Is it that hard to say...

[usmbguest5318]

Not true at all, Sanders is amazing at her job, she actually makes Spicer look like an honest and upfront guy.

I just want to know how she squares all the lying with her deeply held religious beliefs...

And it's not just her BUT ALL of trumps religious followers What scum what lousy hypocrits

Once in a while you Loons should really try to listen to yourselves...you may realize why nobody sane and productive takes you fools serious.

LefTards-
“Folks whom practice religion and faith are lousy, hypocritical scum.”
“Illegals, federal criminals, ass drilling pole puffers and men in dresses are awesome.”

“The positive contributing wealthy are evil, greedy bastards.”
“The poor are criminals because the wealthy keep them poor.”

You phuckin wack-jobs are so fascinating.

we're whack jobs ?? When the most religious among us follow a perverted ah off the cliff? Get hold of yourself loser

You fail to realize the “religious among us” elected a POTUS and not a Pastor Of The United States.
How do you wackos struggle to understand that?

You fail to realize the “religious among us” elected a POTUS and not a Pastor Of The United States.

And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
-- Luke 6:46​

And there'd be no basis for calling the "trumps [sic] religious followers" hypocrites were it so that the "religious among you" were comparably vigilant, quick and vocal about chiding apparent immorality expressed by Trump and his cohorts as they are about doing just that to others. Lies of omission are nonetheless lies.

And He said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”
-- Mark 7:20-23​

Integrity:

Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
-- Matthew 6:1

​

Words and deeds do not obtain moral legitimacy by dint of who performs them. Accordingly, if one's going to chide "the other guy(s)" when what one considers their morally reprehensible acts/words comes to one's attention, one's obliged to do the same when one's own guy(s) similar acts/words come to one's attention.

Insofar as we're talking about the words and deeds of two of the most widely heard and observed people in the world, it strains credulity to think "religious among you" are unaware of Trump's or Sanders words and deeds.
Tu Quoque:

Like it or not, the fact that some other person or group didn't exhibit the integrity of chiding their own "guy(s)," does not make morally acceptable or logically rational one's also doing so.

After all, one cannot claim to be better than one's opponents yet not consistently behave so in all respects. That means one cannot mimic the behavior of those whom one deems one's moral inferiors.

Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts;
Which devour widows' houses, and for a shew make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation.
-- Luke 20:46-47​

 

[edward37]

I just want to know how she squares all the lying with her deeply held religious beliefs...

And it's not just her BUT ALL of trumps religious followers What scum what lousy hypocrits

Once in a while you Loons should really try to listen to yourselves...you may realize why nobody sane and productive takes you fools serious.

LefTards-
“Folks whom practice religion and faith are lousy, hypocritical scum.”
“Illegals, federal criminals, ass drilling pole puffers and men in dresses are awesome.”

“The positive contributing wealthy are evil, greedy bastards.”
“The poor are criminals because the wealthy keep them poor.”

You phuckin wack-jobs are so fascinating.

we're whack jobs ?? When the most religious among us follow a perverted ah off the cliff? Get hold of yourself loser

You fail to realize the “religious among us” elected a POTUS and not a Pastor Of The United States.
How do you wackos struggle to understand that?

You fail to realize the “religious among us” elected a POTUS and not a Pastor Of The United States.

And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
-- Luke 6:46​

And there'd be no basis for calling the "trumps [sic] religious followers" hypocrites were it so that the "religious among you" were comparably vigilant, quick and vocal about chiding apparent immorality expressed by Trump and his cohorts as they are about doing just that to others. Lies of omission are nonetheless lies

And He said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”
-- Mark 7:20-23​

Integrity:

Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
-- Matthew 6:1​

Words and deeds do not obtain moral legitimacy by dint of who performs them. Accordingly, if one's going to chide "the other guy(s)" when what one considers their morally reprehensible acts/words comes to one's attention, one's obliged to do the same when one's own guy(s) similar acts/words come to one's attention.

Insofar as we're talking about the words and deeds of two of the most widely heard and observed people in the world, it strains credulity to think "religious among you" are unaware of Trump's or Sanders words and deeds.
Tu Quoque:

Like it or not, the fact that some other person or group didn't exhibit the integrity of chiding their own "guy(s)," does not make morally acceptable or logically rational one's also doing so.

After all, one cannot claim to be better than one's opponents yet not consistently behave so in all respects. That means one cannot mimic the behavior of those whom one deems one's moral inferiors.

Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts;
Which devour widows' houses, and for a shew make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation.
-- Luke 20:46-47​

Broke loser in big trouble

Ezekiel 25:17 man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with greatvengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Picky picky picky. More unfair criticism from the anti-woman sissie left.

Anti-woman:

I have no problem with Sanders being a woman. I have a problem with her not being prudent enough to limit her remarks so that (1) she is not lying at the time she makes the remarks and (2) she will not later be made a liar. Take, for instance, the matter of her remarks about McMaster's tenure on the WH staff. The "grapevine" has been saying for weeks that he was on his way out the door.

• March 1, 2018 -- "White House preparing for McMaster exit as early as next month."

Periodically and following that report, Sanders has fielded questions about McMaster's tenure, which, as shown in the OP, she's answered in a variety of ways, none of which equate substantively to:

• "no comment" -- this doesn't reveal information, thus it cannot be said to be a lie, or
• "I don't know" -- assuming that was true, that'd have been a reasonable response, or
• "discussions about his departure have happened in certain quarters that shall, for now, remain nameless," -- assuming at the time she say such it's true, that'd have been fine too.

The point is she chose none of those courses, and that she did has nothing to do with the fact that she's a woman and my criticism of her has nothing to do with the fact of her sex. It is her actions/words and her thought processes that give rise to them that are the problems.

Disdain for one woman in no way indicates anyone's having broad disdain for women.​