What did Trump mean when he called Obama the founder of ISIS?
The question: “What did Trump mean when he called Obama the founder of ISIS?”I offer you three interpretations.The most generous interpretation:That US middle eastern policy under President Obama contributed to the creation of the power vacuum in Syria and Iraq that allowed ISIS to establish itself as a regional power. The suggestion being that if President Obama had adopted a more aggressive, more proactive interventionist policy then this ISIS offshoot of al-Qaida would have not have come to be, is frankly naive. At it simplest level it ignores the fact that the US invaded Iraq in 2003.However this is the explanation the Trump campaign would have offered in an attempt to justify Trump’s intentionally provocative claim.The second, interpretation:Trump and the campaign wanted a ‘sound bit’ that would get Trump on the news and they would defend the provocative nature of the claim by saying that it was an important issue and they wanted people sit up and take notice.In effect the Trump campaign were playing the sound bite game to which news and media coverage of political campaigns has been reduced.The third and least favourable interpretationThis was an entirely dishonourable attempt to smear the good name and standing of President Obama by baselessly associating his name with that of terrorists.A shallow disreputable attack that any reasonable American ought to have been ashamed of. That such an attack was made by the presidential candidate of the Republican party ought only to increase the embarrassment that would hold itself up as a democracy. That the Republican party did not immediately demand that Trump retract the accusation is an affront to the US and an illustration of the depths to which partisan politics has sunk in the US.Worse still is the insult to Republican voters that Trump and his campaign should have so little respect for them ,that they would offer up this dubious suggestion presented in a manner clearly intended to suggest that President Obama was personally sympathetic to terrorists. An insult made worse by Trump calculated repetition of President Obama’s full name Barack Hussein Obama in order to overemphasis the President Obama’s middle name.It is regrettable that of the three interpretations, it is the deplorable, inexcusable third explanation, that is by far the most likely.
Which Founding Father is President Obama most similar to?
Great question! While Barack Obama is unique, as America's first black president, I think some of his efforts could be compared to those of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Both men were center-left Democrats who came into office during dire economic times, and both were widely seen as the hope of their country by people who had become disenchanted with the previous Republican administration. Both tried to use the power of government to help those in need, and both found that while they had many passionate supporters, they were also polarizing figures who had many equally passionate detractors. (Granted, there are different factors that made each man a polarizing person during his presidency , but I see some similarities in the fact that people either adored them or hated them, with very few who felt neutral.) Another similarity is that both FDR and Barack Obama developed a reputation for being eloquent speakers who were well-received in person; but they also knew how to use the mass media of their day -- Roosevelt effectively utilized radio to get his message across to the public, while Obama has made good use of social media and television. And both men had very popular (but also controversial) wives who at times spoke out on issues, and who took on causes they believed in; neither Eleanor Roosevelt nor Michelle Obama was ever relegated to the background during their husbands' presidencies.
Trump called Obama the founder of ISIS. Is this covered by freedom of speech? If so, where is the line between FoS and defamation/slander?
As Barry Hampe says, a strict reading of the definition of free speech concerns only censorship by the government. However, libel, slander and defamation are all laws that govern speech that have been set out in the Constitution, enacted by the US Congress (or the legislature of whatever country you live in) and developed in case law by the judiciary. If such laws, although part of the civil realm of law, infringe on expression, then it is most certainly a free speech issue.That is not to say that defamation laws are inherently wrong — they are not. People should be able to protect their reputation against lies. But such laws can be used to suppress legitimate speech if not constructed carefully. Here in the UK for example, I was involved in a long campaign to reform the libel law, which allowed rich people and multinationals to bully citizen critics into silence (the new law, enacted in 2013, is much better).As it happens, the law in the USA regarding defamation is pretty favourable to free speech. The First Amendment is a very strong free speech protection, which the Supreme Court has interpreted to permit all manner of political speech.Donald Trump’s controversal claims that President Obama ‘'created ISIS’ certainly fall into the category of political speech. It is unlikely that Trump or anyone believes that Obama literally founded ISIS. But it could be argued (say) that US foreign policy after the 2011 ‘Arab Spring’ allowed ISIS to grow. Personally, I think the issue is far more complicated than that, and that the foreign policy of President George W. B is a better target of blame… but the point is still arguable, and should be argued. Trump chooses to do this by means of hyperbolic language and strained metaphor. This is rightly protected by the principle of free speech.It can be infuriating when someone is subjected to such defamatory statements and, when we object, the speaker hides behind ‘free speech’. But the concept does not mean that the speaker experiences no negative consequences of his or her speech. In the case of Donald Trump, his exaggerated statements may receive media coverage, but that coverage also enables the media and rest of us to critique, criticise and mock his rather superficial attempts at foreign policy. We might also point out that such statements are unlikely to persuade undecided voters to support him. He won’t be sued for defamation in a civil court, but he will be punished for what he has said… at the ballot box.
Would Obama get along with the Founding Fathers?
Highly unlikely. These guys were from a different time when most white people really did believe that Black people were a lesser species. Certainly several were slave-owners, which would be nearly impossible if you thought Blacks were “fully human”. While this makes them true racists, according to the correct definition of the word, it doesn’t mean or imply hatred or dislike, and there were undoubtedly many people in the 18th century who were racists but didn’t have any dislike or animosity toward black people. Jefferson may well have been one such.Even so, such people would be unlikely to see the ideas of a black man as being equal to those of a white, so the idea of a black President would seem to them as not unlike the idea of a dog riding a horse.Again, this can hardly be seen as a glaring fault on the part of the FF’s, they were a product of their times, but then they were also men who stood to become quite powerful if independence came to pass, making it unwise to assume the virtual beatification accorded them by modern viewers. Hatred of Black people as we see it in the mid 20th & early 21st century is more correctly described as xenophobia than racism, it’s becoming more & more common to find Americans who fear & detest foreigners - but that’s a story for another day.
Why did Donald Trump claim that President Obama founded ISIS?
The origins of ISIS:“Most historians of the Islamic State agree that the group emerged out of al-Qaeda in Iraq as a response to the U.S. invasion in 2003. They also agree that it was shaped primarily by a Jordanian jihadist and the eventual head of al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The Jordanian had a dark vision: He wished to fuel a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites and establish a caliphate. Although he was killed in 2006, his vision was realized in 2014—the year ISIS overran northern Iraq and eastern Syria.”This is a quote from an author named Hassan Hassan, who has written a book about ISIS. As you can see, Obama had nothing to do with this, and G.W. Bush had everything to do with it. Obama ran on withdrawing from Iraq in 2008 which was the majority sentiment. G.W. Bush in 2007 had negotiated a withdrawal of US troops with the Iraqis, and they were to be out by Dec. 31st 2011. Obama realized that this might be a mistake, but could not come to an agreement with the Iraqis about terms under which troops might remain after that date. If they had stayed, they would have been subject to Iraqi law, which was not acceptable. So the troops left, as previously agreed. More than 2 years later, in 2014, ISIS had gathered enough numbers to take over a large ungoverned area in Iraq and Syria.So how was this Obama’s fault?
Does Barack Obama support the generally offered idea that 'America was founded on Judeo-Christian values' and has he said this in public?
I would assume that, since this is a false statement, he would likely not publicly endorse it. I can go on and on and show the many numerous now famous quotes from the founding fathers that would completely refute that erroneous claim. But seriously, if you don't already know this, then you are CHOOSING to not know it. The fact that a majority of people might have been Christian at the time means absolutely nothing. Just like today, a majority in the US does not define the US. The founding fathers designed this country that way, and thank God for that.As for today, It is objective that the majority of the country (about 83%) identify themselves as Christian. So what? There are 63% Caucasians in the US. Does that mean we are a White Nation? There are 51% females in the US - are we a Woman Nation? What if 20 years from now, the majority of the country is Hispanic? Would the US then be a Hispanic nation? The moment you start defining America based on it's majority population, today or from its very inception, you have completely lost what America was designed to be. Obama knows this very well. ANY president who decides to perpetuate the deplorable and erroneous myth that this country was based on any one particular religious belief system will 100% lose my vote. It's still considered "ignorance" even if it is a choice.
Do you think the term "empty suit" describes Obama well?
Nope..I would have to say also empty mind, empty promises, empty thoughts, empty of truth, empty of unity, empty of the things that this country was founded upon, empty of patriotism, empty of care for what is right, ..yeah if empty of suit means all of this and perhaps more. Let's just say Obama is naked and bereft and lacking as a presidential candidate.
How would the Founding Fathers react to the last three presidents (Trump, Obama, Bush)?
They would be shocked by a black guy being president first and for most: Lets be honest with ourselves, many founding fathers were progressive FOR THEIR TIME, but expecting them to comprehend black people being put into a position of power would be mind boggling. Hamilton might nod in approval, Jefferson might smile sheepishly, but also deeply embarrassed, but they would all be shocked.They would be disappointing by some of Trumps for authoritarian leanings, and the level of corruption and nepotism involved. They would be deeply concerned with his demenor, but probably not shocked; Those founding fathers could be jackasses, Trumps game isn’t anything new. Adams would say that Trump acts like any of those populist Democratic Republican, Monroe would say he is definitely one of those elitist Federalists, but when they were honest with themselves, they would admit that too much has changed to make a fair comparison.They would see the 2 party system, and feel sad, because they totally predicted it, but couldn’t figure out how to avoid it.Above all though, they would react by wanting to know more. They would take one look at a world utterly foreign and alien to them, and immediately realize that they have no idea how there worldview squares with this strange new reality. They will be grateful they they wanted the constitution to be a living, evolving document, because no way what they wrote in the 1700’s could possibly apply to this modern world without drastic alterations.End of the day, they would realize that they have been brought to a world that exists heavily because of them, and be proud of that fact, but also they are in a world where they are history, and new challenges will take ideas that arn’t their own. And within the context of their own time, they don’t have the ability to properly judge these men.
Did Trump lie when he said President Obama and Hillary Clinton are the founders of ISIS?
Clinton was arming anti Assad factions in Syria via libyan rebel factions at a time when gaddafi was actually aiding the US in the bush inspired war on terror. The purpose of the us mission that was attacked in Benghazi was transferring money and weapons. The whole thing went haywire of course,with the Benghazi attack,and most if not all of the weapons were tranfered to Syria and fell into the hands of what became Isis. Add that to the hundreds of tons of weapons blindly air dropped into Syria that ended up “who knows where” and the case can certainly be made that the Obama/Clinton administration at the very least armed Isis. The creation of Isis is more complicated. The power vacuum left in Iraq by the United States withdrawal, the ideological polarities of the Muslim religion, and the Obama administrations incredibly weak response to the genocide and wholesale slaughter in the Syrian civil war definitely created an atmosphere that gave Isis its big moment.did Obama or Clinton actually create Isis? No. But their actions made it almost inevitable.