Did HRC Back Up Her Charges (Regarding Trump)?

OK, there’s a link in my post, then. Do you also need a cite that the sky is blue?

What she said was truthy. And irrelevant. As elucidator pointed out, they’ll use anything they can get their hands on, just like we will. Trump neither adds to the problem, nor would he have reduced the problem had he been a reasonable guy.

No. Just a link that ISIS is making said videos. From your post:

You liked to to a FoxNews video.

This is really silly. She said what she said. And, frankly, the thing about the videos isn’t really the issue, if you ask me. That was supposed to be a supporting factoid to the assertion that Trump “is becoming” ISIS’s greatest recruiting tool. That’s a serious charge to level against someone, and you should be able to back that shit up if you’re going to level it. Just because Trump is a turd in this primary race doesn’t mean you should make shit up about him. Why would you even need to do that, since he gives us a new pile of poop to point at pretty much every day?

I don’t have enough interest in any ISIS videos to check it out but I would bet dollars to donut holes that Hillary, Kerry and Hussein each have many, many appearances on ISIS propaganda videos. And arguing over trivial semantics is a diversion. We all know what she said. Hillary is an experienced liar with a very long history.

And what’s the deal with her fascination with lying about videos? Maybe it’s a coincidence. But maybe it just seems like a coincidence because she lies so regularly and several of her notable whoppers happened to be about non existent videos. Of course, maybe she really does have a fixation on videos that borders on creepy.

Hoo-boy. We got a live one!

Again, as quoted above:

Yes, we know what she said.

I had to Let’s go to the quarry and throw stuff down there at the fact that you got this correct, but botched this so badly:

Did Hillary claim that ISIS is, was or had been “making said videos”? :dubious:

Good catch. But if you change “making” to “showing”, that latter still has not been demonstrated.

Because that’s the issue. If Trump supporters are going to say people are telling lies about Trump then they need to show that the lies were actually said.

I haven’t seen where anyone has proven her statement to be untrue and it seems much more likely to me that they (ISIS) have shown each other (and anyone else who wants to look) video clips of Trump saying stupid shit than that no one in ISIS has ever done so; do you disagree?

So, you don’t see any likelihood that Achmed, radical muslim, arguing with his cousin Abdul, moderate, will link him a video of Trump?

I wouldn’t be surprised at all if Trump were to appear in some of Da-esh’s videos. I would be very surprised if Trump was “becoming their best recruiter”.

But the fact remains, we haven’t been shown any videos that Da-esh is using with Trump in them.

No one needs to do that, and not just because it would be virtually impossible to do so. She made the statement, so she needs to prove it’s true.

Hyperbole is a bit different than lying, especially in politics.

I wish she had said it differently, though, something like “Trump’s statements could become great ISIS recruiting tools, if they aren’t already”.

She didn’t say that they ARE. She said that they WILL. As in “in the future.” The word “will” in this instance is future tense, not present.

Now, if you want to chastise her for prognosticating, that’s a different argument.

That would be an excellent analysis if the word “will” had been used. Unfortunately for you, it wasn’t. Perhaps you “will” realize that before making that mistake a 3rd time in this thread.

I agree that we can’t be sure she was lying. It’s quite possible she, or her handlers, read that article and assumed it was correct. It might even be correct-- we just don’t know. What we do know is that she hasn’t answered any of her critics who are asking her to substantiate the statement.

Agreed. And I don’t think we’ll hear her make that claim again in the same way she did. I can’t for the life me understand why her other supporters in this thread can’t admit it was an “oops” and move on. It makes it seem worse when people insist on claiming things like “she was using the future tense”, when she wasn’t. I’m hearing the sound of elementary school grammar teachers roll over in their graves. :slight_smile:

Perhaps you need to pay attention. It’s been cited in this thread (in this link) that the actual wording the Hillary used was NOT indicating that the videos were being currently used. Her exact wording was “They are going to people showing videos of Donald Trump insulting Islam and Muslims in order to recruit more radical jihadists.”

There’s that future tense again. “Are going to.” That doesn’t mean “is currently happening.” It means “will happen in the future.”

Well, that doesn’t quite work, since the wording “are going to” requires an additional verb to be complete for the context you are suggesting. “Are going to send”, perhaps, or “Are going to use”, as well. So, that’s a bit weak even if you want to stoop to a semantic argument.

But to what end? Does anyone doubt that Mr. Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric advances the proposition of America at war with Muslims? Isn’t that the crux of the biscuit, here? If someone else says that his rhetoric is counterproductive, even destructive, but doesn’t describe it as videos in the present tense, anyone here saying that’s wrong?

If “people” were a verb in this context, you’d be right.

They are going to people the globe with their offspring, is future tense.

They are going to people showing them, is present sense.

Please save yourself the embarrassment of hanging onto this grammatical absurdity any longer.