Trump Now Sarcastic About Obama Founding Isis

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump is now tweeting he was being sarcastic about Obama founding Isis.

What next?

Wait a second. Some people seriously thought Obama found IS? You people need more help than I thought. And I am very pessimistic about Americans' intellectual prowess in general

Some people = Trump and his poorly-educated followers and apologists. Oh, and Russian disinformation operants.

Obviously, it produced quite a storm in the general population, so you thought it conceivable

I've heard of verbal and other operants, but never Russian. Did you mean operatives? Sigh... Effing native speakers.

Trump has repeatedly bragged about the size of his penis, causing quite a storm, and yet nobody should believe him about that either. Stupid people are a fact of life and can't be helped. It's the business model for Fox News.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, this reminds me so much of the jerks in high school who said mean, wrong things about other people, to turn the rest of the class against them, and then when caught blamed it on the bullied person for not having a sense of humor. "I was just making a joke, sheesh!"

I don't really even care if he was joking or not. I don't want our national conversation to sink to this level for the next four years. Why would anyone want that? The shitshow wouldn't stop magically once he got elected! It would just be the beginning!

If he gets elected, our national conversation will be the least of your concerns. We're already holding up some investments, just in case. Disinvestment may follow. His supporters who want jobs back are going to be in for a rough awakening, but it's ok because it'll be Clinton's fault.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The left is pissed because there is truth to his statement.

That doesn't even track.

1) There's no truth to the statement at all.
2) Even if there were, why would that anger "the left?"

Absolutely there is truth. He created the vacuum that allowed ISIS to emerge and grow. It was actually predicted that a scenario like this would happen when he pulled all our troops.
And, if you can’t figure out why this would anger the left, you are clueless.

ISIS was founded in 2006, it arose out of an already existing organization that was created after the invasion of Iraq. How you can lay that at the feet of Obama is beyond me, but a ludicrously high percentage of people seem to blame Obama for Katrina so I guess anything is possible.

The US troops in Iraq were replaced by Iraqi troops. When ISIS launched its takeover of western Iraq, there were more Iraqi troops in the area then there were ISIS fighters. The Iraqi troops were also better equipped. However, those troops simply fled. This was not a power vacuum, but a legitimacy vacuum. The Iraqi government had failed to achieve legitimacy in the eyes of the Sunni population and the troops were not prepared to fight on behalf of a government in which they didn't believe.

The ISIS takeover of western Iraq could not have happened were it not for the instability in Syria which allowed ISIS to establish a base in that country. If George Bush's invasion was responsible for ISIS's birth and infancy, the West's destabilization of Syria nurtured the organization through adolescence. Certainly Obama shares some responsibility for this, but for the most part he has been perhaps the single restraint on our involvement there.

Direct quote from this article:

The group that would become ISIS was founded in Jordan in 1999, and became devoted to holding territory in Iraq after the US invasion in 2003. You can debate which of these constitutes ISIS’s "founding" in some metaphysical sense. But by any definition, the group was founded well before President Obama came into office. Trump is just flatly wrong on this

Link to article. Great reading:

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/11/12438744/obama-founded-isis-trump

From Vox. No bias there

Facts don't have a bias. But as it seems you're willing to dismiss the cited piece out of hand, could you point to the purported errors with which you take issue and provide evidence that refutes them?

Those aren't facts. That's an opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He was for it before he was against it.

Like Hillary was against gay marriage before she was for it (like Obama).

Intelligent adults evolve in their thinking and beliefs. I was once against gay marriage but now, 10 years later, I believe thats have just as much a right to be married as straights. We want our elected officials to be able to evolve in their beliefs.

.

I used to believe abortion was fine. Now, after seeing my own ultrasounds, as well as 3D and 4D ultrasounds, I see it as killing a life and feel it's wrong.

But liberals don't feel that is evolving. See the double-standard?

Actually, this is a perfect example of the evolution of your personal beliefs. I don't see any double standard. (fyi, not PP)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He was for it before he was against it.

Like Hillary was against gay marriage before she was for it (like Obama).

Intelligent adults evolve in their thinking and beliefs. I was once against gay marriage but now, 10 years later, I believe thats have just as much a right to be married as straights. We want our elected officials to be able to evolve in their beliefs.

.

I used to believe abortion was fine. Now, after seeing my own ultrasounds, as well as 3D and 4D ultrasounds, I see it as killing a life and feel it's wrong.

But liberals don't feel that is evolving. See the double-standard?

Actually, this is a perfect example of the evolution of your personal beliefs. I don't see any double standard. (fyi, not PP)

You don't. I can guarantee you most liberals do. I've seen it here over and over

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The left is pissed because there is truth to his statement.

That doesn't even track.

1) There's no truth to the statement at all.
2) Even if there were, why would that anger "the left?"

Absolutely there is truth. He created the vacuum that allowed ISIS to emerge and grow. It was actually predicted that a scenario like this would happen when he pulled all our troops.
And, if you can’t figure out why this would anger the left, you are clueless.

ISIS was founded in 2006, it arose out of an already existing organization that was created after the invasion of Iraq. How you can lay that at the feet of Obama is beyond me, but a ludicrously high percentage of people seem to blame Obama for Katrina so I guess anything is possible.

The US troops in Iraq were replaced by Iraqi troops. When ISIS launched its takeover of western Iraq, there were more Iraqi troops in the area then there were ISIS fighters. The Iraqi troops were also better equipped. However, those troops simply fled. This was not a power vacuum, but a legitimacy vacuum. The Iraqi government had failed to achieve legitimacy in the eyes of the Sunni population and the troops were not prepared to fight on behalf of a government in which they didn't believe.

The ISIS takeover of western Iraq could not have happened were it not for the instability in Syria which allowed ISIS to establish a base in that country. If George Bush's invasion was responsible for ISIS's birth and infancy, the West's destabilization of Syria nurtured the organization through adolescence. Certainly Obama shares some responsibility for this, but for the most part he has been perhaps the single restraint on our involvement there.

Direct quote from this article:

The group that would become ISIS was founded in Jordan in 1999, and became devoted to holding territory in Iraq after the US invasion in 2003. You can debate which of these constitutes ISIS’s "founding" in some metaphysical sense. But by any definition, the group was founded well before President Obama came into office. Trump is just flatly wrong on this

Link to article. Great reading:

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/11/12438744/obama-founded-isis-trump

From Vox. No bias there

Facts don't have a bias. But as it seems you're willing to dismiss the cited piece out of hand, could you point to the purported errors with which you take issue and provide evidence that refutes them?

Those aren't facts. That's an opinion.

Maybe in bizarro Trumpworld. Please share with us your opinion as to when ISIL was founded (or AQI if you prefer) and the names of the founders and point to empirical evidence that supports your opinion. I'll get some popcorn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He was for it before he was against it.

Like Hillary was against gay marriage before she was for it (like Obama).

Intelligent adults evolve in their thinking and beliefs. I was once against gay marriage but now, 10 years later, I believe thats have just as much a right to be married as straights. We want our elected officials to be able to evolve in their beliefs.

.

I used to believe abortion was fine. Now, after seeing my own ultrasounds, as well as 3D and 4D ultrasounds, I see it as killing a life and feel it's wrong.

But liberals don't feel that is evolving. See the double-standard?

Actually, this is a perfect example of the evolution of your personal beliefs. I don't see any double standard. (fyi, not PP)

You don't. I can guarantee you most liberals do. I've seen it here over and over

The strawman that anyone believes abortion is "fine" is equally ludicrous and insulting. If PP is comfortable with her "evolution" then so be it, provided that she's not attempting to otherwise interfere with a constitutional right recognized for more than four decades. And, by the way, it's simply known as marriage, or same-sex marriage. The civil institution of marriage isn't "gay."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He was for it before he was against it.

Like Hillary was against gay marriage before she was for it (like Obama).

Intelligent adults evolve in their thinking and beliefs. I was once against gay marriage but now, 10 years later, I believe thats have just as much a right to be married as straights. We want our elected officials to be able to evolve in their beliefs.

.

I used to believe abortion was fine. Now, after seeing my own ultrasounds, as well as 3D and 4D ultrasounds, I see it as killing a life and feel it's wrong.

But liberals don't feel that is evolving. See the double-standard?

Actually, this is a perfect example of the evolution of your personal beliefs. I don't see any double standard. (fyi, not PP)

You don't. I can guarantee you most liberals do. I've seen it here over and over

No. No one thinks it's a double standard. They disagree with your current views for other reasons, but not because you used to think otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump is now tweeting he was being sarcastic about Obama founding Isis.

What next?

Obviously the next thing is that he takes that back, sort of:

"I was obviously being sarcastic, but not that sarcastic to be honest with you." -- just said by Trump in PA about an hour ago.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-tells-crowd-his-obama-isis-founder-remarks-were-sarcastic-but-not-that-sarcastic/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump is now tweeting he was being sarcastic about Obama founding Isis.

What next?

Obviously the next thing is that he takes that back, sort of:

"I was obviously being sarcastic, but not that sarcastic to be honest with you." -- just said by Trump in PA about an hour ago.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-tells-crowd-his-obama-isis-founder-remarks-were-sarcastic-but-not-that-sarcastic/

omg, now we have to figure the level of his sarcasm.

[Anonymous]

Like, whatever the right level of sarcasm is, that's what I was being. Obvs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump is now tweeting he was being sarcastic about Obama founding Isis.

What next?

Obviously the next thing is that he takes that back, sort of:

"I was obviously being sarcastic, but not that sarcastic to be honest with you." -- just said by Trump in PA about an hour ago.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-tells-crowd-his-obama-isis-founder-remarks-were-sarcastic-but-not-that-sarcastic/

omg, now we have to figure the level of his sarcasm.

Sure. That's the point of a non-PC, straight shooter. Constantly having to parse WTH he's saying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He was for it before he was against it.

Like Hillary was against gay marriage before she was for it (like Obama).

Intelligent adults evolve in their thinking and beliefs. I was once against gay marriage but now, 10 years later, I believe thats have just as much a right to be married as straights. We want our elected officials to be able to evolve in their beliefs.

.

I used to believe abortion was fine. Now, after seeing my own ultrasounds, as well as 3D and 4D ultrasounds, I see it as killing a life and feel it's wrong.

But liberals don't feel that is evolving. See the double-standard?

Actually, this is a perfect example of the evolution of your personal beliefs. I don't see any double standard. (fyi, not PP)

You don't. I can guarantee you most liberals do. I've seen it here over and over

No, you can't guarantee that. Liberals are not a monolith. Neither are conservatives.

[Anonymous]

It's funny, because Guiliani went out there yesterday as a talking head defending Trump's statement on its face, as non-sarcasm. So what the hell is he supposed to do today? Did he two step it this morning after Donald said "surprise, it was sarcasm" and now he's got to reel that back in? Poor Rudy, he's really got some fancy footwork to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's funny, because Guiliani went out there yesterday as a talking head defending Trump's statement on its face, as non-sarcasm. So what the hell is he supposed to do today? Did he two step it this morning after Donald said "surprise, it was sarcasm" and now he's got to reel that back in? Poor Rudy, he's really got some fancy footwork to do.

Rudy is a sycophantic nutbag utterly lacking in credibility.