The General Election

[funhusker]

No words for this douche.

 

What was he right about? That terrorism is bad and wants to kill people? No sh#t, Trump.

 

Did the shooter recently fly into the country and tell customs he was a Muslim?

Was the shooter a Syrian refugee?

Did the shooter gain access to Florida by crossing the Mexican border?

 

If the answer to any of those questions is "yes" then I'll think about lightening up. But I'm guessing this is just Trump practicing auto-fellatio

[HuskerNation1]

f#*k that d******d. He's right about nothing and no one is congratulating him.

 

What a tone-deaf post from a pathological narcissist. I expected some cringe-worthy politicization of this latest horrific event, but the orange douchebag actually exceeded my low expectations of him.

 

The radical Islamic terrorist in Orlando is no different from the radical Christian terrorist who shot up Planned Parenthood.

 

This is not the message you send hours after a horrific event.

 

Keep this man away from any exercise of power. He's a piece of sh#t.

 

And others feel the same about Obama and his insistence on bringing the issue of guns into these terror events, and his refusal to call out Radical Islam. Let's not forget that after San Beradino Obama immediately brought up the issue of gun control which is a total douche move. I don't agree with Obama's policy and messaging on these events, and while I agree with Trump that we need to be smarter and tougher against terrorism, I do not agree with the timing of his response.

[zoogs]

Screw Trump.

[zoogs]

 

 

And others feel the same about Obama and his insistence on bringing the issue of guns into these terror events, and his refusal to call out Radical Islam.

 

That's ridiculous. The U.S. has been raining death on 'radical Islam' for a long time, and will continue to do so regardless of who is President.

 

The reason you don't feed into the anti-Islam rhetoric is because this is also a war of ideas. If you truly believe that radicalization is the problem and not Islam, then you fight against that. America has been killing Muslisms for so long that it's awful easy to convince Muslisms that the West is out to get them. ISIS feeds on that. No thanks on giving them an assist.

[BigRedBuster]

Calling her Pocahontas is probably the least ridiculous nicknames he has for people.

 

Calling someone lying Ted and crooked Hillary when he lies constantly and is crooked as hell in how he does business is pathetic.

[HuskerNation1]

 

And others feel the same about Obama and his insistence on bringing the issue of guns into these terror events, and his refusal to call out Radical Islam.

 

That's ridiculous. The U.S. has been raining death on 'radical Islam' for a long time, and will continue to do so regardless of who is President.

 

The reason you don't feed into the anti-Islam rhetoric is because this is also a war of ideas. If you truly believe that radicalization is the problem and not Islam, then you fight against that. America has been killing Muslisms for so long that it's awful easy to convince Muslisms that the West is out to get them. ISIS feeds on that. No thanks on giving them an assist.

 

 

It's not ridiculous. If the President is a smart man, he can easily call out Radical Islam while not referring to all Muslims. These same Islamic terrorists are killing tons of gays in Iran and the middle east as well. In order to beat the enemy, you have to define them and understand what drives them.

[zoogs]

The President *is* a smart man, and not naive enough to believe that Muslims vulnerable to ISIS recruitment won't simply say, "Oh, he said radical Islam. It's not about Islam."

 

This is a meaningless political attack vector. That's all. I don't know what satisfaction it would give you or anyone else to see the name Islam tied to American rhetoric. on top of American hellfire missiles and billions of dollars in military engagement.

 

I would just say clearly, we have a problem with radicalization -- one with no easy solution. And clearly, they've both identified and are trying to fight back against it.

[Danny Bateman]

I can see how a gun enthusiast could be put off by Obama referring to gun violence after this. That was, in fact, what it was. I could understand if you think it's insensitive to reference his policy after a national tragedy.

 

But he also got up there and called it an act of hate and an act of terror. How much more explicit does he need to be?

[BigRedBuster]

Trump is s piece of sh#t.

[Guy Chamberlin]

I went into a CVS pharmacy in Melbourne, Florida last year and had to kill some time at the magazine rack.

 

There were three sports magazines, maybe four or five women's magazines, a couple gossip rags, three car enthusiasts magazines, some crossword puzzle books, maybe a travel mag or two.

 

And there were -- I counted -- 12 different gun publications. Not merely the comparatively mainstream Guns & Ammo, but the glossiest magazines you can imagine, selling the most beautiful assault weapons and accessories you can imagine. One ad for a silencer was a double page spread depicted grown men hunting other grown men in a field at night, the headline: "the only sound you'll hear is the body hitting the ground."

 

Sometimes the gun debate isn't about the law. It's certainly not about hunting ducks. It's wondering how gun ownership turned into this sick f'ing fetish that has nothing to do with freedom.

[knapplc]

 

[funhusker]

 

 

And others feel the same about Obama and his insistence on bringing the issue of guns into these terror events, and his refusal to call out Radical Islam.

 

That's ridiculous. The U.S. has been raining death on 'radical Islam' for a long time, and will continue to do so regardless of who is President.

 

The reason you don't feed into the anti-Islam rhetoric is because this is also a war of ideas. If you truly believe that radicalization is the problem and not Islam, then you fight against that. America has been killing Muslisms for so long that it's awful easy to convince Muslisms that the West is out to get them. ISIS feeds on that. No thanks on giving them an assist.

 

 

It's not ridiculous. If the President is a smart man, he can easily call out Radical Islam while not referring to all Muslims. These same Islamic terrorists are killing tons of gays in Iran and the middle east as well. In order to beat the enemy, you have to define them and understand what drives them.

 

Like calling them "radical terrorists" that will be eliminated????

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

 

And others feel the same about Obama and his insistence on bringing the issue of guns into these terror events, and his refusal to call out Radical Islam.

 

That's ridiculous. The U.S. has been raining death on 'radical Islam' for a long time, and will continue to do so regardless of who is President.

 

The reason you don't feed into the anti-Islam rhetoric is because this is also a war of ideas. If you truly believe that radicalization is the problem and not Islam, then you fight against that. America has been killing Muslisms for so long that it's awful easy to convince Muslisms that the West is out to get them. ISIS feeds on that. No thanks on giving them an assist.

 

 

It's not ridiculous. If the President is a smart man, he can easily call out Radical Islam while not referring to all Muslims. These same Islamic terrorists are killing tons of gays in Iran and the middle east as well. In order to beat the enemy, you have to define them and understand what drives them.

 

Like calling them "radical terrorists" that will be eliminated????

 

 

It's more than calling them radical terrorists, there needs to be better policies and strategies for taking the fight to ISIS. ISIS is a movement and it continues to grow. The same argument is made by the left suggesting that "gun control" would eliminate these types of events. It won't. The guy had a suicide vest on, and any person willing to kill themselves for the sake of their religion is willing to kill others regardless of whether its a gun, knife, bomb, chemical weapon, or airplane.

[Danny Bateman]

 

 

 

 

And others feel the same about Obama and his insistence on bringing the issue of guns into these terror events, and his refusal to call out Radical Islam.

 

That's ridiculous. The U.S. has been raining death on 'radical Islam' for a long time, and will continue to do so regardless of who is President.

 

The reason you don't feed into the anti-Islam rhetoric is because this is also a war of ideas. If you truly believe that radicalization is the problem and not Islam, then you fight against that. America has been killing Muslisms for so long that it's awful easy to convince Muslisms that the West is out to get them. ISIS feeds on that. No thanks on giving them an assist.

 

 

It's not ridiculous. If the President is a smart man, he can easily call out Radical Islam while not referring to all Muslims. These same Islamic terrorists are killing tons of gays in Iran and the middle east as well. In order to beat the enemy, you have to define them and understand what drives them.

 

Like calling them "radical terrorists" that will be eliminated????

 

 

It's more than calling them radical terrorists, there needs to be better policies and strategies for taking the fight to ISIS. ISIS is a movement and it continues to grow. The same argument is made by the left suggesting that "gun control" would eliminate these types of events. It won't. The guy had a suicide vest on, and any person willing to kill themselves for the sake of their religion is willing to kill others regardless of whether its a gun, knife, bomb, chemical weapon, or airplane.

 

 

What policies and strategies would you suggest?

[knapplc]

ISIS is a movement and it continues to grow.

 

 

 

Looks like it's shrinking, and having a harder time staying afloat.

 

ISIS' retreat from al Hawl is one small example of a growing problem for the "caliphate." Its revenues are declining as its control over populations and resources shrink.

In 2015, ISIS lost about 40% of the area it held in Iraq, as well as parts of northeastern Syria that have both good farmland and oil. Airstrikes on the oil infrastructure it controlled have further diminished the balance sheet. Some of its senior financial officials have been killed. Trading through Turkey has become much more difficult. Its cash depots have been bombed.

ISIS isn't about to file for bankruptcy -- but its balance sheet is hurting.