I feel as though someone is trying to convince us starry-eyed Hillary worshippers that she is not the embodiment of virtue and the incarnation of light.
We know. But her vs. Trump, her. Her vs. Cruz, her. Her…well, need I go on?
Yes, she is the lesser of the evils. That just makes the whole situation sadder.
Well, the standard that I think the media is taking on Clinton is to distort what she actually did say:
What is really more sad is to find how many are falling for the spin the media gave to this.
Of course if we are talking about standards, why is it that those tweets from Trump and the fellow travellers he is choosing to kowtow to are not mentioned constantly and to demand that Trump apologize for them day in and day out?
The important thing here, GIGO, is that both sides do it. Its like diseases. Smallpox is a disease, so is tonsillitis, so they are fundamentally equivalent, they are both diseases. That one is “better” than the other is a matter of opinion.
Well, yeah, and that tiny itsy bitsy item of who is closer to the facts.
Did she claim that ISIS had produced a video with Donald Trump in it, as you seem to be asserting here?
Well, if you don’t mind having IS material turning up in your search history, you can just look through the online issues of the IS- glossy magazine yourself. The magazine, called Dabiq, is easily and for free available online, for instance thru this link. See for yourself if Trump quotes show up.
If you want to read about the magazine first, Cracked has a fun article by a journalist who read every issue and has some interesting things to say about it. For instance, Dabiq is only too happy to post the angry speeches of American politicians for their readers to study. “In The Words Of The Enemy” is a regular feature in their magazine.
IS quoted Rick Santorium, here: https://ansarukhilafah.wordpress.com/2015/04/01/in-the-words-of-the-enemy-2/
Not yet Trump, as far as Google shows me. But could they use a Trump quote in their magazine ? Yes, surely. HRC is right.
Also, here’s an update. ISIS propaganda targets politicians, not Trump's Muslim ban | Washington Examiner
Don’t cry, you’ll smear the ink on your ballot.
Smeared ink had no affect on the outcome in any of the other elections. I feel like the Crying Indian when I go to vote.
Here’s what she said:
Factcheck.org did a summary of the Democratic debate, and although they don’t give their usual rating, the blurb ends with “The article [NBC article], however, contained no evidence that it has happened or is happening now, and makes no mention of any video.”
She, or her handlers, probably thought it was a pretty safe thing to say, even if there is no evidence of it. I’d rather she didn’t do shit like that, but if that’s the worst she does, then we’re lucky. And no, this does not mean she’s the same as Trump. Trump is the king of lies in this campaign, with Carson being the Crown Prince.
I think a better term is “clown prince.”
But not “clone Prince”. Doesn’t work, not at all. Pity.
Do we really need cites that such videos exist? Here’s one. Did ISIS make the video? Of course not. It’d be pointless for them to do that. Trump made the video, and that’s the whole point. And if any member of ISIS, anywhere, ever texted a link to that video to any prospective member, then Clinton’s claim is 100% true. Do you really want to claim that that’s never happened?
Hey, Trump is expressing his sincere beliefs, assuming he has such. Just so happens his sincere beliefs fit neatly into ISIS propaganda message, but that’s their fault for preaching such vile hatred and bigotry! Sure, Trump is a special gift for them, manna from Hell, but is that his fault?
Hell, they might not even have noticed if she’d kept her big mouth shut!
Read her words
They are going to people showing videos of Donald Trump insulting Islam and Muslims in order to recruit more radical jihadists.
Not that they are doing it now - but that they will do it in the future. Which, if ISIS has the slightest bit of skill in propaganda, (and they do) is a damn good bet.
A prediction can’t be a lie. And this prediction is a safe one.
If someone is going to claim they exist, then yes.
Voyager “They are going to people showing videos” is the present tense, not the future tense. You even bolded the part that makes it present, not future tense.
Had she said “They are going to go to people…” that would be the future tense.
Supposedly every statement either side doesn’t agree with is fodder for recruitment for the terrorists. I wonder how many Army recruits we get because of something some imam said about America?