Leader of the Free World? I don't think so

[SassyIrishLass]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/us/politics/trump-budget-spending-cuts.html

So Trump increases funding to the military while he slashes funding to the State Department. What is the purpose of the State Department? To represent our interests abroad. How do we "lead" the free world when our President slashes funds for foreign diplomats and the UN? How do we diplomatically engage our allies and opponents with a shadow State Department?

Trumps answer seems to be to resolve issues with the military rather than diplomacy. The same man who vowed to avoid foreign entanglements has decimated the agency that allows us to resolve conflicts without committing our troops

Inexplicable. Regardless of whether the foreign policy is military power-first or diplomacy-first, global intelligence has to be at the very top of our list of priorities.

Particularly considering the fact that cyber warfare may be the next major global battleground.
.

Obama spent the last eight years engaging our allies to assume a stronger role in global affairs. Let them engage their military. Let them assume the risk. Diplomacy was valued over military action and military action was deferred to our allies.

Slashing our State Department is not a solution to reducing our foreign entanglements. Republicans have been harping about cutting foreign aid for decades. But foreign aid serves a purpose. It is the carrot that we offer so we don't have to use the military stick

Trump seems intent on leaving us no options but the stick

And how has that carrot been working for us?

Quite well

It enabled us to avoid boots on the ground in Libya, Egypt, Syria. It has allowed improved communications and interaction with Cuba and Iran. It has enabled us to rely more on our NATO allies

Those are examples of failure.......gggeeeez

Hardly....not having American soldiers coming home in body bags is not a failure
That is why we maintain a State Department

You're so used to failure you think it's the norm.

All three were examples of an inept administration having no clue

 

[rightwinger]

I guess the word "slash" sounds better to the angry left wing ear than the word "reduce". You can count on a propaganda storm of fake news generated by the criminal conspiracy in the media and the left wing blogs as long as a president with balls dares to reduce the funding and streamline gigantic government bureaucracies. . That's what we hired him to do.

30% is not a reduction ...it is a slashing of funding that will require a redefinition of the State Departments mission
Trumps budget is not "fake news"...it is there for all to see

 

[gipper]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/us/politics/trump-budget-spending-cuts.html

So Trump increases funding to the military while he slashes funding to the State Department. What is the purpose of the State Department? To represent our interests abroad. How do we "lead" the free world when our President slashes funds for foreign diplomats and the UN? How do we diplomatically engage our allies and opponents with a shadow State Department?

Trumps answer seems to be to resolve issues with the military rather than diplomacy. The same man who vowed to avoid foreign entanglements has decimated the agency that allows us to resolve conflicts without committing our troops

Inexplicable. Regardless of whether the foreign policy is military power-first or diplomacy-first, global nod has to be at the very top of our list of priorities.

Particularly considering the fact that cyber warfare may be the next major global battleground.
.

Obama spent the last eight years engaging our allies to assume a stronger role in global affairs. Let them engage their military. Let them assume the risk. Diplomacy was valued over military action and military action was deferred to our allies.

Slashing our State Department is not a solution to reducing our foreign entanglements. Republicans have been harping about cutting foreign aid for decades. But foreign aid serves a purpose. It is the carrot that we offer so we don't have to use the military stick

Trump seems intent on leaving us no options but the stick

And how has that carrot been working for us?

Quite well

It enabled us to avoid boots on the ground in Libya, Egypt, Syria. It has allowed improved communications and interaction with Cuba and Iran. It has enabled us to rely more on our NATO allies

Libya, Egypt and Syria were massive failures under Ears you moron

How many American soldiers were killed in each country?

Don't be dumb....I know not possible.

If the only thing that matters is the numbers killed, you might be liberal moron.

 

[rightwinger]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/us/politics/trump-budget-spending-cuts.html

So Trump increases funding to the military while he slashes funding to the State Department. What is the purpose of the State Department? To represent our interests abroad. How do we "lead" the free world when our President slashes funds for foreign diplomats and the UN? How do we diplomatically engage our allies and opponents with a shadow State Department?

Trumps answer seems to be to resolve issues with the military rather than diplomacy. The same man who vowed to avoid foreign entanglements has decimated the agency that allows us to resolve conflicts without committing our troops

You silly fucker. Cutting funding to any agency does not necessarily mean you get a less effective agency. All federal agencies can stand across the board 15% cuts in funding in order to cut bloat and force administrative budgeting more in line with what is done in the private sector.

Of course, if you don't pay taxes (like you) then you have no skin in the game because it is someone else's money. As such, your opinion should be substantially discounted.

Your statement shows why conservatives are such morons

Arbitrary slashing of funding will have no impact on the end result. Your funding shows where your priorities are and it is obvious that diplomacy and leadership in the free world is not a priority with Trump.30% less funding means less people, less travel, less interaction in the global community

Trump is once again playing into Putin's hands by diminishing the ability of the US to lead a global coalition. Weaken our state department (which Putin hates), weaken NATO, weaken the UN ...all create a void that Putin can fill

You have no idea what you are talking about, Shit Flinger. We ought to be encouraging efficiency. There is no logic in saying an agency is less effective with less money.

Less funding = less effective
Yes, that is logical

Provide an example where 30% less funding makes you more effective

 

[gipper]

I guess the word "slash" sounds better to the angry left wing ear than the word "reduce". You can count on a propaganda storm of fake news generated by the criminal conspiracy in the media and the left wing blogs as long as a president with balls dares to reduce the funding and streamline gigantic government bureaucracies. . That's what we hired him to do.

30% is not a reduction ...it is a slashing of funding that will require a redefinition of the State Departments mission
Trumps budget is not "fake news"...it is there for all to see

don't worry Leftnutter, the Rs will make sure Trump's budget goes no where. You should start blowing Rs like you blow Ds.

 

[Manonthestreet]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/us/politics/trump-budget-spending-cuts.html

So Trump increases funding to the military while he slashes funding to the State Department. What is the purpose of the State Department? To represent our interests abroad. How do we "lead" the free world when our President slashes funds for foreign diplomats and the UN? How do we diplomatically engage our allies and opponents with a shadow State Department?

Trumps answer seems to be to resolve issues with the military rather than diplomacy. The same man who vowed to avoid foreign entanglements has decimated the agency that allows us to resolve conflicts without committing our troops

Inexplicable. Regardless of whether the foreign policy is military power-first or diplomacy-first, global intelligence has to be at the very top of our list of priorities.

Particularly considering the fact that cyber warfare may be the next major global battleground.
.

Obama spent the last eight years engaging our allies to assume a stronger role in global affairs. Let them engage their military. Let them assume the risk. Diplomacy was valued over military action and military action was deferred to our allies.

Slashing our State Department is not a solution to reducing our foreign entanglements. Republicans have been harping about cutting foreign aid for decades. But foreign aid serves a purpose. It is the carrot that we offer so we don't have to use the military stick

Trump seems intent on leaving us no options but the stick

And how has that carrot been working for us?

Quite well

It enabled us to avoid boots on the ground in Libya, Egypt, Syria. It has allowed improved communications and interaction with Cuba and Iran. It has enabled us to rely more on our NATO allies

Those are examples of failure.......gggeeeez

Hardly....not having American soldiers coming home in body bags is not a failure
That is why we maintain a State Department

You destroyed Libya and handed it to terrorists and tried to do the same in the other 2 ....That's not success or leadership

 

[Rob37]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/us/politics/trump-budget-spending-cuts.html

So Trump increases funding to the military while he slashes funding to the State Department. What is the purpose of the State Department? To represent our interests abroad. How do we "lead" the free world when our President slashes funds for foreign diplomats and the UN? How do we diplomatically engage our allies and opponents with a shadow State Department?

Trumps answer seems to be to resolve issues with the military rather than diplomacy. The same man who vowed to avoid foreign entanglements has decimated the agency that allows us to resolve conflicts without committing our troops

You silly fucker. Cutting funding to any agency does not necessarily mean you get a less effective agency. All federal agencies can stand across the board 15% cuts in funding in order to cut bloat and force administrative budgeting more in line with what is done in the private sector.

Of course, if you don't pay taxes (like you) then you have no skin in the game because it is someone else's money. As such, your opinion should be substantially discounted.

Your statement shows why conservatives are such morons

Arbitrary slashing of funding will have no impact on the end result. Your funding shows where your priorities are and it is obvious that diplomacy and leadership in the free world is not a priority with Trump.30% less funding means less people, less travel, less interaction in the global community

Trump is once again playing into Putin's hands by diminishing the ability of the US to lead a global coalition. Weaken our state department (which Putin hates), weaken NATO, weaken the UN ...all create a void that Putin can fill

You have no idea what you are talking about, Shit Flinger. We ought to be encouraging efficiency. There is no logic in saying an agency is less effective with less money.

Less funding = less effective
Yes, that is logical

Provide an example where 30% less funding makes you more effective

It is not logical. Private business can do twice as much on half the budget.

 

[gipper]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/us/politics/trump-budget-spending-cuts.html

So Trump increases funding to the military while he slashes funding to the State Department. What is the purpose of the State Department? To represent our interests abroad. How do we "lead" the free world when our President slashes funds for foreign diplomats and the UN? How do we diplomatically engage our allies and opponents with a shadow State Department?

Trumps answer seems to be to resolve issues with the military rather than diplomacy. The same man who vowed to avoid foreign entanglements has decimated the agency that allows us to resolve conflicts without committing our troops

Obama spent the last eight years engaging our allies to assume a stronger role in global affairs. Let them engage their military. Let them assume the risk. Diplomacy was valued over military action and military action was deferred to our allies.

Slashing our State Department is not a solution to reducing our foreign entanglements. Republicans have been harping about cutting foreign aid for decades. But foreign aid serves a purpose. It is the carrot that we offer so we don't have to use the military stick

Trump seems intent on leaving us no options but the stick

And how has that carrot been working for us?

Quite well

It enabled us to avoid boots on the ground in Libya, Egypt, Syria. It has allowed improved communications and interaction with Cuba and Iran. It has enabled us to rely more on our NATO allies

Those are examples of failure.......gggeeeez

Hardly....not having American soldiers coming home in body bags is not a failure
That is why we maintain a State Department

You destroyed Libya and handed it to terrorists and tried to do the same in the other 2 ....That's not success or leadership

He doesn't know what happened in Libya, beyond a video that caused the death of four Americans.

 

[Manonthestreet]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/us/politics/trump-budget-spending-cuts.html

So Trump increases funding to the military while he slashes funding to the State Department. What is the purpose of the State Department? To represent our interests abroad. How do we "lead" the free world when our President slashes funds for foreign diplomats and the UN? How do we diplomatically engage our allies and opponents with a shadow State Department?

Trumps answer seems to be to resolve issues with the military rather than diplomacy. The same man who vowed to avoid foreign entanglements has decimated the agency that allows us to resolve conflicts without committing our troops

You silly fucker. Cutting funding to any agency does not necessarily mean you get a less effective agency. All federal agencies can stand across the board 15% cuts in funding in order to cut bloat and force administrative budgeting more in line with what is done in the private sector.

Of course, if you don't pay taxes (like you) then you have no skin in the game because it is someone else's money. As such, your opinion should be substantially discounted.

Your statement shows why conservatives are such morons

Arbitrary slashing of funding will have no impact on the end result. Your funding shows where your priorities are and it is obvious that diplomacy and leadership in the free world is not a priority with Trump.30% less funding means less people, less travel, less interaction in the global community

Trump is once again playing into Putin's hands by diminishing the ability of the US to lead a global coalition. Weaken our state department (which Putin hates), weaken NATO, weaken the UN ...all create a void that Putin can fill

You have no idea what you are talking about, Shit Flinger. We ought to be encouraging efficiency. There is no logic in saying an agency is less effective with less money.

Less funding = less effective
Yes, that is logical

Provide an example where 30% less funding makes you more effective

NHS IS perfect example......Stocking offices with bureaucrats does not produce leadership.......

 

[Manonthestreet]

Egypt Libya and Syria are war crimes

 

[gipper]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/us/politics/trump-budget-spending-cuts.html

So Trump increases funding to the military while he slashes funding to the State Department. What is the purpose of the State Department? To represent our interests abroad. How do we "lead" the free world when our President slashes funds for foreign diplomats and the UN? How do we diplomatically engage our allies and opponents with a shadow State Department?

Trumps answer seems to be to resolve issues with the military rather than diplomacy. The same man who vowed to avoid foreign entanglements has decimated the agency that allows us to resolve conflicts without committing our troops

You silly fucker. Cutting funding to any agency does not necessarily mean you get a less effective agency. All federal agencies can stand across the board 15% cuts in funding in order to cut bloat and force administrative budgeting more in line with what is done in the private sector.

Of course, if you don't pay taxes (like you) then you have no skin in the game because it is someone else's money. As such, your opinion should be substantially discounted.

Your statement shows why conservatives are such morons

Arbitrary slashing of funding will have no impact on the end result. Your funding shows where your priorities are and it is obvious that diplomacy and leadership in the free world is not a priority with Trump.30% less funding means less people, less travel, less interaction in the global community

Trump is once again playing into Putin's hands by diminishing the ability of the US to lead a global coalition. Weaken our state department (which Putin hates), weaken NATO, weaken the UN ...all create a void that Putin can fill

You have no idea what you are talking about, Shit Flinger. We ought to be encouraging efficiency. There is no logic in saying an agency is less effective with less money.

Less funding = less effective
Yes, that is logical

Provide an example where 30% less funding makes you more effective

NHS IS perfect example......Stocking offices with bureaucrats does not produce leadership.......

You must know you are debating someone uninformed.

He thinks more bureaucrats = success.

 

[rightwinger]

Once again, Trump does Putin's bidding

Pull back on our commitment to NATO? Done
Withdraw support of military aid to Ukraine? Done
Pull back our commitment to the UN? Done
Compare US killings the equivalent of Putin's? Done
Neuter our State Department and ability to interact with other nations? Done

 

[Rob37]

Once again, Trump does Putin's bidding

Pull back on our commitment to NATO? Done
Withdraw support of military aid to Ukraine? Done
Pull back our commitment to the UN? Done
Compare US killings the equivalent of Putin's? Done
Neuter our State Department and ability to interact with other nations? Done

Right winger: "Trump does Putin's bidding."

Seriously? This fucker's posts should ALL go straight to the conspiracy section.

 

[gipper]

Once again, Trump does Putin's bidding

Pull back on our commitment to NATO? Done
Withdraw support of military aid to Ukraine? Done
Pull back our commitment to the UN? Done
Compare US killings the equivalent of Putin's? Done
Neuter our State Department and ability to interact with other nations? Done

Why do you want war with Russia? Are you stupid? rhetorical question

Trump does the bidding of Wall Street, just as most of his predecessors have done...particularly Big Ears.

 

[Manonthestreet]

You silly fucker. Cutting funding to any agency does not necessarily mean you get a less effective agency. All federal agencies can stand across the board 15% cuts in funding in order to cut bloat and force administrative budgeting more in line with what is done in the private sector.

Of course, if you don't pay taxes (like you) then you have no skin in the game because it is someone else's money. As such, your opinion should be substantially discounted.

Your statement shows why conservatives are such morons

Arbitrary slashing of funding will have no impact on the end result. Your funding shows where your priorities are and it is obvious that diplomacy and leadership in the free world is not a priority with Trump.30% less funding means less people, less travel, less interaction in the global community

Trump is once again playing into Putin's hands by diminishing the ability of the US to lead a global coalition. Weaken our state department (which Putin hates), weaken NATO, weaken the UN ...all create a void that Putin can fill

You have no idea what you are talking about, Shit Flinger. We ought to be encouraging efficiency. There is no logic in saying an agency is less effective with less money.

Less funding = less effective
Yes, that is logical

Provide an example where 30% less funding makes you more effective

NHS IS perfect example......Stocking offices with bureaucrats does not produce leadership.......

You must know you are debating someone uninformed.

He thinks more bureaucrats = success.

Someone has to tell em

 

[NLT]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/us/politics/trump-budget-spending-cuts.html

So Trump increases funding to the military while he slashes funding to the State Department. What is the purpose of the State Department? To represent our interests abroad. How do we "lead" the free world when our President slashes funds for foreign diplomats and the UN? How do we diplomatically engage our allies and opponents with a shadow State Department?

Trumps answer seems to be to resolve issues with the military rather than diplomacy. The same man who vowed to avoid foreign entanglements has decimated the agency that allows us to resolve conflicts without committing our troops

 

[Penelope]

And how has that carrot been working for us?

Quite well

It enabled us to avoid boots on the ground in Libya, Egypt, Syria. It has allowed improved communications and interaction with Cuba and Iran. It has enabled us to rely more on our NATO allies

Those are examples of failure.......gggeeeez

Hardly....not having American soldiers coming home in body bags is not a failure
That is why we maintain a State Department

You destroyed Libya and handed it to terrorists and tried to do the same in the other 2 ....That's not success or leadership

He doesn't know what happened in Libya, beyond a video that caused the death of four Americans.

Bernard Henri Levy is what happened to Libya. Why don't you know that, because its blamed on Obama and Clinton.

 

[Claudette]

Once again, Trump does Putin's bidding

Pull back on our commitment to NATO? Done
Withdraw support of military aid to Ukraine? Done
Pull back our commitment to the UN? Done
Compare US killings the equivalent of Putin's? Done
Neuter our State Department and ability to interact with other nations? Done

Trump does Putins bidding??

You are one seriously full of shit idiot if you believe that bullshit.

Good Lord. You sure as shit can't cure stupid and RWer proves it with each and every post.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Quite well

It enabled us to avoid boots on the ground in Libya, Egypt, Syria. It has allowed improved communications and interaction with Cuba and Iran. It has enabled us to rely more on our NATO allies

Those are examples of failure.......gggeeeez

Hardly....not having American soldiers coming home in body bags is not a failure
That is why we maintain a State Department

You destroyed Libya and handed it to terrorists and tried to do the same in the other 2 ....That's not success or leadership

He doesn't know what happened in Libya, beyond a video that caused the death of four Americans.

Bernard Henri Levy is what happened to Libya. Why don't you know that, because its blamed on Obama and Clinton.

Do tell.......I need to hear this......

 

[Penelope]

Those are examples of failure.......gggeeeez

Hardly....not having American soldiers coming home in body bags is not a failure
That is why we maintain a State Department

You destroyed Libya and handed it to terrorists and tried to do the same in the other 2 ....That's not success or leadership

He doesn't know what happened in Libya, beyond a video that caused the death of four Americans.

Bernard Henri Levy is what happened to Libya. Why don't you know that, because its blamed on Obama and Clinton.

Do tell.......I need to hear this......

I think you have google , look it up. I find when you give people stuff they get lazy, must be what happened to you.