takoma wrote:Back to the topic of sarcasm, given Trump's inability to apologize for anything, his only option is to claim that he was joking or being sarcastic. In particular, should he lose in November, he will claim that his run was just a joke. Then we can all look back to last summer and say "We knew it!"

takoma wrote:Back to the topic of sarcasm, given Trump's inability to apologize for anything, his only option is to claim that he was joking or being sarcastic. In particular, should he lose in November, he will claim that his run was just a joke. Then we can all look back to last summer and say "We knew it!"

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous 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.

How did pulling troops from Iraq create a vacuum in Syria?

Besides, before you start prattling on about vacuums and pulling troops, I think you need to look back a few years earlier and examine the policies of a different administration that for the first time in our country's history acted as the aggressor by starting a war under false pretenses. THAT was the destabilizing act. If you're going to lay ISIS at the feet of a president, it's Bush's fault.

We ran guns to Syrian rebels, who were, in fact, ISIS. Remember Benghazi?

The Syria rebels that we support are not ISIS. Some of the rebels are al-Qaida and we are in fact supporting those rebels today. ISIS was able to obtain weapons we supplied to other groups via various means (capturing, buying, etc.), but we didn't intentionally supply weapons to ISIS.

OK then

And there were no sexual assaults in Idaho.

I already know the lengths you go to, the names you call, and the way you twist and turn things to suit your views. I know any time you respond to someone's thread, it's because you know it's the truth and you need to quickly bury it.

Actually, I am not trying to bury the truth, but make sure that people are aware of it. Is there any reason why you are reacting in such a manner to having facts stated correctly? That seems sort of extreme.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
People change their minds all the time.

But Trump is the only candidate who's a bully.

You don't change your mind about something that can be factual checked. It's not an opinion, either President Obama is the founder or he isn't. Oh and for the slow group, he isn't.

Anonymous wrote:
People change their minds all the time.

But Trump is the only candidate who's a bully.

Anonymous wrote:He's also completely screwing with the media. It's pretty funny, actually.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We ran guns to Syrian rebels, who were, in fact, ISIS. Remember Benghazi?

...you realize Benghazi is in Libya, not Syria, right?

Anonymous wrote:It's both. Trump has a very sarcastic sense of humor, and Obama pulling the troops out of Iraq definitely helped turn ISIS into a not-so-JV team.

Anonymous wrote:

We ran guns to Syrian rebels, who were, in fact, ISIS. Remember Benghazi?

Anonymous wrote:It's both. Trump has a very sarcastic sense of humor, and Obama pulling the troops out of Iraq definitely helped turn ISIS into a not-so-JV team.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous 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.

How did pulling troops from Iraq create a vacuum in Syria?

Besides, before you start prattling on about vacuums and pulling troops, I think you need to look back a few years earlier and examine the policies of a different administration that for the first time in our country's history acted as the aggressor by starting a war under false pretenses. THAT was the destabilizing act. If you're going to lay ISIS at the feet of a president, it's Bush's fault.

We ran guns to Syrian rebels, who were, in fact, ISIS. Remember Benghazi?

The Syria rebels that we support are not ISIS. Some of the rebels are al-Qaida and we are in fact supporting those rebels today. ISIS was able to obtain weapons we supplied to other groups via various means (capturing, buying, etc.), but we didn't intentionally supply weapons to ISIS.

OK then

And there were no sexual assaults in Idaho.

I already know the lengths you go to, the names you call, and the way you twist and turn things to suit your views. I know any time you respond to someone's thread, it's because you know it's the truth and you need to quickly bury it.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous 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.

How did pulling troops from Iraq create a vacuum in Syria?

Besides, before you start prattling on about vacuums and pulling troops, I think you need to look back a few years earlier and examine the policies of a different administration that for the first time in our country's history acted as the aggressor by starting a war under false pretenses. THAT was the destabilizing act. If you're going to lay ISIS at the feet of a president, it's Bush's fault.

We ran guns to Syrian rebels, who were, in fact, ISIS. Remember Benghazi?

The Syria rebels that we support are not ISIS. Some of the rebels are al-Qaida and we are in fact supporting those rebels today. ISIS was able to obtain weapons we supplied to other groups via various means (capturing, buying, etc.), but we didn't intentionally supply weapons to ISIS.