Trump

[Yank Mike]

I'd challenge anyone to read this transcript and not conclude that Trump would be an utterly disastrous President. The fact that he bemoans "predictability" in foreign policy should raise all sorts of red flags.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/03/21/a-transcript-of-donald-trumps-meeting-with-the-washington-post-editorial-board/?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b

The US should stay out of nation building.

The US should not underwrite the security costs of rich countries now that the Cold War is over.

Wants to defeat ISIS using our air power and local allies on the ground. Would be a tough decision if US ground troops are required, but is open to the idea if the generals say it's necessary.

Use economic muscle against China if they threaten their neighbors.

 

The main thing I get from this is that he's not extremely ideological when it comes to foreign policy. It seems like he'll take each situation and approach it from the perspective of what's best of the USA. I'm fine with that.

[pandarilla]

He's the only candidate willing to say that mass Muslim immigration leads to unassimilated ghetttos and terrorist attacks against the host population. Perhaps we should debate whether this is desirable. It turns out a large percentage of Americans agree that we should stop Muslim immigration, but it was literally so far off the radar of the government and media that no polling had been done on the subject. The shock at the exist polls as Republicans in state after state agreed with this policy was hilarious. I knew support would be pretty high, but the elites in their PC bubbles had no idea what actual people thought on the issue.

 

 

Our last "free trade" deal was negotiated under Obama with South Korea. It was the largest since NAFTA. Our government said our exports would go up by $10 billion per year. They've gone up none, while their exports to us have exploded. Who is negotiating these treaties? Perhaps they don't know what they are talking about. I'm not any type of expert on economics, but if Obama sold the public on the deal based on increased access to Korean markets then that would seem to be what we wanted out of the agreement. Why did it not work?

 

Just because huge swathes of the American electorate are uneducated and a bit racist doesn't mean you should elect someone of the same ilk.  It would be a far more honest tactic for the GOP though.

[Yank Mike]

The big problem with this suggested policy is that it is crass and impossible to implement.

No. It's easy. The USA has successfully shut down immigration from multiple countries over our history. The hard part would be getting rid of the illegals here. I don't want to necessarily live in a country where the government is going door to door hunting for people, and I think this is a common Republican position. That's why the wall with Mexico and stopping Muslim immigration are supported by the majority of Republicans in exit poll after exit poll while deporting the illegals currently here is supported by only a minority.

It might not be fair to the many peaceful Muslims who want to live in an open and liberal society. But it's of no benefit to the people currently living in America if they are going to bring with them a large % who refuse to assimilate to Western norms and a bucketload of violent terrorists.

[Yank Mike]

Just because huge swathes of the American electorate are uneducated and a bit racist doesn't mean you should elect someone of the same ilk.  It would be a far more honest tactic for the GOP though.

It's not uneducated or racist to look at the Muslim populations in other Western countries (and in our own country to a lesser extent) and decide whether we want this.

Muslim isn't a race.

[Zen Archer (Raconteur)]

No. It's easy. The USA has successfully shut down immigration from multiple countries over our history. The hard part would be getting rid of the illegals here. I don't want to necessarily live in a country where the government is going door to door hunting for people, and I think this is a common Republican position. That's why the wall with Mexico and stopping Muslim immigration are supported by the majority of Republicans in exit poll after exit poll while deporting the illegals currently here is supported by only a minority.

It might not be fair to the many peaceful Muslims who want to live in an open and liberal society. But it's of no benefit to the people currently living in America if they are going to bring with them a large % who refuse to assimilate to Western norms and a bucketload of violent terrorists.

 

You better hope that history doesn't repeat itself.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans

[welshbairn]

It's not uneducated or racist to look at the Muslim populations in other Western countries (and in out own country to a lesser extent) and decide whether we want this.

Muslim isn't a race.

 

So why lump them together? It's like making out every Christian to be a potential member of the Westboro Baptist Church.

 

More violent alternative analogies are available on request.

[pandarilla]

So why lump them together? It's like making out every Christian to be a potential member of the Westboro Baptist Church.

 

Or the Klan.

[vikingTON]

The US should stay out of nation building.

The US should not underwrite the security costs of rich countries now that the Cold War is over.

Wants to defeat ISIS using our air power and local allies on the ground. Would be a tough decision if US ground troops are required, but is open to the idea if the generals say it's necessary.

Use economic muscle against China if they threaten their neighbors.

 

The main thing I get from this is that he's not extremely ideological when it comes to foreign policy. It seems like he'll take each situation and approach it from the perspective of what's best of the USA. I'm fine with that.

 

You didn't actually read the transcripts for comprehension, did you? Trump's stance on a whole range of policy issues - Iran, China, IS - are clearly ideological. His policy prescriptions aren't 'ideological' only because as the transcript underlines, he doesn't actually have a clue what he would do. And crucially, the leaders of other highly powerful states wouldn't know what the U.S. would do either, which would make for a highly unstable period in international relations.

[The_Kincardine]

The big problem with this suggested policy is that it is crass and impossible to implement.

 

No. It's easy. The USA has successfully shut down immigration from multiple countries over our history.

 

"We don't want people from Country X" is one thing.  "We don't want Muslims" is different  There is absolutely no Islamy test which is what makes Trump's policy ignorant and impossible to implement.

[Yank Mike]

So why lump them together? It's like making out every Christian to be a potential member of the Westboro Baptist Church.

 

More violent alternative analogies are available on request.

According to wiki, there are 225 million self-identified Christians in the US. Westboro Baptist has 40 members. The KKK has 5-8,000 members. For a point of comparison, the news that there were more British Muslims fighting in ISIS than serving in the British Army made big news here. Scale matters.

Look at the polls in Muslim countries about their views on whether apostates or homosexuals should be put to death. It is large majorities in many Muslims countries, and significant minorities in the rest. Look at the polls when it comes to their views on women. (As a side note, this is one of my biggest problems with Muslims from personal experience. Conservative Christians have roughly similar behavior expectations for their male and female children. Based on my interactions with Muslims it seems that they are perfectly fine with their young men attempting to bang as many American chicks as possible. In fact they are probably the most blunt people I've ever seen when they ask girls to f**k. However, their young women are never seen out and act in the most painfully shy way if they interact with American men. At first it doesn't make sense because I'm trying to make sense of it from a Western point of view. But then I realized that it makes perfect sense from an Arab worldview that sees women as objects.)  Look at their voting patterns when they do get a chance to vote.

The problem with letting in liberal Muslims is that their religion will be passed down. Many American born Muslims will get online and become radicalized by what they view as a more pure version of Islam. They might be especially drawn to this type of thing as they feel stuck between two worlds, as is normal for many children of immigrants. This is what seems to be happening with many of the US and European born Muslims who have become radicalized.

Western lefties try and say that radical Islam does not represent real Islam. But why shouldn't I take the word of the major Islamic universities and self-styled Islamic governments as to what their religion says? Obviously there are different interpretations about what is correct, but it seems clear that the most pure form rejects secular government, democracy, capitalism, gender equality, and freedom of thought. That's a problem because a certain percentage of people will always be drawn to the most "pure" form of their religion. You might not like the beliefs Southern Baptists or conservative Catholics, but there's nothing in the New Testament or teachings of Jesus that contradict the basic tenants of liberal society. You can square "pure" Christianity with modern American society. Islam is the only religion I can think of other than Judaism in which it's pure form is not at all compatible with a free society. Of course the difference with the Jews is that they have lived as model minorities in different societies for thousands of years. And even if they did decide to go all out for the pure form of their religion, I'm fairly sure they don't have a mandate to enforce their rules on non-Jews outside the Holy Land.

[Yank Mike]

"We don't want people from Country X" is one thing.  "We don't want Muslims" is different  There is absolutely no Islamy test which is what makes Trump's policy ignorant and impossible to implement.

That's a fair enough point. I certainly wouldn't ban Muslims from other Western countries from the US just out of respect to those countries. But I wouldn't want to shut off immigration from non-Muslims in Muslim majority countries if those people are in a bad spot.For instance,  I think the US owes the Christians and pagan groups in Iraq the right to move here because we took out the guy who protected them and put in a government that can't or won't. I suppose you could select a group of Muslim majority countries for scrutiny, and the prospective immigrants from those countries would have to show credible evidence that they are not Muslim.

 

 

You didn't actually read the transcripts for comprehension, did you? Trump's stance on a whole range of policy issues - Iran, China, IS - are clearly ideological. His policy prescriptions aren't 'ideological' only because as the transcript underlines, he doesn't actually have a clue what he would do. And crucially, the leaders of other highly powerful states wouldn't know what the U.S. would do either, which would make for a highly unstable period in international relations.

That's a reasonable fear. I want the US to retreat from some of our global responsibilities. How would you suggest doing this without creating somewhat of a power vacuum or political instability? Do we have to maintain our current foreign policy, which from my view has been bad for the US citizen, soldier, and taxpayer, indefinitely?

I would also argue that the US has been pretty bad historically at having a coherent foreign policy that people outside of our close allies could rely on. Libya gives up their WMDs and Gaddafi is Bush's best friend and an example of what his tough foreign policy could accomplish. Next President we are bombing his regime until he ends up dead. The world is littered with similar examples from my lifetime as we went from President to President.

[welshbairn]

According to Wiki there are 1.6 Billion Muslims on the Earth. How many of them do you really think are suicidal death cultists? How many of your "Southern Baptists or conservative Catholics" are fiercely against "the basic tenets of liberal society" like gay rights etc.? The idea that American Muslims are trying to enforce Sharia law is as daft as saying Jews are trying to enforce Halakhah or Anglicans are trying to rule America from Canterbury.

[Peppino Impastato]

I called this within about 24 hours of his arrival on the forum. I think it's Paolo Sergio.

Is this why you sent me a creepy pm tonight threatening to ' expose ' me and asking me to stop calling you out on your lies and trolling in exchange for not reporting Me?

If you think I'm an alias check with admi, iif you want to not be called out on lying and trolling stop lying and trolling.

[Ad Lib]

Is this why you sent me a creepy pm tonight threatening to ' expose ' me and asking me to stop calling you out on your lies and trolling in exchange for not reporting Me?

If you think I'm an alias check with admi, iif you want to not be called out on lying and trolling stop lying and trolling.

Oh well, if a reasonable request that you not behave like a child falls on deaf ears I guess you'll just have to have your latest alias purged.

Enjoy your final hours of freedom before your next banning, FuzzyAffro.

[Peppino Impastato]

Oh well, if a reasonable request that you not behave like a child falls on deaf ears I guess you'll just have to have your latest alias purged.

Enjoy your final hours of freedom before your next banning, FuzzyAffro.

You calling someone else childish? Amazing, I had you identified within an hour as a man child. Though I don't think a protracted slanging match on the board is appropriate.

[Glenn Medeiros]

Oh well, if a reasonable request that you not behave like a child falls on deaf ears I guess you'll just have to have your latest alias purged.

Enjoy your final hours of freedom before your next banning, FuzzyAffro.

 

And we have affirmation that Ad Lib used the PM function with his soggy keyboard, because he didn't have the political clout to fend off a newbie.   Bless. 

 

Probably for the best you were utterly rejected for the SNP by the good people of East Ren. 

[Peppino Impastato]

And we have affirmation that Ad Lib used the PM function with his soggy keyboard, because he didn't have the political clout to fend off a newbie.   Bless. 

 

Probably for the best you were utterly rejected for the SNP by the good people of East Ren.

It was bizarre, a threat to 'out' me if I didn't stop pointng out his lies basically but a promise not to if I did. An attempt to buy credibility really. Strange man.

[Ad Lib]

It was bizarre, a threat to 'out' me if I didn't stop pointng out his lies basically but a promise not to if I did. An attempt to buy credibility really. Strange man.

There was no threat to out you at all.

I think you'll find I offered not to report you to the moderators for being an alias of a previously banned poster if you agreed not to behave "like a petulant thirteen-year-old Billy-no-mates desperately craving acceptance from the big boys every time I post something".

Since you obviously can't, I have. Enjoy your impending banning.

[Peppino Impastato]

There was no threat to out you at all.

I think you'll find I offered not to report you to the moderators for being an alias of a previously banned poster if you agreed not to behave "like a petulant thirteen-year-old Billy-no-mates desperately craving acceptance from the big boys every time I post something".

Since you obviously can't, I have. Enjoy your impending banning.

You're aware you just contradicted yourself in this Post? Have you been drinking tonight?

Are you also aware thats the perfect description of You? Man you really need a ride. If you have any more replies relating to me and not the topic keep them to pm wouldn't want to get banned for derailing a thread.

[welshbairn]

There was no threat to out you at all.

I think you'll find I offered not to report you to the moderators for being an alias of a previously banned poster if you agreed not to behave "like a petulant thirteen-year-old Billy-no-mates desperately craving acceptance from the big boys every time I post something".

Since you obviously can't, I have. Enjoy your impending banning.

 

You are doing yourself no favours here Ad Lib.