Donald Trump: President Barack Obama 'Is the Founder of ISIS'

a reply to: ColdWisdom

Misinformed? No failure to study. Failure to put the time in to learn something about the country he says he wants to lead.
It's not up to staff to make sure he learns it's up to him. Do you think a paid professional staff member got him the wrong information?

I like when people listen to Trump when it suits them, dismisses his when it doesn't. His sarcasm was in reference to the "founder" remark, which is shameful that it needs to be pointed out. I know it is difficult to believe that Trump doesn't actually think Obama is literally al-Zarqawi, but it's a shame it has to be spelled out for you.

Know this factoid first:

Retired Lt. General Michael Flynn is Donald Trump’s top military advisor

Flynn was once serving the POTUS... had /has all the insider info...

so trumps statement is fact based & not mere sarcasm... Trump may well in the near future present a challenge to congress to expel barry from leadership

a reply to: amicktd

No you are lying to me. And you should stop now.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Ok. It gets more pathetic here every day.

They have already spun it. Hillary has stated Trump is the recruiting sergeant for ISIS. Which is a lame comeback. Dr Sebastian Gorka and many others have stated Trump is right. But news organizations like CNN and Politifact didn’t fact check Hillary Clinton after she called Donald Trump the “recruiting sergeant” of ISIS back in April. TRUMP has a mountain to excavate and use against her.

a reply to: Byrd

(does anyone else feel that we seem to be in an electronic version of the Roman Colosseum, with the crowd tweeting instead of offering thumbs up and thumbs down?)

Yep, but I like it like this. I think it's much better than letting politicians and public figures spout lies without people being able to call them out on it. A lot of times, media programs will just let them say whatever they want and can't fact check them in real time.

Social media can also inject new ideas into the national conversation, which may challenge the conventional answers and policies. (Not sure if that makes sense, but it makes sense in my head, so meh.)

a reply to: dragonridr

Wouldn't that be jolly. If news outlets and journalists just made stuff up.

Journalists can't always be depended on to get the truth. Fact finding and research may be flawed. The journalists has a certain reputation to uphold as does any media news outlet. They do not blatantly publish made up stories.
Sometimes a story is sourced by accreditation. As in "a gov't source" or "someone close to.... "
There is almost always a real someone wishing to remain anonymous. These organizations nor these journalist are going to risk their reputation of honest reporting by making things up. They have a code of ethics that they agree to operate under.
That may not mean anything to some but these professionals live by this.
Not to mention making up stories opens them to law suits.

Is what Trump said any different than when Hilary said Trump is a 'recruiter' for ISIS? The leftist press never holds Hillary responsible when she basically says the same things. What a surprise.

a reply to: UnBreakable

Is what Trump said any different than when Hilary said Trump is a 'recruiter' for ISIS? The leftist press never holds Hillary responsible when she basically says the same things. What a surprise.

If we are to follow in the unscrupulous foot-steps of the diehard anti-Trump crowd, she was being literal, and she actually means Trump is recruiting members of ISIS.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

He's certainly allowed himself to become a recruiting tool.

Watching this unfold has been awesome. The media and people have been trying to uncover how ISIS did form in order to defend Obama, how they got their funding and toyotas. The leaked DoD documents.

The fact of the matter is that top military and their civilian counterparts knew a radical state could likely form from this rebel funding. More to the fact is that this is not the first time this has happened, meaning this is not unexpected.
See US support of al qaeda in the 1980's to fight the USSR in afghanistan.

Yes small radicals can exist beforehand, but without funding they remain small.

Trump used his talk past the sale strategy to change the dialogue yet again. He first employed this strategy "I am going to build a wall, and make mexico pay for it.". The bold part is talking past the sale. It makes the opponent try to defend against the part that wasn't the pitch. A decoy pitch.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

He's certainly allowed himself to become a recruiting tool.

A recruiting tool was allowing them to grow. Thr bigger they get thr more followers they will gain. If no support was given they would have remaimed insignificant regardless of rhetoric.I find this funny how people are so niave if a person joins a group like Isis it is because they are predisposed to do so. Nothing anyone says will change that. You can't just turn someone in to a terrorist just by saying something they have to believe in thr ideology. What you can do is cause them to act on the beliefs they already hold. So if Trump causes anyone to join Isis they would have anyway just would have been some the g else that caused it.

a reply to: jellyrev

Genius or utterly mad. Can't wait for him to bring up the dirt on the Clinton Foundation. Not a huge Trump supporter but he does have a way of making the MSM dig up exactly what he intends them to.

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Its ok for trump to say that, because is fans still think that barry is the muslim anti christ.

Enjoy the onslaught of angry people!!!

He's correct. I mean, it was him and shillary that removed the leaders in their path and helped arm them. What more could they have done?

a reply to: dragonridr

Pshaaw. The Donald is getting played, played by Russia, played by ISIS(L), played by his fan club.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: ColdWisdom

You have contributed NOTHING to this thread

Maybe because i have contradicted everything you have said with actual FACTS, you have to run to that old excuse.

It would be easier having a discussion with a brick wall than yourself.

You're certainly good at making inane arguments and presenting yourself as the victor.

The modern Islamic State isn't the same entity as the one created after Muhammed's death. Your little tangent is equivalent to saying that the Holy Roman Empire was the same entity as ancient Rome. Modern ISIS claims continuity with the first caliphate, just like the medieval Germans claimed continuity with the Romans. In reality these are only titles that states give themselves.

a reply to: Talorc

Isis would disagree with you since they make statements like this.

“The Islamic State is walking in the Prophet Muhammad’s footsteps,”

The problem is eaxactly that they are trying to aply 6 century beliefs to the 21st century. As a civilized society we don't find the same things acceptable they did in 6th century islam.

Sure. And the medieval Germans that called themselves Romans were also applying Roman law, religion, etc. That doesn't mean the Heiliges Romisches Reich was the same as the ancient Roman state.

I don't see what your point is, unless you're just taking the opportunity to gripe about Islam. In which case, feel free to do so, but I'm not interested in that particular topic.

a reply to: UnBreakable

Seems like the same seven or eight to me.