This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
So 5-6 months later, Blumenthal believed there were ties to the group that originally claimed responsibility, then retracted that claim the next morning. What does Blumenthal's belief in Feb 2013 have to do with Hillary's state of mind on Sept 13 after the group had retracted their claim of responsibility?
Blumenthal is reporting from sources within the Algerian government, that's live intelligence from two ex-CIA agents, not looking at Facebook, stating the attack was funded in August 2012. If we believe Hillary it's a really sad commentary that our SOS was relying on Facebook to make military and foreign policy decisions. The point is that Hillary's live, contemporaneous statement to the Egyptian FM, which came after the men who were on the ground had returned - they had no doubt about what had happened, they were there - was confirmed with human intelligence to Hillary by people she trusted by February 2013.
Sorry, but I just don't buy this, at all. You can take statements from folks who all witnessed a car wreck 3 hours earlier and there will be mistakes, inconsistencies, and flat out wrong information. From people who both saw the accident and who were in it. The idea that less than 24 hours after the attack was over we knew for sure all of the exact details and that there was absolutely no conflicting information isn't reasonable.
The most beloved president of our time. Yeah, the rabid left hates everything right because they are intolerant of anyone who dares to have a different opinion. But that is not a reflection of normal people. 
Dont' her emails to Chelsea on the night of and the recent remarks of the CIA station chief in Benghazi indicate that on the evening of they knew it wasn't a matter of the "video"
Republicans did not even like Reagan that much when he left office, his modern popularity is entirely manufactured. The overall public gave him an overall rating of mid 50's which is pretty average compared to other presidents, and Republicans gave him a rating in the 70's. It was not until the mid/late 1990's that he became a religious figure and his republican support jumped into the 90's. Any Republican who talks about how much they love Reagan is getting their entire opinion from the media. It is no different that the satanic panic or all the kids of falsely accusing people of child molestation in the 80's. It is easy to put ideas into people's heads, and where can you find a more gullible group of people than conservatives. Unless you want me to believe that all of these Republican's would love a tax raising president who voted for gun control. You know, like Reagan did.
That is a nice theory. Too bad it is a bunch a BS. A lot of people here including myself grew up during those years and know you are completely wrong on your assessment.
By 2.3% - big deal.
Way to prove that he wasn't popular and his popularity is all manufactured. Wait...I thought Reagan was Red and Mondale was blue. Never mind.
As someone who lived through both of those times, that's hardly the way I remember it. Reagan left with the Soviet Union crumbling, GW Bush left with us mired in an unwinnable war in Iraq.
You also are using an average number where GW Bush's numbers would be skewed by the 9/11 reaction of the public to a level that would be an anomaly in any statistical sample. You need to brush up on statistics.
Polls are influenced by numerous things. In the early few years of Reagan the economy was in the dumps still and Reagan's number suffered. During the middle years, Reagan's ratings were very high, usually in the 60's. Then towards the end, Iran-contra knock him down to the low 50's, People who lived through those years, know what Reagan did for the morale of the nation and for helping turn the economy around. Most people today consider him one of the great Presidents in US history. Your metric for evaluating presidencies is very shallow and you only use it because it is one metric which Reagan only did average on.
Devito is a Sanders supporter btw.
Reagan's presidency isn't holding up well over time. It's amazing that you Reagan rimmers believe that Hillary isn't fit to lead due to being careless about emails, but are willing to overlook Ronnie selling arms to Iranians.
Really wish there'd be less of this. When you focus on body and looks it diminishes the real substantive issues with her as a leader. It's too easy and frankly a fair point when you focus on the superficial to pin differences as related to disrespect of women.
Her email to Chelsea indicates what she thought at the time. That could have changed the next minute after the email was sent, or the next hour, or the next day, as new information arose.
Piece of wisdom someone far wiser than me shared around a decade or so ago when I was constantly outraged - stay away from purporting to know someone's motivations when it comes to politics. Stick with facts and assume either neutrality or give them the benefit of the doubt.
This is bull####. Take a guy like Trump. You can't give him the benefit of the doubt,. It's out and out dangerous. Patriotism is satire, cynicism and doubt with a backbone,
Forgetting whatever narrative of defense structure you're suggesting, do YOU believe what you're saying COULD have happened?
Except she's adopted just about every position Sanders has. And according to you there won't be time to educate people anyway. So Trump calling her a Socialist will have zero impact but it will cause Bernie to lose?squistion said:
Well, duh, she has never, ever, even once, not one time labeled herself as a Socialist. If they call her that she can truthfully refute it. While Bernie will admit it proudly as he has done repeatedly. And she has adopted just about every position Bernie has? Like single payer? Like free college for everyone? (The list of differences goes on but is pointless to recap).
So, you're giving Trump the benefit of the doubt right??
Not unless she flips on her positions. Even the general public gets math like A=B and B=C then A=C. She keeps her platform the only thing she can do "truthfully" is embrace the label as Bernie has, but she won't do that.
