Posted on Feb 28, 2016
Marine Sgt. talks Benghazi Four At Bill Clinton rally for Hillary 2016
1.23K
6
6
1
1
0
Posted in these groups: 
Hillary Clinton
Bill Clinton
Hillary Clinton Bill Clinton
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 3
2
2
0
CPT (Join to see) he has a valid point and just was making a statement. It actually happen, but the crowd and host did not wanted to hear it. He served his time as a Marine and fought the fight. He has a valid reason for trying to hold Hillary for her actions (accountability and responsibility) of what happen in Benghazi.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack
2012 Benghazi attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The 2012 Benghazi attack took place on the evening of September 11, 2012, when Islamic militants attacked the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, killing U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith.[7] Stevens was the first U.S. Ambassador killed in the line of duty since 1979.[8] The attack has also been referred to as the Battle of Benghazi.[9]
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL Thanks for the info. I know it happened. It was the way the Marine handled himself that I'm asking about. When we become emotional when stating our point our conversations can devolve and our message is not heard. A debate is not won or lost by who has the loudest voice.
(1)
(0)
SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL
CPT (Join to see) your right it was an emotional topic to start it off.
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
I think that emotions are important during a discussion, the person who is most passionate about a topic or decision has the most to lose, emotionally, and will fight the hardest for their voice and opinion to be heard... the squeaky wheel gets the grease. When in trial being passionate when giving testimony is much more convincing to others than a non-emotional response. In fact it often a point that is considered particularly, how emotional was the person when giving testimony or recanting a memory. It can be perceived that a person who is a "cold-blooded killer' will show no emotion when being questioned, or talking about a particular incident. In general a person who is being sentenced for a crime they were convicted of will get displayed as the emotionless (insert crime) or the emotional person who committed a crime, having emotion adds the human factor in. It makes a big difference.
Its difficult to talk when there is so much passion and conviction, particularly when you are in an environment where you have an opposing opinion from everyone else.
I particularly support Marine for voicing his opinion so passionately. HRC doesn't have a reputation for caring. It is difficult to find an appropriate forum where an individual can question a political candidate without a prescribed talking points. I do think that this forum was not a 'roast the candidate' meeting, but then again, is there ever a time where you as a citizen can face the person who you think has done you and everyone else wrong and criticize them.
He stood out like he wanted to, he made a point like he wanted too, and he was not violent, he didn't throw a shoe at them. Sure he wasn't polite but sometimes when being polite is not working, as in his mind it hasn't worked with her up to this point, then being critical, harsh, and a aggressive is the only remaining route. I don't doubt that an Infantry Marine is not use to loosing a battle, especially of moral or ethical values goes over well, in my non-Marine opinion, they are probably trained to not give up, never give up, when you have the conviction that you are right.
Its difficult to talk when there is so much passion and conviction, particularly when you are in an environment where you have an opposing opinion from everyone else.
I particularly support Marine for voicing his opinion so passionately. HRC doesn't have a reputation for caring. It is difficult to find an appropriate forum where an individual can question a political candidate without a prescribed talking points. I do think that this forum was not a 'roast the candidate' meeting, but then again, is there ever a time where you as a citizen can face the person who you think has done you and everyone else wrong and criticize them.
He stood out like he wanted to, he made a point like he wanted too, and he was not violent, he didn't throw a shoe at them. Sure he wasn't polite but sometimes when being polite is not working, as in his mind it hasn't worked with her up to this point, then being critical, harsh, and a aggressive is the only remaining route. I don't doubt that an Infantry Marine is not use to loosing a battle, especially of moral or ethical values goes over well, in my non-Marine opinion, they are probably trained to not give up, never give up, when you have the conviction that you are right.
(0)
(0)
I think the Marine was rude and disrespectful. He didn't really want to ask a question. He simply wanted to make a long and rambling political statement. That wasn't the appropriate forum, and he handled himself in a very disrespectful manner. He didn't even let President Clinton address his comments; he simply kept talking over him. The same thing happened with the woman.
His actions aside, I think the whole Benghazi thing needs an independent review by an outside group of non-partisan investigators. The whole event has been politicized to death. Nobody knows the truth except for those who were on the ground and those who were directly involved in the decisions leading up to and during that event.
His actions aside, I think the whole Benghazi thing needs an independent review by an outside group of non-partisan investigators. The whole event has been politicized to death. Nobody knows the truth except for those who were on the ground and those who were directly involved in the decisions leading up to and during that event.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google