Trump just faced his first big leadership test. He failed miserably.

[Yssup Rider]

Yeah, I'va Biggen linked to this story in another thread.

However, I'm betting few of you took the time to read what the rest of America saw your candidate for President do in the wake of the Orlando massacre.

So, boils, I'm gonna post it here for you.

Did Drumpf console the victims? Did he ask for prayers? Did he propose policies to try and contain this shit?

NO! He patted himself on the back. WHAT A FUCKING LOSER!

Please tell everybody why this is appropriate behavior.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...led-miserably/

Trump just faced his first big leadership test. He failed miserably.

Donald Trump is deeply, unshakably convinced that talking about terrorism plays to what he chooses to see as his strengths. Back in March, he explicitly said that his focus on the topic “is probably why I’m number one in the polls.” And his response to the Orlando shooting that claimed 50 lives — the deadliest mass shooting in American history, simultaneously an act of terror and a hate crime — was to unleash a blizzard of public statements congratulating himself for his own perspicacity in gauging the true nature of the terror threat.

“Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism,” Trump tweeted, though he modestly added that “I don’t want congrats.” Trump also tweeted, “I called it,” and reiterated his support for a ban on Muslims. And Trump called on Obama to “resign in disgrace” because he won’t use the words “radical Islamic terrorism.”

This morning on Fox News, Trump went even further, seeming to insinuate that President Obama is somehow tacitly rooting for terrorist attacks on Americans. He also seemed to try to incite hatred towards Muslims in America.

It’s true that talking about terrorism helped Trump among GOP primary voters. But he appears to be incapable of even contemplating the possibility that a general election audience might take a dimmer view of this sort of response.

Here’s what Trump said on Fox:

“We’re led by a man that either is, is not tough, not smart, or he’s got something else in mind. And the something else in mind, you know, people can’t believe it. People cannot — they cannot believe that President Obama is acting the ways he acts and can’t even mention the words radical Islamic terrorism. There’s something going on. It’s inconceivable.”

For good measure, Trump also said the following this morning:

“The problem is we have thousands of people right now in our country. You have people that were born in this country” who are susceptible to becoming “radicalized,” the billionaire real estate mogul told Fox News Channel’s “Fox & Friends. He claimed that there are Muslims living here who “know who they are” and said it was time to “turn them in.”

As it was, Trump’s self-congratulatory tweets yesterday had already attracted scalding criticism, even from Republicans. As NBC News reports, “party operatives had hoped Trump would remain silent on the attacks so as not to politicize the tragedy,” but they were “likely disappointed.” Meanwhile, some news reports were already taking note of the vast differences in the ways that Trump and Clinton responded to the event. As the Post overview reports, Trump responded with “bombast,” while Clinton expressed sympathy with the victims, directly addressed the issues raised by the event, and called for a redoubled focus on defeating terror threats.


Today this contrast only deepened. As Steve Benen notes, Trump’s latest insinuations about Obama’s intentions towards America may well put pressure on other Republicans to clarify whether they agree with their party’s standard bearer on this matter. Meanwhile, Clinton went on NBC’s Today Show and rejected Trump’s semantic games over whether we should use the phrase “radical Islam.” Instead, she blasted Trump’s “demagoguery,” reiterated that she will not “declare war on an entire religion,” and said Trump’s rhetoric “plays into ISIS’s hands.”

It is routinely suggested that the specter of terrorism helps Trump politically. But if anything, Trump’s response to this horrific event could end up raising further doubts about his temperamental fitness for the presidency. As it is, the polling is mixed on whether Trump holds the advantage on these issues: while some surveys show Trump favored on the narrow question of terrorism, others show Clinton favored on foreign policy and on who would be a better commander in chief. Meanwhile, a Pew poll in February found that by 50-40, Americans say the next president should take care not to implicate all of Islam when talking about terrorism. So there is no particular reason to assume at the outset that the general electorate will respond well to Trump’s efforts to whip up xenophobia about American Muslims.

Indeed, if anything, Trump’s response calls to mind Mitt Romney’s handling of the Benghazi attacks in 2012. As you may recall, barely hours after the attacks, Romney rushed to blame Obama for allegedly making an “apology for American values,” insinuating vaguely that the president sympathized with anti-American interests throughout the Muslim world. That unleashed a torrent of criticism of Romney’s temperament and leadership abilities amid a crisis.

General presidential elections are brutally difficult: Without warning, they serve up moments that pose severe tests to the character and temperament of those vying for the Oval Office, and split-second decisions about how to respond to them end up creating lasting impressions that can prove unshakable. In retrospect, we may look back at Trump’s response to the Orlando shooting as his very own Romney/Benghazi moment — only far worse.

[Trump just said policy won’t matter in this election. He’s wrong.]

[nwarounder]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Yeah, I'va Biggen linked to this story in another thread.

However, I'm betting few of you took the time to read what the rest of America saw your candidate for President do in the wake of the Orlando massacre.

So, boils, I'm gonna post it here for you.

Did Drumpf console the victims? Did he ask for prayers? Did he propose policies to try and contain this shit?

NO! He patted himself on the back. WHAT A FUCKING LOSER!

Please tell everybody why this is appropriate behavior.

Lol, Obama is a pussy and a sensitive little guy with blood on his hands. Of course he is going to feel sorry.

Trump seems focused on eliminating the problem, which would be much more appreciated than a five minute press conference saying he's sorry for the bloodshed on his watch.

[LexusLover]

This is PRICELESS!

YouRong grading someone's "LEADERSHIP" credentials!!!!!

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

This is PRICELESS!

YouRong grading someone's "LEADERSHIP" credentials!!!!!

+ 1 !!!!

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Yeah, I'va Biggen linked to this story in another thread.

However, I'm betting few of you took the time to read what the rest of America saw your candidate for President do in the wake of the Orlando massacre.

So, boils, I'm gonna post it here for you.

Did Drumpf console the victims? Did he ask for prayers? Did he propose policies to try and contain this shit?

NO! He patted himself on the back. WHAT A FUCKING LOSER!

Please tell everybody why this is appropriate behavior.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...led-miserably/

Trump just faced his first big leadership test. He failed miserably.

Donald Trump is deeply, unshakably convinced that talking about terrorism plays to what he chooses to see as his strengths. Back in March, he explicitly said that his focus on the topic “is probably why I’m number one in the polls.” And his response to the Orlando shooting that claimed 50 lives — the deadliest mass shooting in American history, simultaneously an act of terror and a hate crime — was to unleash a blizzard of public statements congratulating himself for his own perspicacity in gauging the true nature of the terror threat.

“Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism,” Trump tweeted, though he modestly added that “I don’t want congrats.” Trump also tweeted, “I called it,” and reiterated his support for a ban on Muslims. And Trump called on Obama to “resign in disgrace” because he won’t use the words “radical Islamic terrorism.”

This morning on Fox News, Trump went even further, seeming to insinuate that President Obama is somehow tacitly rooting for terrorist attacks on Americans. He also seemed to try to incite hatred towards Muslims in America.

It’s true that talking about terrorism helped Trump among GOP primary voters. But he appears to be incapable of even contemplating the possibility that a general election audience might take a dimmer view of this sort of response.

Here’s what Trump said on Fox:

“We’re led by a man that either is, is not tough, not smart, or he’s got something else in mind. And the something else in mind, you know, people can’t believe it. People cannot — they cannot believe that President Obama is acting the ways he acts and can’t even mention the words radical Islamic terrorism. There’s something going on. It’s inconceivable.”

For good measure, Trump also said the following this morning:

“The problem is we have thousands of people right now in our country. You have people that were born in this country” who are susceptible to becoming “radicalized,” the billionaire real estate mogul told Fox News Channel’s “Fox & Friends. He claimed that there are Muslims living here who “know who they are” and said it was time to “turn them in.”

As it was, Trump’s self-congratulatory tweets yesterday had already attracted scalding criticism, even from Republicans. As NBC News reports, “party operatives had hoped Trump would remain silent on the attacks so as not to politicize the tragedy,” but they were “likely disappointed.” Meanwhile, some news reports were already taking note of the vast differences in the ways that Trump and Clinton responded to the event. As the Post overview reports, Trump responded with “bombast,” while Clinton expressed sympathy with the victims, directly addressed the issues raised by the event, and called for a redoubled focus on defeating terror threats.


Today this contrast only deepened. As Steve Benen notes, Trump’s latest insinuations about Obama’s intentions towards America may well put pressure on other Republicans to clarify whether they agree with their party’s standard bearer on this matter. Meanwhile, Clinton went on NBC’s Today Show and rejected Trump’s semantic games over whether we should use the phrase “radical Islam.” Instead, she blasted Trump’s “demagoguery,” reiterated that she will not “declare war on an entire religion,” and said Trump’s rhetoric “plays into ISIS’s hands.”

It is routinely suggested that the specter of terrorism helps Trump politically. But if anything, Trump’s response to this horrific event could end up raising further doubts about his temperamental fitness for the presidency. As it is, the polling is mixed on whether Trump holds the advantage on these issues: while some surveys show Trump favored on the narrow question of terrorism, others show Clinton favored on foreign policy and on who would be a better commander in chief. Meanwhile, a Pew poll in February found that by 50-40, Americans say the next president should take care not to implicate all of Islam when talking about terrorism. So there is no particular reason to assume at the outset that the general electorate will respond well to Trump’s efforts to whip up xenophobia about American Muslims.

Indeed, if anything, Trump’s response calls to mind Mitt Romney’s handling of the Benghazi attacks in 2012. As you may recall, barely hours after the attacks, Romney rushed to blame Obama for allegedly making an “apology for American values,” insinuating vaguely that the president sympathized with anti-American interests throughout the Muslim world. That unleashed a torrent of criticism of Romney’s temperament and leadership abilities amid a crisis.

General presidential elections are brutally difficult: Without warning, they serve up moments that pose severe tests to the character and temperament of those vying for the Oval Office, and split-second decisions about how to respond to them end up creating lasting impressions that can prove unshakable. In retrospect, we may look back at Trump’s response to the Orlando shooting as his very own Romney/Benghazi moment — only far worse.

[Trump just said policy won’t matter in this election. He’s wrong.]

First of all you idiot there is no victims, this was a False Flag bullshit shooting. So Trump didn't do anything but throw it all back at ya. If Trump becomes president maybe we won't have to put up with any of this malarkey.

Jim

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by nwarounder

....saying he's sorry ....

That has got to be the sole factually correct statement he's made in 7+ years!

One servicemember has died fighting ISIS, ....

..... but ISIS operatives have now killed 63 civilians in this country.

Thanks Obama for keeping "us" safe!

[IIFFOFRDB]

0marzombies are all a flutter... fuckem https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpKfV8l-bdc



https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-crackdown-go/

[LexusLover]

YouRong: "Did Drumpf console the victims? Did he ask for prayers?"

Did he really ask that? Did YouRong actually type those questions?

One of you guys edited his post! Tell me you did!

"console the victims"? ... Was he talking about the shooter's family?
"prayers"? ................... To Allah ....

ISIS blessed the shooter and he will be adequately honored during Friday's prayers!

Not to worry, YouRong, Obaminable and ISIS got you covered!!!!

[JD Barleycorn]

I would feel damned concerned if the captain of the ship came down to the engine room to commiserate with the crew rather than leading to a solution to the problem.

Of course Assup is so completely over his head with this. If his masters told him to walk into the river, he would.

[Rey Lengua]

assup and EKIM are both wondering when their hero of foreign affairs, Lurch Kerry, will be going to Orlando with James Taylor to tell the fag community " You've got a friend " , like they did for the French !

[Yssup Rider]

So the short answer is -- you think Drumpf was right to pat himself on the back.

And, you don't like me.

I can deal with that.

But can YOU explain how Drumpf exhibited the kind of leadership that inspires America and the world?

He's a loudmouth and a bully and is more concerned with himself than any of us.

But you'd follow him into Drumpf U if he asked you to...

[nwarounder]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

So the short answer is -- you think Drumpf was right to pat himself on the back.

And, you don't like me.

I can deal with that.

But can YOU explain how Drumpf exhibited the kind of leadership that inspires America and the world?

He's a loudmouth and a bully and is more concerned with himself than any of us.

But you'd follow him into Drumpf U if he asked you to...

I don't care if he pats himself on the back, he got it right. He inspired Hillary to move away from Obama and admit we have an Islamic terrorist problem. If I was a betting man, I'd bet he inspires Obama in the next few weeks to finally come out and admit the same, once his gun control theme is rejected, again.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

So the short answer is -- you think Drumpf was right to pat himself on the back.

And, you don't like me.

I can deal with that.

But can YOU explain how Drumpf exhibited the kind of leadership that inspires America and the world?

He's a loudmouth and a bully and is more concerned with himself than any of us.

But you'd follow him into Drumpf U if he asked you to...

i read it earlier today. stick your outrage up yer ass. well ,, you'd actually enjoy that pig. where's your outrage now?

Obama: ‘We’ are to blame, not Islamic terrorism, for massacre



http://nypost.com/2016/06/12/obama-s...ando-massacre/

Omar Mateen called the cops to pledge his fealty to ISIS as he was carrying out his mass murder in Orlando early Sunday. Twelve hours later, the president of the United States declared that “we have no definitive assessment on the motivation” of Omar Mateen but that “we know he was a person filled with hate.”


So I guess the president thinks Mateen didn’t mean it?


Here again, and horribly, we have an unmistakable indication that Obama finds it astonishingly easy to divorce himself from a reality he doesn’t like — the reality of the Islamist terror war against the United States and how it is moving to our shores in the form of lone-wolf attacks.

He called it “terror,” which it is. But using the word “terror” without a limiting and defining adjective is like a doctor calling a disease “cancer” without making note of the affected area of the body — because if he doesn’t know where the cancer is and what form it takes, he cannot attack it effectively and seek to extirpate it.

So determined is the president to avoid the subject of Islamist, ISIS-inspired or ISIS-directed terrorism that he concluded his remarks with an astonishing insistence that “we need the strength and courage to change” our attitudes toward the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community.

That’s just disgusting. There’s no other word for it.


America’s national attitude toward LGBT people didn’t shoot up the Pulse nightclub. This country’s national attitude has undergone a sea change in the past 20 years, by the way, in case the president hasn’t noticed.

An Islamist terrorist waging war against the United States killed and injured 103 people on our soil. We Americans do not bear collective responsibility for this attack. Quite the opposite.

The attack on the Pulse nightclub was an attack on us all, no less than the World Trade Center attack.


To suggest we must look inward to explain this is not only unseemly but practically an act of conscious misdirection on the president’ s part to direct out attention away from Omar Mateen’s phone call.

True to form, the president spoke more words about the scourge of guns than about the threat of terror. In doing so, he actually retards rather than advances the cause of gun control he so passionately advocates.

A president totally and credibly committed to the destruction of ISIS and other terror groups seeking to bring the war to us might earn the political and moral capital to seek more extensive limits on gun ownership.

A president who cannot name the enemy even as he anthropomorphizes the weapon the enemy uses is a president unable to bring anyone to his side who’s not already there.


To fight back against the evils of San Bernardino and Orlando, we do need change — and fortunately for us, it’s constitutionally mandated change. It’s the change required by the 22nd Amendment — the change that will compel Barack Obama to leave the White House on Jan. 20, 2017, after completing his second term with America less safe than it was when he took office.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

But can YOU explain how Drumpf exhibited the kind of leadership that inspires America and the world?

What if there was no Trump, oinkboy?

It's obvious to all and sundry that Odumbo's "strategy" (if it can be called a strategy) to stop these kinds of terrorist attacks isn't working.

All you're doing is deflecting from this undeniable reality. You're bitching that you don't like the way Odumbo is being criticized for his failures.

The problem lies with Odumbo, not Trump nor any other critics.

If Odumbo had "exhibited the kind of leadership that inspires America and the world" we wouldn't be having this conversation! Perhaps a more perspicacious leader would not have dismissed as a "JV team" the group to which the Orlando shooter pledged his allegiance before he slaughtered 49 Americans on Sunday morning.

The more Odumbo's failed policies result in attacks like Orlando and San Bernardino, the more Americans will turn in exasperation to someone who promises to try a different approach, however much you dislike it.

If there was no Trump, somebody else would be stating the obvious - THIS AIN'T WORKING!

So be grateful you have Trump - he is such a polarizing figure that he makes it easier for you to deflect from the obvious!

[DSK]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

So the short answer is -- you think Drumpf was right to pat himself on the back.

And, you don't like me.

I can deal with that.

But can YOU explain how Drumpf exhibited the kind of leadership that inspires America and the world?

He's a loudmouth and a bully and is more concerned with himself than any of us.

But you'd follow him into Drumpf U if he asked you to...

He had already tweeted his sympathy earlier. It was time to get to business and leave the wailing and gnashing of teeth to those who do that professionally.