Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, October 27, 2019

[I]n recent days, Mr. Trump has settled on Syria's oil reserves as a new rationale for appearing to reverse course and deploy hundreds of additional troops to the war-ravaged country. He has declared that the United States has "secured" oil fields in the country's chaotic northeast and suggested that the seizure of the country's main natural resource justifies America further extending its military presence there.




Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

That is some crazy nonsense, "keep the oil" indeed. Trump is out of his mind.

#1 | Posted by danni at 2019-10-28 06:56 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

But don't call it expropriation--it's liberation...

#2 | Posted by catdog at 2019-10-28 08:48 AM | Reply

Most honest thing he's ever said?

#3 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-10-28 08:53 AM | Reply

Most honest thing he's ever said?


He actually says honest things all the time. He just walks them back after the backlash. Banning muslims. Ripping kids away from their parents to convince them not to come here. Stealing the oil from foreign countries (with mostly muslims).

Conservatives see no problem with these things. It makes perfect sense to them because they see "brown people" as less than human. So they don't see any problem with mistreating them or stealing from them.

It is only after the outcry from actual people (you know, the ones that have actual morality and a soul) that they walk this stuff back and say they were "misquoted" and that there were other "good" reasons for them dehumanizing brown people.

That is one thing that has been very helpful about Trump. He doesn't have a filter, so he shows who conservatives really are. Most conservative politicians are smart enough not to say these things out loud (or at least not in mixed company). But, the conservatives leading the party today are not that smart. And the conservative base eats it up because now they have someone who makes them feel like they don't have to hide who they really are.

#4 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-10-28 09:14 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

When we saved the banks we gave them $3 trillion. Now that we have saved the oilfield shouldnt we be consistent and give Conoco the Strategic Oil reserve?

If Saving Conoco means we get to take the oil why doesn't saving the banks mean we get to take the money?

#5 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-10-28 03:08 PM | Reply

When we saved the banks we gave them $3 trillion.
If Saving Conoco means we get to take the oil why doesn't saving the banks mean we get to take the money?
#5 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-10-28 03:08 PM

The ignorance still displayed by both right and the left regarding so-called 'bank bailout' during the GFC, after more than 10 years, is staggering. 1) Nobody 'gave' banks $3 trillion. Banks received guarantees and Federal Reserve backstop facilities of up to $700B in revolving credit line facility and direct infusion of little more than $200B in exchange of passive, non-voting shares owned by Federal government (i.e., "we, the people") via Dept of Treasury.

Some banks felt they didn't need the infusion, carrying hefty amount of interest to be paid, but they were forced to accept it by Hank Paulson (Treasury Secretary at the time) to avoid speculation on financial condition of other banks.

At any given time there was less than $625B debt outstanding drawn on this facility. The amounts borrowed by the banks as short term loans have been repaid to the Fed with substantial interest, which the Fed returned to the treasury as portion of the profits it makes on lending every year. In other words, the taxpayers made money off this 'bailout' from the banks, not even counting penalties they were later subjected to by the DOJ, SEC and some states agencies who found convenient cookie jars to get their hands into.

why doesn't saving the banks mean we get to take the money?

Whose money would you get to take? The depositors, who keep their money in the bank (mostly in digitally recorded form) and stood a good chance of losing some or most of it (FDIC didn't have nearly as much in their piggy bank to bail out depositors if multiple banks failed, and would have to ask government / Treasury and the Fed to bail it out)? Or shareholders of the banks who in many cases were the same depositors in form of individuals or their pension plans or institutions who held banks' shares in their 401(k)'s? Or would you stop paying the workers at the bank by raiding whatever little (by comparison) amount of money banks had on in payroll accounts?

Unfortunately, most people's idea of what happened is derived from watching many stupid cartoon videos on Youtube, provided by people with good artistic skills but complete financial and economic illiteracy.

#6 | Posted by CutiePie at 2019-10-29 09:58 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Why are we sending military vehicles and troops to protect the oil?

Why don't we just put a wall up? According to Trump, that will stop everyone from getting in!

#7 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-10-29 02:25 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort