• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Donald Trump Calls Obama ‘Founder of ISIS’ and Says It Honors Him

Peter King said:
General McFarland yesterday stated that in the past 2 years 45,000 IS warriors have died, so not really sure why they would honor Obama for bringing them death and destruction on massive scale. IS has lost about 50% of it's territory so they must love and honor Obama for that too.

IS was founded (according to wikipedia) in 1999 and in 2006 they were already known as Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) so they are clearly the result policies that started far before Obama was even a presidential candidate.

I do not know whether or not the man is incapable of telling the truth (but does know the truth) or whether he is just a total ignorant hack.
Click to expand...

Both.
 
Harshaw said:
It's really no different from this:

For The Record, Yes, George W. Bush Did Help Create ISIS

Former Military Official Says George W. Bush Created ISIS | US News

Did George W. Bush Create ISIS? - The New Yorker

And so on. You can find dozens of these.

You can probably find threads about it here.
Click to expand...

TRUMP: The war in Iraq started the whole destabilization of the Middle East. It started ISIS. It started Libya. It started Syria. That was one of the worst decisions ever made by any government at any time. In all fairness, Bush made the decision.
 
Paperview said:
TRUMP: The war in Iraq started the whole destabilization of the Middle East. It started ISIS. It started Libya. It started Syria. That was one of the worst decisions ever made by any government at any time. In all fairness, Bush made the decision.
Click to expand...

And . . . ?
 
For god's sake, why are people trying to justify these words that are so obviously wrong?

ISIS was NOT founded by Barack Obama. It was NOT founded by "Crooked Hillary Clinton". There is NO evidence that ISIS "honors" Barack Obama.

It is more goddamn disgusting that people are defending this ignorant man, day in and day out, for his boorish, crude, crass and childish words. But when he makes statements that are so clearly incorrect, and people are trying to fit the round peg in the square hole and making weak, pathetic and FAILING attempts to say how Trump is right, it proves just how sick partisan thinking is.

Screw Trump and his supporters. This is an embarrassment to this nation.
 
Peter King said:
Sadly it is no longer the good old way of news reporting that is the norm any more today. With so many news sources, only news providers that go outside of the grey mediocre mass of regular reporting that attract the sparse advertising dollars in the fast paced world of news today.

But let us not forget that this electoral cycle has a reality TV star in a leading role who is a really really really big fan of conspiracy theories and who does most of his stump speeches shooting from the hip.

And you are worried about a news media that lies and distorts the truth? How about a presidential candidate that lies and distorts the truth even more than the media does.

Of Trump's statements:

4% was true (9 out of 217 statements)
11% was mostly true (24 out of 217 statements)
15% was half true (32 out of 217 statements)
15% was mostly false(33 out of 217 statements)
36% was false (79 out of 217 statements)
18% was pants on fire (40 out of 217 statements)

Compared to Hillary's statements:

22% was true (53 out of 237 statements)
28% was mostly true (67 out of 237 statements)
22% was half true (51 out of 237 statements)
14% was mostly false(34 out of 237 statements)
11% was false (27 out of 237 statements)
2% was pants on fire (5 out of 237 statements)

And let us not forget that most media is mostly centrist to liberal leaning because that is where the money (readers/public) is because, and this is not meant to insult anyone, but higher educated individuals read more newspapers than people with lower education.

But even higher educated people are reading less newspapers than before due to the 24 hour media frenzy that the internet, cable news and 24/7 access to news television and internet news media sources.

And because there are loads of news media sources they need to be properly sensational to be read, all of this leads to sensationalizing the news to no end.

We should also not forget that not many previous candidates have said so many inflammatory statements as the Donald and while he sees the news media as inherently unfair, maybe he should look at his own part in this issue because the news media could not "unfairly portray" the Donald if he would not say so many dubious statements that could be explained in a huge number of ways.
Click to expand...

If you're going to present arguments regarding truth, and include data, please include links to your source. As you didn't, I have no choice but to reject all of it.

In terms of media bias this election cycle, the data is already being gathered for presentation later.

I think we've entered a very dangerous period of media information. This election cycle is highlighting the cause for concern.

While it may be difficult to do, people need to set aside their ideology and start asking some important questions.

Excusing the effort to lie and distort because it's a competitive market is no excuse for what is taking place.
 
trumpery_zpsg3ekiapk.jpg
 
Slyfox696 said:
You didn't offer an opinion. You tried to claim words don't have meanings and when pressed for evidence to support your position, you're refusing to provide any.

I think it's a shame people know they are supporting a lie and refuse to simply denounce. Trump lied. It's not subjective, it's not an opinion. It was a lie. Obama did not found ISIS and there is no evidence ISIS honors Obama. You have not presented a single piece of evidence to support either one of those claims.

And now you "LOL" because you know how utterly ridiculous it is for you to continue this line of discussion and instead will run away, because even the most ardent Trump supporter knows they cannot defend this statement without being a liar themselves. Instead of running away, you should just admit what Trump said has no basis in reality.
Click to expand...

I think I've already thanked you for your opinion, but if you need another, thank you for your opinion, again.
 
Harshaw said:
As if Politifact is science, or even reliable research.

Both of them lie ridiculously, habitually, brazenly, cravenly. They even lie about lying.

But these numbers are meaningless.
Click to expand...

That might be your opinion but it clearly shows that loads of things that Trump says are totally untrue and a pack of lies. So that people expose those lies might seem to him like him being unfairly targeted but if Trump had not made them than nobody would have maligned him for those comments.
 
ocean515 said:
I think I've already thanked you for your opinion, but if you need another, thank you for your opinion, again.
Click to expand...
You thanked me for my accurate assessment of Trump's lie and I called you out for initially defending the lie and then running away when asked for any evidence to support your position.

Just so we understand where each of us is coming from. I'm coming from the place of honesty and facts and you're coming from the place where you defend a lie because it was told by your team and then run away when asked for evidence to support the lie you support.
 
Peter King said:
That might be your opinion
Click to expand...

It's not an "opinion." Politifact chooses exactly which statements it wants to evaluate, and then evaluates them under its own definitions, for which they consider themselves the sole and final arbiters. There's nothing scientific or objective about what they do. Thus, those numbers you post are meaningless.

but it clearly shows that loads of things that Trump says are totally untrue and a pack of lies.
Click to expand...

And?

You quoted me as saying:

Both of them lie ridiculously, habitually, brazenly, cravenly. They even lie about lying.
Click to expand...

You think you're telling me anything I don't know? You think you're actually arguing against anything I said? Or did you simply ignore that part?

So that people expose those lies might seem to him like him being unfairly targeted but if Trump had not made them than nobody would have maligned him for those comments.
Click to expand...

See immediately above. You're arguing against some phantom not present in my post.
 
ocean515 said:
If you're going to present arguments regarding truth, and include data, please include links to your source. As you didn't, I have no choice but to reject all of it.

In terms of media bias this election cycle, the data is already being gathered for presentation later.

I think we've entered a very dangerous period of media information. This election cycle is highlighting the cause for concern.

While it may be difficult to do, people need to set aside their ideology and start asking some important questions.

Excusing the effort to lie and distort because it's a competitive market is no excuse for what is taking place.
Click to expand...

I clearly indicated the source, a simple look at google could have given you the exact page but if you want the page it is than I am willing and able to give it to you. PolitiFact | Comparing Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump on the Truth-O-Meter

The problem with volatile news media is that people attach truthfulness to media sources purely based on their own bias.

And it may not be an excuse for what is happening but it is a possible reason for why it is happening.

Also, again, what is taking place may not be that outrageous as Trump wants people to believe nor is it that strange that people have differing views on what Trump has said.

If he doesn't want to be misinterpreted, he should stop saying stupid things.
 
Another dumb Trump statement.

Another circus troupe of mental gymnasts to justify the idiocy.
 
SMTA said:
I don't care for him at all, but I am not going to be a jerk about it.

I am smart enough to recognize that all politicians will screw the people.

I am also smart enough not to completely and blindly embrace any party as you do.
Click to expand...

Yeah you're ****ing brilliant. :lol: I have yet to see you ever do anything more than what you're doing here, on any topic on this site. I think you're afraid to really put yourself out there because someone might criticize you.
 
A great deal of these threads seems to suggest that the problem is that Trump doesn't word things all that well and liberals have the reading comprehension skills of a toddler.
 
Peter King said:
I clearly indicated the source, a simple look at google could have given you the exact page but if you want the page it is than I am willing and able to give it to you. PolitiFact | Comparing Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump on the Truth-O-Meter

The problem with volatile news media is that people attach truthfulness to media sources purely based on their own bias.

And it may not be an excuse for what is happening but it is a possible reason for why it is happening.

Also, again, what is taking place may not be that outrageous as Trump wants people to believe nor is it that strange that people have differing views on what Trump has said.

If he doesn't want to be misinterpreted, he should stop saying stupid things.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but you gave no such source in your original comments. I went back and double checked just to make sure I didn't miss it.

Not trying to play games, but Politifact is part of the problem. They are an ideologically driven and funded operation of the Poynter Institute, which has direct ties to what I call the Progressive Machine. They are at best, nothing more than an interesting side show and entertainment source. Their subjective findings have been dismantled too many times to count.

You are welcome to embrace them as a source, but for me, Politifact does nothing to support an argument.

And again, that is part of the problem we as voters are facing. We all have busy lives, more or less. We can't possibly spend every moment digging into every candidate, so we turn to the media to gather than information.

And the media assume we are fools.

This election cycle brings witness to what will likely be viewed as the darkest period of news reporting since William Randolph Hearst perfected the art of Yellow Journalism.
 
American said:
Yeah you're ****ing brilliant. :lol: I have yet to see you ever do anything more than what you're doing here, on any topic on this site. I think you're afraid to really put yourself out there because someone might criticize you.
Click to expand...

I render plenty of opinions here, am not shy about it, and received plenty of **** for it.

Unlike you, I do not blindly follow one party like a lap dog, while embracing all of it's fellow members no matter how evil they are.

Guns are a perfect example - you would embrace Charles Manson if he was pro-gun.

If you want to be a blind whore, that's your business, but don't cry when you get called on it.
 
Harshaw said:
It's not an "opinion." Politifact chooses exactly which statements it wants to evaluate, and then evaluates them under its own definitions, for which they consider themselves the sole and final arbiters. There's nothing scientific or objective about what they do. Thus, those numbers you post are meaningless.

And?

You quoted me as saying:



You think you're telling me anything I don't know? You think you're actually arguing against anything I said? Or did you simply ignore that part?



See immediately above. You're arguing against some phantom not present in my post.
Click to expand...

I am not arguing against anything, my saying that you had an opinion was purely aimed at your statement about Politifact and while it is true that they may selectively choose which stories to fact check, it does not necessarily make their fact checks incorrect or suspect, that is all what I was saying.

As was my comment that Trump lies a lot which can clearly be found in the Politifact findings. But that does not mean that Hillary does not lie more than can be found at politifact because politifact might be biased in that way but it does not change the lying habits of the Donald.

And I was not telling you anything you did not know but what exactly makes you think I was arguing with you on that?

I just used your entire quote even though my comments were aimed at just a part of your comment, so no, I ignored nothing.
 
ocean515 said:
I'm sorry, but you gave no such source in your original comments. I went back and double checked just to make sure I didn't miss it.

Not trying to play games, but Politifact is part of the problem. They are an ideologically driven and funded operation of the Poynter Institute, which has direct ties to what I call the Progressive Machine. They are at best, nothing more than an interesting side show and entertainment source. Their subjective findings have been dismantled too many times to count.

You are welcome to embrace them as a source, but for me, Politifact does nothing to support an argument.

And again, that is part of the problem we as voters are facing. We all have busy lives, more or less. We can't possibly spend every moment digging into every candidate, so we turn to the media to gather than information.

And the media assume we are fools.

This election cycle brings witness to what will likely be viewed as the darkest period of news reporting since William Randolph Hearst perfected the art of Yellow Journalism.
Click to expand...

My apologies, I thought I mentioned Politifact but you are quite right, I did not so sorry for my mistake there.
 
PeteEU said:
In what certain way?... bat crazy right wing isolation in a bunker certain way? It makes no sense at all.... ISIS was created out of the ashes of Al Q in Iraq. Why was Al Q in Iraq in the first place.. Bush and his Iraq war...
Click to expand...

Al Qeda founded by the USA in Afghanistan. Founded, funded, trained and armed. USA allies Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, Qatar all have funded, trained and armed ISIS. The CIA and the Pentagon have founded, funded, trained and armed Syrian rebels commonly known as Al Qeda and ISIS. Do you remember when a Toyota convoy over 10 miles long went unnoticed by the USA as it attacked Mosul? Then the USA allies dropped their weapons and abandoned Mosul, as if on que. Then the USA did NOT bomb the ISIS oil distribution Network until the Russians embarassed them into it. There is a great deal of circumstantial evidence that the USA is complicit with ISIS. It is probably for skullduggery with an unstated purpose, but nevertheless the complicity is obvious. Look at al Nusra in Syria. That is al Qeda/ISIS and the USA supplies them and tries to prevent al Nusra being attacked by patriotic Syrian armies. Yes indeedy, the Benghazi deal is where Libyan armory stores were organized for shipping by the USA/CIA to Turkey and then to "moderate rebels in Syria, ISIS by any other name,"
 
Peter King said:
My apologies, I thought I mentioned Politifact but you are quite right, I did not so sorry for my mistake there.
Click to expand...

No problem.

As you can tell, I am very concerned with the state of information that is being distributed. I expect hyperbole from candidates and pundits. It's the silly season after all.

What all voters should be concerned with is best summed up by these two examples:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/business/balance-fairness-and-a-proudly-provocative-presidential-candidate.html

If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?

But let’s face it: Balance has been on vacation since Mr. Trump stepped onto his golden Trump Tower escalator last year to announce his candid​

Glenn Greenwald on Donald Trump, the DNC hack, and a new McCarthyism.

OK, so, I am glad you asked about that because this is the conflict that I am currently having: The U.S. media is essentially 100 percent united, vehemently, against Trump, and preventing him from being elected president. I don’t have an actual problem with that because I share the premises on which it is based about why he poses such extreme dangers.​

Are these admissions, from well known journalists and from well know sources, acceptable to us, as voters?

Are we to be comfortable with the media deciding elections from a grossly biased position?

History provides evidence of what happens when concerted propaganda efforts change the course of nations.

Is that what we are willing to allow happen?

Tough questions with difficult to conceive solutions.
 
Peter King said:
I am not arguing against anything, my saying that you had an opinion was purely aimed at your statement about Politifact and while it is true that they may selectively choose which stories to fact check, it does not necessarily make their fact checks incorrect or suspect, that is all what I was saying.
Click to expand...

Except it very much DOES make the comparative numbers, and the comparison you were trying to make, meaningless.
 
Trump is so unhinged that his mental condition must now be in serious question.
 
This is one of the few crazy things Trump has said that has merit.
 
ocean515 said:
No problem.

As you can tell, I am very concerned with the state of information that is being distributed. I expect hyperbole from candidates and pundits. It's the silly season after all.

What all voters should be concerned with is best summed up by these two examples:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/business/balance-fairness-and-a-proudly-provocative-presidential-candidate.html

If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?

But let’s face it: Balance has been on vacation since Mr. Trump stepped onto his golden Trump Tower escalator last year to announce his candid​

Glenn Greenwald on Donald Trump, the DNC hack, and a new McCarthyism.

OK, so, I am glad you asked about that because this is the conflict that I am currently having: The U.S. media is essentially 100 percent united, vehemently, against Trump, and preventing him from being elected president. I don’t have an actual problem with that because I share the premises on which it is based about why he poses such extreme dangers.​

Are these admissions, from well known journalists and from well know sources, acceptable to us, as voters?

Are we to be comfortable with the media deciding elections from a grossly biased position?

History provides evidence of what happens when concerted propaganda efforts change the course of nations.

Is that what we are willing to allow happen?

Tough questions with difficult to conceive solutions.
Click to expand...

Well, it is very true that balance is an issue but that is not really that surprising with one calculating politician and one highly unbalanced reality star. It is no wonder that one makes way more waves than the other one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom