HOLY TOLEDO! New poll has Trump at 32% WhoooooooooooooHoooooooooooooooooo!

[Agit8r]

He may be an obscenely rich man who has the oratory skills of a common hobo, but I gotta love the way he has split the 43 percent of the population that leans Republican into warring factions.

 

[Boss]

...love the way he has split the 43 percent of the population that leans Republican into warring factions.

Hmmm... Not sure where you're seeing that. Who is at war? I mean... they ARE having a political primary where the course of the party platform is set... the idea is to present competing viewpoints so the people can decide... but WARRING FACTIONS? Not seeing that.

It appeared early on there might be something of a "war" between establishment republicans and conservatives but none of the establishment candidates can get out of single digits. So I am not sure what you think you're seeing other than a typical political primary with a very untypical type of candidate leading.

 

[Boss]

This is not something to celebrate. This is sad. It is sad you folks think he is someone who should be in the White House, leader of the free world. Sad, very sad.

Funny... Some of us thought the same thing about Hussein Obama.

 

[jasonnfree]

That's known as dancing on the head of a pin.

No... It's known as figuratively slapping the taste out of a liberal's mouth for arguing Trump wants to go around taking over countries for their oil. What Trump wants to do is starve out ISIS. Some of the greatest military minds recommended Bush do that when he invaded and he chose to let Iraq keep their oil. Well now Iraq is destabilized and Iran is taking over... just as Trump predicted... and the Chinese are buying the oil and funding ISIS. So you have to take the oil... nothing personal... we'll let the Iraqis have some of the proceeds to rebuild, I am sure... but we're also going to take care of our veterans so that they didn't give their lives and limbs over there for nothing. In the meanwhile, we are going to cripple ISIS and their ability to fund Jihad.

Didn't he make some comment about how the US should take Iraq's oil as compensation for all the trouble they've been put to?

He did, and I think he makes a valid point. If we are going to use our military and our soldiers are going to make the sacrifice, we should be compensated. In 2002, we should have taken the oil... why didn't we? Well, it was because liberals whined "it wouldn't be fairrrrrr!" The Bush administration decided it might look bad... Trump is contesting that argument, and I believe he is right.

So now, in 2017... He's not talking about taking the oil to compensate for our trouble in 2002. He is suggesting a strategy to defeat ISIS and again, I think it's a good strategy. Take the oil-- he has already justified why it's okay for us to do so and we shouldn't feel bad about it. The revenues are going to be used for such better things... instead of funding terrorism, it will be taking care of families who lost loved ones or have family members permanently scarred by war.

You say " In 2002, we should have taken the oil..." You do realize the oil didn't belong to 'us', don't you? It's a foreign country and we have no business over there anyway. If less people thought like you and dick cheney, and more people thought like me and George Washington, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in with all the countries we have invaded in the name of profit.

 

[Faun]

That's known as dancing on the head of a pin.

No... It's known as figuratively slapping the taste out of a liberal's mouth for arguing Trump wants to go around taking over countries for their oil. What Trump wants to do is starve out ISIS. Some of the greatest military minds recommended Bush do that when he invaded and he chose to let Iraq keep their oil. Well now Iraq is destabilized and Iran is taking over... just as Trump predicted... and the Chinese are buying the oil and funding ISIS. So you have to take the oil... nothing personal... we'll let the Iraqis have some of the proceeds to rebuild, I am sure... but we're also going to take care of our veterans so that they didn't give their lives and limbs over there for nothing. In the meanwhile, we are going to cripple ISIS and their ability to fund Jihad.

Didn't he make some comment about how the US should take Iraq's oil as compensation for all the trouble they've been put to?

He did, and I think he makes a valid point. If we are going to use our military and our soldiers are going to make the sacrifice, we should be compensated. In 2002, we should have taken the oil... why didn't we? Well, it was because liberals whined "it wouldn't be fairrrrrr!" The Bush administration decided it might look bad... Trump is contesting that argument, and I believe he is right.

So now, in 2017... He's not talking about taking the oil to compensate for our trouble in 2002. He is suggesting a strategy to defeat ISIS and again, I think it's a good strategy. Take the oil-- he has already justified why it's okay for us to do so and we shouldn't feel bad about it. The revenues are going to be used for such better things... instead of funding terrorism, it will be taking care of families who lost loved ones or have family members permanently scarred by war.

You say " In 2002, we should have taken the oil..." You do realize the oil didn't belong to 'us', don't you? It's a foreign country and we have no business over there anyway. If less people thought like you and dick cheney, and more people thought like me and George Washington, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in with all the countries we have invaded in the name of profit.

I believe you have that wrong. He doesn't think -- he reacts. He's a Trump apologist who only serves to defend Trump's every word. In other words, had Trump said, don't touch the oil, it belongs to Iraq, not us, then that is the position he would be defending.

 

[Boss]

You say " In 2002, we should have taken the oil..." You do realize the oil didn't belong to 'us', don't you? It's a foreign country and we have no business over there anyway. If less people thought like you and dick cheney, and more people thought like me and George Washington, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in with all the countries we have invaded in the name of profit.

Yes, I believe in 2002 we should have taken the oil... of course I realize it didn't belong to us, that's why I believe we should have taken it. If it belonged to us, we wouldn't need to take it. Yes, I also realize it's a foreign country... we don't have many wars with domestic countries. Whether we had business there or not, we went there... we were there... we should have taken the oil. Dick Cheney and George W. Bush thought we shouldn't take the oil.... Trump and I think differently.

Love the way you tried to compare your moronic self with George Washington. Cute... was it meant to be funny? Because I got a good belly laugh when I read it. Who is talking about a war for profit? If Bush's invasion of Iraq was about profit he failed miserably because it cost us $2 trillion and counting. But aside from that, no amount of oil is worth the lives we lost or people's lives who were ruined forever. Capturing the oil is not about profit.

 

[ABikerSailor]

How are we going to "take" the oil when the wells are in the ground in a foreign country?

The only way we could "take" the oil is to build heavily defended bases and transport lines, and occupy the country until the wells run dry.

Not a feasible solution.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Trump made his fortune in one of the most competitive and difficult arenas in the world: NYC real estate. He started when Democrats had the city on a glidepath to becoming Calcutta or Detroit. The first deal I remember him doing was converting the piece of crap Commodore Hotel into the city's first -- and only Hyatt. By any estimate he's worth at least $4 billion and all entirely self made

What the fuck do any of his Democrat opponents have in comparison? Organized Communities? Married a sexual predator and kept her mouth shut not to jeopardize her career, and you talk about the War on Women.

 

[Boss]

How are we going to "take" the oil when the wells are in the ground in a foreign country?

The only way we could "take" the oil is to build heavily defended bases and transport lines, and occupy the country until the wells run dry.

Not a feasible solution.

Well, we establish a cordon around the oil fields and vaporize anything coming within 300 yds.

Simple.

What country? Iraq? They're not really a country now. I'm not much worried about the threat they pose, or the threat anyone would pose for that matter. We have military technology that could protect a cordon without any manpower whatsoever... maybe some tech geek in a remote location who pushes the buttons... we have a highly-sophisticated military. Their RPGs, IEDs and AK-47s are not a match for our technology.

Not that any of it will matter once we secure the oil resources they use to fund their jihad. Oh, and there are a few other sources of funding they have as well, Trump hasn't said much about those but he is aware of them. He plans to lock those down as well. When their money is cut off, there is no more jihad. No need in wringing your hands in worry of endless conflict... it won't ever happen. It would take less than 3 months for ISIS to fold.

 

[idb]

How are we going to "take" the oil when the wells are in the ground in a foreign country?

The only way we could "take" the oil is to build heavily defended bases and transport lines, and occupy the country until the wells run dry.

Not a feasible solution.

Well, we establish a cordon around the oil fields and vaporize anything coming within 300 yds.

Simple.

What country? Iraq? They're not really a country now. I'm not much worried about the threat they pose, or the threat anyone would pose for that matter. We have military technology that could protect a cordon without any manpower whatsoever... maybe some tech geek in a remote location who pushes the buttons... we have a highly-sophisticated military. Their RPGs, IEDs and AK-47s are not a match for our technology.

Not that any of it will matter once we secure the oil resources they use to fund their jihad. Oh, and there are a few other sources of funding they have as well, Trump hasn't said much about those but he is aware of them. He plans to lock those down as well. When their money is cut off, there is no more jihad. No need in wringing your hands in worry of endless conflict... it won't ever happen. It would take less than 3 months for ISIS to fold.

You'd be welcomed as liberators!

 

[Mac1958]

How are we going to "take" the oil when the wells are in the ground in a foreign country?

We'll get that plan once we've deported 11,000,000 people.

 

[Boss]

How are we going to "take" the oil when the wells are in the ground in a foreign country?

The only way we could "take" the oil is to build heavily defended bases and transport lines, and occupy the country until the wells run dry.

Not a feasible solution.

Well, we establish a cordon around the oil fields and vaporize anything coming within 300 yds.

Simple.

What country? Iraq? They're not really a country now. I'm not much worried about the threat they pose, or the threat anyone would pose for that matter. We have military technology that could protect a cordon without any manpower whatsoever... maybe some tech geek in a remote location who pushes the buttons... we have a highly-sophisticated military. Their RPGs, IEDs and AK-47s are not a match for our technology.

Not that any of it will matter once we secure the oil resources they use to fund their jihad. Oh, and there are a few other sources of funding they have as well, Trump hasn't said much about those but he is aware of them. He plans to lock those down as well. When their money is cut off, there is no more jihad. No need in wringing your hands in worry of endless conflict... it won't ever happen. It would take less than 3 months for ISIS to fold.

You'd be welcomed as liberators!

I doubt that since we wouldn't be going to liberate anything except the oil from ISIS.

 

[idb]

How are we going to "take" the oil when the wells are in the ground in a foreign country?

The only way we could "take" the oil is to build heavily defended bases and transport lines, and occupy the country until the wells run dry.

Not a feasible solution.

Well, we establish a cordon around the oil fields and vaporize anything coming within 300 yds.

Simple.

What country? Iraq? They're not really a country now. I'm not much worried about the threat they pose, or the threat anyone would pose for that matter. We have military technology that could protect a cordon without any manpower whatsoever... maybe some tech geek in a remote location who pushes the buttons... we have a highly-sophisticated military. Their RPGs, IEDs and AK-47s are not a match for our technology.

Not that any of it will matter once we secure the oil resources they use to fund their jihad. Oh, and there are a few other sources of funding they have as well, Trump hasn't said much about those but he is aware of them. He plans to lock those down as well. When their money is cut off, there is no more jihad. No need in wringing your hands in worry of endless conflict... it won't ever happen. It would take less than 3 months for ISIS to fold.

You'd be welcomed as liberators!

I doubt that since we wouldn't be going to liberate anything except the oil from ISIS.

Yeah, I doubt it as well.

 

[Agit8r]

...love the way he has split the 43 percent of the population that leans Republican into warring factions.

Hmmm... Not sure where you're seeing that. Who is at war? I mean... they ARE having a political primary where the course of the party platform is set... the idea is to present competing viewpoints so the people can decide... but WARRING FACTIONS? Not seeing that.

It appeared early on there might be something of a "war" between establishment republicans and conservatives but none of the establishment candidates can get out of single digits. So I am not sure what you think you're seeing other than a typical political primary with a very untypical type of candidate leading.

Look at the comments on the first page of this discussion. Look at the feud he has started with Jonah Goldberg. At the very least, the trolls are taking each other's bait.

 

[Toro]

How are we going to "take" the oil when the wells are in the ground in a foreign country?

The only way we could "take" the oil is to build heavily defended bases and transport lines, and occupy the country until the wells run dry.

Not a feasible solution.

Well, we establish a cordon around the oil fields and vaporize anything coming within 300 yds.

Simple.

What country? Iraq? They're not really a country now. I'm not much worried about the threat they pose, or the threat anyone would pose for that matter. We have military technology that could protect a cordon without any manpower whatsoever... maybe some tech geek in a remote location who pushes the buttons... we have a highly-sophisticated military. Their RPGs, IEDs and AK-47s are not a match for our technology.

Not that any of it will matter once we secure the oil resources they use to fund their jihad. Oh, and there are a few other sources of funding they have as well, Trump hasn't said much about those but he is aware of them. He plans to lock those down as well. When their money is cut off, there is no more jihad. No need in wringing your hands in worry of endless conflict... it won't ever happen. It would take less than 3 months for ISIS to fold.

You'd be welcomed as liberators!

I doubt that since we wouldn't be going to liberate anything except the oil from ISIS.

Yeah, I doubt it as well.

And we'd do it without any casualties at all!

 

[Boss]

And we'd do it without any casualties at all!

Not many and the ones we lose, their families will be compensated well. Nothing is without risk... even the oil well operators will have casualties... people get themselves killed all the time... I wonder how most of you morons have made it this far in life sometimes.

Let's get back on topic... How do we defeat ISIS? Isn't the idea of removing them from the wealth that funds their operations at least a reasonable one? I think that it is. Trump thinks it is... and apparently, so do most of his supporters.

 

[Boss]

...love the way he has split the 43 percent of the population that leans Republican into warring factions.

Hmmm... Not sure where you're seeing that. Who is at war? I mean... they ARE having a political primary where the course of the party platform is set... the idea is to present competing viewpoints so the people can decide... but WARRING FACTIONS? Not seeing that.

It appeared early on there might be something of a "war" between establishment republicans and conservatives but none of the establishment candidates can get out of single digits. So I am not sure what you think you're seeing other than a typical political primary with a very untypical type of candidate leading.

Look at the comments on the first page of this discussion. Look at the feud he has started with Jonah Goldberg. At the very least, the trolls are taking each other's bait.

I don't know about any feud between Trump and Goldberg... I understand Mr. Goldberg isn't a Trump supporter and that's okay, there are 17 candidates in the race. He will have a vote like everyone, and he can support his guy, I have no problem with that. He is a political columnist for National Review, he's not "God of Conservatism." Nor is Glenn Beck who also doesn't like Trump. Yes... people on the GOP side have differences of opinion... unlike the knee-jerk party-loyal Democrats who will pull the lever for whoever has the D by their name, regardless of... well, anything.

 

[idb]

And we'd do it without any casualties at all!

Not many and the ones we lose, their families will be compensated well. Nothing is without risk... even the oil well operators will have casualties... people get themselves killed all the time... I wonder how most of you morons have made it this far in life sometimes.

Let's get back on topic... How do we defeat ISIS? Isn't the idea of removing them from the wealth that funds their operations at least a reasonable one? I think that it is. Trump thinks it is... and apparently, so do most of his supporters.

Well, apparently the answer is to take over the Iraqi & Syrian oilfields in a practically bloodless and low-risk invasion.
What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Boss]

And we'd do it without any casualties at all!

Not many and the ones we lose, their families will be compensated well. Nothing is without risk... even the oil well operators will have casualties... people get themselves killed all the time... I wonder how most of you morons have made it this far in life sometimes.

Let's get back on topic... How do we defeat ISIS? Isn't the idea of removing them from the wealth that funds their operations at least a reasonable one? I think that it is. Trump thinks it is... and apparently, so do most of his supporters.

Well, apparently the answer is to take over the Iraqi & Syrian oilfields in a practically bloodless and low-risk invasion.
What could possibly go wrong?

Well in Iraq, there is no "invasion" required since we are already there. Syria is no problem, they have virtually no army. Taking out a bunch of third-world bandits with grenade launchers doesn't sound like it would be much of a task for the most sophisticated military on the planet. While they are all busy trying to find a suitable cave in which to hide for their life... we will be constructing a cordon around the oil fields. Then it becomes a simple matter of protecting the oil fields from an inadequate enemy which will soon be starving to death due to lack of resources.

Again... I will ask you to present some kind of coherent alternative plan to eliminate ISIS?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Hey Boss....................if you think it's so easy to "vaporize anything within 300 yards" of the oil fields..................I've got just one question.

How many years did you serve in the military, and what rank did you achieve, because you obviously didn't do much if you did anything.