<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">If you look at Chris Christie, he was just standing there. He had nothing to say. Maybe he wasn't allowed to: <a href="https://t.co/XuaVTO9zLB">pic.twitter.com/XuaVTO9zLB</a></p>— Murtaza Hussain (@MazMHussain) <a href="https://twitter.com/MazMHussain/status/759573678480887808">July 31, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Well, I guess this answers the question about his advisors <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Woo boy. This whole exchange between <a href="https://twitter.com/brianstelter">@brianstelter</a> and Trump comms flak <a href="https://twitter.com/JasonMillerinDC">@JasonMillerinDC</a>: <a href="https://t.co/aAyJQSPY6Y">pic.twitter.com/aAyJQSPY6Y</a></p>— Sopan Deb (@SopanDeb) <a href="https://twitter.com/SopanDeb/status/759795923895582720">July 31, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Disagreeing with someone's memory of events and "calling them a liar" are totally different things. Lots of science have been done about memories and how people can remember different things from the same events. By your logic, since different families remember different versions of the same meeting, Clinton would have to either insult Ms. Smith or insult the other families no matter what she says. Clinton disagreed with Ms. Smith as politely and respectfully as she possibly could. Ms. Smith might be insulted and may continue to attack Clinton-- such is her right. Clinton didn't go out and say that Ms. Smith had no right to say what she said. Clinton didn't call Ms. Smith's speech an "attack" against her. Clinton didn't accuse Ms. Smith of being a Trump plant or having her address at the RNC written for her by Trump advisors, Clinton didn't question Ms. Smith's religion. Some of you people don't like Clinton and always spin every situation in the way that portrays her as a vicious liar. She may or may not be-- I don't know her personally. But objectively, her actions in public in handling grieving parents who question her views is much more competent than Trump's.
So Clinton "disagrees" with them suggesting that she told them the truth and instead was just lying to everyone else on TV? Is that the official story now?
So many things wrong with this, but I'll just point out one thing: NOW they figured out it's not about the Khans? This after Trump did everything possible to keep the focus about the Khans over the last few days? Mr. Khan's speech on Thursday was a powerful moment, but it's Trumps attack on why Mrs. Khan didn't speak that made Mr. and Mrs. Khan respond in the media and carried the story forward for several more days and evoked more condemnation.
Exactly, and Clinton THINKS that the video did play a role. Either way we can't even argue the details when we don't know the conversations she had with each family. It's such a small thing Another bit from the politifact article that seems to not get mentioned... So if I'm calling her a liar (which I'm not) than you are calling the other families liars as well then. Fair enough right? In the end this isn't even on the same planet as what Trump did.
Bobby, Nobody but you people who have long been determined to think of Clinton as a liar still cares about this. For the rest of us, the Benghazi hearings didn't produce anything meaningful. There is no clear reason as to why the administration would represent the nature of the attacks one way or the other in the days after it. Maybe they suspected one way or the other. Maybe things were still under investigation. May the information was contradictory and there was confusion. In the end, what difference does it make? <iframe width="480" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ny3bOmey-BE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Anyone who has a side to take on this matter has already taken a side. It's all priced into this election now. Her response to the interview question on Fox about the family does nothing to add anything more to it. Trump's response to the Khan family, on the other hand, adds fuel to the fire. He could have just recognized the family's loss and grief and insist that his policies are not designed to attack Muslim families like them, but to keep every one of us, including Muslim Americans, safe. Instead, he goes reacts in the most stupid way possible, shows a lack of empathy, and pits himself against a grieving military mother.
What an absolute mess. A horrifying and appalling shame, Mr Trump. Let this be the highlight of the failed disaster of a campaign. Let the numbers ring out when he is crushed by his opponent. Remind the American people who supported him this is the reason he will have lost. That they failed to see that his rhetoric has no place in a presidential election and that the bizarre statements he said have consequences. Stay home, Republicans. Vote your conscience.
The families of Chris Stevens said that Clinton never said anything about the video to them. So there is a question of what Clinton actually said to these families.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">McConnell statement on the Khan family doesn’t mention Trump and misspells Khan <a href="https://t.co/WHs381lxya">pic.twitter.com/WHs381lxya</a></p>— Reid J. Epstein (@reidepstein) <a href="https://twitter.com/reidepstein/status/759815786156453888">July 31, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
If Dems had such a man as their nominee, I would definitely vote a Romney over him. Country before party.
1. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Trump supporter attacking Khans on CNN right now and claiming Trump lost two wives because he “sacrificed” by working a lot.</p>— Teresa (@TeresaKopec) <a href="https://twitter.com/TeresaKopec/status/759829616450211840">July 31, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> This is NOT a joke. Scottie Nell Hughes is the Trump-supporting commentator here. 2. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Kelly Ayotte, who said this, also wants Trump to be president, which is weird. <a href="https://t.co/vpKEmPCMqW">https://t.co/vpKEmPCMqW</a> <a href="https://t.co/sbcJEN9dKz">pic.twitter.com/sbcJEN9dKz</a></p>— Josh Barro (@jbarro) <a href="https://twitter.com/jbarro/status/759832929451307008">July 31, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Carl, Nobody but "you people" who are determined to constantly do mental gymnastics in order to justify thinking that Clinton ISN'T a liar don't realize that she very obviously is a liar. Even those who ultimately support her have to realize that. It's not surprising that someone who is in that camp views the world in a totally binary way. Like I've tried to tell you multiple times now, in no way do I support Trump and in fact I'm very likely more anti-Trump than you are. Pointing out that Hillary is a national embarrassment and just an awful candidate does not mean I support Trump who I view as worse. At the same time, Trump being a national embarrassment doesn't erase the fact that Hillary is a complete disaster herself. One being bad does not make the other good. We have bad and worse to choose from, anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something.
So, I was wondering if the "Muslim(s) for Trump" guy had anything to say http://www.mediaite.com/tv/you-dont...an-obeidallah-muslim-trump-supporter-collide/ LOL, whatever Trump has, it's infectious
This is a very good point. Whatever we may think of his actual policies, it is his inability to respond to critics with reason and maturity that makes him so clearly unqualified for the job.
General John Allen, with whom Trump is also picking a fight after he spoke at the DNC, responds today and also addresses the Khan family situation: <iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rxOcxl_E2T0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Trump is just opening up a multi-front war about anyone who says anything about him in public. This is just totally stupid election strategy. Instead of pushing your own message, you spend more time on the defensive and making more enemies.
Less than an hour after the American public was told that the attacks were provoked by the video, Hillary told Chelsea without equivocation in an email that it was a terrorist attack by an "al-Qaeda like group" that killed four people in service to this country. A bit later she said/wrote the same thing to an Egyptian leader. I can get wanting to hold off until the facts are know, but then HOLD OFF... don't feed the public a story...
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">A religious test for entering our country is not reflective of America's fundamental values. I reject it. <a href="https://t.co/DdsYj2XoLS">pic.twitter.com/DdsYj2XoLS</a></p>— Paul Ryan (@SpeakerRyan) <a href="https://twitter.com/SpeakerRyan/status/759845524132524032">July 31, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> Should start a new thread to discuss this further, but this confirms it for me. The established republicans are keeping Trump around and letting him thrash around like the petulant child he is just so that they can distance themselves from his rhetoric. This allows the public to perceive the Republicans as being far more "moderate" (and thus, viable) compared to the outlier Trump. Ryan 2020 is in full swing
