Democrats condemned the bombing. “The attack on the Orange County HQ @NCGOP office is horrific and unacceptable, Hillary Clinton’s campaign tweeted. “Very grateful that everyone is safe.”
N.C. Democratic Party Chair Patsy Keever called the bombing “outrageous.”
“The North Carolina Democratic Party strongly condemns this attack,” she said. “Violence has no place in our political system … Our deepest sympathies are with everyone at the North Carolina Republican Party.”
Democratic Attorney General Ry Cooper tweeted, “Violence has no place in our democracy and can not be tolerated. The culprits must be caught and brought to justice.”
That statement isn't strong enough considering all their earlier rhetoric.
You're kidding right? What more do you want? If you missed the apology in your first read, no worries. But that's a good condemnation.
I read the apology. It is not enough. The democratic party is encouraging it's supporters to commit violence. They need to do more.
Give me an appropriate set of actions or statements in your mind, that meets your standard, please.
Every democratic candidate running for office must be asked if they condone this violence and if not what they can do about their own rhetoric to stop encouraging said violence. It is not enough to put out a concerning tweet followed by "let's go back to calling the republican candidate and his supporters racist, nazi, white supremacists". If this was a democratic field office that was firebombed we would never hear the end of it. You could be sure that the media wouldn't accept a tweet as a response.
where has any nominee besides trump incited any violence at all? sorry but i haven't seen it.
"i'm going to say this very clearly... this isn't pointed at anyone on here... just speaking is general terms... if you actually think Donald Trump should be president of the United States of America you are a fucking moron. period. full stop."
Dignified
I 100% stand by that statement... and I will repeat it...
Cast a protest vote... ok... don't like HRC... ok... blindly vote republican every year, fine by me...
And for the love of god don't firebomb things like savage animals. Or is that called a protest because liberals do it? I get confused.
Democrats condemned the bombing. “The attack on the Orange County HQ @NCGOP office is horrific and unacceptable, Hillary Clinton’s campaign tweeted. “Very grateful that everyone is safe.”
N.C. Democratic Party Chair Patsy Keever called the bombing “outrageous.”
“The North Carolina Democratic Party strongly condemns this attack,” she said. “Violence has no place in our political system … Our deepest sympathies are with everyone at the North Carolina Republican Party.”
Democratic Attorney General Ry Cooper tweeted, “Violence has no place in our democracy and can not be tolerated. The culprits must be caught and brought to justice.”
That statement isn't strong enough considering all their earlier rhetoric.
You're kidding right? What more do you want? If you missed the apology in your first read, no worries. But that's a good condemnation.
I read the apology. It is not enough. The democratic party is encouraging it's supporters to commit violence. They need to do more.
Give me an appropriate set of actions or statements in your mind, that meets your standard, please.
Every democratic candidate running for office must be asked if they condone this violence and if not what they can do about their own rhetoric to stop encouraging said violence. It is not enough to put out a concerning tweet followed by "let's go back to calling the republican candidate and his supporters racist, nazi, white supremacists". If this was a democratic field office that was firebombed we would never hear the end of it. You could be sure that the media wouldn't accept a tweet as a response.
where has any nominee besides trump incited any violence at all? sorry but i haven't seen it.
"i'm going to say this very clearly... this isn't pointed at anyone on here... just speaking is general terms... if you actually think Donald Trump should be president of the United States of America you are a fucking moron. period. full stop."
Dignified
I 100% stand by that statement... and I will repeat it...
Cast a protest vote... ok... don't like HRC... ok... blindly vote republican every year, fine by me... people vote for all kinds of whacky reasons...
but anybody over the age of 12 that actually thinks Donald Trump should be President of the United States of America, and that it would be a good thing, is an absolute moron. Period. Full stop.
He is a joke... Wake up and smell the beauty pageant
Democrats condemned the bombing. “The attack on the Orange County HQ @NCGOP office is horrific and unacceptable, Hillary Clinton’s campaign tweeted. “Very grateful that everyone is safe.”
N.C. Democratic Party Chair Patsy Keever called the bombing “outrageous.”
“The North Carolina Democratic Party strongly condemns this attack,” she said. “Violence has no place in our political system … Our deepest sympathies are with everyone at the North Carolina Republican Party.”
Democratic Attorney General Ry Cooper tweeted, “Violence has no place in our democracy and can not be tolerated. The culprits must be caught and brought to justice.”
That statement isn't strong enough considering all their earlier rhetoric.
You're kidding right? What more do you want? If you missed the apology in your first read, no worries. But that's a good condemnation.
I read the apology. It is not enough. The democratic party is encouraging it's supporters to commit violence. They need to do more.
Give me an appropriate set of actions or statements in your mind, that meets your standard, please.
Every democratic candidate running for office must be asked if they condone this violence and if not what they can do about their own rhetoric to stop encouraging said violence. It is not enough to put out a concerning tweet followed by "let's go back to calling the republican candidate and his supporters racist, nazi, white supremacists". If this was a democratic field office that was firebombed we would never hear the end of it. You could be sure that the media wouldn't accept a tweet as a response.
You didn't say what more you want the Clinton campaign to do. You just listed your grievances.
Matt, how can you expect anyone to believe Clinton when it's fact that she's a two face. Sure most politicians say things to get elected, but in her case there is absolutely nothing honest or consistent, other then her lies and unethical behavior. How can you expect anyone new coming into politics to actually jump on board the Clinton express? She's rotten to the core. The only argument out there that's somewhat viable is that the other option is trump, And even that is starting to lose it's moment
Democrats condemned the bombing. “The attack on the Orange County HQ @NCGOP office is horrific and unacceptable, Hillary Clinton’s campaign tweeted. “Very grateful that everyone is safe.”
N.C. Democratic Party Chair Patsy Keever called the bombing “outrageous.”
“The North Carolina Democratic Party strongly condemns this attack,” she said. “Violence has no place in our political system … Our deepest sympathies are with everyone at the North Carolina Republican Party.”
Democratic Attorney General Ry Cooper tweeted, “Violence has no place in our democracy and can not be tolerated. The culprits must be caught and brought to justice.”
That statement isn't strong enough considering all their earlier rhetoric.
You're kidding right? What more do you want? If you missed the apology in your first read, no worries. But that's a good condemnation.
I read the apology. It is not enough. The democratic party is encouraging it's supporters to commit violence. They need to do more.
Give me an appropriate set of actions or statements in your mind, that meets your standard, please.
Every democratic candidate running for office must be asked if they condone this violence and if not what they can do about their own rhetoric to stop encouraging said violence. It is not enough to put out a concerning tweet followed by "let's go back to calling the republican candidate and his supporters racist, nazi, white supremacists". If this was a democratic field office that was firebombed we would never hear the end of it. You could be sure that the media wouldn't accept a tweet as a response.
You didn't say what more you want the Clinton campaign to do. You just listed your grievances.
Matt, how can you expect anyone to believe Clinton when it's fact that she's a two face. Sure most politicians say things to get elected, but in her case there is absolutely nothing honest or consistent, other then her lies and unethical behavior. How can you expect anyone new coming into politics to actually jump on board the Clinton express? She's rotten to the core. The only argument out there that's somewhat viable is that the other option is trump, And even that is starting to lose it's moment
So you don't believe that she condemns the attack and isn't grateful no one was hurt? That's what we're talking about here.
Oh the drama With roughly three weeks to Election Day, Republican strategists nationwide publicly concede Hillary Clinton has a firm grip on the 270 Electoral College votes needed to win the White House -- and may be on her way to an even more decisive victory over Donald Trump. "He is on track to totally and completely melting down," said Republican pollster Whit Ayers, who is advising Florida Sen. Marco Rubio's re-election campaign. Like many Republican strategists, he was willing to speak publicly about the GOP nominee's rough road ahead at the end of an unprecedented campaign. http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/gop-strategists-clinton-may-be-headed-for-victory-1.3117438?autoPlay=true
It almost sounds like she considers environmentalists to be a basket of deplorables.
I wouldn't make too big a deal over it, just politics. She prob just saying that to get elected, once elected she will do the right thing.
Now that's funny! Anything to justify her lying to get elected... Wonder what other issues she would "do the right thing on" if elected? She has flip flopped on gay marriage, does anyone really know her stance or what she considers "the right thing" on anything?
It almost sounds like she considers environmentalists to be a basket of deplorables.
I wouldn't make too big a deal over it, just politics. She prob just saying that to get elected, once elected she will do the right thing.
Now that's funny! Anything to justify her lying to get elected... Wonder what other issues she would "do the right thing on" if elected? She has flip flopped on gay marriage, does anyone really know her stance or what she considers "the right thing" on anything?
JC is being sarcastic.
The gay marriage example is silly. Just about every Democratic politician has changed their view on this issue over the past 20 years (including Sanders and Obama). And many Republicans have, in moderate districts.
But broadly, I think it's a very strange world where politicians are criticized for changing positions. I want a politician that can learn, change and represent the majority will, presuming it does not infringe on the rights of others.
It almost sounds like she considers environmentalists to be a basket of deplorables.
I wouldn't make too big a deal over it, just politics. She prob just saying that to get elected, once elected she will do the right thing.
Now that's funny! Anything to justify her lying to get elected... Wonder what other issues she would "do the right thing on" if elected? She has flip flopped on gay marriage, does anyone really know her stance or what she considers "the right thing" on anything?
JC is being sarcastic.
The gay marriage example is silly. Just about every Democratic politician has changed their view on this issue over the past 20 years (including Sanders and Obama). And many Republicans have, in moderate districts.
But broadly, I think it's a very strange world where politicians are criticized for changing positions. I want a politician that can learn, change and represent the majority will, presuming it does not infringe on the rights of others.
I mostly agree, and you may be right on the gay marriage thing. What gets me is a person that tells one crowd one thing and another something completely different in a dishonest attempt to garner support. Pandering so to speak. It's nothing new in politics, but that's why I have a hard time trusting career politicians. They've gone back and forth on issues for so long now that it makes a person question any kind of a moral or ethical baseline.
The funny thing is that every private statement that comes out makes me like her more. If I had confidence in her private positions I would whole heartedly endorse her.
The funny thing is that every private statement that comes out makes me like her more. If I had confidence in her private positions I would whole heartedly endorse her.
I understand this with regards to foreign affairs, but I'm surprised that a private positive attitude towards fracking would be seen as a good thing in your eyes. Do you mind my asking about your position on climate change?
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
The funny thing is that every private statement that comes out makes me like her more. If I had confidence in her private positions I would whole heartedly endorse her.
I understand this with regards to foreign affairs, but I'm surprised that a private positive attitude towards fracking would be seen as a good thing in your eyes. Do you mind my asking about your position on climate change?
Read the whole message/speech Benjs. Pick up the whole context
It almost sounds like she considers environmentalists to be a basket of deplorables.
I wouldn't make too big a deal over it, just politics. She prob just saying that to get elected, once elected she will do the right thing.
Now that's funny! Anything to justify her lying to get elected... Wonder what other issues she would "do the right thing on" if elected? She has flip flopped on gay marriage, does anyone really know her stance or what she considers "the right thing" on anything?
JC is being sarcastic.
The gay marriage example is silly. Just about every Democratic politician has changed their view on this issue over the past 20 years (including Sanders and Obama). And many Republicans have, in moderate districts.
But broadly, I think it's a very strange world where politicians are criticized for changing positions. I want a politician that can learn, change and represent the majority will, presuming it does not infringe on the rights of others.
I too want a politician that can learn and change, but I don't want a politician who just sticks their finger in the air to determine which way the wind is blowing. I do remain concerned that Hillary Clinton is just that.
It almost sounds like she considers environmentalists to be a basket of deplorables.
I wouldn't make too big a deal over it, just politics. She prob just saying that to get elected, once elected she will do the right thing.
Now that's funny! Anything to justify her lying to get elected... Wonder what other issues she would "do the right thing on" if elected? She has flip flopped on gay marriage, does anyone really know her stance or what she considers "the right thing" on anything?
JC is being sarcastic.
The gay marriage example is silly. Just about every Democratic politician has changed their view on this issue over the past 20 years (including Sanders and Obama). And many Republicans have, in moderate districts.
But broadly, I think it's a very strange world where politicians are criticized for changing positions. I want a politician that can learn, change and represent the majority will, presuming it does not infringe on the rights of others.
I too want a politician that can learn and change, but I don't want a politician who just sticks their finger in the air to determine which way the wind is blowing. I do remain concerned that Hillary Clinton is just that.
Isn't that pretty much what what politicians are elected to do? They are elected to serve the will of the people they represent, not their own will.
It almost sounds like she considers environmentalists to be a basket of deplorables.
I wouldn't make too big a deal over it, just politics. She prob just saying that to get elected, once elected she will do the right thing.
Now that's funny! Anything to justify her lying to get elected... Wonder what other issues she would "do the right thing on" if elected? She has flip flopped on gay marriage, does anyone really know her stance or what she considers "the right thing" on anything?
JC is being sarcastic.
The gay marriage example is silly. Just about every Democratic politician has changed their view on this issue over the past 20 years (including Sanders and Obama). And many Republicans have, in moderate districts.
But broadly, I think it's a very strange world where politicians are criticized for changing positions. I want a politician that can learn, change and represent the majority will, presuming it does not infringe on the rights of others.
I too want a politician that can learn and change, but I don't want a politician who just sticks their finger in the air to determine which way the wind is blowing. I do remain concerned that Hillary Clinton is just that.
Isn't that pretty much what what politicians are elected to do? They are elected to serve the will of the people they represent, not their own will.
It almost sounds like she considers environmentalists to be a basket of deplorables.
I wouldn't make too big a deal over it, just politics. She prob just saying that to get elected, once elected she will do the right thing.
Now that's funny! Anything to justify her lying to get elected... Wonder what other issues she would "do the right thing on" if elected? She has flip flopped on gay marriage, does anyone really know her stance or what she considers "the right thing" on anything?
JC is being sarcastic.
The gay marriage example is silly. Just about every Democratic politician has changed their view on this issue over the past 20 years (including Sanders and Obama). And many Republicans have, in moderate districts.
But broadly, I think it's a very strange world where politicians are criticized for changing positions. I want a politician that can learn, change and represent the majority will, presuming it does not infringe on the rights of others.
I too want a politician that can learn and change, but I don't want a politician who just sticks their finger in the air to determine which way the wind is blowing. I do remain concerned that Hillary Clinton is just that.
Isn't that pretty much what what politicians are elected to do? They are elected to serve the will of the people they represent, not their own will.
I don't think so. They are elected to lead. Especially at the presidential level. I don't want someone in that office who is just going to do whatever I want them to do. I want someone who's judgment and competency I can trust, who can do the job, even if I occasionally disagree with their decisions. At some level I trust the President to be more informed than I am. That's the nature of the job we are essentially hiring them to do. I don't want someone leading from behind by trying to guess what we want them to do. I want them to do what they believe we need them to do. That to me is leadership.
It almost sounds like she considers environmentalists to be a basket of deplorables.
I wouldn't make too big a deal over it, just politics. She prob just saying that to get elected, once elected she will do the right thing.
Now that's funny! Anything to justify her lying to get elected... Wonder what other issues she would "do the right thing on" if elected? She has flip flopped on gay marriage, does anyone really know her stance or what she considers "the right thing" on anything?
JC is being sarcastic.
The gay marriage example is silly. Just about every Democratic politician has changed their view on this issue over the past 20 years (including Sanders and Obama). And many Republicans have, in moderate districts.
But broadly, I think it's a very strange world where politicians are criticized for changing positions. I want a politician that can learn, change and represent the majority will, presuming it does not infringe on the rights of others.
I too want a politician that can learn and change, but I don't want a politician who just sticks their finger in the air to determine which way the wind is blowing. I do remain concerned that Hillary Clinton is just that.
Isn't that pretty much what what politicians are elected to do? They are elected to serve the will of the people they represent, not their own will.
It almost sounds like she considers environmentalists to be a basket of deplorables.
I wouldn't make too big a deal over it, just politics. She prob just saying that to get elected, once elected she will do the right thing.
Now that's funny! Anything to justify her lying to get elected... Wonder what other issues she would "do the right thing on" if elected? She has flip flopped on gay marriage, does anyone really know her stance or what she considers "the right thing" on anything?
JC is being sarcastic.
The gay marriage example is silly. Just about every Democratic politician has changed their view on this issue over the past 20 years (including Sanders and Obama). And many Republicans have, in moderate districts.
But broadly, I think it's a very strange world where politicians are criticized for changing positions. I want a politician that can learn, change and represent the majority will, presuming it does not infringe on the rights of others.
Publicly they have. Gotta get votes...must keep the POWER AT ALL COSTS!!!
It almost sounds like she considers environmentalists to be a basket of deplorables.
I wouldn't make too big a deal over it, just politics. She prob just saying that to get elected, once elected she will do the right thing.
Now that's funny! Anything to justify her lying to get elected... Wonder what other issues she would "do the right thing on" if elected? She has flip flopped on gay marriage, does anyone really know her stance or what she considers "the right thing" on anything?
JC is being sarcastic.
The gay marriage example is silly. Just about every Democratic politician has changed their view on this issue over the past 20 years (including Sanders and Obama). And many Republicans have, in moderate districts.
But broadly, I think it's a very strange world where politicians are criticized for changing positions. I want a politician that can learn, change and represent the majority will, presuming it does not infringe on the rights of others.
I too want a politician that can learn and change, but I don't want a politician who just sticks their finger in the air to determine which way the wind is blowing. I do remain concerned that Hillary Clinton is just that.
Isn't that pretty much what what politicians are elected to do? They are elected to serve the will of the people they represent, not their own will.
This.
They should be doing what the people want, not their own interests. Their interests can be purchased.
That said, if a majority of the people wanted to ban something but it infringed on the Rights of the few then they need to protect the few. Doesn't matter what it is applied to.
It almost sounds like she considers environmentalists to be a basket of deplorables.
I wouldn't make too big a deal over it, just politics. She prob just saying that to get elected, once elected she will do the right thing.
Now that's funny! Anything to justify her lying to get elected... Wonder what other issues she would "do the right thing on" if elected? She has flip flopped on gay marriage, does anyone really know her stance or what she considers "the right thing" on anything?
JC is being sarcastic.
The gay marriage example is silly. Just about every Democratic politician has changed their view on this issue over the past 20 years (including Sanders and Obama). And many Republicans have, in moderate districts.
But broadly, I think it's a very strange world where politicians are criticized for changing positions. I want a politician that can learn, change and represent the majority will, presuming it does not infringe on the rights of others.
I too want a politician that can learn and change, but I don't want a politician who just sticks their finger in the air to determine which way the wind is blowing. I do remain concerned that Hillary Clinton is just that.
Isn't that pretty much what what politicians are elected to do? They are elected to serve the will of the people they represent, not their own will.
This.
They should be doing what the people want, not their own interests. Their interests can be purchased.
That said, if a majority of the people wanted to ban something but it infringed on the Rights of the few then they need to protect the few. Doesn't matter what it is applied to.
Comments
Or is that called a protest because liberals do it?
I get confused.
With roughly three weeks to Election Day, Republican strategists nationwide publicly concede Hillary Clinton has a firm grip on the 270 Electoral College votes needed to win the White House -- and may be on her way to an even more decisive victory over Donald Trump.
"He is on track to totally and completely melting down," said Republican pollster Whit Ayers, who is advising Florida Sen. Marco Rubio's re-election campaign. Like many Republican strategists, he was willing to speak publicly about the GOP nominee's rough road ahead at the end of an unprecedented campaign.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/gop-strategists-clinton-may-be-headed-for-victory-1.3117438?autoPlay=true
I am not saying it's true.
http://qz.com/810771/a-democrat-led-crowdfunding-campaign-raised-13000-to-rebuild-the-bombed-gop-office-in-north-carolina/
What's the context?
The gay marriage example is silly. Just about every Democratic politician has changed their view on this issue over the past 20 years (including Sanders and Obama). And many Republicans have, in moderate districts.
But broadly, I think it's a very strange world where politicians are criticized for changing positions. I want a politician that can learn, change and represent the majority will, presuming it does not infringe on the rights of others.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
They should be doing what the people want, not their own interests. Their interests can be purchased.
That said, if a majority of the people wanted to ban something but it infringed on the Rights of the few then they need to protect the few. Doesn't matter what it is applied to.
Naw, can't be lol