Trump's Obama Conspiracy Theory

[Mindmaster]

Technicalities or non-credible assertion? Your choice, cause I attempted to use empirical evidence to find your previous explanation. As I couldn't find it, I asked for it to be shown. Now that you have shown it, I a) understand what you mean, b) mostly agree and c) do not see much in way of media that reports political news that would fit this. Though of course opinions on "limited bias" and "factual" evidence would skew what makes for "credible."

Obama has been keeping them unfed by having fireside chats with them in the white house. There are reports of Hillary Clinton's aid Huma being linked to terrorist groups as well. Let's just sit around and ignore all of these facts because there is no way that our Democratic elected officials could be being buddying up with these guys, eh?

Obama and Clinton are pals with the radical Muslims for votes, and to get the votes they are giving them concessions. They are claiming background checks are discrimination and all sorts of other silliness. They rather go for gun bans than anger their supports, for example. It is telling just how much in bed with these guys they are by their political takes on things. They can't really say, or do anything in direct opposition. It's completely telling, and all you have to do is watch them flop at every speech.

 

[Quetzal]

Obama and Clinton are pals with the radical Muslims for votes, and to get the votes they are giving them concessions.

You don't give it a rest, do ya?

 

[Mindmaster]

Sorry, was trying to make a joke. Maybe I am just not funny.


It is very very tough. But let's say there are some sources that are more credible than others. BBC News is pretty good. CNN? Heck no, mostly junk. Same with Breitbart or whatever else kids use these days. I tend to be attracted to case studies, surveys, and published works by credible agencies that mine and compile data.

I don't know how you think press works in your view, but it's against the law to print lies about people in new sources. Anything stated that isn't an obvious opinion has to be true to some degree or it opens them up to legal action. If the press states 25% of Muslims are radical, it has to have proof to that. If they state there are ties between Huma and terror organizations there has to be proof that can lead to the conclusion.

The only way they can really get away with lying is via omission, so that is where you have to pay attention. Direct statements aren't the things you have to worry about so much.

 

[Underhill]

Your fears and "strengths" are irrelevant when there is a body count, people are dead. If we ignore that we let it happen, and those people deserved to be defended by us because they are American's as well. America is a sleeping giant, but she's waking up and there is a point where enough is enough. Moreover, your logic is flawed via game theory expectations (science) and how to encourage peace. If you treat someone who is trying to take advantage of you nicely they win every outcome, and eventually you are out of the game. You have to deal with the problem promptly and directly, but also forgive and forget for a positive net long-term expectation. You lose if you are kind to those who harm you every single time -- every time. That basically means Obama should be working towards decisively beating the radical Islamists to the point where they beg for mercy. At that point, the mercy should be given... But, never before that. Until he is doing that, he is being illogical, and I don't think he should be taken seriously. He has no understanding of how to promote peace at all. Acting in this way makes him appear weak and encourages more violence.

Clinton's State Department also rubber-stamped this guys background check for being a security officer even they knew he had some loose ties to various radical groups. Her office did nothing to investigate this person further because they were worried that this would be discriminatory. Why don't we talk about that? This is just negligence really, she has no excuse. Discrimination is not even a consideration if people can potentially be harmed by this person. He has a Florida firearm card, a security officer license, and both of these things would trigger checks. Every single person that knew this guy knew he was a radical and nothing was done -- all of those people need to be arrested. This crime could have been entirely prevented, and any notion that more checks are enough via the Democrats is silly. The checks always fail, so the only thing that works is allowing citizens to protect themselves in all areas. Orlando was a shooting gallery, and the perpetrator knew it.

That's a pile of dung and anyone with any sense would know it. Nobody in their right mind believes that a background check is going to catch everyone or that the Secretary of State is responsible for every one of those background checks in anything but the broadest sense. That would be like claiming the President is responsible for every private in the Army who stays on leave a bit too long.

As for discrimination, keep something important in mind here. The guy broke no laws before this. So just what was the state department supposed to do? They cannot legally stop him from getting firearms. About the only thing they could do is watch him, and they cannot watch every muslim who makes some radical statements indefinitely.

These kinds of investigations can only operate based upon evidence of wrong doing. There was none.

These checks are designed to keep those we know are criminals from getting guns. The reason we cannot stop those simply suspected of thinking about doing something like this is called the bill of rights.

I find it sad and pathetic that the same people who hold up the 2nd as the be-all end-all of the gun issue try to claim those in favor of more regulation aren't doing enough. As though the NRA (with GOP blessings) hasn't been doing everything they can to allow everyone who wants a gun, any gun, to get their hands on them.

Lastly, game theory is nonsense when talking about national public policy involving citizens. This guy was not an enemy combatant and could not legally be treated as one. He was a US citizen with rights. It would be grand if we could see the future and put a bullet in these peoples head before they actually commit mass homicide, but we don't live in that fantasy world.

There is more but I am wasting my time.

 

[Mindmaster]

You don't give it a rest, do ya?

You're worried about me? Awe, cute... But, I'm not the subject of the discussion. Moving along.

 

[Quetzal]

I don't know how you think press works in your view, but it's against the law to print lies about people in new sources. Anything stated that isn't an obvious opinion has to be true to some degree or it opens them up to legal action. If the press states 25% of Muslims are radical, it has to have proof to that. If they state there are ties between Huma and terror organizations there has to be proof that can lead to the conclusion.

The only way they can really get away with lying is via omission, so that is where you have to pay attention. Direct statements aren't the things you have to worry about so much.

You can't claim the high road with evidence since you have failed to provide your own.

 

[Underhill]

So, by not stating the words "radical Islamic terrorism" the terrorists on the planet are unfed?

Why does Obama use the word "Republican" when he gives speeches? Does he not realize he's feeding the Republican machine that clearly opposes him?

I am not a huge fan of republicans but are you calling them terrorist?

It's about giving them credit. It's about encouraging them to continue to act out. Terrorism, by definition is an action designed to inspire fear. It is a tool used by those without power to debilitate those with the power.

Ignoring them, treating them like a nuisance to be brushed aside, is the best tool to combat their campaigns. Bomb them, kill them off but spreading their fear is simply going to inspire them to do more. Why not when it worked so well the last time?

???????

I thought my post was very clear. Trump is claiming America is in the weeds and that the end is coming if we don't do something. If that isn't campaigning on fear, I don't know what is.

"You didn't build that."

When has anyone here heard me claim Obama is a great leader? He is mediocre at best. But by comparison to Trump, he is the gold standard.

Remember Bush? As much as I disliked some of the things he did, he was good at inspiring confidence even when we were in dire straights.

I can't think of a president in my lifetime that was as terrible as Trump. Not even in the ballpark.

 

[metis]

Most of the radicals who are causing these crimes do not have records. For example, you cannot become a security officer in any state if you have a previous conviction of any sort. Some even extend this to even having charges at all. There is no way background screening is going to pick these people up. If you think there is, I'd like some of what you are smoking.

They're all going to get away with it via the discriminatory rubber stamp, and still get their guns and still kill people in gun ban zones.

I overreacted to your post because I was upset with what someone else has posted, so sorry 'bout that. Therefore I have taken you off my ignore list.

 

[Mindmaster]

You can't claim the high road with evidence since you have failed to provide your own.

Linking stories would be legitimate evidence as far as what a normal citizen is going to have available, you expect far too much.

Some people have access to raw data, but I'd say the reason we have news outlets in the first place is we pay them to do those investigations.

Essentially, if I were to extend your logic here to everything then no one could arrive at a qualified opinion without becoming a researcher on a subject. We'd have nothing to talk about but data points, and no time to even consider information outside of our specialty because we haven't enough time in the day. Most citizens of the world just collect as much as they can from the news outlets and try to mold that into some cohesive understanding.

This method works with some subjects that people have interest in (in my case, it's the inaccuracy of gun control metrics) and is not much use for the rest.

 

[Underhill]

Obama has been keeping them unfed by having fireside chats with them in the white house. There are reports of Hillary Clinton's aid Huma being linked to terrorist groups as well. Let's just sit around and ignore all of these facts because there is no way that our Democratic elected officials could be being buddying up with these guys, eh?

Obama and Clinton are pals with the radical Muslims for votes, and to get the votes they are giving them concessions. They are claiming background checks are discrimination and all sorts of other silliness. They rather go for gun bans than anger their supports, for example. It is telling just how much in bed with these guys they are by their political takes on things. They can't really say, or do anything in direct opposition. It's completely telling, and all you have to do is watch them flop at every speech.

So, I am trying to understand this 'logic'. Obama, who spent 4 years in Indonesia as a child (moved back to the states at 10) has been a closeted Islamic fundy ever since? And Clinton, who hails from the south, is somehow also tied to muslim extremist through an aid who, I assume, is an American muslim.

And, to get votes from the .9% of Americans who are muslims, Clinton has prematurely dropped these investigations of Muslims because she is worried about discrimination charges? On top of all this, the FBI must be covering for her because they said they looked into this particular man twice and dropped the case after lacking evidence of any wrongdoing.

Have I covered the bases adequately or am I missing something?

 

[Mindmaster]

So, I am trying to understand this 'logic'. Obama, who spent 4 years in Indonesia as a child (moved back to the states at 10) has been a closeted Islamic fundy ever since? And Clinton, who hails from the south, is somehow also tied to muslim extremist through an aid who, I assume, is an American muslim.

And, to get votes from the .9% of Americans who are muslims, Clinton has prematurely dropped these investigations of Muslims because she is worried about discrimination charges? On top of all this, the FBI must be covering for her because they said they looked into this particular man twice and dropped the case after lacking evidence of any wrongdoing.

Have I covered the bases adequately or am I missing something?

He doesn't have to be a fundie to court votes or support. Also, his program and Clintons are about drastically increasing this number. He knows what he is doing... The average Muslim family has a ton more kids than anyone else. It will only take twenty years to matter. It's the long game. The FBI has to do what Obama says, so there is that. I"m not into conspiracies, but there are reasons why Obama and crew are soft as soon as the word Islam is mentioned. It doesn't matter if that is regard to people living in this country or our Muslim allies.

We have the right to know why he is being soft on them in the face of violence. The question is valid.

 

[Acim]

I am not a huge fan of republicans but are you calling them terrorist?

No. Unsure how you made that connection.

It's about giving them credit. It's about encouraging them to continue to act out. Terrorism, by definition is an action designed to inspire fear. It is a tool used by those without power to debilitate those with the power.

Ignoring them, treating them like a nuisance to be brushed aside, is the best tool to combat their campaigns. Bomb them, kill them off but spreading their fear is simply going to inspire them to do more. Why not when it worked so well the last time?

I don't see ignoring them or bombing them as solutions. It's not like Obama isn't attacking them, but in so doing has incurred the wrath of the (far) left because not naming who you are attacking is very hard to get behind. I think Obama would claim he's attacking enemy combatants, while most everyone would filter that as radical Islamic militants. At the same time, the (far) left does take issue with this because a) it is relying on political ignorance as way to achieve certain outcomes and b) because of bypassing due process. I think it would help Obama to identify attackers on the homeland when they engage in terrorism. Not naming them, or the ideology, is grounds for ineffective strategizing. The best tools for combating their campaigns is to name who they are, so all paying attention are clear on who is being attacked and can possibly aid in that effort and (a second tool is) draw upon resources of moderates who represent different perspective than the militant extremist. The latter is more key, IMO. If framing US war on terror as "war on all Muslims," yep, that will be counter productive. If framing it as war on operatives claiming to be Muslim but engaging in non-peaceful actions as a means to an end, then all people, including moderate Muslims can be part of the combat / overcoming.

If there were an active war on Christian militant extremists, I truly believe moderate Christians would support the other side of the equation that seeks to overcome that distortion of their religion. I also believe there are many Muslims supporting those in the world right now who are combatting militant extremism by those who are distorting their religion. Some of these, more vocal people, are expressing a lack of strategy or signs of weakness by Obama administration. Others, I grant, are suggesting it is best for Obama to stay away from any hint of political rhetoric that could come off as U.S. as at war against Islam.

I thought my post was very clear. Trump is claiming America is in the weeds and that the end is coming if we don't do something. If that isn't campaigning on fear, I don't know what is.

That's not (remotely) close to what you stated before.

This type of message, either the positive spin (make America great again) or the negative spin (sticking with the other party another 4 more years would be disastrous) is how I've seen every political campaign for president where the other party, of the two party system is not holding executive branch, speak in their campaign rhetoric. It's not like Hillary (and Super PACs that support her) aren't using politics of fear in relation to how they frame Trump's approach to governing.

I can't think of a president in my lifetime that was as terrible as Trump. Not even in the ballpark.

Now pitching for the presidential candidates who are worse than Trump, Hillary Clinton.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Ok, so because she is a Christian fundie she is automatically wrong on everything she says? Genetic fallacy, and you owe me a dollar.

Not exaggerating? She's just an Islamophobe and it's almost a merit badge at this point. And, while that's normally a bad thing several times in her life that life was at risk -- it's a logical progression. You know, to have a fear of the people who would kill you.

So, better question, why are you a Muslim apologist when they would kill you too?

You've really gone off the deep end, and I really have nothing to say to you. If I say what I really want to say, I'll get banned. For your damn information, I live in a neighborhood that has a large amount of Muslim immigrants, mostly from Africa. There's a mosque just a couple of blocks away and a dawah center a few blocks from that. I've lived among a large number of Muslims for years at this point. When I was in the fifth grade, we had college student mentors and mine was a woman from Pakistan. I had a Somali Muslim girl who wore the hijab as a classmate in middle school. She had a fun sense of humor and we would joke a lot, along with the girl from Sierra Leone and the Mexican girl (who taught us how to cuss in Spanish). My landlord is a Muslim and the people who used to live right door were Muslims from Sudan (well, the father was, anyway). Am I afraid of them or ever felt any threat of violence from them in general? No. (Actually my awful landlord seems more intimidated by me and runs away when I confront him.) They're not the ones shooting people up or robbing people here. That's the gang bangers, thugs and drug addicts. There's also a large amount of Arab Muslims and Pakistanis here. Never felt threatened by them at all. Most of the ones I know or have known were lovely people or at least as normal as anyone else. I'm far more afraid of a white or a black man with a gun than I am of a Muslim.

So stuff it. Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about and that Gabriel woman is a fascist lunatic with genocidal tendencies. Her and her ilk are on the same level as neo-Nazis.

 

[Mindmaster]

You've really gone off the deep end, and I really have nothing to say to you. If I say what I really want to say, I'll get banned. For your damn information, I live in a neighborhood that has a large amount of Muslim immigrants, mostly from Africa. There's a mosque just a couple of blocks away and a dawah center a few blocks from that. I've lived among a large number of Muslims for years at this point. When I was in the fifth grade, we had college student mentors and mine was a woman from Pakistan. I had a Somali Muslim girl who wore the hijab as a classmate in middle school. She had a fun sense of humor and we would joke a lot, along with the girl from Sierra Leone and the Mexican girl (who taught us how to cuss in Spanish). My landlord is a Muslim and the people who used to live right door were Muslims from Sudan (well, the father was, anyway). Am I afraid of them or ever felt any threat of violence from them in general? No. (Actually my awful landlord seems more intimidated by me and runs away when I confront him.) They're not the ones shooting people up or robbing people here. That's the gang bangers, thugs and drug addicts. There's also a large amount of Arab Muslims and Pakistanis here. Never felt threatened by them at all. Most of the ones I know or have known were lovely people or at least as normal as anyone else. I'm far more afraid of a white or a black man with a gun than I am of a Muslim.

So stuff it. Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about and that Gabriel woman is a fascist lunatic with genocidal tendencies. Her and her ilk are on the same level as neo-Nazis.

We have to be really clear on my positions here:

1) Islam has problems, and anyone that wishes to figure out what those problems can be can read. Suffice to say, those problems are not compatible with our living standards. There is no tolerance in Islam for LGBT, or acceptance of other religions (or lack thereof). Knowing that doesn't make people neo-nazi's. Islam is incompatible with feminism, and nearly any other idea of civil rights. The Quran itself causes these issues and no one in Islam has the authority to edit the Quran. Hence, we can neither fix the problem nor can they unless something changes from their end.

2) Gabriel hasn't made any of the sort of comments that would identify her as an extremist. We know she doesn't like Islam, but her family has suffered at Islam's hands. So, I guess we should blame her for talking too tough? Only approved speakers get to speak? Hmm, yeah, no... I think I'll take the account of someone who has had to deal with the worst of it over someone living in an American city with an extremely small population of Muslims, most of which probably were born and raised here. In either case, how many Muslim friends do you have, IRL? See, this is the problem... They come here and never actually become American. It's not exactly like anyone else, is it? These are differences that we must be aware of to intelligently deal with the problems. These people would westernize if they associated with people outside of their culture, but they do not. Likewise, she has never called for anyone to kill them or harm them in anyway, nearly all of her comments are directed at terror agents.

3) Speaking of the troubles isn't wishing any ill will. Asking for bans isn't either, there is culture shock, and the results are Orlando-type situations. If we do as we do, we get more of what we have, can we at least agree on that? The bans ultimately lead to the safety of all parties. Our existing Muslim populations cease to get blamed for radical crimes caused by people from foreign shores, and public opinion will probably improve with that.

4) My neighborhood is fed up. Whoever is in charge in November is going to have to act quickly, because the natives are getting restless. It's not just me.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

We have to be really clear on my positions here:

1) Islam has problems, and anyone that wishes to figure out what those problems can be can read. Suffice to say, those problems are not compatible with our living standards. There is no tolerance in Islam for LGBT, or acceptance of other religions (or lack thereof). Knowing that doesn't make people neo-nazi's. Islam is incompatible with feminism, and nearly any other idea of civil rights. The Quran itself causes these issues and no one in Islam has the authority to edit the Quran. Hence, we can neither fix the problem nor can they unless something changes from their end.

2) Gabriel hasn't made any of the sort of comments that would identify her as an extremist. We know she doesn't like Islam, but her family has suffered at Islam's hands. So, I guess we should blame her for talking too tough? Only approved speakers get to speak? Hmm, yeah, no... I think I'll take the account of someone who has had to deal with the worst of it over someone living in an American city with an extremely small population of Muslims, most of which probably were born and raised here. In either case, how many Muslim friends do you have, IRL? See, this is the problem... They come here and never actually become American. It's not exactly like anyone else, is it? These are differences that we must be aware of to intelligently deal with the problems. These people would westernize if they associated with people outside of their culture, but they do not. Likewise, she has never called for anyone to kill them or harm them in anyway, nearly all of her comments are directed at terror agents.

3) Speaking of the troubles isn't wishing any ill will. Asking for bans isn't either, there is culture shock, and the results are Orlando-type situations. If we do as we do, we get more of what we have, can we at least agree on that? The bans ultimately lead to the safety of all parties. Our existing Muslim populations cease to get blamed for radical crimes caused by people from foreign shores, and public opinion will probably improve with that.

4) My neighborhood is fed up. Whoever is in charge in November is going to have to act quickly, because the natives are getting restless. It's not just me.

1. I used to hate Islam. I've frequented all the major anti-Islam sites, read anti-Islam books, etc. But I don't hate Islam anymore. Why? Because I educated myself about it. I read about the theology and I read through the Qur'an. So don't try to tell me about Islam, as if I'm a moron.

2. Oh, really?

"The difference, my friends, between Israel and the Arab world is the difference between civilization and barbarism. It's the difference between good and evil [applause].... this is what we're witnessing in the Arabic world, They have no soul, they are dead set on killing and destruction. And in the name of something they call "Allah" which is very different from the God we believe....[applause] because our God is the God of love.[41]"

Sure, nothing extremist about that at all. That's definitely not dehumanizing genocidal rhetoric.

3. No, we won't agree on much of anything. If we did, I would feel great shame and have to take a good, hard look at the person I've become. I've largely left my hateful past, well, in the past. I intend to continue making good progress with that. It's also a violation of human rights that you're supporting.

4. Is that a threat? Sure sounds like it. You and your neo-Nazi buddies planning to attack Muslim Americans if Fuhrer Trump doesn't win?

 

[Mindmaster]

1. I used to hate Islam. I've frequented all the major anti-Islam sites, read anti-Islam books, etc. But I don't hate Islam anymore. Why? Because I educated myself about it. I read about the theology and I read through the Qur'an. So don't try to tell me about Islam, as if I'm a moron.

2. Oh, really?

"The difference, my friends, between Israel and the Arab world is the difference between civilization and barbarism. It's the difference between good and evil [applause].... this is what we're witnessing in the Arabic world, They have no soul, they are dead set on killing and destruction. And in the name of something they call "Allah" which is very different from the God we believe....[applause] because our God is the God of love.[41]"

Sure, nothing extremist about that at all. That's definitely not dehumanizing genocidal rhetoric.

3. No, we won't agree on much of anything. If we did, I would feel great shame and have to take a good, hard look at the person I've become. I've largely left my hateful past, well, in the past. I intend to continue making good progress with that. It's also a violation of human rights that you're supporting.

4. Is that a threat? Sure sounds like it. You and your neo-Nazi buddies planning to attack Muslim Americans if Fuhrer Trump doesn't win?

Ok, so now I'm now I'm the nazi. Ceremonially waves to the peanut gallery. It seems like you got a slur or two for everyone you don't agree with.

No, this incumbent government has no clue on the pulse of the communities. We're in America, we appeal to our officials to help us. When they get ignored someone is going to act. Things can't keep going on the way they are, and someone is going to do something about it if they are not willing. My guess is that they are hoping for this to happen. The better question is, why is this Obama-led government working against us? Don't they have some terrorists to catch?

No, they blamed Guns, NRA, Christians aka Americans. Think about that for a minute, and then think about which side you want to be on. The GOP can't write executive orders to get everything they want, so maybe you should ask Santa why he does what he does?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Ok, so now I'm now I'm the nazi. Ceremonially waves to the peanut gallery. It seems like you got a slur or two for everyone you don't agree with.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then... It's not my fault you're sounding like a fascist. Maybe you should stop spouting extremist rhetoric that is bordering on being threats.

No, this incumbent government has no clue on the pulse of the communities. We're in America, we appeal to our officials to help us. When they get ignored someone is going to act. Things can't keep going on the way they are, and someone is going to do something about it if they are not willing. My guess is that they are hoping for this to happen. The better question is, why is this Obama-led government working against us? Don't they have some terrorists to catch?

Right-wing conspiracy garbage, with more implied threats.

No, they blamed Guns, NRA, Christians aka Americans. Think about that for a minute, and then think about which side you want to be on.

Well, I'm definitely not on the side of guns and the NRA. Somehow I doubt Christ would be on their side, either. Guess I'm your enemy now and will be killed during the glorious white trash uprising Second American Revolution. Oh, well. They hate people like me, anyway. No matter.

 

[Mindmaster]

Well, I'm definitely not on the side of guns and the NRA. Somehow I doubt Christ would be on their side, either. Guess I'm your enemy now and will be killed during the glorious white trash uprising Second American Revolution. Oh, well. They hate people like me, anyway. No matter.

Actually, it's kinda mixed. They don't support gay marriage, but freedom to sex who you want they're pretty unanimous on. Also, freedom to be what you want (as far as transgender) isn't a problem. They're against redefining marriage to include gays, but they don't care about calling it "civil unions." Major distinction. They're against sexualizing kids so there is your transgender school opposition thing -- they don't think that's stuff you should learn in school, but stuff you should learn from your parents.

You still got Christian fundies who just hate gays regardless, but we could argue that Islamization is (from the liberal left) against these values too. There are tons of LGBT in the Republican party, and even more getting involved each day. It just isn't the old days... No one from the GOP is looking to lynch LGBT folks at all.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Actually, it's kinda mixed. They don't support gay marriage, but freedom to sex who you want they're pretty unanimous on. Also, freedom to be what you want (as far as transgender) isn't a problem. They're against redefining marriage to include gays, but they don't care about calling it "civil unions." Major distinction. They're against sexualizing kids so there is your transgender school opposition thing -- they don't think that's stuff you should learn in school, but stuff you should learn from your parents.

You still got Christian fundies who just hate gays regardless, but we could argue that Islamization is (from the liberal left) against these values too. There are tons of LGBT in the Republican party, and even more getting involved each day. It just isn't the old days... No one from the GOP is looking to lynch LGBT folks at all.

Lol. What a sick, cynical joke.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/

 

[Mindmaster]

Lol. What a sick, cynical joke.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/

That site is a left-wing propaganda site masquerading as news. It makes Breitbart look like 60 minutes. It's just terrible.

I've seen several of the programs this site shows as videos, and they sound bite and edit them to hell. Just a fair warning, I wouldn't take this site for much.

Here's an example:

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conte...-was-gay-he-would-have-shot-heterosexual-club

[QUOTE}
Responding to very early, unconfirmed reports that the terrorist who killed 49 people at a gay club in Orlando last weekend could have been gay himself, anti-Muslim activist Brigitte Gabriel said yesterday that if “his gayness” had been “an issue” in the shooting, he would have attacked “a heterosexual club” instead.

Gabriel told Newsmax’s Steve Malzberg that reports that the shooter may have repressed his sexuality were just an attempt by liberals to “divert the issue” from President Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s “failed policies” by noting the anti-gay nature of the attack.

“And, by the way, if this guy, if his gayness is an issue because he is gay and he wants to kill, you would think he would go into a heterosexual club and start shooting people out of complete frustration that he was not created like them or maybe heterosexuals look down at gays,” she said.
[/QUOTE]

vs

The original:

http://www.newsmaxtv.com/shows/steve-malzberg-show/archive//vid/BtbWo1NDE6UYOwrO4eInQ19qcg5-znDA

The context of the show is completely different in the original.

Anyway, there are very few "extremely right" people in the Republican party anymore. It's mostly Libertarians and Neocons.