1st. He doesn't seem to understand how the various parts of government work. Judges signing laws? Many of his ideas he seems unclear where he'd have to try executive actions; when Congress or the Courts would shut him down. Speaking of Congress, he truly seems to be burning bridges that didn't need to be simply out of pique. Not a good trait in any executive-representatives are not going to kiss his ass.

What he's said about others personally I find disturbing-McCain, Bush, Kelly, Cruz's wife, father, the list goes on. He picks fights and doesn't let go. Again, something not what I want in an executive.

Just today I've heard he's changed his stand regarding NATO, 'they've changed what they're doing,' is what he's saying. Huh? Ok then, just another one of those things. Then he went on about how 'wouldn't it be great if Russia were on our side?' Like magical thinking that Putin is going to be so easy once he is elected. "Reset anyone?"

The there was that very weird comment during the debates that the military WOULD do illegal acts, IF HE ordered them to. Yeah, a 'misstatement' that is very hard for those that understand the process to just say, Ok.

There's more, but that is what I come up with off the cuff.

[jimnyc]

I can't speak for DLT, but for myself I have to ask myself, 'What happens if Hillary wins?' Obama + scandals. Without question. I'm pretty sure that will lead to more of what we have. That isn't good, no argument.

Then I ask, 'What happens if Trump wins?' Can't be certain and lots of red flags. He isn't for property rights of 'the regular people,' see Kelo. He has threatened various parts of the press-certainly a favorite whipping boy by all, but is and should be protected by the 1st. He doesn't seem to understand how the various parts of government work. Judges signing laws? Many of his ideas he seems unclear where he'd have to try executive actions; when Congress or the Courts would shut him down. Speaking of Congress, he truly seems to be burning bridges that didn't need to be simply out of pique. Not a good trait in any executive-representatives are not going to kiss his ass.

What he's said about others personally I find disturbing-McCain, Bush, Kelly, Cruz's wife, father, the list goes on. He picks fights and doesn't let go. Again, something not what I want in an executive.

Just today I've heard he's changed his stand regarding NATO, 'they've changed what they're doing,' is what he's saying. Huh? Ok then, just another one of those things. Then he went on about how 'wouldn't it be great if Russia were on our side?' Like magical thinking that Putin is going to be so easy once he is elected. "Reset anyone?"

The there was that very weird comment during the debates that the military WOULD do illegal acts, IF HE ordered them to. Yeah, a 'misstatement' that is very hard for those that understand the process to just say, Ok.

There's more, but that is what I come up with off the cuff.

Gloss over Hillary while hitting Trump for everything. :)

And most is things that are "potential" as we all know, and yet the things with Hillary are known and fact.

But like I said, go ahead and go against the lesser evil and then enjoy the larger evil. This indirect helping of Hillary WILL lead to a huge change in the SC and perhaps more changes to the 2nd. And if someone goes as far as to say that Trump is the same or worse than Hillary, then by all means, vote for her since she would be less evil.

Like I said, one of these 2 are definitely taking office next year. One either helps elect the person that is better for what they want, or they are indirectly putting the other person in office. Those numbers don't lie. That's not to say that anyone is to "blame"... just that the numbers don't lie, and that if Trump is pushed aside that Hillary WILL be in office.

And if someone does state that Trump is just as bad or worse than Hillary, well, so be it, and they shouldn't be upset when such changes do in fact take place.

[Kathianne]

Gloss over Hillary while hitting Trump for everything. :)

And most is things that are "potential" as we all know, and yet the things with Hillary are known and fact.

But like I said, go ahead and go against the lesser evil and then enjoy the larger evil. This indirect helping of Hillary WILL lead to a huge change in the SC and perhaps more changes to the 2nd. And if someone goes as far as to say that Trump is the same or worse than Hillary, then by all means, vote for her since she would be less evil.

Like I said, one of these 2 are definitely taking office next year. One either helps elect the person that is better for what they want, or they are indirectly putting the other person in office. Those numbers don't lie. That's not to say that anyone is to "blame"... just that the numbers don't lie, and that if Trump is pushed aside that Hillary WILL be in office.

And if someone does state that Trump is just as bad or worse than Hillary, well, so be it, and they shouldn't be upset when such changes do in fact take place.


Anyone can be upset by what happens after the elections. They may say, "Geez, maybe I should have voted differently?" I don't think that will be me though. I would be upset by many things Hillary would do, no question.

I just am not on board with Trump's SCOTUS picks being necessarily better, I don't trust him to stay with that list. Heck look at the NATO throw out today.

[Bilgerat]

Gloss over Hillary while hitting Trump for everything. :)

And most is things that are "potential" as we all know, and yet the things with Hillary are known and fact.

But like I said, go ahead and go against the lesser evil and then enjoy the larger evil. This indirect helping of Hillary WILL lead to a huge change in the SC and perhaps more changes to the 2nd. And if someone goes as far as to say that Trump is the same or worse than Hillary, then by all means, vote for her since she would be less evil.

Like I said, one of these 2 are definitely taking office next year. One either helps elect the person that is better for what they want, or they are indirectly putting the other person in office. Those numbers don't lie. That's not to say that anyone is to "blame"... just that the numbers don't lie, and that if Trump is pushed aside that Hillary WILL be in office.

And if someone does state that Trump is just as bad or worse than Hillary, well, so be it, and they shouldn't be upset when such changes do in fact take place.

Like I've said before;



http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9240&stc=1

[Kathianne]

http://blogforarizona.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Trump-Barnum.jpg

[DLT]

I can't speak for DLT, but for myself I have to ask myself, 'What happens if Hillary wins?' Obama + scandals. Without question. I'm pretty sure that will lead to more of what we have. That isn't good, no argument.

Then I ask, 'What happens if Trump wins?' Can't be certain and lots of red flags. He isn't for property rights of 'the regular people,' see Kelo. He has threatened various parts of the press-certainly a favorite whipping boy by all, but is and should be protected by the 1st. He doesn't seem to understand how the various parts of government work. Judges signing laws? Many of his ideas he seems unclear where he'd have to try executive actions; when Congress or the Courts would shut him down. Speaking of Congress, he truly seems to be burning bridges that didn't need to be simply out of pique. Not a good trait in any executive-representatives are not going to kiss his ass.

What he's said about others personally I find disturbing-McCain, Bush, Kelly, Cruz's wife, father, the list goes on. He picks fights and doesn't let go. Again, something not what I want in an executive.

Just today I've heard he's changed his stand regarding NATO, 'they've changed what they're doing,' is what he's saying. Huh? Ok then, just another one of those things. Then he went on about how 'wouldn't it be great if Russia were on our side?' Like magical thinking that Putin is going to be so easy once he is elected. "Reset anyone?"

The there was that very weird comment during the debates that the military WOULD do illegal acts, IF HE ordered them to. Yeah, a 'misstatement' that is very hard for those that understand the process to just say, Ok.

There's more, but that is what I come up with off the cuff.

I have people in my life that are "on the Trump Train". One is an ex husband that plans to vote for Trump. One is a gf that is more like a sister and has been for 30 years. She suddenly (got propagandized to by the Copelands over the last two months) thinks that God has chosen Trump to "save" America. I think that's bunk. But even if it turned out to be true, I've just recently decided......that I distrust Trump and think he has evil intentions and that I refuse to vote for ANY evil, lesser or no. I think God will forgive me for that....if my gf is right and if I am wrong. I'm willing to risk it.

[DLT]

Anyone can be upset by what happens after the elections. They may say, "Geez, maybe I should have voted differently?" I don't think that will be me though. I would be upset by many things Hillary would do, no question.

I just am not on board with Trump's SCOTUS picks being necessarily better, I don't trust him to stay with that list. Heck look at the NATO throw out today.

What has Trump NOT flip flopped on? Not much.

His credibility is zilch, zip and nada with me at this point.

[sundaydriver]

I'm gonna let Trump slide on his 2nd Amendment comment even though I'm a sarcastic bastard myself and appreciate good sarcasm but didn't see any when Trump made his comment. But when you add that to everything else the man had claimed, doubled down on, and then either walked back on or keeps repeating his false statements even after being proven false leaves only two explanations. Either he is incapable of learning from his mistakes or it's purposeful for his own reasons.

Whichever his reasoning, he sure does like to play the victim for the things he say's.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm gonna let Trump slide on his 2nd Amendment comment even though I'm a sarcastic bastard myself and appreciate good sarcasm but didn't see any when Trump made his comment. But when you add that to everything else the man had claimed, doubled down on, and then either walked back on or keeps repeating his false statements even after being proven false leaves only two explanations. Either he is incapable of learning from his mistakes or it's purposeful for his own reasons.

Whichever his reasoning, he sure does like to play the victim for the things he say's.


I'm gonna let Trump slide on his 2nd Amendment comment even though I'm a sarcastic bastard myself and appreciate good sarcasm

As am I on many occasions.. :wink2:--Tyr

[namvet]

OK im with you. im voting Clinton all the way

[Little-Acorn]

After days of insisting that Obama and Hillary were founders of ISIS, he turns to tweeting. Again.

Ratings challenged CNN reports so seriously that I call President Obama (and Clinton) "the founder" of ISIS, & MVP. THEY DON'T GET SARCASM?

Problem is he 'wouldn't back down' earlier, when thrown a lifesaver:

When two regular guys meet on a street corner and one of them says, "Obama and Hillary are founders of ISIS", the other knows immediately what he means: "They lost the peace and created conditions favorable to the rise of ISIS."

That's because those two guys don't pretend they think he meant something else, and aren't interested in spreading a lie to try to fool voters into believing it.

But Democrat politicians and propagandists in the media have been spreading that lie for years, yelling "No, he meant that Obama and Hillary have been going to Libya, Iraq, Syria etc., signing people up, issuing uniforms and weapons, and conducting training for ISIS!!!" ....in hopes of getting voters who aren't paying attention, to believe he actually meant that.

They follow it up with, "Isn't it ridiculous how Trump meant that? That's how you know he's not fit to be President!"

The Democrats have been living by these lies for decades. In part because they know if they told the truth, no one would vote for them. Doesn't that suggest that Democrats are the ones that aren't fit to run the country?

Conservatives, OTOH, don't need to lie. Imperfect though their candidates are, they are far better than anything the Democrats have to offer. All the conservatives need to do, is keep pointing out what they will do, knock down the sillier lies of the Democrats (can't knock them all down, there are too many and life's too short), and keep pointing out what the Democrats have done for the last eight years. And repeat it over and over.

If you're conservative, but find yourself using the Democrats' lie-about-what-he meant tactics, knock it off. You don't need to lie about what he really meant - and you're not stupid enough to believe the lie yourself. Figure out the truth, and use that instead.

Tell the truth instead. It's a powerful tactic... and one that Democrats cannot use.

[Kathianne]

When two regular guys meet on a street corner and one of them says, "Obama and Hillary are founders of ISIS", the other knows immediately what he means: "They lost the peace and created conditions favorable to the rise of ISIS."

That's because those two guys don't pretend they think he meant something else, and aren't interested in spreading a lie to try to fool voters into believing it.

But Democrat politicians and propagandists in the media have been spreading that lie for years, yelling "No, he meant that Obama and Hillary have been going to Libya, Iraq, Syria etc., signing people up, issuing uniforms and weapons, and conducting training for ISIS!!!" ....in hopes of getting voters who aren't paying attention, to believe he actually meant that.

They follow it up with, "Isn't it ridiculous how Trump meant that? That's how you know he's not fit to be President!"

The Democrats have been living by these lies for decades. In part because they know if they told the truth, no one would vote for them. Doesn't that suggest that Democrats are the ones that aren't fit to run the country?

Conservatives, OTOH, don't need to lie. Imperfect though their candidates are, they are far better than anything the Democrats have to offer. All the conservatives need to do, is keep pointing out what they will do, knock down the sillier lies of the Democrats (can't knock them all down, there are too many and life's too short), and keep pointing out what the Democrats have done for the last eight years. And repeat it over and over.

If you're conservative, but find yourself using the Democrats' lie-about-what-he meant tactics, knock it off. You don't need to lie about what he really meant - and you're not stupid enough to believe the lie yourself. Figure out the truth, and use that instead.

Tell the truth instead. It's a powerful tactic... and one that Democrats cannot use.

Bottom line is Trump should have responded, 'Yes' when Hewitt asked just that. He didn't. Yeah, now he's saying that's what he meant, but he's so oppositional he has a difficult time backing off his certainties-which he pretty much just makes up.

As for the rest of your post, you're assuming that Trump may be better than what the alternatives there are, just refuse to look beyond Hillary.

Trump is so far from conservative it's not even worth mentioning.

[jimnyc]

I have people in my life that are "on the Trump Train". One is an ex husband that plans to vote for Trump. One is a gf that is more like a sister and has been for 30 years. She suddenly (got propagandized to by the Copelands over the last two months) thinks that God has chosen Trump to "save" America. I think that's bunk. But even if it turned out to be true, I've just recently decided......that I distrust Trump and think he has evil intentions and that I refuse to vote for ANY evil, lesser or no. I think God will forgive me for that....if my gf is right and if I am wrong. I'm willing to risk it.


What has Trump NOT flip flopped on? Not much.

His credibility is zilch, zip and nada with me at this point.

Is not voting for the lesser evil worthy of losing the SCOTUS? If you don't vote for the lesser evil, do you mind if the 2nd amendment meets a drastic change? Or that tons of regulations meet our right to own guns?

Again, not laying blame, just simple mathematics is all. I know folks see Trump as evil and such, and to each their own, but with each evil comes things such as above. Wish Trump out and you WILL see those changes. I don't want to see those changes and really don't want to live with them just to keep someone else from being in office. Risking the SC is too far for me, as is losing the 2nd. I'd go on with other things that will change with her, and not with him, but those 2 are MORE than enough for me.

[Noir]

When two regular guys meet on a street corner and one of them says, "Obama and Hillary are founders of ISIS", the other knows immediately what he means: "They lost the peace and created conditions favorable to the rise of ISIS."

That's because those two guys don't pretend they think he meant something else, and aren't interested in spreading a lie to try to fool voters into believing it.

All you have to do is ignore what Donald Trump says he means when he's asked about it-



HH: I’ve got two more questions. Last night, you said the President was the founder of ISIS. I know what you meant. You meant that he created the vacuum, he lost the peace.

DT: No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS. I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton.

When two regular guys meet on a street corner and one of them says, "Obama and Hillary are founders of ISIS", and the other says "I know what you mean: "They lost the peace and created conditions favorable to the rise of ISIS." And then the first guy says "No, I mean Obama and Hillary and the founders of ISIS" then you have to to concerned about that guy.

[jimnyc]

All you have to do is ignore what Donald Trump says he means when he's asked about it-



[/I][/COLOR]When two regular guys meet on a street corner and one of them says, "Obama and Hillary are founders of ISIS", and the other says "I know what you mean: "They lost the peace and created conditions favorable to the rise of ISIS." And then the first guy says "No, I mean Obama and Hillary and the founders of ISIS" then you have to to concerned about that guy.

The vacuum, and tons of the weaponry. Perhaps not generals on the ground for ISIS, but the responsibility for their creation sure as hell falls at their feet.

[DLT]

Bottom line is Trump should have responded, 'Yes' when Hewitt asked just that. He didn't. Yeah, now he's saying that's what he meant, but he's so oppositional he has a difficult time backing off his certainties-which he pretty much just makes up.

As for the rest of your post, you're assuming that Trump may be better than what the alternatives there are, just refuse to look beyond Hillary.

Trump is so far from conservative it's not even worth mentioning.

The Trump supporters aren't paying attention.....but Trump is already lining up his excuses for when he loses to Hillary. He acknowledges that it's 'not a lock' that he wins and beats her....yet states that he intends to keep doing the same thing he's been doing (no changes)....despite the fact that he's losing in the polls.

It amazes me that others can't see his real intentions like I and a few others see it. Amazing and bizarre.


On Thursday, during an interview with CNBC, he recognized the increasing tilt toward Hillary Clinton in some swing states and how he plans to "just keep doing the same thing I'm doing right now."



https://gma.yahoo.com/donald-trump-keeps-hinting-may-lose-election-192113023--abc-news-topstories.html

[Kathianne]

The Trump supporters aren't paying attention.....but Trump is already lining up his excuses for when he loses to Hillary. He acknowledges that it's 'not a lock' that he wins and beats her....yet states that he intends to keep doing the same thing he's been doing (no changes)....despite the fact that he's losing in the polls.

It amazes me that others can't see his real intentions like I and a few others see it. Amazing and bizarre.




https://gma.yahoo.com/donald-trump-keeps-hinting-may-lose-election-192113023--abc-news-topstories.html

His new talk of no reason to vote in a rigged system boggles my mind. Of course he'll 'lose' because it's rigged! In PA no less. Got to admire his chutpza.

[DLT]

His new talk of no reason to vote in a rigged system boggles my mind. Of course he'll 'lose' because it's rigged! In PA no less. Got to admire his chutpza.

No....I don't....lol. In fact, there's not a damned thing about Donald J. Trump that I admire. I know too much about him.

[jimnyc]

What boggles my mind even more...

I'll bet 500 donuts to 1 - that if Hillary ends up in the White House, that almost everyone on the right will be unhappy when the SC changes direction for the next generation. I'll bet the same amount that those on the right will be less than thrilled with gun regulations or maybe a change to the 2nd.

So there will be plenty of discussion when/if things change, but it will be funny watching some be unhappy with the new SC. Or worse, some being unhappy with the endless decisions they will make over the next few decades. Or being unhappy with new gun regulations, or other changes within gun ownership.

Unless some don't care about the makeup of the SC, it's decisions or gun rights.

[Abbey Marie]

Is not voting for the lesser evil worthy of losing the SCOTUS? If you don't vote for the lesser evil, do you mind if the 2nd amendment meets a drastic change? Or that tons of regulations meet our right to own guns?

Again, not laying blame, just simple mathematics is all. I know folks see Trump as evil and such, and to each their own, but with each evil comes things such as above. Wish Trump out and you WILL see those changes. I don't want to see those changes and really don't want to live with them just to keep someone else from being in office. Risking the SC is too far for me, as is losing the 2nd. I'd go on with other things that will change with her, and not with him, but those 2 are MORE than enough for me.

Plus thousands upon thousands of un-vetted Muslim refugees here to change our way of life in ways we cannot yet imagine. Neither could France or Germany.

[Trigg]

There are plenty of things I don't like about Trump. Having said that, Hillary is a criminal and if she was anyone else, she'd be in jail.

Her and Bill are as crooked as the day is long.

[jimnyc]

Hillary is a criminal and if she was anyone else, she'd be in jail.

Her and Bill are as crooked as the day is long.

That's a couple of things that I think everyone here can agree on! Hell, I think even most democrats know that to be true, they're just not allow to admit that. :wink2:

[Elessar]

I'll shoot back to what I said before.

If I had pulled the E-Mail stunts, I would be in a Federal Lock-up.

[Perianne]

OK im with you. im voting Clinton all the way

This was his last post, on August 16. Where is namvet? jimnyc

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

This was his last post, on August 16. Where is namvet? jimnyc
Yep, I've missed him too..-Tyr