Trumps tide has turned

originally posted by: mobiusmale

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
a reply to: mobiusmale

Simple, we take over the oil.
Make sure it's safe and the money from sales gets to where it's supposed to go.
Not being skimmed by everyone and his brother.
That's what I get out of it.
Run the fields until things are stable.

If he means that the U.S. should have kept the oil fields safe, and made sure the revenues were not going to nefarious players like ISIS...then that makes sense.

If he means that the U.S. is entitled to Iraq's oil, for its own purposes and benefit, then I think he needs to give that some more thought...

The way I heard him explain it, is that the USA would be getting some rembursement for dealing with the oil.

That's the only thing worth any money they have.

It would do everyone good to have it get to market and the monies distributed to the correct programs and people.
Someone mentioned that in an above post.

Even if we got 75% off market price, with Trumps energy plan to be independent of foreign oil, the country would still make out 100% better than they are now.

Ha, The USA Oil Trust. Or whatever country trust.

A big trust fund?

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: mobiusmale

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
a reply to: mobiusmale

Simple, we take over the oil.
Make sure it's safe and the money from sales gets to where it's supposed to go.
Not being skimmed by everyone and his brother.
That's what I get out of it.
Run the fields until things are stable.

If he means that the U.S. should have kept the oil fields safe, and made sure the revenues were not going to nefarious players like ISIS...then that makes sense.

If he means that the U.S. is entitled to Iraq's oil, for its own purposes and benefit, then I think he needs to give that some more thought...

The way I heard him explain it, is that the USA would be getting some rembursement for dealing with the oil.

That's the only thing worth any money they have.

It would do everyone good to have it get to market and the monies distributed to the correct programs and people.
Someone mentioned that in an above post.

Even if we got 75% off market price, with Trumps energy plan to be independent of foreign oil, the country would still make out 100% better than they are now.

Ha, The USA Oil Trust. Or whatever country trust.

A big trust fund?

More importantly he was talking about cutting off THE key source of ISIS funding - even bigger in $ terms than the money they get from Obama.

At least he's addressing the fact that we have an issue. The DNC won't even address ISIS and just circles around the problem and causes it to spread as can be seen in the past 8 years. Does Donald have the answer for ISIS? Who knows, but at least he acknowledges there is a problem. Our current plan for terrorism isn't working and its time for another idea to try and prevent anymore harm thats already taken place.

a reply to: Agit8dChop

He does not mention Saudi Arabia once, and that should be a concern, especially in a speech which includes mentioning countries that are responsible for the current scourge of radical Islamic terrorism. IMO, he is incorrect about Iran being the number one state sponsor of radical Islamic terrorism, it is Saudi Arabia and their ethos of Wahhabism that has fomented the hate and intolerance that has permeated around the planet, other radical sects have also followed suit.

I am not surprised that he both vilified Iran as a state sponsor of radical Islamic terrorism and supported Israel in regards to the need to defeat terrorism and bring stability to the region - coincidentally, that's what Bibi wants too, and will certainly keep AIPAC happy.

It's a very well crafted speech laying-out the framework for a future under a Trump administration. I agree with his immigration policy and his no-more-nation-building policy and the establishing of a commission on radical Islam - although I can see that being exploited to include a vast array of folks who the state deems is a terrorist - Islamic or anti-government.

It is also interesting to hear Russia get a positive mention a few times too - I'm sure that will be discussed by the opposition. Certainly if radical Islam is to be defeated globally, there will need to be help and input from everyone effected and that includes Russia, China and a number of countries where relationships could improve with the US.

It's also interesting he zoned in on the LGBT..Q community and I certainly think Milo has had some influence there, their language is quite similar I think.

I think he's got some solid policies and in general I think most folks who watch it will come away thinking he's definitely gonna put a shockwave through the status-quo that currently exists. Whether that will prove to be a good thing or the final key that unlocks hell, only time will tell (if he gets the chair).

S&F, it's a good listen.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: Agit8dChop

He does not mention Saudi Arabia once, and that should be a concern, especially in a speech which includes mentioning countries that are responsible for the current scourge of radical Islamic terrorism. IMO, he is incorrect about Iran being the number one state sponsor of radical Islamic terrorism, it is Saudi Arabia and their ethos of Wahhabism that has fomented the hate and intolerance that has permeated around the planet, other radical sects have also followed suit.

I am not surprised that he both vilified Iran as a state sponsor of radical Islamic terrorism and supported Israel in regards to the need to defeat terrorism and bring stability to the region - coincidentally, that's what Bibi wants too, and will certainly keep AIPAC happy.

It's a very well crafted speech laying-out the framework for a future under a Trump administration. I agree with his immigration policy and his no-more-nation-building policy and the establishing of a commission on radical Islam - although I can see that being exploited to include a vast array of folks who the state deems is a terrorist - Islamic or anti-government.

It is also interesting to hear Russia get a positive mention a few times too - I'm sure that will be discussed by the opposition. Certainly if radical Islam is to be defeated globally, there will need to be help and input from everyone effected and that includes Russia, China and a number of countries where relationships could improve with the US.

It's also interesting he zoned in on the LGBT..Q community and I certainly think Milo has had some influence there, their language is quite similar I think.

I think he's got some solid policies and in general I think most folks who watch it will come away thinking he's definitely gonna put a shockwave through the status-quo that currently exists. Whether that will prove to be a good thing or the final key that unlocks hell, only time will tell (if he gets the chair).

S&F, it's a good listen.

That's a balanced analysis
I suspect he did not mention Saudi Arabia because he didn't want to introduce yet another bomb shell. Everything he talked about, he has actually said before, it's just in this speech he tied it all together in a very coherent way. I too, have doubts about whether these policies will reverse the tide. My fear is that it is too far gone now.

originally posted by: MrSpad
I am sure somebody else will do the fact checking on that hot mess of a speech because I do not have the time to sit here and do it myself. Suffice to say, if is a good speech is you know nothing about terrorism, history, the region etc Where it gets really odd is Trump has said anybody against ISIS is our ally as am excuse for his Russia love. yet he has a problem with Iran which id against ISIS and even has Russia using it air base.

And it really annoys me that Trump pretends he was not for pulling troops out of Iraq before as soon as possible, or that did not support invading Iraq, or that he did not support the Libya intervention, or that he did not praise Clinton's job as Sec State. When it takes all of 10 seconds to search and see him say the exact opposite at the time.

And somebody get the man an atlas and actual immigration numbers. Also a timeline for ISIS.

Here you go:
Fact-checking Donald Trump’s ‘major’ speech on the Islamic State

a reply to: Sublimecraft

yeah your right i didn't pickup on him not mentioning Saudi.. well i know he's called them out before in regards to Hillary's donations, but the fact they didn't end up in this speech.. it doesn't concern me yet... if he starts mentioning them i will be much happier, but I'm not yet to disregard his principles.

As for him exploiting a vast array of folks into a terrorist/Islamic group, I just don't see it happening. He doesn't come across as someone who wants to round up individuals.. or ethnic,religious or homosexual peoples - for what ever reason.

His whole business life he's never done anything to suggest he's that way in mind.. while the laws the US needs to remove the threat would be loosened, he doesn't come across as someone who'd have sinister motives, so I am ok with that risk.

He looked Presidential and he spoke Presidential.. he might have slipped a bit of nark on a few words.. but that speech was infinitely better than his previous ones and I hope they continue!

originally posted by: Agit8dChop
a reply to: Sublimecraft
He looked Presidential and he spoke Presidential.. he might have slipped a bit of nark on a few words.. but that speech was infinitely better than his previous ones and I hope they continue!

Lying about reality isn't "looking Presidential".

...you can sell a product with no intention of delivering it. .

At least 1/2 of Hillary's supporters are going to be disappointed if she wins. She has promised everybody everything on both sides of the spectrum. The only problem is, she has given promises and sold promises. Which ones do you think she will deliver?

Anything other than leaving the M.E. entirely,I do not want to hear.

a reply to: Agit8dChop

I do this because, cnn, cnbc, cbs, fox, news.com.au, smh.com.au all give an extremely biased view of Trump and a very pro view of Hillary (while at the same time being complicit in covering up her crimes).. but that's not the point I'm making here.

Ironically, the video of the speech you selected has a big fat CNN banner across the bottom. This is not a raw video feed but rather the same exact footage of the speech that the "extremely biased" CNN aired.

So strike one against you and the whiny, everybody-is-so-unfair-to-me-waaaaaa Trumpster. I've got to conduct a few phone interviews today and I don't have time to fact check a 48 minute speech from Trump but I'll be back later.

a reply to: dragonridr

Me personally I'm not sure one world govt would be a bad thing just depends on who's in charge I guess. But I will say that fir the first time in almost 100 years we are moving away from a global community. And we're seeing the fight start in many countries. Maybe Putin was right he kept saying there was a globalist agenda and he said Russia will remain a country and fight for there right to do so. Maybe he knowas more than he's saying as well.

If you think the OWG (one world government) might be a good thing, you need look no further than Europe to see the result. Europeans have no valid representation in the halls of the EU governmental bodies and that's why Brexit. The Brits found themselves without a voice on matters that affected their personal lives. Worse, under the EU refugee/migration quotas, the Brits found themselves surrendering their personal safety. If you want to see what that looks like, look at France.

If you want to look at the economy of the OWG, look to the Eurozone. The economies of its most civilized countries are rendered entirely moribund, with zero growth and shaky banks. There's no upside to the OWG for the highly developed western countries.

That said, HRC is a pawn of the Globalists and as such, she'll likely be handed the presidency. Once installed, she'll follow the globalist agenda; more unvetted refugees, open borders and gun control to disarm the resident population such that everyone is an equal opportunity victim.

Its the saddest of times in the US poltical landscape and from here, I see no recovery.

a reply to: atrollstalker

She'll deliver a crap sandwich of higher taxes, higher taxes and more deficit spending.

And the HRC Koolaid drinkers will lover her for it.

a reply to: Agit8dChop

Well, This is Trump on the teleprompter with a structured speech. Now bye bye Grandma because improvisation and ludicrous reactions may be over. If this really happens, Grandma has no chance.

He is clearly on target, he is not afraid of telling what we all say and think but the mainstream media insists on not telling and looks like he is now starting to lay down and detail his ideas, I hope we not start to go behind the soundbites.

a reply to: MrSpad

Apart from his steady stream of BS...the thing I find most outstanding is those on this board who cheered the fact that he doesn't use a teleprompter and spent nearly a decade deriding the times President Obama used one...

Suddenly they are all over-the-moon that Trump roboticly turned left and right (awkwardly with his whole body) to read from a teleprompter!

Look...Look! He is so "Presidential" now that he is using a teleprompter and speaking robotically!...cue swooning masses of trumpites.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Agit8dChop
a reply to: Sublimecraft
He looked Presidential and he spoke Presidential.. he might have slipped a bit of nark on a few words.. but that speech was infinitely better than his previous ones and I hope they continue!

Lying about reality isn't "looking Presidential".

He has not lied in this video, well, maybe a little. But he still spot on.

It is about the message and it is clear. Last week it was the economy and this week it is foreign policy. Everything he is talking about he has talked about before. It is on his website. It is in his books. It is not a movement but direction. Our country has no direction right now. We are controlled by bits of media to separate us. Look at the last 7 years and what has the US accomplished as a nation.

A few months ago it was Transgender rights...A few years ago it was gay rights and bakers...a few years before it was abortion issues again...then they use race issues...then they use religious issues like Islam. A cycle.

The US government needs a reboot. A house cleaning. Make our focus rebuilding the US and not giving Iran money so big companies can start new ventures.

7 weeks or so until the first debate. I see a pattern here with him and it seems each week leading up to the first debate he will release more on his platform.

If you want something to fact check, how about the current admin but since Hillary does not give speeches there is nothing to fact check for her.

originally posted by: CrapAsUsual

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Agit8dChop
a reply to: Sublimecraft
He looked Presidential and he spoke Presidential.. he might have slipped a bit of nark on a few words.. but that speech was infinitely better than his previous ones and I hope they continue!

Lying about reality isn't "looking Presidential".

He has not lied in this video.

Your avatar synchs perfectly with this claim.

originally posted by: CrapAsUsual

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Agit8dChop
a reply to: Sublimecraft
He looked Presidential and he spoke Presidential.. he might have slipped a bit of nark on a few words.. but that speech was infinitely better than his previous ones and I hope they continue!

Lying about reality isn't "looking Presidential".

He has not lied in this video.

Yes he did. I posted a WaPo article that fact checked his words. He said quite a few inaccuracies. Why don't you start by dismantling that article instead of just disagreeing with me? I know it's easier to just deny blindly, but try to apply some critical thought please.

originally posted by: UKTruth


Trump's approach is the last hope for national bankruptcy.

Fixed that for ya.