The Biggest Trump Gaffs Never Make the News.

[flacaltenn]

There was a thread on this topic back in August. But the Donald AGAIN repeated this outrageous idea in the 2nd Debate last week.

Trump Wants to Steal Middle East Oil, and He’s Not Alone

I've always said,” Donald Trump told Matt Lauer at the Commander-in-Chief Forum on Sept. 7, “take the oil.” It was a rare instance of Trump not exaggerating. Seizing Middle Eastern oil has always been one of Trump’s favorite foreign-policy refrains. In addition to the Sept. 7 forum, he voiced virtually the same words during the first presidential debate on Sept. 26, at a foreign-policy speech in Youngstown, Ohio, on Aug. 15, and in numerous campaign rallies during the spring and summer. And the pattern stretches back long before the presidential campaign.

Every time Trump utters the phrase today, his wording is essentially the same: While occupying Iraq, we should have seized its oil. This, of course, does not yet amount to a coherent foreign policy. But Trump’s nomination by the Republican Party obliges the American public to try to understand it as one — and to acknowledge that Trump is not the first prominent figure to propose the violent seizure, by U.S. military forces, of Middle Eastern oil fields. Reckless though the policy is, previous administrations have tiptoed to the precipice of pursuing it.

In the 2nd debate -- he upped the ante by including this brain fart in an answer of "what to do about ISIS"? Claimed that if we had taken the Iraqi oils and given them to Exxon-Mobil -- than ISIS would not have them NOW as a source of income.

Wrong in so many ways. The idea that a CIC can GIVE spoils of war to a single Amer. company. The lunacy of providing continual security for such an act. The FACT that many Intl treaties PROHIBIT such an action.

It shows how "instincts" could EASILY lead to a third World War. And how bravado can screw our relations with MEast players before he even gets elected. It's cluelessness and arrogance of the first order. Yet the national "dialogue/shouting match" doesn't allow for discussion of these MAJOR clueless gaffes..

 

[Muhammed]

Trump is right.

 

[Dalia]

Trump is right because Isis must be destroyed soon before it destroys us.

 

[Montrovant]

Trump is right because Isis must be destroyed soon before it destroys us.

How do you think ISIS is going to destroy us?

 

[DarkFury]

Take the oil, screw em.

 

[Dalia]

@ Montrovant, because it threatens the stability in the world and they are terrorists and they always are prepared for the attacks of the innocents peoples.
Nothing seem to stop there cruelty

 

[flacaltenn]

Trump is right because Isis must be destroyed soon before it destroys us.

You destroy ISIS by providing Ground, Air, and Air Cav support so that Exxon can Steal Iraqi oil? One thing has nothing to DO with the other. Plenty of ways to fight ISIS. Adding the THEFT of a nation's resources is a VERY bad way to deal with it..

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I'd be more worried about this problem if Hillary wasn't significantly worse in every way. Personally, I'd prefer anyone that isn't Hillary, despite Trump's ineptitude. This is what happens when both main party candidates are lefttards.

 

[flacaltenn]

Take the oil, screw em.

You'd make America a bigger threat to most MId East nations by stealing a country's oil -- than ISIS is to them. Are you folks INSANE? Do you realize the gravity of PILLAGING a country?

 

[FA_Q2]

It is the sad reality in US politics today. None of the electorate cares at all - all that maters is tabloid level sex scandals.

 

[xyz]

Despite the rivalry, Trump is the Bushiest candidate, or maybe the most Dubya. He's more Dubya than Jeb.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

There was a thread on this topic back in August. But the Donald AGAIN repeated this outrageous idea in the 2nd Debate last week.

Trump Wants to Steal Middle East Oil, and He’s Not Alone

I've always said,” Donald Trump told Matt Lauer at the Commander-in-Chief Forum on Sept. 7, “take the oil.” It was a rare instance of Trump not exaggerating. Seizing Middle Eastern oil has always been one of Trump’s favorite foreign-policy refrains. In addition to the Sept. 7 forum, he voiced virtually the same words during the first presidential debate on Sept. 26, at a foreign-policy speech in Youngstown, Ohio, on Aug. 15, and in numerous campaign rallies during the spring and summer. And the pattern stretches back long before the presidential campaign.

Every time Trump utters the phrase today, his wording is essentially the same: While occupying Iraq, we should have seized its oil. This, of course, does not yet amount to a coherent foreign policy. But Trump’s nomination by the Republican Party obliges the American public to try to understand it as one — and to acknowledge that Trump is not the first prominent figure to propose the violent seizure, by U.S. military forces, of Middle Eastern oil fields. Reckless though the policy is, previous administrations have tiptoed to the precipice of pursuing it.

In the 2nd debate -- he upped the ante by including this brain fart in an answer of "what to do about ISIS"? Claimed that if we had taken the Iraqi oils and given them to Exxon-Mobil -- than ISIS would not have them NOW as a source of income.

Wrong in so many ways. The idea that a CIC can GIVE spoils of war to a single Amer. company. The lunacy of providing continual security for such an act. The FACT that many Intl treaties PROHIBIT such an action.

It shows how "instincts" could EASILY lead to a third World War. And how bravado can screw our relations with MEast players before he even gets elected. It's cluelessness and arrogance of the first order. Yet the national "dialogue/shouting match" doesn't allow for discussion of these MAJOR clueless gaffes..

Isn't that what the US government does by reserving all mineral rights for itself instead of allowing the US citizen who buys and discovers a valuable commodity on their property to gain from the sale?

That way they can give take the land (eminent domain) and give it to the big companies with little fuss or hassle from the landowner.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Mac1958]

There was a thread on this topic back in August. But the Donald AGAIN repeated this outrageous idea in the 2nd Debate last week.

Trump Wants to Steal Middle East Oil, and He’s Not Alone

I've always said,” Donald Trump told Matt Lauer at the Commander-in-Chief Forum on Sept. 7, “take the oil.” It was a rare instance of Trump not exaggerating. Seizing Middle Eastern oil has always been one of Trump’s favorite foreign-policy refrains. In addition to the Sept. 7 forum, he voiced virtually the same words during the first presidential debate on Sept. 26, at a foreign-policy speech in Youngstown, Ohio, on Aug. 15, and in numerous campaign rallies during the spring and summer. And the pattern stretches back long before the presidential campaign.

Every time Trump utters the phrase today, his wording is essentially the same: While occupying Iraq, we should have seized its oil. This, of course, does not yet amount to a coherent foreign policy. But Trump’s nomination by the Republican Party obliges the American public to try to understand it as one — and to acknowledge that Trump is not the first prominent figure to propose the violent seizure, by U.S. military forces, of Middle Eastern oil fields. Reckless though the policy is, previous administrations have tiptoed to the precipice of pursuing it.

In the 2nd debate -- he upped the ante by including this brain fart in an answer of "what to do about ISIS"? Claimed that if we had taken the Iraqi oils and given them to Exxon-Mobil -- than ISIS would not have them NOW as a source of income.

Wrong in so many ways. The idea that a CIC can GIVE spoils of war to a single Amer. company. The lunacy of providing continual security for such an act. The FACT that many Intl treaties PROHIBIT such an action.

It shows how "instincts" could EASILY lead to a third World War. And how bravado can screw our relations with MEast players before he even gets elected. It's cluelessness and arrogance of the first order. Yet the national "dialogue/shouting match" doesn't allow for discussion of these MAJOR clueless gaffes..

This one of his classic drunk-guy-in-a-bar-talking-about-what-I-would-do-if-I-were-in-charge things.

He just blurts things out that simply can't be done, because he doesn't know better.

And then people just fall in line because they're committed and evidently don't know better, either.

One long, ongoing national embarrassment.
.

 

[flacaltenn]

There was a thread on this topic back in August. But the Donald AGAIN repeated this outrageous idea in the 2nd Debate last week.

Trump Wants to Steal Middle East Oil, and He’s Not Alone

I've always said,” Donald Trump told Matt Lauer at the Commander-in-Chief Forum on Sept. 7, “take the oil.” It was a rare instance of Trump not exaggerating. Seizing Middle Eastern oil has always been one of Trump’s favorite foreign-policy refrains. In addition to the Sept. 7 forum, he voiced virtually the same words during the first presidential debate on Sept. 26, at a foreign-policy speech in Youngstown, Ohio, on Aug. 15, and in numerous campaign rallies during the spring and summer. And the pattern stretches back long before the presidential campaign.

Every time Trump utters the phrase today, his wording is essentially the same: While occupying Iraq, we should have seized its oil. This, of course, does not yet amount to a coherent foreign policy. But Trump’s nomination by the Republican Party obliges the American public to try to understand it as one — and to acknowledge that Trump is not the first prominent figure to propose the violent seizure, by U.S. military forces, of Middle Eastern oil fields. Reckless though the policy is, previous administrations have tiptoed to the precipice of pursuing it.

In the 2nd debate -- he upped the ante by including this brain fart in an answer of "what to do about ISIS"? Claimed that if we had taken the Iraqi oils and given them to Exxon-Mobil -- than ISIS would not have them NOW as a source of income.

Wrong in so many ways. The idea that a CIC can GIVE spoils of war to a single Amer. company. The lunacy of providing continual security for such an act. The FACT that many Intl treaties PROHIBIT such an action.

It shows how "instincts" could EASILY lead to a third World War. And how bravado can screw our relations with MEast players before he even gets elected. It's cluelessness and arrogance of the first order. Yet the national "dialogue/shouting match" doesn't allow for discussion of these MAJOR clueless gaffes..

This one of his classic drunk-guy-in-a-bar-talking-about-what-I-would-do-if-I-were-in-charge things.

He just blurts things out that simply can't be done, because he doesn't know better.

And then people just fall in line because they're committed and evidently don't know better, either.

One long, ongoing national embarrassment.
.

I guess then if you are correct, I shouldn't be waiting for some talking head to bring up this weird and dangerous fantasy of his --- and MAKE folks pay attention to it. There's been SOME discussion of this. But Dayam, nobody seems to be grading papers here anymore. All the truth-o-meters are worn out testing email gossip and bimbo eruptions. We must clone Bill Buckley and Gore Vidal -- there is no other rescue from this insanity.

 

[Mac1958]

There was a thread on this topic back in August. But the Donald AGAIN repeated this outrageous idea in the 2nd Debate last week.

Trump Wants to Steal Middle East Oil, and He’s Not Alone

I've always said,” Donald Trump told Matt Lauer at the Commander-in-Chief Forum on Sept. 7, “take the oil.” It was a rare instance of Trump not exaggerating. Seizing Middle Eastern oil has always been one of Trump’s favorite foreign-policy refrains. In addition to the Sept. 7 forum, he voiced virtually the same words during the first presidential debate on Sept. 26, at a foreign-policy speech in Youngstown, Ohio, on Aug. 15, and in numerous campaign rallies during the spring and summer. And the pattern stretches back long before the presidential campaign.

Every time Trump utters the phrase today, his wording is essentially the same: While occupying Iraq, we should have seized its oil. This, of course, does not yet amount to a coherent foreign policy. But Trump’s nomination by the Republican Party obliges the American public to try to understand it as one — and to acknowledge that Trump is not the first prominent figure to propose the violent seizure, by U.S. military forces, of Middle Eastern oil fields. Reckless though the policy is, previous administrations have tiptoed to the precipice of pursuing it.

In the 2nd debate -- he upped the ante by including this brain fart in an answer of "what to do about ISIS"? Claimed that if we had taken the Iraqi oils and given them to Exxon-Mobil -- than ISIS would not have them NOW as a source of income.

Wrong in so many ways. The idea that a CIC can GIVE spoils of war to a single Amer. company. The lunacy of providing continual security for such an act. The FACT that many Intl treaties PROHIBIT such an action.

It shows how "instincts" could EASILY lead to a third World War. And how bravado can screw our relations with MEast players before he even gets elected. It's cluelessness and arrogance of the first order. Yet the national "dialogue/shouting match" doesn't allow for discussion of these MAJOR clueless gaffes..

This one of his classic drunk-guy-in-a-bar-talking-about-what-I-would-do-if-I-were-in-charge things.

He just blurts things out that simply can't be done, because he doesn't know better.

And then people just fall in line because they're committed and evidently don't know better, either.

One long, ongoing national embarrassment.
.

I guess then if you are correct, I shouldn't be waiting for some talking head to bring up this weird and dangerous fantasy of his --- and MAKE folks pay attention to it. There's been SOME discussion of this. But Dayam, nobody seems to be grading papers here anymore. All the truth-o-meters are worn out testing email gossip and bimbo eruptions. We must clone Bill Buckley and Gore Vidal -- there is no other rescue from this insanity.

There is some nuance and detail in this story, and the media doesn't need it.

Trump has (expectedly) provided them with a ton of shiny, glossy, sleazy, easy material, and they know the public prefers that to detail.
.

 

[candycorn]

There was a thread on this topic back in August. But the Donald AGAIN repeated this outrageous idea in the 2nd Debate last week.

Trump Wants to Steal Middle East Oil, and He’s Not Alone

I've always said,” Donald Trump told Matt Lauer at the Commander-in-Chief Forum on Sept. 7, “take the oil.” It was a rare instance of Trump not exaggerating. Seizing Middle Eastern oil has always been one of Trump’s favorite foreign-policy refrains. In addition to the Sept. 7 forum, he voiced virtually the same words during the first presidential debate on Sept. 26, at a foreign-policy speech in Youngstown, Ohio, on Aug. 15, and in numerous campaign rallies during the spring and summer. And the pattern stretches back long before the presidential campaign.

Every time Trump utters the phrase today, his wording is essentially the same: While occupying Iraq, we should have seized its oil. This, of course, does not yet amount to a coherent foreign policy. But Trump’s nomination by the Republican Party obliges the American public to try to understand it as one — and to acknowledge that Trump is not the first prominent figure to propose the violent seizure, by U.S. military forces, of Middle Eastern oil fields. Reckless though the policy is, previous administrations have tiptoed to the precipice of pursuing it.

In the 2nd debate -- he upped the ante by including this brain fart in an answer of "what to do about ISIS"? Claimed that if we had taken the Iraqi oils and given them to Exxon-Mobil -- than ISIS would not have them NOW as a source of income.

Wrong in so many ways. The idea that a CIC can GIVE spoils of war to a single Amer. company. The lunacy of providing continual security for such an act. The FACT that many Intl treaties PROHIBIT such an action.

It shows how "instincts" could EASILY lead to a third World War. And how bravado can screw our relations with MEast players before he even gets elected. It's cluelessness and arrogance of the first order. Yet the national "dialogue/shouting match" doesn't allow for discussion of these MAJOR clueless gaffes..

This one of his classic drunk-guy-in-a-bar-talking-about-what-I-would-do-if-I-were-in-charge things.

He just blurts things out that simply can't be done, because he doesn't know better.

And then people just fall in line because they're committed and evidently don't know better, either.

One long, ongoing national embarrassment.
.

And how you continue to equte this political, diplomatic, and in many ways surprisingly social dilettante to Ms. Clinton and report that there is scant difference is a mystery.

Ms. Clinton is not perfect but when you stack up the simple store of experience, knowledge of the mechanics of government, the jiu jitsu of dealing with the institutional memories of the bodies of politics and comparative classiness vs. her opponent, it's not that close a call.

 

[flacaltenn]

Choice seems to be between a lady who thinks she IMPROVED Libya and wants to do the same for Syria. Or a guy who wants to REALLY make us Enemy #1 of the entire Arab world and Intl criminals.

That's some demented foreign policy shit right there.

 

[Mac1958]

There was a thread on this topic back in August. But the Donald AGAIN repeated this outrageous idea in the 2nd Debate last week.

Trump Wants to Steal Middle East Oil, and He’s Not Alone

I've always said,” Donald Trump told Matt Lauer at the Commander-in-Chief Forum on Sept. 7, “take the oil.” It was a rare instance of Trump not exaggerating. Seizing Middle Eastern oil has always been one of Trump’s favorite foreign-policy refrains. In addition to the Sept. 7 forum, he voiced virtually the same words during the first presidential debate on Sept. 26, at a foreign-policy speech in Youngstown, Ohio, on Aug. 15, and in numerous campaign rallies during the spring and summer. And the pattern stretches back long before the presidential campaign.

Every time Trump utters the phrase today, his wording is essentially the same: While occupying Iraq, we should have seized its oil. This, of course, does not yet amount to a coherent foreign policy. But Trump’s nomination by the Republican Party obliges the American public to try to understand it as one — and to acknowledge that Trump is not the first prominent figure to propose the violent seizure, by U.S. military forces, of Middle Eastern oil fields. Reckless though the policy is, previous administrations have tiptoed to the precipice of pursuing it.

In the 2nd debate -- he upped the ante by including this brain fart in an answer of "what to do about ISIS"? Claimed that if we had taken the Iraqi oils and given them to Exxon-Mobil -- than ISIS would not have them NOW as a source of income.

Wrong in so many ways. The idea that a CIC can GIVE spoils of war to a single Amer. company. The lunacy of providing continual security for such an act. The FACT that many Intl treaties PROHIBIT such an action.

It shows how "instincts" could EASILY lead to a third World War. And how bravado can screw our relations with MEast players before he even gets elected. It's cluelessness and arrogance of the first order. Yet the national "dialogue/shouting match" doesn't allow for discussion of these MAJOR clueless gaffes..

This one of his classic drunk-guy-in-a-bar-talking-about-what-I-would-do-if-I-were-in-charge things.

He just blurts things out that simply can't be done, because he doesn't know better.

And then people just fall in line because they're committed and evidently don't know better, either.

One long, ongoing national embarrassment.
.

And how you continue to equte this political, diplomatic, and in many ways surprisingly social dilettante to Ms. Clinton and report that there is scant difference is a mystery.

Ms. Clinton is not perfect but when you stack up the simple store of experience, knowledge of the mechanics of government, the jiu jitsu of dealing with the institutional memories of the bodies of politics and comparative classiness vs. her opponent, it's not that close a call.

I don't equate them at all.

What I'm saying is I'd prefer the media present what these people say and do, completely and objectively, without including their opinions in the foundation of their reporting.

To say that's impossible is an insult to their profession.

Then the news-consuming public can figure it out on its own.
.

 

[flacaltenn]

There was a thread on this topic back in August. But the Donald AGAIN repeated this outrageous idea in the 2nd Debate last week.

Trump Wants to Steal Middle East Oil, and He’s Not Alone

I've always said,” Donald Trump told Matt Lauer at the Commander-in-Chief Forum on Sept. 7, “take the oil.” It was a rare instance of Trump not exaggerating. Seizing Middle Eastern oil has always been one of Trump’s favorite foreign-policy refrains. In addition to the Sept. 7 forum, he voiced virtually the same words during the first presidential debate on Sept. 26, at a foreign-policy speech in Youngstown, Ohio, on Aug. 15, and in numerous campaign rallies during the spring and summer. And the pattern stretches back long before the presidential campaign.

Every time Trump utters the phrase today, his wording is essentially the same: While occupying Iraq, we should have seized its oil. This, of course, does not yet amount to a coherent foreign policy. But Trump’s nomination by the Republican Party obliges the American public to try to understand it as one — and to acknowledge that Trump is not the first prominent figure to propose the violent seizure, by U.S. military forces, of Middle Eastern oil fields. Reckless though the policy is, previous administrations have tiptoed to the precipice of pursuing it.

In the 2nd debate -- he upped the ante by including this brain fart in an answer of "what to do about ISIS"? Claimed that if we had taken the Iraqi oils and given them to Exxon-Mobil -- than ISIS would not have them NOW as a source of income.

Wrong in so many ways. The idea that a CIC can GIVE spoils of war to a single Amer. company. The lunacy of providing continual security for such an act. The FACT that many Intl treaties PROHIBIT such an action.

It shows how "instincts" could EASILY lead to a third World War. And how bravado can screw our relations with MEast players before he even gets elected. It's cluelessness and arrogance of the first order. Yet the national "dialogue/shouting match" doesn't allow for discussion of these MAJOR clueless gaffes..

This one of his classic drunk-guy-in-a-bar-talking-about-what-I-would-do-if-I-were-in-charge things.

He just blurts things out that simply can't be done, because he doesn't know better.

And then people just fall in line because they're committed and evidently don't know better, either.

One long, ongoing national embarrassment.
.

And how you continue to equte this political, diplomatic, and in many ways surprisingly social dilettante to Ms. Clinton and report that there is scant difference is a mystery.

Ms. Clinton is not perfect but when you stack up the simple store of experience, knowledge of the mechanics of government, the jiu jitsu of dealing with the institutional memories of the bodies of politics and comparative classiness vs. her opponent, it's not that close a call.

Her only PRACTICAL knowledge of govt is circumventing the APPROVED channels of Security Information transfer and her absolute CLUELESSNESS about sprouting Democracy in the Arab world. Her husband helped destroy Iraq and Somalia. She destroyed stability in Libya and thinks it's brilliant. And her plans for Syria are as dangerous and moronic as continuing to beat your head against a wall.

I'm EQUALLY screwed with the choices. Don't mistake me here. I hate both parties. VEHEMENTLY. They are not focused on public service. They only care about winning. If WINNING meant burning down the Smithsonian and the nation WITH IT --- they would do it. I'm SURE of that.

 

[WheelieAddict]

There was a thread on this topic back in August. But the Donald AGAIN repeated this outrageous idea in the 2nd Debate last week.

Trump Wants to Steal Middle East Oil, and He’s Not Alone

I've always said,” Donald Trump told Matt Lauer at the Commander-in-Chief Forum on Sept. 7, “take the oil.” It was a rare instance of Trump not exaggerating. Seizing Middle Eastern oil has always been one of Trump’s favorite foreign-policy refrains. In addition to the Sept. 7 forum, he voiced virtually the same words during the first presidential debate on Sept. 26, at a foreign-policy speech in Youngstown, Ohio, on Aug. 15, and in numerous campaign rallies during the spring and summer. And the pattern stretches back long before the presidential campaign.

Every time Trump utters the phrase today, his wording is essentially the same: While occupying Iraq, we should have seized its oil. This, of course, does not yet amount to a coherent foreign policy. But Trump’s nomination by the Republican Party obliges the American public to try to understand it as one — and to acknowledge that Trump is not the first prominent figure to propose the violent seizure, by U.S. military forces, of Middle Eastern oil fields. Reckless though the policy is, previous administrations have tiptoed to the precipice of pursuing it.

In the 2nd debate -- he upped the ante by including this brain fart in an answer of "what to do about ISIS"? Claimed that if we had taken the Iraqi oils and given them to Exxon-Mobil -- than ISIS would not have them NOW as a source of income.

Wrong in so many ways. The idea that a CIC can GIVE spoils of war to a single Amer. company. The lunacy of providing continual security for such an act. The FACT that many Intl treaties PROHIBIT such an action.

It shows how "instincts" could EASILY lead to a third World War. And how bravado can screw our relations with MEast players before he even gets elected. It's cluelessness and arrogance of the first order. Yet the national "dialogue/shouting match" doesn't allow for discussion of these MAJOR clueless gaffes..

This one of his classic drunk-guy-in-a-bar-talking-about-what-I-would-do-if-I-were-in-charge things.

He just blurts things out that simply can't be done, because he doesn't know better.

And then people just fall in line because they're committed and evidently don't know better, either.

One long, ongoing national embarrassment.
.

I guess then if you are correct, I shouldn't be waiting for some talking head to bring up this weird and dangerous fantasy of his --- and MAKE folks pay attention to it. There's been SOME discussion of this. But Dayam, nobody seems to be grading papers here anymore. All the truth-o-meters are worn out testing email gossip and bimbo eruptions. We must clone Bill Buckley and Gore Vidal -- there is no other rescue from this insanity.

This one issue is the tip of the iceberg as far as bad ideas coming from Trump. Why is stuff like this never covered in depth? No time for that, no one watches for more than a few minutes, people are busy. Media today is about quick emotional headlines, and a quick one sided article (There are great balanced articles and journalism still but it is few and far between, no money in it, no one cares if it doesn't validate their position) Maybe eliminating the fairness doctrine wasn't the best idea?