Donald Trump

PopePalpatine

By the "obummer started ISIS" logic, does that mean the UK has only existed since 1922?

Exeggcute

Trump was merely drawing attention to the very real link between Obama's policy decisions and the exponential growth in power and reach of ISIS as a result of those disastrous failed policies.

Of course he used his typical rhetoric to make that point but the concrete link between the two cannot be explained away by Democrats trying to pretend otherwise despite papers from the Pentagon proving them to be in complete denial of reality.

The fact remains - Obama and Clinton's policies have led to what ISIS is today.

We all know what Trump meant but Democrats can't handle the truth. Mr. Nobel Peace Prize continues to arm the headchoppers and Clinton will double down on that policy.

Christy42

Exeggcute wrote: »

Trump was merely drawing attention to the very real link between Obama's policy decisions and the exponential growth in power and reach of ISIS as a result of those disastrous failed policies.

Of course he used his typical rhetoric to make that point but the concrete link between the two cannot be explained away by Democrats trying to pretend otherwise despite papers from the Pentagon proving them to be in complete denial of reality.

The fact remains - Obama and Clinton's policies have led to what ISIS is today.

We all know what Trump meant but Democrats can't handle the truth. Mr. Nobel Peace Prize continues to arm the headchoppers and Clinton will double down on that policy.

Are you suggesting you support a candidate who can't express what he means in English his native language (or any other language for that matter). Will we need a special role for Trump to English translator?

I read what he said and as far as I can see it isn't what you are saying he meant which could be a serious issue when discussing with foreign heads of state.

Ulysses Gaze

Exeggcute wrote: »

Trump was merely drawing attention to the very real link between Obama's policy decisions and the exponential growth in power and reach of ISIS as a result of those disastrous failed policies.

Of course he used his typical rhetoric to make that point but the concrete link between the two cannot be explained away by Democrats trying to pretend otherwise despite papers from the Pentagon proving them to be in complete denial of reality.

The fact remains - Obama and Clinton's policies have led to what ISIS is today.

We all know what Trump meant but Democrats can't handle the truth. Mr. Nobel Peace Prize continues to arm the headchoppers and Clinton will double down on that policy.

And if Neocon Republicans had not invaded Iraq, and Paul Bremer not disenfranchised the Baathists, there would also be no ISIS.

Obama and Clinton are just part of a wider problem - American foreign policy in the Middle East.

Pro Hoc Vice

https://m.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/4x9fan/what_are_your_thoughts_on_trump_clarifying_that/

I'm not sure Trump even knows what he is saying at this stage.

K-9

Means Of Escape wrote: »

Sit down and talk?
Judging by their attrocities to date and radical ideals it's unlikely they will be putting the kettle on soon

Yeah, that's the only 2 options available.
Bomb the shyte out of them which is what ISIS want or have tea with them. That's Trump thinking right there.

K-9

B_Wayne wrote: »

Gotta love when people claim Trump is capable of a nuanced argument...

People said he'll move more to the centre when he is selected.

Be grand they said.

Exeggcute

Christy42 wrote: »

Are you suggesting you support a candidate who can't express what he means in English his native language (or any other language for that matter). Will we need a special role for Trump to English translator?

I read what he said and as far as I can see it isn't what you are saying he meant which could be a serious issue when discussing with foreign heads of state.

Hahaha I never said I support Trump. He's a bellend. But his opponents are even worse. A pox on all their houses.

Anyone with a brain knows what he meant. Claiming otherwise makes you look really stupid.

Exeggcute

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

And if Neocon Republicans had not invaded Iraq, and Paul Bremer not disenfranchised the Baathists, there would also be no ISIS.

Obama and Clinton are just part of a wider problem - American foreign policy in the Middle East.

Yeah exactly.

But it is funny to see Democrats either genuinely not understanding what Trump was getting at or pretending not to get it.

Either way, they look very foolish.

Christy42

Exeggcute wrote: »

Hahaha I never said I support Trump. He's a bellend. But his opponents are even worse. A pox on all their houses.

Anyone with a brain knows what he meant. Claiming otherwise makes you look really stupid.

Sorry for accusing you of supporting Trump.

I don't know at this point. I am not sure he thinks about what he means, at a certain point most people would try and focus in on what they mean but he doesn't. He just says what will get him votes. I feel your analysis is giving Trump far too much credit. I doubt he knows or cares really if Obama has helped or hurt ISIS.

abff

Exeggcute wrote: »

Hahaha I never said I support Trump. He's a bellend. But his opponents are even worse. A pox on all their houses.

Anyone with a brain knows what he meant. Claiming otherwise makes you look really stupid.

If it was anyone else but Trump, I would agree with you. But at the very least, he deliberately chose a form of words that could be interpreted as saying that Obama (and Clinton) were directly involved in forming ISIS. And I wouldn't rule out the possibility that he was trying to suggest that that is precisely what happened.

When my sons were younger, they used to watch WWE (or WWF as it was back then) and I would sometimes watch it with them and twice took them to Belfast to see live shows. Trump has managed to make Vince McMahon seem like a very restrained and refined gentleman.

Means Of Escape

K-9 wrote: »

Yeah, that's the only 2 options available.
Bomb the shyte out of them which is what ISIS want or have tea with them. That's Trump thinking right there.

What are the other options?
Embargoes? Peace talks ? Total withdrawal of all foreign investment ?Conversion?

Nothing has stopped their advance to date bar aerial bombardment of their key
positions and resources .
ISIS are being crippled as they have zero aerial capabilities and crude technology .

Pro Hoc Vice

Exeggcute wrote: »

Hahaha I never said I support Trump. He's a bellend. But his opponents are even worse. A pox on all their houses.

Anyone with a brain knows what he meant. Claiming otherwise makes you look really stupid.

Even Trump does not know what he meant read the interview he gave earlier, posted above.

Exeggcute

abff wrote: »

If it was anyone else but Trump, I would agree with you. But at the very least, he deliberately chose a form of words that could be interpreted as saying that Obama (and Clinton) were directly involved in forming ISIS. And I wouldn't rule out the possibility that he was trying to suggest that that is precisely what happened.

When my sons were younger, they used to watch WWE (or WWF as it was back then) and I would sometimes watch it with them and twice took them to Belfast to see live shows. Trump has managed to make Vince McMahon seem like a very restrained and refined gentleman.

Of course he did. He is a master manipulator of people's emotions. The WWE is a good analogy. And Trump is a huge fan and close friend of Vince McMahon.

The massive mistake that people are making is they think Trump doesn't know what he is doing. They are very, very wrong.

Billy86

Means Of Escape wrote: »

What are the other options?
Embargoes? Peace talks ? Total withdrawal of all foreign investment ?Conversion?

Nothing has stopped their advance to date bar aerial bombardment of their key
positions and resources .
ISIS are being crippled as they have zero aerial capabilities and crude technology .

What stopped (or made more or less irrelevant) the IRA? Was it the likes of Bloody Sunday and Thatcher's 'no mercy' stance?

Pro Hoc Vice

Exeggcute wrote: »

Of course he did. He is a master manipulator of people's emotions. The WWE is a good analogy. And Trump is a huge fan and close friend of Vince McMahon.

The massive mistake that people are making is they think Trump doesn't know what he is doing. They are very, very wrong.

http://www.hughhewitt.com/donald-trump-makes-return-visit/#more-31501

"more questions. Last night, you said the President was the founder of ISIS. I know what you meant. You meant that he created the vacuum, he lost the peace.

DT: No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS. I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton."

"
HH: Well, that, you know, I have a saying, Donald Trump, the mnemonic device I use is Every Liberal Really Seems So, So Sad. E is for Egypt, L is for Libya, S is for Syria, R is for Russia reset. They screwed everything up. You don’t get any argument from me. But by using the term founder, they’re hitting with you on this again. Mistake?

DT: No, it’s no mistake. Everyone’s liking it. I think they’re liking it. I give him the most valuable player award. And I give it to him, and I give it to, I gave the co-founder to Hillary. I don’t know if you heard that."

"DT: You’re not, and let me ask you, do you not like that?

HH: I don’t. I think I would say they created, they lost the peace. They created the Libyan vacuum, they created the vacuum into which ISIS came, but they didn’t create ISIS. That’s what I would say.

DT: Well, I disagree.

HH: All right, that’s okay.

DT: I mean, with his bad policies, that’s why ISIS came about.

HH: That’s…

DT: If he would have done things properly, you wouldn’t have had ISIS.

HH: That’s true.

DT: Therefore, he was the founder of ISIS.

HH: And that’s, I’d just use different language to communicate it, but let me close with this, because I know I’m keeping you long, and Hope’s going to kill me.

DT: But they wouldn’t talk about your language, and they do talk about my language, right?"

Arghus

Not too sure how to interpret the media furore over the last few days. On one hand the media, rightly, lambasts Trump for having some sketchy and highly self serving contextless and subjective views on many, if not most, matters, but yet a headline that screams "Trump says Obama created ISIS" is one that prefers to come to hasty conclusion in the service of clicks, than to provide some sort of context to WHY he said such a thing.

I'm no Trump fan : I think he's an evil and stupid man, but it seems to me that he could reasonably have a case with claims that the media have taken his claims over the last couple of days out of context. Maybe it would be best if he was held to account for saying things - stupid things - which explicitly state something off the wall, rather than everyone jumping to conclusions about his implicit message.

Pro Hoc Vice

Arghus wrote: »

Not too sure how to interpret the media furore over the last few days. On one hand the media, rightly, lambasts Trump for having some sketchy and highly self serving contextless and subjective views on many, if not most, matters, but yet a headline that screams "Trump says Obama created ISIS" is one that prefers to come to hasty conclusion in the service of clicks, than to provide some sort of context to WHY he said such a thing.

I'm no Trump fan : I think he's an evil and stupid man, but it seems to me that he could reasonably have a case with claims that the media have taken his claims over the last couple of days out of context. Maybe it would be best if he was held to account for saying things - stupid things - which explicitly state something off the wall, rather than everyone jumping to conclusions about his implicit message.

He was asked the following question to clarify what he said,


more questions. Last night, you said the President was the founder of ISIS. I know what you meant. You meant that he created the vacuum, he lost the peace.

He responded with

DT: No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS. I do. He was the most valuable player. I give him the most valuable player award. I give her, too, by the way, Hillary Clinton.

Further it goes on he says

If he would have done things properly, you wouldn’t have had ISIS.

HH: That’s true.

DT: Therefore, he was the founder of ISIS.

Samaris

Arghus wrote: »

Not too sure how to interpret the media furore over the last few days. On one hand the media, rightly, lambasts Trump for having some sketchy and highly self serving contextless and subjective views on many, if not most, matters, but yet a headline that screams "Trump says Obama created ISIS" is one that prefers to come to hasty conclusion in the service of clicks, than to provide some sort of context to WHY he said such a thing.

I'm no Trump fan : I think he's an evil and stupid man, but it seems to me that he could reasonably have a case with claims that the media have taken his claims over the last couple of days out of context. Maybe it would be best if he was held to account for saying things - stupid things - which explicitly state something off the wall, rather than everyone jumping to conclusions about his implicit message.

The interviewer in the post above was giving him -every chance- to ...y'know, not eat his own head and preferably to give him a chance to sound vaguely intelligent for just a moment on foreign policy...

And he ate his own head. Again. Because he is, honestly, a nitwit. He doesn't know the damnedest thing about ISIS or Obama's policies in the Middle East, or the policies of previous administrations. He's playing to what he thinks his base want to hear, hitting Conservative talking points and, because he's not even a Conservative, missing like a blind archer firing at a racing pigeon.

The problem is..he IS saying this crap. I mean, he's on record - he's on TV saying this ****. And people defend him because, if you twist your head until your neck breaks and then squint, you can nearly, almost, see where he's coming from...but no, there is no deeper meaning. He is actually just a fool running for the sake of the limelight. He's just happened to attach himself to the Republican party to do it. Could (nearly) as easily been the Democratic party (in which case you betcha Bush would have personally founded and possibly fathered ISIS).

He doesn't want to be president. Or at least, he doesn't want the almighty and life-shortening task of BEING a president. Unfortunately for the world, he -also- doesn't have the knowledge of who to pick to actually do the damn job if he got the crown. He wants to be a petty king, but failing that, he wants attention. Lots of attention. All the attention. And a chance to bitch when he fails to make things harder for the next president so he can scoff and say he'd have done a much better job.


Yeah, he means this stuff when he says it. Or at least, he doesn't give the blindest damn if he's wrong, because in his own reality, he's always right. Facts are inconvenient. It takes smarter people to actually try and twist it into "what he MEANT was...", but if you said that to Trump right now - he'd say exactly what he said to the reporter; it's exactly what he meant, he says it like it is, and facts are irrelevant.

JupiterKid

It's sad to see quite a few stalwart Trump supporters/apologists on this thread.

Trump is an idiot, an ignorant man and he will do or say anything to garner votes. He contradicts himself and is clearly unfit to be US President.

My 2 cents...

Means Of Escape

Billy86 wrote: »

What stopped (or made more or less irrelevant) the IRA? Was it the likes of Bloody Sunday and Thatcher's 'no mercy' stance?

IRA were nothing like ISIS
By the time the end of hostilities began the IRA were a divided and spent force
The members were not a battle hardened milita group
They needed to come to the table more than the British did- they had some semblance of morality .
ISIS would wipe their asses with any peace treaty if that's the road you are suggesting .

Trent Houseboat

I like how Trump clarified what he meant on Hewitt's show after trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. It's beyond speculation.

But his fans here continue to parse his words to make his statements seem reasonable or even remotely associated with fact.

Presumably the same people who love him for "telling it like it is", when by their claims you'd need the rosetta stove to devine his intentions.

Expect several more pages of "What he meant was" until Trump says some other nonsense that they have to defended.

For what it's worth I expect his poll numbers to swing back, and for this to be a lot closer than the week's predictions.

Billy86

Means Of Escape wrote: »

IRA were nothing like ISIS
By the time the end of hostilities began the IRA were a divided and spent force
The members were not a battle hardened milita group
They needed to come to the table more than the British did- they had some semblance of morality .
ISIS would wipe their asses with any peace treaty if that's the road you are suggesting .

So the British army with the far inferior IRA right next door still weren't able to stop them until they had managed to open dialogue?

Don't get me wrong l, you do need to use military action when and where necessary, but you have to be very cautious and how it looks or you'll just wind up making it worse, which is exactly how we got to ISIS. At this stage there is no quick fix for this, trying to wipe them out will just lead to an even more extreme movement taking their place, and a repeat of the Iraq War is not a good idea, especislly with all those civilians among them.

Arghus

Just to clarify: I am not a Trump supporter. He's a reprehensible, narcissistic and grotesque individual, who I am stunned is still actually running for President - a role he is manifestly not the least bit suited for.

His further attempts at a clarification of his ISIS remarks are just dumbfounding. He's amazingly stupid.

But going back to the "second amendment people" malarkey. This, somewhat oblique and throwaway remark, was immediately seized upon by the media and his opponents, and Trump was accused of flat out telling people to engage in violence. But I don't know if he's one hundred percent guilty of this charge in this case. I think other political figures could make such a remark and could realistically be seen to be talking about a group of American society that is well known to have political and even legislative clout and could also be seen to be encouraging political engagement from such people, rather than just simply saying - shoot Hillary please.

I don't know really what Trump was at with such comments, but I do feel that the near hysterical reaction to them - with a tone of absolute certainty that he was really saying KILL KILL KILL - did reflect on how more level heads are starting to get wrapped up in the storm that follows damn near everything he has to say. Trump didn't speak about killing or shooting anyone but many commentators and opponents of his - who have consistently bemoaned the rancourous nature of the campaign - jumped at the chance to jump to conclusions about what he was driving at with a sentence and then stood back and watched as the political temperature rise even higher; which is of course entirely on account of Trump - or so they say.

Sand

Arghus wrote: »

I think other political figures could make such a remark and could realistically be seen to be talking about a group of American society that is well known to have political and even legislative clout and could also be seen to be encouraging political engagement from such people, rather than just simply saying - shoot Hillary please.

Its very clear he was referencing Clinton being shot - that's why he immediately said 'That would be a terrible day' when his brain caught up with his mouth. The idea that he was calling for political engagement is completely disproven, because he would hardly describe that as 'a terrible day'.

The man says what he means. He meant Clinton being shot, which was an incredibly reckless and foolish thing for a political candidate to say.

Arghus

Sand wrote: »

Its very clear he was referencing Clinton being shot - that's why he immediately said 'That would be a terrible day' when his brain caught up with his mouth. The idea that he was calling for political engagement is completely disproven, because he would hardly describe that as 'a terrible day'.

The man says what he means. He meant Clinton being shot, which was an incredibly reckless and foolish thing for a political candidate to say.

It's far from clear.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/aug/09/context-donald-trumps-second-amendment-people-comm/

Sand

Arghus wrote: »

It's far from clear.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/aug/09/context-donald-trumps-second-amendment-people-comm/

Thats a heavily edited video...always suspicious that so much editing has to be done to provide context. Here is the transcript of what was actually said:

(APPLAUSE)
Lower electric — lower electric bills, folks. Hillary wants to abolish — essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick…
(CROWD BOOING) If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don’t know. But — but I’ll tell you what. That will be a horrible day. If — if Hillary gets to put her judges — right now, we’re tied. You see what’s going on.

So he says 'That will be a horrible day' referring to the Second Amendment people doing something about Clinton. Full stop. And then on to the next point. Its in the transcript and in the video.

The man is a plain talker. He says what he means. He means what he says. Its his poor PR staff who have to find any excuse or reasoning no matter how ludicrous to try continue the lie that Trump is a viable presidential candidate.

Arghus

Sand wrote: »

Thats a heavily edited video...always suspicious that so much editing has to be done to provide context. Here is the transcript of what was actually said:



So he says 'That will be a horrible day' referring to the Second Amendment people doing something about Clinton. Full stop. And then on to the next point. Its in the transcript and in the video.
See
The man is a plain talker. He says what he means. He means what he says. Its his poor PR staff who have to find any excuse or reasoning no matter how ludicrous to try continue the lie that Trump is a viable presidential candidate.

His literal words are "that will be a horrible day if...if Hillary gets to put her judges". He is indeed a plain speaker.

He does NOT say it will be a horrible day if the Second Amendment people do something to Hillary. Seriously: watch the video. He's not referring to what people seem to assume he's referring too.

Both the video I posted AND the transcript you posted bear witness to the same thing: the horrible day he is referring to is clearly that hypothetical day, perhaps never be realised, when Hillary gets to pick those judges. He is most definitely not referring to a time when something is done, horrible or otherwise, to Hillary.

I'm not sure why you thought that transcript was superior to the video. The video is an unedited clip of the thirty or so seconds around the controversial remarks. I don't think there's anything untoward going on there - it's clearly the raw footage. The transcript actually provides less of a surrounding context to his remarks. In any case both are in agreement: the "horrible" day, according to Trump, is the day that Hillary gets to pick her judges. Nowhere in that speech does he condone violence.

skywanderer

If ever there was a more dislikable person then it is Hillary Clinton; Trump will prove the world the folly of liberalism and preach the virtues of Conservatism and morals.

seamus

Exeggcute wrote: »

Of course he did. He is a master manipulator of people's emotions. The WWE is a good analogy. And Trump is a huge fan and close friend of Vince McMahon.

The massive mistake that people are making is they think Trump doesn't know what he is doing. They are very, very wrong.

I think a modified version of Poe's law comes into play here.

When someone's behaviour becomes so off the wall as to be bordering on unbelieveable, it is virtually impossible to distinguish genuine stupidity from an intelligent person playing a long con.

I would only give Trump credit for being a master manipulator and strategist if he had come out of nowhere but otherwise seemed to have solid credentials behind him. If he had a reputation for being a shrewd and brilliant business leader and a master in his professional life.

But he doesn't. His campaign is exactly what he has been doing his entire life. His bumbling ineptitude, self-aggrandisation and inability to think before he speaks. If that's all a clever game, then he's been playing it his entire life. That's a very long con.