Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Actually, the obamao regime, and higgardly clinton DID initiate the founding of "isil"

calfoxwc

By calfoxwc
in POLITICAL DISCUSSION

Recommended Posts

VaporTrail Proficient

VaporTrail

Posted
Posted

The fact of the matter is that the W/Cheney years are indistinguishable from the Obama/Crooked Hillary years when it comes to foreign policy. Both administrations did a really good job of destabilizing the region and leading to the shitshow that exists today. It's why I'm in camp Never Hillary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bbedward Proficient

bbedward

Posted
Posted

The fact of the matter is that the W/Cheney years are indistinguishable from the Obama/Crooked Hillary years when it comes to foreign policy. Both administrations did a really good job of destabilizing the region and leading to the shitshow that exists today. It's why I'm in camp Never Hillary.

True that, they're all the same fucking thing.

 

I'm happy when Clinton/Bush types criticize Trump's foreign policy, whatever the fuck they say is the opposite of what we should do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
calfoxwc Grand Master

calfoxwc

Posted
  • Author
Posted

"Now, this proves that both America and her allies are responsible for the creation of the Islamic State. You might say it is an accident of history, an unintended consequence of trying to do the right thing. I would say that it was done with the best analysis and eyes wide open. They knew they were dealing with a snake. They should not now act surprised when they get bit."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Furious Styles Newbie

Furious Styles

Posted
Posted

The policy to destabilize and overthrow secular leaders in the middle east began decades ago. Well before Obama or Hillary came along. Iraq ?....before Syria ? for DECADES the overthrow of Assad has been the policy because Syria and Assad were/are seen as Russian proxy states (well before Obama/Hillary). Libya ? The only people speaking out against overthrowing Ghadaffi were Jessie Jackson and Farrakhan. No one....I repeat NO ONE was clamoring about saving Ghadaffi.

In Syria I admit Obama/hillary are at fault for CONTINUING these idiotic strategies. The (free Syrian army) holds areas between Assads forces and Isil strong holds. The fSa needs to get out the freaking way so the Syrian army can get to Isis.The US wants to bring down Assad and won't arm the Kurds (for Turkeys sake) the only groups in Syria fighting Isil?

Trump is right on Turkey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Westside Steve Grand Master

Westside Steve

Posted
Posted

Actually I was against the ouster of Qaddafi from the get-go and I've been pretty vocal about it here. He's not not a wonderful human being was playing ball with the United States.

The Libyan rebels on the other hand made him look like Walt Disney.

I heard a state department moron saying we feared that Gaddafi would go house-to-house and drag out Rebels and execute them. Which, of course, is exactly what they're precious Rebels did after we un leveled the playing field.

Somewhat similar to Iraq, when Saddam Hussein had been a useful scumbag until the point the United Nations begged us to do the Dirty Work and boot him out of Kuwait at which point he became and avowed enemy of the United States.

In general it seems to me that even though dictators in third world shitholes are unsavory characters the rebels are usually worse.

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites
calfoxwc Grand Master

calfoxwc

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The trouble is, Gadafi *ordered the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. Kept the

bombers from arrest for years... until he finally gave them up.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103

 

Before that, there was the disco bombing

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_United_States_bombing_of_Libya

 

before that, a Libyan agent murdered a dissident living in Chicago.

 

http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/gaddafi4.htm

 

He had to go. People were being murdered in the air, and on the ground.

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/muammar-qaddafi-and-libyas-legacy-of-terrorism/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
calfoxwc Grand Master

calfoxwc

Posted
  • Author
Posted

we didn't take him out, btw.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Muammar_Gaddafi

 

Here's an interesting article. Who was secretary of state...

who was negotiating with Gadafi? and bragged that

"we came, we saw, he died" ??? and laughed?

 

Hillary Clinton.

 

https://youtu.be/Fgcd1ghag5Y

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Westside Steve Grand Master

Westside Steve

Posted
Posted

The trouble is, Gadafi *ordered the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. Kept the

bombers from arrest for years... until he finally gave them up.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103

 

Before that, there was the disco bombing

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_United_States_bombing_of_Libya

 

before that, a Libyan agent murdered a dissident living in Chicago.

 

http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/gaddafi4.htm

 

He had to go. People were being murdered in the air, and on the ground.

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/muammar-qaddafi-and-libyas-legacy-of-terrorism/

So you're all in with the obama-clinton foreign policy in this instance?

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldBrownsFan Newbie

OldBrownsFan

Posted
Posted

Trump lost me on this. He makes the claim that Obama and Clinton are the founders of ISIS. On a conservative talk show the host specifically asked him if what he meant was Obama and Clinton set up the environment of the rise of ISIS and Trump said NO he meant Obama and Clinton were the founders of ISIS..............

 

After the negative blow back Trump says he was just being sarcastic? It seems hard to believe when he was asked specifically if he was being sarcastic and he said NO.

 

Trump may be trying to be too clever by half here. He would be much better just plainly telling things like they are instead of constantly saying outrageous things and then falling back on "i was kidding" or "i was being sarcastic". I think most people would rather someone just speak plainly and honestly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Clevfan4life Newbie

Clevfan4life

Posted
Posted

He's an idiot and he's throwing the election with this dumb shit cause he knows he's an idiot in way over his head. All the stuff he's right on is the usual libertarian msg that rp has been talking about for years.

 

Im worried about ed when the realization hits him all those bj's were for naught

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Westside Steve Grand Master

Westside Steve

Posted
Posted

So Obama is the leader of ISIS?

The failed foreign policy of President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton open the door to the creation of Isis.

 

It also has roots with the destabilization of Iraq which you guys on the left blame George W Bush for.

 

Where am I wrong? If you are a saying that you thought anybody meant that he [Obammy] actually went to their meetings put on a turban and gave orders you're a fucking idiot.

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VaporTrail Proficient

VaporTrail

Posted
Posted

Trump lost me on this. He makes the claim that Obama and Clinton are the founders of ISIS. On a conservative talk show the host specifically asked him if what he meant was Obama and Clinton set up the environment of the rise of ISIS and Trump said NO he meant Obama and Clinton were the founders of ISIS..............

 

After the negative blow back Trump says he was just being sarcastic? It seems hard to believe when he was asked specifically if he was being sarcastic and he said NO.

 

Trump may be trying to be too clever by half here. He would be much better just plainly telling things like they are instead of constantly saying outrageous things and then falling back on "i was kidding" or "i was being sarcastic". I think most people would rather someone just speak plainly and honestly.

 

He's an idiot and he's throwing the election with this dumb shit cause he knows he's an idiot in way over his head. All the stuff he's right on is the usual libertarian msg that rp has been talking about for years.

 

Im worried about ed when the realization hits him all those bj's were for naught

 

You guys are mistaking his persuasion strategy for idiocy. This marks the second time I can remember Trump has done something like this. The first time being when he tweeted out that blacks are responsible for 97% of black victims of gun crime - in a rush to point out how stupid he is, every SJW ran to the FBI statistics to point out how wrong he was. The problem is that the FBI stats they cited still showed black on black crime accounted for >90% of black victims of gun violence.

 

He makes an obviously incorrect and controversial statement. The media jumps all over him for being some sort of bigot or racist or other kind of -ist. Here, it's that Obama is the "founder" of ISIS. I've heard multiple times on mainstream media, including CNN and MSNBC, talking about the role that the Obama/Hillary administration played in the role of Middle East destabilization. He literally changed their narrative and forced the media to talk about what he's talking about.

 

But hey, what do I know? Clearly he's just an idiot with no plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldBrownsFan Newbie

OldBrownsFan

Posted
Posted

OK Trump is playing three dimensional chess while everyone else is playing checkers........or the Clinton campaign is playing chess while Trump is in a corner trying to pound a square peg into a round hole.......it's according to how you view Trump.

 

The bottom line though if what Trump is doing was working why is he sinking in the polls?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldBrownsFan Newbie

OldBrownsFan

Posted
Posted

What I would do if I was Trump would for the rest of the campaign stay focused on Hillary Clinton. I would pound on her daily about her horrible past record, the Clinton foundation, the 33,000 deleted emails, Benghazi....there is a huge amount of stuff there for Trump to exploit......that would be half my speech, the first half and the second half i would focus on my policies and what they will do to change the country for the better.

 

I would not even go off script to attack the biased MSM. He is running against Clinton not the media.

 

I also would be reaching out to conservatives in the republican party instead of arrogantly saying he doesn't need conservatives to win. Yes he does because he is not going to get that many former Sanders voters whom he keeps reaching out to. Trump locked up the nomination on May 3rd...on May 4th I would have been reaching out to conservatives many of whom he insulted with his personal attacks and scorched earth campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VaporTrail Proficient

VaporTrail

Posted
Posted

OK Trump is playing three dimensional chess while everyone else is playing checkers........or the Clinton campaign is playing chess while Trump is in a corner trying to pound a square peg into a round hole.......it's according to how you view Trump.

 

The bottom line though if what Trump is doing was working why is he sinking in the polls?

 

Clinton's campaign was playing checkers until her convention. Before that, they looked terribly incompetent. All attempts to paint him as a racist/bigot/homophobe/-ist were largely forgotten. Beginning with the convention, the entire ordeal focused on how "dark" a Trump presidency would be. They've found something that sticks by painting him as a maniac who shouldn't be in charge of nuclear weapons. Facts don't matter, it's the appeals to the primitive brain that matters and motivates voters, and it's the first real shot that Trump has taken since he's announced. Trump has shot back with his first counter in the "Obama is the founder of ISIS" statement. As of today, RealClearPolitics shows that Trump is closing on what was a double digit lead by Hillary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldBrownsFan Newbie

OldBrownsFan

Posted
Posted

 

Clinton's campaign was playing checkers until her convention. Before that, they looked terribly incompetent. All attempts to paint him as a racist/bigot/homophobe/-ist were largely forgotten. Beginning with the convention, the entire ordeal focused on how "dark" a Trump presidency would be. They've found something that sticks by painting him as a maniac who shouldn't be in charge of nuclear weapons. Facts don't matter, it's the appeals to the primitive brain that matters and motivates voters, and it's the first real shot that Trump has taken since he's announced. Trump has shot back with his first counter in the "Obama is the founder of ISIS" statement. As of today, RealClearPolitics shows that Trump is closing on what was a double digit lead by Hillary.

 

And painting Trump as being unfit to be president and having the nuclear codes has worked before with democrats. The dems destroyed Goldwater with this ad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MLD Woody Grand Master

MLD Woody

Posted
Posted

 

Clinton's campaign was playing checkers until her convention. Before that, they looked terribly incompetent. All attempts to paint him as a racist/bigot/homophobe/-ist were largely forgotten. Beginning with the convention, the entire ordeal focused on how "dark" a Trump presidency would be. They've found something that sticks by painting him as a maniac who shouldn't be in charge of nuclear weapons. Facts don't matter, it's the appeals to the primitive brain that matters and motivates voters, and it's the first real shot that Trump has taken since he's announced. Trump has shot back with his first counter in the "Obama is the founder of ISIS" statement. As of today, RealClearPolitics shows that Trump is closing on what was a double digit lead by Hillary.

 

The "3D" chess thing is BS. It's manipulating morons. Both sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MLD Woody Grand Master

MLD Woody

Posted
Posted

 

I think that 3D chess is a fair assessment of what he's been able to do with so little spending.

If understanding social media and manipulating media in general is 3D chess then so be it.

 

That being said, Judy because you didn't have to pay for news stations to report on the stupid shit you said, doesn't mean it was a win for tour campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VaporTrail Proficient

VaporTrail

Posted
Posted

If understanding social media and manipulating media in general is 3D chess then so be it.

 

That being said, Judy because you didn't have to pay for news stations to report on the stupid shit you said, doesn't mean it was a win for tour campaign.

 

The ability to control the media's narrative, to this point is something that's only been accomplished by funneling billions of dollars into it via multiple corporations. Trump is having the same effect just by shitposting on twitter and running his mouth irl. It's the most fascinating part of this election, as far as I'm concerned. The future of campaign finance will change direction because of what he's done in his candidacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...