In his latest attempt to answer the myriad questions about where his foreign policy stands, Republican front-runner Donald Trump gave a long foreign-policy speech blasting the previous policies of Bush and Obama/Clinton, laying out some of the same broad comments made in the past, reiterating his opposition to the Iraq War and insisting America must not go abroad looking for enemies, but ultimately raising new questions with some internally inconsistent statements and a reiteration of his desire to be “unpredictable” as a centerpiece of his policy.
In laying out his overall view, Trump vowed to “shake the rust off” America’s foreign policy, insisting America is going to get out of “the nation-building business” and become a powerful nation again, demanding the respect of allies and enemies alike.
While attacking “wasteful spending,” one of Trump’s first focuses in the speech was a call for major increases in military spending, lamenting the relatively few ships the navy currently has, while demanding an immediate move on the massive nuclear weapons modernization scheme,
Trump presented the battle to contain radical Islam in the terms of the Cold War, but also insisted NATO needs to shift away from its obsolete, Cold War mentality, to focus on shared challenges, including “migration” and “radical Islam,” while insisting he would be the one for force NATO members to spend 2% or more of their GDP on their militaries.
Despite spending so much of his speech laying out plans for more military spending, Trump went on to vow to “bring peace to the world,” insisting that “the power of weaponry is the single biggest problem we have in the world.”
Trump went on to declare the world “more dangerous now than it’s ever been,” while mocking President Obama for visits to Cuba and Saudi Arabia, in which foreign heads of state did not greet him at the airport, suggesting it showed a “lack of respect.”
Though he insisted his goal was not war, he also insisted he “will not hesitate to deploy military force,” saying America will “only fight to win,” and vowing “victory with a capital V,” presenting the adoption of 3D printing and artificial intelligence as big future steps.
On Russia, Trump sounded a more conciliatory tone, insisting he is open to talking with Russia about their mutual interests, though he presented more military buildup as a key to confronting China, saying they only respect strength.
Trump called for two separate summits, one for NATO members and one for Asian allies, with each focusing on demands for those nations to bear more of the cost of their respective defenses.
He also urged an end to the partisan divide on foreign policy, insisting politics must “end at the water’s edge,” and citing bipartisan efforts as the reason America won the Cold War. It remains to be seen, however, how he’ll be able to pull this off while advocating a more or less complete break from the policies of the past several administrations.
Trump championed his past opposition to the Iraq War, noting that ISIS came about as a result of that previous US occupation, and sought to assure that a Trump government wouldn’t be launching such attacks on a whim.
Ultimately, Trump’s speech sent more mixed messages, trying to fold in statements he’s made previously that proved popular, differentiating himself from other candidates by insisting “war and aggression will not be my first instinct,” while at the same time trying to “moderate” his image by talking up a big military spending, and an unhesitating war-fighting narrative that would square him more with traditional candidates.
At least he is trying …”It remains to be scene, however, how he’ll be able to pull this off while advocating a more or less complete break from the policies of the past several administrations.”
No John, you’ve your not smart enough to understand that you have become a victim to Trump’s dog whistle. When you grow up maybe…..that doesn’t remain to be scene. .lol
luv from Canada.
I have read a few of your recent comments and although you speak of as you understand history , they demonstrate a lack of mature context similar to a young man that has saw a few books but has never left the library , unlike myself that has had to live it. There has been a profound awakening in the American collective , an awakening that many of us have been wishing for and brought on by Trump / Sanders. Your recent rant proves you do not understand these changes.
Trump is a dime-store hustler in a ten thousand dollar suit. He doesn’t believe in anything but the spotless sanctity of his own bankrupt brand. If this doesn’t prove that the braying ginger jackass is filled to the brim with weapons grade horse-sh*t then nothing will.
“At least he is trying”, please. He can “try” and go f**k himself. Wake up children. The circus is over.
Well said comrade, well said! Now just lose your problem of the black guy being uppity and you’ll be worth reading again.
If he talks like a war criminal, walks like a war criminal and kills like a war criminal then he must be a war criminal.
I don’t give three flying f**ks what color you are, if you murder people your on my sh*tlist.
Tell me, since you love Obama so much, how do you feel about the drone strikes he signs off on every week? What do you have to say to the parents of the children he’s killed? Or maybe there just racists to.
In a competition between Trump and Hillary, Trump is the hands down winner when it comes to foreign policy. No he isn’t nearly as consistent or principled as we would like him to be. On the other hand Hillary is consistent and that is the worst part about her foreign policy. She has been consistently pro-war for 25 years. She is a full blooded neo-con war mongress. It’s incredibly doubtful that Trump would be nearly as dangerous as she is.
This imperfect policy is still miles ahead of the perfectly dreadful neo-con ideas.
Anyone who says America First, F globalism and wants to peacefully negotiate with Russia and China, as well as attacking NATO is the best foreign policy President in my long life.
That’s it exactly. Every other election in a very long time has given you no choice at all when it comes to foreign policy. This is the first election for many people where there is actually a real difference in foreign policies and Trump wins this one hands down. It’s not even close. The choice is more of the same/worse with Hillary or a chance that we will change our disastrous policy. I’m not really sure I understand how this could be an issue at all among the anti-war group. Do people really want to just throw their hands up in the air and accept another neo-con because Trump isn’t perfect? Why? Why would they do that?
Read again what Donald said about China–they only understand strength. That tells you a lot about what is in store–WWIII. What has China done to USA to deserve this hatred? If it wasn’t for China—Americans would be paying $50 dollars for a single flat screw driver Made in USA.
While I personally agree that Hillary is scarier than Trump, they have both crossed my red-lines. Hillary was a consistent war-monger while in positions of power, and she seems willing to risk war with Russia. If we elect her, our children may not live to see the flooding of our coasts. Trump has pandered to hate and bigotry, even encouraging violence at his rallies. I can vote for neither. I talked with my millennial daughter earlier today. She is more scared of Trump than of Hillary, but we both agree we can vote for neither.
If Jill Stein is on the ballot in my state, I will vote for her. Gary Johnson, who will be on the ballot in all 50 states, is my plan B.
Bill,
Gary Johnson is not yet the Libertarian Party’s presidential nominee and hopefully (and probably) won’t be.
The Libertarian ticket may make the ballot in all 50 states, but hasn’t wrapped that up quite yet. Usually we do get AT LEAST 47 or so, and we’re looking good for 50 this year.
Would be interested to know what you have against Gary Johnson.
Other than that he can’t balance a check book, lied to the Libertarian Party about the size of his campaign debt to get nominated the last time, finished the campaign $1.5 million in debt not counting the $330k refund the FEC is demanding from his “matching funds” welfare check, has a tax plan under which he wants to put every man, woman and child in the US on a monthly federal government welfare check for life, announced he wanted to ban burqas until he realized that wouldn’t fly and then tried to pretend it had been one slip of the tongue (he had told three different reporters the same thing unprompted in three different interviews), says he thinks the law should require a Jewish baker to bake a cake for a Nazi event, can’t hold the same position on almost any issue for more than five minutes running, and that he goes into a rage and rants like Mussolini when any of the foregoing is brought up in debate?
Other than that, not TOO much.
Ah, well I can see you have valid reasons. Being actually more of a left-libertarian myself (in that I view limited liability as a government-granted privilege), I haven’t been all that plugged into what’s going on with right-libertarians. Basically, all I knew of Johnson was that the former governor was anti-war and anti-war on drugs. I can swallow almost any other positions of a candidate as long as he/she is pro-peace, pro-Constitutional rights, anti-torture and believes the USG and its “allies” should impeccably follow international law before criticizing others for supposedly violating it.
Thanks for the information. I will remember it when voting in November.
I’m a left-libertarian myself (to be more exact, an ultra-thin, paleo-left, brutalist-but-trying-to-be-humanitarian libertarian). If you want some more lefty criticism, here’s a little:
– He signed the first death warrant in New Mexico in more than 40 years, mere weeks before claiming to be against the death penalty.
– He said he wanted to cut back on the drug war, but he couldn’t be bothered to actually pardon any non-violent drug offenders, and he openly and specifically invested the post-9/11 “homeland security” funding round into enhanced drug war intel/surveillance.
– He “privatized” — in the false sense of the word — New Mexico’s prisons. Among other things this eventuated in riots featuring the first killings of corrections officers in more than a decade.
Ah, “privatization,” the favorite of corporatists pretending to be right-libertarians. All duly noted. Thanks, Thomas.
Gary Johnson’s history has caught up with him. Do a search on FEC and Gary Johnson and some coverage will come up. If you want a more specific URL send me a tweet at @ilovegrover
A summary for those who don’t want to follow up Thane’s bread crumb:
Johnson’s 2012 campaign committee still has $1.5 million in debt on its books, not counting the $330k in “matching funds” that the FEC ordered it to repay by May 5th because those funds were used on non-qualifying expenses.
As of the latest FEC report, the 2016 campaign is back in the black (it too was spending more than it took in early on), but it’s still spending the vast majority of its money on the care and feeding of the same “political consultants” who sucked the 2012 campaign dry and then some (the 2012 campaign spent less than 1 in 7 of its dollars on media and other actual outreach to voters).
I can see bringing up his ideas on Torture and bombing families. But the idea of Hate, Bigotry and Violence at rallies are just left wing talking points.
I can and will vote for Trump and I have been a member of Veterans for Peace for 25 years. I will not let the perfect stand in the way of the possible.
I like Gary but he stands zero chance of becoming president, Trump does stand a very good chance and his policies are FAR better than Hillary’s. If they were only a little different on the issues I could understand placing a protest vote. But in this election there is actually a very clear difference in foreign policy. With Trump’s policy being far superior.
I am a member of Libertarians for Trump and I’m proud to say I was one of the first.
why would you believe Trump when his statements are all over the place lacking ANY consistency? to me all you seem to be saying is I’ll vote for Trump because there is a 1 in 10 chance that Trumps anti war anti interventionist statements (amongst the other contrary statements) are going to be true
Well lets say there is a 1 in 10 chance. That’s one more chance then you will get with Hillary. But to be honest I think it’s a much larger chance than that. You say there has been no consistency but I don’t believe that to be true. He has consistently said that he wants to get along with Russia. That alone is worth something, especially considering Hillary’s position on Russia. Now it’s true that he has wavered on killing the families of terrorists. He’s not sure now that he can do that. So on this one there is a chance for change as well. Right now of course we already do in fact kill the families of terrorists, so even on his worst point there is a chance that he would be better. He has been pretty consistent in not wanting to pay to police the world. He’s been consistent on Libya and Iran. He’s consistently said we shouldn’t be arming people when we don’t even know who they are.
But, even if you reject the above statements you still have your own. One out of Ten is better than ZERO.
and theres 9 out of 10 chance he’ll be a hawk thats terrible
Have you actually been listening to him or is it that you just don’t like him.
…and a 10 in 10 chance Hillary will “be a hawk thats terrible.” A pox on both their houses!
true – Clinton is a hawk and its subtle but imo Trump is very likely to be a hawk and possibly a worse hawk – I dont think you can dismiss the stuff about targetting terrorists families and advocating more torture as jokes — and thats not even talking about his domestic “policies” which are basically tax the 1% even less!
Tremendously important that peace folk vote for neither of them, but vote Green or Libertarian. I wish there were a Green Tea Party. Even if a 3rd party doesn’t get enough to win, a large percentage will help to restrain the policies invoked by the winner.
“But the idea of Hate, Bigotry and Violence at rallies are just left wing talking points.”
Too bad that pesky Trump and those pesky cameras say the opposite.
Libertarians for Trump is like Jews for Hitler.
Do you know who is bringing the hatred to his rallies? Have you been there? Go ahead and take the side of the instigators who come there looking for a fight over and over and who very rarely manage to get what they want. As for Hate and Bigotry; I assume you mean pointing out that bringing in hundreds of thousands of people while killing their kin is a bad idea? As for Mexicans crossing illegally. The government has very few actual jobs and one of those is protecting us and our property (same thing). By the way my wife who is Mexican American is also a Trump fan. So why is it that lilly white men find this so offensive yet her and her family don’t? Maybe it’s because they don’t have to play this silly game and pretend that all Mexicans are great people. Maybe it’s because the Gangs have taken over the city she grew up in and her family still lives in.
Now of course we can talk about Rhetoric vs Action and then what do you have? Hillery talks about human rights all the time and what does she do? She has been busy killing men, women and children for 25 years. You want to worry your little head about about some words that might offend some people? Well why don’t you worry a little more about allowing a war mongress like Hillary getting in office. You want to pretend you care so much, well do something about it. Help stop Hillary.
As for your Godwin comment comparing Trump to Hitler you are now putting yourself into the completely ignorant category. There simply is no comparison at all and you know it, so you my friend lack intellectual honestly.
I have to say, the one thing that bothers me the most about people and politics is the “purists” and the “ideologues” who will year after year cut off their nose to spite their face. Buying into the idea that the “lessor of two evils is still evil”. What a crock.
When there is a large difference between two candidates with one who is clearly much worse, why not support them? Oh I know, he isn’t perfect. No he isn’t but the difference between Trump in office and Hillary could be millions of lives. Do you care enough about those lives to put away your purist ideology?” Nope; you care more about your own “self respect” right? But how does that jive with doing nothing to stop Hillary from getting into office? You might not be able to live with yourself if you voted for someone you are convinced is a bigot but I can’t live with myself if I know I did nothing to stop Hillary.
So once again I’m proud to be part of Libertarians for Trump. Unlike you I will actually be doing something this year to stop Hillary the neo-con from getting into office.
By the way? If you are going to be a purist why do you vote at all? I remember my younger days when I was first enthralled with Liberty/anarchy and I wouldn’t vote at all. Complete protest of the system that brings us such misery. This makes more sense to me that getting into politics supporting libertarians who don’t stand a chance of winning.
It’s not that I’m a “purist.” It’s that Trump has nothing to offer libertarians. Zero, zip, zilch, nada.
The only place where he even comes close to being a little bit kinda sorta libertarianish if you hold your mouth just right is foreign policy. And that’s only one or two out of every ten times he talks about it.
I do want a candidate who’s right on foreign policy. But a candidate who is sometimes right on foreign policy and completely wrong about almost everything else doesn’t interest me.
I’m not voting for him because he is a libertarian. He isn’t one and we all know that. But what he isn’t is a Neo-con warmonger. What interests me is the possibility of the neo-cons being defeated. He smashed the living heck out of Jeb and directly attacks the neo-con position. On the other hand you have Hillary who is completely and totally on board with the neo-con agenda.
You claim you are no purist, yet you will toss away your vote when your vote could actually help end the neo-con’s power over foreign policy.
As far as I’m concerned the people who refuse to vote for Trump are supporting Hillary because in all seriousness this is the only way your vote is going to count.
Do you want to stop the neo-cons or not?
Of course I want to stop the neocons. Which is why I will not be voting for Trump. Here’s the money shot from my column today:
“Trump is just a run of the mill — if visibly unstable and irrational — hawk trying to pass himself as the peace candidate. And it’s working, at least among people who believe me when I tell them the word ‘gullible’ is written on the ceiling.”
And you think you know so much but yet you are going to end up with Hillary. You are the one who is gullible. But go ahead and try and stop the only chance you have of getting rid of the neo-cons.
Actually, I expect Trump to beat Hillary. And I expect him to beat her by 5-10 points in my state, so whether or not I vote for him is of no consequence whatsoever.
I also expect neoconservatives to carry just as much influence in his administration as they would in Clinton’s.
And if you are wrong and he loses your state and Hillary wins? Let me guess, your heart will still be pure right? Hold your head high and feel good about yourself anyway? Well what if your ignorant comments get other people not to vote? You going to own that too, if Hillary wins?
You expect the neo-cons to have as much influence do you? What exactly do you base that one on? Is it because he said he has no intention of keeping them around that tipped you off? Is it their outright hatred of the man or the way he chewed up Jeb and spit him out? Or maybe it’s his standing in front of the nation and telling everyone that the wars were a mistake and that they in fact created ISIS?
You know what? Why don’t you simply go out and campaign for Hillary? You are doing a pretty good job of it here right now.
I’ve been trying to put this as gently as possible, but I see it isn’t working, so I’ll just be blunt:
Anyone who thinks there’s a dime’s worth of difference between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, on foreign policy or anything else, is a fucking idiot. I don’t give a rat’s ass which of them, if either, is elected. If you do, enjoy yourself.
You sound just like me about 20 years ago. Enjoy yourself as well, you only get to be young and think you know everything once.
Twenty years ago I was just finishing up with the Marine Corps and just starting with libertarianism. I’ve become a lot more older and a lot more pragmatic since then.
We don’t actually know that for sure. In fact, he has stated explicitly that he wants to spend more on defense and will confront the Chinese in their bathtub, the South China Sea. Last I knew, there were no Chinese warships in the Gulf of Mexico.
The Trump Test
Anti-interventionism in the age of revolt – http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2016/04/28/the-trump-test/
Trump is not a neocon, he’s a foreign policy “realist.”
We can comb through imperial America’s military forays across 20th century history, orchestrated by “realists” and neocons, and try to divine the value of the differences between both camps. They are, at a granular level significant enough, though hardly enough to lend the antiwar and anti-empire segments of the public true comfort.
Actually, it takes very little perception at all to recognize that the only thing the US has created “post-Soviet” is chaos. No need for the redundant “post-9/11,” which actually surprises me since Justin generally leans right and “post-9/11” lets Bill off the hook. Actually, I’d opt for “post-WWII,” to include Vietnam and Korea. But I have to agree, AC, that’s the difference between a “realist” and a “neocon.” The “realist” thinks everything up to the end of the Cold War was a success. I say a pox on both their houses for millions dead in Indochina and Korea.
” I say a pox on both their houses for millions dead in Indochina and Korea.”
Hear hear!
Still, in relation to Ukraine/Russia, John Mearsheimer and Jack F. Matlock, both FP “realists” have been some of the handful of lonely voices correcting the neocon driven propaganda and the establishment’s rush to rekindle a new Cold War 2.0 and an arms race.
True that. Tulsi Gabbard is also a whisp of sanity. I’ve been criticized for voicing support for her.
You know what I don’t get about statements like this? You really come across as looking for something to complain about. I get it that people are going to be leery. But there seems to be more going on here than just that. It seems that a lot of anti-war people simply enjoy being anti-war. So they oppose anyone who isn’t perfectly anti-war. I honestly get the feeling that for some people the idea of protesting all of them is simply more appealing that backing anyone, even if that person is moving in the right direction and their only competition is not.
I remember very well when Pat Buchanan was running and I saw the same exact thing then. They nitpicked him apart and refused to support him. Yet look at how different the world would be today, if we had gotten behind him and given him our full support.
If you don’t “enjoy” being anti-war, why don’t you try out a few weeks in Aleppo or Donetsk?
Aprescoup below has a much more rational criticism of my comment, though I still question whether a FP “realist” would favor threatening China in the South China Sea when China is not actually interfering with the freedom of navigation.
Did you simply purposely miss my point on purpose or what? It’s not that don’t “enjoy” being anti-war. It’s the people who decide they enjoy it so much that they will NEVER be pragmatic about anything ever. So they will turn around and allow someone who they know is a hawk to get in. This allows them to remain “anti-war” and have lots of things to protest about and complain about etc. But what do they actually accomplished, with this? Nothing, not one thing. In fact they have helped Hillary by coming on boards like this and trying to convince people to NOT vote for the only viable alternative to the known neo-con hawk.
I have said this to others and I’ll say it to you. If your morality won’t let you be pragmatic and help out then the least you can do is stay out of the way. Go ahead and keep your Ideals in tact. You don’t have to get your hands bloody. I’ll take that responsibility and If I’m wrong I will have to live with myself, you don’t have to.
You are sitting there saying that He might be bad in the China Sea. Well you know for a fact that Hillary will be bad there, right? And she is also WORSE by far when it comes to Russia and that is where the real threat to WWIII comes from. And actually a lot of our policy in Syria and against Iran is based on taking Russia down a notch.
In my Opinion Donald is about half correct on his foreign policy and Hillary is 100% horrible. So it is in fact a very clear choice as to who is better. Maybe it’s just BS from Trump, but so what then you got fooled and ended up with Hillary’s stuff anyway.
I would say that I don’t really understand you guys, but in fact I understand all too well. Why? Because I was exactly like you. 20 years ago I would have been making the exact same arguments as you do and the others here who are against Trump. I’ve been there and done that.
Ridiculous. I didn’t miss your point. You effectively accused me and others of enjoying being anti-war and somehow getting our rocks off by protesting. Well, believe me, it’s not enjoyable with the likes of you around.
I’m not in your way. I’ve already told you elsewhere in this thread, if Trump has not crossed your red lines, be my guest and vote for him. He has crossed mine, nor do I see enough of a difference between him and Clinton to warrant voting for him. I believe my vote will have a greater impact by casting it for Jill Stein, even if I’m sure she won’t win.
Now exactly what impact do you think you will have by voting for Jill? It’s at best a protest vote and will accomplish nothing. But again you will get to keep your ideals, so good for you. But then I have to wonder what you are doing on a thread about Donald Trump? You are not open to voting for him, that much is obvious. So why are you here if not to put down Trump? (That is what I mean by getting in the way).
However, having read of few of your post I think I do in fact understand you. You are a lefty claiming to be a libertarian. Your belief that “Rights are granted to us by the government” pretty much says it all. Your support for Jill caps it. This leaves me with the distinct impression that your opposition to Trump has more to do with his right wing talking points than his foreign policy.
So forgive me if I’m wrong but it certainly seems that what you are doing here or attempting to do, is persuade people to refuse to vote for Trump based on his foreign policy when in fact you will never actually consider him because he isn’t on the left.
This also explains why you and the incredibly rude and ignorant moderator here are not open to Trump. It’s not his foreign policy at all, that has you two up in arms, it’s that he is too far right for your liking.
I also have to wonder if there isn’t more than a little fear that a right wing guy or anyone running as republican will end getting the anti-war vote and moving the right away from the war-monger group. A conservative anti-war party must truly be your worst nightmare.
Now I can understand being disappointed that the Democrats are running a hawk and voting for Jill instead. But that is no reason to be upset that the right isn’t, unless of course you perhaps care more about being on the left than you do about being anti-war.
I’ve explained this many times in other comments, but once again, the historical role of 3rd parties in the US is to have their platform positions co-opted by one of the 2 major parties. As Trump said in his foreign policy speech, negotiators must be willing to walk away from the table if they aren’t offered their minimum objectives (ie, if their red lines are crossed). To that I would add, if they aren’t willing to walk away, none of their objectives will ever be achieved.
“Now exactly what impact do you think you will have by voting for Jill? It’s at best a protest vote and will accomplish nothing”
Where voting for Trump won’t accomplish anything either, and won’t even have the distinction of being based on any discernible principle other than “the candidate believes what I want him to believe, because I am clicking my heels together and wishing REAL HARD for him to believe that.”
Right. Trump has essentially endorsed Robert Gibbs’ justification of the killing of 16 year old Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki: that his father should have made better choices.
Such positions are disgusting, and there is only minor comfort in the fact that Trump has not (yet) been in a position to make such decisions.
“As for your Godwin comment comparing Trump to Hitler”
You apparently understand neither Godwin’s Law nor the meaning of the word “comparing” in the context it was used.
Hogwash. You did in fact compare Trump to Hitler and Yes you did in fact Godwin your comment. You got busted on it and now you are backtracking. No reason to do that. I have Godwin’d people before myself. It’s easy to fall into. No big deal.
Still haven’t looked up Godwin’s Law to see what it even means, I see.
Comparing Libertarians for Trump to Jews for Hitler is not comparing Trump to Hitler. At least not to anyone who’s spent 10 minutes with an elementary logic text.
Now you are just making yourself look silly. Godwins law is very simple and yes you invoked it. Backpedal all you want.
Yes, Godwin’s law is simple.
Godwin’s law says that the longer an Internet conversation continues, the more closely the probability that someone will draw a Nazi comparison approaches 1.
In other words, nothing like the way you were using it, as you would have known if you had bothered to inform yourself instead of just winging it and hoping that nobody would notice that you have no earthly idea what the hell you’re talking about.
I agree what he has said about torture and bombing is unacceptable if he tried to put it into practice, but so far that’s all talk. However, his incitement of violence is an action he has already taken. That’s why it’s beyond my red line and why it’s not just “left wing talking points.”
Think about this. If he is in fact up for negotiations when it comes to Torture and Killing the families of the terrorists. This would actually be something new. The current policy certainly is one of Killing families. We can also dream that torture has ended but it would be a fantasy and nothing more.
Do you believe that Hillary will not continue killing the families of Terrorists and a whole lot of other people too?
Now I simply don’t get what you are saying about inciting violence. He joked about punching someone in the face. When in fact he does provide a lot of security that has ended trouble. Should he have joked about it? Obviously not with the spin it’s gotten, but it was still in fact a joke. By the way, if you look at what happens to protesters of Hillary they get more than a joke and an escort out.
I think to this day I have only seen one Trump supporter completely assault someone without cause and that was the old guy and my guess is he is a little off his rocker. In fact I’m pretty sure we all know an old guy just like him.
If you want to look at who is actually inciting violence that would be the people who organize the groups that come and scream all kinds of truly hateful stuff at any Trump supporter who walks by.
Trump has to have had more than a million people come and see him now and of all those people and all the insults hurled at them, it’s a testimony to patience that only one guy has just gone and socked one of them. Now are you going to seriously tell me that his fans took Trump’s jokes literally?
Look, if Trump has not crossed your red line, and you therefore want to vote for him as the lesser of evils, be my guest. He has crossed my red line and I will not vote for him. I hope he wins more electoral votes than Hillary, because I know she will court war with Russia, but that doesn’t mean I can in good conscience be complicit with him by voting for him or hoping that he gets enough electoral votes to become President. Do I think Hillary is worse than Donald? Yes. Will I vote for Donald? No. I will vote 3rd party or cast a deliberate under-vote for President if my only choices are Hillary or Donald.
Cutting through the bullshit and getting right to the point, anything Trump has said on foreign policy or anything else, he has contradicted himself by saying the exact opposite 10 minutes later.
Let’s be nice and not remind JR. We all make stupid mistakes.
‘…his desire to be “unpredictable”…’
There is nothing wrong with being ‘unpredicable’. Better to keep others guessing (and not starting wars) than to (for example) establish ‘red lines’ which can exploited by either side to our disadvantage.
Ummm . . . When you have your finger on the trigger of 5,000 nukes it is absolutely essential that the Russians understand exactly what your red lines are and vice versa. Unpredictability is a luxury that we can’t afford when a nuclear exchange between the USA and Russia would end human civilization and could exterminate the human race. Even without nuclear weapons unpredictability leads to miscalculation and miscalculation leads to war. Winning is not as important as surviving.
I don’t believe that the neocons running our foreign policy have any idea what Russia’s red lines are, if they have any. But the Russians surely are not going to wait for US to launch nukes. As soon as any war breaks out, Russia would likely use its nukes because it would have to.
Red lines are subject to change which is why there shouldn’t be any. Obama’s CW red line in Syria was used by Turkey and the Gulf States to get US into Syria by providing CWs to the rebels they trained, armed and funded. They were hoping to get US in. Putin helped keep US out by getting Assad to give up CWs. Thus, Obama’s red line was tossed – which has made the Turks and Saudis and Qataris mad.
Knowing in advance what an enemy will do, gives an attacker an advantage and war more likely. Better to just keep an eye Russia’s arsenal and them on ours.. You could never be sure if or when they, or we, wouldn’t change launch conditions.
I hate the neocons. But the people who manage nuclear weapons in Russia and the USA know exactly where each other’s red lines are. That is why the US and NATO backed down in Ukraine, did not interfere in Crimea, and that is why Putin put the breaks on the separatist movements in Donetsk and Luhansk in return for Ukraine not joining NATO.
“Unpredictable” just means not predictably neo-con. I’m OK with that.
Were Bush and especially Obama particularly “predictable?”
And why would “predictability” be somehow a sign of a good foreign policy?
people like the known – Clinton is a KNOWN quantity
Trump promises to increase military spending, build more ships, modernize the nukes and wave the big stick at China. And he promises to win wars and turn US allies into tributaries.. Not antiwar. ‘Nuff said
Having a big stick does not mean pro-war if the only purpose of the stick is to dissuade an aggressor. That’s why it’s called ‘defense’. The problem now is that those in power (who hate Trump) are misusing ‘defense’ to create offense. Trump says he wouldn’t take US to war except as a last resort. He could be lying but, based on what he said, he is far less pro-war than any of the last four Presidents.
Trump has said that he believes USA should not be fighting multiple wars at once….thats not anti war at all because he does NOT say that the USA shouldn’t be fighting any wars
imho there is very little in Trumps statements which show hes anti war and people are desperately clinging to the MINORITY of statements which fit the anti war agenda while dismissing the majority of dreadful statements
Every presidential candidate since the Spanish American War has said that they would only go to war as a last resort and most who have led us into wars, (e.g, Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson, Nixon, Obama) have run as antiwar candidates. I cannot recall any presidential candidate who ever said that he or she was ready to go to war except as a last resort. So I am sorry, Trump gets no credit for meaningless platitudes.
Speaking legalistically, waving a stick at someone is an assault, even if you don’t strike them with it (battery).
I wonder how Trump would respond to Smedley Butler’s idea that American military policy should be defensive and extend to a maximum of 200 miles from its shores?
yes it would mean shutting a down a shitload of military bases, leaving many countries and redploying troops and weapons but then the uS would realise their military is simply too large
I have a feeling that he would do just that if he thought he could get it done.
you do realise it would change USAs foreign policy totally with no bases sacttered around the world – no aid to Israel or Saudi Arabia… certainly no Vietams or Iraqs. I just wonder if he or anyone for that matter would have the balls to do it
About the only manufacturing jobs left in the US are related to ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations), which require workers to be “US persons,” meaning US citizens or permanent resident aliens. Cutting both our own military and arms exports, which is what really needs to be done to bring peace to the world, would tank the US economy completely, unless we could rapidly shift investment to infrastructure and renewable energy.
Sounds like a good plan.
the economy would have to adapt
Precisely my point. It would be painful, but worth it. No sarcasm intended.
TRUMP — OUR ONLY HOPE FOR CHANGE
Whatever the change may be, is it not better then the insanity of Empire building with no-change Hillary?
Change is not necessarily better.
May 17, 1999 – Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, standing in front of an F-16, is explaining the war … dictates and ineffectively bombs or sanctions them if they don’t. … this superb military that you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?
FYI: America will not change it’s ways–no matter who takes over the Presidency. Donald Trump is the Ring Leader of… Ringling Bros. and Barnum and Bailey, Let the Show begin…bring in the clowns.
Trump talks like he’s leaving the option for militarism open.. disappointing.
THis is in addition to his pandering comments about caitlyn jenner, etc. ralph Nader said it perfectly in the 2000 election – we can already blow up the world multiple times over .. We need to downsze our military spending, not upsize it
I am shocked at how many self-described progressives are seriously considering supporting Trump over Hillary just because of her “hawkish” foreign policy! That’s utter nonsense! Those issues don’t matter at all when compared to battling Trump’s intolerance and bigotry!
Typical SJW, fight your imagined battles while real ones are waging. Do you think that Hillary has a good human rights history? Her actions are DEATH to human beings and you are worried that somebody might get their feelings hurt? In what world is mass slaughter better than someone who might not talk PC enough for you?
Spare me! Trump’s Islamophobic rhetoric is inciting violence in the middle east!
That’s for the best laugh of the day. His rhetoric is inciting violence? What part? The part where he says we shouldn’t have gone and killing hundreds of thousands of men women and children?
You know what is inciting violence? How about destroying entire nations? How about actually arming the people who are fighting?
Honestly, that is about the lamest talking point out there. Do you actually think that Muslims are worried more about some rhetoric than they are being bombed?
Take a look at what the Clinton’s have done to the actual people. How many millions of lives have they destroyed? And you are worried about Rhetoric?
he has practically encouraged violence against peopel who disagree with him a few times at rallies – the guy is a clown
He has practically encouraged violence oh my??
Well the Clinton’s have murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
I’ll pick the guy who jokes about punching obnoxious bozos who come to disrupt his rallies.
Now do you really believe that joking about punching someone in the nose is worse than slaughtering innocent men women and children?
It amazes me how people can even compare these two things with a straight face. It’s really just so amazing to me when I hear stuff like this. The disconnect from reality is unreal.
Hillary Clinton is a neo-con warmongress who is completely on par with W. She is a far bigger war hawk than Obama and you guys are worried that Trump jokes about roughing up protesters.
Please sit down and actually think about this for a second. Is it really correct to compare a joke about protesters being punched vs actually having a policy that has destroyed the lives of so many innocent people? Do you care more about some protester who is acting like a fool than you do the lives of little kids in the ME?
if you believe Trump is “joking” good luck to you
Yes he is joking and I suppose a lot of people, don’t get the joke. But it’s very much something that a New Yorker would say without implying that anyone should actually do it. In fact pretty much everyone I know around here, (Great Lakes) gets that it’s a joke. Nobody got punched out when he came here. In fact compared with concerts at the same place it was very, very, very peaceful.
Now the way to prove if its a joke or if he is Literally telling his supporters to be violent is Very Simple.
By now he has to have spoken to at least a million people. He’s had protesters pretty much from the start. Tell me this; If he wasn’t joking, that would mean that he “Literally” told a million people to go beat up people, right? How many people got beat up? ONE pnuch and that was by the crazy old dude and nobody said that was right to do, including Trump.
So either his supporters refuse to listen to him or he is joking, take your pick. But you can’t say he is instigating violence when his supporters are not being violent. In fact it’s been the other way around completely.
Take a look at the other night in California. Who instigated that? Who smashed the cop car up and busted out it’s windows? Go look at the film and tell me that it was Trump supporters being violent.
Are Trump supporters going around to Hillary’s events screaming and cussing at her supporters?
You are going to claim that he is instigating violence when it’s not his supporters being violent. I guess that makes him pretty poor at instigating violence.
Ohhh he is instigating violence, what violence?? Where? Well we haven’t found it yet, it must be here someplace. (Looks away as Hillary and Bernie supporters riot)
But you can’t say he is instigating violence when his supporters are not being violent. In fact it’s been the other way around completely.
yeah right – believe what you want
No not “believe”. You know how they say you can have your own opinions but not your own facts? Well I have watched a TON of Trump videos, just tons of them. I have seen all of the film of all the so called events. So I know for a fact who was instigating violence and who in fact was being violent themselves. And you have it backwards. Trump supporters are not beating up the protesters. It’s not Trump supporters going to events trying to create violence either. It’s Hillary and Sanders supporters Going There and Being Violent.
Trump is Hitler and all of his supporters are KKK/neo-Nazis!
Bigot!
Don’t forget his “unpredictability.” Or his reckless business judgment that led him to four bankruptcies and could lead to a nuclear exchange with Russia. The problem with Trump is that he is an infantile narcissistic personality and sometimes delusional. Even when compared to the other egotistical candidates Trump is much more infantile, delusional and, well, unpredictable. Trump has led a sheltered existence and he truly believes he is infallible because he has always been able to blame his mistakes on others – at least in his own mind. That is why Trump believes he can outsmart Putin in negotiations and intimidate China, Russia, Iran and NATO to get his way. Trump also has never been able to tolerate smart, independent people in his personal circle. Every other major presidential candidate or front runner by this point in time had smart, independent advisers on their team who were strong enough to disagree with the candidate or President. Trump can’t tolerate that type of person.
Trump is the single greatest threat to world peace!
In the end it all pivots around first whether any given person thinks that foreign policy is the most important issue and second about whether Donald Trump can be trusted. As for intolerance I think murdering innocent people in the Middle East is pretty intolerant.
Trump is a racist bigot!
There are two elements to successful trolling: Being prolific and being original. You seem to have the first one down, the second one needs lots and lots of work.
You’re a paid shill! Troll!
What mixed messages? He’s pro war. He might be better than Hillary but he’s still a moron. He talks like he must think everybody else is stupid.
Dear God … the stupid … it HURTS.
Look, I can’t stop you from making yourself look like an idiot in public. That’s not against the rules here. But I did try to help you stop doing so. I wash my hands of responsibility. If you prefer wallowing in visible ignorance to educating yourself in the fundamentals of logic and the English language, that’s your problem, not mine.