The media claims Trump's speech was dark but look at their news coverage today

Trump's speech was pitch perfect. This isn't the time for canned fluffy political speeches. The world is turning into a nightmare under the Obama/Clinton/Bush foreign policy of regime change and nation building.

Shooters in Munich, Dallas, Orlando, Baton Rogue, Nice, Paris and more. Obama is very weak and divisive and this is the result of his weakness and sowing discord throughout the world.

It's not the time for fluffy canned political speeches.

Hillary Clinton, Obama and George Bush have a globalist, neocon agenda that's dangerous. Iraq, Egypt, Libya and Syria are neocon projects of regime change and nation building. It has done nothing but strengthen groups like ISIS and move the balance of power in the Middle East to Iran. Iran is getting stronger while ISIS spreads terror throughout the world.

The media clams Donald Trump's speech was dark but just turn on the TV and you will see the darkness created by Bush, Obama and Clinton and they're dangerous globalist policies of regime change and nation building.

a reply to: neoholographic

a reply to: neoholographic

It was pretty funny watching CNN last night after the conclusion of Trump's speech.

The panel of critics, immediately started picking the speech apart, claiming that it was too dark and there was no way it would be received well. The hilarity ensued when they had a panel of undecided voters off in a room somewhere. They asked how many were moved by the speech into a possible Trump vote. Half the room raised their hand.

Most of the panel of critics had to change their tune after that.

When will the MSM realize that they have lost control of the narrative? When will they realize that their opinions are only shared by idiots who can't be bothered to think for themselves?

Either way, I hope to see ever more massive helpings of crow consumed by the likes CNN and FOX.

It's good for my soul.

a reply to: neoholographic

Nobody is going to stop the direction of this train....it's so sad

a reply to: neoholographic

The media clams Donald Trump's speech was dark but just turn on the TV and you will see the darkness created by Bush, Obama and Clinton and they're dangerous globalist policies of regime change and nation building.

I agree, but wasn't it rather convenient and partisan that Trump didn't blame Bush right along with Clinton and Obama? If Trump is going to back up his words about standing for the rule of law, than he should have included Bush in his condemnation and his criminality of our current Middle East policy.

a reply to: neoholographic

Hitler and Mussolini's speeches were 'pitch perfect' too. And they told their cheering, trusting listeners the exact same things. There's a certain percentage of the population that seems to just love authoritarian stances; trouble is, their stances tend to produce disastrous results for their followers and globally, if they have the reach. Trump would be able to start a World War, unless the Pentagon refuses to take his unlawful and insane orders (a not unlikely scenario).

Would you be willing to follow a Trump into battle (figuratively, since he'll stay back in safety)?

Trump promised to 'be more presidential'. In reality, he's just getting 'more whackadoodle...'

a reply to: neoholographic

Jeez...some folk are so far right the tower of Pisa is ashamed.

His wife's speech was plagiarized, he has had many failed business ventures (google Trumps failed businesses) his only policy is "I'm going to build a wall" and that wall would've kept his trophy wives out of the country. The rest of the world is laughing at the U.S for even considering him a candidate let alone a Prez.

If Trump is elected America's next president the voters didn't shoot themselves in the foot, they shot themselves in the face with a bazooka. Look at his track record and you will see that Hillary is the better of the two evils.

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: neoholographic

The media clams Donald Trump's speech was dark but just turn on the TV and you will see the darkness created by Bush, Obama and Clinton and they're dangerous globalist policies of regime change and nation building.

I agree, but wasn't it rather convenient and partisan that Trump didn't blame Bush right along with Clinton and Obama? If Trump is going to back up his words about standing for the rule of law, than he should have included Bush in his condemnation and his criminality of our current Middle East policy.

This makes no sense.

This was the time to go after Hillary and Obama. I know Obama lovers hate that but Trump went after Bush throughout the primary on Iraq.

In fact, the media said Trump hurt his chances in South Carolina by going after Bush on Iraq and he won South Carolina in a landslide.

PEOPLE DON'T WANT THE DANGEROUS CLINTON/OBAMA/BUSH FOREIGN POLICY OF REGIME CHANGE AND NATION BUILDING.

originally posted by: WeRpeons


I agree, but wasn't it rather convenient and partisan that Trump didn't blame Bush right along with Clinton and Obama? If Trump is going to back up his words about standing for the rule of law, than he should have included Bush in his condemnation and his criminality of our current Middle East policy.

He did to a limited degree during the debates, he really attacked Jeb,
kind of misdirected but he did bring it up.

a reply to: neoholographic

Obama's 2008 nomination speech, filled with talk of America at war, economic turmoil, "the American promise being threatened," the nation's failures, how much "better" America could be, how American cities were drowning, total negativity on the prior 8 years of GWB, www.nytimes.com... and the media glowed over it...

www.huffingtonpost.com...

The media is losing their control over the narrative, just as they did leading up to Brexit and just as they did for the past 6 months as they swore there was "no way Trump could win the nomination" and they don't know how to handle being marginalized by the reality of the American people. It's a beautiful thing watching freedom from the controlled press gain traction in this world.

a reply to: burntheships

He did to a limited degree during the debates, he really attacked Jeb,

Very limited and not enough. He also backed down when the political establishment and the media pressed him on whether he was saying Bush lied. If he really spoke his mind and was as tough as he says he is, he wouldn't have backed down and whimpered into a corner like a puppy dog, very disappointing.

a reply to: SentientCentenarian

Nice red herring and deflection.

a reply to: neoholographic

Well then, you must be glad that Trump said this in his speech last night:

We must abandon the failed policy of nation building and regime change that Hillary Clinton pushed in Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Syria.

a reply to: neoholographic

Trump says he's tough and speaks his mind, but he certainly backed off his attacks when he was pressed on calling George Bush a liar. If you want someone who is willing take on the party establishment, you shouldn't worry about whose feet you step on, republican or democrat. If you're telling the truth, public support will follow.

a reply to: neoholographic

The liberals just need to put a meter on the inseam of chris matthews' leg.

That way they can compare the results to the warm feelings that run up his leg every time he hears the traitor obama speak.

Just so that the left can have a basis for comparison.

a reply to: neoholographic

Very well said.

They "had" to find something to criticize. The stakes are extremely high. The Clinton Machine is putting their media and social media force into full attack mode.

But, this one is going to backfire on them. How can they push their agenda to fear the police, fear guns, etc., if people are not supposed to make decisions based on fear?

The administration and media are well aware of the true, sad, state of our world, but if they acknowledge that, they know that they will be blamed.

You have to acknowledge a problem to fix it. Ignoring it or glossing over it does not make it go away. That tactic just allows things to get worse.

originally posted by: SentientCentenarian
a reply to: neoholographic
Would you be willing to follow a Trump into battle (figuratively, since he'll stay back in safety)?

Would you be willing to follow Hillary into battle? Figuratively since she will be back in safety.
Oh wait I forgot Hillary has braved sniper fire in Bosnia!

Shes a darn war hero!!!
She has expressed on multiple occasions her intention to invade Iran and further destabilize the middle east while further sanctioning Russia.
Trump has vowed to destroy ISIS, and restore relations with Russia.

One is the path to WWIII the other is to stability and security...

I know what path I prefer.
Do you?....

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: neoholographic

If you want someone who is willing take on the party establishment, you shouldn't worry about whose feet you step on, republican or democrat. If you're telling the truth, public support will follow.

I would say that he has stepped on many toes throughout the campaign.

I would also point out that public support doesn't seem to be a problem for Trump.

a reply to: WeRpeons

This election is NOT about Bush!
sheesh
Trump is not Bush, Trump is not like Bush.
Trump is not to blame for Bush.
Trump is a new, fresh start.

But, I understand. You need something to criticize. So, when you can't find anything reasonable, the next tactic is distract and deflect.

a reply to: neoholographic

So you are willing to trust this man with Americas economy? Remember Trump Airlines or Trump casinos? of course folk don't because they went bankrupt.

And how is a nation supposed to retain diplomatic relations if a tool in a toupe wants to punish immigrants despite the fact that many of his wives are immigrants! Hillary is far from perfect but at least she doesn't make the world shudder at the thought that she could become POTUS.