Trump is terrifying me today. Even more than other days.

[Mira]

Yes, it could easily be, and probably was terrorism. The plane lost from Paris to Cairo, with threats having been made about just such a thing, and the countries involved being a favorite target for terrorists. It is a very frightening and sad happening.

But for Trump to stand there and without proof of any kind calling it a terrorist attack in a speech designed to allow him to posture before the evidence has had time to be collected, and while we don't even have alternatives explored, is terrifying to me. Especially considering that at this time he and Mrs. Clinton are sort of neck to neck. For him to make these accusations not yet based in any fact do nothing but cement the support and confidence of the voters who think he will handle this type of thing with aplomb and dispatch them ably when President.

Little do they know he might already be draining the Mediterranean Ocean and troops might be deployed to attack Atlantis.
Or worse.
I am feeling so very lost. What have we come to?

[malaise]

1. He's a dangerous lunatic

Everyone should be scared

[Mira]

2. Thank you for your understanding

of my kitchen table lonely rant.
The reaction today is proving how dangerous he is to anyone who is looking with a functioning ability to reason

[world wide wally]

3. I'm sure that if he is ever asked exactly what he woul do differently, his answer will be something

of the affect that everyone on a earth will respect him and there will never be another act of terrorism if he is elected.

That's about it.

[tularetom]

4. Does it terrify you that his presumptive democrat opponent said pretty much the same thing?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-egyptair-terrorism_us_573dfd45e4b0646cbeec6d9e

[salinsky]

5. That's the "same thing"???

Have you lost your fricking mind??

Hillary's statement was measured, sober, and presidential.

Trump's was an unhinged, lunatic, rant.

Yeah, same.

[Mira]

10. I know. She is so very smart and so very experienced.

But it was the same thing, and for the wrong reasons. IMO

[joeybee12]

12. You are so off base it's frightening...nt

[Mira]

13. Don't do this.

A unilateral judgment like that, without any "meat" to the statement, is a slap in my face that is dodged easily.

[joeybee12]

14. There's meat in my other posts

You refuse to read them apparently...listen to what she said, what French and Egyptian officials are saying, then try and justify saying they're the same thing...ridiculous

[Mira]

17. If she is really attempting a third term for Obama

she might have patterned herself after No Drama Obama and kept her mouth firmly shut until the facts are in.
But no, she fell into the trap that was set by the Donald, and piped up to cover all bases.

The French, and the Egyptians don't know either. They are perplexed, worried, and speculating. They do not need suppositions from the American presumed Presidential candidates.
We'll probably not agree on this one, no matter how much I read of what you said. So let's just let it be.

[Egnever]

29. Well, we are talking about the ex secretary of state.

I wouldn't be surprised for a second if she knew more than any of the people or countries you mentioned in your post besides Obama.

Like you though I much prefer Obama's slow steady approach while he waits for the facts to come in.

If she does know something and just confirmed it on national TV before the regional governments, I think that is a problem. Not the end of the world but a dumb mistake that she seems to do a lot.

If she is just speculating with no info I don't think that saying "it does appear that it was an act of terrorism" is a good idea. Maybe she is feeling burned by the Benghazi episode and doesn't want to start another republican witch hunt who knows.

Regardless She did discuss it with a clear grasp of the situation and not Trumps version of bomb the brownies!

[salinsky]

16. She echoed what our allies are saying ...

... meanwhile, those same allies are horrified by Trump.

But yeah, same.

[Mira]

6. It does, expletives to follow

it terrifies me a bit less though. It absolutely makes me effing angry and smoke is coming out my ears.

The difference to me, and it is explained easily why I will not happily vote for Mrs. Clinton, is that she said it because he said it. Which means she does not want to be left behind in the admiration of dunces.
The other difference is that she would not jump the gun and drain that ocean today.

(though she may do it tomorrow)

[joeybee12]

9. try reading what she actually said unstead of what the bros

said she said, ffs.

[lapfog_1]

18. you mean

“It does appear that it was an act of terrorism — exactly how, of course, the investigation will have to determine,” Clinton told CNN’s Chris Cuomo in an interview Thursday afternoon.

---

There are many many reasons a plane can suddenly "fall out of the sky" or even explode in mid air.

TWA flight 800 for example.

Let's all wait until the Greeks, Egyptians, and the Airbus engineers look at the debris before we all (including Hillary and Donald) jump to a conclusion that it even "appears" to be an act of terrorism.

[Katashi_itto]

32. Cool story bro

[davidn3600]

11. Hillary has always been on the "war on terror" train

It's why she voted for the Iraq war.

[fleabiscuit]

28. Being a Senator from New York might have had a tiny influence one might think.

After all, Sanders voted with her 93% of the time.

[LiberalElite]

21. That's my take on it also nt

[tularetom]

23. So, in your estimation, what is worse

(a) making a belligerent statement because you are to ignorant to know any better, or

(b) making a belligerent statement, even though you know better, because you are attempting to pander to the dumbass demographic.

The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that both candidates fall under category (b), and that they have both assumed the average American voter is a frightened xenophobe.

And that thought terrifies me more than anything.

[joeybee12]

7. Nice try...but we wouldn't expect anything less

She repeated what the French and Egyptian officials are saying...doesn't surprise me the lies continue around here.

[Dalai_1]

8. K&R n/t

[el dufus]

15. I also think it points towards terrrorism..

everybody PLEASE BE HONEST--- what was your first thoughts about this???? With the track record of the region,,, it is the most logical conclusion...

[spanone]

22. a president waits for facts. doesn't matter what we think

[Mira]

26. Yeah

but there is no need for it to be expressed until there is some serious proof. Not when you are a serious contender for the most powerful job on this earth at this time.
See how our President is keeping his mouth shut, and only showing us that he knows it happened, and staying in no drama mode because he knows how important it is to not pre-guess a response. Both candidates are wrong in doing that, though their delivery is different.

Chances are excellent it is terrorism. But it is not a reason to posture while all eyes are on you and feed the American people with more reasons to be scared.a

I did not yell: "Terrorism" until I saw the second plane hit the second tower.
(And now I doubt any of that happened the way we were told it did.)

So - all I'm saying in my post is to keep your mouth shut when all you are doing is making folks more scared.

[UTUSN]

19. When I posted the same take this A.M. the thread got bushwacked

The objectors claim not to be defending DRUMPF, and they shift the argument to whether it is or isn't terrorism (whether he's "right&quot , and to facts about when explosions occur in the course of flights -- all missing the point about DRUMPF's just shooting his mouth off with anything that pops into his head, pandering to his target dupes, and getting himself on top of the headlines. As the gossip website Gawker put it, he "injected himself into the Egyptian (plane) news cycle."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027841886
It's*news*: DRUMPF(already)said it's *terrorism* - why is he being asked *anything*about anything?

[spanone]

20. maybe more people will see him as the half-cocked crazed reactionary he would be as president?

he's extremely dangerous.

[tularetom]

24. Hillary Clinton also assumed it was terrorism

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-egyptair-terrorism_us_573dfd45e4b0646cbeec6d9e

Would she also be a half cocked crazed reactionary?

Some say she would.

[spanone]

25. no, not some, you.

[AgadorSparticus]

27. He set the tone by wanting to round up Latinos. That is ridiculously extreme.

Everything else just falls into line with who he is and what he is: a monster.

[BlueNoMatterWho]

30. Same thing

From the quotes it seems that they said essentially the same thing. The only difference was tone. And that's what has unnerved so many for so long.

[pampango]

31. A demagogue he is. A president he ain't. n/t

[JRLeft]

33. He's like every other republican, and he's already listening to the GOP establishment.

He will continue the income inequality gap just like Hillary will but faster.