Obama on Trump: How hard can it be to say 'Nazis are bad'?

[Afra]

It is not the more accurate term. It is the term preferred by those who do not recognize Israel as having any rights in the area.

https://www.britannica.com/story/is-it-isis-or-isil

When the group started to gain notoriety in the press and politics, confusion over just how to shorten its name in English arose from one tricky phrase: al-Sham. The term has no direct translation in English and refers to Greater Syria, the geographic area in the Middle East that the group desires for its vision of an Islamic state. The English word closest in meaning to “al-Sham” is the dated name for a slightly overlapping geographic area: the Levant, which spans the countries of Cyprus, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, and Turkey. Therefore, the acronym ISIL is the more-accurate name, as it recognizes these areas that the group affects and targets, while ISIS refers exclusively to Iraq and Syria. The tendency to call the group ISIS arose as they became active militants in the Syrian civil war in 2012. Though less accurate, the name ISIS has become entrenched in the international lexicon and is still used by many politicians and news companies.

 

[Marvin Knox]

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/405576-obama-how-hard-can-it-be-to-say-nazis-are-bad

Tulc is getting justly famous for pretty much majoring in anti Trump rhetoric.

Trump has condemned neo-Nazis many times.

If – as Obama charged – it was “hard” for him to do it in the Charlottesville instance, it was because he didn’t like the way people were trying to lump the many non-Nazi protestors against the removal of statures in with the Nazis. When everyone is trying their best to get you to take a point of view that you don’t want to take – a person often stumbles in his words.

He quite correctly said – ““You also had some very fine people on both sides.” That's a fact.

For that he was condemned by those who tried to smear him at the time and are doing so now on this thread - to their shame.

Trump was clearly making the point that the counter-protesters deserved an equal amount of blame for the violence.

“What about the alt-left that came charging at, as you say, at the alt-right?” Trump said. “Do they have any semblance of guilt?”

“I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me,” he said.

“You had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists,” Trump said. “The press has treated them absolutely unfairly.”

I don’t know how much more clear the man can get as to what he was trying to say in the Charlottesville situation.

When a man makes such clear statements and an ex president wrongs him in a nationally watched speech - it’s an even a lower action than the likes of tulc, for all intents and purposes, "lying" about him.

Trump has also said concerning the protests against removing Confederate statues – prophetically it now seems, “Many of those people were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee,” “This week, it is Robert E. Lee. And I notice that Stonewall Jackson is coming down. I wonder, is it George Washington next? And is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You know, you have to ask yourself, where does it stop?”

When a protest is in the right as was that of the neo-Nazis – it’s in the right no matter who is doing the protesting. Their actions along the way can be condemned if they are out of line - just as Trump has clearly done.

The same standard should be applied to those on the other side – which Trump clearly tried to do.

For that he gets lied about by an ex president.

I don't mind legitimate criticism of Trump. He often brings it on himself.

But this is not legitimate - as tulc and his cohort Barry both know.

 

[Albion]

Well I remember him condemning ISIL repeatedly. But no, he didn't say them there Islams are bad.

That was not the issue--as you are well aware.

So "nice try but no cigar" for that attempt at both humor and disinformation.

 

[Albion]

Well, Trump did ask over and over. The reason they chose not to use the term was because they didn't want people to blame all Muslims for what a small minority did. https:// -cnncom.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/09/28/politics/obama-radical-islamic-terrorismtown-hall/index.html?

A pretty lame alibi, really (as was the other one that was the subject of the post that followed yours on this thread)

 

[Albion]

The question was does one excuse the other. That is, if we assume that President Obama made a mistake by not condemning Islamic terrorism, does that mean that it would be acceptable for President Trump to not condemn Nazis?

It seems to me that you attempted to use the Tu quoque fallacy (the appeal to hypocrisy).

The two situations are not parallel, as I explained previously.

 

[Albion]

It was deliberately avoided by both Obama and Bush. Here's why......

Not so. Trump very clearly did condemn the neo-Nazis. His ever-present adversaries on the Left merely continue to claim that he had not done so.

 

[tulc]

...and like that ((snap!)) instead of talking about President Trump, the thread is about President Obama.
tulc(finds that seems to be the standard reaction among President Trump supporters)

 

[dqhall]

Tulc is getting justly famous for pretty much majoring in anti Trump rhetoric.

Trump has condemned neo-Nazis many times.

If – as Obama charged – it was “hard” for him to do it in the Charlottesville instance, it was because he didn’t like the way people were trying to lump the many non-Nazi protestors against the removal of statures in with the Nazis. When everyone is trying their best to get you to take a point of view that you don’t want to take – a person often stumbles in his words.

He quite correctly said – ““You also had some very fine people on both sides.” That's a fact.

For that he was condemned by those who tried to smear him at the time and are doing so now on this thread - to their shame.

Trump was clearly making the point that the counter-protesters deserved an equal amount of blame for the violence.

“What about the alt-left that came charging at, as you say, at the alt-right?” Trump said. “Do they have any semblance of guilt?”

“I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me,” he said.

“You had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists,” Trump said. “The press has treated them absolutely unfairly.”

I don’t know how much more clear the man can get as to what he was trying to say in the Charlottesville situation.

When a man makes such clear statements and an ex president wrongs him in a nationally watched speech - it’s an even a lower action than the likes of tulc, for all intents and purposes, "lying" about him.

Trump has also said concerning the protests against removing Confederate statues – prophetically it now seems, “Many of those people were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee,” “This week, it is Robert E. Lee. And I notice that Stonewall Jackson is coming down. I wonder, is it George Washington next? And is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You know, you have to ask yourself, where does it stop?”

When a protest is in the right as was that of the neo-Nazis – it’s in the right no matter who is doing the protesting. Their actions along the way can be condemned if they are out of line - just as Trump has clearly done.

The same standard should be applied to those on the other side – which Trump clearly tried to do.

For that he gets lied about by an ex president.

I don't mind legitimate criticism of Trump. He often brings it on himself.

But this is not legitimate - as tulc and his cohort Barry both know.

I remember Trump was being praising by David Duke, former Grand Wizard of the KKK, about the time of the Charlottesville protests.
https://www.businessinsider.com/dav...-leftist-terrorists-in-charlottesville-2017-8

Trump seemed upset about the Antifa demonstrators carrying clubs. He did not complain about the alt-right open carrying semi-automatic weapons. An anti-Nazi protester lost her life at Charlottesville as a psychopath drove his car into a crowd of opposing protestors.

Steve Bannon's website Breitbart News was once a rallying place for the alt-right. Steve Bannon was a chief strategist for the White House. Bannon was terminated from his White House job a week after Charlottesville. Bannon had also cooperated with the author of "Fire and Fury," a book alleging Trump is unfit for office. Bannon lost his job at Breitbart after Fire and Fury was released. The book caused people to demand Trump submit to a mental exam. Breitbart retaliated by firing Steve Banon.

 

[tulc]

Tulc is getting justly famous for pretty much majoring in anti Trump rhetoric. (snip)

...when did it become a problem pointing out when someone who's supposed to be working for you isn't doing a good job?
tulc(promises to post it if President Trump ever does something that he agree's with)

 

[Afra]

The two situations are not parallel, as I explained previously.

No, they are parallel, as others in this thread have explained previously.

 

[Albion]

Trump seemed upset about the Antifa demonstrators carrying clubs. He did not complain about the alt-right open carrying semi-automatic weapons. An anti-Nazi protester lost her life at Charlottesville as a psychopath drove his car into a crowd of opposing protestors.

You can suppose, infer, and speculate all night, but Trump did condemn the people you are concerned about, meaning that the two situations are not parallel in as much as Obama never did do the same with the worldwide terrorists he was asked about repeatedly. That's it, except that it would have been easy for Obama to have contemned the people who had killed tens of thousands of people in the most barbaric of ways.

 

[Marvin Knox]

...when did it become a problem pointing out when someone who's supposed to be working for you isn't doing a good job?
tulc(promises to post it if President Trump ever does something that he agree's with)

Never has been a problem and never will be a problem -as far as I'm concerned.

I'll be waiting or those posts.

They're long overdue.

...and like that ((snap!)) instead of talking about President Trump, the thread is about President Obama.
tulc(finds that seems to be the standard reaction among President Trump supporters)

The thread is about Obama because he's the one who made the ridiculous statement.

President Trump was busy doing his job when Barry read the stupid and uninformed question off the teleprompter for the world to hear.

 

[DamianWarS]

But he tried to compare Christians to them after he said no religion is responsible for terrorism, go figure.

I think the idea is bad muslims are terrorist and good muslims have nothing to do with it. What can be said of good and bad nazis? Should we be more ecumenical with good nazis or vehemently oppose anything branded as nazi?

 

[Go Braves]

That was not the issue--as you are well aware.

So "nice try but no cigar" for that attempt at both humor and disinformation.

Actually Albion, I'm aware of the exact opposite. The issue & the disinformation was what was made by Trump. You can keep the cigar for yourself. I'm not the one into blowing smoke.

 

[tulc]

Never has been a problem and never will be a problem -as far as I'm concerned.

I'll be waiting or those posts.

They're long overdue.

I agree, who would have thought a reality tv show host would be so bad at running a world power? People kept promising he'd be doing some amazing things! YUGE! Things so unbelievable! But so far? Not so much.

The thread is about Obama because he's the one who made the ridiculous statement.

No the thread is about what he said, not who he is. If you want to know which logical fallacy that is it's called "ad hominem" which means people attack the man making the statement, not the statement he made.

President Trump was busy doing his job

I was unaware speaking at a fundraiser and stumping for a candidate was part of the President of the United States job description?

when Barry read the stupid and uninformed question off the teleprompter for the world to hear.

NICE! Reduced to calling him Barry, that usually means someone can't think of something else so they fall back on the "let's call him Barry!" standby! What's next? A demand to see his birth certificate?
tulc(is all a flutter to what is pulled from the old "Let's try and distract people from actually discussing President Trump in this thread!" bag)

 

[Yarddog]

A pretty lame alibi, really (as was the other one that was the subject of the post that followed yours on this thread)

It may have been lame to a group of people but an equal number saw wisdom.

 

[Tom 1]

Sorry. I meant to say "sexist".

Partyist. You're a partyist Chesterton, it seems.

 

[Tom 1]

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/405576-obama-how-hard-can-it-be-to-say-nazis-are-bad

tulc(would have thought this was a pretty easy call also)

I reckon Trump has an intuitive grasp of what his 'base' does and doesn't want to hear. He can lie - no problem, describe himself as a regular sex offender, no problem, express contempt for US allies and shine on Putin - no problem at all - but he has to step carefully when it comes to white supremacists. They aren't all of his support, but he knows they and their sympathisers are a large part of it.

 

[Tom 1]

It was Obama who made news with his hypocritical claim here. Therefore, it is Obama who has to be corrected. What's more the two situations are not identical, as your question seems to me to suggest they are. Trump has condemned Nazis, while Obama never has come around on Islamic terrorism.

It isn't such a straightforward issue - something which Trump has perhaps started to grasp, particularly in relation to his support of Saudi Arabia, where the majority of the 9/11 terrorists were from - summary here from Slate:

'On his trip to Saudi Arabia this week, President Trump talked a lot about religious violence. But he never uttered one of his favorite phrases: “radical Islamic terrorism.” The omission sparked chatter about why he dropped the term and whether this portended a policy shift in the Middle East. On those questions, let’s wait and see. But Trump’s switch does clarify one thing: Presidents who refuse to associate Islam with terrorism aren’t being stupid. They’re being prudent....
Marco Rubio, John Kasich, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and Lindsey Graham shared Trump’s distaste for Obama’s and Clinton’s policies. But these Republicans said it was wise to distinguish Islam from terror. “Presidents can’t just say anything they want. It has consequences, here and around the world,” Rubio explainedduring a primary debate. “We’re going to have to work with the Jordanian kingdom. We’re going to have to work with the Saudis. We’re going to have to work with the Gulf kingdoms. We’re going to have to work with the Egyptians … We are going to have to work with people of the Muslim faith, even as Islam itself faces a serious crisis within it of radicalization.”

That’s exactly how Obama and Clinton explained their thinking. They saw how much murder was being committed in Islam’s name. They refused to echo that language, precisely because they understood that the goal of Muslim terrorists was to persuade other Muslims that Islam sanctioned terrorism. But this line of thinking by Obama and Clinton was lost on—or ignored by—conservative pundits and politicians'.

Maybe Trump has similar thoughts about White Nationalism? It's certainly not untrue that there are violent nuts on the left as well as the right, but Trump fumbled the whole thing pretty badly. If he made some coherent attempt to explain his own thoughts about it, that might help.

 

[DamianWarS]

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/405576-obama-how-hard-can-it-be-to-say-nazis-are-bad

tulc(would have thought this was a pretty easy call also)

there is an old unwritten rule in legacy usenet groups that you don't use nazis in arguments. playing the nazi card is this cheap sort of way of forcing a win because nothing is surely worse than naizs. More ofen than not its used irresponsibly like saying drinking beer is wrong because Hitler drank beer (I assume he did)... or calling trump bad because he doesn't condemn naizs the way you want him to.

I make a big leap on purpose to expose that just because we invoke the nazi card it doesn't inherently make our argument stronger or "us" stronger. Obama here may be exploiting this nazi angle to negatively affect trump support. A similar case can be said about ISIS/ISIL/IS as a modern day "nazi card" that if we don't or do say certain words then we are somehow implicated in wrongdoing (which has already been used as a counter argument in this thread). I'm not a trump supporter (I'm not even an american) but is Obama justified in his words or is he just trying to damage support?

It of course is always more complicated and I'm not so naive. No doubt there was a "saving face" with Trump recognizing that explictly calling nazi's bad may compromise his support among the demographic that would disagree with this. That agenda of course is selfish and wrong but perhaps it would be better for Obama to declare that nazi's ideals are hateful and destructive to society implicitly condemning trump rather that pointing the finger right at him.

But i'm a Canadian we tend to take a more passive way of accusing people than direct. However there's a point where calling out all the flaws of "the guy you don't like" just gets tiresome and petty.