Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:Technically, I think you are only partially correct. From a huffpo article:

 

“[Obama] doesn’t get it, or he gets it better than anybody understands,” Trump said of the president’s response to the nightclub shooting. “It’s one or the other. And either one is unacceptable.”

 

So Trump is saying Obama doesn't understand what he is doing or is an ISIS sympathizer, or otherwise aware of harm that might occur, and wants it to happen. At least that is the way I understood it. I am curious as to what all of those who support Trump think he meant by that 'gets it better than anybody understands" part. 

 

Why would one need to be a Trump supporter to understand what he might mean there?

 

Sounds to me like he's suggesting two possibilities - he's either inept and has dropped the ball, or the mishandling was purposeful.

 

He's shown to purposefully respond inappropriately in the past when mishandling other things, so it's no "conspiracy" to believe so.

 

Beer summit, anyone?  That was labeled as "genius" by his lap lapping lapdogs.  He was thought to have begun to heal a nation in ways no other could, when in reality he would divide us farther than we've probably ever been.

 

Instead of black and white, gay or straight, he's got fools on the left religiously believing our greatest threat is red vs. blue.  

 

When in reality, the greatest threat is the religious belief that red vs. blue is our greatest threat.

Quote:If you define Obama by what he says you will never conclude he is a Muslim.

Very true. I'd also say based on the number of terrorists he's killed with his drone program and special ops missions, he's got no sympathy for terrorists at all...

Quote:Very true. I'd also say based on the number of terrorists he's killed with his drone program and special ops missions, he's got no sympathy for terrorists at all...

He must be an awful Muslim, because he eats ham.  During Ramadan.  

Quote:He must be an awful Muslim, because he eats ham.  During Ramadan.  

 

LOL.  I really hate backing President Obama, but if you have evidence of this, a link would would be much appreciated.

Quote:LOL.  I really hate backing President Obama, but if you have evidence of this, a link would would be much appreciated.

 

Ask, and you shall receive:

 

Quote:Why would one need to be a Trump supporter to understand what he might mean there?

 

Simply because I thought supporters might have a better understanding of what he was intending by what he said. Clarification from any quarters is helpful, but the reason I mentioned Trump supporters is basically this, that some on the left think that Trump is implying that Obama is a secret Muslim who hates America and wants to support the violent overthrow and destruction of the great satan America. No slam on the Anchorman, but I believe the way he interpreted it was Trump was saying that Obama was a traitor. That is why I asked, I wanted to see if Trump supporters had a different take.


 

Sounds to me like he's suggesting two possibilities - he's either inept and has dropped the ball, or the mishandling was purposeful.

 

He's shown to purposefully respond inappropriately in the past when mishandling other things, so it's no "conspiracy" to believe so.

 

Beer summit, anyone?  That was labeled as "genius" by his lap lapping lapdogs.  He was thought to have begun to heal a nation in ways no other could, when in reality he would divide us farther than we've probably ever been.

 

So i guess this is an example of Obama "purposefully responding inappropriately"? Sorry, I don't get it. I mean I vaguely remember the beer summit as some thing with the professor and the police officer. What was the purposeful mishandling, and how did it support treason? Are you saying that Obama used this "beer summit" to divide us apart?


 

Instead of black and white, gay or straight, he's got fools on the left religiously believing our greatest threat is red vs. blue.  

 

When in reality, the greatest threat is the religious belief that red vs. blue is our greatest threat.

 

Yeah, sorry, I have no clue what you are saying here. I guess if I put quotes around it, you are saying that you believe the greatest threat to America is "the religious belief that red vs. blue is our greatest threat". Sorry, are you saying that you think the greatest threat to America is .. what? Some religious belief, but you aren't exactly being clear. Maybe you are trying to wax poetic, but it isn't coming across to me.

Quote:Ask, and you shall receive:

 

 

Nice try, but a meme doesn't cut it.

Quote:Jj has different definitions for several common words.


Cherry picking, imperialism, these are words that are defined differently in his world in order to protect his confirmation bias.

 

awwwwwwwwwwww

Quote:Wow, tell us how you really feel. Did Trump pee in your cheerios? He probably should have.

 

You just implied Trump considered certain members of the senate traitors because they voted against arming Syrian rebels, just to be clear. Wouldn't it be the opposite if what you were saying true? That arming Syrian rebels (ie Muslims) IS the traitorous act? Trump is against arming Syrian rebels, by the way. You didn't think this out very well, methinks.

 

Also, Obama does sympathize with Muslim extremists. Otherwise he wouldn't be ordering the military to allow terrorists to escape before bombing them. Sort of treasonous if you ask me. :thumbsup:

 

In 1986, a military operation was undertaken against Libya in retribution for the bombing of a disco in Berlin.  Before the Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps jets set off to do their business, an advanced warning was issued and communicated throughout the target area.  Civilians were given ample time to vacate the area to avoid being killed.  Someone I know was in a Navy jet during that mission, and he said that there were still people evacuating the area as they were releasing their ordinance.  His mission targeted oil platforms.  He said you could see people jumping from the platforms once they realized the warning wasn't a hoax. 

 

It's not being a sympathizer to offer some advanced warning.  It's what humane nations do in order to avoid unnecessary bloodshed.  Unfortunately, the enemy we fight doesn't share the same value for human life, and equally unfortunate is the fact that at some point this country is going to need to recognize this reality, and act accordingly.  The kind of war we need to fight here cannot be done surgically. 

 

As far as Trump calling Obama a traitor, could someone post a link?  I just did a quick Google, and the first three sources that were posted were The Atlantic, Slate, and Washington Post.  When I looked through there, there wasn't a direct quite, just their interpretation running what he said through their very selective filters.  There's a pretty broad interpretation range for what Trump meant by his ACTUAL comment.  We're not talking about the most articulate, or nuanced speaker.  He speaks his mind.  That blunt talk has a way of rubbing some the wrong way, or as in this case, misrepresenting his comments. 

 

The funny thing is, if you laid out the case for how Obama has actually handled the war against radical Islamic terrorism, you could very easily come to the conclusion that, while not necessarily sympathetic, his experiences growing up in that environment may very well have created a bias for him.  Not to mention that his closest advisor, Valerie Jarret, is an Iranian born individual who probably has more influence over his policies in the Middle East than anyone else.  There's clearly something going on there, and I think that's really what Trump was getting at.  There's a reason this president jammed an agreement with Iran down our throats that has repeatedly proven to be a bad decision.  It wasn't legacy building.  There's a reason that this administration sat on their hands during the Arab spring and allowed it to spread like a cancer, temporarily giving the Muslim Brotherhood control over Egypt.  There's a reason why this administration encouraged factions of al Qaeda and other terror groups to overthrow Khadaffi in Libya without having a plan for what would happen once they actually did.  There's a reason why the death of an Ambassador and 3 heroes in Benghazi has never been fully investigated because it would uncover just how involved this administration was in running weapons into Syria, using caches confiscated from Libya during the overthrow. 

 

This administration has systematically allowed the caliphate to grow in the middle east while simultaneously ignoring allies in the region. 

 

There's plenty of evidence that supports the questioning of the administration's motives.  I'm not saying Obama is a member of ISIS or even a traitor, but I do think his background, and those he surrounds himself with have a tendency to be more sympathetic to the plight of those who hate the United States and everything we stand for, and have a stated goal of eradicating us and any of our allies from the face of the earth.  .

Quote:Nice try, but a meme doesn't cut it.

Get your bifocals out, that's a ham sammich!!!'

Or as they say in New Mexico, ham sanguich...

Quote:Just curious, if the UPS driver is dropping off a bomb component to a terrorist in the US, are you saying we should target the UPS driver?

 

There's no reasonable expectation on the part of a UPS driver that he is delivering terrorist Cargo.  That is not the case in support of the Islamic State.  

Quote:<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="pirkster" data-cid="763433" data-time="1466108468">

Why would one need to be a Trump supporter to understand what he might mean there?

Simply because I thought supporters might have a better understanding of what he was intending by what he said. Clarification from any quarters is helpful, but the reason I mentioned Trump supporters is basically this, that some on the left think that Trump is implying that Obama is a secret Muslim who hates America and wants to support the violent overthrow and destruction of the great satan America. No slam on the Anchorman, but I believe the way he interpreted it was Trump was saying that Obama was a traitor. That is why I asked, I wanted to see if Trump supporters had a different take.



Sounds to me like he's suggesting two possibilities - he's either inept and has dropped the ball, or the mishandling was purposeful.


He's shown to purposefully respond inappropriately in the past when mishandling other things, so it's no "conspiracy" to believe so.


Beer summit, anyone? That was labeled as "genius" by his lap lapping lapdogs. He was thought to have begun to heal a nation in ways no other could, when in reality he would divide us farther than we've probably ever been.

So i guess this is an example of Obama "purposefully responding inappropriately"? Sorry, I don't get it. I mean I vaguely remember the beer summit as some thing with the professor and the police officer. What was the purposeful mishandling, and how did it support treason? Are you saying that Obama used this "beer summit" to divide us apart?



Instead of black and white, gay or straight, he's got fools on the left religiously believing our greatest threat is red vs. blue.


When in reality, the greatest threat is the religious belief that red vs. blue is our greatest threat.

Yeah, sorry, I have no clue what you are saying here. I guess if I put quotes around it, you are saying that you believe the greatest threat to America is "the religious belief that red vs. blue is our greatest threat". Sorry, are you saying that you think the greatest threat to America is .. what? Some religious belief, but you aren't exactly being clear. Maybe you are trying to wax poetic, but it isn't coming across to me.

</blockquote>


All good points.


And no offense was taken. Based on the videos of trump giving his speech about Obama, it sounds to me that he's calling Obama a sympathizer...


I'll own that.

Quote: 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="pirkster" data-cid="763433" data-time="1466108468">
<div>
Why would one need to be a Trump supporter to understand what he might mean there?

 

Simply because I thought supporters might have a better understanding of what he was intending by what he said. Clarification from any quarters is helpful, but the reason I mentioned Trump supporters is basically this, that some on the left think that Trump is implying that Obama is a secret Muslim who hates America and wants to support the violent overthrow and destruction of the great satan America. No slam on the Anchorman, but I believe the way he interpreted it was Trump was saying that Obama was a traitor. That is why I asked, I wanted to see if Trump supporters had a different take.


 

Sounds to me like he's suggesting two possibilities - he's either inept and has dropped the ball, or the mishandling was purposeful.

 

He's shown to purposefully respond inappropriately in the past when mishandling other things, so it's no "conspiracy" to believe so.

 

Beer summit, anyone?  That was labeled as "genius" by his lap lapping lapdogs.  He was thought to have begun to heal a nation in ways no other could, when in reality he would divide us farther than we've probably ever been.

 

So i guess this is an example of Obama "purposefully responding inappropriately"? Sorry, I don't get it. I mean I vaguely remember the beer summit as some thing with the professor and the police officer. What was the purposeful mishandling, and how did it support treason? Are you saying that Obama used this "beer summit" to divide us apart?


 

Instead of black and white, gay or straight, he's got fools on the left religiously believing our greatest threat is red vs. blue.  

 

When in reality, the greatest threat is the religious belief that red vs. blue is our greatest threat.

 

Yeah, sorry, I have no clue what you are saying here. I guess if I put quotes around it, you are saying that you believe the greatest threat to America is "the religious belief that red vs. blue is our greatest threat". Sorry, are you saying that you think the greatest threat to America is .. what? Some religious belief, but you aren't exactly being clear. Maybe you are trying to wax poetic, but it isn't coming across to me.

 

</div>
</blockquote>
 

We think that Trump sees this is just another oppressed minority expressing its frustrations.  They are to be contained, passified, and eventually brought into the light as opposed to confronted and defeated.  

Quote:If you define Obama by what he says you will never conclude he is a Muslim.

I disagree.

 

Obama was raised in an environment where he was the son of an Islamist, and whose step father was a Muslim.  He attended Muslim schools in Jakarta, and took advanced classes in the Quiran, learning the book in Arabic. He also attended mosque in Jakarta. That info all comes from his own book, Audacity of Hope.  Whether he converted to Christianity or not, his foundation in faith development was very much Muslim-centric.  In fact, he has said in recent years that the prettiest sound on earth in his estimation was the call to prayer.  I've heard it.  I'd never call it the prettiest sound. 

 

Do I think he's a Muslim today?  He says otherwise.  I'll take his word for it.  But, that doesn't diminish the fact that he more than likely does allow his background to influence his decision making now.

Quote:Do I think he's a Muslim today?  He says otherwise.  I'll take his word for it.  But, that doesn't diminish the fact that he more than likely does allow his background to influence his decision making now.

If seeing people rather than assuming that everyone's a terrorist based upon where they live constitutes influencing his decision making, then I'm kinda glad it does. Nothing bolsters your enemy's ranks faster than killing their wives and children and destroying their homes. Just ask the Viet Cong. American tactics were their best recruitment tool, and we're dancing with that line again in the Middle East.

Quote:In 1986, a military operation was undertaken against Libya in retribution for the bombing of a disco in Berlin.  Before the Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps jets set off to do their business, an advanced warning was issued and communicated throughout the target area.  Civilians were given ample time to vacate the area to avoid being killed.  Someone I know was in a Navy jet during that mission, and he said that there were still people evacuating the area as they were releasing their ordinance.  His mission targeted oil platforms.  He said you could see people jumping from the platforms once they realized the warning wasn't a hoax. 

 

It's not being a sympathizer to offer some advanced warning.  It's what humane nations do in order to avoid unnecessary bloodshed.  Unfortunately, the enemy we fight doesn't share the same value for human life, and equally unfortunate is the fact that at some point this country is going to need to recognize this reality, and act accordingly.  The kind of war we need to fight here cannot be done surgically. 

 

What do you think about the military dropping the pamphlets, as outlined in the link Jaguar Warrior provided? Sounds to me like a similar scenario to the oil wells, as I couldn't find anything saying the truck drivers were ISIS members.


 

As far as Trump calling Obama a traitor, could someone post a link?  I just did a quick Google, and the first three sources that were posted were The Atlantic, Slate, and Washington Post.  When I looked through there, there wasn't a direct quite, just their interpretation running what he said through their very selective filters.  There's a pretty broad interpretation range for what Trump meant by his ACTUAL comment.  We're not talking about the most articulate, or nuanced speaker.  He speaks his mind.  That blunt talk has a way of rubbing some the wrong way, or as in this case, misrepresenting his comments. 

 

Thanks for this. That is why I asked for Trump supporters to ad what they thought he meant about the whole "gets it better than anybody understands" comment, so as not to get replies interpreted by 'left-leaning folks' and then have to sort it out. But like Pirkster did, anyone should feel free to chime in with their interpretation.


 

The funny thing is, if you laid out the case for how Obama has actually handled the war against radical Islamic terrorism, you could very easily come to the conclusion that, while not necessarily sympathetic, his experiences growing up in that environment may very well have created a bias for him.  Not to mention that his closest advisor, Valerie Jarret, is an Iranian born individual who probably has more influence over his policies in the Middle East than anyone else.  There's clearly something going on there, and I think that's really what Trump was getting at.  There's a reason this president jammed an agreement with Iran down our throats that has repeatedly proven to be a bad decision.  It wasn't legacy building.  There's a reason that this administration sat on their hands during the Arab spring and allowed it to spread like a cancer, temporarily giving the Muslim Brotherhood control over Egypt.  There's a reason why this administration encouraged factions of al Qaeda and other terror groups to overthrow Khadaffi in Libya without having a plan for what would happen once they actually did.  There's a reason why the death of an Ambassador and 3 heroes in Benghazi has never been fully investigated because it would uncover just how involved this administration was in running weapons into Syria, using caches confiscated from Libya during the overthrow. 

 

This administration has systematically allowed the caliphate to grow in the middle east while simultaneously ignoring allies in the region. 

 

OK, so what I get from this is that you think that the administration has committed a number of errors in their actions in the Middle East. By bias, do you mean that he might feel they are less hostile towards US interests than is the case? I don't want to do a drill-down on each of these unless you think it is somehow relevant, just trying to see how this links to the  "gets it better than anybody understands" comment Trump made.

 

There's plenty of evidence that supports the questioning of the administration's motives.  I'm not saying Obama is a member of ISIS or even a traitor, but I do think his background, and those he surrounds himself with have a tendency to be more sympathetic to the plight of those who hate the United States and everything we stand for, and have a stated goal of eradicating us and any of our allies from the face of the earth.  .

 

I see from your discussion above that you see plenty of decisions Obama have made that would make you question his tactics or strategy. I am a bit more interested in what you mean by his motives. And who you referring to as "those who hate the United States and everything we stand for". I presume you mean the terrorist groups? 

Quote:There's no reasonable expectation on the part of a UPS driver that he is delivering terrorist Cargo.  That is not the case in support of the Islamic State.  

Hi, jj. Maybe I am a bit biased, as I used to be a truck driver. But unless their qualcomms are a lot better than ours, I imagine they pick up a load and drop it off, without having a pop-up say anything else. Whereas JW sees these drivers as ISIS members, Based on the article and the comments made by Col. Warren, they were just, well, truck drivers. Maybe ISIS got a cut of the oil, or something else, and that was why it was a strategic target, but I didn't see anything remotely identifying these guys as terrorists. So I guess my question is, what info do you have that these guys delivering oil are terrorists. And in my example, the terrorist was explicitly delivering a bomb component as opposed to oil. Are you saying a bomb component delivered to a terrorist in the US is somehow less of a direct threat to the US than crude oil in Syria?

Quote:Jj has different definitions for several common words.


Cherry picking, imperialism, these are words that are defined differently in his world in order to protect his confirmation bias.

 

 

Quote:awwwwwwwwwwww

 

This made me LOL - twice. +1 to you both.

Quote:We think that Trump sees this is just another oppressed minority expressing its frustrations.  They are to be contained, passified, and eventually brought into the light as opposed to confronted and defeated.  

Sorry, jj. Sometimes I think I get what you are saying; sometimes, not so much. This is one of the latter. But hey, if you can help me get what Trump was saying with the "gets it better than anybody understands" comment, chime in!