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

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
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.

How many republicans would vote to impeach Trump for his numerous lies about having sex with other women? You just made my point for me.

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.

As you know, even the republicans on the inquisition trying show that Clinton committed a crime, finally wrote a report in which they admitted that they could not find one.

(Justice department notes that 20 people were convicted of illegal gun trafficking as a result of "Fast and Furious)
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

Not true in the least.

It's just a fact. No point in denying it.

You're referring to the Bush era project that used guns with tracking chips in them.

Yes, the Bush administration also did "fast and furious" type operations. They were also effective. But as you learned, it wasn't Bush or Holder who came up with the projects. They were the idea of ATF managers.

What Holder was doing was selling guns to cartels to try and spark outrage which would get them banned when used to commit crimes.

But you have no evidence for that? What a surprise.

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

Typical Democrat response;

(the Evil Barbarian is resorting to facts, again)

As you now realize, the republicans decided that embassies didn't need as much protection as they were getting, so the cut security. "Priorities" they said. And so there were consequences.

The very next day your party was all over the television blaming a video for the attack.

But you have no evidence for that? How unfortunate. But if they had, it would have been factual:
NYT: Captured Suspect Said Benghazi Attack Was Revenge For Anti-Islam Video
Ahmed Abu Khatallah, the suspect captured by U.S. special forces on Tuesday for his role in the 2012 Benghazi attack, reportedly said he was motivated in part by the anti-Islam online video made in America, according to the New York Times.

“What he did in the period just before the attack has remained unclear. But Mr. Abu Khattala told other Libyans in private conversations during the night of the attack that he was moved to attack the diplomatic mission to take revenge for an insult to Islam in an American-made online video,” Times reporter David Kirkpatrick wrote in a story on Khattala on Tuesday.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/khattala-benghazi-video-new-york-times

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

It's a lie.

As you learned, chairman Chafetz admitted the fact. Would you like me to show you again?

Cutting a general budget does not cut funds to a specific agency.

Sorry, he already admitted the truth.

 

[KWCrazy]

Then prove it.

To know the exact number, estimated to be in the thousands, one would need to read everything he's spoken and count the numbers. Here are 21 things he blames on his predecessors at least once. To this day he blames President Bush for his own bad economy.
But thank you for confirming that you deny reality.

 

[Marvin Knox]

the thread isn't about his "actions" the thread is about what he said.

Silly rabbit - purposefully appearing on national television and reading an incendiary remark from a teleprompter is clearly an "action".

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)

Look - Trump's original comments about the two sides involved in the Charlottesville protests were made almost a month ago. They have been dissected in detail many times in both the liberal and conservative media- including here in your second home, the politics section of the Christian Forums.

You made the choice not to reprint Trump's comments again in an OP and invite comments on his words.

You chose instead to reprint Obama's comment from a current political speech and add your comments to them.

The OP was not and is not about Trumps comments. There have already been quite enough OP's and the like on that subject.

Your OP is about Obama's comments, their accuracy and their appropriateness and about your closing comment as to your agreement with his snide misrepresentation of what Trump said or didn't say close to a month ago.

That's what you're getting here on this thread - people discussing the subject of your OP.

Now you can't handle the fire and you're griping about people "supposedly" inappropriately commenting about Obama and his comments and you and your comments.

I doubt very much that you're just leaving for dinner. I believe you're leaving partially because you've obviously stepped in it and most people are seeing that.

Now you need to reconsider where you went wrong and whether you'd be best served now just leaving this thread alone and waiting to start another when you find something else to slam you brother the president about.

 

[KWCrazy]

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

It's easy to post recent videos. His campaign videos are a decade old now. I remember watching the insolent punk senator denigrate the president while campaigning. It was a classless low from a classless person.

 

[tulc]

Silly rabbit - purposefully appearing on national television and reading an incendiary remark from a teleprompter is clearly an "action".

The thread is about what was said, but I understand it's easier to try and make it about something else.

okay. not sure why that matters, but okay.

(snip)

I posted an article, and the article is what the OP is about. That's what this thread is about.

I doubt very much that you're just leaving for dinner.

It's cute you think I would need to make an excuse to not post, I was trying to explain why I was going to be gone in the middle of a conversation I was having.

I believe you're leaving partially because you've obviously stepped in it and most people are seeing that.

...why would you think that? I've been on CF a very long time and I've made dumb posts and said dumb things, but about this thread? What I see is two guys talking on line, one of which is sadly mistaken about how he's he's doing in this conversation.

Now you need to reconsider where you went wrong and whether you'd be best served now just leaving this thread alone and waiting to start another when you find something else to slam you brother the president about.

Well, I think that's good advice for all of us. I'll try and keep it in mind in the future.
tulc(had some great spicy lentils and injera for dinner, normally not a big fan of lentils but it was quite good with that particular bread)

 

[The Barbarian]

It's easy to post recent videos. His campaign videos are a decade old now.

One of those I posted was before Obama was inaugurated. And he was highly respectful of President Bush. Note that they were genuinely friendly with each other at McCain's funeral.

I remember watching the insolent punk senator denigrate the president while campaigning. It was a classless low from a classless person.

Reality shows something entirely different.

 

[chad kincham]

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)

Trump has disavowed racism several times. This thread should be filed under FAKE NEWS.

 

[tulc]

Trump has disavowed racism several times.

...all while dog whistling so as to get their votes.

This thread should be filed under FAKE NEWS.

Or it's not.
tulc(is always amused when posters seem to think just because they don't agree with something that makes it fake)

 

[The Barbarian]

Trump has disavowed racism several times.

He's also disavowed adultery. That didn't stop him, either.

This thread should be filed under FAKE NEWS.

That one doesn't seem to work any more.

 

[The Barbarian]

To know the exact number, estimated to be in the thousands, one would need to read everything he's spoken and count the numbers. Here are 21 things he blames on his predecessors at least once.

Most of it had to do with the economy. Are you telling us that the economy wasn't in trouble when Obama was inaugurated? Seriously? Are you claiming that "fast and furious" type stings weren't being used in the Bush administration? You sure about that?

You're sure that the IRS targeting extreme groups on the right and left was an Obama decision? Show us that.

Instead of making excuses, show us that the economy wasn't in big trouble at the end of the Bush administration.

To this day he blames President Bush for his own bad economy.

You think it's bad that Obama presided over seven years of continuous economics expansion? How is that bad?

Maybe accepting reality isn't as bad as you seem to think it is.

 

[Yarddog]

To know the exact number, estimated to be in the thousands, one would need to read everything he's spoken and count the numbers. Here are 21 things he blames on his predecessors at least once. To this day he blames President Bush for his own bad economy.
But thank you for confirming that you deny reality.

So, you admit that what I wrote was correct and that I didn't lie. I looked at your site before the post you quoted of mine. Across 8 years and they come up with 21 times Obama blamed the past administration for the problems he faced, without naming George Bush.

Trump tops that every week and uses names, of which he lies in most

 

[ViaCrucis]

cultural Marxist groups.

Ah, that old charge of Kulturbolschewismus.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Tom 1]

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.

Well, I was assuming you are aware of the language Trump regularly uses and his attempts to smear groups and individuals, there’s nothing vague about it. He regularly uses white supremacist language - talking about immigrants ‘breeding’, referring to Mexicans as ‘rapists and murderers’, writing off whole nations with a word I won’t type here, quoting falsified stats to link certain non white ethnic groups and violent crime. And what was that whole birtherism thing about? Why on earth would he promote that?
I’m sure Trump doesn’t think of himself as racist, but what he really thinks about non-whites comes out with regularity in his speeches and other commentary - from the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks. You get the same thing in the UK, people vaguely worried about their ‘English way of life’ (I’ve never really understood what they mean) being eroded, and finding easy scapegoats in immigrants. People like that, like Trump, don’t think of themselves as racist because they think their views are accurate and justifiable. I’ve talked with a few guys in the UK when doing odd summer jobs when at college who would say things like ‘I’m not racist, one of my mates is black’ and then go on to talk about immigrants as all being ‘thieving scum’ and the like. That is the same kind of mentality Trump has, as can be clearly seen simply by listening to or reading what he actually says on a regular basis.

 

[Albion]

Well, I was assuming you are aware of the language Trump regularly uses and his attempts to smear groups and individuals, there’s nothing vague about it.

The minute I hear anyone verbally wringing his hands over the president reacting to his detractors by calling them something like Liddle or Low Energy or the like, all the while that person is completely unwilling to admit to the fact that Trump and all his family members have has been called much worse, and almost at random, the most ugly things possible--dictator, child molester, warmonger, moron, racist, mentally deranged, fascist, etc.--

I know that I am hearing from a partisan. That's all. And that is all it means. Hot air.

Worse, those are just people repeating the outrageous claims whipped up by people who speak for the other party, Congresspersons for example. That is a party that will not even criticize street violence, vandalism of property, and yes, calls for the murder of the president and the overthrow of the government.

 

[Tom 1]

The minute I hear anyone verbally wringing his hands over the president reacting to his detractors by calling them something like Liddle or Low Energy or the like, all the while that person is completely unwilling to admit to the fact that Trump and all his family members have has been called much worse, and almost at random, the most ugly things possible--dictator, child molester, warmonger, moron, racist, mentally deranged, fascist, etc.--

I know that I am hearing from a partisan. That's all. And that is all it means. Hot air.

Worse, those are just people repeating the outrageous claims whipped up by people who speak for the other party, Congresspersons for example. That is a party that will not even criticize street violence, vandalism of property, and yes, calls for the murder of the president and the overthrow of the government.

Hmm but he does use the kind of language I refer to in my post, regularly. That isn’t an opinion, it’s an easily verifiable statement.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The minute I hear anyone verbally wringing his hands over the president reacting to his detractors by calling them something like Liddle or Low Energy or the like, all the while that person is completely unwilling to admit to the fact that Trump and all his family members have has been called much worse, and almost at random, the most ugly things possible--dictator, child molester, warmonger, moron, racist, mentally deranged, fascist, etc.--

I know that I am hearing from a partisan. That's all. And that is all it means. Hot air.

Worse, those are just people repeating the outrageous claims whipped up by people who speak for the other party, Congresspersons for example. That is a party that will not even criticize street violence, vandalism of property, and yes, calls for the murder of the president and the overthrow of the government.

It's not wrong for the president to call Mexicans rapists, but it is wrong to call the president a racist because he calls Mexicans rapists? That how we're trying to spin it?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Albion]

It's not wrong for the president to call Mexicans rapists

I probably would agree with that as it stands and if it were true, but...

...since he did not "call Mexicans rapists," we either are dealing with intentionally false witness or else gullibility (to Trump haters' propaganda), and neither of those would be anything to be proud of.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I probably would agree with that as it stands and if it were true, but...

...since he did not "call Mexicans rapists," we either are dealing with intentionally false witness or else gullibility (to Trump haters' propaganda), and neither of those would be anything to be proud of.

Listen Albion, I'm not going to pretend that Donald Trump didn't say what he very clearly did say, because I have working eyes and ears. I get that his supporters want to spin what he said, but he said what he said:

"When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

Just because he says "some, I assume, are good people" doesn't negate the fact that he was calling the vast majority of the people who come from Mexico to the United States drug dealers, criminals, and rapists. Yes, the president called Mexicans rapists. That's what he said. You can spin it how you want, you can try and justify it all you want, but at the end of the day what was said was said, and that's not going to change.

What Donald Trump said, concerning Mexican immigrants, is immoral, racist, and wrong. The overwhelming majority of people who come from Mexico to the United States are honest, hard working people who simply want to do help themselves and their families. They are not bringing drugs. They are not criminals. They are not rapists. Most of them are good people. And dehumanizing them is evil, wrong, and should be easy for a Christian to stand against, because Christians are supposed to love our neighbors, and speak out against evil, and be on the side of the alien since Christ our God Himself said, "I was an alien". How we treat the immigrant is how we treat Jesus Christ, and when we stand before God in Judgment, that will matter.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[grasping the after wind]

"Nazi" is not a race, it's a political party.

Quite true. If one says "all of X are bad" and X is not specifically a racial group then that statement is not technically racist. Of course if one is thinking that all of X is a particular racial group and that the rest of those ( the ones not openly X ) of that same racial group are just hiding the fact they are in reality aligned with and as virulently malevolent as those openly X that is probably a racist idea. Additionally , if one decides to label anyone that is one's political opponent as X, when there is no evidence to suggest that that opponent is actually X, it might cause a reasonable person to doubt the veracity of the claim when the label X is in some specific instance applied properly. When one sees X even if X is not there ,others might not recognize when one is actually correct in pointing out X when X is there.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

The minute I hear anyone verbally wringing his hands over the president reacting to his detractors by calling them something like Liddle or Low Energy or the like, all the while that person is completely unwilling to admit to the fact that Trump and all his family members have has been called much worse, and almost at random, the most ugly things possible--dictator, child molester, warmonger, moron, racist, mentally deranged, fascist, etc.--

I know that I am hearing from a partisan. That's all. And that is all it means. Hot air.

Worse, those are just people repeating the outrageous claims whipped up by people who speak for the other party, Congresspersons for example. That is a party that will not even criticize street violence, vandalism of property, and yes, calls for the murder of the president and the overthrow of the government.

They’re used to demonizing their political opponents. They’re not used to their opponents fighting back. Their entire political strategy depends on a presumption of their own moral superiority. Undermine that and their whole case falls apart like cheap Kleenex.

Ah, but how do you do that? Loud and continuous mockery and ridicule, both of them and their pet “victim” groups. It’s not pretty, but that’s how the sausage is made. What Trump has shown us is that the strategies laid out in Saul Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals can also be used against the Left.