Hillary Clinton in Twitter meltdown - or is it her campaign team?

originally posted by: JimNasium
a reply to: Darkmadness

"I'll probably HAVE TO because "THEY" keep taking My $$$ to make "Haves" out of "Have Nots"...)

And Have Nots out of the Haves. I'm sure it will work out well. Darkmadness, after numerous starry-eyed posts about the love of his/her life, still cannot come up with a single thing Hillary has "done for all of us" despite numerous requests. It's like talking to a Hare Krishna member. The wide-eyed vacuous responses have no basis in reality at all. It's a cult.

a reply to: UKTruth

I'm certainly prepared to believe the worst, but those are some pretty good questions -- that Hillary should be answering herself!!!

originally posted by: Darkmadness

originally posted by: JHumm
Maybe one of the symptoms of her illness is to act like a five year old. ...

She's not acting like a 5 year old!

It's called freedom of speech.

No, it's being juvenile. There's no need for any of this crap. If everyone was held to the same standards, she'd be in jail and hopefully unable to use twit-her.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: UKTruth

No he just said:

1. Ban Muslims from entering the US until an unspecified time. I believe the words he used were "total and complete shutdown?" Do you acknowledge that he said that? He's reiterated it on several occassions.

2. Place mosques and other unspecified places under surveillance. There's been multiple iterations of this, here's one from the middle of June:

"We have to go and we have to maybe check, respectfully, the mosques. And we have to check other places."

Back in November on Breitbart Radio:

"We ought to start [surveillance] up again, and we ought to start it up this morning"

Then there was the Yahoo News interview where he was asked if surveillance of Muslims should include warrantless searches?

France declared this state of emergency where they closed the borders and they established some degree of warrantless searches. I know how you feel about the borders, but do you think there is some kind of state of emergency here, and do we need warrantless searches of Muslims?

Do you remember what his response was?

“We’re going to have to do things that we never did before. And some people are going to be upset about it, but I think that now everybody is feeling that security is going to rule,” Trump said. “And certain things will be done that we never thought would happen in this country in terms of information and learning about the enemy. And so we’re going to have to do certain things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago.”

Do you acknowledge that he said those things? Warrantless searches are flat out unconstitutional. Warrantless searches based on the person's religion violate even MORE constitutional protections.

3. In the same Yahoo interview, the reporter asked him the following question:

"Do you think we might need to register Muslims in some type of database, or note their religion on their ID?"

His answer?

"We’re going to have to look at a lot of things very closely. We’re going to have to look at the mosques. We’re going to have to look very, very carefully."

That was Nov 19, 2015. The very next day, he was a very similar question by an MSNBC reporter.

"Do you think there should be a database system that tracks the Muslims here in this country?"

Do you remember what Donald Trump said to that? I won't even ask you if you want to acknowledge that one because here is answer:



"there should be a lot of systems, beyond databases, I mean we should have a lot of systems"

Correct me if I'm wrong here but "beyond databases" includes databases? No?

So yeah, ban a group by religion, conduct illegal surveillance of their places of worship "and other places" (homes? businesses?) and get them to register for a database.

It's no wonder the always deplorable Pamela Gellar approves. So no, not quite "banning a religion" but not far off either.

a reply to: UKTruth

It has to be her staff, because dead women can't tweet! As for the comments, what, they are trying to claim he's her, basically? We all know who the crook is, between the two.

Desperation, and a lame attempt to deflect from the double issue, I suspect!

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Well said

originally posted by: Darkmadness

originally posted by: alomaha
I didn't know that dead can tweet...

She's not dead she's defending our rights as citizens to freedom of speech through a social media driven campaign targeting one of the worst criminals in the history of mankind.

Those three fingers pointing back at herself as she points her index finger at Trump?

a reply to: theantediluvian

Uh, if your house is being assaulted by termites, it's usually prudent to target them specifically.

Both campaigns have been reduced to satire and sarcasm. Sad really.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Heh, Trump's pretty tame.

LOL ... TJWs never stop being predictable.

Looks to me like Clinton is trying to help Donald get ready for the debates ... that's awful kind, eh?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

So illegal immigrants are like insect pests eating our home from the inside out? Nothing deplorable about that analogy. I can't imagine what that crazy Clinton woman was talking about. Saying that a lot of Trump supporters are xenophobes, racists and the like. The nerve! Demonizing people like that! Why doesn't she go pick on those insects?

originally posted by: JHumm
Maybe one of the symptoms of her illness is to act like a five year old. ...

They tell me that can happen after certain medical conditions.

So the Donald and HRC are twatter freaks. Who cares! My God this is what we've come to. The twatter wars.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

I'm entirely convinced this entire election, all the way down to who will be selected (not elected), has been scripted well in advance and every detail along the way is meant to keep us engaged and distracted while sketchy planning and strategising happens behind the scenes

I have had the biggest WTF moment,

I have been following this election and campaign so closely that I just said to someone that I will 100% vote Trump come November.....


The Problem?????.........


I do not live in the USA and I am not a American...





RA

a reply to: theantediluvian

The analogy stands. If truth and reality are "deplorable," then I'll happily wear the tag.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: UKTruth

No he just said:

1. Ban Muslims from entering the US until an unspecified time. I believe the words he used were "total and complete shutdown?" Do you acknowledge that he said that? He's reiterated it on several occassions.

2. Place mosques and other unspecified places under surveillance. There's been multiple iterations of this, here's one from the middle of June:

"We have to go and we have to maybe check, respectfully, the mosques. And we have to check other places."

Back in November on Breitbart Radio:

"We ought to start [surveillance] up again, and we ought to start it up this morning"

Then there was the Yahoo News interview where he was asked if surveillance of Muslims should include warrantless searches?

France declared this state of emergency where they closed the borders and they established some degree of warrantless searches. I know how you feel about the borders, but do you think there is some kind of state of emergency here, and do we need warrantless searches of Muslims?

Do you remember what his response was?

“We’re going to have to do things that we never did before. And some people are going to be upset about it, but I think that now everybody is feeling that security is going to rule,” Trump said. “And certain things will be done that we never thought would happen in this country in terms of information and learning about the enemy. And so we’re going to have to do certain things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago.”

Do you acknowledge that he said those things? Warrantless searches are flat out unconstitutional. Warrantless searches based on the person's religion violate even MORE constitutional protections.

3. In the same Yahoo interview, the reporter asked him the following question:

"Do you think we might need to register Muslims in some type of database, or note their religion on their ID?"

His answer?

"We’re going to have to look at a lot of things very closely. We’re going to have to look at the mosques. We’re going to have to look very, very carefully."

That was Nov 19, 2015. The very next day, he was a very similar question by an MSNBC reporter.

"Do you think there should be a database system that tracks the Muslims here in this country?"

Do you remember what Donald Trump said to that? I won't even ask you if you want to acknowledge that one because here is answer:

"there should be a lot of systems, beyond databases, I mean we should have a lot of systems"

Correct me if I'm wrong here but "beyond databases" includes databases? No?

So yeah, ban a group by religion, conduct illegal surveillance of their places of worship "and other places" (homes? businesses?) and get them to register for a database.

It's no wonder the always deplorable Pamela Gellar approves. So no, not quite "banning a religion" but not far off either.

You made a very long post to agree with me.
Trump never suggested banning a religion and he has not attacked a whole race of people either.
Those were the two points that were refuted.

He has said he will ban Muslins from entering the US for a period of time until the right checks are in place and he has said Mosques need to be monitored. Until there is a better solution offered, his solution seems the most appropriate in an age of radical islamic terrorism.

originally posted by: slider1982
I have had the biggest WTF moment, I have been following this election and campaign so closely that I just said to someone that I will 100% vote Trump come November.....The Problem?????.........I do not live in the USA and I am not a American...

I almost envy you because I'm going to be forced to choose between Tweedledee and Tweedledum in a few weeks. As my avatar says, I'm not exactly a happy camper about all this.

a reply to: FamCore

I think you give these people way too much credit. The big picture is worked out in advance, most of the details are in the moment pushes trying to sway the narrative towards their end goals.

It's definitely a show of sorts, but mostly improv from what I can tell.