Knowing the difference between Kurds and Quds is no "silly repetitious memorization of trivia."Why should anyone care if Trump knows the names of terrorists? Seems an unimportant detail. There are real problems with the idea of Donald Trump becoming President but none of them involve his lack of knowledge of the names of terrorists. What difference would it make if he did know them? Would it make him a better President? I do not see how. Would anyone vote for Donald Trump tomorrow because he memorized the names of all the lead terrorists but not vote for him today before he memorized them? If so then Trump could easily get that person's vote by doing a bit of silly repetitious memorization of trivia.
Why should anyone care if Trump knows the names of terrorists? Seems an unimportant detail.
Why should anyone care if Trump knows the names of terrorists? Seems an unimportant detail. There are real problems with the idea of Donald Trump becoming President but none of them involve his lack of knowledge of the names of terrorists. What difference would it make if he did know them? Would it make him a better President? I do not see how. Would anyone vote for Donald Trump tomorrow because he memorized the names of all the lead terrorists but not vote for him today before he memorized them? If so then Trump could easily get that person's vote by doing a bit of silly repetitious memorization of trivia.
No, it's an intelligence problem.Kurds and quds is a pronunciation problem.
No, it's an intelligence problem.
That said, I'll criticize his inability to admit when he doesn't know a thing. But I also think his supporters like that, too. It shows confidence.
Actually that is incorrect. He said he will learn about the names of terrorists when he needs to.
He knows about ISIS and what to do with them.That is adequate for now.
I was talking about a previous interview in which he was asked about ISIS. He said he'd bomb Iraq's oil fields, encircle them, and send in American oil companies.
Correct. It is TOTALLY unrealistic. First of all, it isn't ISIS's oil.That is not entirely unrealistic, In my opinion.
That is not entirely unrealistic, In my opinion.
Destroying Iraq's burgeoning infrastructures isn't going to stop ISIS, nor is it going to help us keep our friends in the region (or in the rest of the world).
I'm okay with that. I wouldn't mind a President who realizes that Commander-in-Chief is a formality that simply brings checks and balances to the military. At the end of the day you have to listen to your generals and not try to be one.I'd love to criticize Trump for this, but he's marketing himself as a domestic policy candidate. I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't know who David Cameron was. AFAIK, he's only been buying U.S. politicians, so he probably knows most of the players there, and that's what his rhetoric has been all along. Remember how he dealt with the ISIS question? Yeah. Whatever his supporters' perceptions of him overall, I'm sure nobody's under any illusions that he has foreign policy credibility.
That said, I'll criticize his inability to admit when he doesn't know a thing. But I also think his supporters like that, too. It shows confidence.
What a terrible idea.Not so much as destroying entirely , but making the oil fields , from which ISIS derives it's revenue, inoperable by strategic attacks is in the realm of sound military tactics.