When Trump returns to the U.S., he'll no doubt say how well liked he was overseas

[usmbguest5318]

Well, before you put much stock in his saying that, take a look at the editors of the conservative magazine, The Economist, share with readers about how foreign and NAO leaders have determined to deal with Trump.

• There has been comforting talk of a foreign-policy “firewall”, thanks to the influence of the so-called “axis of adults”: the defence secretary, Jim Mattis, the secretary of state, Rex Tillerson and the national security adviser, H. R. McMaster. The result has been a supposedly traditional Republican foreign policy emerging, distant from Mr Trump’s campaign rhetoric.
  
• The alliance’s secretary-general, Jens Stoltenberg, has decided that the way to deal with a problem like Mr Trump is flattery. Rather than correct the president when he ignorantly scorned NATO for ignoring terrorism (14 years fighting in Afghanistan suggests otherwise), Mr Stoltenberg has emphasised new counter-terrorism initiatives, suggesting that Mr Trump has influenced the alliance’s thinking.

In short, the whole trip is expected to consist of foreign leaders saying whatever they think Trump wants to hear, and be allowed to portray himself however he wants to American voters (the vast majority of whom will have but fleeting glances of the trip's events), in order to get what they want from the trip. And what does the U.S. get in return? A obtuse figurehead of POTUS who returns with his ego unbloodied from the trip. But what about policy breakthroughs, or even just some fresh and clear policy positions/ideas? Well, no, there'll be none of that, that'd be too much like governing and leading.

​

 

[Compost]

Oh, how interesting. A scathing rebuke on what you think Trump might say.

 

[Crixus]

Oh, how interesting. A scathing rebuke on what you think Trump might say.

They are that sad. Coloring books must not be helping.

 

[Mousterian]

It's just as well most of the world governments are led by adults, most of them with some experience with 5-year-olds.

 

[Crixus]

It's just as well most of the world governments are led by adults, most of them with some experience with 5-year-olds.

Like Theresa May ? Or the old president of France ? I really don't give two fucks about world leaders who let Haji fucks kill little kids. You libs may get hard over that stuff.you libs are to accustomed to rolling over and showing your bellys.

 

[Mac1958]

Well, no, there'll be none of that, that'd be too much like governing and leading.

No doubt he'll engage in his usual hyperbole, full of wondrous imagination and self-congratulation.

At this point, it's water off a duck's back with me, I think I'm (finally) numb to it.

I just hope that America does well under his or any other administration.

That's what I've got, and I'm running with it.
.

 

[miketx]

It's just as well most of the world governments are led by adults, most of them with some experience with 5-year-olds.

Yes indeed. Look how the adults in charge of England are protecting their people.

 

[iceberg]

Well, before you put much stock in his saying that, take a look at the editors of the conservative magazine, The Economist, share with readers about how foreign and NAO leaders have determined to deal with Trump.

• There has been comforting talk of a foreign-policy “firewall”, thanks to the influence of the so-called “axis of adults”: the defence secretary, Jim Mattis, the secretary of state, Rex Tillerson and the national security adviser, H. R. McMaster. The result has been a supposedly traditional Republican foreign policy emerging, distant from Mr Trump’s campaign rhetoric.
  
• The alliance’s secretary-general, Jens Stoltenberg, has decided that the way to deal with a problem like Mr Trump is flattery. Rather than correct the president when he ignorantly scorned NATO for ignoring terrorism (14 years fighting in Afghanistan suggests otherwise), Mr Stoltenberg has emphasised new counter-terrorism initiatives, suggesting that Mr Trump has influenced the alliance’s thinking.

In short, the whole trip is expected to consist of foreign leaders saying whatever they think Trump wants to hear, and be allowed to portray himself however he wants to American voters (the vast majority of whom will have but fleeting glances of the trip's events), in order to get what they want from the trip. And what does the U.S. get in return? A obtuse figurehead of POTUS who returns with his ego unbloodied from the trip. But what about policy breakthroughs, or even just some fresh and clear policy positions/ideas? Well, no, there'll be none of that, that'd be too much like governing and leading.

​

yea, cause this entire posts is a pure definition of objective. not like you're trying to lead the witnesses around here nor get people to think bad of trump cause you do.

 

[OldLady]

Well, before you put much stock in his saying that, take a look at the editors of the conservative magazine, The Economist, share with readers about how foreign and NAO leaders have determined to deal with Trump.

• There has been comforting talk of a foreign-policy “firewall”, thanks to the influence of the so-called “axis of adults”: the defence secretary, Jim Mattis, the secretary of state, Rex Tillerson and the national security adviser, H. R. McMaster. The result has been a supposedly traditional Republican foreign policy emerging, distant from Mr Trump’s campaign rhetoric.
  
• The alliance’s secretary-general, Jens Stoltenberg, has decided that the way to deal with a problem like Mr Trump is flattery. Rather than correct the president when he ignorantly scorned NATO for ignoring terrorism (14 years fighting in Afghanistan suggests otherwise), Mr Stoltenberg has emphasised new counter-terrorism initiatives, suggesting that Mr Trump has influenced the alliance’s thinking.

In short, the whole trip is expected to consist of foreign leaders saying whatever they think Trump wants to hear, and be allowed to portray himself however he wants to American voters (the vast majority of whom will have but fleeting glances of the trip's events), in order to get what they want from the trip. And what does the U.S. get in return? A obtuse figurehead of POTUS who returns with his ego unbloodied from the trip. But what about policy breakthroughs, or even just some fresh and clear policy positions/ideas? Well, no, there'll be none of that, that'd be too much like governing and leading.

​

You didn't like his speech to the Muslim congress in Saudi Arabia? Was that, and the $106 bil deal giving Saudi's the ability to defend themselves so we can back out, not a shift in policy? I don't know much about it, so I'm asking. There really hasn't been much detail about the trip since he left S.A. He seemed to breeze through Israel; didn't even hear what the Palestinian talks were about. And a short private meeting with the Pope, not for our ears. Now for the meat of the trip, I guess, but you're no doubt right that there won't be a lot of changes in NATO policy, and that's probably a good thing, right?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Oh, how interesting. A scathing rebuke on what you think Trump might say.

Here are two words you should look up:

• Rebuke
• Presage or augur

Trust me, one won't find me rebuking events that have yet to transpire. I'm not illiterate enough to state that anyone might do so.

 

[mudwhistle]

Well, before you put much stock in his saying that, take a look at the editors of the conservative magazine, The Economist, share with readers about how foreign and NAO leaders have determined to deal with Trump.

• There has been comforting talk of a foreign-policy “firewall”, thanks to the influence of the so-called “axis of adults”: the defence secretary, Jim Mattis, the secretary of state, Rex Tillerson and the national security adviser, H. R. McMaster. The result has been a supposedly traditional Republican foreign policy emerging, distant from Mr Trump’s campaign rhetoric.
  
• The alliance’s secretary-general, Jens Stoltenberg, has decided that the way to deal with a problem like Mr Trump is flattery. Rather than correct the president when he ignorantly scorned NATO for ignoring terrorism (14 years fighting in Afghanistan suggests otherwise), Mr Stoltenberg has emphasised new counter-terrorism initiatives, suggesting that Mr Trump has influenced the alliance’s thinking.

In short, the whole trip is expected to consist of foreign leaders saying whatever they think Trump wants to hear, and be allowed to portray himself however he wants to American voters (the vast majority of whom will have but fleeting glances of the trip's events), in order to get what they want from the trip. And what does the U.S. get in return? A obtuse figurehead of POTUS who returns with his ego unbloodied from the trip. But what about policy breakthroughs, or even just some fresh and clear policy positions/ideas? Well, no, there'll be none of that, that'd be too much like governing and leading.

​

Oh......so you are trying to push this stupidity that everyone is just trying to humor the village idiot?

Fuck you dickhead.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Well, before you put much stock in his saying that, take a look at the editors of the conservative magazine, The Economist, share with readers about how foreign and NAO leaders have determined to deal with Trump.

• There has been comforting talk of a foreign-policy “firewall”, thanks to the influence of the so-called “axis of adults”: the defence secretary, Jim Mattis, the secretary of state, Rex Tillerson and the national security adviser, H. R. McMaster. The result has been a supposedly traditional Republican foreign policy emerging, distant from Mr Trump’s campaign rhetoric.
  
• The alliance’s secretary-general, Jens Stoltenberg, has decided that the way to deal with a problem like Mr Trump is flattery. Rather than correct the president when he ignorantly scorned NATO for ignoring terrorism (14 years fighting in Afghanistan suggests otherwise), Mr Stoltenberg has emphasised new counter-terrorism initiatives, suggesting that Mr Trump has influenced the alliance’s thinking.

In short, the whole trip is expected to consist of foreign leaders saying whatever they think Trump wants to hear, and be allowed to portray himself however he wants to American voters (the vast majority of whom will have but fleeting glances of the trip's events), in order to get what they want from the trip. And what does the U.S. get in return? A obtuse figurehead of POTUS who returns with his ego unbloodied from the trip. But what about policy breakthroughs, or even just some fresh and clear policy positions/ideas? Well, no, there'll be none of that, that'd be too much like governing and leading.

​

You didn't like his speech to the Muslim congress in Saudi Arabia? Was that, and the $106 bil deal giving Saudi's the ability to defend themselves so we can back out, not a shift in policy? I don't know much about it, so I'm asking. There really hasn't been much detail about the trip since he left S.A. He seemed to breeze through Israel; didn't even hear what the Palestinian talks were about. And a short private meeting with the Pope, not for our ears. Now for the meat of the trip, I guess, but you're no doubt right that there won't be a lot of changes in NATO policy, and that's probably a good thing, right?

You didn't like his speech to the Muslim congress in Saudi Arabia?

Whether I liked it or not is of no matter. I'm not among the audience at whom it was targeted. If/when it becomes clear that speech achieved a set of specific outcomes that were expressly sought, I'm good with the speech. What were the rhetorical (or non-rhetorical) objectives of the speech? I don't know; thus I'm in no position to say whether I liked the speech.

(I heard parts of it being delivered. I thought the man sounded like an eighth grader delivering a speech. I didn't like that, but that's a minor point that I could get past provided the greater substance of the speech's purpose(s) were achieved.

Was that, and the $106 bil deal giving Saudi's the ability to defend themselves so we can back out, not a shift in policy?

On the specific equipment being sold to the Saudis:

• I'm not fond of the notion that we are selling some of our most advanced anti-ballistic weapons systems to a regime that surely has in key positions fundamentalists who'd as soon seen us destroyed as buy weapons from us to facilitate that happening. Like it or not, we are all infidels in Saudi eyes. We just happen to be infidels with whom they don't yet want to get into tussles they can avoid via "smiling in our faces." Remember, they and their four cohorts formed OPEC and thrust the U.S. into the worst recession of the late 201th century.
  
  
  
  
  
  I don't know if the U.S. defense industry has more sophisticated anti-missile systems, but even if we do, who else has any that are nearly as effective as ours? I'm not keen on the idea of letting out of our control the tech on which we may have to depend only to find that someone has "un-engineered" how it works and thereby found a way to render it in-/less effective.
  
  This "enemy of my enemy is my friend" idea is what we tried in the '40s with Russia vs Germany, Italy and Japan, and that got us the Cold War. We did it in the '80s, backing the Taliban against Russia in A-stan, and where did that get us in the long run? Nowhere good. Call me crazy, but I'm of the "my enemy is my enemy until he's defeated or surrenders" school. That's how we handled Japan and that's been useful relationship.
  
  • https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/26/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-islam.html
  • U.S.-Saudi Relations
  • Saudi Arabia in the New Middle East
• I observed that the Trump Administration is haggling, playing middleman of sorts, deals between U.S. companies and foreign entities. I am definitely not keen on the government inserting itself at a very detailed level -- the arms deal was essentially done but for a sticking point on the price, and Kusher inserted himself into the negotiations to obtain a lower price for the Saudis. That only happens one way, and it's by Kushner pressuring the U.S. company to sell at a lower price. Just like one can buy a Cadillac or a Kia, the Saudis can pay Lockheed's price or buy someone else's system.
  
  I'm all about the government staying out of business' business, and what Kushner did isn't that at all. Indeed, it's the very opposite of that and it allowed the Saudis to pit the U.S. government in opposition to a U.S. corporation. If Kusher were going to get involved, he should have been pushing the Saudis to pay Lockheed's price, not pushing Lockheed to lower the price.
  
  And then there's the signal the process sent. One need not collaborate with a variety of actors -- government units that have to weight the security risks associated with the transaction, etc. -- now one can just talk to the producer, negotiate the best deal one can and then reach out to Kushner so he can "lean" on them and get even more money shaved off the price.
  
  So, no, I don't like that one bit. And that has nothing to do with the speech.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Well, before you put much stock in his saying that, take a look at the editors of the conservative magazine, The Economist, share with readers about how foreign and NAO leaders have determined to deal with Trump.

• There has been comforting talk of a foreign-policy “firewall”, thanks to the influence of the so-called “axis of adults”: the defence secretary, Jim Mattis, the secretary of state, Rex Tillerson and the national security adviser, H. R. McMaster. The result has been a supposedly traditional Republican foreign policy emerging, distant from Mr Trump’s campaign rhetoric.
  
• The alliance’s secretary-general, Jens Stoltenberg, has decided that the way to deal with a problem like Mr Trump is flattery. Rather than correct the president when he ignorantly scorned NATO for ignoring terrorism (14 years fighting in Afghanistan suggests otherwise), Mr Stoltenberg has emphasised new counter-terrorism initiatives, suggesting that Mr Trump has influenced the alliance’s thinking.

In short, the whole trip is expected to consist of foreign leaders saying whatever they think Trump wants to hear, and be allowed to portray himself however he wants to American voters (the vast majority of whom will have but fleeting glances of the trip's events), in order to get what they want from the trip. And what does the U.S. get in return? A obtuse figurehead of POTUS who returns with his ego unbloodied from the trip. But what about policy breakthroughs, or even just some fresh and clear policy positions/ideas? Well, no, there'll be none of that, that'd be too much like governing and leading.

​

yea, cause this entire posts is a pure definition of objective. not like you're trying to lead the witnesses around here nor get people to think bad of trump cause you do.

cause this entire posts is a pure definition of objective.

Dude, did that post read like an editorial to you? It should have; therefore you should take from it that its conclusions are entirely subjective.

I can tell when I'm editorializing and when I'm not. I also can tell when others are. Apparently you are not nearly so astute.

 

[Compost]

Oh, how interesting. A scathing rebuke on what you think Trump might say.

Here are two words you should look up:

• Rebuke
• Presage or augur

Trust me, one won't find me rebuking events that have yet to transpire. I'm not illiterate enough to state that anyone might do so.

LOL I suggest you look up the words pompous and fatuous, for they aptly describe you and your remarks .

 

[iceberg]

Well, before you put much stock in his saying that, take a look at the editors of the conservative magazine, The Economist, share with readers about how foreign and NAO leaders have determined to deal with Trump.

• There has been comforting talk of a foreign-policy “firewall”, thanks to the influence of the so-called “axis of adults”: the defence secretary, Jim Mattis, the secretary of state, Rex Tillerson and the national security adviser, H. R. McMaster. The result has been a supposedly traditional Republican foreign policy emerging, distant from Mr Trump’s campaign rhetoric.
  
• The alliance’s secretary-general, Jens Stoltenberg, has decided that the way to deal with a problem like Mr Trump is flattery. Rather than correct the president when he ignorantly scorned NATO for ignoring terrorism (14 years fighting in Afghanistan suggests otherwise), Mr Stoltenberg has emphasised new counter-terrorism initiatives, suggesting that Mr Trump has influenced the alliance’s thinking.

In short, the whole trip is expected to consist of foreign leaders saying whatever they think Trump wants to hear, and be allowed to portray himself however he wants to American voters (the vast majority of whom will have but fleeting glances of the trip's events), in order to get what they want from the trip. And what does the U.S. get in return? A obtuse figurehead of POTUS who returns with his ego unbloodied from the trip. But what about policy breakthroughs, or even just some fresh and clear policy positions/ideas? Well, no, there'll be none of that, that'd be too much like governing and leading.

​

yea, cause this entire posts is a pure definition of objective. not like you're trying to lead the witnesses around here nor get people to think bad of trump cause you do.

cause this entire posts is a pure definition of objective.

Dude, did that post read like an editorial to you? It should have; therefore you should take from it that its conclusions are entirely subjective.

I can tell when I'm editorializing and when I'm not. I also can tell when others are. Apparently you are not nearly so astute.

nah. very astute in this regard. 90% of CNN is an editorial. most people posting in here are editorials. unless someone snuck in an old school journalist or something who is doing an expose on political forums in america and their contribution to fake news.

i honestly don't care about either sides "editorials" which is just a fancy way of saying WAH for 48 paragraphs.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Well, before you put much stock in his saying that, take a look at the editors of the conservative magazine, The Economist, share with readers about how foreign and NAO leaders have determined to deal with Trump.

• There has been comforting talk of a foreign-policy “firewall”, thanks to the influence of the so-called “axis of adults”: the defence secretary, Jim Mattis, the secretary of state, Rex Tillerson and the national security adviser, H. R. McMaster. The result has been a supposedly traditional Republican foreign policy emerging, distant from Mr Trump’s campaign rhetoric.
  
• The alliance’s secretary-general, Jens Stoltenberg, has decided that the way to deal with a problem like Mr Trump is flattery. Rather than correct the president when he ignorantly scorned NATO for ignoring terrorism (14 years fighting in Afghanistan suggests otherwise), Mr Stoltenberg has emphasised new counter-terrorism initiatives, suggesting that Mr Trump has influenced the alliance’s thinking.

In short, the whole trip is expected to consist of foreign leaders saying whatever they think Trump wants to hear, and be allowed to portray himself however he wants to American voters (the vast majority of whom will have but fleeting glances of the trip's events), in order to get what they want from the trip. And what does the U.S. get in return? A obtuse figurehead of POTUS who returns with his ego unbloodied from the trip. But what about policy breakthroughs, or even just some fresh and clear policy positions/ideas? Well, no, there'll be none of that, that'd be too much like governing and leading.

​

You didn't like his speech to the Muslim congress in Saudi Arabia? Was that, and the $106 bil deal giving Saudi's the ability to defend themselves so we can back out, not a shift in policy? I don't know much about it, so I'm asking. There really hasn't been much detail about the trip since he left S.A. He seemed to breeze through Israel; didn't even hear what the Palestinian talks were about. And a short private meeting with the Pope, not for our ears. Now for the meat of the trip, I guess, but you're no doubt right that there won't be a lot of changes in NATO policy, and that's probably a good thing, right?

you're no doubt right that there won't be a lot of changes in NATO policy, and that's probably a good thing, right?

I don't know if that's a good thing or not. I'd have to do a lot of reading to know what NATO policy -- top level strategy and lower levels (as much either as is available publicly) is. I can at times speak to economic factors pertaining to specifically noted NATO policies and strategies, but that's about it. I don't think economic impacts are often decisive among NATO's priorities, though I know its executive committee members consider economic outcomes from the standpoint of determining whether they are willing to tolerate the economic downsides its members may have to endure in light of a given policy/strategic approach.

 

[mudwhistle]

Well, before you put much stock in his saying that, take a look at the editors of the conservative magazine, The Economist, share with readers about how foreign and NAO leaders have determined to deal with Trump.

• There has been comforting talk of a foreign-policy “firewall”, thanks to the influence of the so-called “axis of adults”: the defence secretary, Jim Mattis, the secretary of state, Rex Tillerson and the national security adviser, H. R. McMaster. The result has been a supposedly traditional Republican foreign policy emerging, distant from Mr Trump’s campaign rhetoric.
  
• The alliance’s secretary-general, Jens Stoltenberg, has decided that the way to deal with a problem like Mr Trump is flattery. Rather than correct the president when he ignorantly scorned NATO for ignoring terrorism (14 years fighting in Afghanistan suggests otherwise), Mr Stoltenberg has emphasised new counter-terrorism initiatives, suggesting that Mr Trump has influenced the alliance’s thinking.

In short, the whole trip is expected to consist of foreign leaders saying whatever they think Trump wants to hear, and be allowed to portray himself however he wants to American voters (the vast majority of whom will have but fleeting glances of the trip's events), in order to get what they want from the trip. And what does the U.S. get in return? A obtuse figurehead of POTUS who returns with his ego unbloodied from the trip. But what about policy breakthroughs, or even just some fresh and clear policy positions/ideas? Well, no, there'll be none of that, that'd be too much like governing and leading.

​

You didn't like his speech to the Muslim congress in Saudi Arabia? Was that, and the $106 bil deal giving Saudi's the ability to defend themselves so we can back out, not a shift in policy? I don't know much about it, so I'm asking. There really hasn't been much detail about the trip since he left S.A. He seemed to breeze through Israel; didn't even hear what the Palestinian talks were about. And a short private meeting with the Pope, not for our ears. Now for the meat of the trip, I guess, but you're no doubt right that there won't be a lot of changes in NATO policy, and that's probably a good thing, right?

you're no doubt right that there won't be a lot of changes in NATO policy, and that's probably a good thing, right?

I don't know if that's a good thing or not. I'd have to do a lot of reading to know what NATO policy -- top level strategy and lower levels (as much either as is available publicly) is. I can at times speak to economic factors pertaining to specifically noted NATO policies and strategies, but that's about it. I don't think economic impacts are often decisive among NATO's priorities, though I know its executive committee members consider economic outcomes from the standpoint of determining whether they are willing to tolerate the economic downsides its members may have to endure in light of a given policy/strategic approach.

I understand Legalese.....but maybe could you try to rephrase that in layman's terms???

That way we can find out if you understand it yourself.

 

[mudwhistle]

Oh, how interesting. A scathing rebuke on what you think Trump might say.

Here are two words you should look up:

• Rebuke
• Presage or augur

Trust me, one won't find me rebuking events that have yet to transpire. I'm not illiterate enough to state that anyone might do so.

LOL I suggest you look up the words pompous and fatuous, for they aptly describe you and your remarks .

I suggest he look up flagulence as well.

 

[Seawytch]

Well, before you put much stock in his saying that, take a look at the editors of the conservative magazine, The Economist, share with readers about how foreign and NAO leaders have determined to deal with Trump.

• There has been comforting talk of a foreign-policy “firewall”, thanks to the influence of the so-called “axis of adults”: the defence secretary, Jim Mattis, the secretary of state, Rex Tillerson and the national security adviser, H. R. McMaster. The result has been a supposedly traditional Republican foreign policy emerging, distant from Mr Trump’s campaign rhetoric.
  
• The alliance’s secretary-general, Jens Stoltenberg, has decided that the way to deal with a problem like Mr Trump is flattery. Rather than correct the president when he ignorantly scorned NATO for ignoring terrorism (14 years fighting in Afghanistan suggests otherwise), Mr Stoltenberg has emphasised new counter-terrorism initiatives, suggesting that Mr Trump has influenced the alliance’s thinking.

In short, the whole trip is expected to consist of foreign leaders saying whatever they think Trump wants to hear, and be allowed to portray himself however he wants to American voters (the vast majority of whom will have but fleeting glances of the trip's events), in order to get what they want from the trip. And what does the U.S. get in return? A obtuse figurehead of POTUS who returns with his ego unbloodied from the trip. But what about policy breakthroughs, or even just some fresh and clear policy positions/ideas? Well, no, there'll be none of that, that'd be too much like governing and leading.

​

The attempts to spin already started.

Wilbur Ross surprised there were no protests in Saudi ArabiaWilbur Ross surprised there were no protests in Saudi Arabia

 

[OldLady]

Well, before you put much stock in his saying that, take a look at the editors of the conservative magazine, The Economist, share with readers about how foreign and NAO leaders have determined to deal with Trump.

• There has been comforting talk of a foreign-policy “firewall”, thanks to the influence of the so-called “axis of adults”: the defence secretary, Jim Mattis, the secretary of state, Rex Tillerson and the national security adviser, H. R. McMaster. The result has been a supposedly traditional Republican foreign policy emerging, distant from Mr Trump’s campaign rhetoric.
  
• The alliance’s secretary-general, Jens Stoltenberg, has decided that the way to deal with a problem like Mr Trump is flattery. Rather than correct the president when he ignorantly scorned NATO for ignoring terrorism (14 years fighting in Afghanistan suggests otherwise), Mr Stoltenberg has emphasised new counter-terrorism initiatives, suggesting that Mr Trump has influenced the alliance’s thinking.

In short, the whole trip is expected to consist of foreign leaders saying whatever they think Trump wants to hear, and be allowed to portray himself however he wants to American voters (the vast majority of whom will have but fleeting glances of the trip's events), in order to get what they want from the trip. And what does the U.S. get in return? A obtuse figurehead of POTUS who returns with his ego unbloodied from the trip. But what about policy breakthroughs, or even just some fresh and clear policy positions/ideas? Well, no, there'll be none of that, that'd be too much like governing and leading.

​

You didn't like his speech to the Muslim congress in Saudi Arabia? Was that, and the $106 bil deal giving Saudi's the ability to defend themselves so we can back out, not a shift in policy? I don't know much about it, so I'm asking. There really hasn't been much detail about the trip since he left S.A. He seemed to breeze through Israel; didn't even hear what the Palestinian talks were about. And a short private meeting with the Pope, not for our ears. Now for the meat of the trip, I guess, but you're no doubt right that there won't be a lot of changes in NATO policy, and that's probably a good thing, right?

you're no doubt right that there won't be a lot of changes in NATO policy, and that's probably a good thing, right?

I don't know if that's a good thing or not. I'd have to do a lot of reading to know what NATO policy -- top level strategy and lower levels (as much either as is available publicly) is. I can at times speak to economic factors pertaining to specifically noted NATO policies and strategies, but that's about it. I don't think economic impacts are often decisive among NATO's priorities, though I know its executive committee members consider economic outcomes from the standpoint of determining whether they are willing to tolerate the economic downsides its members may have to endure in light of a given policy/strategic approach.

I wasn't really thinking of economics, but a continued good relationship with our allies. NATO is a first line of defense in so many ways. I was very concerned when Trump was making noise that it was no longer relevant. They'll pay what they can pay. Trump has every right to bring up that other NATO members are not pitching in the expected amount. If that boosts contributions, I've got no problem with it. I don't think NATO will be destroyed because of an outstanding bill. There is more important stuff at stake, imo.