Deleted Comments: Stop Lying About Donald Trump By Quoting Him

Time to hose out the Deleted Comments queue again, and this week, we start with an insight from a Donald Trump supporter who is delighted that Donald Trump tells it like it is, except when he's deliberately being vague to troll liberals. "Steve Kasian,"in reply to our piece about Trump's call to"take out" the families of terrorists, informed us that the beautiful thing about Donald Trump is that he means exactly what he says, except when liberals think he said something extreme. That's because we stupid liberals don't even know what words mean!

See now, Kaili Joy Gray, ya just can't seem to publish anything without outright lying. Trump has never said anything about "killing terrorist's families dead". In fact, he's never said anything that included the words "kill terrorists' families", in any combination or format. He simply stated that terrorists families should be "taken out". He was even grilled countless times about that statement, and never once confirmed what the media wanted him to confirm: that he wanted terrorists families killed. He hedged on his answer, specifically because he knew exactly what he'd said, and that none of it included the words "kill", "murder", "executed", or any other variation of the term, in any form of future, present or past tense.

"Taken out" can mean just about anything one wants it to mean, and for you or anyone to insist that you know exactly what Trump meant by those words -- particularly when Trump himself has repeatedly refused to characterize his intent as any form of "killing" -- is complete and utter dishonesty.

But the beautiful thing about it is, that was his plan all along! And you, being the inept excuse for a "journalist" that you are, took the bait hook, line, & sinker... and in doing so, helped to finance the next week of Donald Trump's WINNING CAMPAIGN! Hahahaha LOSER!

[contextly_sidebar id="R3KwiBP7wn1m0YdCltOmZLGjRX4T3tHo"]We also heard from a commenter last week who insisted that Trump never said anything about killing terrorists' families either, so this may be a talking point among Trump supporters. If you want to check the context of Trump's suggestion that "When you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families!" you could start by listening to the Fox & Friends segment where he says it -- immediately after insisting that while civilian casualties are a shame, we can't wage a "politically correct war." He also said that he would "hit ISIS hard," which might mean he'd kill them. But he didn't say "kill." Could mean he'll personally go over and punch them in the nose.

In any case, we have to say that Steve Kasian's analysis is quite astute: Trump didn't say anything about killing noncombatants who are related to terrorists, so stop lying about him. He means exactly what he says, except when it might sound like he's advocating war crimes. Which are OK anyway, because war cannot be constrained by political correctness. And thanks to his brilliant straight talk that doesn't mean anything, he will win the presidency, because people can trust him. You may not be surprised to learn that much of Mr. Kasian's recent comment history consists of typing "'PRESIDENT TRUMP.' - GET USED TO IT!"

Oh, and what did Trump mean when he said the families should be "taken out"? Dishonest liberals, he meant exactly that. They should be taken out. In another online discussion of Trump, Mr. Kasian had some terrific ideas about how Muslims might be taken out:

But what they don't realize is that the more of them radicalize, the more of them will die... until they are all rounded up like the pigs they are and shipped off to be dropped into the open ocean, thousands of miles from land. : -) The final solution. And then we will be rid of every last stinking one of the swine blooded, filthy murderous cowards.

Notice, however, that he doesn't once say anything about killing them.

[contextly_sidebar id="iMyawjon3Vxo59OrdETGVslahX4YZRTX"]We also heard from a someone with the humorous username "Bullet with Hiliary's Name" [sic], who either can't spell or is insulting Hillary Clinton with some private joke. For some reason, Bullet had a whole lot of things to say about an August post featuring the Clinton campaign's trolling of the first Republican debates; as you may recall, Clinton's Brooklyn campaign HQ put up posters of Republican candidates praising Clinton in the past. PROPAGANDA! Bullet sniffed that Hillz was unfairly quoting Republicans who were clearly lying when they said nice things about her, as one must:

It's funny because all of those quotes were simply said in times of looking cohesive as a group. When it was beneficial to them to not attack Hiliary. Now she's trying to skew when and why they were said into that she's actually good at her job.

Why don't you scamper along now while letting people die while getting shitfaced at home with all your alcoholic issues stemming from your inability to keep a man and forcing him to resort to inhuman actions. While you're slinking away in shame, don't forget to keep force feeding the lowest common denominators in the country all those pathetic lies.

Hiliary, why don't you tell us more about how when men die in war it's really only the women who suffer. Or how you're going to disband legal organizations because they simply oppose your agenda?

A vote for Hiliary is a vote against your freedoms. Enjoy simpletons. And before all you braindead libtards get your panties all twisted in a bunch. I'm a free thinking independent and literally everything you thought up while reading this post is irrelevant.

We guess salivating over the idea of assassinating Hillary Clinton is what free thinking independents are into these days; in reply to a commenter who wrote, four months ago, "Man, Hillary is so on point," Bullet had another funny joke!

On the knife's point, on which she should continue to lower herself.

We can't really disagree with the first commenter's reaction: "this is why i dont post here anymore," although we'd note that unlike some sites, we banhammered the doofus pretty quickly.

[contextly_sidebar id="C74tJCIUh1Ls1PPaxLpgZ0ed2Mh9KgHr"]Bullet also had some Important Thoughts about that cute ad that the Clinton campaign ran, featuring same-sex couples happily smooching. Fraud! Why would any politician make an ad about something so trivial as people kissing? Stupid, stupid liberals! That is unimportant!

If hetero PDA is unacceptable and frowned upon heavily, then why should homo PDA be any different? You can't prove me wrong, anywhere you go and you see PDA there is someone making snarky comments. Basically this is just something really fucking stupid to make Homosexuals feel more inclined to vote for Hiliary.

Not to mention, PDA is not an issue worth being concerned over. Also, if you put social movements and programs before logical programs designed to keep this country running, spur economic development and keeping everyone safe then you shouldn't be able to vote. Your democrat education system has properly succeeded in making you a mindless drone dancing to the beat of their drum.

We'll let longtime Wonkette Operative actor212's comment (which we don't allow) handle this one:

What part of the world do you come from where two hetero people kissing is frowned upon?

Riyadh?

Still, we have to say we were very impressed by Bullet's understanding of what America is all about: If you think gay rights or social programs are more important than tax cuts or national defense, you don't get to vote because you've been indoctrinated by the democrat education system. That's right in the Constitution, Article Squillion, Section Banana.

Now, if only we could figure out why Bullet was so het up about Personal Digital Assistants in the first place.

[contextly_sidebar id="jhSvl2pkzM7y4GuQ6WFf7JbSpoUrdmff"]In reply to our piece on the Supreme Court's decision not to take a case challenging a local ban on "assault rifles," we heard from "Dan Mac," who treated us to some epic gunsplaining:

Obama intentionally misled the American people in his Sunday night speech on gun control, by identifying a SEMI automatic rifle as an AUTOMATIC rifle. He knows better, but he's not the first president to do that for political gain. Bill Clinton invented the whole idea of mislabeling "assault weapons" when he was President in the early 90's, resulting in the useless "Assault Weapon" ban.

For the record, an "assault weapon" is a SELECT FIRE weapon of INTERMIDIATE caliber. That means that an individual has the option of using either automatic, or semi-automatic rates of fire. The intermediate( LESS powerful ) caliber makes the rifle easier to control in full automatic mode.

For starters, we checked the transcript of Obama's speech on terrorism and the San Bernardino shootings. Guess what? He doesn't mention "automatic" rifles once, which really IS misleading! Thanks for the fact check, Dan! He did mention "assault weapons" and also asked, regarding the loophole allowing those on terror watch lists to buy guns,

What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semiautomatic weapon?

We'll give Dan Mac the benefit of the doubt -- perhaps he was so busy sputtering in rage that he didn't hear Obama say "semi." As to the rest of Dan's comment, we'll once again step aside and hand the honors to Wonkette Operative "JAWs," who noticed that firing rate isn't the only thing that Patriotic Gun Humpers are awfully selective about:

I love when gun worshippers try desperately to parse language like this about weapons, yet then have trouble finding the distinction between ISIS and your average Muslim.

Nicely played, O sharky one! Or Richard Kiel fan.

And finally, a non-deleted comment on last week's Dear ShitFerBrains from "Lana Churner," who despite that terrific username, simply doesn't see why we would bother compiling the week's stupidest comments for mocking:

I just came upon this site by accident.

Very silly place.

Most reputable web sites that provide a venue for comments understand that there are a lot of dummies and crazies out there and don't acknowledge the most outlandish comments with a rejoinder. Not this place though.

You use the dumbest comments as a means of dignifying your own opinions.

Did no one ever tell you to never wrestle with a pig?

Ah, well. At least we can continue to avoid being accused of being reputable.