Trump: 'How can Crooked Hillary say she cares about women when she is silent on radical Islam...?'

originally posted by: UnBreakable
a reply to: Profusion

But he is correct. Hillary is the one running as the staunch supporter of women's rights, other than Bill's victims, Saudi's, etc.

And he is the Crooked Donald who is pandering to you and treats women like possessions or toys.

Donald is a very poor researcher and his information is shallow. The trouble is his followers will see that tweet but they won't see the articles that debunk it and they will absorb it as gospel.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

That's just a propaganda lie. Straight up untruthful. Your credibility is zero for that.

a reply to: dragonridr
Wow let's rewrite history why don't we.
When Mubarak was ousted there were two choices for government. Military or Muslim brotherhood. America didn't get a choice in it at all. The Egyptian people chose them. It wasn't until many months later that the terrible mistake was realized.
I ask why aren't these serious problems being laid at the feet of trump. What does he have to offer?

a reply to: BlueAjah

Give it a break. The hearings are over.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Statement Regarding Democrats' Latest Distortion
May 17, 2016:

“Democrats are the only ones who ask witnesses about conspiracy theories, so it’s no surprise they continue to be dishonest and take things out of context in order to knock down their own straw men. Chairman Gowdy said nothing new today, despite Democrats’ distortions. This is simply an attempt by Democrats to distract from The Washington Post Fact Checker debunking another one of their false claims today. Benghazi Committee Republicans are conducting serious congressional oversight and a thorough investigation focused on the facts, not proving predetermined political conclusions. If only Democrats were interested in doing the same.”

May 20, 2016:
Media Matters(!) Debunks Democrats’ Dishonest Distortion of Chairman Gowdy’s Comments

The investigation is not over. The Obama administration is delaying and refusing to make witnesses available. Hillary tried to hide her emails regarding the incident, as evidenced by new emails found recently.

The final report will be on this page:
benghazi.house.gov...
Until you see a final report, the investigation is not complete.

a reply to: BlueAjah

It's over. It's even been admitted the entire thing was political.

a reply to: Sillyolme

No, it hasn't.
Did you read the information in the links in my last post?

Hillary claims she cares about women while taking donations from countries that stone women to death.

Donald is a very poor researcher and his information is shallow. The trouble is his followers will see that tweet but they won't see the articles that debunk it and they will absorb it as gospel.

Nope.

We'll accept it as yet another example of Donald not doing his fact-checking.

But...

We won't care.

Because, despite all of that, and such rather inconsequential sound-bites, our eye is on the bigger picture. If Hillary is elected, it means the continuation of the abolishing of our rights that accelerated during Obama's reign. Basically, there is ONE check and balance in the Constitution against the state assuming complete control. The Right to Bear Arms. Hillary has made it extremely known that if she had her way, this right would be abolished, putting us at the complete mercy of the state. Not the only right she wants to rid us of, but this is really a key indicator.

I'm not a gun nut, etc., but I do recognize the importance of this one check and balance against a state that has continually shown an agenda for more and more central control vs. states.

Also, simply put, Hillary is bought and paid for. Not just big business, but big banking, Wall Street, and even in some cases, our enemies! To think she can represent US and our interests, just flies in the face of logic.

For all of Trump's bravado, misspeaks, etc., I (and many others) do think that he genuinely does want to be a good President (even if only for his own branding!). I'll take that over someone paid to represent others, any day of the week. Missed minor facts and all.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

That's just a propaganda lie. Straight up untruthful. Your credibility is zero for that.

Really, roflmao! No, she didn't try to destroy any women slick Willy banged, assaulted, raped, took advantage of, on her watch as his, wife? That's what she's calling herself, right, in name only? We've been hearing about those tainted episodes long before that conniving vile witch, the mother of all lies, threw her damaged persona in the ring in 2007. Do the research rather than parrot propaganda ;-)

Try "Propaganda Lite," it's caffeine free and gives a little more wiggle room when it comes to ignoring the MSM!

Cheers - Dave

Clinton isn't even a feminist, though. I don't necessarily agree with Trump on the specific example, but he's right.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: dragonridr
Wow let's rewrite history why don't we.
When Mubarak was ousted there were two choices for government. Military or Muslim brotherhood. America didn't get a choice in it at all. The Egyptian people chose them. It wasn't until many months later that the terrible mistake was realized.
I ask why aren't these serious problems being laid at the feet of trump. What does he have to offer?

Didn't rewrite it just observed you might want to do some research in the support the state department offered the Muslim brotherhood. But it started even before that.


swampland.time.com...

originally posted by: damwel

originally posted by: UnBreakable
a reply to: Profusion

But he is correct. Hillary is the one running as the staunch supporter of women's rights, other than Bill's victims, Saudi's, etc.

And he is the Crooked Donald who is pandering to you and treats women like possessions or toys.

Pandering to me? He's already got my vote. In fact, he leads decisively in the white male demographic over Hillary. Treats women like possessions or toys? Could you provide a source for this blanket statement? Last I saw, he's employed and advanced many women in his businesses. Hillary runs on women's rights and she's always crowing about her equal pay push, yet the Clinton Foundation pays women less than men. Tsk-tsk. Of course, the liberal MSM is silent on this.

Pay Gap Alert: Clinton Foundation Male Execs Earn 38% More Than Women

On average, top male executives at the foundation earn $109,000 more than the top female executives with positions in the C-suite.

dailycaller.com...

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: Profusion

Clinton's support for women' rights extends to her rights only. It has nothing to do with any other women and that surely has the support of a long history of her own actions I'm regards to other females. Only she is entitled to rights, the rest of the women can go pound sand it seems.

Cheers - Dave

geez....if only you had taken a few minutes and done some research on Hillary and what she HAS DONE for women....but that would destroy your narrative.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: Profusion

Clinton's support for women' rights extends to her rights only. It has nothing to do with any other women and that surely has the support of a long history of her own actions I'm regards to other females. Only she is entitled to rights, the rest of the women can go pound sand it seems.

Cheers - Dave

geez....if only you had taken a few minutes and done some research on Hillary and what she HAS DONE for women....but that would destroy your narrative.

Since it is at least very unlikely proving a negative, maybe you could show us all lol.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: BlueAjah

I hate to break it to you, but primary sources carry no weight.

To get the correct story, you have to go with the agreed upon narrative which includes 'sources close to the investigation' and 'government insiders.'

Don't bother with facts which deal directly with the topic nor can anything from original documents be consideted relevant.

/sarc

(had to unclude the tag in case it weren't obvious to some)

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: BlueAjah

I hate to break it to you, but primary sources carry no weight.

To get the correct story, you have to go with the agreed upon narrative which includes 'sources close to the investigation' and 'government insiders.'

Don't bother with facts which deal directly with the topic nor can anything from original documents be consideted relevant.

/sarc

(had to unclude the tag in case it weren't obvious to some)

B... b... but the record...

It has to be correct!

a reply to: UnBreakable

Most liberals hate Hillary. Don't blame the Media as "liberal" media, it's "Corporate-controlled" media.