Donald Trump at Debate: Hillary You Are No Abraham Lincoln. You are a Liar

[enhanced_deficit]

This was another key moment at the debate last night that would have major impact on rest of the race and in evaluation of public vs private positions of Hillary Clinton:


#AbeMadeMeLie




Related

#AbeMadeMeLie





Hillary Clinton's political career coming to end..

In an effort to keep those speeches private, strongly worded contracts prohibited unauthorized recordings, reporters were banned and, in some cases, blog posts about her remarks pulled off websites. Throughout her campaign, she has staunchly refused to release transcripts, resisting pressure from primary rival Bernie Sanders and the media to do so.

The WikiLeaks disclosures should be the kind of “October surprise” that would thrill Clinton’s opponents, who’ve spent years attacking her as untrustworthy and willing to say anything for personal gain.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/...treet-private/

[Antischism]

You should post the full quote so there's actual context.

[enhanced_deficit]

Ok, after reading this all, do you think it is ok for Hillary to have private and public positions on issues as she says towards the end?

[Ender]

Here's one site listing 100 lies by Trump- it only goes through March, so I'm sure there are several 100 more to add.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/4834/t...s-hank-berrien

[enhanced_deficit]

Here's one site listing 100 lies by Trump- it only goes through March, so I'm sure there are several 100 more to add.

Here is a site that states that Hillary Clinton is unfit for office.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...e-White-House&

But wrt private positions for wall street speeches vs public positions for mundanes, neither site address the debate question regarding the reasons behind such dual positioning system by neocons/war crimes lobbies preferred candidate.

[Ender]

Here is a site that states that Hillary Clinton is unfit for office.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...e-White-House&

But wrt private positions for wall street speeches vs public positions for mundanes, neither site address the debate question regarding the reasons behind such dual positioning system by neocons/war crimes lobbies preferred candidate.

I already know Hitlery's a liar- just posting one of many sites that also shows Trump as the liar HE is.

[wizardwatson]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/...treet-private/

CLINTON SPEAK IN ENGLISH:

You need to lie to the riff raff in order to get anything done, mostly on account of the riff raff being racist against us rich and evil people. Well, lie "more" anyway. It also sucks that we have to pretend not to be rich and powerful in order to get elected.

[enhanced_deficit]

I already know Hitlery's a liar- just posting one of many sites that also shows Trump as the liar HE is.

Ok, on that note, you believe Obama and Michelle Obama are also liars if you have seen the video that has surfaced?


Almost all politicians lie, some more than others. There are other aspects also that are main topic of this discussion:

But wrt private positions for wall street speeches vs public positions for mundanes, neither site address the debate question regarding the reasons behind such dual positioning system by neocons/war crimes lobbies preferred candidate.


Also, not all lies are created equal. Lying about bimbo eruptions is one thing, plotting a deception to run agenda of wall street war crimes lobbies is an entirely different type of lying. I'm sure you agree with that.

[Ender]

Ok, on that note, you believe Obama and Michelle Obama are also liars if you have seen the video that has surfaced?


Almost all politicians lie, some more than others. There are other aspects also that are main topic of this discussion:

But wrt private positions for wall street speeches vs public positions for mundanes, neither site address the debate question regarding the reasons behind such dual positioning system by neocons/war crimes lobbies preferred candidate.


Also, not all lies are created equal. Lying about bimbo eruptions is one thing, plotting a deception to run agenda of wall street war crimes lobbies is an entirely different type of lying. I'm sure you agree with that.

Name a politician, besides, Ron Paul, that hasn't lied on occasion.

My POV is that Obama has simply carried on what Bush set up.

I also think that O must be very careful because he has an actual family that resides with him in Washington. If he does not follow TPTB orders, he may see a family member exterminated. JFK woke up and tried to stop the bull$#@! and we know what happened to him.

JMHPOV

[fedupinmo]

Name a politician, besides, Ron Paul, that hasn't lied on occasion.

My POV is that Obama has simply carried on what Bush set up.

I also think that O must be very careful because he has an actual family that resides with him in Washington. If he does not follow TPTB orders, he may see a family member exterminated. JFK woke up and tried to stop the bull$#@! and we know what happened to him.

JMHPOV

Got any dirt on Darrell Castle? Chuck Baldwin perhaps?

Although honest and politicians are usually mutually exclusive terms, I think those two come pretty close to honest.

[silverhandorder]

You should post the full quote so there's actual context.

Here's one site listing 100 lies by Trump- it only goes through March, so I'm sure there are several 100 more to add.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/4834/t...s-hank-berrien

Why am I not surprised you two are defending Clinton and attacking Trump. Because I knew what democrats pretending to be libertarians would say. And that is the two of you. Anti schism does not even pretend.

[AZJoe]

NObama has simply carried on what Bush set up.

Carried it on and then cranked it into overdrive several fold. The terrible Mr. Bush spent 7 years in Afghanistan, 5 in Iraq.

Mr. Obama (the man who promised to end all wars and bring our troops home) added another 8 years to each. On top of that he overthrew the elected government of Honduras; blew up the sovereign nation of Libya; overthrew the elected government of Ukraine; funded a jihadists war of destruction in Syria; became the king of drone assassinations worldwide; became wedding bomber in chief of Pakistan; supplied the weapons and support for the Saudi Wahhabist Dictatorship's annihilation of Yemen and starvation of its people; imprisoned or declared war against whistleblower heroes; brought US military right to the borders of Russia; threatens China off its own shores; threatening to initiate direct military conflict with Russia; escalates every conflict he touches, ...

Can't wait to see how Hitlary is going to top that.

[AZJoe]

You should post the full quote so there's actual context.

Actual context provides spin for her lying duplicity, but no matter how much gilding, how eloquently you dress up the rationale for the deception, it is still just as bad.

[Jesse James]

Ok, after reading this all, do you think it is ok for Hillary to have private and public positions on issues as she says towards the end?

course not

[Ender]

Why am I not surprised you two are defending Clinton and attacking Trump. Because I knew what democrats pretending to be libertarians would say. And that is the two of you. Anti schism does not even pretend.

I've never defended Clinton.

Try having decent dialog w/o name calling.

[Antischism]

Ok, after reading this all, do you think it is ok for Hillary to have private and public positions on issues as she says towards the end?

I think it's simply the reality of politics; it's not exclusive to Hillary. Politics are ugly, there's a gross lack of transparency, and people in power are beholden to moneyed interests. I think she's right that it's effective if you want to get things done in Washington, but that's always entirely dependent on who's being Machiavellian if we're to completely disregard transparency. Do the ends justify the means in establishing a more libertarian society? In other words, would we be decrying the public/private position if it was necessary to end the War on Drugs, for example?

The problem here is that we don't trust a career politician like Hillary Clinton to get sausage made. We also wouldn't trust Donald Trump to do this, either. In fact, Trump's outlandish claims and constant fibbing while arguing that he's great at negotiating (down) is a perfect example of what Hillary's talking about. That is an example of someone with a public position and a private position.

I think there should always be as much transparency as possible, but our system is inherently broken and rotten to the core, so I don't ever hold my breath hoping for real, drastic change — I'd end up suffocating if I did. All I can really do is educate, take pleasure in small victories, and hope that government is at least slowly chipped away at. People generally prefer gradualism over revolution.

Why am I not surprised you two are defending Clinton and attacking Trump. Because I knew what democrats pretending to be libertarians would say. And that is the two of you. Anti schism does not even pretend.

Actual context provides spin for her lying duplicity, but no matter how much gilding, how eloquently you dress up the rationale for the deception, it is still just as bad.

What? How is providing the full quote a defense of Hillary Clinton? If it's a defense to those saying she made up the Abraham Lincoln bit, why is it a problem to have the facts? There's no mutual exclusivity in wanting the facts along with context and disagreeing with parts of the quote.

[silverhandorder]

No your interest in being the one to call us on anything when Hillary is involved is the problem. You are always the first one to jump in when she is involved. It's obvious.

[Antischism]

No your interest in being the one to call us on anything when Hillary is involved is the problem. You are always the first one to jump in when she is involved. It's obvious.

If you want to be ignorant, that's your prerogative. Do you not have the ability to counter what I present with evidence to the contrary? If you do, by all means, present it. This isn't a safe space where you can champion bullsh!t — regardless of candidate — and go unchecked.

[silverhandorder]

I've never defended Clinton.

Try having decent dialog w/o name calling.

That is not name calling it is the truth. Look at you trying to provide balance by going after Trump. In a thread that is bashing Hillary. That is obvious tell for what you are.

[silverhandorder]

If you want to be ignorant, that's your prerogative. Do you not have the ability to counter what I present with evidence to the contrary? If you do, by all means, present it. This isn't a safe space where you can champion bullsh!t — regardless of candidate — and go unchecked.

I don't want to and I am not ignorant. The fact that I am not ignorant lets me see that you are a democrat that is trying to cause trouble on RPF. I don't care tho, because I can call you out.

[timosman]

I don't want to and I am not ignorant. The fact that I am not ignorant lets me see that you are a democrat that is trying to cause trouble on RPF. I don't care tho, because I can call you out.

Antischism is using the false equivalence trick to convince you there is no difference.

[silverhandorder]

Antischism is using the false equivalence trick to convince you there is no difference.

It's false equivalence and the fact that he is interested to pick a fight or correct the record on this. It's not coming from un biased person but by him. Before I even seen his post I knew he would make that particular post.

[Jesse James]

FTR, I'll take Hillary over Lincoln

[Antischism]

I don't want to and I am not ignorant. The fact that I am not ignorant lets me see that you are a democrat that is trying to cause trouble on RPF. I don't care tho, because I can call you out.

So you have nothing of substance, then. You're just crying because you can't revel in an ignorant safe space like the Reddit Trump sub-forum.

[timosman]

So you have nothing of substance, then. You're just crying because you can't revel in an ignorant safe space like the Reddit Trump sub-forum.

Wow, a name calling.

[Ender]

That is not name calling it is the truth. Look at you trying to provide balance by going after Trump. In a thread that is bashing Hillary. That is obvious tell for what you are.

You NEVER have a counter argument; you NEVER discuss. You only call names and throw insults.

I am not trying to provide "balance". I am simply showing that BOTH candidates are piles of $#@!; neither are worthy of running the country and both are 2 of the scariest people on the planet.

Using your logic, it is YOU that is the Clinton shill because you badger and snark at everyone, who doesn't pretend to be in love with Trump, making the Trump supporters look as bad as he is.

This drives more people away from Trump and into looking at possibilities, elsewhere. Your Clinton candidate wins.