I want to go back to Trump's idiotic stance on Raul Castro not meeting Obama at the airport. He said he would have just turned around and left. Of course it is not typical, nor expected, nor protocol to meet the president at the airport. But Trump's bluster and lack of knowledge could have him cancelling meetings with any and all foreign leaders if he were the President. He would alienate allies and not be able to negotiate and put pressure on foes. The only person Obama met at the airport was the Pope. The President does not go and wait at the airport for foreign leaders. Other foreign leaders don't wait at the airport for the President. Trump is so clueless, ignorant, and brash that he could do a lot of damage.
I'll keep saying it about Trump and his supporters... Idiots doing (and saying) idiot things because they're idiots.
I just read Trump's Washington Post editorial board transcript. All I could think of was the Mother of God meme. Ramblings of a mad man.
You are living in bizarrro world, if you think Trump sounds like any other presidential candidate. His incoherent rambling makes W look like a genius.
Trump is a con man's impersonation of a politician. He's preying on the stupid just like all con men do.
Really? <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/c2pYmYLvau8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Trump will be the toughest candidate against terrorism <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/I5rr6NHLcBs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The man is a prophet <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/60RuXCV71ic" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Not really. The more right answer is probably that tactical nukes would not be any more effective at fighting this sort of threat than conventional weapons. But, insofar as using tactical nukes could yield an advantage, you'd only consider doing that in consultation with military leadership in consideration of the real facts of costs, risks, and expected benefits. That doesn't make a good sound bite. WaPo wanted to ask him this nonsensical question so they can quote him either warmongering ("we're going to nuke those bastards!") or showing weakness ("no, I wouldn't launch nukes even if the terrorists are about the blow up the Earth's core."). I'm still trying to understand why Ryan there would think that using tactical nukes is some kind of magical third option between putting American troops in danger, and allowing the terrorists to win. If tactical nukes could work, conventional bombs and missiles will also work. Maybe I can change my opinion if someone can explain to me the magical terrorist-killing powers of the tactical nuke.
Did you actually watch that clip and read the transcript of Trump's meeting with the Washington Post? Again, your living in bizarro world if you can't see the difference. And this has nothing to do with whether you agree with either man's policy positions. You can't even tell what Trump's policies are more than half the time. He just blathers a couple of disconnected phrases and then goes off on some other tangent. I couldn't disagree more with the positions of every other Republican presidential candidate. But at least when they speak what they say has some degree of internal coherence.
Not a huge difference but they are lighter and stronger so your sorties are more effective and you increase the number of targets. Would have been useful for bunker busting. Obviously not worth the cultural impact.
I'm really not trying to be snotty, but you're quoting one paragraph from a very long interview. I agree that the one particular paragraph is a reasonable (politically reasonable) answer. It is fairly coherent. But it's worth applying the same attention to the entire interview. And really see if you can find another example on par with his rambling incoherence, overall. Trump is not dumb, but I don't know what he was thinking in that interview, other than massive evasion of certain (majority?) questions.
Trump was asked a loaded question and dismissed it. If he doesn't, then his words can be confounded and confused, and it can have this type of effect.
Well, you're clearly a supporter, or very sympathetic, and I guess you'd label me a detractor. I'm trying to just really see what the guy is all about. Anyway, no need to argue further about it, but I guess I'd leave you with this. If Trump found several questions loaded, I think it would have served him better to directly say so, instead of going off on strange rambles. Cheers.
It doesn't take a scientist to predict what just happened. It does take a politician to just ignore the potential of it happening. More PC bull****. Trump continues to OWN.
I'm not commenting further until I see where Trump said that he would threaten Mexico with the military.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_aFo_BV-UzI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
