A Serious Question for the Trump Supporters

Loading

Leon H. Wolf:

I have a serious question for the Trump supporters, and I hope they will be able to answer it, at least to themselves. It is a question that every supporter of every candidate should be able to answer if they consider themselves a thinking voter instead of a mindless, drooling sports fan. The question is this:

What, hypothetically, would Trump have to do or say to cause you to stop supporting him?

If someone were to call and poll me today, I would probably fit under the category of “undecided.” I would happily cast my vote for any one of Jindal, Cruz, Rubio, or Fiorina (probably in that order) and would likewise vote (but with considerably less gusto) for Carson, Christie, or Bush (probably also in that order). I would grudgingly pull the lever for the rest of the field in order to prevent either Trump or Kasich from getting the nomination.

That having been said, I can easily envision any number of events that would cause me to absolutely refuse to support even the candidates I like a great deal. If Bobby Jindal, let’s say, were to come out tomorrow and say that he would only nominate judges who promised to uphold Roe v. Wade, he would without question lose my support. If Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) 100% came out in favor of funding Planned Parenthood tomorrow, I would be done with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) 100%. IfSen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) 92% stated that his favorite President of all time was Jimmy Carter, that would be the last of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) 92% for me. If Carly Fiorina said that she believed that everyone should pay at least 30% of their income in federal taxes every year, I would quickly become an enemy of Carly Fiorina.

This is what distinguishes “voters” from “fans.” Fans don’t have to really ask these questions of themselves. I mean, there might be something that would cause me to stop being a fan of the Boston Red Sox, but it hasn’t happened yet, and after watching roughly half of my most beloved players end their careers in a Yankees uniform, I can say at this point that even if they traded Dustin Pedroia to the Yankees tomorrow I would still put on the big red “B” hat next year with hardly a second thought.

Voting, though, is at least theoretically supposed to be a different endeavor, especially for people who pride themselves on being the “reasonable” people in this country. It’s supposed to matter what candidates think, do, and say. There should be a point with literally every candidate where something they have done would push us over the edge to the point that we wouldn’t support them anymore.

This is all the more true with respect to Trump and his supporters, who allegedly exist because the Republican “establishment” has betrayed them one too many times, thus pushing them into the welcoming arms of The Donald. If betrayal of conservative principles, or strategic failures, or cronyism or whatever it is that caused you to become a Trump fan in the first place, shouldn’t an equivalent sin committed by Trump  likewise cause you to end your support of him?

I ask because I would have thought that being a repeat donor to Clinton and other Democrats might have been that point for principled conservatives.

I ask because I would have thought that using Michael Moore’s talking points on 9/11 might have been that point for principled conservatives.

I would have thought that defending federal funding of Planned Parenthood might have been that point for principled conservatives.

I would have thought that adopting Democrat rhetoric on the need to raise taxes on the wealthy might have been that point for principled conservatives.

I would have thought that publicly professing a love for eminent domain might have been that point for principled conservatives.

I haven’t even gotten into the insanely liberal things Trump said and did before he decided to run for President, because apparently being an unprincipled and opportunistic flip flopper only bothers principled conservatives when the candidate in question is Mitt Romney. It doesn’t even apparently matter that The Donald’s immigration stance is likewise a transparent flip flop from what he said as recently as 2013.

None of these things, though, has been enough to dislodge any measurable amount of Trump’s support. And they are all things Trump has done during the short course of this campaign.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
60 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

A University of North Florida (UNF) poll, based out of Jacksonville, shows Donald Trump leading Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush amid 627 registered Florida voters (who have voted in 70% of every election since 2008)
20% of those polled identify as Hispanic/Latino.

But, for the purposes of responding to THIS post, that’s not the most interesting part of this poll.
Questions 13 and 14 are.

Q13 shows that, from among issues listed, being ”conservative” is only important to 1.7% of these likely voters.
However, Q14, if the poll is correct, shows that a whopping 74.9% of the respondents consider themselves to be either ”Slightly Conservative” or ”Very Conservative!”

So, aligning with the ”purity” of conservative views is NOT a decider from among Republicans who vote.

The one question I would ask of Trump is what did he discuss with Bill Clinton before announcing his run. Both Trump and Clinton have admitted that an audiotape recording of their conversation exists, but neither are willing to have it released. If we’re talking transparency here, and everyone says they are the most transparent candidate in politics, then it would serve Trump’s interest to release the recording. It would for once and for all put the issue to rest that some sort of deal was made.

@Nanny –

I don’t put much stock into polling data, especially at this point. If you remember four years ago, Mitt Romney was showing what some considered to be real weakness though he was considered to be the front-runner ahead of the Iowa Caucus, the NH primary, the SC primary, and the FL primary. Newt Gingrich was showing what was considered real strength among GOP primary voters.

Also, when Romney was the nominee, he led nearly every economic and national security category against Obama. It was suggested independents and undecideds would break for Romney, and they did. Sure his campaign ran a poor GOTV operation, but it was light years ahead of McCain’s ’08 very poor effort.

What this post infers and what Nan’s poll confirms–Many self proclaimed Conservatives aren’t principled at all.

Pete You mentioned you have a problem with Trump’s “demeanor.” New Yorkers call it attitude. He’s got one.

@Rich Wheeler:

What this post infers and what Nan’s poll confirms–Many self proclaimed Conservatives aren’t principled at all.

That’s laughable coming from someone who supports the party of Socialism and considers a rapist it’s “senior” statesman? Democrats sold their principles, and their souls, to the dark side a long time ago.

Or do you think, Rich, that Bill Clinton is the model of principals? Or perhaps John Kerry? Yeah, there’s another sicko. How about the cackling hen, Hillary?

Of course, you never bothered to read the poll, or you would have known that those polled valued “honesty” and “leadership” over party purity. I know that as a dedicated liberal you can’t understand that, but honesty and leadership ARE principled values. Something the left doesn’t seem to know much about.

@Rich Wheeler: You mean principles as in calling some (R) who got deferments for VN chicken shit cowards while voting for and supporting others (D) who got deferments for VN? Doesn’t sound too principled to me. As a matter of fact, the hypocrisy is so blinding I’m going to have to put my sun glasses on.

@another vet –

They’d better be thick sunglasses. LOL 🙂

@another vet: Trump’s treatment of Mac–nuf said

05 Honesty and leadership—Trump–you gotta be kidding.

Enough of the vet worship. I love Webb, bled for this.country, but if you are a vet and don’t support him be quiet.

Honestly, all of the are chicken hawks and we’ve had enough of their wars and criminal conduct.

I think the Trump phenomenon has more to do with his history of seeing an issue and finding a way to make or break it. People are tired of elected officials who tell us what we want to hear and then doing nothing. I thin the biggest Trump characteristic is his hating to fail. He sets high standards and hates to fail. He will hire the people who can best solve problems or he will fire them and get someone else. Obama has run the country into such a deep hole that both conservatives and middle of the road Democrats along with independents are willing to take a chance on someone who has proven to be successful. Obama and Hillary are poison pills for the left.
While Trump is flamboyant, he approaches leadership differently. He knows that knowing all the names of the World leaders is not as important as hiring the right someone who has intimate knowledge of those World leaders. He describes his desired outcomes and challenges his staff to find a way to achieve that outcome. This is one of the reasons Reagan was successful. Another was that World leaders underestimated him as a person. Initially, Regan was treated similar as Trump by the media. If the opposition can not predict the actions of someone, they can not connive to defeat him. Obama is so predictable as was Clinton and Carter.

@Rich Wheeler: You still run from the question, which has been posed countless times, why you bemoan some who received deferments for VN while supporting and cheering on others.

@another vet: See #5.
To my knowledge Clinton and Biden never derided an American POW like “I can’t remember which foot it was.” DT
Randy—“hating to fail” he’s got plenty to hate 4 bankruptcies, Trump Airlines, Trump University, Trump Mortgage, Trump Vodka (he doesn’t drink–I never tried it.)
Two failed marriages and previous short lived Prez. runs.
Is he your pick? I say again I will not be voting for Clinton, Sanders or Trump. I’d like to see Webb make an indie run.

@Rich Wheeler: Hating to fail is a result of some failures. Bankruptcies are not always failures. Now compare that to our current president who was told his efforts were doomed to fail and he did it deliberately. Obama care, Iran deal, Iraq pull out, Arab Spring, Fast and Furious to name only a few.

@Rich Wheeler:

Honesty and leadership—Trump–you gotta be kidding.

You support Obama. If she were the candidate, you would support Hillary. Give it a rest; you don’t care about honesty or leadership, both of which Trump is far and above superior to these two (which ain’t saying a lot).

I’d like to see Webb make an indie run.

Why? So Hillary can be President and you can still claim not to have supported her?

Trump’s appeal is that he says, right out loud, what the majority of Americans think and also say; he says it like they (we) say it. Whether he believes it or would execute it would remain to be seen, but he definitely talks the talk.

As opposed to striving to appeal to the majority of those who do nothing but suck the very life out of the nation by promising more and more free stuff and promising to drive the nation further and further into debt. While that definitely has its appeal to the far left (important in getting the Democrat nomination) it does not appeal to the majority and, as we watched Obama do in 2008, once nominated, we would see the Democrat lean further center and become more rhetorically responsible.

The goal most in the national interest is keeping Hillary, Sanders, Biden or Warren OUT of the White House. As there are NO Republicans running that would satisfy all conservative desires, we need to be preparing to compromise on one… but the important goal is to END THE DESTRUCTIVE EFFECTS OF HAVING A LIBERAL IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

Remember that.

@Bill: You really oughta read my posts before you start stating who I support and what I believe.
As far as DT I’m with Dr. John.

@Rich Wheeler:

To my knowledge Clinton and Biden never derided an American POW like “I can’t remember which foot it was.” DT

Changing the standards now for a little CYA. Roger that. I guess guess visiting the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, who if I’m not mistaken was on the same side as those who were shooting at you in VN, and protesting VN Vets both here and abroad gets a free pass. The hole keeps getting deeper.

@Randy: Given the way the American people lowered their standards for leadership by electing and re-electing Obama, I think I’ll have my two dogs run as a ticket.

@Bill: Part of the issue is that the left can’t comprehend independent thinking. They think collectively. When was the last time you saw two lefties disagree on something here? Never. I’ve seen it plenty of times with conservatives, Trump being a prime example. Notice how the outsiders and Republican pols are about evenly split in their support when you tally the numbers. On the dem side, it was 1% for a moderate (Webb) and the rest is for one of the neo-socialists.

@another vet: One thing about the struggles between the Republican candidates and their supporters is that it is driven by the desire to find the best way forward to repairing the damage left by liberals. Thus, conservatives fight with Rinos over the purity of the ideology and goals.

Liberals, on the other hand, only care about liberalism for its own sake. Someone that told the entire nation a bold-face lie about keeping their own insurance? No problem… he’s a liberal!! Someone that lied about the deaths of 4 Americans, the sacking of a US consulate and a slip-shod approach to matters of national security? Who cares?!? She’s liberal!! A candidate that openly subscribes to the most deadly ideology in human history? That’s OK… he’s liberal.

While Wheeler puts on his faux-adulation face in favor of war-hero Webb, he happily supports those who make Webb insignificant and have the polar opposite of his values. Because they are liberal.

@another vet: USSR–protesting vets here and abroad Who are you referring to?

@another vet: I think Rich and Greg have proved your point :

Part of the issue is that the left can’t comprehend independent thinking. They think collectively.

@Rich Wheeler: William Jefferson Clinton.

@Randy: Greg is a supporter of HRC. I support Webb.
Talk about collective thinking—Have you watched the Repubs out to nail HRC–They look like partisan hacks–they’re helping her. Why do they bother after McCarthy’s assertion their primary function was to hurt HRC’s Prez run. They should cut their losses and end the charade.

@Rich Wheeler:

Have you watched the Repubs out to nail HRC–They look like partisan hacks–they’re helping her. Why do they bother after McCarthy’s assertion their primary function was to hurt HRC’s Prez run. They should cut their losses and end the charade.

I guess we should “just get over it” just like Hillary said. Apparently her lying about the attack being about a video and her lack of support for her people mean nothing about her leadership qualities nor should we the people be entitled to know what went wrong and why. Damn good thing Ford didn’t think that way during the Mayaguez incident. I also suggest you go back and see McCarthy’s explanation for what he said. Hint: it’s not what you claim. Webb called it quits a few days ago and you’re already sounding like a Hillary apologist.

@Rich Wheeler:

Why do they bother after McCarthy’s assertion their primary function was to hurt HRC’s Prez run.

That wasn’t his “assertion”. His “assertion” was that if it was such a hollow witch-hunt, why is the information coming out hurting her polls so much? He just did a shitty job stating it (thus not Speaker material) and, of course, the dutiful left wing media runs with it.

But, what do you care? You don’t support her, right?

@Bill: McCarthy’s gaffe on Hannity show gave HRC a big time gift.and cost him Speakership.

@Rich Wheeler:

Greg is a supporter of HRC.

I would think Greggie Goebbels supports the Socialist, Bernie Sanders.

I support Webb.

You support someone who is no longer running.

Talk about collective thinking—Have you watched the Repubs out to nail HRC

She needs to be nailed. 600 emails from Ambassador Stevens requesting increased security in the 8 months preceding the Benghazi attack and she never saw them? If you believe that, then you have to believe that Hillary was the most incompetent SOS in the history of our nation.

–They look like partisan hacks–they’re helping her.

And I guess Elijah Cummings is not a partisan hack? Why isn’t Cummings trying to get to the bottom of the events before, during and after the Benghazi attacks. Today he sounded like Hillary’s campaign manager.

Why do they bother after McCarthy’s assertion their primary function was to hurt HRC’s Prez run.

Of course. But McCarthy was wrong and had no right to speak for the committee He’s not even on the committee, nor has he seen all the documents, evidence.

They should cut their losses and end the charade.

Yeah, Rich, let’s just pretend that four Americans are really not dead, really did not lose their lives due to the incompetence of Hillary, and there was no refusal to give Ambassador Stevens the additional security he was requesting and Elijah Cummings is an honorable man (which he’s not).

So, U.S. taxpayers will be funding a Benghazi Investigation #8, even though Benghazi Investigations #1 through #7 all came to the conclusion that there was no evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of anyone in the Obama administration—and it sure as hell wasn’t for want of trying to find some.

Somebody should investigate the investigators. Their political motives are totally obvious. All that’s needed is for someone in the spotlight to point that out.

@Greg:

So, U.S. taxpayers will be funding a Benghazi Investigation #8, even though Benghazi Investigations #1 through #7 all came to the conclusion that there was no evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of anyone in the Obama administration—and it sure as hell wasn’t for want of trying to find some.

But you fail to admit one thing, Greggie Goebbels; that the hearings #1 through #7 did not have all the emails that the committee now has. Clinton’s emails to her own daughter admitting that the Benghazi attack was part of an AQ action was just recently released.

Somebody should investigate the investigators. Their political motives are totally obvious. All that’s needed is for someone in the spotlight to point that out.

Was there a political motive during the Watergate hearings? Why, yes, there was. And no one, NO ONE, was killed during the Watergate break in. But you liberals don’t seem to care that four Americans lost their lives in Benghazi because Hillary Clinton couldn’t be bothered to give Ambassador Stevens, assigned by her to one of the most dangerous areas in the world as well as the region that contributed the most fighters of any nation to Iraq where our soldiers were killed by them, her cell phone number/private email address.

But Sidney Blumenthal had both.

You seem upset that the Benghazi hearings continue. How many hours of hearings were there for Watergate where no one was killed? How many days were those hearings televised?

Elijah Cummings, who has already violated federal law by using the power of his office to harass a private citizen with demands for tax information, should wind up sitting in a jail cell along with Hillary Clinton.

You are, and remain, a disgusting Democrat hack.

Are the republican members of the current Benghazi investigative committee really as frickin’ pig-headed and stupid as they appear to be?

@Greg: Yep, all the same conclusion… Hillary is a corrupt, lying incompetent.

Now Hillary claims she never blamed the video for the attack. Liberals, due to their extend experience with getting away with lying, simply rely on telling whatever lie suits their need, confident that the media and their stupid sycophantic followers will simply agree without question.

Do you think so? Trey Gowdy seems to be the one who’s constantly breaking out in a sweat. Things aren’t quite going as planned. Clinton was supposed to be the one wilting under the spotlight. He just got a dressing down from Clinton. Possibly wet his pants. And she’s circling around for another attack. He’s totally outclassed and completely taken off guard.

They probably believed all of their own bullshit about her. Figured they’d just roll over her.

Bill #30 – Now Hillary claims she never blamed the video for the attack.

Well, there’s this thing called videotape. Oh, about not having a computer in her office, it’s kind of hard to compose a full email on a smartphone or a tablet. She didn’t have time to reply to Chris Stevens about security in Libya, but she certainly found time to correspond with Blumenthal via email on a regular basis. About having her own email server, she violated her own policy on using a personal account for government communications. When she claims Colin Powell had his own private server, that’s nonsense. He used his personal GMail account, but transferred those emails to State, both in digital format and paper print-out.

@Greg:

Are you honestly trying to push the liberal narrative even after we know that Hillary Clinton told her daughter, and the PM of Egypt, that the Benghazi attack had nothing to do with a YouTube video? Are you really that dishonest? And we know, due to released documents, that just a few hours into the Benghazi attack, the White House was trying to get YouTube to take down the video by “Pastor Jon.”

Here is the real scandal; the Obama White House wanted a false narrative to cover their ass, and offset any criticism about Obama, just two months before his reelection. It was all a lie: Hillary telling the parents of the dead Americans the feds would get “the guy” who made that hateful video; Susan Rice going on FIVE Sunday talk shows saying it was a protest over a video; Hillary Clinton lying about the fact that it was a planned, well coordinated attack on the Benghazi compound.

How disgusting low are you willing to go? If any committee member should be prosecuted, it is Elijah Cummings.

I know what I just saw. I think most people who watched the hearing, or see the videos later, will know what they’re seeing. I think Trey Gowdy knows exactly what just happened. Their phony Benghazi scandal—and their phony email scandal, which they attempted to piggy-back onto the Benghazi hearing without a shred of evidence suggesting it was relevant—just hit an iceberg. The ship may not be sunk yet, but it’s rapidly sinking, and all the spin in the world—which I’m sure they’re frantically trying to patch together at this very moment—won’t save it. There probably won’t be enough lifeboats.

@Greg:

Did Hillary Clinton tell the parents of the victims of Benghazi that they would get the man who made that horrible video, or not? Did Clinton blame the attack on Benghazi? Did Susan Rice go on five, FIVE, different Sunday talk shows blaming a video for Benghazi? Yes, or no?

And did Hillary email her own daughter the very night of the attack saying the attack was due to an AQ type? Yes, or no?

Four Americans are dead due to total incompetence, and all you can do is pimp for the Democrats. Shame on you.

@retire05, #35:

Four Americans are dead due to a terrorist attack. Republican efforts to politicize events began while the ruins of the consulate were still smoldering. Mitt Romney:

I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.

He was blathering about a public statement the Cairo Embassy staff had made in an effort to reduce tensions while their embassy compound was still under siege and in danger of being overrun, conflating it with official Obama administration policy. It wasn’t even known who the casualties were at that point, let alone the details of what had happened. He was politicizing events while the ruins of the Benghazi compound were still smoldering. If that’s not political opportunism, and a stunning example of putting party before country, I don’t know what is.

You have no clue how negative my attitude about the GOP has become. Worse that useless has become my considered opinion of the entire organization. They’ve put thoughtful people in the position of having to vote for democrats almost by default.

@Greg: There was wrong doing if we lost 4 Americans, one of which was the Ambassador. I know you lefties have little love for real Americans, but those of us who actually care for America do care!

@Greg: Please do not embarrass yourself and others by pretending to be a thoughtful person!

@Randy, #37:

Do you realize that there were 13 attacks on U.S. embassies and consulates resulting in over 60 deaths during the administration of George W. Bush?

So where was the outrage and where were the Congressional investigative committees then?

Here’s a truth for you: Mistakes are sometimes made. Bad things sometimes happen. No one can prevent it all. We live in a dangerous world.

That is reality. Republicans should attempt to acquaint themselves with the concept, and realize that it applies to everyone to the same degree.

What sort of logic is involved when you compare the number of embassy attacks and the number of related deaths during the two administrations, look at the number of official investigations that have resulted, and then somehow conclude that it’s democrats who cut their own administrations slack, while being unduly critical of republicans?

If you listened to Hillary’s entire testimony today you had to notice that she kept blaming the victim.
She thought Chris Stevens was JOKING when he emailed (or cabled) for more security!
She also directly made sure Huma’s emails for milk went answered right away (not by intermediaries, either!) while she claimed she had layers of paper-pushers between her and Chris Stevens when his repeated requests for more security were turned down!
Guess she learned from the best.
Today Obama refused to ”take credit” for a special forces action that saved 70 while costing the life of one of our own.

@David:

She didn’t have time to reply to Chris Stevens about security in Libya, but she certainly found time to correspond with Blumenthal via email on a regular basis.

Oh, it’s not necessarily that she didn’t have time or didn’t respond to Stevens…. it’s just possible that those emails got… well, lost.

@Greg: Yeah, Greg, Hillary is a liar. Did you see the reference above to the Watergate hearings? Remember who was one of the Democrat staff for that investigation? Why, none other than Hillary. And, do you know who got fired from that staff for wanting to lie and suppress evidence? I’ll let you ponder that and even give you a clue… it wasn’t Gowdy.

Their phony Benghazi scandal

Well, Greg, it is a documented fact that additional security was requested, terror warnings ignored and that after the attack, this administration tried to cover up the facts of their negligence. This is irrefutable and indisputable. It is documented fact. So, do you want someone as President that ignores terror warnings then, when people are killed due to that ignorance, not only tries to cover it up, but is absolutely inept and disrespectful of all but the dimmest intellects with a lame excuse of a video causing the attack?

their phony email scandal

It has been effectively shown that Hillary used a secret, unsecured email server and lied about classified information being on that server. You can deny all you want, but the emails themselves reveal that Hillary bothered to update her hedge-funding daughter about the true facts of the attack but lied to the families of those slain as a result of her incompetence and ineptitude. We also know she and her weasel-for-hire Blumenthal discussed how to manipulate the Libyan adventure for their own financial benefit. Further, since she was quick to criticize others for using personal email, we also know, due to the existence of this gigantic trove of personal, secret email for government business, that she violated rules and her own principles… if such things exist. This is who you would like to have as President; someone that jeopardizes national security and lives to further her own, often financial, interests.

Four Americans are dead due to a terrorist attack.

Really? You sure? Wasn’t it a video? What politicized the hearings was this administration lying about it (for political reasons) and withholding information. Then, there are the emails, secret, their existence only exposed by a hacker, which provide additional information. And, as shown by the two comparative stacks of emails from 2011 and 2012, there is a high likelihood that a lot of emails were mistaken for yoga emails and deleted. You bet this was politicized; the left politicized it to try to conceal administration incompetence, corruption and dishonesty. It appears Hillary and Obama were illegally running weapons out of the consulate and they kept it undefended so as to not draw attention to it.

You don’t think blaming the attack on a video because Obama had been claiming victory over al Qaeda and the war on terror was not politicizing? CERTAINLY you can now see that though they KNEW this was a terror attack, they LIED about a video being the cause; the EMAILS alone SHOW CLEARLY that NO ONE believed in the video excuse. NO ONE. NO ONE. NO ONE. It was a lie, was known to be a lie, and they all willingly lied. THERE’s politicizing and they did that AT THE FUNERAL OF THE FALLEN.

Do you realize that there were 13 attacks on U.S. embassies and consulates resulting in over 60 deaths during the administration of George W. Bush?

Do you realize all of those were investigated and hearings held just like this one? The difference was that the Bush administration didn’t lie and stonewall those investigations and hearings. That’s a profound difference, Greg.

Here’s a truth for you: Mistakes are sometimes made. Bad things sometimes happen. No one can prevent it all. We live in a dangerous world.

That is true and why it is important to openly and honestly investigate these occurrences. But, you know what, Greg? Claiming this happened due to a video obstructs that effort. Hiding emails containing information obstructs that effort. Lying about how and why it happened obstructs that effort. Lying about ignoring clear warnings and requests for additional security obstructs that effort. While you seem to show you understand the lessons learned process, you simultaneously celebrate and defend the actions of those opposing the lessons learned process. You on the left seem to want to write off failures by the left as “mistakes” while lapses in security and diligence by Republicans is “Bush lied, people died”.

You are defending the very scum of the earth.

@Nanny G:

If you listened to Hillary’s entire testimony today you had to notice that she kept blaming the victim.
She thought Chris Stevens was JOKING when he emailed (or cabled) for more security!

Hey, isn’t this what Carson was attacked for? Where’s the left wing outrage?

Today Obama refused to ”take credit” for a special forces action that saved 70 while costing the life of one of our own.

That’s because these are “boots on the ground” which, of course, do not exist.

@Greg: How many ambassadors were killed?

@Randy: Still wasting your time I see.

@Bill:

Oh, it’s not necessarily that she didn’t have time or didn’t respond to Stevens…. it’s just possible that those emails got… well, lost.

They’re lost next to the Rose Law Firm billing records.

Four Americans are dead due to a terrorist attack.

Really? You sure? Wasn’t it a video?

Which is the narrative he supported when it happened. Don’t let him try and act like he said it was a terror attack from the start. He didn’t. He parroted the lie and even supported the imprisonment of the individual who made the video. It should all be well documented in the FA archives.

@Bill, #42:

Well, Greg, it is a documented fact that additional security was requested, terror warnings ignored and that after the attack, this administration tried to cover up the facts of their negligence.

That’s a concise summary of what the GOP claims , but has failed to establish with credible evidence despite endless investigations that have consumed enormous amounts of time and energy and a growing pile of taxpayer dollars. They keep conducting investigations, and then ignoring the findings of their own investigative committees.

It’s an obvious political exercise. It’s a transparent effort to take down their political enemies on the taxpayers’ dime, and most people are beginning to get that.

Add to that their persistent efforts to derail any and every Executive Office initiative, their endless negative messages about the economy and the nation, their decidedly regressive social agenda, the fact that they’ve done nothing even remotely constructive about much of anything despite having majorities in both Houses of Congress, and the cartoon character that they seem intent on putting forward as their presidential nominee. I think it all totals up to the makings of a Democratic win in 2016.

I see all this, but I don’t pretend to understand the reasons for it. You’d think somebody on the republican side could get things under control.

@Greg:

That’s a concise summary of what the GOP claims , but has failed to establish with credible evidence despite endless investigations that have consumed enormous amounts of time and energy and a growing pile of taxpayer dollars.

Well, if you would stop consuming left wing media, you would be able to enlighten yourself. As it is, you are ignorant.

Had Hillary not used a secret, private, unsecured (as in vulnerable) email server to conduct the State business she wanted the option of getting rid of if it proved a political liability, the investigation would have taken a much shorter time. However, due to her lack of transparency and corruption, every bit of evidence has to be forced out of her. However, we do know this:

Stevens BEGGED for additional security or to be extracted and Hillary ignored it. In the most recent hearing, she says she put him there but never got any of the memos requesting help… of course, she never bothered giving him her primary (secret, private, unsecured, etc, etc) email account.

She and Obama toppled Qaddafi but then decided it was boring. Unless Blumenthal was offering suggestions as to how to make a killing (financially, not Ambassador-wise), she wasn’t that interested (Blumenthal HAD her S,P,U email). There were about 1,000 Libya-related emails in 2011 but half that in 2012; either she was no longer interested in the mess she made in Libya or she mistook those emails for yoga emails and deleted them.

Everyone in the Administration knew this was no video-inspired attack, yet they all lied about it. They lied for political reasons, to save their political asses.

Benghazi was caused by Hillary’s ineptitude and covered up with her corruption. She is NOT Presidential material. She is trash and anyone that supports her defiles the graves of those she got killed.

And that’s pretty much that.

You’ve just posted a summary of the right’s Benghazi propaganda memes.

Repeating things over and over only makes them seem to be true for a certain segment of the population. Others require evidence before they’ll believe. After a while, they begin to understand the purpose of the repetition.

@Greg: So, despite the evidence, you are stating you deny these facts? Do I have that right?

There is no evidence. If there were, we wouldn’t be up to investigation 8, or 9, or whatever this is. They could simple state their conclusions, list the proofs, and be done with it. Instead, we have Trey Gowdy sweating profusely as he suddenly realizes he’s just been told on national television that he’s shoveling a load of horse manure.