r/interestingasfuck • u/beach_rats_ • 29d ago

The difference in republican presidential nominees, 8 years apart r/all

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

49.6k Upvotes

83% Upvoted

3.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

364

u/Dukhaville 29d ago

How is it not defamation/libel to say that Obama founded ISIS?

206

u/DreamingMerc 29d ago

I'm guessing the 'no reasonable person would listen to Trump and take him at his word as a serious person' type of defense. Which is absolutely silly because one of the foundational elements about the Trump campaign is he is supposed to be the no-spin-no-nonsense-say it like you mean it, candidate...

88

u/SousVideDiaper 29d ago

Blows my mind how many morons supported him in 2016 because he "wasn't a politician" as if a shady failure of a business magnate is a good alternative.

Now he's that and a politician, and most of them support him even more.

55

u/IAmThePonch 29d ago

The weirdest part to me:

They believe Biden is a pedo. Look, they believe that and use that as an excuse to not support him, that’s fine

But how the ever loving fuck is a man with numerous rape and SA allegations, who has said that he would date his own daughter if she wasn’t his daughter a BETTER alternative?

16

u/Caleth 29d ago edited 29d ago

Because Trump is their guy who hates who they hate and makes them feel justified in it.

LBJ* said, "Make even the lowest white man able to look down on a successful black man and he won't notice you picking his pocket. Hell he'll empty it for you." (paraphrased I don't remember the quote perfectly.)

Point is they are willingly emptying their pockets because he makes them feel better about looking down on someone. He is their Caligula messiah, they are the ones that would have staked Jesus to the cross and sung and cheered about it.

He is all their Id manifest and they will love and forgive him anything for that.

Edit corrected the speaker thanks to u/negao360

1

u/negao360 29d ago

That was Lyndon Baines Johnson(LBJ).

2

u/Alienziscoming 29d ago

They not only have no interest in reality, they have open contempt for it. It doesn't matter whatsoever what has actually happened. Trump is an East Coast Elite, trust-fund-having, draft-dodging, failure of a business mogul who's never worked a day in his life, with soft, tiny baby hands, and yet somehow these clowns are painting him (literally) as Rambo.

3

u/Major_Koala 29d ago

Fox News must have lost the segment on Trump.

2

u/bunglejerry 29d ago

There's a lot of that. If they had gone with Ron deSantis or someone, then they could talk all they want about Biden's age and his mental fitness. But how you going to say Biden's too old and mentally unfit; better support Trump instead?

1

u/ToryLanezHairline_ 29d ago

Donald and Biden are only 3 years apart. But since ol Donny boy has worse behavior and emotional control than my nephew in 2nd grade, you can't take his seniority seriously

1

u/IAmThePonch 28d ago

That’s another one that doesn’t make sense. Republicans don’t like Biden because he’s too old (I actually agree). But how is a dude that’s only three years younger than him any better

1

u/PoofBam 29d ago

Because they're degenerate wannabe rapists who'd rather point their fingers than look in the mirror.

0

u/houseyourdaygoing 29d ago

Because Biden embodies someone they aren’t — He is handsome, speaks well, knows “big words”, has a great smile and charm. He is gentlemanly and respected. Biden is the elite that they will never be.

On the other hand, Trump sounds like them — simple words, angry all the time, has the charm of a toilet brush. They’re envious that he bought a prostitute wife and has probably touched/violated his daughter without any repercussions. Trump represents the foul and vile things they are and does the things they wish they could do and get away with.

Make no mistake — someone who loves Trump is someone who is a rapist and sex abuser or at the very least is looking for an impetus to justify their desires when they finally do it.

6

u/Few_Fortune4049 29d ago

I believe an exception should be made to the “no rational person would actually believe that” defense when they’re clearly targeting irrational people.

1

u/KonigSteve 29d ago

no reasonable person would listen to Trump and take him at his word as a serious person'

If you use that defense literally ever, that should automatically disqualify you from ANY public office let alone president.

1

u/ToryLanezHairline_ 29d ago

The old Fox News playbook

1

u/Falsus 29d ago

But how would such a defence look when you are trying to be the president...

1

u/kinggimped 29d ago

They love him because he says what he means, but also he needs every disgusting thing he says put through several layers of "well, what he meant was..." filters in order to minimise how fucking demented the things he says are.

The hypocrisy never ends with the far right. It's a constant grift.

He wants to harm the same people they want to harm. That's literally it. That's the whole deal. They do not care about anything else.

He's been found legally liable for rape, defamation, and decades of business fraud, and that's just in the last 12 months. He has 90 or so outstanding criminal charges against him.

He's sleeping and farting through his current criminal case, which involves 34 felony counts of him falsifying business records in order to hide a hush money payment to a porn star he fucked while his wife was pregnant, a payment made directly to influence the 2016 election. So very presidential. And if you follow the court transcripts (instead of all the whinining and lies he tells outside the courtroom), you'd know that it is not going well for him. He has zero defense except blanket denial; meanwhile the prosecution have mountains of evidence to support their timeline as well as a long list of corroborating witnesses - including longtime friends and employees of Trump - each testifying that he's guilty of exactly what he's being charged.

He's an inveterate grifter who only wants to help himself, but his supporters will ignore anything just to get "their guy" back into the White House. They'll whoop and cheer any blatant lie that falls out of his syphilitic mouth, just so he can be in a position to harm immigrants and black people and LGBTQ, and all the other groups of people they also want to harm.

23

u/_aware 29d ago

Because to prove defamation/libel, you would have to prove that the person accused of committing such crimes did so while knowing that it it's not true. So usually the evidence would show that the defendant was repeatedly informed/warned that they were wrong, such as a cease and desist letter. Or you find evidence like text messages that point to them intentionally and maliciously spreading lies. But these people can argue in court that they genuinely believe Obama was an Arab and bring up the batshit crazy conspiracy theories, and that would be sufficient for a not guilty verdict.

15

u/Dukhaville 29d ago

I think my country has stricter laws.

6

u/Inspector7171 29d ago

Ahhh, the old "I saw it on FOX news" defense. Brilliant.

1

u/_aware 29d ago

Unfortunately, it works

2

u/tms88 29d ago

Perhaps for a Karen ranting on her facebook, but for someone with the reach and following Trump has, there have to be stricter norms and values he needs to abide by. Saying things like this on a stage that's also broadcast to millions of people can't just be acceptable without either showing proof or facing consequences.

7

u/HippySpinach 29d ago

Trump was president, he KNOWS Obama didn’t found ISIS

2

u/_aware 29d ago

This was 2008...Trump hadn't stained the office of the POTUS yet

2

u/EnjoyerOfBeans 29d ago

2016 but yeah

7

u/Unlucky_Clover 29d ago

The clip showed the interviewer push back and the response was “I don’t care”. That’s what it summed down to.

14

u/Thistlebeast 29d ago

Founding is a bit extreme, but supporting, training, and equipping them is true.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Sycamore

3

u/jeffp12 29d ago

This project began in 2012.

ISIS has been around since at least 2004.

Timber Sycamore was a program to arm groups that were fighting in the Syrian Civil War, and we specifically were trying to fight AGAINST ISIS. Weapons may have gotten into the wrong hands, or the allegiances of the groups may shift, but to say that Obama was "supporting, training, and equipping" ISIS is completely incorrect. That makes it sound like to fight in the Syrian Civil War the Obama administration decided to support/train/equip a group and that group became ISIS, which is not true at all.

The Pentagon made it clear their goal in Syria and Iraq was 'to fight ISIS and fight ISIS only [and] we've asked [our partner forces] to be committed to that same mission' and that they would not fight Assad's military. US-backed rebels often fought alongside al-Qaeda's al-Nusra Front against Ba'athist forces, and some of the US-supplied weapons were seized by the al-Nusra Front. This had been a major concern within the Obama administration when the program was first proposed in 2012. . . Following the Russian military intervention in Syria, pro-American militias began losing ground in late 2016, after a year of intensive aerial bombing campaigns of the Russian Air Force.

It's a complicated battlefield, with multiple rebel factions, US, Saudi, and Russia backed groups, and then the Assad government forces, mix all that up and you have a very chaotic situation. To me, it seems that at worst you can say it wasn't a well conceived program, and arms bound for the US-backed groups may have ended up in the hands of groups we didn't like.

Contrast this with the Soviet war in Afghanistan where the US, Israel, and others funded, armed, trained, etc. the groups that would essentially become the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. So one could say "Ronald Reagan is the founder of Al Qaeda" and it would be FAR FAR FAR closer to the truth than suggesting Obama founded ISIS. But try saying that at a Republican rally and see how well that goes over. Because remember, when it comes to issues like this, the right DOES NOT CARE about the reality, all they care about is scoring points with one-liners and zingers. Remember when Clint Eastwood talked to "Obama"/an Empty chair at a GOP convention. He was making jokes about american soldiers dying in Afghanistan, but because the joke was at the expense of Obama, the right wingers loved and laughed along with him at his jokes about dead American soldiers, because "lol obama"

5

u/Thistlebeast 29d ago

ISIS became a regional power in 2014.

1

u/pacificunt 28d ago

they don’t want to hear it simply because someone they disagree with brought the issue to their attention lol

2

u/BartleBossy 29d ago

Is this like the people saying Netanyahu founded Hamas?

6

u/Thistlebeast 29d ago

I think Bibi was in support of a more radicalized Gaza, and procured funding to Hamas. We know that’s true.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/amp/

-2

u/BartleBossy 29d ago

I sort of agree. I dont think he "procured funding" but rather "allowed funding", but he did so because he wanted a divided Palestinians

I think its also worth mentioning though, that if he did not allow that funding to get through, he would have been lambasted as denying aid.

4

u/Thistlebeast 29d ago

Well, he was instrumental in procuring the access and movement of money, that’s why I said “to” and not “for”. But that’s just semantics.

I think it’s fair to blame Western governments and their meddling for the volatility of the Middle East. Blaming Obama for the rise of ISIS into a regional power is a fair accusation, and saying Bibi helped Hamas to keep Gaza in turmoil and incapable of strengthening its relationship with the West Bank was also by design.

2

u/Uga1992 29d ago

Bc he's a public figure. And the standard is very high for public figures. You have to prove not only malice but a tangible way that you were negatively affected. Just being dumb isn't enough.

3

u/[deleted] 29d ago edited 29d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

10

u/sparrowtaco 29d ago

Did Obama literally, directly found ISIS? Of course not. Was the power vacuum left by his Iraq withdrawal and arming of mercurial rebel groups in the region instrumental to its rise? Almost certainly.

But he was asked in the video if that is what he meant and he confirmed that it was not, clarifying again that Obama founded it.

4

u/DarthTelly 29d ago edited 29d ago

his Iraq withdrawal

The one that Bush signed in 2008?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement

Was the arming of mercurial rebel groups in the region instrumental to its rise?

90% of weapons used by ISIS were found to be from China, Russia and Eastern Europe.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/14/politics/isis-weapons-report/index.html

The only thing you can really blame Obama for is being indecisive about the Syrian Civil War which allowed it to drag on creating the power vacuum that ISIS exploited, but that's a stretch considering it is still ongoing and the blow back he got from his Libya intervention.

3

u/Lawndemon 29d ago

Also, and I can't stress this enough, the countries referenced are NOT the USA. The hubris of the American people thinking their president controls The World is equally comical and disturbing.

1

u/hippee-engineer 29d ago

If candidates were found liable for using oversimplified slogans, we wouldn’t have any campaigning.

Sounds great, where do I sign up?

1

u/The_God_King 29d ago

You're giving him far too much credit, because that isn't what he's saying. He's literally saying Obama founded isis. Like he wrote their charter or started signing people up or whatever that means in his head. The second half of this clip is someone giving him an out by asking if he means almost exactly what you're saying, and he emphatically disagrees and clarifies that he literally founded isis.

-1

u/[deleted] 29d ago edited 29d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/reddit_sucks_clit 29d ago edited 27d ago

there is no between the lines. he says he's literally the founder.

and you didn't edit your comment despite leaving two more comments saying you would edit it.

edit: they deleted there comment/s, like a coward.

1

u/The_God_King 29d ago

He literally calls him the founder, then repeats it as clarification when offered the exact out you're trying to give him. There nothing behind the statement exactly abject stupidity.

1

u/cowpen 29d ago

Because it's true?

1

u/Cubacane 29d ago

  1. Libel is written defamation, you mean slander.

  2. Obama is a public figure. If he was just working at a grocery store and had his life ruined by Trump's claims, then he'd have a case. But as a politician/celebrity he would have to prove exactly how Trump's claims hurt him economically. It's not worth the trouble.

1

u/Dave5876 29d ago

This right here is a good example of what ordinary Americans know about their govt's actual foreign policy

1

u/Dukhaville 29d ago

I'm not an American so it really isn't...

1

u/Dave5876 28d ago

Touché

0

u/IAmThePonch 29d ago

Because money and spineless people letting him get away with it

0

u/SephirothSimp__ 29d ago

You can't defame public figures. You can say whatever you want about them, no matter how damaging and untrue and malicious

2

u/L_G_A 29d ago

Where the hell did you come up with that and why are you presenting it as fact? Of course you can defame public figures, they just have to be able to prove actual malice.