... the last thing I expected out of Trump's speech was that it would resonate with me. But in many regards, it has.
He says many of the same things I've said in this forum on multiple occasions with regards to our perception of Middle Eastern mindset.
I admit I am having difficulty wrapping my head around the notion. But now all of a sudden, I am paying much closer attention to his potential running mate selection.
Too bad the best candidate for Trumps VPotus, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-27th - Fla) is simply ineligible for the post. It would be a ticket even I would have to give serious consideration.
It has been the first time I have seen him coming close to acting presidential and the speech was right on the mark on the merits.
Our foreign policy now is a total disaster and Trump is dead on about that.
He runs from the Obama doctrine of 24/7/365 appeasement and at the same time runs from the Bush doctrine of nation building.
It was a common sense approach to many of our problems and a feel and sense he understands the issues and I think the speech resonated with the right, centrists and many of the old blue dog type Dems.
I can't stand Trump but I also can't deny this was a major step forward for him.
Good post.
better than Trump did.
Granted, you don't have to be a gifted speaker to be President or a candidate for President (Hillary, Mitt, McCain, Bush 43 all good examples) but Trump has to improve to be taken seriously. His grade on speech delivery -- C-minus at best.
He says many of the same things I've said in this forum on multiple occasions with regards to our perception of Middle Eastern mindset.
I admit I am having difficulty wrapping my head around the notion. But now all of a sudden, I am paying much closer attention to his potential running mate selection.
Too bad the best candidate for Trumps VPotus, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-27th - Fla) is simply ineligible for the post. It would be a ticket even I would have to give serious consideration.
... thanks to the rape of our educational funding at all levels from local to Federal. From the idiotic No Child Left Behind to the utterly ridiculous Michelle O lunch program our government has abandoned any notion of reason and rationale when it comes to the kids...
The children of privilege will always have their private schools their prep schools, their $200/hr tutors. Everyone else is fucked.
But look at me, hijacking my own thread o_O :P
Granted, you don't have to be a gifted speaker to be President or a candidate for President (Hillary, Mitt, McCain, Bush 43 all good examples) but Trump has to improve to be taken seriously. His grade on speech delivery -- C-minus at best.
He says many of the same things I've said in this forum on multiple occasions with regards to our perception of Middle Eastern mindset.
I admit I am having difficulty wrapping my head around the notion. But now all of a sudden, I am paying much closer attention to his potential running mate selection.
Too bad the best candidate for Trumps VPotus, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-27th - Fla) is simply ineligible for the post. It would be a ticket even I would have to give serious consideration.
You didn't mention President Obama. 
Contrary to a majority of this country I respect both President Obama and President George W Bush though I have cringed many more times than not, when either of those two attempted to deliver a speech in a manner vaguely resembling a skilled orator.
The only Presidents I view as truly gifted speakers across the board were before my time,
JFK and Roosevelt.
Some say Reagan was great at delivering speeches, IMO he reminds me of an actor doing commercials.
President Clinton had the potential to give great speeches but he dumbed his speeches down to appeal to the average Joe.
I can't judge Trumps foreign policy speech from his oratory skills, I didn't listen, I read.
I'll give him an A on context.
I have no doubt we will have a President in 2017 who will be judged as the worst Orator in the Oval office since recordings were invented, unless neither of the two leading the pack, win.
Granted, you don't have to be a gifted speaker to be President or a candidate for President (Hillary, Mitt, McCain, Bush 43 all good examples) but Trump has to improve to be taken seriously. His grade on speech delivery -- C-minus at best.
He says many of the same things I've said in this forum on multiple occasions with regards to our perception of Middle Eastern mindset.
I admit I am having difficulty wrapping my head around the notion. But now all of a sudden, I am paying much closer attention to his potential running mate selection.
Too bad the best candidate for Trumps VPotus, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-27th - Fla) is simply ineligible for the post. It would be a ticket even I would have to give serious consideration.
I listened to most of Drumpf's speech and found it ludicrous on many levels. Mainly, it was his usual broad statements with no specifics on how he'd accomplish them, but also it was riddled with contradictions. For example, we're going to avoid foreign entanglements but at the same time wipe out ISIS (and how we actually do that was left out).
Doc, I don't always agree with you but respect your thoughtful and articulate posts, so I'm baffled. I just don't get how that loud and ignorant buffoon pulls the wool over anyone's eyes, especially the seemingly intelligent. And you are far from the only one. For example, I find Ms. Davette and GaGambler'sSmarterBrother to possess modest intelligence. And yet, they, too, have drunk Drumpf's Kool Ade. Oh well, like my Dad used to say, "Intelligence is as intelligence does."
First off, this was his FIRST major speech on foreign policy so to expect tons of detail is unrealistic and would be unprecedented.
Second, I don't see any contradictions in saying he is going to go after ISIS, something virtually every American wants the next POTUS to do, AND at the same time saying he wants to stop the nation building of the past which was a disaster.
His view is actually centrist and will be welcome by most Americans, imo.
I still think he is a buffoon Jake, but he hit it out of the park yesterday. It may be a case of the proverbial blind squirrel finding a nut but lets wait and see. lol
As for Trumps speech, I didn't hear it so I really have no comments about the speech itself.
Now as for my support of Trump, in the primaries he is the Rep most likely to pursue a socially conservative agenda, he HAS to pander to the thumpers to win the nomination, just like Hillary HAS to pander to the socialists to win her parties nod. Given a choice between Trump and Cruz, that's a no brainer IMO, Cruz is certifiable.
Fast forward to the general, we have a known evil in Hillary, someone who will double down on Obama Care and basically be a third term for Obama. Or we have an unknown in Trump, forgetting about the hyperbole for a moment, there are a few things I believe he can do better than anyone else running, not the least of which is getting the TWO TRILLION DOLLARS currently stashed offshore by American corporations repatriated to this country, This two trillion dollars won't be a fantasy shot in the arm like Tarp or any of the other stimulus programs by the Federal Government, this is a real two trillion dollar cash infusion into our economy, something long overdue and Trump is the only one talking about it.
You are giving the impression that this money is just sitting in a bank vault outside the U.S, and feeding the Bernie Sanders of the world hatred and misunderstanding of corporations and the money being held in offshore accounts.
This money is working its way through our economy every day, just not in the way our government and liberals would prefer. Foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies put their unused earnings into U.S. bonds, stocks and bank deposits. That money, in essence, is helping to finance federal and corporate debt and to make bank loans to American businesses.
Now as for my support of Trump, in the primaries he is the Rep most likely to pursue a socially conservative agenda, he HAS to pander to the thumpers to win the nomination, just like Hillary HAS to pander to the socialists to win her parties nod. Given a choice between Trump and Cruz, that's a no brainer IMO, Cruz is certifiable.
Fast forward to the general, we have a known evil in Hillary, someone who will double down on Obama Care and basically be a third term for Obama. Or we have an unknown in Trump, forgetting about the hyperbole for a moment, there are a few things I believe he can do better than anyone else running, not the least of which is getting the TWO TRILLION DOLLARS currently stashed offshore by American corporations repatriated to this country, This two trillion dollars won't be a fantasy shot in the arm like Tarp or any of the other stimulus programs by the Federal Government, this is a real two trillion dollar cash infusion into our economy, something long overdue and Trump is the only one talking about it.
Now he's telling a whopper about Gen. Pershing in the Philippines
Or would you prefer a guy who might go a bit to the other extreme and tells a bit of a story for effect? The effect being, "We will do anything and everything necessary to wipe ISIS off the map"
I recall a whopper Obama told that I mentioned in a thread above this one. Do you remember "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan"??? Normally that would not be relevant as Obama is not running, but Hillary is running as the third term of Obama and that makes Obama's lies quite relevant. Trump repeating a hundred year old story of questionable origin to make a point isn't going to cost me a dime. Obama's lie has already cost me thousands and is likely to cost me another couple of hundred grand over next four years. It's almost enough for me to vote for Cruz as he is the only one promising to scrap ObamaCare on his first day in office, but his negatives far outweigh that one positive.
Please explain the difference between calling them ISIS (The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) and ISIL (The Islamic State In Iraq and the Levant). Here's a definition of ISIL:
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) The undefined region around Syria is historically referred to as the Levant (an archaic French phrase for the "lands of the rising sun), including modern-day Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine and Jordan.
So, in fact, using ISIL instead of ISIS, actually makes ISIL seem bigger, which is quite the opposite of your point (I think). Then again, ISIL seems not to include Iraq, which to me is clearly wrong.
The broader point is, arguing of this distinction is stupid.
Let's call the whole thing off.