Attacking Hillary's speech to Defend Trump is Disgusting

[bravenak]

Surprisingly enough, we have people who seem to be attacking Hillary's kick ass anti Donald speech. Anybody who thinks Donald deserves defending is probably gullible in the extreme.
I most certainly do not want Donald to have the ability to use our military to settle his petty little grudges and grievances.

I have no idea where all of the protective concern for Donald Trump came from, but he is simply disgusting and seemingly evil. He has no conscience.

Hillary Clinton is doing a wonderful job of attacking Donald on his comments and lack of FP knowledge. Attacking her for that just seems suspect, imo. Anybody who is a real Democrat knows just how dangerous Donald Trump is to leftist values, so I am tending to treat the vicious attacks on her as rightwing disruption.

No matter which candidate you chose, defending and promoting Donald Trump is just filthy. Saying that Hillary and Donald are any where near the same is just pathetic garbage.

I hope people think about how stupid it is to trash Hillary and defend Donald just because of how the primary turned out. He is the real enemy. Why help him by attacking her speech? It was DAMN GOOD! And true too!

[cali]

1. I haven't seen that here. Have you? If so, please provide a link.

[bravenak]

2. You missed the ops attacking her speech?

You must have been out yesterday.

[peace13]

13. Copy a few and share.

Support your attack instead of pointing fingers.

[bravenak]

15. I already gave you one

Here is another
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512112705

[peace13]

18. This OP is not an attack, it is pretty spot on.

If you support Hill you already know she's hawkish. That's who she is. She also plays by her own rules. But if you support her you already know that. It's probably not a bad thing to you. Commenting is noticing not judging.

It's funny that people support a candidate and then get angry when people point out attributes of that candidate. Hillary has her ways. You support her. Some people don't. It's no judgment on you. It is an observation about her.

[bravenak]

20. Trump has not even ruled out using nukes so no

It was a bullshit attack on Hillary making Trump seem more reasoned and dovish. He is not!

[peace13]

23. If you can take anything he says as serious......

You aren't looking at the whole carnival. Trump will not be the nominee.

[bravenak]

25. Trump is their presumptive nominee until we hear different

The republican party seems to be coming together to support him. I have no idea where you got the info that Trump will not be the republican nominee.

[puffy socks]

101. Everyone else has dropped out

He is their nominee unless he dies or something.

[azurnoir]

109. Has Hilary ruled out nukes? and better yet can any POTUS decide to unilaterally nuke anyone?

[bravenak]

110. Has Hillary ever threatened to use nukes or force just because her feelings get hurt?

Hillary is a thousand times more reasonable than Trump. I have no idea why folks want to bash Hillary while giving Trump a pass. I do not trust Trump to follow rules. I have no idea why you might think he would not act like Kim Jong Un. He would. He is a tyrant.

[azurnoir]

121. the central question is does any POTUS have the authority to unilaterally order a nuke attack?

I don't think it works quite like it was depicted in The Dead Zone when in 'Greg Stilson' single handedly launched nukes

and more over why do folks insist that questioning anything is bashing Hillary or giving Trump a pass? I didn't do either

[bravenak]

122. Doesn't matter if he had the authority

Congress is repub.

[azurnoir]

123. I'm not sure even a Republican Congress would vote for the use of nukes

[bravenak]

124. I'm not sure they wouldn't

[gollygee]

104. She isn't more hawkish than Trump

She is more hawkish than Bernie, but that isn't what the linked post says. It claims, ridiculously,that she's more hawkish than Trump.

[Sancho]

132. "funny that people support a candidate and then get angry...."

There's plenty more at the link and many other similar articles by people who know Bernie well. The OP is correct - Trump is disgusting. Hillary is not hawkish. Hillary has the experience of seeing the real world for 30 years, and she is opposed to becoming an isolationist country with naive expectations. Bush and Cheney were hawkish. Big difference.

Meanwhile, Bernie is disingenuous because he criticizes Hillary when he's been just as "hawkish" and pro MIC as any politician who saw a chance to get reelected. He just happens to paint himself as different and has gotten away with pretending to be different. It's a lie. Hillary will make rational and informed decisions about the world. She is not a hawk.

Don't get angry, but look carefully at Bernie's record and see if it's really all that different. It's not.

https://www.quora.com/What-dirt-is-there-on-Bernie-Sanders

So, here are some hard, cold truths about Bernie Sanders. Just keep these facts in mind the next time you feel compelled to treat him as some sort of uncompromised, morally superior super-socialist hero come to balance the scales of justice and deliver radical reforms to our economic and political systems…

The problem is, Sanders very quietly has come around to being a supporter of Lockheed Martin. There’s some shady history involving Sanders’ denial of being aware of certain deals taking shape between the new Burlington, VT, mayor (recall Burlington is where Sanders got his own start) and Lockheed. Yet somehow, both the Burlington mayor and Senator Sanders were simultaneously working out deals with the company for building and expanding in Vermont. What a nice little coincidence.

Senator Sanders’ enthusiasm for pet projects in his state is well-known, one of the most controversial being his years of pushing to locate a Pentagon F-35 fighter jet project in Vermont. This $400-billion military project is the sort of vast “military industrial complex” government-corporate boondoggle Sanders regularly pretends to oppose, except when he’s aggressively lobbying in favor of them for Vermont. His pathetic excuse for such situations is often “well if it’s going to happen anyway, my constituents may as well get some of the jobs and money from it.”

Meanwhile, Sanders’ pretense about being opposed to war and warmongering is a sham. In 1999, he supported the war against Serbia that involved a vast bombing campaign resulting not only in INCREASING the ethnic cleansing on the ground (something the administration and Pentagon literally openly admitted — during a press conference — they knew would happen and weren’t frankly concerned about, saying so in those dismissive of terms) but also littering that portion of Europe with depleted uranium debris. I won’t go on about it here, but the effects of depleted uranium exposure are terrible, for the troops using it and the victims on the ground subjected to the bombings. Italy sued the United States to recoup health care costs for Italian peacekeepers stationed in the region who ended up poisoned by the depleted uranium contamination. Soldiers exposed to it also have children with dramatically high rates of birth defects. And it contaminated the water table beneath the former Yugoslavia.

[bravenak]

91. Where did I mention Bernie Sanders or his supporters?

No need to make stuff up

[Betty Karlson]

92. That is rich, coming from your side.

[PeaceNikki]

125. I just served on a jury for this reply. Total BS

[SidDithers]

126. Jury results coming...nt

Sid

[PeaceNikki]

127. I was juror #3

You missed the ops attacking her speech?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2114103

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Don't know if it is the signature line or not, but poster seems to imply that any criticism of Clinton's speech comes from Trump-humpers. To make that accusation of fellow DU-ers is against the TOS.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Jun 4, 2016, 06:30 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is a ridiculous alert. I will be notifying admin. It's obviously stalking.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[SidDithers]

128. Good result...nt

Sid

[SamKnause]

3. She did not give a foreign policy speech.

She roasted Donald, and she roasted him well !!!

It is disingenuous to say her speech was about foreign policy.

That is my 2 cents.

P.S. Bernie has been calling Donald a pathological liar since December.

[bravenak]

4. She arguably roasted him on his lack of FP and showed how little he knows

I loved it

[Press Virginia]

34. He knows nothing but its not like her track record is stellar

She won't use Nukes, he says they're an option.
She won't call world leaders silly names. He'll probably offend everyone.

She'll continue the same failed policies we've pursued since the 80's

[bravenak]

36. So I guess it's best to attack her for attacking him? Wft?

[Press Virginia]

37. How is pointing out her track record on foreign policy anything more

than putting her criticism in perspective?

If there was an actual foreign policy success, during her tenure, I'd love to hear about it.

[bravenak]

38. It is pretty much helpjng Trump since her speech was against him

Some people can never pass up an opportunity to attack her, even if it gives Trump a helping hand. Sad sad shit.

[Press Virginia]

40. Great! She criticized Trump.

Does that mean people should forget about her own record?

We already know he's a buffoon. But her resume isn't one of a foreign policy genius.

[bravenak]

41. People could simply not attack her for blasting Trump

[Press Virginia]

44. True

[Ghost Dog]

79. One success, in terms of her obvious goals, she mentioned:

Defining Russia as a 'dictatorship' (and an enemy).

Russia is a multi-party parliamentary democracy, albeit one which elects a strong President, like, eg. France and the USA (when Congress is onside).

[DemocratSinceBirth]

54. Does that make you more or less likely to vote for Trump?

[Press Virginia]

56. Does what? He's a reality TV guy whose name is on a bunch of shit

not a guy I want running things.

[DrDan]

5. I guesss he should have focussed on the primary

[Logical]

52. It was a foreign policy speech, it was about foreign policy under trump. Nt

[Vinca]

6. I knew yesterday's vow wouldn't take.

What was it? 12 hours?

[bravenak]

8. This has NADA to do with Sanders unless he also attacked her speech about Trump

If so, then, that's too bad.

[melman]

16. Yeah

I was wondering what the new angle would be. Turns out it's 'defending Trump'.

[StayFrosty]

7. Lots of concern trolling from Sanders supporters

Hillary attacks Trump

Sanders supporters attack Hillary

[bravenak]

10. I see folks calling it the worst speech ever, like, really?

It's so astounding that people hate he so much they will attack her for attacking Trump.

[angrychair]

81. We don't need a speech of name calling

That is his gig.

So tired of politics being about "how bad the other person is".
How about "this is my vision for our future" without mentioning any other candidate or any compare/contrast nonsense.

to much of this election cycle has been about the other person running and not themselves.

[peace13]

9. NO ONE HERE IS DEFENDING TRUMP!

There is a serious problem with the perception of Hillary supporters. Any comment is considered an attack. Any comment is support of Trump. Can you imagine that others perceive Clinton as a non viable candidate and do not seek to destroy her but enlighten you. They have valid concerns and are frustrated.

Please copy the attacking posts so we can see what you perceive as an attack! It would be a huge help!

[bravenak]

11. Attacking her for giving a speech attacking Trump is defending Trump

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512109964

[peace13]

17. OK the title calls it horrible but the argument stands.

The title could have read...I have huge concerns about Clinton's speech. Less attacking. It does not change the content or delivery. Hillary doesn't need any of us to defend her here. She doesn't know we exist. She barely needs any of our votes. The fact is that the speech was not a savvy piece of diplomacy. These words are heard around the world and we all pay the price.

[peace13]

21. They were not attacking her for attacking Trump.

They weren't attacking her. They were commenting on the content that's she chose to use as a major speech. Pretty simple. Hillary isn't a little girl and does not need to be protected. She is a hardened politician and can stand on her own.

[bravenak]

24. They used her speech as an opening to attack HER rather than go after Trump

Which is mindbogglingly stupid. Trump. Is. Terrible.
Why not use the time to help Democrats fight Trump, ratger than to lob bombs at the one person giving him the business?
This desire to hurt her even if it helps Trump is disgusting. He is dangerous.

[peace13]

33. Going after Trump is like chasing a turd in the toilet bowl.

It is totally unnecessary....simply flush. He will not be the nominee. If for some strange reason he does remain, simple words will not make him disappear. You can not destroy what the system wants......Hillary and Trump. She is not still standing because you or any other American wants her. The MSM and the machine and even DU picked her.

[bravenak]

35. Can I get a link to this info that Trump will not be the nominee? Seems suspect.

[Logical]

53. If you did not love hillarys take down of trump you do not belong here! Nt

[peace13]

58. Fortunately for others, that is not your decision to make.

[Logical]

62. Lol, soon i will! Nt

[jack_krass]

12. How DARE they criticize her highness. Off with their h.. oh wait, HRC's not corronated yet

[bravenak]

14. What sense does it make to attack her for attacking Trump?

She was dead on about him! He deserves it!

[jack_krass]

42. Nobody is criticizing Hillary criticizing Trump

[bravenak]

43. I saw them do it

Is bizzarre

[Starry Messenger]

19. Dead. On.

[bravenak]

22. Can't say it surprised me

[Logical]

26. I agree, i honestly are embarassed by some of these bernie supporters nt

[bravenak]

28. Pretty sure some of them are disruptors

No way can they be serious

[Logical]

31. I am beginning to think they are too, i am not a hillary fan but also know....

She is our only hope over trump. Big picture matters.

[Surya Gayatri]

27. Massive K & R for the dose of reality...

[bravenak]

30. I wish we could just have one anti Trump day here on du

He really pisses me off daily

[Surya Gayatri]

95. Yeah, how about declaring "Hate on Trump Day". No Sanders or Clinton threads allowed for 24 hours.

That would be a refreshing break.

[HumanityExperiment]

29. you refer to posts that include this?...

Here are some excerpts from her speech yesterday:

"And if America doesn’t lead, we leave a vacuum – and that will either cause chaos, or other countries will rush in to fill the void. Then they’ll be the ones making the decisions about your lives and jobs and safety – and trust me, the choices they make will not be to our benefit.
That is not an outcome we can live with."

She will continue the current wars and promote the US 'policing' the rest of the world...



"Third, we need to embrace all the tools of American power, especially diplomacy and development, to be on the frontlines solving problems before they threaten us at home." ... "Now we must enforce that deal vigorously. And as I’ve said many times before, our approach must be “distrust and verify.” The world must understand that the United States will act decisively if necessary, including with military action, to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. In particular, Israel’s security is non-negotiable. They’re our closest ally in the region, and we have a moral obligation to defend them."

When did the US need to become more imperialistic? when did this become a progressive / liberal position?



"Fifth, we need a real plan for confronting terrorists. As we saw six months ago in San Bernardino, the threat is real and urgent. Over the past year, I’ve laid out my plans for defeating ISIS.
We need to take out their strongholds in Iraq and Syria by intensifying the air campaign and stepping up our support for Arab and Kurdish forces on the ground."

Now she's throwing Obama under the bus? 'we need a real plan for confronting terrorists'? Obama doesn't have a real plan being acted upon currently?



"And one more thing. A President has a sacred responsibility to send our troops into battle only if we absolutely must, and only with a clear and well-thought-out strategy. Our troops give their all. They deserve a commander-in-chief who knows that."

Where does Libya fall into the category of 'well thought out'?

I'm tired of wars that lack planning in the aftermath, the conclusion and reconstruction...
I'm tired of $$ being tossed out the window without clarity and an audit
I'm tired of lack of reporting on the longest war the US has ever been involved in...

[bravenak]

32. Yes. That is exactly what I mean

People who are one track minded and cannot stop hating hillary long enough to oppose Trump for a day or two.

[HumanityExperiment]

47. no room for war hawks in DEM party

So being critical of her war hawk stance as I've shown from her own speech is 'hating'?

When did the DEM party embrace war hawk positions as part of it's platform? you condone this?

This is about opposing positions that are anti DEM, why would you embrace these positions?

[peace13]

39. It's funny that she ignored Obama's directives as SOS...

....yet talks about being Commander and Chief as if people would respect her! If the troops ignore her like she ignored President Obama that would be something.

[hootinholler]

45. Well that didn't last long

The spirit of unity kind of implies you don't put words in other people's mouths.

[bravenak]

48. I do not need to put words in anubodys mouth

And i never ever said I was going to become a kissass and ignore rightwing attacks on the nimonee

[Dawgs]

46. Sorry. You are wrong...again.

Criticizing Hillary is criticizing Hillary. It's not defending Trump.

[bravenak]

50. Yeah right

Not in this case!

[Autumn]

49. Yeah noting the content of her speech is exactly defending Trump.

Cause wars and policing the rest of the world is the bestest thing ever!!

No one, not one fucking person here defends or promotes Trump. Unless they are sending private message to other posters saying they support Trump and are only pretending to be democrats because hurt fee fees! If that's the case you might just have a point.

[bravenak]

51. Calling her anti Trump spee h the worst speech ever is kinda defending him

So it saying he is to the left of her on war.

[Autumn]

55. Only in your world and a hell lot of people are to the left of her on war. Including Obama

OMG I just compared Obama to Trump!!!!!!

[bravenak]

60. Bull

[Autumn]

63. Nonsense. No Bulls there. Obama is to the left of Hillary and so are many others. Hills is

kind of hawkish and to the right, like her mentor Kissinger.

[bravenak]

69. Whateves

Some folks cannot pass up an opportunity to trash Hillary

[Autumn]

71. Whateves is right brav

Some folks cannot pass up an opportunity to trash Liberals.

[brush]

72. Get real. Is Trump to the left of her on war?

Can't you say that with a straight face?

[bravenak]

74. Cannot make this shit up

[Autumn]

77. People make this shit up all the time.

[bravenak]

78. This too is boring and pointless to continue with you

You may continue on alone as you please

[Autumn]

80. Nah I'm done, I find stretches boring as fuck all,

[Autumn]

76. Kudos to you . You read what I said.

Star Member Autumn (29,413 posts)
55. Only in your world and a hell lot of people are to the left of her on war. Including Obama

OMG I just compared Obama to Trump!!!!!!

[Gothmog]

57. Defending Trump is really sad

Clinton's speech yesterday was amazing

[peace13]

59. Zero people are defending Trump.

There is some serious disconnect here. Frightening is what it is.

[bravenak]

61. She took him down!

[Blue_Tires]

64. This is only the beginning

Once Sanders officially drops out, we're going to see a LOT of apologia for Trump on this forum from certain posters...

[bravenak]

66. I bet you are right

I cannot understand this place

[beachbum bob]

65. leftwing zealots as far out there as right wing zealots

14 more days....

[bravenak]

67. I hate when they find common ground

[Bleacher Creature]

68. K&R! People really need to re-read Skinner's message.

"If you are criticizing Hillary Clinton because you want to help her succeed, then you'll be fine. But if you are criticizing Hillary Clinton because you want to tear her down, then you won't be fine."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1013&pid=5833

If the people criticizing her yesterday really want to "help her succeed," they really fooled me.

[bravenak]

70. Fooled me too

Some seemed affronted that she had the nerve to even give the speech

[NCTraveler]

73. Pretty transparent.

That is a good thing in my opinion.

[bravenak]

75. Yep

We know what it is. Disruptions

[TheKentuckian]

82. If you expect neocon foreign policy to be embraced or even tolerated because TRUMP

you are delusional and dangerously wrong-headed.

Who else you want in charge? Darth Cheney, Rummy, McShame?

The problem is your perspective is strictly limited to she was pounding on Trump which is great you miss/ignore the how and whys and that she did it in no small part by pushing the neocon perspective to do it which is not a win even if effective in dealing with the short term battle because the outcomes and treasury draining impacts are disastrous.

Nobody or virtually nobody is defending the hammy yam, what is bugging you is a consistent worldview and a refusal to swallow poison in order to get in line.

[Octafish]

133. ^^**THIS**^^

Bugs a lot, those who don't go along with the neocon.

[treestar]

83. It is disgusting

Shows they really are for Trump and not really for Bernie.

[bravenak]

85. So sick

[hellofromreddit]

84. Calling Hillary's speech lousy isn't the same thing as protecting Trump

Your fundamental premise is wrong. If you fix that you probably won't be so angry.

[bravenak]

86. Same thing in this case

She was dead on about Trump

[hellofromreddit]

88. Repeating your claim doesn't make it true.

We aren't all a bunch of five-year-olds; we won't fall for it.

[bravenak]

89. Sure it does

[Miles Archer]

90. Everything is not an "attack."

"kick ass anti Donald speech"

Purely a matter of opinion.

"Anybody who thinks Donald deserves defending"

I don't, you don't, and I could give a rat's ass about anyone who does. Feeling that the speech wasn't "kick ass" does not automatically "defend" Trump.

"I have no idea where all of the protective concern for Donald Trump came from"

Neither do I, but since I have a zero level of "protective concern" for Trump, I pretty much DGAF about where it came from.

"Hillary Clinton is doing a wonderful job of attacking Donald"

Your opinion. I think her attacks are mild, that he fights dirty, and she needs to get one hell of a lot more "wonderful."

"Anybody who is a real Democrat"

"I am tending to treat the vicious attacks on her as rightwing disruption."

And I am 100% confident that people who are not Clinton supporters are eagerly standing in line to receive your judgment.

"No matter which candidate you chose, defending and promoting Donald Trump is just filthy."

Of course it is, but that still doesn't make it a "kick ass" speech, and saying that it wasn't a "kick ass" speech is not a show of support for Trump. It just means that Clinton is going to have to come up with some better speeches before she goes nose-to-nose with Trump.

" It was DAMN GOOD! And true too!"

Well, it was true, but it certainly was not "DAMN GOOD."

Carry on.

[Bluenorthwest]

93. False characterizations of others are often motivated by pure bias or bigotry. That's disgusting.

I have never seen anyone on DU defend Trump, such persons should be alerted on and pointed out to the community but of course you can't link to figments fictions or fantasias.

I have seem people on DU attack a minority candidate relentlessly, much as Trump does, and admit to doing so out of bigotry toward the minority group. We have all seen that.

[bravenak]

112. Yeah. Just upthread somebody claims that Hillary is more hawkish than Trump

Not hidden. I guess you are incorrect.

You can try to change the subject, as usual to whatever your grievance is, but I am staying on topic.

[Demsrule86]

94. Do Bernie supporters =Trump supporters these days? nt

[bravenak]

113. I hope not.

[Haveadream]

96. Many people are being willfully ignorant

They would like to disavow the obvious conclusion that relentless attacks on Hillary will result in more votes for Trump. They not adhering to what will be the rules of the GE for DU. DU GE is about ensuring we elect a Democratic President. Tearing down our nominee and making headlining threads like "worst speech ever" HELPS THE OPPOSITION.

It does not matter if their "motives" are progressive or right wing if the result of the criticism is the same.

"If you are criticizing Hillary Clinton because you want to help her succeed, then you'll be fine. But if you are criticizing Hillary Clinton because you want to tear her down, then you won't be fine."

"Helping to succeed" criticism, or constructive criticism 101, for those who missed it:

* I think it will help Hillary succeed if she emphasizes/includes/avoids this policy:________.

* I think it will help Hillary succeed if she goes after Trump for this _________ position.

etc, etc, etc.


While I am fully aware that we are not yet in GE mode, the comments of some lead me to believe they do not understand what the parameters of "help her succeed" are. If they cannot bring themselves to ultimately help Hillary win the Presidency in 2016, then DU GE this time around will not be a good fit for them.

Great post bravenak.

[bravenak]

114. +1

[hrmjustin]

97. I think it is jealousy. Sanders couod not give such a speech.

[bravenak]

115. Many people envy her accomplishments

[panader0]

98. As you say, it was a "kick ass anti Donald speech".

But it wasn't a foreign policy speech. I've heard several pundits say the same thing.
But it was a great anti-Donald speech.

[bravenak]

117. Donald deserves to be hit all at once by the full force of the left

I am so grateful people are starting to call him out instead of acting like what he is doing is perfectly normal

[Bluenorthwest]

99. I agree with Hillary supporter brooklynite on this one:

Here's a list of the Trump supporters who came to his defense after Clinton's speech yesterday:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512114589#post3

[bravenak]

116. Yeah, no

I watched people here attack her for giving that speech

[frylock]

100. remember when criticism of Bush was characterized as defending Saddam?

Anyone remember that?

[peace13]

103. Yep..

...you're either with us or against us!

[frylock]

105. Conservatives are only capable of such binary thinking.

Doesn't matter what side of the aisle you claim.

[bravenak]

118. Good grief!!! Why not just stand against trump?!?

Sad shit going on these days

[Silver_Witch]

102. Who is attacking her speech?

The talking heads on MSNBC. I checked you links below and all it looks like to me is analysis.

Don't listen to them. Trump is a clown and can't possibly win.

Hillary is fine.

[bravenak]

119. Lots of people decided that her speech warrants attacking her rather than our mutual enemy

I refuse to ever think about attacking Bernie for going hard after Trump on his lies and bullshit. I decided Trump is too dangerous for me to spend energy fighting against Bernie. Even if Bernie actually managed to snatch victory from Hillary, I will bite my tongue and help him fight the danger. I can complain later.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

106. We can disagree with both speeches on foreign policy without defending either.

[lunamagica]

107. K&R. well said, Bravenak!

Last edited Sat Jun 4, 2016, 04:27 AM - Edit history (1)

[bravenak]

120. I think her speech kicked Trumps ass

[Zambero]

108. Hillary needs to bang that drum often

She will proceed to dismantle Trump piece by piece on the debate stage.

[bravenak]

111. I agree. I stand with her against Trump and his vile nature

He is deadly threat. To all of us.

[B Calm]

129. Spinning like a top.

Be careful, you're getting dizzy.

[MFM008]

130. There is no defense

Of any characterization of trump to ANY democrat, especially the pending nominee. He is , actually unworthy of discussion. However we are left no choice thanks to the morons who voted for him.

[Thinkingabout]

131. It was a great speech, there will be more speeches, it is worth a second listen

If it is criticized.