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

[th1bill]

So...no one can deny that it's not hard to do, just that President Trump has a hard time doing it?
tulc(loves watching the "distraction dance" President Trump supporters go into in these threads)

Folks in and those supporting the GOP (cool handed, non-knee Jerking Conservatives) are only guilty of not responding in kind to the uneducated High School and College Graduates that are in need of repaying their Parents and other Relatives for their supporting their slow drift into intentional stupidity and their inability to define Nazism and all other Fascist Terms.

On Krystallnacht, in English for the Fascist and other uneducated or under educated, Crystal Night, it was the Brown Shirted Nazi Fascists that Broke into the Jewish Businesses and broke all of the windows and merchandise they did not take home.

The Fascist Party in the USA is the Party, the Paid and Unpaid Supporters of the Communists, Fascists, of the now, Democratic Socialist Party. This ls the third appearance of the Democratic Socialist Party. The last time your Political Party reared it's ugly head they burned Millions of books, they are inciting that, right now and they murdered about six million Jewish People and something between three ans six million other unarmed civilians.

In Russia, Stalin and the Socialist Democrats Murdered an undetermined number, the last I recall, thoughi to be somewhere between thirty and fifty million. Tell me, has the Party decided how many Conservative people besides my wife, kids, I amd my grandkids?

 

[tulc]

(snip) like saying drinking beer is wrong because Hitler drank beer (I assume he did)...

Actually...he didn't drink a lot, He wasn't the the teetotaler and a vegetation people like to make him out to be but he drank very little and hardly ate meat.
tulc(is sorry to go off of the OP, he just loves obscure facts and history)

 

[KarateCowboy]

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).

It's worth pointing out that actual nazis are extremely rare. Must of the people being accused are, at closest, neonazis.

 

[DamianWarS]

Actually...he didn't drink a lot, He wasn't the the teetotaler and a vegetation people like to make him out to be but he drank very little and hardly ate meat.
tulc(is sorry to go off of the OP, he just loves obscure facts and history)

then responsibly drinking and eating must be evil because Hitler did these things.

 

[tulc]

(snip)

uhmmm...what?
tulc(isn't sure what this post is about)

 

[DamianWarS]

It's worth pointing out that actual nazis are extremely rare. Must of the people being accused are, at closest, neonazis.

I think "nazi sympathizers" is the language used

 

[KWCrazy]

I'd have to say by some of President Trumps supporters standard we would definitely look like we don't After all we tend to like actual facts,

Not possible. It was an indisputable fact that Bill Clinton lied under oath and obstructed justice, yet Democrats covered for him.
It was an indisputable fact that Eric Holder arranged to sell guns to Mexican drug cartels, yet Democrats covered for him.
It is an indisputable fact that the head of the IRS used that agency to attack conservatives, yet every word from the mouth of every Democrat obstructed the investigation.
It is an indisputable fact that the Obama administration left our embassy in Benghazi under defended and vulnerable, yet every word from the mouth of every Democrat obstructed the investigation.
It is an indisputable fact that Hillary Clinton and leading Democrats rigged the primary against Bernie Sanders, yet every word from the mouth of every Democrat obstructed the investigation.
It is an indisputable fact that Hillary Clinton illegally set up and used an insecure personal server and then deleted emails under subpoena, yet every word from the mouth of every Democrat obstructed the investigation.
Leading Democrats paid for a false and salacious report about Trump and then used that false document to launch an investigation to try and find a crime somewhere... anywhere.
Democrats do not stand for truth or justice. In fact, leading Democrats are now on record attacking our Constitution and saying it interferes with their agenda.
The DNC should be investigated and prosecuted under RICO. There isn't a single National Democrat with any integrity whatever. Some more localized Democrats may have escaped the rot that comes from the head down, but no loyal Democrat can support the party and pretend to care about personal integrity.

 

[Gigimo]

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.

You know I'm wondering why Will Quigg and Hillary were left out of this conversation??

 

[Albion]

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.

In other words, the same reason Trump at first did not issue a condemnation of the Charlottesville participants in as explicit terms as some people wanted.

And you can see, if you are being fair, that his enemies rejected that reasoning out of hand, even as they use it--the same explanation--when they need alibis for Obama!

 

[Albion]

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.

Is there a directory or thesaurus or something like that that the Socialists go to when they need a new term with which to stigmatize the average American?

Apparently, the list of "deplorables" that Hillary offered up wasn't pungent enough, so something new had to be invented. And just like that, white supremacists were supposedly everywhere!

 

[Yarddog]

In other words, the same reason Trump at first did not issue a condemnation of the Charlottesville participants in as explicit terms as some people wanted.

Maybe. I didn't hear Trump explain why he didn't condemn racism earlier.

And you can see, if you are being fair, that his enemies rejected that reasoning out of hand, even as they use it--the same explanation--when they need alibis for Obama!

So you admit that they both did about the same though Trump won't admit it. Obama didn't directly condemn Islamic terrorism and Trump didn't condemn white supremacist racism.

 

[Tom 1]

Is there a directory or thesaurus or something like that that the Socialists go to when they need a new term with which to stigmatize the average American?

Apparently, the list of "deplorables" that Hillary offered up wasn't pungent enough, so something new had to be invented. And just like that, white supremacists were supposedly everywhere!

Not everywhere, but they are there in the mix. And it’s a confused mix - not just in the US but here in Europe also, where legitimate concerns and serious dialogue have a counterpart in the kind of fearmongering and anti-other language Trump (and others) engage in, e.g his sweeping comments about Mexicans and other non-white immigrants.

 

[Albion]

Maybe. I didn't hear Trump explain why he didn't condemn racism earlier.

Oh stop. He has condemned racism many times since he announced his candidacy. The claims made against him are either misrepresentations of something he said or else the charge is simply stipulated and repeated until some people think there must have been something to it, but not for any other reason.

So you admit that they both did about the same though Trump won't admit it.

I think you'd better re-read my posts if THAT is the conclusion you drew.

 

[Albion]

...in the kind of fearmongering and anti-other language Trump (and others) engage in, e.g his sweeping comments about Mexicans and other non-white immigrants.

This is an example of manufacturing a claim that I have pointed to many times.

Use some unspecific terms ("fearmongering," for example. How do we define that and how does it amount to racism?) and couple it with vague statements such as "sweeping comments about Mexicans" and voila, "racism" is alleged but never shown.

 

[Sistrin]

Actually...he didn't drink a lot, He wasn't the the teetotaler and a vegetation people like to make him out to be but he drank very little and hardly ate meat.

You are defending Hitler now. Ok, good to know.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

How hard can it be to say "Antifa are bad"? How hard can it be to say "MS-13 are bad"? Etc. Etc.

Something interesting I heard about the Obama, words has it, he would be the first former President to campaign against a sitting President. It is curious, considering the biases of the overwhelming majority of news outlets, are they failing in his eyes? Is he worried about something? Hmm...what could it be?

But preach on Obama...

 

[Yarddog]

Oh stop. He has condemned racism many times since he announced his candidacy.

I haven't said that he hasn't condemned racism but condemning racism while making racist remarks disqualifies his claims of being the least racist person... just doesn't mean a whole lot.

The claims made against him are either misrepresentations of something he said or else the charge is simply stipulated and repeated until some people think there must have been something to it, but not for any other reason.

When someone stands at a podium at a campaign rally and blatantly makes a racist remarks it isn't misrepresenting what he said. Now, what he said after the Charlottesville riot was twisted by some.

I think you'd better re-read my posts if THAT is the conclusion you drew.

Ah, did I misrepresent what you said. Lol.

 

[Albion]

Ah, did I misrepresent what you said. Lol.

Well, you didn't play the Hitler card; Ill give you that.

 

[Yarddog]

How hard can it be to say "Antifa are bad"?

I think their tactics are bad but that doesn't make their motivation bad. It's a little more difficult to pin point Antifa since they aren't a coherent faction. Fighting racism is a good thing but doing it with violence isn't.

How hard can it be to say "MS-13 are bad"?

Who hasn't?

Something interesting I heard about the Obama, words has it, he would be the first former President to campaign against a sitting President. It is curious, considering the biases of the overwhelming majority of news outlets, are they failing in his eyes?

Not exactly sure what your Pou t in all that was but it shouldn't sound strange for him to finally be responding after Trump's all out blitz against anything Obama. Presidents usually don't criticize former Presidents but Trump has broken all boundaries when it comes to criticizing people.

 

[KWCrazy]

Presidents usually don't criticize former Presidents but Trump has broken all boundaries when it comes to criticizing people.

Mr. Obama criticized his predecessor from day one and continued to blame him even though he never had a single quarter of an economy to equal what we had under Bush. Recessions happen. They are generally short lived and are a market correction after periods of robust growth. Obama's lasted the entire term of his presidency because a socialist agenda has never succeeded financially.