Yea by like Quoting him and stuff!!!
He was: http://www.salon.com/2011/04/28/donald_trump_discrimination_suit/
What Hillary did was accidentally leave classified information unsecured. Possibly indictable on technical grounds, but not much case for treason.
Exactly. The guy lights off firestorms and puts his foot in his mouth so often it's amazing. Yet when the media just quotes him, all of a sudden the media is "against" him.
Trump.... It's as if he's trying to lose, with the things that come out of his mouth.
What Hillary did was accidentally leave classified information unsecured. Possibly indictable on technical grounds, but not much case for treason.
Here's something that happens believe it or not...
Here's something that happens believe it or not...
The practice of quoting out of context is an informal fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.
It's US foreign policy to arm Syrian rebels, arms which they may not be able to prevent from getting into the hands of ISIS. Does that make the whole US foreign service treasonous?Not really that simple
http://www.dailywire.com/news/7960/wikileaks-hacked-emails-include-hillary-arming-james-barrett
But to be fair to Hillary, not as if she's any more of a snake than her peers; end of the day she was likely doing exactly what was expected of her.
The US needs a drastic change of policy that none of the above will bring. Expect more of the same regardless of who wins...
It's US foreign policy to arm Syrian rebels, arms which they may not be able to prevent from getting into the hands of ISIS. Does that make the whole US foreign service treasonous?
BTW no one was charged with treason for the Iran-Contra scandal. The scandal where the US sold weapons to a state sponsor of terrorism. But hey, unsecured server, lock her up!
Here's something that happens believe it or not...
The practice of quoting out of context is an informal fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.
He was: http://www.salon.com/2011/04/28/donald_trump_discrimination_suit/
Also, Trump had never said before running for Pres that a judge was unfit to try a case because his parents were Mexican. And other such gems. It's as if he's trying to lose, with the things that come out of his mouth.
What Hillary did was accidentally leave classified information unsecured. Possibly indictable on technical grounds, but not much case for treason.
Not only that but he normally double downs on those statements on later interviews, as for example on the topic of not supporting NATO allies if they were invaded. Also when he has backed down from a statement like the one about the Muslim mother of a dead soldier it was widely reported, his statement about asking Russia to find Hillary's emails which he later said he was being sarcastic was also widely reported.I won't debate that this happens, however in the case of quoting Trump it's not exactly occurring regularly – to the contrary putting his quotes in context often just digs the hole even deeper- what's said around the questionable statements is often batshit crazy.
.
Not only that but he normally double downs on those statements on later interviews, as for example on the topic of not supporting NATO allies if they were invaded. Also when he has backed down from a statement like the one about the Muslim mother of a dead soldier it was widely reported, his statement about asking Russia to find Hillary's emails which he later said he was being sarcastic was also widely reported.