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

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Who hasn't?

Remember when Pres Trump called MS-13 "animals"? Yeah I also remember the spin zone on it too.

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.

Obama broke quite a few boundaries himself...here's a trip down memory lane, 2011, guess who is doing the criticizing?

 

[Yarddog]

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.

Obama very rarely mentioned George W Bush by name when it came to speaking about the mess that was handed him. Mainly, because he knew those messes weren't all his fault. Trump could care less. He just wants to make himself look great by criticizing others.

Recessions happen.

Recessions don't just happen. There is generally a set of circumstances which lead to them.

They are generally short lived and are a market correction after periods of robust growth.

Yes, that is why most economist don't want a fast growing economy and want to apply the brakes a but to slow it down. Trump doesn't get that.

Obama's lasted the entire term of his presidency because a socialist agenda has never succeeded financially.

WHAT??? Obama didn't have a recession. The recession began under Bush and lasted until June 2009. There was sustained growth after this throughout his Presidency and has continued for Trump's term.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Trump could care less. He just wants to make himself look great by criticizing others.

.

Isn't this exactly what President Obama is doing?

 

[tulc]

Not possible.
(snip because this thread isn't about all those things Republican try to use (unsuccessfully) as distractions from their inability to find ways to support President Trump)

sure it's possible, people claiming other wise is simply more proof that some Republicans idea of what's "true" is what ever President Trump says is true at the moment he makes the claim.
tulc(is impressed KWCrazy tried to work so many distraction/Republican talking points into a thread completely not about any of them!)

 

[HannahT]

Obama very rarely mentioned George W Bush by name when it came to speaking about the mess that was handed him. Mainly, because he knew those messes weren't all his fault. Trump could care less. He just wants to make himself look great by criticizing others.

lol I remember that differently! It was an ongoing joke how often he blamed Bush. They even had articles on WHY he wasn't going to give up his 'blame bush' strategy.

That's not to say he didn't blame others. He certainly did. He had a long list, but most of was generalized.

(Shrugs) That's politics for you.

 

[The Barbarian]

Trump could easily ask why Obama could not bring himself to say that Islamic terrorists are bad.

I would have thought that killing Osama bin Laden, and taking out a record number of Islamic terrorists would constitute "criticism." Supreme court would surely consider it "symbolic speech."

His destruction of ISIS in Iraq and his actions that greatly reduced their holdings in Syria, as well as various operations that killed ISIS commanders and leaders would also amount to "criticism."

Or maybe he just thought action was better than talk. Something like that.

 

[tulc]

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

...when did pointing out historical facts about someone become defending? Although...do some Republicans confuse accuracy with defending? Because that would go a long way in explaining their tendency to not liking when people point out actual facts and history instead of simply spreading what ever current myth their Party leaders tell them to believe at a given moment.
tulc(thinks Sistrin may have just explained something that's puzzled him for some time now!)

 

[Chesterton]

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

Well, yeah, back in my younger days.

 

[Hank77]

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

???
If someone were to say that Trump drinks alcohol and I correct them by stating the fact the Trump is a teetotaler is that me defending Trump?

 

[Yarddog]

lol I remember that differently! It was an ongoing joke how often he blamed Bush. They even had articles on WHY he wasn't going to give up his 'blame bush' strategy.

That's not to say he didn't blame others. He certainly did. He had a long list, but most of was generalized.

(Shrugs) That's politics for you.

I'd be happy to look at the evidence you have to back that up. Thanks.

 

[HannahT]

I'd be happy to look at the evidence you have to back that up. Thanks.

You are more than capable of googling "Obama blames Bush quotes", and it will light up for you if you are truly interested. It goes on for pages, and many from what some consider 'left' publications. Your Welcome!

 

[The Barbarian]

Let's look at a few of those...

Not possible. It was an indisputable fact that Bill Clinton lied under oath and obstructed justice, yet Democrats covered for him.

Actually, he was strongly criticized by democrats for not being honest about it.

It was an indisputable fact that Eric Holder arranged to sell guns to Mexican drug cartels,

It would be more honest to characterize it as a sting operation that nailed a score of illegal gun traffickers.

From 2009-2011, the Phoenix Field Division of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), along with other partners, allowed illegal gun sales in order to track the sellers and purchasers, who were believed to be connected to Mexican drug cartels.
October 31, 2009 - Phoenix-based ATF agents get a tip from a local gun shop about suspicious purchases of assault rifles by four individuals. The agents begin investigating whether the individuals were "straw purchasers" working for a large-scale illegal gun trafficking organization. The probe later comes to be known as Operation Fast and Furious.
December 14, 2010 - Terry is killed during a shootout in the Arizona desert. Three of the men involved in the shootout are later convicted of murder. Two other associates are later charged with conspiracy and firearms offenses in connection with the killing. One other suspect is arrested in 2017 while another remains at large as of September 2017.
January 25, 2011 - The US Attorney's office in Arizona announces that 34 suspects have been indicted for firearms trafficking from the United States to Mexico. The DOJ inspector general later reports that 20 of the defendants were caught via Fast and Furious.
https://www.cnn.com/2013/08/27/world/americas/operation-fast-and-furious-fast-facts/index.html

yet Democrats covered for him.

Do you have evidence that Holder authorized the operation? Seems to have been a routine sting operation out of the Phoenix office.

It is an indisputable fact that the head of the IRS used that agency to attack conservatives,

And liberals:
WASHINGTON — A federal watchdog investigating whether the Internal Revenue Service unfairly targeted conservative political groups seeking tax-exempt status said that the agency also scrutinized organizations associated with liberal causes from 2004 to 2013.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/us/politics/irs-targeting-tea-party-liberals-democrats.html

Yet many dishonest conservatives pretended it was only radical conservative organizations who were targeted.

It is an indisputable fact that the Obama administration left our embassy in Benghazi under defended and vulnerable,

Secretary Clinton's request for more security at embassies was rejected by the republican congress.
Jason Chaffetz Admits House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security: ‘You Have To Prioritize Things’
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged on Wednesday that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010.


On Wednesday morning, CNN anchor Soledad O’Brien asked the Utah Republican if he had “voted to cut the funding for embassy security.”


“Absolutely,” Chaffetz said. “Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have…15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a private army there, for President Obama, in Baghdad. And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces. When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things.”


For the past two years, House Republicans have continued to deprioritize the security forces protecting State Department personnel around the world. In fiscal year 2011, lawmakers shaved $128 million off of the administration’s request for embassy security funding. House Republicans drained off even more funds in fiscal year 2012 — cutting back on the department’s request by $331 million.


Consulate personnel stationed in Benghazi had allegedly expressed concerns over their safety in the months leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks that killed four Americans, including Amb. Chris Stevens. Chaffetz and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, claim those concerns were ignored.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/jason-chaffetz-embassy_n_1954912.html

yet every word from the mouth of every Democrat obstructed the investigation.

During the Behghazi hearings, the republicans repeatedly rejected attempts to discuss the consequences of cutting embassy security. So you've got it backwards.

Leading Democrats paid for a false and salacious report about Trump and then used that false document

As you know, most of the material in the Steele dossier has since been verified, and so far, nothing has been shown to be false. Would you like me to show you that?

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.

Trump isn't a democrat. When he proposed trashing the First and Second Amendments, both democrats and some republicans criticized him. Would you like me to show you that?

The DNC should be investigated and prosecuted under RICO.

All you need is evidence. You'll need more than stories that mostly backfire on you.

 

[Yarddog]

You are more than capable of googling "Obama blames Bush quotes", and it will light up for you if you are truly interested. It goes on for pages, and many from what some consider 'left' publications. Your Welcome!

I have searched and found very few.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Sorry, that's not actually how it works, if you feel you want to discuss President Obama not what he said, you should probably start another thread to discuss that. This thread is about the OP

Sorry, that's exactly how it works.

Everything I have said relates directly to the O.P. and the material in it including your personal agreement with Obama's lying comment.

If you don't want anyone to comment on the wrong of the lie for the likes of the ex-president Obama and for a supposed Christian like yourself - all you apparently want is for people to just quote it back to you and then sort of grunt or some thing.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

When you purposefully post an OP which you know will cause controversy - you are clearly calling for and expecting a heated discussion.

The OP was a link to what Obama did - namely misrepresent what Trump said - as well as comments on what he said from the article and your comment on what you thought of it.

What I and others have done is to comment on Obama's actions - i.e. what he said, how he misrepresented Trump - and why both he, the article, and you might do such things.

I just assumed you simply didn't know that's what President Trump was doing

You assumed too much.

uhmmm...Presidents are there to do certain a job, ex-presidents however aren't required to be anything except citizens who are free to criticize a sitting President (who in theory now is supposed to be working for him as much as all American citizens) when they feel they aren't doing a good job.

Obama (and you) are free to criticize Trump all you like so long as you don't lie about him.

Now - you may ask where Obama or you lied.

He and you misrepresented what Trump said and why he said it - that's lying in any definition of the word used by followers of Christ - which both you and Obama claim to be.

You should feel free to post threads to discuss how you feel about President Obama as much as you like...of course THIS thread isn't about President Obama so if you'd like to discuss that subject you are posting in the wrong thread.

Of course it's about Obama and his comments from start to finish. It's your OP and you don't know what's in it?

....this thread isn't about me either, sorry.

Of course it is.

If you don't want the thread to end up about you - you should have resisted the temptation to add that tulcism at the end of the OP.

tulc(is surprised people don't want to discuss President Trump in threads about President Trump)

If the thread was supposed to be about President Trump and not you and Obama - you should have provided material about what he actually said - just as I did earlier and any Christian who wasn't misrepresenting him would do.

Here is the Op since you seem to have forgotten what it said. It's all about Obama's comments and your approval of them.

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

In a fiery speech at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Obama directly took on Trump over one of the most controversial moments of his presidency, when he equivocated in offering blame for violence last summer between white supremacist and Nazis, and their opponents, last year in Charlottesville, Va.

"We are Americans. We’re supposed to stand up to bullies, not follow them," Obama said. "We’re supposed to stand up to discrimination and we’re sure as heck supposed to stand up clearly and unequivocally to Nazi sympathizers.

"How hard can that be? Saying that Nazis are bad."

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

 

[The Barbarian]

So Obama is a bad guy because he thinks people should criticize nazis? How so?

 

[tulc]

Sorry, that's exactly how it works.

No, that's not how it works. Sorry.

Everything I have said relates directly to the O.P. and the material in it including your personal agreement with Obama's lying comment.

If you don't want anyone to comment on the wrong of the lie for the likes of the ex-president Obama and for a supposed Christian like yourself - all you apparently want is for people to just quote it back to you and then sort of grunt or some thing.

Actually what i really want is for people to discuss the OP, what I usually get is a lot of "Well so-and-did (X)!!" or (as in this case) Ad Hominems instead.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

Yes it does.

When you purposefully post an OP which you know will cause controversy - you are clearly calling for and expecting a heated discussion.

I don't mind discussion, I don't even mind heated discussion...of the OP. what I usually get isn't generally even about the OP. I understand why: frankly I don't envy people who try and find something positive to say in support of President Trump,it's not like he gives his supporters anything to work with so I do understand why most of them tend to fall into the "whataboutisms" and attacks on other people to try and distract from them not being able to defend the d-level reality tv show host some of them voted into office.

The OP was a link to what Obama did - namely misrepresent what Trump said - as well as comments on what he said from the article and your comment on what you thought of it.

Then what should be addressed are the remarks not attacking the character, history or various myths about the speaker. See the difference? You believe President Trump didn't do what President Obama said? Post something to prove he didn't. What isn't needed is personal attacks on him. If you want to discuss him then you should post a thread about him. And that's how threads are supposed to work.

What I and others have done is to comment on Obama's actions - i.e. what he said, how he misrepresented Trump - and why both he, the article, and you might do such things.

...which is where the problem is, the thread isn't about his "actions" the thread is about what he said.

You assumed too much.

Sorry, I had to look up what President Trump was doing while President Obama was speaking, I didn't realize you had his scheduled memorized. I'm curious if you had those links to where in the Constitution or laws of the United States it was said the presidents job was to make sure his Party stays in power?

Obama (and you) are free to criticize Trump all you like so long as you don't lie about him.

I actually did know that. And I didn't lie.

Now - you may ask where Obama or you lied.

No, I really don't have to ask that because i know i didn't lie, I merely said something you didn't agree with, your disagreeing with what I said doesn't make it a lie.

(snip)

sorry, that's not your call.

(snip)

If you want to discuss this start a thread about it.

Here is the Op since you seem to have forgotten what it said. It's all about Obama's comments and your approval of them.

I haven't forgotten what's in it even though we're 96+ posts in and few posters have discussed anything in it.
tulc(getting ready for dinner back later)

 

[KWCrazy]

Obama very rarely mentioned George W Bush by name when it came to speaking about the mess that was handed him.

That is a straight up lie.
Obama couldn't opening his mouth without blaming George Bush for everything. Not once did he even have the class to refer to the former president as "President Bush." Those who don't respect others don't deserve respect. He will always be Barry to me; a disrespectful punk who never took responsibility for his own failings.

 

[Yarddog]

That is a straight up lie.

Then prove it.

 

[The Barbarian]

That is a straight up lie.

It's just a fact.

Obama couldn't opening his mouth without blaming George Bush for everything. Not once did he even have the class to refer to the former president as "President Bush."

First time I took a look, he not only referred to him as President Bush, he called him a "really good man."

Second time, I looked, he called him "President Bush." And as president-elect, he affirmed that until his inauguration, Bush was the president,and would be so regarded.

So it's hard to support your claim with the evidence.

Third time, Obama referred to him personally as "George."

This seems rather respectful to me. Truth be known, Bush responded with similar respect.

Those who don't respect others don't deserve respect.

We should always remember that. Funny how people often don't think it applies to them.

He will always be Barry to me; a disrespectful punk who never took responsibility for his own failings.

I have to say that doesn't sound very respectful.

 

[KWCrazy]

Actually, he was strongly criticized by democrats for not being honest about it.

Those same Democrats voted "not guilty" along party lines for crimes everyone knew he committed and Clinton later admitted. The each violated their oaths of office and refused to uphold the rule of law; just as they did by supporting a known criminal for president in 2016.

It would be more honest to characterize it as a sting operation that nailed a score of illegal gun traffickers.

Not true in the least. You're referring to the Bush era project that used guns with tracking chips in them. What Holder was doing was selling guns to cartels to try and spark outrage which would get them banned when used to commit crimes.

Do you have evidence that Holder authorized the operation? Seems to have been a routine sting operation out of the Phoenix office.

POSTED ON APRIL 15, 2016 BY PAUL MIRENGOFF IN FAST AND FURIOUS, HOLDER JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
DOCUMENTS CONFIRM ERIC HOLDER’S ROLE IN FAST AND FURIOUS COVER-UP
“Fast and Furious” is back in the news. The reason? In January, Judge Amy Berman, an Obama appointee, ordered the Department of Justice to produce documents relating to the “gun walking” scandal that Congress had been seeking for four years. DOJ finally produced them, some 20,000 pages worth, this month.

For anyone who, thanks to the Obama administration’s years of stonewalling, has forgotten about Fast and Furious, here’s the short version. In 2010, a U.S. Customs and Border Patrol Agent was killed while on patrol near the Mexican border. The only two firearms found at the scene were semi-automatic rifles the Obama-Holder Justice Department allowed to “walk” as part of Fast and Furious, a firearms trafficking operation. That operation allowed approximately 2,000 firearms to flow illegally into the hands of Mexican cartel associates.

When the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform tried to investigate the scandal, Team Obama stonewalled. First, it denied that law enforcement officers allowed straw purchasers to buy firearms illegally in the United States with the intent to traffic them without apprehension. Almost a year later, it finally admitted that this is precisely what had happened.

Second, when the Committee subpoenaed relevant documents, Eric Holder’s DOJ refused to produce them, citing “executive privilege.” The House voted to hold Holder in contempt and filed suit to obtain the documents. Three and half years later, Judge Jackson ordered production of the 20,000 pages mentioned above.

Having reviewed these documents, Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, has released a memo summarizing what they show. Chaffetz states:

More than previously understood, the documents show the lengths to which senior Department officials went to keep information from Congress. Further, the documents reveal how senior Justice Department officials—including Attorney General Eric Holder—intensely followed and managed an effort to carefully limit and obstruct the information produced to Congress.

Yet many dishonest conservatives pretended it was only radical conservative organizations who were targeted.

It was primarily conservative organizations. More to the point, it was any adversary of Obama's socialist agenda.

Secretary Clinton's request for more security at embassies was rejected by the republican congress.

Typical Democrat response; refuse to take any responsibility for anything that happened during their administration. Decreasing the general budget for the state department and specifically withholding security for an embassy still in a place where most of the world had pulled out are not the same thing. We all know Hillary had to get rid of evidence that the administration was supplying arms to ISIS. That's why even afterward the embassy was left unprotected for two days so it could be looted.
The very next day your party was all over the television blaming a video for the attack. Obama cared more about campaigning than he did the four Americans he allowed to die in Benghazi.
History will record that he was among the poorest excuses for a human being ever elected president.
How will that make you look?

During the Behghazi hearings, the republicans repeatedly rejected attempts to discuss the consequences of cutting embassy security.

It's a lie. Cutting a general budget does not cut funds to a specific agency. We should have closed it and left with the others, but the administration was busy transferring guns to ISIS.

As you know, most of the material in the Steele dossier has since been verified, and so far, nothing has been shown to be false.

” The U.S. intelligence community purportedly has examined the allegations but have not confirmed any of them. We can wait till **** freezes over. The material is not verifiable. source
Truth: That which is never published in the New York Times.