America First. R U Sure?

[sealybobo]

courts temporarily blocked major parts of the order, the administration defied the courts and Democrats called for an investigation into the administration’s defiance.

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.

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

When federal judges rule, government officials — up to and including the president — are supposed to obey or risk being held in contempt of court. A government that ignored the courts would be able to violate the law and the Constitution at will. So for more than two centuries, the nation’s courts have had the last word on what’s legal and constitutional — and what is not.

 

[TNHarley]

What? Are you trying to justify your ignorance? Get the fuck outta here

Color me shock but I remember quite well you love & adore Putin before Obama.

Color me shocked but I remember quit well you are retarded.

It was just last month and you cared what a foreign dictator thought but now you don't care what Germany, England, Canada or Mexico thinks? What the fuck is wrong with you?

What did I care about?

Last month you guys preferred a leader that Putin could do business with. But you don't give a fuck the rest of the world doesn't want to do business with Trump. Or they do but he's making them want it less and less. He's ruining our standing in the world. Fact.

You thought Obama was bad? Then you're a brain dead chimp imo.

I don't care if people get pissed at us for putting citizens first.
Obama was bad. And frankly, using an 8 year president to compare to one that has been in office for 10 days is ignorant as hell.
you're a brain dead chimp
irony

 

[TNHarley]

Color me shocked but I remember quit well you are retarded.

When the entire world says you and Trump are wrong, maybe you are wrong. Scientists, Europe, England, Mexico, Canada. Oh boy this is starting to remind me of when Bush lied us into Iraq almost alone but said he had the backing of the "coalition of the willing".

Well England's PM is trying to stay chummy with Trump and her citizens are not having it. Maybe you guys suck? Ever think of that?

U.S. Diplomats Drafted A 'Dissent Memo' Objecting To Trump's Muslim Ban | The Huffington Post

wrong about what? WTF are you talking about?

See forkup's well thought out post dummy

you make it very hard to keep up with you.. that isn't a compliment.

I put all you rwnj's in one category. Until I know you better you may as well be Trump himself. And I don't care about beating you in a war of words. I want to beat THEM. You represent them. Don't flatter yourself into thinking anyone cares about the little nuances that make you all different. Just a different nut in a bag of nuts.

You want to beat them? Who is them?

 

[Correll]

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

How are we endangered by Russia/Iran economically and militarily? Give me your scenario(s).

 

[toomuchtime_]

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].

President Trump is not an ideological conservative. I though everyone understood that by now. He is a pragmatist who leans right. America first has nothing to do with isolationism. It means America should no longer sacrifice its economic advantages in order to try to build a new world order, but should continue to build alliances which will serve the needs of the American people. Since America's vast economy depends on conditions conducive to trade, the US will continue to vital interests in peace and democracy around the world, but the emphasis will be on how whatever intervention we consider will advance American interests rather than how much we are willing to sacrifice to build a new world order.

After WWII, faced with a Cold War with the USSR and a devastated Europe, it made sense for the US to take on the burden of rebuilding much of the world, but times have changed. The Russian Federation is no longer motivated by the ideology that directed it to change the world; it now seeks just its own national advantage, just as the US under President Trump does, and there is no reason to think the two countries cannot reach agreements that serve our mutual interests. It is a mistake to think that the conditions of WWII and its aftermath have defined America and American interests forever since those conditions no longer exist.

If America is to be as great in the future as it was in the past it must adapt to the changes in the world and not try to cling to world views and policies of the past that were themselves adaptations to the changes in the world at that time.

 

[Correll]

The level of cognitive dissonance of conservatives is incredible!

Globalism is, more than anything, business people doing business across national borders without government intervention.

Conservatives claim to want smaller government, less regulation and less government interference. They claim to be for free markets.

Isolationism, America first, protectionism are extremely contrary to these principals.

I get the idea that most conservatives, especially Trump supporters, are a completely mindless bunch that just parrots whatever they are told without thinking anything through.

 

[Correll]

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].

President Trump is not an ideological conservative. I though everyone understood that by now. He is a pragmatist who leans right. America first has nothing to do with isolationism. It means America should no longer sacrifice its economic advantages in order to try to build a new world order, but should continue to build alliances which will serve the needs of the American people. Since America's vast economy depends on conditions conducive to trade, the US will continue to vital interests in peace and democracy around the world, but the emphasis will be on how whatever intervention we consider will advance American interests rather than how much we are willing to sacrifice to build a new world order.

After WWII, faced with a Cold War with the USSR and a devastated Europe, it made sense for the US to take on the burden of rebuilding much of the world, but times have changed. The Russian Federation is no longer motivated by the ideology that directed it to change the world; it now seeks just its own national advantage, just as the US under President Trump does, and there is no reason to think the two countries cannot reach agreements that serve our mutual interests. It is a mistake to think that the conditions of WWII and its aftermath have defined America and American interests forever since those conditions no longer exist.

If America is to be as great in the future as it was in the past it must adapt to the changes in the world and not try to cling to world views and policies of the past that were themselves adaptations to the changes in the world at that time.

That was very well put. Especially about the ideological change in Russia.

 

[jc456]

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.
.

dude, what he has stated throughout is that the countries within nato need to pay for our services. Nothing more, nothing less. He never said he was interested in getting out.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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.
.

dude, what he has stated throughout is that the countries within nato need to pay for our services. Nothing more, nothing less. He never said he was interested in getting out.

And he wants NATO to devote more resources to fighting transnational terrorism.

 

[jc456]

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.
.

dude, what he has stated throughout is that the countries within nato need to pay for our services. Nothing more, nothing less. He never said he was interested in getting out.

And he wants NATO to devote more resources to fighting transnational terrorism.

where do these fking nut jobs come from who most always talk shit about things that were never said? I don't get it? I thought we were all americans? Why do these whackadoodles wish the US to die? WOW!!!

 

[Norman]

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].

Blablablablabla...

Does this guy ever get to the point?


Well I read the whole text and the answer seems to be: No.

 

[OldLady]

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].

President Trump is not an ideological conservative. I though everyone understood that by now. He is a pragmatist who leans right. America first has nothing to do with isolationism. It means America should no longer sacrifice its economic advantages in order to try to build a new world order, but should continue to build alliances which will serve the needs of the American people. Since America's vast economy depends on conditions conducive to trade, the US will continue to vital interests in peace and democracy around the world, but the emphasis will be on how whatever intervention we consider will advance American interests rather than how much we are willing to sacrifice to build a new world order.

After WWII, faced with a Cold War with the USSR and a devastated Europe, it made sense for the US to take on the burden of rebuilding much of the world, but times have changed. The Russian Federation is no longer motivated by the ideology that directed it to change the world; it now seeks just its own national advantage, just as the US under President Trump does, and there is no reason to think the two countries cannot reach agreements that serve our mutual interests. It is a mistake to think that the conditions of WWII and its aftermath have defined America and American interests forever since those conditions no longer exist.

If America is to be as great in the future as it was in the past it must adapt to the changes in the world and not try to cling to world views and policies of the past that were themselves adaptations to the changes in the world at that time.

Well said. I hope you are right that America will continue to be respected and have mutually beneficial alliances with nations that enhance our security and well being. Like I said earlier, there is a lot of guessing going on right now; it is a serious change in policy and I am not liking all of what I'm hearing. But again, I hope you're right.

 

[jc456]

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].

President Trump is not an ideological conservative. I though everyone understood that by now. He is a pragmatist who leans right. America first has nothing to do with isolationism. It means America should no longer sacrifice its economic advantages in order to try to build a new world order, but should continue to build alliances which will serve the needs of the American people. Since America's vast economy depends on conditions conducive to trade, the US will continue to vital interests in peace and democracy around the world, but the emphasis will be on how whatever intervention we consider will advance American interests rather than how much we are willing to sacrifice to build a new world order.

After WWII, faced with a Cold War with the USSR and a devastated Europe, it made sense for the US to take on the burden of rebuilding much of the world, but times have changed. The Russian Federation is no longer motivated by the ideology that directed it to change the world; it now seeks just its own national advantage, just as the US under President Trump does, and there is no reason to think the two countries cannot reach agreements that serve our mutual interests. It is a mistake to think that the conditions of WWII and its aftermath have defined America and American interests forever since those conditions no longer exist.

If America is to be as great in the future as it was in the past it must adapt to the changes in the world and not try to cling to world views and policies of the past that were themselves adaptations to the changes in the world at that time.

Well said. I hope you are right that America will continue to be respected and have mutually beneficial alliances with nations that enhance our security and well being. Like I said earlier, there is a lot of guessing going on right now; it is a serious change in policy and I am not liking all of what I'm hearing. But again, I hope you're right.

are you one that hopes that America fails?

 

[BluesLegend]

Krauthammer is a Trump hater and GOP establishment fan boy. These so called professional politicians have made a giant mess, Trump is determined to clean up the mess and that gave the establishment a case of the vapors.

 

[Correll]

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].

Allow me to put an European outlook to this OP. I'm a Belgian citizen with an American wife. Most of my in laws voted for Trump and I don't consider them stupid or racist. Having said that this is what is happening in my country and I suspect the world. For 70 years now the Western World has looked for guidance from the US, a deferral your country has earned through expending of lives and vast sums of money. A sacrifice that has earned the US the right to permeate our society with both your business and culture. I grew up on American TV shows and with McDonald's for food and Ford for Transport. The value of oil is expressed in USD. I love the idea of the US, the sheer exuberance, tolerance and tenacity as portrayed on TV and experienced now by my marriage.
That's why most of us watched with wonder how someone who reminds most Europeans of some of it's darkest days, could be put in charge of your country. I want to put out front now that my post is not meant as another Hitler reminder, simply a notice that for Europeans someone who campaigned as Trump did, makes people remember that the last time someone got himself elected by demonising other groups in huge unruly rallies, Europe was set ablaze. So Trump before he came to power was looked at very warily. Then in less than 2 weeks, he showed us that what was said in those rallies was not empty words, and what's more that he isn't planning to allow anyone to hold him accountable.
Why is this important? Trump is creating a power vacuum. Where the US leads under Trump, most nations do not want to follow. This will quickly result in all deference to the US eroding away. This also will result in instability while the western world realigns itself. Where it ends I don't know, but all throughout history global instability are very bloody times. For a lot of people on this board " I don't care" would be the most common response to that, but those people should note that losing global influence mean that you inevitably will have less control over events and that that control is the very source of your power.

You know your in laws are not stupid or racist.

Yet the same people who are telling you that TRump has "demonized other groups" are telling you that your in-laws are stupid and racist.


IF those people are wrong about your in laws, then maybe they are wrong about TRump.

 

[Correll]

courts temporarily blocked major parts of the order, the administration defied the courts and Democrats called for an investigation into the administration’s defiance.

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.

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

When federal judges rule, government officials — up to and including the president — are supposed to obey or risk being held in contempt of court. A government that ignored the courts would be able to violate the law and the Constitution at will. So for more than two centuries, the nation’s courts have had the last word on what’s legal and constitutional — and what is not.

Maybe you libs should have thought of that, before you politicized them.

 

[forkup]

Here's a scenario. Trump has made it very

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

How are we endangered by Russia/Iran economically and militarily? Give me your scenario(s).

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].

Allow me to put an European outlook to this OP. I'm a Belgian citizen with an American wife. Most of my in laws voted for Trump and I don't consider them stupid or racist. Having said that this is what is happening in my country and I suspect the world. For 70 years now the Western World has looked for guidance from the US, a deferral your country has earned through expending of lives and vast sums of money. A sacrifice that has earned the US the right to permeate our society with both your business and culture. I grew up on American TV shows and with McDonald's for food and Ford for Transport. The value of oil is expressed in USD. I love the idea of the US, the sheer exuberance, tolerance and tenacity as portrayed on TV and experienced now by my marriage.
That's why most of us watched with wonder how someone who reminds most Europeans of some of it's darkest days, could be put in charge of your country. I want to put out front now that my post is not meant as another Hitler reminder, simply a notice that for Europeans someone who campaigned as Trump did, makes people remember that the last time someone got himself elected by demonising other groups in huge unruly rallies, Europe was set ablaze. So Trump before he came to power was looked at very warily. Then in less than 2 weeks, he showed us that what was said in those rallies was not empty words, and what's more that he isn't planning to allow anyone to hold him accountable.
Why is this important? Trump is creating a power vacuum. Where the US leads under Trump, most nations do not want to follow. This will quickly result in all deference to the US eroding away. This also will result in instability while the western world realigns itself. Where it ends I don't know, but all throughout history global instability are very bloody times. For a lot of people on this board " I don't care" would be the most common response to that, but those people should note that losing global influence mean that you inevitably will have less control over events and that that control is the very source of your power.

You know your in laws are not stupid or racist.

Yet the same people who are telling you that TRump has "demonized other groups" are telling you that your in-laws are stupid and racist.


IF those people are wrong about your in laws, then maybe they are wrong about TRump.

Nobody is telling me that he demonised other groups it's all on tape.



These are not figments of imagination, these are not distortions by the press, this is the current US president speaking.

 

[jc456]

Here's a scenario. Trump has made it very

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

How are we endangered by Russia/Iran economically and militarily? Give me your scenario(s).

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].

Allow me to put an European outlook to this OP. I'm a Belgian citizen with an American wife. Most of my in laws voted for Trump and I don't consider them stupid or racist. Having said that this is what is happening in my country and I suspect the world. For 70 years now the Western World has looked for guidance from the US, a deferral your country has earned through expending of lives and vast sums of money. A sacrifice that has earned the US the right to permeate our society with both your business and culture. I grew up on American TV shows and with McDonald's for food and Ford for Transport. The value of oil is expressed in USD. I love the idea of the US, the sheer exuberance, tolerance and tenacity as portrayed on TV and experienced now by my marriage.
That's why most of us watched with wonder how someone who reminds most Europeans of some of it's darkest days, could be put in charge of your country. I want to put out front now that my post is not meant as another Hitler reminder, simply a notice that for Europeans someone who campaigned as Trump did, makes people remember that the last time someone got himself elected by demonising other groups in huge unruly rallies, Europe was set ablaze. So Trump before he came to power was looked at very warily. Then in less than 2 weeks, he showed us that what was said in those rallies was not empty words, and what's more that he isn't planning to allow anyone to hold him accountable.
Why is this important? Trump is creating a power vacuum. Where the US leads under Trump, most nations do not want to follow. This will quickly result in all deference to the US eroding away. This also will result in instability while the western world realigns itself. Where it ends I don't know, but all throughout history global instability are very bloody times. For a lot of people on this board " I don't care" would be the most common response to that, but those people should note that losing global influence mean that you inevitably will have less control over events and that that control is the very source of your power.

You know your in laws are not stupid or racist.

Yet the same people who are telling you that TRump has "demonized other groups" are telling you that your in-laws are stupid and racist.


IF those people are wrong about your in laws, then maybe they are wrong about TRump.

Nobody is telling me that he demonised other groups it's all on tape.



These are not figments of imagination, these are not distortions by the press, this is the current US president speaking.

so what's your point?

 

[forkup]

Here's a scenario. Trump has made it very

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

How are we endangered by Russia/Iran economically and militarily? Give me your scenario(s).

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].

Allow me to put an European outlook to this OP. I'm a Belgian citizen with an American wife. Most of my in laws voted for Trump and I don't consider them stupid or racist. Having said that this is what is happening in my country and I suspect the world. For 70 years now the Western World has looked for guidance from the US, a deferral your country has earned through expending of lives and vast sums of money. A sacrifice that has earned the US the right to permeate our society with both your business and culture. I grew up on American TV shows and with McDonald's for food and Ford for Transport. The value of oil is expressed in USD. I love the idea of the US, the sheer exuberance, tolerance and tenacity as portrayed on TV and experienced now by my marriage.
That's why most of us watched with wonder how someone who reminds most Europeans of some of it's darkest days, could be put in charge of your country. I want to put out front now that my post is not meant as another Hitler reminder, simply a notice that for Europeans someone who campaigned as Trump did, makes people remember that the last time someone got himself elected by demonising other groups in huge unruly rallies, Europe was set ablaze. So Trump before he came to power was looked at very warily. Then in less than 2 weeks, he showed us that what was said in those rallies was not empty words, and what's more that he isn't planning to allow anyone to hold him accountable.
Why is this important? Trump is creating a power vacuum. Where the US leads under Trump, most nations do not want to follow. This will quickly result in all deference to the US eroding away. This also will result in instability while the western world realigns itself. Where it ends I don't know, but all throughout history global instability are very bloody times. For a lot of people on this board " I don't care" would be the most common response to that, but those people should note that losing global influence mean that you inevitably will have less control over events and that that control is the very source of your power.

You know your in laws are not stupid or racist.

Yet the same people who are telling you that TRump has "demonized other groups" are telling you that your in-laws are stupid and racist.


IF those people are wrong about your in laws, then maybe they are wrong about TRump.

Nobody is telling me that he demonised other groups it's all on tape.



These are not figments of imagination, these are not distortions by the press, this is the current US president speaking.

so what's your point?

Sorry about that wanted to reply to something else. If you want me to finish that post I will but I fear it will meander to much of topic.

 

[jc456]

Here's a scenario. Trump has made it very

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

How are we endangered by Russia/Iran economically and militarily? Give me your scenario(s).

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].

Allow me to put an European outlook to this OP. I'm a Belgian citizen with an American wife. Most of my in laws voted for Trump and I don't consider them stupid or racist. Having said that this is what is happening in my country and I suspect the world. For 70 years now the Western World has looked for guidance from the US, a deferral your country has earned through expending of lives and vast sums of money. A sacrifice that has earned the US the right to permeate our society with both your business and culture. I grew up on American TV shows and with McDonald's for food and Ford for Transport. The value of oil is expressed in USD. I love the idea of the US, the sheer exuberance, tolerance and tenacity as portrayed on TV and experienced now by my marriage.
That's why most of us watched with wonder how someone who reminds most Europeans of some of it's darkest days, could be put in charge of your country. I want to put out front now that my post is not meant as another Hitler reminder, simply a notice that for Europeans someone who campaigned as Trump did, makes people remember that the last time someone got himself elected by demonising other groups in huge unruly rallies, Europe was set ablaze. So Trump before he came to power was looked at very warily. Then in less than 2 weeks, he showed us that what was said in those rallies was not empty words, and what's more that he isn't planning to allow anyone to hold him accountable.
Why is this important? Trump is creating a power vacuum. Where the US leads under Trump, most nations do not want to follow. This will quickly result in all deference to the US eroding away. This also will result in instability while the western world realigns itself. Where it ends I don't know, but all throughout history global instability are very bloody times. For a lot of people on this board " I don't care" would be the most common response to that, but those people should note that losing global influence mean that you inevitably will have less control over events and that that control is the very source of your power.

You know your in laws are not stupid or racist.

Yet the same people who are telling you that TRump has "demonized other groups" are telling you that your in-laws are stupid and racist.


IF those people are wrong about your in laws, then maybe they are wrong about TRump.

Nobody is telling me that he demonised other groups it's all on tape.



These are not figments of imagination, these are not distortions by the press, this is the current US president speaking.

so what's your point?

Sorry about that wanted to reply to something else. If you want me to finish that post I will but I fear it will meander to much of topic.

well i wondered what you think was in all of those videos? I mean you made a comment and then posted videos and none of those videos support your OP.