Things Trump says...

[Belsnickel]

(08-16-2017, 03:14 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Has he tweeted anything towards the family of the young woman that was killed Saturday? Even Pence today down in Chili in South America sounded 100 times more Presidential in addressing her memorial than his boss has done. Granted that isnt hard to do by anyone, but CNN showed him speaking a bit ago down there, and that is what I would expect a modern day President to say.

As of yesterday evening, I don't know if he did anything social media wise, but it's usually something the POTUS would call a family about. He hadn't as of last night.

[Millhouse]

(08-16-2017, 03:31 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: As of yesterday evening, I don't know if he did anything social media wise, but it's usually something the POTUS would call a family about. He hadn't as of last night.

Sad.

Imagine instead of the Nazi/KKK twats there, it was a pro-Isis group protesting. And a counter group showed up, and one of the pro-isis guys rammed his car the way the nazi cun* did killing that young woman.

What would he have said instead. I am guessing it wouldn't be a "both sides" statement.

[hollodero]

...so that's what he's finally getting out of it. How dare they take down a Lee statue in the first place. The Nazis sure got a point there, huh.

Now he only needs to condemn the city and blame their taking down a statue for the tragic events... and the weirdness would be complete.

- What is happening? How... what... Jeez...

[BmorePat87]

Trump on the Charlottesville attack: "I didn't wait long. I wanted to make sure, unlike most politicians, that what I said was correct, not make a quick statement. The statement I made on Saturday, the first statement, was a fine statement, but you don't make statements that direct unless you know the facts. It takes a little while to get the facts. You still don't know the facts. And it's a very, very important process to me. And it's a very important statement. So I don't want to go quickly and just make a statement for the sake of making a political statement. I want to know the facts.”

He also refused to call it an act of terror.

2 hours after today's terrorist attack in Barcelona, Trump has tweeted twice, once calling it an act of terror and another time going on about how Pershing's methods to stop Islamic Terrorists were effective.

Also, to be clear, his Pershing story, which he told last year on the campaign trail, is fake.

[*PhilHos*]

(08-17-2017, 03:58 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Trump on the Charlottesville attack: "I didn't wait long. I wanted to make sure, unlike most politicians, that what I said was correct, not make a quick statement. The statement I made on Saturday, the first statement, was a fine statement, but you don't make statements that direct unless you know the facts. It takes a little while to get the facts. You still don't know the facts. And it's a very, very important process to me. And it's a very important statement. So I don't want to go quickly and just make a statement for the sake of making a political statement. I want to know the facts.”

He also refused to call it an act of terror.

Honestly, who the f*** cares if he calls it an act of terror?  Especially considering it's debatable if it even is technically an "act of terror".

[BmorePat87]

(08-17-2017, 04:05 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Honestly, who the f*** cares if he calls it an act of terror?  Especially considering it's debatable if it even is technically an "act of terror".

It was an unlawful use of force to intimidate a civilian population that opposed the advancement of his social and political goals. 

But, sure, that part doesn't really matter as much as Trump completely going against his excuse from the other day. The fake story about Pershing on top makes it funnier. 

[GMDino]

(08-17-2017, 03:58 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Trump on the Charlottesville attack: "I didn't wait long. I wanted to make sure, unlike most politicians, that what I said was correct, not make a quick statement. The statement I made on Saturday, the first statement, was a fine statement, but you don't make statements that direct unless you know the facts. It takes a little while to get the facts. You still don't know the facts. And it's a very, very important process to me. And it's a very important statement. So I don't want to go quickly and just make a statement for the sake of making a political statement. I want to know the facts.”

He also refused to call it an act of terror.

2 hours after today's terrorist attack in Barcelona, Trump has tweeted twice, once calling it an act of terror and another time going on about how Pershing's methods to stop Islamic Terrorists were effective.

Also, to be clear, his Pershing story, which he told last year on the campaign trail, is fake.

Won't put down white supremacists. Will cry terror at every event involving anyone other than a white person. Lies.

Well he's consistent.  I'll give him that much.  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-17-2017, 04:05 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Honestly, who the f*** cares if he calls it an act of terror?  Especially considering it's debatable if it even is technically an "act of terror".

That's a fair question.

(08-24-2016, 12:01 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Oh, I'm sorry. Is English not your strong suit?

How about Spanish? 
"Es probablemente debido a que por lo general lo hace cuando debería estar hablando más sobre la parte "radical " del "Islam radical " en lugar del cristianismo o cualquier otra religión no asociado con el "Islam radical" ."



No, I have not. Probably because Obama never talks about it. He refuses to even use the phrase "radical Islam" because it's a "political distraction." I HAVE heard him talk about Islam though and usually it's to defend it as a whole.


Nope, but the fact that you keep using this as an insult suggests to me that you're doing a little bit of what psychologists call "projecting". 

I do find this statement funny considering it's coming from a Hillary supporter. You believe what a proven liar says and then have the audacity to call out others for what you THINK they believe is just hilarious.

Why were people so upset with Obama for not using the phrase "radical Islam"?

[GMDino]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/08/trump-files-donald-and-melania-creepy-howard-stern-interview/

Quote:The Trump Files: Donald and Melania’s Creepy, Sex-Filled Interview With Howard Stern

[*PhilHos*]

(08-18-2017, 09:45 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: That's a fair question.


Why were people so upset with Obama for not using the phrase "radical Islam"?

Wow. You ... reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally did your homework there. I don't know if I should be impressed or frightened that you remembered that. lol

In all seriousness, at the time I made that comment it was because Obama had already had a history of defending Islam to the point that it seemed he never referenced the radical elements and their proclivities towards terrorism. While I can see your parallel to Trump, the difference is that Trump has not shown a habit for defending Nazi terrorists. If after a few more Nazi's drive their cars into Antifa protesters, he still refuses to acknowledge the Nazi terrorism, then I will concede the point. Fair enough?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-07-2017, 06:38 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Wow. You ... reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally did your homework there. I don't know if I should be impressed or frightened that you remembered that. lol

In all seriousness, at the time I made that comment it was because Obama had already had a history of defending Islam to the point that it seemed he never referenced the radical elements and their proclivities towards terrorism. While I can see your parallel to Trump, the difference is that Trump has not shown a habit for defending Nazi terrorists. If after a few more Nazi's drive their cars into Antifa protesters, he still refuses to acknowledge the Nazi terrorism, then I will concede the point. Fair enough?

The Islamic terrorists want western leaders to call them Islamic terrorist to use it as recruiting tool claiming their religion is under attack. These neo-Nazi/white supremacists/nationalist groups don't want to be branded with a label because it is bad for their recruitment. Trump has shown a tolerant if not sympathetic pattern towards these types of groups since campaigning for president along with his association with Bannon and others in case you're unaware. So Obama didn't empower the terrorists while Trump did empower the white nationalists.

So it seems like you're upset at Obama for doing the right thing and not upset at Trump for doing the wrong thing.

[GMDino]

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/349510-trump-drought-stricken-dakotas-better-off-than-harvey-flood-victims

Quote:President Trump said the drought-stricken Dakotas are “better off” than cities flooded by Hurricane Harvey last month, and that his administration will make the drought "go away."


“I know you have a little bit of a drought. They had the opposite, believe me,” Trump said during a tax reform speech in Mandan, N.D.

“You’re better off. You are better off, they had the absolute opposite.”

Trump also said he was surprised that droughts could happen "this far north."



“We’re doing everything we can but you have a very serious drought. I just said to the governor, I didn’t know you had droughts this far north. Guess what — you have them,” he said.


“We’re working hard on it, and it will disappear, it will all go away.”

Hurricane Harvey dropped more than 50 inches of rain in some parts of Texas and Louisiana in late August, breaking the record for rainfall from a tropical storm or hurricane.

Parts of the high plains, meanwhile, are suffering through a protracted drought. A federal drought monitor report issued last week said there were “long-term precipitation deficits” in parts of the Dakotas, Nebraska and Montana, where 41 percent of the state's pasture and range conditions are rated “very poor.”

Trump said his Agriculture Department has been working closely with states in the region to alleviate the impact of the drought on farmers and ranchers.

“We will always stand strong with our farmers and our ranchers, the backbone of America, that I can tell you 100 percent,” he said.

[*PhilHos*]

(09-07-2017, 08:50 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The Islamic terrorists want western leaders to call them Islamic terrorist to use it as recruiting tool claiming their religion is under attack. 

Proof, please.

(09-07-2017, 08:50 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: These neo-Nazi/white supremacists/nationalist groups don't want to be branded with a label because it is bad for their recruitment.

Right. That's why they parade around with the Swastika, the Confederate flag, the KKK sheets, etc.

(09-07-2017, 08:50 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Trump has shown a tolerant if not sympathetic pattern towards these types of groups since campaigning for president along with his association with Bannon and others in case you're unaware. 

No, he hasn't. Unless you're saying that because he didn't condemn certain people right away that he's somehow sympathetic or tolerant of them.

(09-07-2017, 08:50 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: So it seems like you're upset at Obama for doing the right thing and not upset at Trump for doing the wrong thing.

No, it's more like I was upset at Obama for focusing too much on defending Islam and not upset at Trump because he's focused on ALL the violent offenders.

[Benton]

(09-08-2017, 03:28 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Proof, please.

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/783202/London-terror-attack-parliament-westminster-shooting-lone-wolf-ISIS

Quote:ISIS encouraging ‘home-grown’ or ‘lone wolf’ attacks as a response to losing territory and power is not a new tactic, with Al-Qaeda issuing a similar rallying cry when it faced decimation.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/aug/01/media-coverage-terrorism-further-violence

Quote:Violence, so the saying goes, begets violence. Now evidence is emerging that suggests even the reporting of violence can trigger further attacks. Research has found that sensationalist media coverage of acts of terrorism results in more such acts being committed.

The study will prompt further debate about how the international media responds to atrocities. It also raises the possibility that media reports about a terrorist act can be viewed as a “warning” that follow-on attacks will be perpetrated in the near future.

https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/publications/ethics_online/0117

Quote:In 1956, the Algerian insurgent Ramdane Abane wondered if it was better to kill 10 enemies in a remote village "when no one will talk about it" or "a single man in Algiers, which will be noted the next day" by audiences in distant countries who could influence policymakers.2 Terrorist plots are often carried out with the sole intention of being broadcast and reported—and many probably would not have been committed in the first place without the guarantee of media attention.

...

The way terrorist organizations exploit the 24/7 media cycle to spread fear and insecurity feeds the fundamentalists' raison d'etre. A study carried out before and after 9/11 on whether TV viewing changes public attitudes to security policy concluded that sensationalist TV stories on terrorism make Americans more hawkish: "The more TV they watched, the more hawkish were their views."4

There's been some discussion about this the last several years, mostly in the military and how to cut down terrorism, and in other countries. Not a lot here as very few major news outlets want to say "Oh yeah, we're extremists best recruiters!"

But the thinking is (basically): for terrorism to work you need 1. terrorists 2. people to be terrified. You can't get either one if nobody knows who you are. And the people in charge of terrorist organizations need people willing to die/get arrested to expand their network. No terrorists means no income, and what self-respecting terror leader wants to get into a jihad if he can't even pay the mortgage? So you've got to take credit for something, or at least find someone willing to elevate your group for an attack. The more you get elevated, the more employees you get. 

It's a pyramid scheme of violence. 

Terrorist groups have rallied around different things in the past. Sunni-Shiite differences. Jews. Christianity. Right now the way to shoot up the terrorism chart is: western Democracies. Recruits are told western Democracies are the cause for all the problems. And you've got a lot of groups right now hammering that message, so new groups grab onto it. And every time a western leader says "this is all because of terrorists" it gives a recruiter a chance to say "look, this is what we're doing and how much of an impact you can make." 

I don't have an answer for how to end terrorism, but recruiters use a variety of tools to fill in the lowest level of the pyramid. One of their chief ones is how effective terrorism is, which gets perpetuated every time an elected official jumps up and says something against Islam, the Middle East, etc. He's helping recruiters by promoting a 'us vs. them' idea.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-08-2017, 03:28 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Proof, please.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/01/30/politics/trump-ban-boosts-isis-recruitment/index.html

Just one example of how it is used as propaganda for recruitment purposes.

Quote:Right. That's why they parade around with the Swastika, the Confederate flag, the KKK sheets, etc.

And the dumbasses in Charlottesville are scared shitless their identities will be revealed from their photos that appeared in the news because they want to remain anonymous. Sure they will go march and spread their hate where others don't know them and their views won't negatively affect them. But, they don't want their boss to fire them when it is common knowledge they are a white nationalist. People don't want that title and so the groups don't want that title because it is bad for recruitment.

Quote:No, he hasn't. Unless you're saying that because he didn't condemn certain people right away that he's somehow sympathetic or tolerant of them.

If you don't condemn white nationalist aren't you tolerating it?

Quote:No, it's more like I was upset at Obama for focusing too much on defending Islam and not upset at Trump because he's focused on ALL the violent offenders.

Is this the same Obama conservatives were upset at for all the indiscriminate drone strikes to kill suspected terrorists?

That's the biggest disconnect I don't understand. Obama constantly defending Islamic terrorist while killing them to the point conservatives are worried he is killing too loosey goosey.

[*PhilHos*]

(09-08-2017, 03:56 PM)Benton Wrote: http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/783202/London-terror-attack-parliament-westminster-shooting-lone-wolf-ISIS


https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/aug/01/media-coverage-terrorism-further-violence


https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/publications/ethics_online/0117




There's been some discussion about this the last several years, mostly in the military and how to cut down terrorism, and in other countries. Not a lot here as very few major news outlets want to say "Oh yeah, we're extremists best recruiters!"

But the thinking is (basically): for terrorism to work you need 1. terrorists 2. people to be terrified. You can't get either one if nobody knows who you are. And the people in charge of terrorist organizations need people willing to die/get arrested to expand their network. No terrorists means no income, and what self-respecting terror leader wants to get into a jihad if he can't even pay the mortgage? So you've got to take credit for something, or at least find someone willing to elevate your group for an attack. The more you get elevated, the more employees you get. 

It's a pyramid scheme of violence. 

Terrorist groups have rallied around different things in the past. Sunni-Shiite differences. Jews. Christianity. Right now the way to shoot up the terrorism chart is: western Democracies. Recruits are told western Democracies are the cause for all the problems. And you've got a lot of groups right now hammering that message, so new groups grab onto it. And every time a western leader says "this is all because of terrorists" it gives a recruiter a chance to say "look, this is what we're doing and how much of an impact you can make." 

I don't have an answer for how to end terrorism, but recruiters use a variety of tools to fill in the lowest level of the pyramid. One of their chief ones is how effective terrorism is, which gets perpetuated every time an elected official jumps up and says something against Islam, the Middle East, etc. He's helping recruiters by promoting a 'us vs. them' idea.

That's all well and good, but none of that supports the claim that Islamic terrorists want to be called Islamic terrorists so as to encourage others to join their cause. 

(09-08-2017, 04:11 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: 1)If you don't condemn white nationalist aren't you tolerating it?

2)Is this the same Obama conservatives were upset at for all the indiscriminate drone strikes to kill suspected terrorists?

3)That's the biggest disconnect I don't understand. Obama constantly defending Islamic terrorist while killing them to the point conservatives are worried he is killing too loosey goosey.

1) No. In the same way as if you don't praise white nationalists, you're not condemning them.
1)B) Trump's condemned white nationalists, soooooooooooooooooo ...

2)I was not one of those conservatives.

3)Meh. It's not that different than those criticizing Trump for not condemning white nationalists when he has, IMO. 

[Benton]

(09-08-2017, 05:10 PM)PhilHos Wrote: That's all well and good, but none of that supports the claim that Islamic terrorists want to be called Islamic terrorists so as to encourage others to join their cause. 

 

I don't understand the line of thinking that terrorists really don't want any publicity... so they attack people, put out propaganda material and claim every act — even ones they didn't commit — in an attempt to stay on the down low. But, sure.

[ballsofsteel]

(09-07-2017, 06:38 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Wow. You ... reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally did your homework there. I don't know if I should be impressed or frightened that you remembered that. lol

In all seriousness, at the time I made that comment it was because Obama had already had a history of defending Islam to the point that it seemed he never referenced the radical elements and their proclivities towards terrorism. While I can see your parallel to Trump, the difference is that Trump has not shown a habit for defending Nazi terrorists. If after a few more Nazi's drive their cars into Antifa protesters, he still refuses to acknowledge the Nazi terrorism, then I will concede the point. Fair enough?

Honestly, who the f*** cares if Obama called/calls them radical Islam?
Radical Islam was not Obama's base.
Nazi Terrorist ARE Drumph's base.
You dig?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-08-2017, 05:10 PM)PhilHos Wrote: That's all well and good, but none of that supports the claim that Islamic terrorists want to be called Islamic terrorists so as to encourage others to join their cause. 


1) No. In the same way as if you don't praise white nationalists, you're not condemning them.
1)B) Trump's condemned white nationalists, soooooooooooooooooo ...

2)I was not one of those conservatives.

3)Meh. It's not that different than those criticizing Trump for not condemning white nationalists when he has, IMO. 

Oooooooooookay. Baby steps: do you believe Islamic terrorist groups are trying to recruit new members?

[*PhilHos*]

(09-08-2017, 05:17 PM)Benton Wrote:

I don't understand the line of thinking that terrorists really don't want any publicity... so they attack people, put out propaganda material and claim every act — even ones they didn't commit — in an attempt to stay on the down low. But, sure.

That's not what I said. I asked for proof that ISIS wanted the USA to call those that committed terror attacks Islamic terrorists. I don't care about the argument of them wanting publicity and/or using said publicity in recruiting efforts.

(09-08-2017, 06:19 PM)ballsofsteel Wrote: Honestly, who the f*** cares if Obama called/calls them radical Islam?
Radical Islam was not Obama's base.
Nazi Terrorist ARE Drumph's base.
You dig?

No, I don't 'dig'. Nazi terrorists are NOT Trump's base. Sure, they may be a part of his supporters, but the majority of those that support him are not Nazi terrorists.

(09-08-2017, 06:43 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Oooooooooookay. Baby steps: do you believe Islamic terrorist groups are trying to recruit new members?

Never said they weren't.