Supplemental: Rubio drops the bomb in debate!

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2015

And other signs of the times:
The functioning of our upper-end press corps is just amazingly low.

Given their incomes and social cachet, it's amazing how unimpressive they tend to be. Last night's Republican debate provided a gruesome case in point.

Repeatedly, the questions were both snarky/negative and unchallenging at the same time. Intellectual rigor never quite entered the building.

Opportunistically, the candidates kept noting the snark and the negativity. This let them extend a familiar old charge concerning alleged liberal bias.

Becky Quick provided the evening's comic relief with her question to Candidate Trump about a statement on his official web site. Uh-oh! As became apparent, Quick didn't seem to have any idea where the statement in question had come from. When Trump denied that he's made the statement, Quick was left to say this:
QUICK (10/28/15): Where did I read this and come up with this? That you were—

TRUMP: Probably— I don’t know. You people write the stuff. I don’t know where you—

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

TRUMP: [Rolls eyes in frustration]
After the audience laughed at Quick, Trump continued to speak. Moments later, this exchange occurred on the same topic:
QUICK: If I may say, Mr. Trump. You’ve been, you have been— You had talked a little bit about Marco Rubio. I think you called him Mark Zuckerberg’s personal senator because he was in favor of the H1B [visas].

TRUMP: I never said that. I never said that.

QUICK: So this was an erroneous article the whole way around?
Presumably, Quick had been provided the information in question by staff. For herself, she seemed to have no idea where the info came from.

Later in the evening, Quick returned to the subject, informing Trump that she had been quoting material from his own web site. Trump and Quick made quite a pair this evening.

Everyone can make a mistake. Quick's cluelessness concerning her own material may reveal the haphazard way our big TV stars gather their information and their understandings. That said, the American discourse is conducted at a very low intellectual level. This has been true for a very long time.

Here's an horrific example:

Last night, the public was exposed to a famous old script which we thought was withering on the vine. Candidate Christie uncorked the old chestnut, a gruesome tale the liberal world has never known how to address:
CHRISTIE: Let me be honest with the people who are watching at home. The government has lied to you and they have stolen from you. They told you that your Social Security money is in a trust fund. All that’s in that trust fund is a pile of IOUs for money they spent on something else a long time ago.

And they’ve stolen from you because now they know they cannot pay these benefits and Social Security is going to be insolvent in seven to eight years.

[...]

This is for the guy, you know, who owns a landscaping business out there. If somebody’s already stolen money from you, are you going to give them more?...We need to get realistic about this. We’re not— The American people, forget about anything else, they’ve already been lied to and stolen from...
"Let me be honest with the people at home," Christie sub-honestly said.

Why are Republican voters angry? In large part, because they've been hearing stories like that for the past thirty-plus years.

In that hoary old story, they've been lied to and stolen from by the federal government. All the money they've submitted in payroll taxes is now a pile of worthless IOUs. Social Security will soon be going broke.

The liberal world has never devised a clear response to that hoary old tale. Nor has the liberal world ever tried to create outreach to the tens of millions of people who get deceived by this hoary old story. The laziness of the liberal world is a large part of our ongoing story, in which our society continues to spiral downward in the face of tales of that type.

How useless are our liberal leaders? We've saved the worst for last. As Halloween approaches, this particular horror story came from Candidate Rubio:
RUBIO: OK. I know the Democrats have the ultimate SuperPac. It’s called the mainstream media, who every single day—

(APPLAUSE)

—and I’ll tell you why.

Last week, Hillary Clinton went before a committee. She admitted she had sent e-mails to her family saying, “Hey, this attack at Benghazi was caused by Al Qaida-like elements.” She spent over a week telling the families of those victims and the American people that it was because of a video. And yet the mainstream media is going around saying it was the greatest week in Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

It was the week she got exposed as a liar. It was the week that she got exposed as a liar—

(APPLAUSE)

But she has her super PAC helping her out, the American mainstream media.

QUICK: Senator Rubio, thank you very much.
Candidate Clinton was exposed as a liar last week! Here's how Rubio knows that:

Clinton sent an e-mail to her daughter saying the attack at Benghazi was caused by an al Qaeda-like group. But she told the American people that the attack was because of a video!

Did Secretray Clinton ever attribute the attack to the video? We aren't entirely sure.

But as any sane person can see, there's no contradiction there. Despite what Rubio was selling last night, there's no obvious reason why an al Qaeda-like group couldn't stage an attack because of an insulting video.

Is that what actually happened? In the wake of last week's hearing, we haven't seen a single news org try to report the facts about this situation.

What is the current state of intel concerning the cause of the attack? We've seen no one ask or say.

Once again, the L-bombs began to fly after last Thursday's hearing. The mainstream press and the liberal world both sat around sucking their thumbs, as is the reliable norm.

We're stuck inside our own Salem Village, feeding urine cakes to dogs. Our national discourse operates at roughly mental age 10. Little Betty Parris was 9 when she touched off the irrational frenzy inside historical Salem.

We're hapless and lazy and nobody likes us. We lost the White House this way in 2000. We could easily do it again.

56 comments:

  1. The CNBC moderators were inept and biased. Cruz did a great job of pointing out the bias, because he included specifics:

    "The questions asked in this debate illustrate why the American people don't trust the media."

    "This is not a cage match. And you look at the questions -- Donald Trump, are you a comic book villain? Ben Carson, can you do math? John Kasich, will you insult two people over here? Marco Rubio, why don't you resign? Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen? How about talking about the substantive issues," Cruz said to commanding applause from the audience....

    "...The contrast with the Democratic debate, where every thought and question from the media was, which of you is more handsome and why?" Cruz asked ...

    "Let me be clear," Cruz said. "The men and women on this stage have more ideas, more experience, more common sense, than every participant in the Democratic debate. That debate reflected a debate between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks."

    "Nobody believes that the moderators have any intention of voting in a Republican primary," Cruz said.

    "The questions being asked shouldn't be trying to get people to tear into each other, it should be what are your substantive solutions to people at home," Cruz said before getting cut off.


    The moderators helped confirm Cruz's accusation by interrupting him and hassling while he gave this statement.

    See: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/10/28/cruz_rips_press_at_cnbc_debate_this_debate_illustrates_why_we_can_not_trust_the_media.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cruz did a great job. Mark Levin loved it. Has he gotten to the bottom of that Jade Helm secret plan by the US Army to take over Texas and steal all their golfs?

      My money is on Dr. Carson - he has such a soothing tranquilizing voice. And he has that unique ability to lie without blinking his eyes.

      Go Jeb(!). I mean just go do the other "cool things" you could be doing. The peasants just don't appreciate the sacrifice you're making. Noblesse oblige just isn't appreciated by the masses anymore.

      You must be very proud. What a pack of whiners, crybabies, LIARS and cowards. It's so hard to choose.

      Delete
    2. @mm

      You're fortunate. The menu of Dem whiners, crybabies, LIARS and cowards was determined long ago to be an entrée of flounder, aka HRC. It saves on the exasperating imposition of having to make a selection.

      Delete
    3. Can you refer to some of these flattering questions the Dems got? You can't David, because, like Crus, you are full of shit.

      Delete
    4. poor little babies had to endure some pushback on their lunacy:

      http://www.vox.com/2015/10/28/9633420/ted-cruz-republican-debate

      Delete
    5. Is Vox kidding? This is their pathetic defense of CNBC:

      Take the question to Trump. He wasn't asked if he was a comic book villain. He was asked why his policies sound like "a comic book version of a presidential campaign."

      Vox is splitting hairs. Whether or not CNBC used the specific word "villain", they accused Trump of being bad and compared him to a comic book. That's not a professional debate question; it's a school yard taunt.

      Furthermore, Vox ignored the nasty tone of the questions, the frequent interruptions, the moderators' arrogance and obvious disrespect, and their hectoring of the candidates

      Delete
    6. "Vox is splitting hairs."

      Look who's talking. Does your wife still wear her "I'm with stupid" t-shirt when you're out in public together?

      Delete
    7. Vox's analysis is spot on. Trump's campaign is a joke. He goes around saying how awesome he is, and how everyone else is "stupid," how great he would be as president -- how we're gonna "win so much, you'll get sick of winning," and how easily he could do all these crazy things, like make Mexico pay for a wall between our countries. And he never says the first thing about how any of it is going to actually happen. And ideas like Carson's flat tax of between 10 and 15 is ludicrous and reveals how shockingly out of touch with reality (both in terms of poor people's plight and in terms of how government works) he is. These people deserve to be called out for their fatuousness and lunacy.

      'The questions in the CNBC debate, though relentlessly tough, were easily the most substantive of the debates so far. And the problem for Republicans is that substantive questions about their policy proposals end up sounding like hostile attacks — but that's because the policy proposals are ridiculous, not because the questions are actually unfair.

      'The Republican primary has thus far been a festival of outlandish policy. The candidates seem to be competing to craft the tax plan that gives the largest tax cut to the rich while blowing the biggest hole in the deficit (a competition that, as of tonight, Ted Cruz appears to be winning). And the problem is when you ask about those plans, simply stating the facts of the policies sounds like you're leveling a devastating attack.

      'Take the question to Trump. He wasn't asked if he was a comic book villain. He was asked why his policies sound like "a comic book version of a presidential campaign." And the question was specific. Moderator John Harwood asked, "Mr. Trump, you have done very well in this campaign so far by promising to build another wall and make another country pay for it. Send 11 million people out of the country. Cut taxes $10 trillion without increasing the deficit."

      Trump declined to explain how he could cut taxes by $10 trillion without increasing the deficit. Instead, he appealed to another CNBC personality for support. "Larry Kudlow, who sits on your panel, who's a great guy, came out the other day and said, 'I love Trump's tax plan.'"

      As for the wall, Trump didn't get very specific there, either. "A politician cannot get them to pay. I can." That is ... not an answer.'

      Delete
    8. If you have the stomach to peruse the conblog dreck, you will will can predict what David in Cal & cicero will post in the comments to within a plus-or-minus 5% certainty.

      Coincidence? I think not.

      Delete
    9. Here's the genius, Ted Cruz, whining like a petulant child:

      "And Carl, I'm not finished yet. The contrast with the Democratic debate, where every thought and question from the media was, which of you is more handsome and why?" Cruz asked and then paused to cough.

      First of all, why would he attack the CNBC moderators for the questions asked at the Democratic debate by CNN moderators?

      Second, his characterization of the questions asked at the Democratic debate is completely fraudulent. Show us one single question asked of the Democratic candidates that would support Cruz's ludicrous accusation. You can't, cause it isn't true.

      Unfortunately, republicans are embarrassed at the stark difference between the adults on the stage at the Democratic debate and the clown car performance at the republicans'.

      So now they demand Affirmative Action for Republicans. They want their lies and preposterous proposals to be treated equally to the sound thoughtful policies proposed by the Democrats. Wingnut welfare. Our climate denial should be treated just as respectfully as the scientifically based global warming facts.

      So now we hear that all the candidates are getting together to change the debates. Trumps wants only republicans asking questions. The other campaigns are all jumping on board.

      Keep it up guys, I'm looking forward to a Democratic landslide next November.

      Delete
    10. Republicans have set a new world record for most Medicine Show hucksters on the stage at one time.

      Mike Huckabee - Huckabee profited from renting his MikeHuckabee.com email list to a wide range of shady characters, including a medical quack claiming he knew Alzheimer's disease cures;

      Dr. Ben Carsen - the Wall Street Journal has cataloged Carson’s relationship with Mannatech in detail, and you can watch a video of him endorsing the company's products right here: Mannatech has faced scrutiny over its claims that its vitamins could cure everything from autism to cancer, and it paid $7 million to settle deceptive advertising charges brought by the Texas attorney general.

      Delete
    11. Mike L. "Vox's analysis is spot on. Trump's campaign is a joke."

      I agree with you, Mike, but it's bias for CNBC to say so during the debate. IMHO most of these campaigns are a joke. Suppose the moderator of the Dem debate had asked Hillary why she was conducting a comic book version of a presidential campaign. I don't think you'd consider that to be good, professional questioning.

      mm: First of all, why would he attack the CNBC moderators for the questions asked at the Democratic debate by CNN moderators?

      mm, don't you know the answer? Republicans view the mainstream media as united against them. In that view, CNN and CNBC are part of the same anti-Republican group. Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) popularized this view, calling the media "Democratic operatives with bylines." Rubio expressed this view in the debate, saying, "Democrats have the ultimate Super PAC. It's called the mainstream media."

      The fact that the media really are anti-Republican was demonstrated by the JournoList conspiracy, and the fact that none of the participants got fired.

      Delete
    12. The media are neither liberal nor conservative. They are owned by corporate entities with their own agenda. Their interests are served when people fail to unite against them to assert their common interests. It is divide and conquer, which you aid and abet here.

      Delete
    13. D in C, please describe how the mainstream media has treated any GOP candidate in way comparable to how they have gone after Clinton magnifying the picayune email so-called scandal and mischaracterizing what Clinton and Rice actually said after the Bengazi attacks, enabling the GOP to manufacture this bogus issue into one of their biggest campaign narratives.

      Delete
    14. AC/MA -- George Bush's intelligence is one example that comes to mind. Bush not only graduated from Yale, but he successfully completed a prestigeous MBA degree at Harvard. Overall, he was a successful businessman. His oil-related company failed, but as Managing Partner of the Texas Rangers, the team was fabulously profitable. As a politician in Texas, he defeated a very strong, capable candidate for Governor -- Ann Richards. Yet the media portrayed his as dumb, over and over.

      OTOH Al Gore's academic record was inferior to Bush's. He did graduate from Harvard. Like Bush, he was a mediocre college student. But, after college, Gore flunked out as a journalism graduate student and as a graduate Theology student at a school less prestigeous than Harvard. Yet, the media always treated Gore as highly intelligent.

      Delete
    15. So you think it's true that Trump's campaign is a joke, but its biased to say so.

      Interesting coginitive dissonance there, David.

      Delete
    16. "cognitive" of course.

      Delete
    17. GW has been an amazing success story. He made it to President of the United States without every mastering the English language.

      Delete
    18. mm -- I do agree with your criticism of the two medical hucksters. I find that behavior disgusting for people who know better or should know better. John Edwards was another such. He made a fortune by propounding phony medical theories to naive juries. Pat Robertson with his phony faith healing was an disgusting item.

      Delete
    19. Anon 12:36 I think it's improper for a debate moderator to give an opinion like that in the course of a question. E.g., Many conservatives think Hillary Clinton is a notorious liar. But, I would disapprove of a debate question like, "Ms. Clinton, we know you're a notorious liar, but would you please tell us your alleged position on such and such an issue."

      Delete
    20. AC/MA -- Another example of media bias is Romney attaching his dog's cage to the roof of his station wagon. This was a perfectly reasonable way to transport the animal. It had been reported as reasonable by the Boston Globe. However, the New York Times and others changed the story to say that the dog, not the cage, was attached to the roof of the car. They pretended that Romney had done something cruel to the pet. Then they repeated the false story ad nausium.

      Delete
    21. David, it's ad nauseam, not ad nausium. Why do you hate Western civilization?

      Delete
    22. @Dionysius

      Were you terribly surprised to discover that your search for an honest man (or women) in the Democratic Party proved futile.

      Delete
    23. @ 414pm - Independent Russian news media estimate the Internet Research Agency employs 400 trolls. A former staffer, Ludmila Savchuk, told Mr. Chen that over two 12-hour shifts she was expected to produce propaganda amounting to five political posts, 10 nonpolitical posts and at least 150 comments on posts created by co-workers, often criticizing the American or Ukrainian government. Russian trolls sometimes pose as American liberals or conservatives on U.S. news sites, giving a false impression of public opinion.

      Mr. Putin has focused on undermining the Internet since 2011, after political opponents used Twitter and other social media to organize protests against a rigged parliamentary election. Last year he called the Internet a “CIA project.”

      Delete
  2. You know, it is a shame liberal world and all its lazy leaders let innocent helpless children like Al Gore and Hillary Clinton get eaten alive. We could have real leaders running our country if liberal world showed more leadership.


    We'll be better off without liberal world.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @5:29

      Does standing by helplessly watching meat being consumed violate the oath of liberal vegans?

      Delete
    2. Does pretending to believe in something while getting paid in pennies for trolling while living in your mother's basement violate the oath of the noble tehadist keyboard warriors?

      FTFY - now drop dead.

      Delete
    3. @ 1:03

      Spoken like one of the David Brock Correct The Record recruited "nerd virgins"*

      *Paul Begala term for Brock's Super PAC minions

      Delete
    4. @ 1128pm - Independent Russian news media estimate the Internet Research Agency employs 400 trolls. A former staffer, Ludmila Savchuk, told Mr. Chen that over two 12-hour shifts she was expected to produce propaganda amounting to five political posts, 10 nonpolitical posts and at least 150 comments on posts created by co-workers, often criticizing the American or Ukrainian government. Russian trolls sometimes pose as American liberals or conservatives on U.S. news sites, giving a false impression of public opinion.

      Mr. Putin has focused on undermining the Internet since 2011, after political opponents used Twitter and other social media to organize protests against a rigged parliamentary election. Last year he called the Internet a “CIA project.”

      Delete
  3. Where can I get the recipe for urine cake? I have an office party coming up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can get it at the Hoary Old Tale.

      Delete
  4. Based on a recent analysis done by leading media muser Bob Somerby, I would have to say it would be extreme to suggest this act of pandering by Rubio remotely resembled bomb dropping.

    I believe Somerby has more recently defined Rubio's act as "possibly pandered and fawned a bit to a key part of the base."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bob must've been sued for being too definitive. He is a living legend among the legal community in the use of weasel words.

      Delete
    2. We have often asked are these weasels even life forms.

      Delete
  5. The right wing big mouths of the comments page don't seem to be able to show where Bob is wrong about Rubio's accusation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the best they got is Dinky and cicero, they've already lost.

      Delete
    2. Right. I've asked cicero at least twice now to reveal to us all exactly how he knows Clinton lied about Benghazi. Still waiting for his airtight case.

      Delete
    3. @ Loudmilk

      No mention of protests to YouTube video (spontaneous or otherwise) in official timeline.

      "Time line of Events on September 11 and 12, 20123
      Timeline (all times are local)45678

      Before the attack - Libyan security officials are outside of the TMF

      09:42PM DS personnel alert the CIA Annex and U.S. Embassy in Tripoli of the attack. State Diplomatic Security (DS) personnel and local guard force run across the TMF compound. The Libyan security officials depart. Three DS officers are in the Threat Operations Center (TOC). Attackers appear at the front gate.

      "Various witnesses and senior military officials serving in the Obama Administration testified to this Committee, the House Armed Services Committee, and the Senate Armed Services Committee that they knew from the moment the attacks began that the attacks were deliberate terrorist acts against U.S. interests. No witness has reported believing at any point that the attacks were anything but terrorist
      acts."

      "This timeline was developed from the totality of evidence compiled by HPSCI throughout the course of the investigation,including surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) video footage; FBI intelligence reports; CIA cables; and email traffic. The timeline is also largely corroborated by witnesses' personal recollections. Some of the details of the precise timing that night varied among eyewitnesses, which is expected when witnesses rely on their recollections of a chaotic event.

      4 Video Footage of CIA Annex and State Department TMF September 11-12, 2012"

      http://fas.org/irp/congress/2014_rpt/benghazi-hpsci.pdf

      HRC knew all this on September 11/12 2012 as her emails to daughter and President of Libya and PM of Egypt prove.

      To continue to promote a cover story to Americans and international community when you know it to be false is considered lying. Isn't that what libs accuse Bush 43 of doing with WOMD's?

      Delete
    4. @ 1203pm - Independent Russian news media estimate the Internet Research Agency employs 400 trolls. A former staffer, Ludmila Savchuk, told Mr. Chen that over two 12-hour shifts she was expected to produce propaganda amounting to five political posts, 10 nonpolitical posts and at least 150 comments on posts created by co-workers, often criticizing the American or Ukrainian government. Russian trolls sometimes pose as American liberals or conservatives on U.S. news sites, giving a false impression of public opinion.

      Mr. Putin has focused on undermining the Internet since 2011, after political opponents used Twitter and other social media to organize protests against a rigged parliamentary election. Last year he called the Internet a “CIA project.”

      Delete
  6. Needless to say, none of this shows Clinton lied

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Loudmilk

      Needless to say, Clintonistas will never admit HRC has ever lied, never mind her lies about ponying up different stories about the attack depending on the audience.

      But good to know you don't believe Bush 43 lied about WOMDs in Iraq.

      Delete
    2. @ 410pm - Independent Russian news media estimate the Internet Research Agency employs 400 trolls. A former staffer, Ludmila Savchuk, told Mr. Chen that over two 12-hour shifts she was expected to produce propaganda amounting to five political posts, 10 nonpolitical posts and at least 150 comments on posts created by co-workers, often criticizing the American or Ukrainian government. Russian trolls sometimes pose as American liberals or conservatives on U.S. news sites, giving a false impression of public opinion.

      Mr. Putin has focused on undermining the Internet since 2011, after political opponents used Twitter and other social media to organize protests against a rigged parliamentary election. Last year he called the Internet a “CIA project.”

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. cicero, Clinton has undoubtedly lied from time to time, as we all have. (so there's something else you're wrong about. the list is growing.) but you still haven't shown that she lied about Benghazi. and you'll never admit you don't have the goods, because you're too invested in your narrative at this point. by the way, if Clinton's dishonesty is such a point of moral outrage for you, then if you're going to be intellectually and morally consistent, you would show just as much outrage over the dishonesty that constantly spews forth from the Republicans:

      http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/factchecking-the-cnbc-debates/

      http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ben-carson/

      http://www.mediaite.com/tv/scarborough-marco-rubio-flat-out-lied-to-the-american-people-during-debate/

      http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

      http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/10/are-we-allowed-say-marco-rubio-lying-about-his-tax-plan

      So if it is simple dishonesty that you are going to make the acid test for judging a public figure, it certainly shouldn't be the Republicans you support.

      Regarding Bush and Iraq: http://theweek.com/articles/555921/george-w-bush-didnt-just-lie-about-iraq-war-what-did-much-worse

      Delete
  7. Re: the SS Trust Fund.
    Bob says, "The liberal world has never devised a clear response to that hoary old tale."

    This liberal has, and it isn't even hard to do. I've offered to buy all those useless IOUs (AKA US treasury Notes) for 2 cents on the dollar going back to 2005, when W started this fairytale. Not one of the owners of those worthless IOUs has taken me up on a deal which will give them real US currency in exchange for something worthless. Do you know why? Because that hoary old tale is a lie, and I show it's a lie every time I make my offer.
    BTW, conservatives HATE when you agree with them. More liberals should try it.
    Conservatives want prayer in school? Good, tell 'em you agree and their grandkids can start reciting daily prayers to Allah on Monday morning.
    Conservatives want smaller government? Good, the government can stop enforcing contracts. That'll make the government smaller.
    Conservatives want the government to stop free handouts to layabouts? Great, government subsidies to fossil fuel companies ends today.

    It's easy. All you have to do is take Conservatives at their word. Within seconds they'll stop believing everything they profess to.

    Berto

    ReplyDelete
  8. The fact checker says: two pinocchios!

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/10/30/is-hillary-clinton-a-liar-on-benghazi/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In this case two pinocchios are worse than four. The fact checker bought Clinton's excuse that she wasn't intentionally lying. She told two contradictory stories because she got confused in the "fog of war." Hence, only two pinocchios.

      I think the nation don't care that much if a President lies. They all lie. We know that. But, someone who gets confused during the fog of war should not be Commander in Chief.

      Delete
    2. David, David, David. The Pinocchios went to Rubio.

      Delete
    3. Thanks for the correction, Caesar.My bad :(

      My point stands, though. The fact checker agreed that Clinton told contradictory stories. However, he assigned two pinocchios to Rubio, because Rubio can't show that Clinton's contradictions were intentional. But, contradictions due to confusion may be a bigger criticism of a potential President than intentional lying.

      Delete
    4. "Thanks for the correction." Translation: oops! Caught lying again.

      Delete
    5. No, your point doesn't still stand, Davy Wavy. Because it never stood. Your side failed to show that Clinton lied about Benghazi, and so now, out of desperation, you suddenly, opportunistically just make up a whole new, ridiculous, unprecedented, inhuman standard so that you can still run and scream "she still can't be president, you guys, cuz...cuz...cuz her view of something changed as a result of changing intelligence." what absolute, unadulterated, grade A bullshit. you would never hold anyone on your side of the political aisle to such a ridiculous, impossible standard. literally impossible. as if she was supposed to somehow magically know exactly what happened in a chaotic event in a remote part of the other side of the world immediately after it happened and then never adjust her view regardless of what new intelligence might come in. just admit it, dude, you guys got nothin' left to hit her with, so you're just pulling shit straight out of your asses at this point. get used to hearing "Madam President," Davy.

      Delete
    6. Besides, Mike, terrorists could have been motivated in part by the anti-Muhammad film. Moreover, Hillary was talking about both the Benghazi attack and the violent protests all over the Islamic world. Pseudo-conservatives don't understand because they don't want to understand.

      Delete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete