The Debate

JUST A GIRL

You guys actually watch this mindless crap? Serious question - Why?

Ill be voting for Trump. He's the only one that's real, at all. The rest are just empty shells.

rgambs

JUST A GIRL said:

You guys actually watch this mindless crap? Serious question - Why?

Ill be voting for Trump. He's the only one that's real, at all. The rest are just empty shells.

Most of us watched it for entertainment and information, obviously...

Wait a minute, you are saying the ex-reality TV star who was a Democrat a few years ago and is now a Republican is the one who's real??

Godfather.

JUST A GIRL said:

You guys actually watch this mindless crap? Serious question - Why?

Ill be voting for Trump. He's the only one that's real, at all. The rest are just empty shells.

what ?????? how can this be possible ????? someone (JUST A GIRL) with an opinion that is different from the train norm ????? and that picture is just classic !....I'm getting dizzy, if I wake up tomorrow and all this was just a dream I'm going to be pissed.
wecome aboard JUST A GIRL !

Godfather.

jeffbr

JUST A GIRL said:

You guys actually watch this mindless crap? Serious question - Why?

Ill be voting for Trump. He's the only one that's real, at all. The rest are just empty shells.

Why? A few reasons. One is entertainment value - it makes for a good drinking game. The second is to see what issues they talk about. It gives some indication about where their focus is. I also like to see how they perform under pressure, and whether they have the demeanor I'd want in a leader who will be negotiating with our own congress, and with foreign leaders.

On that last point, Trump fails. Arrogant, boisterous, and absolutely no diplomatic skills. As far as being real, perhaps you have more insight into the real Donald than I do. I see the same guy in the WWE clip as I do on the Celebrity Apprentice show, who is no different than how he acts in the debates. So was the WWE clip real?

hedonist

rgambs said:

Most of us watched it for entertainment and information, obviously...

Ya think, gambo? Surely it can't be that simple.

(anyway, I caught a nice buzz in the process )

I want to hear all of the candidates state their views, see whether or not they speak and act with grace and candor, understand where their (in)tolerances lie, among other things.

Baaaa!

Godfather.

hedonist said:

rgambs said:

Most of us watched it for entertainment and information, obviously...

Ya think, gambo? Surely it can't be that simple.

(anyway, I caught a nice buzz in the process )

I want to hear all of the candidates state their views, see whether or not they speak and act with grace and candor, understand where their (in)tolerances lie, among other things.

Baaaa!

HAHHAHHHAHAHAHA your my new super hero HAHHAHHAHHAHHA (A NICE BUZZZ) !!!!!

Godfather.

Last-12-Exit

Gern Blansten said:

Last-12-Exit said:

Gern Blansten said:

Last-12-Exit said:

I'm certainly not consumed with Fox news. In fact, I rarely watch it. But that doesn't mean I have to think what happened in Benghazi is ok. Obama and Clinton let those people die. Your version of what happened doesn't sound accurate. At best, it's minimizing what happened. But that's ok.

How exactly did Obama and Clinton "let those people die?"

By not acting on the request for reinforcements or support when they knew an attack was imminent.

And what is your source for that? What information did they have that told them an attack was imminent?

U.S. security officer, Eric Nordstrom, twice requested additional security for the mission in Benghazi from his superiors at the State Department. His requests were denied. According to Nordstrom, State Department official, Charlene Lamb, wanted to keep the security presence in Benghazi "artificially low".[63]

On December 30, 2012, the United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs released a report, “Flashing Red: A Special Report on the Terrorist Attack at Benghazi,” wherein it was determined:

In the months [between February 2011 and September 11, 2012] leading up to the attack on the Temporary Mission Facility in Benghazi, there was a large amount of evidence gathered by the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) and from open sources that Benghazi was increasingly dangerous and unstable, and that a significant attack against American personnel there was becoming much more likely. While this intelligence was effectively shared within the Intelligence Community (IC) and with key officials at the Department of State, it did not lead to a commensurate increase in security at Benghazi nor to a decision to close the American mission there, either of which would have been more than justified by the intelligence presented. ... The RSO [Regional Security Officer] in Libya compiled a list of 234 security incidents in Libya between June 2011 and July 2012, 50 of which took place in Benghazi.[64]

The desire of Hillary Clinton's State Department to maintain a low profile in Benghazi has been cited as the reason why the State Department circumvented their own Overseas Security Policy Board (OSPB) standards for diplomatic security.[65]:74-75 In the aftermath, Secretary of State Clinton sought to take responsibility for the security lapses at Benghazi and expressed personal regret.[66] However, in her January 2013 testimony before Congress, Secretary Clinton claimed security decisions at the Benghazi compound had been made by others, stating, "The specific security requests pertaining to Benghazi ... were handled by the security professionals in the [State] Department. I didn't see those requests, I didn't approve them, I didn't deny them."


http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/12/politics/fact-check-benghazi-security/
On Wednesday, the State Department's former point man on security in Libya told the House Oversight Committee that he asked for additional security help for the Benghazi facility months before the attack, but was denied.

Various communications dating back a year asked for three to five diplomatic security agents, according to testimony at Wednesday's hearing. But Eric Nordstrom, the one-time regional security officer, said he verbally asked for 12 agents.

Gern Blansten

ok..."imminent" means about to happen. What your source is describing isn't an imminent attack. Someone saying that the environment was growing hostile is different than someone saying an attack is "imminent."

Hillary took responsibility for what you are sourcing.

I'm pretty sure that ambassador Stevens refused the additional security as well.

Gern Blansten

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/05/15/official-amb-stevens-refused-additional-security.html

Stevens refused it twice.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/report-stevens-declined-security-91406.html

Last-12-Exit

You got me on semantics. One unnamed "official" is saying Stevens turned down extra security twice. Has this been confirmed by anyone else other than this unnamed official? I'm not a fan of Lindsay Graham, but he makes a good point in the second article you posted.

"One of the most outspoken critics, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), told McClatchy that he found it “odd” that Stevens wouldn’t want additional military assets.

“That is odd to me because Stevens requested from the State Department additional security four times, and there was an 18-person special forces security team headed by Lt. Col. Wood that Gen. Ham signed off on that the State Department said no to,” Graham told McClatchy.

rgambs

hedonist said:

rgambs said:

Most of us watched it for entertainment and information, obviously...

Ya think, gambo? Surely it can't be that simple.

(anyway, I caught a nice buzz in the process )

I want to hear all of the candidates state their views, see whether or not they speak and act with grace and candor, understand where their (in)tolerances lie, among other things.

Baaaa!

I didn't elaborate, but the buzz fell under entertainment and the rest was the info lol

Gern Blansten

Last-12-Exit said:

You got me on semantics. One unnamed "official" is saying Stevens turned down extra security twice. Has this been confirmed by anyone else other than this unnamed official? I'm not a fan of Lindsay Graham, but he makes a good point in the second article you posted.

"One of the most outspoken critics, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), told McClatchy that he found it “odd” that Stevens wouldn’t want additional military assets.

“That is odd to me because Stevens requested from the State Department additional security four times, and there was an 18-person special forces security team headed by Lt. Col. Wood that Gen. Ham signed off on that the State Department said no to,” Graham told McClatchy.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/late-benghazi-ambassador-turned-security-report-article-1.1345119

General Ham is the source.

Last-12-Exit

Gern Blansten said:

Last-12-Exit said:

You got me on semantics. One unnamed "official" is saying Stevens turned down extra security twice. Has this been confirmed by anyone else other than this unnamed official? I'm not a fan of Lindsay Graham, but he makes a good point in the second article you posted.

"One of the most outspoken critics, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), told McClatchy that he found it “odd” that Stevens wouldn’t want additional military assets.

“That is odd to me because Stevens requested from the State Department additional security four times, and there was an 18-person special forces security team headed by Lt. Col. Wood that Gen. Ham signed off on that the State Department said no to,” Graham told McClatchy.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/late-benghazi-ambassador-turned-security-report-article-1.1345119

General Ham is the source.

"Shortly after the cable was sent, Stevens spoke by phone with Army Gen. Carter Ham, the then-chief of the U.S. Africa Command, who offered assistance, but Stevens refused the offer.

Stevens again turned down the offer from Ham when the two met for a previously scheduled meeting in Germany a few weeks later."

Ok, what assistance was general ham offering? Seriously. This statement does not state general ham said this. It also sounds like an unnamed official reporting general ham spoke to Stevens.

rr165892

Scott,Hillary can do no wrong.Get this thru your head.This admin is the best ever.Everything is Bushs fault.Im sure Bengahzi really is all about lies about WMDs.If you do not fall lockstep inline you must be A Fox News republican conservative rascist.Havent you been paying attention!

Shawshank

Praying she's the nominee after the cluster fuck she was as SOS. It will be a guaranteed win for whoever she's up against.

rgambs

Shawshank said:

Praying she's the nominee after the cluster fuck she has been as SOS. It will be a guaranteed win for whoever she's up against.

Hahaha don't be so sure of that, there are millions of people who would vote for ANYONE rather than a Republican.

gimmesometruth27

Last-12-Exit said:

Gern Blansten said:

Last-12-Exit said:

I'm certainly not consumed with Fox news. In fact, I rarely watch it. But that doesn't mean I have to think what happened in Benghazi is ok. Obama and Clinton let those people die. Your version of what happened doesn't sound accurate. At best, it's minimizing what happened. But that's ok.

How exactly did Obama and Clinton "let those people die?"

By not acting on the request for reinforcements or support when they knew an attack was imminent.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/may/13/ronan-farrow/ronan-farrow-says-inadequate-security-funding-cong/

GOP did not provide the amount of money for embassy security that obama administration had requested. there is some culpability there.

rr165892

You Libs really can't admit that one of your poster children has done anything wrong.You do realize that's as detrimental to the process as the weirdo neo cons right? This again does more to divide then bring together.Which is what's wrong in Washington to begin with.

brianlux

rr165892 said:

You Libs really can't admit that one of your poster children has done anything wrong.You do realize that's as detrimental to the process as the weirdo neo cons right? This again does more to divide then bring together.Which is what's wrong in Washington to begin with.

I do agree, rr, that it's difficult for any of us to be critical of people we generally admire, although doing so when appropriate is actually a good thing. However, and I'll give this some thought, right off the top of my head I can't think of any of the "libs" here who have been 100% behind any "poster children". That might be a tad bit hyperbole, yes?

Shawshank

rgambs said:

Hahaha don't be so sure of that, there are millions of people who would vote for ANYONE rather than a Republican.

While I can appreciate the idiocy of those that would vote for her no matter what, I would be willing to bet almost any amount of money she'd lose.