Uh Ohhhh, Donald...

Pope Francis Shocks World, Endorses Hillary Clinton for President, Releases Statement

VATICAN CITY – News outlets around the world are reporting on the news that Pope Francis has made the unprecedented decision to endorse a US presidential candidate. His statement in support of Hillary Clinton was released from the Vatican this evening:

“I have been hesitant to offer any kind of support for either candidate in the US presidential election but I now feel that to not voice my concern would be a dereliction of my duty as the Holy See. A strong and free America is vitally important in maintaining a strong and free world and in that sense what happens in American elections affects us all. With that at the forefront of my mind I must express my strong reservations about Mr. Donald Trump. His demeanor and temperament should preclude him from becoming President. I fear he may be disastrous to the security, stability, and prosperity of the United States and to the world. I believe that Secretary Clinton would be a better, more stable choice. Though I don’t agree with Secretary Clinton on some issues I’m asking, not as the Holy Father, but as a concerned citizen of the world that Americans vote for Hillary Clinton for President of the United States.”

Source.

 

Mother of Slain US Diplomat Wants Trump to Stop Using his Death for Political Attacks
By MORGAN WINSOR Jul 23, 2016, 3:05 PM ET
MAHMUD TURKIA/AFP/Getty Images
Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens gives a speech, Aug. 26, 2012 at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli.
The mother of slain U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens is calling on Donald Trump's campaign and the Republican Party to stop using her son’s name and death in Benghazi as fodder for political attacks.

Stevens was serving as the U.S. ambassador to Libya when he was killed in a terrorist attack on an American diplomatic outpost in Benghazi in September 2012. Hillary Clinton was secretary of state at the time.

Trump has throughout his campaign used the attack in Benghazi to criticize Clinton. Last month, he tweeted specifically about Stevens’ death, saying, “If you want to know about Hillary Clinton’s honesty & judgment, ask the family of Ambassador Stevens.”

Stevens's mother, Mary F. Commanday of Oakland, California, wrote a letter to the editor published by the New York Times on Friday complaining about “this opportunistic and cynical use by the campaign” of her son’s name. Her letter reads:

"As Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens's mother, I am writing to object to any mention of his name and death in Benghazi, Libya, by Donald Trump's campaign and the Republican Party.

"I know for certain that Chris would not have wanted his name or memory used in that connection. I hope that there will be an immediate and permanent stop to this opportunistic and cynical use by the campaign.”

Commanday did not immediately respond to ABC News' request for comment.

The letter comes on the heels of the Republican National Convention, where speakers highlighted the deadly attack on Americans in Benghazi. During an emotional speech on the opening night of the event in downtown Cleveland, a mother of a foreign service worker who was killed in the attack said she holds Clinton responsible.

"For all of this loss, for all of this grief, for all of the cynicism, the tragedy in Benghazi has brought on America, I blame Hillary Clinton," Patricia Smith, the mother of Sean Smith, told the crowd inside the Quicken Loans Arena. "I blame Hillary Clinton for the death of my son, personally."

Donald Trump Jr. also attacked his father’s Democratic opponent over Benghazi during his address to the convention Tuesday night.

“Secretary Clinton's State Department ignored their request for help on the night in question and in the weeks and months leading up to the attack," he said. "It was a tragedy and one that would be repeated should she win the election. Who will take that call at 3 o'clock in the morning?”

 

The Clinton's are powerful people because they have allowed others to buy their influence. They apparently were willing to sell out the USA for their own benefit, having accepted the many exorbitant "speaking fees" that they have, and are entangled in so many messes that they must spend all day every day in crisis management mode . . .

Obviously my opinion of the Clintons doesn't pass muster with you - it would be a complete wast of my time to list the instances - but yesterday's exposure of the Clinton's / DNC's suppression of Bernie Sanders' candidacy is yet another instance of what I'm talking about. Sure, the media will never prove anything untoward was done by the Clintons in that case . . . Schultsie has been bought off. Isn't that how they clean up every one of their messes?

I care not whether my claims pass muster with you, as your opinion on any matters which paint the Clintons in any light other than angelic is permanently stuck.

I don't think Hillary is the Devil . . . but she sure looks like a front-runner.

 

I merely asked for proof of the allegations you so willingly and openly pedal. Yes, actual proof is standard of muster I insist on. Casting my opinion of the Clintons as center stage in an angelic light is just a poor fallacy of logic meant to hide the fact that you never could produce any proof of the allegation you vigorously apply.

If you want to move on to the DNC issue now, that is a conversation I am willing to have. But note, that it doesn't retroactively prove anything else you have henceforth accused them of. Because the next thing the Right accuses the Clintons of is ALWAYS the thing that proves everything else with you guys. And it doesn't.

 

No . . . it's not. I'm not hiding anything at all . . . It's my polite way of saying I'm not going to waste my time making a long, very well-known list of "unproven" but widely-embraced allegations that you will ignore and / or refute with nothing more than mere technicalities.

The continuous immersion of the Clintons in cleverly-veiled illicit activities points to the consistency with which they they live their manipulative lives . . . I hoped they'd be caught by now but, with every passing day I become less optimistic.

First they sold their own souls . . . now they plan to sell America's.

 

LOL! Well-known but unproven is actually another way of saying alleged. Alleged is still all you have and I again have to point out that we have a legal system that would laugh your argument right out of court.

You make the same ridiculous argument again and again and end it with the same partisan wishful thinking. Good luck with that.

Trump has a long and rich history of shifty business deals from Trump University to screwing his suppliers. You never mention those and they are actual instances of wrong-doing. Why don't they matter to you I wonder?

 

I think you will find it has been well proven, just not well adjudicated. And Comey did not say she "allegedly" deleted classified email, she "allegedly" had top secret info on her "allegedly" against the rules server, that she "allegedly" lied, etc. Now if you want to say unadjudicated, you are correct. Just like Bill Ayers. He did not say he was "allegedly" guilty. He admitted his guilt. Not being convicted in no way makes him or her innocent. It just makes them not convicted.

 

Legal system? The legal system was ABUSED! The way control of the investigation was wrested from Comey, Loretta Lynch would be laughed out of court. I don't know how long it took Hillary, Bill, Sidney, Barack, Michelle and Valerie to dream up the gag order angle, but it worked beautifully . . . the investigating officers can't testify, can't give a written deposition, can't even leak a connecting tidbit . . . nothing can be released for legal consumption. Genius . . . if only they believed in applying it to good, achievable initiatives, instead of using it to underhandedly support unrealistic, unsustainable, idealistic, utopian goals with strategy taken directly from the pages of Rules for Radicals.

No less unproven than the allegations against the Clintons, yet I acknowledge them . . . that's the difference between you and I . . . you won't admit that unproven allegations against the Clintons are likely true.

I don't deny the allegations against Trump, and have made it abundantly clear that I am no Trump fan by any stretch of the imagination . . . I've merely stated that I support him over Hillary every day of the week. In my mind she is even more conniving and less trustworthy than he is . . . for you to not see the same simply tells me that you consider only what you wish to, and that I'd be wasting my time trying to convince you to see things any differently, so I won't. There are plenty of others I can illuminate in less time, and get far better ROI.

 

1) Legal system? The legal system was ABUSED! The way control of the investigation was wrested from Comey, Loretta Lynch would be laughed out of court. I don't know how long it took Hillary, Bill, Sidney, Barack, Michelle and Valerie to dream up the gag order angle, but it worked beautifully . . . the investigating officers can't testify, can't give a written deposition, can't even leak a connecting tidbit . . . nothing can be released for legal consumption. Genius . . . if only they believed in applying it to good, achievable initiatives, instead of using it to underhandedly support unrealistic, unsustainable, idealistic, utopian goals with strategy taken directly from the pages of Rules for radicals.

So, now lack of proof is proof of a cover-up. I learned a long time ago that nefarious attributions no matter the accusation or the persons accused are almost entirely 180 degrees off the mark. People simply aren't that cooperatively devious and the only people that seem to think that entire groups of people are involved in massive misdirection conspiracies are usually trying to justify their own poorly conceived conspiracies theories.

2) No less unproven than the allegations against the Clintons, yet I acknowledge them . . . that's the difference between you and I . . . you won't admit that unproven allegations against the Clintons are likely true.

I don't deny the allegations against Trump, and have made it abundantly clear that I am no Trump fan by any stretch of the imagination . . . I've merely stated that I support him over Hillary every day of the week. In my mind she is even more conniving and less trustworthy than he is . . . for you to not see the same simply tells me that you consider only what you wish to, and that I'd be wasting my time trying to convince you to see things any differently, so I won't. There are plenty of others I can illuminate in less time, and get far better ROI
No less unproven than the allegations against the Clintons, yet I acknowledge them . . . that's the difference between you and I . . . you won't admit that unproven allegations against the Clintons are likely true.


Trump's lawyers spend more time in court than Hillary Clinton has spent time in Benghazi hearings. All those settlements are concealed in non-disclosure agreements.

 

Okay, you want to duke it out over Hillary's character . . . time for a new thread . . .

 

That should be "lack of character"... and it will take more than one thread. In fact, it will take more than an entire forum. Indeed, I'm not even sure the computers at NASA, the CIA, the NSA and Hillary's own illegal server have the capacity to hold all the information such a detailed undertaking would entail.

 

Probably not, but I'm willing to start a new one dedicated to that purpose.

I'm sick of this guy turning his eyes away from everything questionable that Hillary does . . . he's like the little kid that covers his ears with his hands and hums loudly to himself to shut out what he doesn't want to hear.

 

Believe me - his blinders are so thick he sees absolutely nothing even remotely negative to the liberal cause. So far in their terms, Obama, Holder, Lynch, Hillary, Sanders, Rangel, Reid, Pelosi, et al have been beyond reproach. Good luck dissuading him of his lemming syndrome.

 

I truly sympathize. But, he's been doing the same thing for years. He did it with Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Wasserman Schultz, Schumer... you name it. Now, he's doing it with Hillary. It's the same old song-and-dance with him. He's a partisan hack and, as he will tell you, he's not going to change.

 

(sighs)...Has anyone bothered finding out if the OP story is true?

I thought for sure at least one republican would question it, given it's subject, yet I appear to have been mistaken. It is interesting to note that, despite the seemingly obvious nature of the story being untrue, including a link to a site that says "News That's Almost Reliable", everyone instead rambled off into back and forth arguments....the same stale shit this site is permeated with....but didn't question the validity of the story itself.

Interesting, from a psychological point-of-view.

 

Trump uses those first two words often. It's interesting that you've adopted them. The rest of the quote above (admittedly taken out of it's context yet, pertinent to my point just the same) is ironic given the subject of this thread, as well as it's intentions.

 

Sigh. OK, I'll answer your question. Personally, I don't read any of the bullshit you post. I just assume it's bullshit and I'm always right.

 

Uh huh, you refrained from mentioning it's nature until I pointed it out....because you never lie.

 

No, seriously... I didn't read the OP because, well, I saw it was posted by you and I knew it could only be bullshit. Prove me wrong.

 

"Prove me wrong" . . . Poking fun at Joe?