Trump is not controlled by donors and special interests.

Even if he did boast some kind "I don't take donations, I got enough of my own." sign, he obviously doesn't: on his website (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/), he accepts donations of up to 2,700 $ (and is limited only by law). And that's easily bypassable. Let's say 500 folk (workers of these businesses) are each given 2,700 $ to donate to Trump. That's 1,350,000 $ right there. Though he loaned most of his campaign money to himself, he obviously is controlled by himself and has his own "special interests".

Also, Trump has taken clear and even bold stances on things such as illegal immigration, radical Islamic terrorism, political correctness, and Bush being a disaster for the GOP.

That's a few things, big things, but he doesn't really do much else. I assume he's standard Republican for most of these things, but he hasn't talked about it. Crimes? Home? Electorates? Social? Economic? Teaching? Environmental? Meantime, these other candidates have covered immigration, foreign policy, and some these other things.

You've built a warmongering strawman of me and now you wonder why I don't act like it?

Do you agree with Trump's foreign policy, for more war, or if you want to sugarcoat it, "American military involvement in Islamic Middle Eastern countries"? If you are for it, you're for war.

By saying outrageous things, Trump is making a point that he doesn't care about political correctness. Sometimes he's funny, sometimes irritating. Political correctness means that you can say anything you want about a white straight male, but you cannot say anything about a black lesbian female. That needs to go. It has nothing to do with politeness.

Well, I agree with ridding what you mean as politic rightness, but that's what I see as going overboard with politic rightness - politic rightness just means the decency not to do cheap insults, and not to be racist. But I certainly do not agree any laws stretching into society to "right" it, like his anti-negative outlooks. Fascist Italy did a like thing - made it criminally punishable to speak badly of the government or life in Italy.

Obama, Sanders, Clinton, Cruz are all like those guys who put "Je suis Charlie" on their profile and then condemn critics of Islam as racists.

Arguably the Democrats. Cruz certainly wants to kick some Muslim arse, though; no way he defends Islam. Anyhow, the point is, they all have meant stances on the same thing; Trump is not special this way.

the dishonest media needs to go

They should not be forced by the government to go. That's taking away free speech.

[]Voting is a start if you've never done it. Writing to officials, talking to your friends, going to (actually legal) protests might be another.

Trump has mobilized huge crowds in months. I would have hoped Ron or Rand Paul managed to do the same, but they never did, which was a big disappointment.[/i]

I guess, but I don't really buy into the narrative that they'll suddenly become politically active if they vote. Politics is a bug in my opinion...if you get it while you're young it usually follows you your whole life. Its harder and harder to really get involved in politics when you've sat on the sidelines most of your life...at that point you're already at a huge disadvantage at being knowledgeable or informed about the subject to get any changes done (even if its just in your town).

There may be some losses in the transition period as the GOP renews itself (by changing personnel), but I am much more interested in the long term than the short term. And the Dems have their own problems as well.

That's fair enough. Look I can't stomach Trump when he speaks (I wonder if I would look at his policies differently if they were coming from a different person?), but I sure as hell don't want the establishment trying to block his nomination at a convention if it comes down to that. The party splitting is so much worse than the Democrats winning an election in 2016.

Edited 3/23/2016 01:32:45

I don't really like that chart, nor the organisation "Politic Compass". For one, they randomly pick what the middle point is, when the middle should be a meant point, like a current government. In Nepal, the Communist Group is middle-left; in America, the Communist group is far-left. Also, Republicans and Democrats are closer than most admit, but they're not that close.

Even if he did boast some kind "I don't take donations, I got enough of my own." sign, he obviously doesn't: on his website (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/), he accepts donations of up to 2,700 $ (and is limited only by law). And that's easily bypassable. Let's say 500 folk (workers of these businesses) are each given 2,700 $ to donate to Trump. That's 1,350,000 $ right there. Though he loaned most of his campaign money to himself, he obviously is controlled by himself and has his own "special interests".

Trump obviously means donations of the size of hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. If he tried something like you outline, that would probably become public sooner or later and destroy a lot of Trump's credibility.

That's a few things, big things, but he doesn't really do much else. I assume he's standard Republican for most of these things, but he hasn't talked about it. Crimes? Home? Electorates? Social? Economic? Teaching? Environmental? Meantime, these other candidates have covered immigration, foreign policy, and some these other things.

Trump needs to get elected. He cannot be very vocal about everything, because then he would inevitably offend somebody and lose votes. I personally care more about the things he's vocal about than the things he isn't, at least in this election. I will assume that he's going to do something good with regards to the the topics you mentioned - he's a smart guy after all - or at least he isn't going to be a disaster in any of them.

Do you agree with Trump's foreign policy, for more war, or if you want to sugarcoat it, "American military involvement in Islamic Middle Eastern countries"? If you are for it, you're for war.

Trump does not want the US to be the world police. In fact, he's probably going to wield a lot of power internationally, but rather thanks to good deals than with military power. Let China handle North Korea. Let Russia take care of ISIS. Problem solved. I am absolutely convinced that Trump will apply the US military with more restraint than Obama, Clinton, or Bush.

Well, I agree with ridding what you mean as politic rightness, but that's what I see as going overboard with politic rightness - politic rightness just means the decency not to do cheap insults, and not to be racist. But I certainly do not agree any laws stretching into society to "right" it, like his anti-negative outlooks. Fascist Italy did a like thing - made it criminally punishable to speak badly of the government or life in Italy.

Trump has already toned down his rhetoric. As you can see from the last few debates, he's much more presidential than before.

Also, political correctness has nothing to do with politeness even though its supporters claim it to have. Political correctness is something similar to what you say happened in Italy - you have a protected class of people that it is criminal to criticize. Take for instance the case of Gregory Elliott against Stephanie Guthrie:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Elliott

Elliott was challenged to court for criticizing a feminist on Twitter. All charges were dropped, but Elliott was prohibited from accessing the internet for 3 years because of it. This is what political correctness actually means. Nothing to do with politeness.

Arguably the Democrats. Cruz certainly wants to kick some Muslim arse, though; no way he defends Islam. Anyhow, the point is, they all have meant stances on the same thing; Trump is not special this way.

Cruz only started talking about the wall etc. after he saw Trump having success with it. He probably doesn't care about the issue very much. Also, in response to the Ohio attack on Trump, Cruz said that Trump is himself responsible for it because he allegedly encouraged violence. Cruz only talks about illegal immigration because he sees he can get votes with it. But when push comes to shove, he isn't going to stand by his those principles.

They should not be forced by the government to go. That's taking away free speech.

What I mean is that the dishonest media needs to be exposed for what it is. There needs to be a strong alternative media as well.

Look I can't stomach Trump when he speaks (I wonder if I would look at his policies differently if they were coming from a different person?)

Trump has become much more presidential as of late. Here's a 1 hour long discussion between him and the Washington Post. Very interesting interview imo: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/03/22/trump_i_might_not_have_to_worry_about_libel_laws_anymore_based_on_gawker_ruling.html

Here's a one hour long interview between Trump and the NY times:

[Censored]

Edited 3/23/2016 21:06:01

^+1. I really wish they would release that interview he had off the record.

Trump knows how to draw attention to himself :)

So he doesn't want to build a wall but rather use it as a bargaining chip? Doesn't mean he isn't going to solve the problem in an effective way.

:( But I want a wall!!

A wall wouldn't fix anything... Most illegals come through a plane as tourists or with a visa and overstay. Most drugs come by boat and subteranean tunnels.

Trump is selling the idea of something that works, but that wouldn't change a damn thing. Pretty much his business model really.

^It works for Israel.

40% of illegal immigrants are visa overstays so just use e-verify and biomarker identification to track visa overstays. That means 60% of illegals are coming directly via border crossing, so by building a wall you solve that problem right there. I should remind you that the Berlin Wall worked pretty well for about 50 years.

Obviously the wall is not a one-size fits all solution, but its a good start.

Trump obviously means donations of the size of hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. If he tried something like you outline, that would probably become public sooner or later and destroy a lot of Trump's credibility.

Later, Trump only needs several months, and it can just very well not be found out at all. Trump's fanbase wouldn't be hurt, either (since they're not hurt by anything); Trump'd just say "Why is the media saying such negativity? I got to rid this negativity from the media!" and cheers from the crowd. I mean, just look, he's probably the candidate that switched politic parties the most, yet the fanbase does like he is undoubtedly a hard-principled Republican from birth.

Trump needs to get elected. He cannot be very vocal about everything, because then he would inevitably offend somebody and lose votes.

And that's awful, and that awfulness is why awful folk can get picked. Strangely, though, open opinions, more information, less silence, these candiates are actually informing their voters more. Giving more information discourages voting by charisma.

I personally care more about the things he's vocal about than the things he isn't, at least in this election. I will assume that he's going to do something good with regards to the the topics you mentioned - he's a smart guy after all - or at least he isn't going to be a disaster in any of them.

Smart guy? He seems awfully dumb to me in things other than business. In a speech about the wall "Ha, what are the Mexicans going to do? Get a 35-foot ladder? How are they going to get down?" and then mumbles "A rope, maybe.". He just pointed out a critic flaw into building an expensive wall (not border patrol, just the wall itself), and that's not something you should do, even if your supporters are mostly deaf. And he claims that the wall will stop drug smuggling; how's that? The "gates" as are, they usually don't actually go through those, but tunnel under or catapult far above it. He's just taking a new radic approach to polit not often seen in America, and it's working, though it could have just flopped. I have no grounds to think he or any candidate in this election that has a chance are caring for the American folk except for perhaps Sanders. They're caring about themselves and their funders.

Trump does not want the US to be the world police. In fact, he's probably going to wield a lot of power internationally, but rather thanks to good deals than with military power. Let China handle North Korea.

Trump, good internationally?

David Cameron: "If he came to visit our country, I think he would unite us all against him.".

Father Franciscus: "A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not of building bridges, is not Christian...I say only that this man is not Christian if he has said things like that."

These two folk hate his guts, and most foreign diplomats and allies of America are talking bad about Trump. King Salman claimed that Trump was a dirty deadbeat who he saved from bankruptcy twice, even more authoritarian and awful leaders allied with America hate him. He only has decent public approving of Russia.

Let Russia take care of ISIS.

Trump is for staying and going on with the war on Mashriq. Russia is planning to leave Syria, by the way, the first warplanes have started leaving. Now is he ok with Islamic Iran doing the bombings? He's for cutting the Iran nuclear deal, he still puts Iran as part of the "evil". I doubt it, at any rate.

I am absolutely convinced that Trump will apply the US military with more restraint than Obama, Clinton, or Bush.

I find that hard to believe. Bush sucked, maybe more than Donald Trump, so I'm not including him.

A: Obama
B: Clinton
C: Trump

For military drones flying over countries, not needing permission to kill "suspected terrorists"? A, B, C

Upscale the war on Mashriq? B, C

*Send footsoldiers? C

For war upon the SAR? B

Higher military spending? C

Lower military spending? B

Go on with bulk NSA spying and bugging? A, C

you have a protected class of people that it is criminal to criticize.

Yes, Trump definitely is for that, he definitely wants broader libel and "negativity" laws.

Take for instance the case of Gregory Elliott against Stephanie Guthrie:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Elliott

Elliott was challenged to court for criticizing a feminist on Twitter. All charges were dropped, but Elliott was prohibited from accessing the internet for 3 years because of it. This is what political correctness actually means. Nothing to do with politeness.

Again, this is just overboard. You can overeat, but to say that eating gives you a belly ache would be misleading.

Cruz only started talking about the wall etc. after he saw Trump having success with it. He probably doesn't care about the issue very much.

Why would Trump logically care more? Anyhow, this is just standard conservative stuff - the immigrants are ruining our country, those bastards are stealing our jobs. Trump just wants to be "grandiose" with it, and his "grandiose" got him his fanbase.

Also, in response to the Ohio attack on Trump, Cruz said that Trump is himself responsible for it because he allegedly encouraged violence.

Trump's been hypocritic on his peace-loving "Folk aren't willing to fight enough today." "If you see someone readying to throw a tomato, knock the hell out of them."

Cruz only talks about illegal immigration because he sees he can get votes with it. But when push comes to shove, he isn't going to stand by his those principles.

Of course he is. Protectionist economy helps American businesses, which are the ones funding Cruz. And this is all assuming that the candidates stand by what they say - they might not, but then it all falls down, Trump might not, Sanders might not. But if you want to talk about that, it seems like Trump has the most flipflop ideology.

There needs to be a strong alternative media as well.

What makes you think that Trump supports alternative media?

It works for Israel.

Does it? As a proportion of population, Israel has 26.5%; America has 14.3%. Besides that, most Arab countries void their passports if they have an Israeli stamp on them, and in reverse. Also, Israel refuses all from most countries in the Middle East, and in reverse; this includes Lebanon, all Syrias (though some Egyptians and Jordanians allowed in).

That means 60% of illegals are coming directly via border crossing, so by building a wall you solve that problem right there.

Yes, since tunnels are 0% of what folk take.

I should remind you that the Berlin Wall worked pretty well for about 50 years.

First, it was much smaller and shorter than Trump plans. Second, it was in urban land - can't really tunnel there easily. Third, there were no powerful crossborder mafias to muck everything up.

Later, Trump only needs several months

Still, it doesn't make sense. Trump owns 8 billion, he doesn't need a million from donors and special interests.

Strangely, though, open opinions, more information, less silence, these candiates are actually informing their voters more.

Realistically, though, no candidate is going to do that. And Trump needs to win. I rather have him win than know exactly what he's going to do with Obamacare in advance.

Smart guy? He seems awfully dumb to me in things other than business.

So far, he has managed to stay the front-runner with positions that would have killed most others. And don't think that just because he's entertaining and wears a blue collar cap means he's an idiot. Ben Carson talked about two Trumps: the loud entertainer, and the thoughtful one behind the scenes.

David Cameron: "If he came to visit our country, I think he would unite us all against him.".

Father Franciscus: "A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not of building bridges, is not Christian...I say only that this man is not Christian if he has said things like that."

Cameron says what he thinks the public wants to hear. Europe is full of delusional thinking about Trump's racism etc because their media has been lying so much.

Franciscus might be a nice guy but he's a lightweight when it comes to politics. He goes with the general trend of opposing evil racist Trump but he won't be able to do anything against Trump even if he wanted.

Upscale the war on Mashriq? B, C

Hard to say. ISIS needs to be defeated, otherwise it grows even larger. Trump might do a small campaign and finance it with oil. Or he might let Russia do it.

Higher military spending? C

Military needs to be strong to prevent conflict. Doesn't mean Trump intends to use it.

Go on with bulk NSA spying and bugging? A, C

I don't like it at all, but B should be included as well.

Yes, Trump definitely is for that, he definitely wants broader libel and "negativity" laws.

American libel laws are very weak. Making them more balanced for both parties doesn't mean he wants to kill freedom of speech.

Again, this is just overboard. You can overeat, but to say that eating gives you a belly ache would be misleading.

This is what PC means in 2016. Certainly, something needs to be done to topple PC culture.

Why would Trump logically care more?

Because Trump talked about it when even his GOP competitors said it's racist. He took tons of 'incoming' for it. Later journalists called him to apologize and admit that he was right, there are problems. Cruz only jumped into the bandwagon when he saw that it gives votes.

Trump's been hypocritic on his peace-loving "Folk aren't willing to fight enough today." "If you see someone readying to throw a tomato, knock the hell out of them."

You don't know what is inside that tomato. Trump is being targeted by professional thugs. They might indeed try to kill him. They have hit his supporters in the past, blocked ambulances. Knocking someone like that out is the exact right thing to do. Trump has not been encouraging unnecessary violence.

Trump might not, Sanders might not. But if you want to talk about that, it seems like Trump has the most flipflop ideology.

There are certain issues that Trump brought up. I doubt he will forget about those issues. He might flip-flop with something like Obamacare because that isn't his main topic.

What makes you think that Trump supports alternative media?

He's fighting the mainstream media. If mainstream media gets weak, alternative media gets stronger by comparison. I don't know if he's a friend of alternative media, but I doubt he's going to shut down the internet. He couldn't do it if he wanted.

Who's alt are you The Lord?

Trump owns 8 billion, he doesn't need a million from donors and special interests.

He obviously does - why do you think he has a "Donate" button at all? And have you thought about himself being a donor and special interest?

Realistically, though, no candidate is going to do that.

Maybe not, but they're certainly doing it more than Trump. Sanders didn't get his voters by saying like "He's going to fix America" "He'll make America great again" "I'm a smart guy.".

So far, he has managed to stay the front-runner with positions that would have killed most others.

Killed? Ha, no, he was just trying new tacts (which happened to work).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeGAnQ6DyJs

He's basically the conservative version of this^. He's just appealing to the low and common folk, while the others are trying to be polite and (somewhat more) logic.

Ben Carson talked about two Trumps: the loud entertainer, and the thoughtful one behind the scenes.

He's a Trump minion, he's not going to be badtalking, obviously.

Cameron says what he thinks the public wants to hear. Europe is full of delusional thinking about Trump's racism etc because their media has been lying so much.

Cameron says what he thinks the public wants to hear - same as Trump.Even most far-right groups in Europe criticise Trump. And do you think Arabia is somehow fooled by its media, too?

Franciscus might be a nice guy but he's a lightweight when it comes to politics. He goes with the general trend of opposing evil racist Trump but he won't be able to do anything against Trump even if he wanted.

He's the Catholic leader. He's not big in polit, but he's definitely big in demography. The Cathols, they listen to Franciscus. That's South and Middle America and elsewhere hating Trump.

Hard to say. ISIS needs to be defeated, otherwise it grows even larger. Trump might do a small campaign and finance it with oil. Or he might let Russia do it.

He says he wants boots on the ground, and for someone who apparently is steadfast on what he says, it's not a might. Also, as I said earlier, Russia's leaving. Will he let Iran do it? Hmm...

Go on with bulk NSA spying and bugging? A, C

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/261673-trump-sides-with-rubio-over-cruz-in-nsa-surveillance

http://recode.net/2015/02/24/hillary-rodham-clinton-talks-nsa-presidential-aspirations-with-kara-swisher/

American libel laws are very weak. Making them more balanced for both parties doesn't mean he wants to kill freedom of speech.

He doesn't want to make them more balanced, he says he wants to rid "negativity" and make them stop writing bad things. Libel and slander laws are just stupid and should be taken out fully. They're the first step to ending speech freedom. You know, in Belarus, there is a special libel law: insult the president, you get two years in gaol. And you'd be supporting this same stuff that you hate - folk getting criminally prosecuted for just being mean. Say whatever you want, that is a freedom, and noone should take away that feeling. In a sense "An idea is a far more dangerous thing than a gun. I don't give my folk guns - why should I give them ideas?" - Stalin.

This is what PC means in 2016. Certainly, something needs to be done to topple PC culture.

Well, in that case, I agree, but it should not be through the government illegalising anything.

Because Trump talked about it when even his GOP competitors said it's racist. He took tons of 'incoming' for it. Later journalists called him to apologize and admit that he was right, there are problems. Cruz only jumped into the bandwagon when he saw that it gives votes.

Again, I'm not asking if he's saying that he's the one man to end the government fat cats - I'm asking why would he try to?

You don't know what is inside that tomato. Trump is being targeted by professional thugs. They might indeed try to kill him. They have hit his supporters in the past, blocked ambulances. Knocking someone like that out is the exact right thing to do.

Neither do you. Smacking the person won't stop the tomato, it will just hurt someone 99% innocent. This isn't Tadjikistan, American presidents are not going to get killed, much less candidates.

Trump has not been encouraging unnecessary violence.

Of course he is, did you not see the few quotes I put on him? That's just the ones I recall off the top of my head, I can get several more if you're still not proven.

There are certain issues that Trump brought up. I doubt he will forget about those issues.

Why?

He might flip-flop with something like Obamacare because that isn't his main topic.

He might flip flop everything. You don't know. Rand Paul even started flipping during the candidacy.

He's fighting the mainstream media. If mainstream media gets weak, alternative media gets stronger by comparison.

No. A new mainstream media system comes back (unless he illegalises them (bad choice) or funds smaller one (mixed feelings)). It's a natural order of things. What replaced Truth is now the RIA. Spark, a former alternative medium, when it managed to slay the "mainstream", became the mainstream.

I doubt he's going to shut down the internet. He couldn't do it if he wanted.

It's eerie that you must put a disclaimer. But it's eerie for all - internet surveillence and unfreedom will of course go on in America with any candidate.

It's very interesting to read these comments. Especially X since he's so well informed about his stuff

He obviously does - why do you think he has a "Donate" button at all? And have you thought about himself being a donor and special interest?

Are you saying he's going to give himself money for invading Iraq?

Maybe not, but they're certainly doing it more than Trump. Sanders didn't get his voters by saying like "He's going to fix America" "He'll make America great again" "I'm a smart guy.".

Sanders gets his votes by spouting nonsense about Black Lives Matter and claiming that whites are all racists (except BLM fanboys). Sanders wants an issues-oriented campaign, but he quietly condones violence against Trump and his supporters, implying that they were asking for it. All the while claiming that he is the only politician who doesn't lie.

He's basically the conservative version of this^.

If it's so easy to do, then why didn't anybody else do it before Trump?

He's a Trump minion, he's not going to be badtalking, obviously.

You're a Sanders minion, so obvs you're going to badmouth Trump.

He's the Catholic leader. He's not big in polit, but he's definitely big in demography. The Cathols, they listen to Franciscus. That's South and Middle America and elsewhere hating Trump.

Franciscus is popular because the mainstream media likes him. That's all. If they stop propping him up, nobody will care what he has to say about anything. And the mainstream media will be against Trump regardless of the Pope.

He says he wants boots on the ground, and for someone who apparently is steadfast on what he says, it's not a might.

You need a few boots on the ground to take the oil. ISIS needs to be defeated somehow, and oil will be a compensation for it.

http://recode.net/2015/02/24/hillary-rodham-clinton-talks-nsa-presidential-aspirations-with-kara-swisher/

So Clinton says that Americans feel 'betrayed'. Are you naive enough to think that means she will end illegal surveillance? Clinton will do anything to get into power, she's the least likely to care about the American people. She also said that she does not condone what Edward Snowden did. So she's just as bad as Obama and Trump in this respect.

He doesn't want to make them more balanced, he says he wants to rid "negativity"

Your assumption. Good Bernie minion.

Well, in that case, I agree, but it should not be through the government illegalising anything.

No, but the culture needs to change.

Again, I'm not asking if he's saying that he's the one man to end the government fat cats - I'm asking why would he try to?

Because he took a personal risk by addressing the issues like nobody else. It could have turned out very badly for him. He might have gotten assassinated, he might have gotten branded a racist without getting any popular support.

Neither do you. Smacking the person won't stop the tomato, it will just hurt someone 99% innocent. This isn't Tadjikistan, American presidents are not going to get killed, much less candidates.

Ever heard of Pim Fortuyn or Theo van Gogh? Both were murdered for criticizing the religion of peace. And the Netherlands isn't Tadjikistan either, but it still happens. And people who come to a private event to disrupt and throw stuff at people are not innocent by any stretch of the imagination.

Of course he is, did you not see the few quotes I put on him? That's just the ones I recall off the top of my head, I can get several more if you're still not proven.

Your quotes just proved that he had good reason to call for people to get knocked out. The media is always taking Trump quotes out of context, trying to paint him as a violent maniac and Bernie fanboys as innocent 'protesters'.

Why?

Why not? Any politician could forget their issues after election, and many do.

He might flip flop everything.

Why would he even run if he doesn't have any reason to be in office?

No. A new mainstream media system comes back (unless he illegalises them (bad choice) or funds smaller one (mixed feelings)). It's a natural order of things. What replaced Truth is now the RIA. Spark, a former alternative medium, when it managed to slay the "mainstream", became the mainstream.

I'm not talking about traditional media. I'm talking about social media. Anybody can produce content on social media, at the very least in their own blogs. How do you prevent all blogs from being viewed unless you implement Iran-like censorship (not going to happen, not even with Bernie).

It's eerie that you must put a disclaimer. But it's eerie for all - internet surveillence and unfreedom will of course go on in America with any candidate.

You're interpreting too much. Trump is not going to close down the internet, and no candidate is even able to do it. But keep misinterpreting what I say like a good Bernie minion.




Btw do I notice a change in your views over the last year? Last time I checked you were a commie nationalist homophobe. Nowadays you seem to be a red-green commie multiculturalist. Perhaps pro-gay as well? Or am I just imagining it?

This is not a world of stereotypes.

Francis is popular because he is the pope, not because of the media.

You need a few boots on the ground to take the oil. ISIS needs to be defeated somehow, and oil will be a compensation for it.

ISIS will not survive regardless of whether or not we invade it. It has only defeated some small rebels groups and a puppet that had a army trained for asymmetric warfare. How would ISIS steamroll Iraq , Iran, Turkey, FSA, Kurdistan, Syria, and Turkey let alone all the countries they want to invade. And no, even if they could consolidate Syria and Iraq, they will not be sending suicide bombers to Europe in droves, especially when you're being pushed on all borders by other countries. Your fearmongering is asinine.