hmmmmmmmm, sounds familiar…
1 Like
When Trump said:
“We will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism,”
Isn’t that one the greatest things a western politician has said in a long time?
No. This isn’t 1910… This is yet another Trumpism that ignores reality, but it sure does inspire his base.
An isolationist (or isolation lite) approach to national security and economics would be 10 steps backward. We are a net importer after all and cutting off or limiting imports/exports to South Korea, Mexico, Japan, China, etc… isn’t going to all of a sudden create jobs here. It will; however, drive prices up on numerous goods and services.
What do you think will happen if we withdraw our military presence from Europe and Asia? The Chinese and the Russians already don’t respect this feckless administration as it is.
There’s plenty of room for improvement, no doubt, but the U.S. public is better served when we play a key role in the world.
Globalism is here to stay.
1 Like
Did you read the article you posted? It specifically mentions NAFTA as does Trump himself.
I bet if you ask the South Korean’s they’ll disagree. I bet if you ask the former soviet states they’ll disagree too.
Yes, there have been foreign policy mistakes (some pretty bad), that doesn’t mean we should abandon foreign policy.
I wish there was some manly way for me to express the hearty chuckle this comment gave me.
Do not confuse what I said with smugness…I have a friend who is a missionary there, and shit is basically the end times at this point. But all we heard when Chavez was in power, was how great this socialist utopia was. Hell, college kids were wearing Che shirts with Chavez’s picture instead.
That system is doomed to failure, because humans at their core are greedy.
You cannot have a system that rewards people who do not work hard and innovate.
1 Like
[quote=“anon50325502, post:2709, topic:212571, full:true”]
Did you read the article you posted? It specifically mentions NAFTA as does Trump himself. [/quote]
No I just posted that to source the quote but it doesn’t matter. Trump constantly talks about being anti-interventionist anti-war. That’s the point, the quote goes along with the underlying theme of his message.
[quote=“anon50325502, post:2709, topic:212571, full:true”]
I bet if you ask the South Korean’s they’ll disagree. I bet if you ask the former soviet states they’ll disagree too. [/quote]
I’m not going to discuss every war post WW2 but there have plenty if not mostly failures post WW2.
[quote=“anon50325502, post:2709, topic:212571, full:true”]
What do you think will happen if we withdraw our military presence from Europe and Asia? [/quote]
I don’t know I’m not a military strategist. I do know it will save the US a whole lot of money in military service which is key for a country with trillions in dollars of debt. What do you think will happen and why?
edit: And I also believe the US shouldn’t intervene with military bases in other countries all over the world.
It kinda does matter. He is very literally referring to trade just as much if not more than military intervention here and elsewhere. “Globalism” is far more than just foreign policy as it relates to our national security. The two concepts are inextricably linked.
The same thing that always happens when a power vacuum is created. Someone, like Russia or China, or ISIS will fill the void. China’s already moving into the south China sea like they own the place. Russia’s already moved into the Ukraine. Pulling out of these regions isn’t going to help the situation. What if Iran acts up, do you think Russia will step in? Doubtful since they’ll selling them weapons…
It isn’t in our best interest to allow China or Russia to increase their influence on Europe for numerous reasons not the least of which is economic influence.
That’s fine, you asked the question.
[quote=“anon50325502, post:2712, topic:212571, full:true”]
It kinda does matter. [/quote]
No it doesn’t. I am discussing his stances on war.
[quote=“anon50325502, post:2712, topic:212571, full:true”]
He is very literally referring to trade just as much if not more than military intervention here and elsewhere. “Globalism” is far more than just foreign policy as it relates to our national security. The two concepts are inextricably linked. [/quote]
Almost all policy is technically linked in some way or another. He has an anti-war interventionist stance.
Do you disagree with this statement?
Fine, you should of been more clear when you posted the article.
At any rate, the economic impact of pulling our forces out of Europe and NATO does matter, quite a lot actually.
Moving on.
You’re really discussing his stance on military spending, readiness, and structure during times of peace.
That’s fine. Doesn’t really have anything to do with bases in Okinawa, though. I’d like to know how he plans to re-build the military while also closing bases overseas and save money. Maybe it’ll be a wash.
This is much more than a technicality. Anyway, moving on.
It’s been a “disaster” in a handful of cases. We left Europe alone after WWI, how’d that turn out?
Disagree with what statement? That there have been foreign policy failures since WWII? I already acknowledged that.
The answer isn’t to hide on the other side of the Atlantic.
[quote=“anon50325502, post:2714, topic:212571, full:true”]
It’s been a “disaster” in a handful of cases. We left Europe alone after WWI, how’d that turn out?[/quote]
Yes WW2 is the one major example, but what benefit have Americans seen from entering into wars since? Major ones since WW2 - Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, how did those pan out? Were they for better?
So what is the answer then? To endlessly intervene in every war conflict across the world? I’m not even saying you’re necessarily wrong, I’m saying to this point constantly intervening into conflicts across the globe has had a terrible track record for America.
I’d say it’s a pretty big example seeing as more Americans died in WWII than in the other 4 wars you mentioned combined. The Korean war was successful and I’m sure the free Korean’s in the south are glad we fought there. Vietnam was a mess, it was also 50 years ago. The nation building in Iraq has been a complete mess. Afghanistan has been moderately successful.
We don’t intervene in every war/conflict around the world now… Intervention should be on a case by case basis. We should push NATO nations to carry their fair share of the load and our personnel should be equipped and trained to get the job done.
Yeah… And SurveyUSA from the 19th-22nd (Which the PPIC is the 13th-22) has her +18.
Bernouts sound more and more like those of us who thought Romney had a chance in 2012 at the end every day. The AstroTurf on Facebook is so delusional it’s literally like watching toddler shows with my daughter.
Could he “win” CA? Sure. By the 33% margin he needs to get anywhere near close to enough delegates? Nah… No way. BErnouts are white men in the suburbs and college kids… CA isn’t really so full of them that they can outvote the Urban centers which are overwhelmingly pro-Clinton.
You’re right, but the fact that we have 1/3 of the nation’s welfare in this state, and Bern-dawg with his freebies, I am not calling this one done yet.
Non-whites, whether on welfare or not, don’t like the batshit old man. They see through the bullshit and understand Hilary is, without question, the least shitty of the two, and much more qualified.
Bernout has the same demographic problem that Republicans do. Urban vs Rural mostly, and whites vs non-whites secondly.
Best case for him is a 2-3% win. Which is still a loss considering how man delegates he’s behind.
This is actually the best case for the GOP as well.
It keeps the mud slinging going right up to the democratic convention. El Berno’s followers are gathering a hate for the DNC that is rivaled only by Sloth’s hate for Trump.
On a sidebar, if anybody is gonna start funding Johnson, I wish they would get it in gear pronto. Both Trump and Hillary are ripe for a full court media shit press.
1 Like
I don’t donate to people who wish to be my ruler, so… He’s SOL as far as my money. I’ll vote for him though.
1 Like
Do black and Hispanic voters want to go to college as much as white liberals?
I was referencing David Koch’s float a week ago that he was going to donate to Johnson.
1 Like
I have no idea. That’s a lot of people to assume an answer to that.
End of the day though, they don’t seem to want to vote for Sanders. Which tells me, they aren’t big on pipe dream, pie in sky bullshit. Or they would rather be rich than envy the rich?
I don’t know why they don’t like Sanders, but I’d like to assume it’s because the same reasons I don’t.