America First. R U Sure?

[Soggy in NOLA]

As I feared, this thread is quickly going over my head. I never professed to be an "expert," but my biggest concern about Trump has always been this isolationist policy. I don't think it will be a positive outcome, and it worries me. I don't criticize every breath Trump takes just because I didn't vote for him. And I agree with SavannahMann that Turkey should be kicked out of NATO for what it has done in the past year. But we don't need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. We are one of the richest countries in the world. We do pay more to keep allies free as a bulwark against totalitarian regimes that would happily take them--and then us. That is in our best interests, imo.

What isolationist policy? What on Earth are you talking about?

Read the OP

I did... what is "isolationist" about vetting immigrants?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

As I feared, this thread is quickly going over my head. I never professed to be an "expert," but my biggest concern about Trump has always been this isolationist policy. I don't think it will be a positive outcome, and it worries me. I don't criticize every breath Trump takes just because I didn't vote for him. And I agree with SavannahMann that Turkey should be kicked out of NATO for what it has done in the past year. But we don't need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. We are one of the richest countries in the world. We do pay more to keep allies free as a bulwark against totalitarian regimes that would happily take them--and then us. That is in our best interests, imo.

What isolationist policy? What on Earth are you talking about?

Read the OP

Why don't Republicans care that Trump just pissed on the Constitution?

The Constitution requires the executive branch, which includes DHS, to obey federal court orders as a check on its power. And they did not this weekend.

Senate Democrats Call For Investigation Into Trump Officials' Failure To Obey Court Orders | The Huffington Post

Trump's going to get impeached.

No he isn't.... good grief. You sound as loopy as the birthers.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

really? where does it say that? (maybe it does----I just do not know---I know that the executive branch ---ie president----must obey the SUPREME COURT

If you don't know take my word for it.

'

I prefer a link

Then stop talking about what is and isn't constitutional when you dopes don't even know. You pretended to know when Obama was in office but now you play stupid.

I never mentioned anything about the constitution in reference to Obama----
SCHMUCK. Let me review-----your contention----somewhere in the constitution
it says-----the PRESIDENT OF THE USA IS BOUND by any ruling made in Federal Court by any Federal judge-------ok I will try to find out----some day

Collins: Trump's Refugee Ban 'Likely Unconstitutional,' Bannon Appointment 'Entirely Inappropriate'

Ana Navarro Excoriates Republicans For Not Standing Up To Trump's Unconstitutional Muslim Ban

Trump's Unconstitutional Attack on Sanctuary Cities
How the president’s executive order debases the Constitution.

There is no Muslim ban.

 

[Virginia Mom]

"trumps unconstitutional attack on sanctuary cities"

May I ask you who lives in the sanctuary cities and who supports them? I don't mean to be stupid but I had a discussion with someone on here, and he said refugees were sponsored by mainly church organizations, no taxpayers money. My DIL is a legal immigrant and no one supported her but my son and myself.

 

[BrokeLoser]

For 70 years, we sustained an international system of open commerce and democratic alliances that has enabled America and the West to grow and thrive. Global leadership is what made America great. We abandon it at our peril.

I'll float a theory here that may just be wishful thinking:

Look at how Trump communicates, and what his followers seem to prefer: Very basic communication, simple, straight ahead thoughts, little nuance, very black & white. It may (yes, may) be that he's purposely leaving out nuance for them, but in actuality willing to use it behind closed doors. If that is the case, then these conversations he's having with world leaders may be more nuanced and comprehensive than we know.

An example is the very smart thing that British PM Theresa May did at the press conference after meeting with Trump - she went out of her way to look directly at him and point out that, during their meeting, he said he's "100% behind NATO", even though (a) he has never said that publicly, and (b) he never referred to it afterwards. That moment really boxed him in for future meetings with European leaders.

This is a terribly dangerous game he's playing, pandering to his crowd in public and being more serious behind the scenes. But, looking for a silver lining, I'm guessing he's not being this simplistic when it matters. Uh, hopefully.
.

Sounds to me like you're searching for something you want to hear.
Billionaires have to be great communicators. Great communicators read their listeners and speak with total clarity. Removing all potential blur from vocabulary is actually an art form. A simplistic vocabulary may sound, well, simple to many who prefer to be wow'd by intellectual word play. The problem is communication barriers are built between the speaker and the people who just want to hear it straight with no spin. Trump is extremely effective in getting through to his supporters.
I'll bet the conversation with the Prime Minister went like this:
"We are 100% behind NATO if X Y and Z issues that we have can be modified to become better fit for American's."
The Prime Minister responded with:
"I'm sure your requested modifications can be made."

THE END!

 

[Mac1958]

For 70 years, we sustained an international system of open commerce and democratic alliances that has enabled America and the West to grow and thrive. Global leadership is what made America great. We abandon it at our peril.

I'll float a theory here that may just be wishful thinking:

Look at how Trump communicates, and what his followers seem to prefer: Very basic communication, simple, straight ahead thoughts, little nuance, very black & white. It may (yes, may) be that he's purposely leaving out nuance for them, but in actuality willing to use it behind closed doors. If that is the case, then these conversations he's having with world leaders may be more nuanced and comprehensive than we know.

An example is the very smart thing that British PM Theresa May did at the press conference after meeting with Trump - she went out of her way to look directly at him and point out that, during their meeting, he said he's "100% behind NATO", even though (a) he has never said that publicly, and (b) he never referred to it afterwards. That moment really boxed him in for future meetings with European leaders.

This is a terribly dangerous game he's playing, pandering to his crowd in public and being more serious behind the scenes. But, looking for a silver lining, I'm guessing he's not being this simplistic when it matters. Uh, hopefully.
.

Sounds to me like you're searching for something you want to hear.
Billionaires have to be great communicators. Great communicators read their listeners and speak with total clarity. Removing all potential blur from vocabulary is actually an art form. A simplistic vocabulary may sound, well, simple to many who prefer to be wow'd by intellectual word play. The problem is communication barriers are built between the speaker and the people who just want to hear it straight with no spin. Trump is extremely effective in getting through to his supporters.
I'll bet the conversation with the Prime Minister went like this:
"We are 100% behind NATO if X Y and Z issues that we have can be modified to become better fit for American's."
The Prime Minister responded with:
"I'm sure your requested modifications can be made."

THE END!

Yes, that's my point and my hope, that his conversations with those who matter are more nuanced than he's letting on.
.

 

[irosie91]

I don't get it. You think if we stop extending financial and military aid to our allies, that they won't go somewhere else (fill in the blank) for it? You think they'll follow us anyway? If we were invaded by Russia it would be AFTER all the EU had fallen, TN. After we were no longer interested in helping them. That's how I see it.

Russia is a pale shadow of the Soviet Union.

It is not a threat to Europe, and certainly not US.

Why don't you ask Eastern Europe about that? Or Ukraine? They live there and they are quite concerned, I hear.

Germany's not. ENgland's not. France isn't.

IF Europe is concerned, they are more than big enough to protect themselves from what is left of Russia.

persons not concerned about the AXIS POWERS-----Russia/Iran -----are the spawn of those who were not concerned about ADOLF/MUSSOLINI

ask Charlie chaplan

I made a point about Europe being more than able to protect themselves against the greatly diminished power of Russia, if they feel the need to.

Nothing in your post addressed that.

This was the COld War.

This is today.

Where were all you tough libs back when they were actually a threat to US?

oh----ok-----my point is the combined power and AMBITIONS of Putin's Russia----which is NOT Lenin's Russia or Krushchev's Russia ------and present day IRAN.
It is a whole different situation------the USA is endangered, economically,
by the Iran/Russia alliance----and ultimately our MILITARY interests are threatened in strategic areas on land and sea

 

[owebo]

I wanted to share this conservative's view on Trump's foreign policy.

Charles Krauthammer: Trump's foreign-policy revolution

• 
  
  
  • By Charles Krauthammer, The Washington Post
  • Jan 29, 2017

WASHINGTON — The flurry of bold executive orders and of highly provocative Cabinet nominations (such as a secretary of education who actually believes in school choice) has been encouraging to conservative skeptics of Donald Trump. But it shouldn’t erase the troubling memory of one major element of Trump’s inaugural address.

The foreign policy section has received far less attention than so revolutionary a declaration deserved. It radically redefined the American national interest as understood since World War II.

Trump outlined a world in which foreign relations are collapsed into a zero-sum game. They gain, we lose. As in: “For many decades, we’ve enriched foreign industry at the expense of American industry; subsidized the armies of other countries” while depleting our own. And most provocatively this: “The wealth of our middle class has been ripped from their homes and then redistributed all across the world.”


JFK’s inaugural pledged to support any friend and oppose any foe to assure the success of liberty. Note that Trump makes no distinction between friend and foe (and no reference to liberty). They’re all out to use, exploit and surpass us.

No more, declared Trump: “From this day forward, it’s going to be only America First.”

Imagine how this resonates abroad. “America First” was the name of the organization led by Charles Lindbergh that bitterly fought FDR before U.S. entry into World War II — right through the Battle of Britain — to keep America neutral between Churchill’s Britain and Hitler’s Reich.

Not that Trump was consciously imitating Lindbergh. I doubt he was even aware of the reference. He just liked the phrase. But I can assure you that in London and in every world capital they are aware of the antecedent and the intimations of a new American isolationism. Trump gave them good reason to think so, going on to note “the right of all nations to put their own interests first.” America included.

Some claim that putting America first is a reassertion of American exceptionalism. On the contrary, it is the antithesis. It makes America no different from all the other countries that define themselves by a particularist blood-and-soil nationalism. What made America exceptional, unique in the world, was defining its own national interest beyond its narrow economic and security needs to encompass the safety and prosperity of a vast array of allies. A free world marked by open trade and mutual defense was President Truman’s vision, shared by every president since.

Until now.

Some have argued that Trump is just dangling a bargaining chip to negotiate better terms of trade or alliance. Or that Trump’s views are so changeable and unstable — telling European newspapers two weeks ago that NATO is obsolete and then saying “NATO is very important to me” — that this is just another unmoored entry on a ledger of confusion.


But both claims are demonstrably wrong. An inaugural address is no off-the-cuff riff. These words are the product of at least three weeks of deliberate crafting for an address that Trump said would express his philosophy. Moreover, to remove any ambiguity, Trump prefaced his “America first” proclamation with: “From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land.”

Trump’s vision misunderstands the logic underlying the far larger, far-reaching view of Truman. The Marshall Plan sure took wealth away from the American middle class and distributed it abroad. But for a reason. Altruism, in part. But mostly to stabilize Western Europe as a bulwark against an existential global enemy.

We carried many free riders throughout the Cold War. The burden was heavy. But this was not a mindless act of charity; it was an exercise in enlightened self-interest. After all, it was indeed better to subsidize foreign armies — German, South Korean, Turkish and dozens of others — and have them stand with us, rather than stationing even more American troops everywhere around the world at greater risk of both blood and treasure.

We are embarking upon insularity and smallness. Nor is this just theory. Trump’s long-promised but nonetheless abrupt withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership is the momentous first fruit of his foreign policy doctrine. Last year the prime minister of Singapore told John McCain that if we pulled out of TPP “you’ll be finished in Asia.” He knows the region.

For 70 years, we sustained an international system of open commerce and democratic alliances that has enabled America and the West to grow and thrive. Global leadership is what made America great. We abandon it at our peril.


Charles Krauthammer writes for The Washington Post. Email: [email protected].

He's not a conservative....so.....

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

As I feared, this thread is quickly going over my head. I never professed to be an "expert," but my biggest concern about Trump has always been this isolationist policy. I don't think it will be a positive outcome, and it worries me. I don't criticize every breath Trump takes just because I didn't vote for him. And I agree with SavannahMann that Turkey should be kicked out of NATO for what it has done in the past year. But we don't need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. We are one of the richest countries in the world. We do pay more to keep allies free as a bulwark against totalitarian regimes that would happily take them--and then us. That is in our best interests, imo.

"isolationist" is such a strong word. I fear you don't fully understand what that actually means.

Nor is it even remotely accurate.

 

[OldLady]

As I feared, this thread is quickly going over my head. I never professed to be an "expert," but my biggest concern about Trump has always been this isolationist policy. I don't think it will be a positive outcome, and it worries me. I don't criticize every breath Trump takes just because I didn't vote for him. And I agree with SavannahMann that Turkey should be kicked out of NATO for what it has done in the past year. But we don't need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. We are one of the richest countries in the world. We do pay more to keep allies free as a bulwark against totalitarian regimes that would happily take them--and then us. That is in our best interests, imo.

What isolationist policy? What on Earth are you talking about?

Read the OP

I wanted to share this conservative's view on Trump's foreign policy.

Charles Krauthammer: Trump's foreign-policy revolution

• 
  
  
  • By Charles Krauthammer, The Washington Post
    
  • Jan 29, 2017
    

WASHINGTON — The flurry of bold executive orders and of highly provocative Cabinet nominations (such as a secretary of education who actually believes in school choice) has been encouraging to conservative skeptics of Donald Trump. But it shouldn’t erase the troubling memory of one major element of Trump’s inaugural address.

The foreign policy section has received far less attention than so revolutionary a declaration deserved. It radically redefined the American national interest as understood since World War II.

Trump outlined a world in which foreign relations are collapsed into a zero-sum game. They gain, we lose. As in: “For many decades, we’ve enriched foreign industry at the expense of American industry; subsidized the armies of other countries” while depleting our own. And most provocatively this: “The wealth of our middle class has been ripped from their homes and then redistributed all across the world.”


JFK’s inaugural pledged to support any friend and oppose any foe to assure the success of liberty. Note that Trump makes no distinction between friend and foe (and no reference to liberty). They’re all out to use, exploit and surpass us.

No more, declared Trump: “From this day forward, it’s going to be only America First.”

Imagine how this resonates abroad. “America First” was the name of the organization led by Charles Lindbergh that bitterly fought FDR before U.S. entry into World War II — right through the Battle of Britain — to keep America neutral between Churchill’s Britain and Hitler’s Reich.

Not that Trump was consciously imitating Lindbergh. I doubt he was even aware of the reference. He just liked the phrase. But I can assure you that in London and in every world capital they are aware of the antecedent and the intimations of a new American isolationism. Trump gave them good reason to think so, going on to note “the right of all nations to put their own interests first.” America included.

Some claim that putting America first is a reassertion of American exceptionalism. On the contrary, it is the antithesis. It makes America no different from all the other countries that define themselves by a particularist blood-and-soil nationalism. What made America exceptional, unique in the world, was defining its own national interest beyond its narrow economic and security needs to encompass the safety and prosperity of a vast array of allies. A free world marked by open trade and mutual defense was President Truman’s vision, shared by every president since.

Until now.

Some have argued that Trump is just dangling a bargaining chip to negotiate better terms of trade or alliance. Or that Trump’s views are so changeable and unstable — telling European newspapers two weeks ago that NATO is obsolete and then saying “NATO is very important to me” — that this is just another unmoored entry on a ledger of confusion.


But both claims are demonstrably wrong. An inaugural address is no off-the-cuff riff. These words are the product of at least three weeks of deliberate crafting for an address that Trump said would express his philosophy. Moreover, to remove any ambiguity, Trump prefaced his “America first” proclamation with: “From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land.”

Trump’s vision misunderstands the logic underlying the far larger, far-reaching view of Truman. The Marshall Plan sure took wealth away from the American middle class and distributed it abroad. But for a reason. Altruism, in part. But mostly to stabilize Western Europe as a bulwark against an existential global enemy.

We carried many free riders throughout the Cold War. The burden was heavy. But this was not a mindless act of charity; it was an exercise in enlightened self-interest. After all, it was indeed better to subsidize foreign armies — German, South Korean, Turkish and dozens of others — and have them stand with us, rather than stationing even more American troops everywhere around the world at greater risk of both blood and treasure.

We are embarking upon insularity and smallness. Nor is this just theory. Trump’s long-promised but nonetheless abrupt withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership is the momentous first fruit of his foreign policy doctrine. Last year the prime minister of Singapore told John McCain that if we pulled out of TPP “you’ll be finished in Asia.” He knows the region.

For 70 years, we sustained an international system of open commerce and democratic alliances that has enabled America and the West to grow and thrive. Global leadership is what made America great. We abandon it at our peril.


Charles Krauthammer writes for The Washington Post. Email: [email protected].

rosie >>>playing with semantics like words are silly putty

old lady >>>Which words are those, Rosie?

rosie ONE SMALL EXAMPLE among many>>>>>JFK’s inaugural pledged to support any friend and oppose any foe to assure the success of liberty. Note that Trump makes no distinction between friend and foe (and no reference to liberty). They’re all out to use, exploit and surpass us.

do you have any idea why your are 'thinking me' for your idiotic quotation?

you have cited what TRUMP DID NOT SAY-- the mark of a semantics
bullshitter

Thanks for clearing that up. I wasn't sure what you meant, but you DID answer my question, nonetheless.

 

[sealybobo]

I wanted to share this conservative's view on Trump's foreign policy.

Charles Krauthammer: Trump's foreign-policy revolution

• 
  
  
  • By Charles Krauthammer, The Washington Post
    
  • Jan 29, 2017
    

WASHINGTON — The flurry of bold executive orders and of highly provocative Cabinet nominations (such as a secretary of education who actually believes in school choice) has been encouraging to conservative skeptics of Donald Trump. But it shouldn’t erase the troubling memory of one major element of Trump’s inaugural address.

The foreign policy section has received far less attention than so revolutionary a declaration deserved. It radically redefined the American national interest as understood since World War II.

Trump outlined a world in which foreign relations are collapsed into a zero-sum game. They gain, we lose. As in: “For many decades, we’ve enriched foreign industry at the expense of American industry; subsidized the armies of other countries” while depleting our own. And most provocatively this: “The wealth of our middle class has been ripped from their homes and then redistributed all across the world.”


JFK’s inaugural pledged to support any friend and oppose any foe to assure the success of liberty. Note that Trump makes no distinction between friend and foe (and no reference to liberty). They’re all out to use, exploit and surpass us.

No more, declared Trump: “From this day forward, it’s going to be only America First.”

Imagine how this resonates abroad. “America First” was the name of the organization led by Charles Lindbergh that bitterly fought FDR before U.S. entry into World War II — right through the Battle of Britain — to keep America neutral between Churchill’s Britain and Hitler’s Reich.

Not that Trump was consciously imitating Lindbergh. I doubt he was even aware of the reference. He just liked the phrase. But I can assure you that in London and in every world capital they are aware of the antecedent and the intimations of a new American isolationism. Trump gave them good reason to think so, going on to note “the right of all nations to put their own interests first.” America included.

Some claim that putting America first is a reassertion of American exceptionalism. On the contrary, it is the antithesis. It makes America no different from all the other countries that define themselves by a particularist blood-and-soil nationalism. What made America exceptional, unique in the world, was defining its own national interest beyond its narrow economic and security needs to encompass the safety and prosperity of a vast array of allies. A free world marked by open trade and mutual defense was President Truman’s vision, shared by every president since.

Until now.

Some have argued that Trump is just dangling a bargaining chip to negotiate better terms of trade or alliance. Or that Trump’s views are so changeable and unstable — telling European newspapers two weeks ago that NATO is obsolete and then saying “NATO is very important to me” — that this is just another unmoored entry on a ledger of confusion.


But both claims are demonstrably wrong. An inaugural address is no off-the-cuff riff. These words are the product of at least three weeks of deliberate crafting for an address that Trump said would express his philosophy. Moreover, to remove any ambiguity, Trump prefaced his “America first” proclamation with: “From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land.”

Trump’s vision misunderstands the logic underlying the far larger, far-reaching view of Truman. The Marshall Plan sure took wealth away from the American middle class and distributed it abroad. But for a reason. Altruism, in part. But mostly to stabilize Western Europe as a bulwark against an existential global enemy.

We carried many free riders throughout the Cold War. The burden was heavy. But this was not a mindless act of charity; it was an exercise in enlightened self-interest. After all, it was indeed better to subsidize foreign armies — German, South Korean, Turkish and dozens of others — and have them stand with us, rather than stationing even more American troops everywhere around the world at greater risk of both blood and treasure.

We are embarking upon insularity and smallness. Nor is this just theory. Trump’s long-promised but nonetheless abrupt withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership is the momentous first fruit of his foreign policy doctrine. Last year the prime minister of Singapore told John McCain that if we pulled out of TPP “you’ll be finished in Asia.” He knows the region.

For 70 years, we sustained an international system of open commerce and democratic alliances that has enabled America and the West to grow and thrive. Global leadership is what made America great. We abandon it at our peril.


Charles Krauthammer writes for The Washington Post. Email: [email protected].

He's not a conservative....so.....

No he's a fascist.

 

[irosie91]

As I feared, this thread is quickly going over my head. I never professed to be an "expert," but my biggest concern about Trump has always been this isolationist policy. I don't think it will be a positive outcome, and it worries me. I don't criticize every breath Trump takes just because I didn't vote for him. And I agree with SavannahMann that Turkey should be kicked out of NATO for what it has done in the past year. But we don't need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. We are one of the richest countries in the world. We do pay more to keep allies free as a bulwark against totalitarian regimes that would happily take them--and then us. That is in our best interests, imo.

"isolationist" is such a strong word. I fear you don't fully understand what that actually means.

Nor is it even remotely accurate.

true---nothing "isolationist" about Trump

 

[OldLady]

As I feared, this thread is quickly going over my head. I never professed to be an "expert," but my biggest concern about Trump has always been this isolationist policy. I don't think it will be a positive outcome, and it worries me. I don't criticize every breath Trump takes just because I didn't vote for him. And I agree with SavannahMann that Turkey should be kicked out of NATO for what it has done in the past year. But we don't need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. We are one of the richest countries in the world. We do pay more to keep allies free as a bulwark against totalitarian regimes that would happily take them--and then us. That is in our best interests, imo.

What isolationist policy? What on Earth are you talking about?

Read the OP

Why don't Republicans care that Trump just pissed on the Constitution?

The Constitution requires the executive branch, which includes DHS, to obey federal court orders as a check on its power. And they did not this weekend.

Senate Democrats Call For Investigation Into Trump Officials' Failure To Obey Court Orders | The Huffington Post

Trump's going to get impeached.

Doubt it.

 

[sealybobo]

If you don't know take my word for it.

'

I prefer a link

Then stop talking about what is and isn't constitutional when you dopes don't even know. You pretended to know when Obama was in office but now you play stupid.

I never mentioned anything about the constitution in reference to Obama----
SCHMUCK. Let me review-----your contention----somewhere in the constitution
it says-----the PRESIDENT OF THE USA IS BOUND by any ruling made in Federal Court by any Federal judge-------ok I will try to find out----some day

Collins: Trump's Refugee Ban 'Likely Unconstitutional,' Bannon Appointment 'Entirely Inappropriate'

Ana Navarro Excoriates Republicans For Not Standing Up To Trump's Unconstitutional Muslim Ban

Trump's Unconstitutional Attack on Sanctuary Cities
How the president’s executive order debases the Constitution.

There is no Muslim ban.

This is so obviously wrong. Especially when Trump didn't ban people from Saudi Arabia which is where the terrorists came from. Why didn't he ban them? Because he has business dealings with them. This is why we should have demanded he release his taxes or not win the Presidency. You guys didn't care because you aren't that bright.

 

[irosie91]

'

I prefer a link

Then stop talking about what is and isn't constitutional when you dopes don't even know. You pretended to know when Obama was in office but now you play stupid.

I never mentioned anything about the constitution in reference to Obama----
SCHMUCK. Let me review-----your contention----somewhere in the constitution
it says-----the PRESIDENT OF THE USA IS BOUND by any ruling made in Federal Court by any Federal judge-------ok I will try to find out----some day

Collins: Trump's Refugee Ban 'Likely Unconstitutional,' Bannon Appointment 'Entirely Inappropriate'

Ana Navarro Excoriates Republicans For Not Standing Up To Trump's Unconstitutional Muslim Ban

Trump's Unconstitutional Attack on Sanctuary Cities
How the president’s executive order debases the Constitution.

There is no Muslim ban.

This is so obviously wrong. Especially when Trump didn't ban people from Saudi Arabia which is where the terrorists came from. Why didn't he ban them? Because he has business dealings with them. This is why we should have demanded he release his taxes or not win the Presidency. You guys didn't care because you aren't that bright.

Immigrants to the USA from Saudi Arabia? you know any? Did Osama
have USA citizenship?

 

[OldLady]

George Will just got dumped by Fox. He and Krauthammer are establishment types who are terrified of Trump because he couldn't care less what they think. Both were comfortable with RINOs like Romney and Bush, both men's contacts no longer know anything, and neither are relevant anymore.

Fortunately, Krauthammer and Will have real jobs, not just as guests on Fox.

 

[OldLady]

As I feared, this thread is quickly going over my head. I never professed to be an "expert," but my biggest concern about Trump has always been this isolationist policy. I don't think it will be a positive outcome, and it worries me. I don't criticize every breath Trump takes just because I didn't vote for him. And I agree with SavannahMann that Turkey should be kicked out of NATO for what it has done in the past year. But we don't need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. We are one of the richest countries in the world. We do pay more to keep allies free as a bulwark against totalitarian regimes that would happily take them--and then us. That is in our best interests, imo.

What isolationist policy? What on Earth are you talking about?

Read the OP

I did... what is "isolationist" about vetting immigrants?

Vetting immigrants is another thread.

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

As I feared, this thread is quickly going over my head. I never professed to be an "expert," but my biggest concern about Trump has always been this isolationist policy. I don't think it will be a positive outcome, and it worries me. I don't criticize every breath Trump takes just because I didn't vote for him. And I agree with SavannahMann that Turkey should be kicked out of NATO for what it has done in the past year. But we don't need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. We are one of the richest countries in the world. We do pay more to keep allies free as a bulwark against totalitarian regimes that would happily take them--and then us. That is in our best interests, imo.

What isolationist policy? What on Earth are you talking about?

Read the OP

I did... what is "isolationist" about vetting immigrants?

Vetting immigrants is another thread.

Speech Nazi !!

 

[Tom Horn]

This is so obviously wrong. Especially when Trump didn't ban people from Saudi Arabia which is where the terrorists came from. Why didn't he ban them? Because he has business dealings with them. This is why we should have demanded he release his taxes or not win the Presidency. You guys didn't care because you aren't that bright.

First off, Trump has no connection to his company anymore, and secondly the Saudis have cracked down on their own jihadists and are fighting the trash in Yemen. We will need their money and influence to end the carnage in Syria.

 

[Doc1]

I wanted to share this conservative's view on Trump's foreign policy.

Charles Krauthammer: Trump's foreign-policy revolution

• 
  
  
  • By Charles Krauthammer, The Washington Post
    
  • Jan 29, 2017
    

WASHINGTON — The flurry of bold executive orders and of highly provocative Cabinet nominations (such as a secretary of education who actually believes in school choice) has been encouraging to conservative skeptics of Donald Trump. But it shouldn’t erase the troubling memory of one major element of Trump’s inaugural address.

The foreign policy section has received far less attention than so revolutionary a declaration deserved. It radically redefined the American national interest as understood since World War II.

Trump outlined a world in which foreign relations are collapsed into a zero-sum game. They gain, we lose. As in: “For many decades, we’ve enriched foreign industry at the expense of American industry; subsidized the armies of other countries” while depleting our own. And most provocatively this: “The wealth of our middle class has been ripped from their homes and then redistributed all across the world.”


JFK’s inaugural pledged to support any friend and oppose any foe to assure the success of liberty. Note that Trump makes no distinction between friend and foe (and no reference to liberty). They’re all out to use, exploit and surpass us.

No more, declared Trump: “From this day forward, it’s going to be only America First.”

Imagine how this resonates abroad. “America First” was the name of the organization led by Charles Lindbergh that bitterly fought FDR before U.S. entry into World War II — right through the Battle of Britain — to keep America neutral between Churchill’s Britain and Hitler’s Reich.

Not that Trump was consciously imitating Lindbergh. I doubt he was even aware of the reference. He just liked the phrase. But I can assure you that in London and in every world capital they are aware of the antecedent and the intimations of a new American isolationism. Trump gave them good reason to think so, going on to note “the right of all nations to put their own interests first.” America included.

Some claim that putting America first is a reassertion of American exceptionalism. On the contrary, it is the antithesis. It makes America no different from all the other countries that define themselves by a particularist blood-and-soil nationalism. What made America exceptional, unique in the world, was defining its own national interest beyond its narrow economic and security needs to encompass the safety and prosperity of a vast array of allies. A free world marked by open trade and mutual defense was President Truman’s vision, shared by every president since.

Until now.

Some have argued that Trump is just dangling a bargaining chip to negotiate better terms of trade or alliance. Or that Trump’s views are so changeable and unstable — telling European newspapers two weeks ago that NATO is obsolete and then saying “NATO is very important to me” — that this is just another unmoored entry on a ledger of confusion.


But both claims are demonstrably wrong. An inaugural address is no off-the-cuff riff. These words are the product of at least three weeks of deliberate crafting for an address that Trump said would express his philosophy. Moreover, to remove any ambiguity, Trump prefaced his “America first” proclamation with: “From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land.”

Trump’s vision misunderstands the logic underlying the far larger, far-reaching view of Truman. The Marshall Plan sure took wealth away from the American middle class and distributed it abroad. But for a reason. Altruism, in part. But mostly to stabilize Western Europe as a bulwark against an existential global enemy.

We carried many free riders throughout the Cold War. The burden was heavy. But this was not a mindless act of charity; it was an exercise in enlightened self-interest. After all, it was indeed better to subsidize foreign armies — German, South Korean, Turkish and dozens of others — and have them stand with us, rather than stationing even more American troops everywhere around the world at greater risk of both blood and treasure.

We are embarking upon insularity and smallness. Nor is this just theory. Trump’s long-promised but nonetheless abrupt withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership is the momentous first fruit of his foreign policy doctrine. Last year the prime minister of Singapore told John McCain that if we pulled out of TPP “you’ll be finished in Asia.” He knows the region.

For 70 years, we sustained an international system of open commerce and democratic alliances that has enabled America and the West to grow and thrive. Global leadership is what made America great. We abandon it at our peril.


Charles Krauthammer writes for The Washington Post. Email: [email protected].

Eight years of Obama?

I thought the world was supposed to be great now.

At the very least the World should be healing and the Seas should have stopped rising.....