Trump calls on Obama to resign

[Sir Mohamed]

The Trumpster is now totally out of control. He posted that on Facebook an hour ago:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[MK]

Classic Trumpster. A  lot better then the Mexican hating one.

[Deblano]

He should have said "You're fired" instead of saying that he should resign

[President Johnson]

He should have said "You're fired" instead of saying that he should resign

He already has: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj1uCVrMTMs

[136or142]

Because you can't win a war against ISIL unless you specifically use the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism" or something.

Odd then how ISIL seems to be losing right now on nearly all their battlefields in Iraq and Syria.

[Ljube]

Because you can't win a war against ISIL unless you specifically use the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism" or something.

Odd then how ISIL seems to be losing right now on nearly all their battlefields in Iraq and Syria.

You can't, because if you don't use that phrase, you don't know who your enemies are.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Trump's post is just politics; it's tame, compared to what lots of folks have said about Obama.  I'll say this; there is no basis to call for Obama's resignation, period.

What Obama doesn't get at times like this is that Americans NEED to hear him say the words "Radical Islamic Terrorism", or something like that.  I agree that there has been an "Obama's a Muslim!" drumbeat since 2008 that has brought folks to believe that Obama is, in fact, a practicing Muslim, complete with partial, chopped-up quotes on Facebook memes that are just flat-out tale-bearing.  That this is highly unfair to Obama does not mean that he should not have to use the phrase, if THAT is what will allay the concern of those Americans who are sincerely of an open mind, but who see Radical Islamic Jihadists wreck havoc in America and around the World, and see the response to such acts being first and foremost the concern that other Muslims in America will be blamed for the act.  These folks, the RATIONAL folks, deserve, at a minimum, the experience of hearing their President saying, unequivocally, that "Radical Islamic Terrorists" are responsible for the atrocity at hand.

[Hammy]

Because you can't win a war against ISIL unless you specifically use the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism" or something.

Odd then how ISIL seems to be losing right now on nearly all their battlefields in Iraq and Syria.

You can't, because if you don't use that phrase, you don't know who your enemies are.

If one honestly doesn't "know who your enemies are" because of an exact phrase that isn't officially used then you they have the intelligence to be in a decision-making position in the first place...

[anthonyjg]

And yet all that Trump has done to Obama is cause his approval ratings to jump

[Ljube]

And yet all that Trump has done to Obama is cause his approval ratings to jump

Hillary has done that, not Trump.

[Ebsy]

And yet all that Trump has done to Obama is cause his approval ratings to jump

Hillary has done that, not Trump.

[citation needed]

[136or142]

Because you can't win a war against ISIL unless you specifically use the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism" or something.

Odd then how ISIL seems to be losing right now on nearly all their battlefields in Iraq and Syria.

You can't, because if you don't use that phrase, you don't know who your enemies are.

They're fighting ISIL without using that exact phrase.  I see no evidence that backs up your (likely idiotic) claim.

[Ljube]

Because you can't win a war against ISIL unless you specifically use the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism" or something.

Odd then how ISIL seems to be losing right now on nearly all their battlefields in Iraq and Syria.

You can't, because if you don't use that phrase, you don't know who your enemies are.

They're fighting ISIL without using that exact phrase.  I see no evidence that backs up your (likely idiotic) claim.

They are not fighting the enemy there and here, because they are unable to properly identify the enemy. As a consequence of that, they are unable to name the enemy. This is caused by their ideologically distorted world view (I hope), or by their hypocrisy.

[136or142]

Because you can't win a war against ISIL unless you specifically use the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism" or something.

Odd then how ISIL seems to be losing right now on nearly all their battlefields in Iraq and Syria.

You can't, because if you don't use that phrase, you don't know who your enemies are.

They're fighting ISIL without using that exact phrase.  I see no evidence that backs up your (likely idiotic) claim.

They are not fighting the enemy there and here, because they are unable to properly identify the enemy. As a consequence of that, they are unable to name the enemy. This is caused by their ideologically distorted world view (I hope), or by their hypocrisy.

In what way are they not 'fighting the enemy'?

[IceSpear]

And yet all that Trump has done to Obama is cause his approval ratings to jump

Hillary has done that, not Trump.

[citation needed]

I agree with him, but probably for different reasons. The right wing hate machine has been targeting Hillary mainly over the past year, more or less leaving Obama alone (until today.) It's the same reason Obama was unpopular in in 2013/2014 while Hillary's popularity was sky high. Apparently the hate machine is only effective at demonizing one person at a time.

[Ljube]

And yet all that Trump has done to Obama is cause his approval ratings to jump

Hillary has done that, not Trump.

[citation needed]

I agree with him, but probably for different reasons. The right wing hate machine has been targeting Hillary mainly over the past year, more or less leaving Obama alone (until today.) It's the same reason Obama was unpopular in in 2013/2014 while Hillary's popularity was sky high. Apparently the hate machine is only effective at demonizing one person at a time.

Compared to Hillary, Obama is a saint. People are comparing Obama and Clinton and they like Obama better. This includes both the Democrats and the Never Trump Republicans.

The hate machine helps demonizing the image of Hillary Clinton, of course.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

And yet all that Trump has done to Obama is cause his approval ratings to jump

Hillary has done that, not Trump.

[citation needed]

I agree with him, but probably for different reasons. The right wing hate machine has been targeting Hillary mainly over the past year, more or less leaving Obama alone (until today.) It's the same reason Obama was unpopular in in 2013/2014 while Hillary's popularity was sky high. Apparently the hate machine is only effective at demonizing one person at a time.

Compared to Hillary, Obama is a saint. People are comparing Obama and Clinton and they like Obama better.

This is where I'm at.  I'm a 2012 Obama voter and I narrowly chose McCain in 2008, but I thought both were OK candidates.   

[EliteLX]

And yet all that Trump has done to Obama is cause his approval ratings to jump

Hillary has done that, not Trump.

[citation needed]

I agree with him, but probably for different reasons. The right wing hate machine has been targeting Hillary mainly over the past year, more or less leaving Obama alone (until today.) It's the same reason Obama was unpopular in in 2013/2014 while Hillary's popularity was sky high. Apparently the hate machine is only effective at demonizing one person at a time.

Compared to Hillary, Obama is a saint. People are comparing Obama and Clinton and they like Obama better. This includes both the Democrats and the Never Trump Republicans.

The hate machine helps demonizing the image of Hillary Clinton, of course.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Seriously, this is a moment to come together and Trump does this. F-ck him to hell and back. He speaks for a lot of people, too.

[Seriously?]

Seriously, this is a moment to come together and Trump does this. F-ck him to hell and back. He speaks for a lot of people, too.

Come together to ban guns and not call a radical Islamic Terrorist a radical Islamic Terrorist? I am confused.

Ultimately, Trump is right. Denying that a terrorist that called 911 to pledge his allegiance to ISIS before killing 50 innocent people because of his hatred of gays is nothing other than a radical Islamic Terrorist is irresponsible.

[Hammy]

Seriously, this is a moment to come together and Trump does this. F-ck him to hell and back. He speaks for a lot of people, too.

Come together to ban guns and not call a radical Islamic Terrorist a radical Islamic Terrorist? I am confused.

Ultimately, Trump is right. Denying that a terrorist that called 911 to pledge his allegiance to ISIS before killing 50 innocent people because of his hatred of gays is nothing other than a radical Islamic Terrorist is irresponsible.

It would be nice if Republicans would get the false notion out of their head once and for all that anybody wants to outright ban guns. Any argument where that is used as a comparison is utterly invalid and nonsensical.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Seriously, this is a moment to come together and Trump does this. F-ck him to hell and back. He speaks for a lot of people, too.

Come together?  On what basis?  I'm serious; for diverse folks to "come together", there has to be a basis for doing so.

At times like this, folks don't need to "come together".  They need coherent, truthful, answers as to how something like this happened, why something like this happened, and straight talk about their safety.  They don't need to me moralized by politicians that they consider immoral, rightly or wrongly.  

They won't get this from their leaders.

They'll get another diatribe about "gun violence".  Since the victims were disproportionately gay, there will be platitudes about "tolerance" as a sop to the LGBT constituency, using a tragedy to advance other issues that many folks are still undecided about (e. g. including "sexual orientation" as a protected class, along with race, creed, color, and national origin).  Left unsaid (by Obama and Clinton, anyway) will be the contradiction between tolerance for LGBT folks (one Democratic constituency) with the religious beliefs of many American Muslims, beliefs that include the tenets of Sharia Law.  Perhaps this tension between two specific constituencies within the Democratic Party is why Obama seems to have the inability to say the words "Radical Islamic Terrorists" when assigning blame in such incidents.  And, of course, we'll hear how "all Muslims aren't to blame", etc., something we hear a lot of, but rarely do we hear a prominent Muslim denounce Sharia Law.

What American's need is leaders who won't pretend that Sharia Law and Jihad is, somehow, not a part of Islam.  What Americans need are leaders that are willing to cut off immigration to groups and individuals whose world view is opposed to liberal democracy and a republican form of government, and who would use our democratic institutions to end the freedoms they are designed to protect.  What Americans need is an honest, non-hysterical discussion of Radical Islamic Terror and America's vulnerability to it.  

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

Seriously, this is a moment to come together and Trump does this. F-ck him to hell and back. He speaks for a lot of people, too.

Come together?  On what basis?  I'm serious; for diverse folks to "come together", there has to be a basis for doing so.

At times like this, folks don't need to "come together" on any other basis than the mutual abhorrence of the taking of human life.  Why that seems so difficult is what begs a discussion.  They need coherent, truthful, answers as to how something like this happened, why something like this happened, and straight talk about their safety.  They don't need to me moralized by politicians that they consider immoral, rightly or wrongly.  

They won't get this from their leaders.

They'll get another diatribe about "gun violence".  Since the victims were disproportionately gay, there will be platitudes about "tolerance" as a sop to the LGBT constituency, using a tragedy to advance other issues that many folks are still undecided about (e. g. including "sexual orientation" as a protected class, along with race, creed, color, and national origin).  Left unsaid (by Obama and Clinton, anyway) will be the contradiction between tolerance for LGBT folks (one Democratic constituency) with the religious beliefs of many American Muslims, beliefs that include the tenets of Sharia Law.  Perhaps this tension between two specific constituencies within the Democratic Party is why Obama seems to have the inability to say the words "Radical Islamic Terrorists" when assigning blame in such incidents.  And, of course, we'll hear how "all Muslims aren't to blame", etc., something we hear a lot of, but rarely do we hear a prominent Muslim denounce Sharia Law.

What American's need is leaders who won't pretend that Sharia Law and Jihad is, somehow, not a part of Islam.  What Americans need are leaders that are willing to cut off immigration to groups and individuals whose world view is opposed to liberal democracy and a republican form of government, and who would use our democratic institutions to end the freedoms they are designed to protect.  What Americans need is an honest, non-hysterical discussion of Radical Islamic Terror and America's vulnerability to it.  

[7,052,770]

Seriously, this is a moment to come together and Trump does this. F-ck him to hell and back. He speaks for a lot of people, too.

Come together to ban guns and not call a radical Islamic Terrorist a radical Islamic Terrorist? I am confused.

Ultimately, Trump is right. Denying that a terrorist that called 911 to pledge his allegiance to ISIS before killing 50 innocent people because of his hatred of gays is nothing other than a radical Islamic Terrorist is irresponsible.

I don't think ANY blue avatar can play the "irresponsible" card right now after their terror watch list stand has so dramatically blown up in their face...

[136or142]

Seriously, this is a moment to come together and Trump does this. F-ck him to hell and back. He speaks for a lot of people, too.

Come together?  On what basis?  I'm serious; for diverse folks to "come together", there has to be a basis for doing so.

At times like this, folks don't need to "come together" on any other basis than the mutual abhorrence of the taking of human life.  Why that seems so difficult is what begs a discussion.  They need coherent, truthful, answers as to how something like this happened, why something like this happened, and straight talk about their safety.  They don't need to me moralized by politicians that they consider immoral, rightly or wrongly.  

They won't get this from their leaders.

They'll get another diatribe about "gun violence".  Since the victims were disproportionately gay, there will be platitudes about "tolerance" as a sop to the LGBT constituency, using a tragedy to advance other issues that many folks are still undecided about (e. g. including "sexual orientation" as a protected class, along with race, creed, color, and national origin).  Left unsaid (by Obama and Clinton, anyway) will be the contradiction between tolerance for LGBT folks (one Democratic constituency) with the religious beliefs of many American Muslims, beliefs that include the tenets of Sharia Law.  Perhaps this tension between two specific constituencies within the Democratic Party is why Obama seems to have the inability to say the words "Radical Islamic Terrorists" when assigning blame in such incidents.  And, of course, we'll hear how "all Muslims aren't to blame", etc., something we hear a lot of, but rarely do we hear a prominent Muslim denounce Sharia Law.

What American's need is leaders who won't pretend that Sharia Law and Jihad is, somehow, not a part of Islam.  What Americans need are leaders that are willing to cut off immigration to groups and individuals whose world view is opposed to liberal democracy and a republican form of government, and who would use our democratic institutions to end the freedoms they are designed to protect.  What Americans need is an honest, non-hysterical discussion of Radical Islamic Terror and America's vulnerability to it.  

Trumptard, this murderous shooter was born in the United States, and at least one Rethuglic politician has tweeted that these gays 'reaped what they sowed' and on a number of contard discussion boards, many posters agreed with him.