What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

"Official" Donald Trump for President: Great Wall of Mexico (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Higgs said:
Wait a second.  Let me see if I've got this right.  The hypothetical being posed is that abortions are illegal.  The question is posed, "if women break that ban should they be punished?"  And you are faulting him for saying yes?  I don't get it. Please help me out.  Are you saying a Presidential candidate should come out advocate not following the rule of law?  Is the deal where liberals get to decide what laws are enforced and laws aren't?  Even the hypothetical ones?

Holy cow this country has gone ####ing nuts.
Click to expand...
I think that might have been Tobias' point earlier, though I thought he was speaking philosophically.

First of all - Donald has already backtracked, has he not?

Aside from that, I don't think it has ever been GOP policy to punish - ie prosecute - mothers having (illegal) abortions. Maybe some portion of conservatives do advocate that but it has to my understanding not been proposed party policy for a long, long time, if ever. I'm not even sure if in the 'bad old days' what the punishment for women was. My understanding is that the modern proposed penalties and restrictions have always been towards restrictions on doctors.

You may agree with the concept, but no one has proposed this in recent memory, like the Nato and Geneva proposals no one has been suggesting this as policy anywhere. There wasn't even a debate on this on the presidential level.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Higgs said:
It's like Pravda during the days of the Soviet Union.  Not an exaggeration either.  They clearly and totally misrepresented what Trump said here in their headline.
Click to expand...
Headlines are rarely accurate.  This is news? It's 2016.  False headlines and fake stories are believed by a large majority of people because very few read the details.

Many women will now think that Trump said "women should be punished for having abortions".  Is it true?  Maybe not, but then it doesn't matter.

It's a sad shape that the media is in.

That being said, Trump's mouth was always going to get him in trouble.  There are many people who believe that women who are having abortions are committing murder.  But as a presidential candidate, that's not a road you want to go down in this backwards world, it will get you in hot water.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
with 5 trump threads running at the same time on page 1...Trumps  making FBG`s great again  one thread at a time

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I think that might have been Tobias' point earlier, though I thought he was speaking philosophically.

First of all - Donald has already backtracked, has he not?

Aside from that, I don't think it has ever been GOP policy to punish - ie prosecute - mothers having (illegal) abortions. Maybe some portion of conservatives do advocate that but it has to my understanding not been proposed party policy for a long, long time, if ever. I'm not even sure if in the 'bad old days' what the punishment for women was. My understanding is that the modern proposed penalties and restrictions have always been towards restrictions on doctors.

You may agree with the concept, but no one has proposed this in recent memory, like the Nato and Geneva proposals no one has been suggesting this as policy anywhere. There wasn't even a debate on this on the presidential level.
Click to expand...
This would be like Fox News posing the following hypothetical to Hillary - "All handguns have become illegal in the US.  If someone is caught with a gun, should they be punished?"  She says "Yes, there should be some form of punishment."  The headlines read, "Clinton wants citizens punished for owning guns" and there's outrage across the land.   :lmao:

 
Higgs said:
Wait a second.  Let me see if I've got this right.  The hypothetical being posed is that abortions are illegal.  The question is posed, "if women break that ban should they be punished?"  And you are faulting him for saying yes?  I don't get it. Please help me out.  Are you saying a Presidential candidate should come out advocate not following the rule of law?  Is the deal where liberals get to decide what laws are enforced and laws aren't?  Even the hypothetical ones?

Holy cow this country has gone ####ing nuts.
Click to expand...


Your logic is impeccable, however the right-to-life advocates consistently argue that they want to punish doctors who perform abortions, not women who have them.  This is because punishing women who have abortions is very unpopular.

 
Higgs said:
This would be like Fox News posing the following hypothetical to Hillary - "All handguns have become illegal in the US.  If someone is caught with a gun, should they be punished?"  She says "Yes, there should be some form of punishment."  The headlines read, "Clinton wants citizens punished for owning guns" and there's outrage across the land.   :lmao:
Click to expand...
That couldn't happen, because the right never takes what Hillary says out of context. :hophead:

 
Ministry of Pain said:
What's sad about the events today is that none of it is true. I'm talking about the BS "I was injured" from the female reporter. The video clearly shows she was not thrown to the ground and the gentleman in question is following right behind what could be the next President of the United States and this lady has the audacity to act like Jodie Foster in the Accused, she should be arrested and booked for slander/libel. 

I'm afraid it's only the beginning. They didn't get upset when Dukakis ran or Mondale grabbed Geraldine, they didn't kick up any dust or protest over Bob Dole, nobody shed a tear over John Kerry or John McCain...but suddenly the world is about to end as Donald Trump moves closer to being the nominee. I get that the guy annoys and enrages some folks, it's just going to get worse. I wasn't shocked when the guy jumped security at the rally a couple weeks back, look for many more brazen attempts and stunts in the weeks and months ahead. 

Trump will be accused and found guilty in some sectors of the public of the following but not limited to...

-Family ties to Nazis

-Cocaine with USFL Cheerleaders

-Bullied half of New York City around to get his buildings built. 

-Paid wages below China sweatshops to get his buildings built. 

-Had a gay affair with Bill Rancic. 

-Had a threesome with Bill Rancic and his wife.

-Rigged the Ms Universe Pageant based on sexual favors

-Has secret plan to offload US Nukes to Israel

-Has plans to deport 1 Million on the day he is sworn in.

-He single-handedly has kept wages stagnant for the last 40 years.

-He wears Melania's underwear under his suits. 

Probably over 100 dirty stories being put to print as we speak. Every news outlet wants to drum up a Trump story and there is plenty in his past. 1st wife to Marla Maples to Ms Universe...it's gonna get ugly. 
Click to expand...
:lmao:   :lmao:   :lmao:  

 
commisholio said:
Your logic is impeccable, however the right-to-life advocates consistently argue that they want to punish doctors who perform abortions, not women who have them.  This is because punishing women who have abortions is very unpopular.
Click to expand...
This is why you don't engage in hypotheticals.

btw - it's insane to say that the woman has no role in, or responsibility for, the act of abortion - in the real world or the hypothetical world.

 
SameSongNDance said:
Trump: Excuse me, I didn't start it. I didn't start it.

Cooper: But, sir, with all due respect, that's the argument of a 5-year old.

Trump: No, it's not.

Cooper: The argument of a 5-year old is "he started it".

Trump: You would say that. That's the problem with our country.

Cooper: Every parent knows a kid who says "he started it".

Trump: That's not a 5-year old.

:lmao:
Click to expand...
:lol:

Please tell me this didn't really happen. 

 
TobiasFunke said:
Changing the subject with a nonsensical comparison doesn't make Trump being scared to death of a woman holding a pen any less hilarious.
Click to expand...
Did Trump really say that stuff about the pen being a potential bomb or that this could have been a suicide bombing or anything like that?

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I think that might have been Tobias' point earlier, though I thought he was speaking philosophically.

First of all - Donald has already backtracked, has he not?

Aside from that, I don't think it has ever been GOP policy to punish - ie prosecute - mothers having (illegal) abortions. Maybe some portion of conservatives do advocate that but it has to my understanding not been proposed party policy for a long, long time, if ever. I'm not even sure if in the 'bad old days' what the punishment for women was. My understanding is that the modern proposed penalties and restrictions have always been towards restrictions on doctors.

You may agree with the concept, but no one has proposed this in recent memory, like the Nato and Geneva proposals no one has been suggesting this as policy anywhere. There wasn't even a debate on this on the presidential level.
Click to expand...
Serious pro-lifers do not advocate this position, but they are generally ignoring the legal creep that will inevitably come with enforcement of illegal abortions. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Higgs said:
This would be like Fox News posing the following hypothetical to Hillary - "All handguns have become illegal in the US.  If someone is caught with a gun, should they be punished?"  She says "Yes, there should be some form of punishment."  The headlines read, "Clinton wants citizens punished for owning guns" and there's outrage across the land.   :lmao:
Click to expand...
It would be more like imagining Hillary being led down a primrose path in an interview with Sean Hannity. First we would have to imagine allowing herself being put in that situation. [..... yeah....] and then allowing him to set her up on a tee and knock her out the park that way. Hillary is a lot of things but uncareful with her words is not one of them.

- Ok, good point, so having considered it I could see how someone who read the tweet as put out by Msnbc could imagine that Donald said that women having (legal) abortions should be punished. I never read it that way but you're right I could see how others might see it like that.

But that is just double or maybe even triple his trouble - so first of all congrats you're right he let Msnbc get out a misrepresentation of his position, but then he explained he actually meant women having illegal abortions, but that is still a position no one in the GOP is taking or has ever taken, then he also backtracked on his position while saying he is "unclear" on the final position (which pzzes off everyone on all sides and makes him look clueless about a basic subject), and he still gets to watch the interview get played again tonight and then reinterpreted yet again on Msnbc.

 
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/30/breaking-national-border-patrol-council-endorses-trump-for-president/

In an official statement first obtained by Breitbart Texas, the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC) endorsed Donald Trump for President of the United States. The unusually bold statement comes just days after a senior policy adviser for Trump made clear that future U.S. border security policy would be largely determined by the men and women of the U.S. Border Patrol who are actual agents protecting the border and not by politically-appointed bureaucrats in the Border Patrol or its parent agency, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), if Trump is elected.
Click to expand...

 
Dr Oadi said:
Found out today some nice young men have a chopper In the trunk for Donald Trump. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvaXwBSXc0w

How cute. 
Click to expand...


That Trump guy just keeps on inciting the violence. 

 Rapper YG says:

I like white folks, but I don’t like you
All the #####s in the hood wanna fight you
Surprised El Chapo ain’t tried to snipe you
Surprised the Nation of Islam ain’t tried to find you
Have a rally out in L.A., we gon’ #### it up

Rapper Nipsy Hussle says:

Look, Reagan sold coke, Obama sold hope
Donald Trump spent his trust fund money on the vote
You vote Trump then you’re prolly on dope
And if your ### do win, you gon’ prolly get smoked

 
dfsguy said:
She was sprayed after trying to hit someone, and as far as someone touching her, that is he said she said, but with how unhinged she looked I am guessing it didn't happen.
Click to expand...


Why do I suspect your opinion would be the exact opposite if she was a Trump supporter. 

 
massraider said:
Ann Coulter calls Trump 'mental'.

I mean.....Ann Coulter, for pete's sake.  

Ann Coulter thinks Trump is behaving distastefully.  
Click to expand...
Ann Coulter has been that way since the start. She loves Trump on immigration but gets annoyed from time to time with his tweets. Non-story.

Her tweet from 7 minutes again https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/715326616377827328

"Religious conservatives: We will not even accept a fine. (We aren't THAT against abortion if we can bash Trump.) "

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Speaking of Ann Coulter, the dishonest media is trying to make it seem like she is turning on Trump but lets take a look at what she wrote today on him

http://www.anncoulter.com/

The only question for Republicans is: Which candidate can win states that Mitt Romney lost?


Start with the fact that, before any vote is cast on Election Day, the Democrats have already won between 90 and 98 percent of the black vote and 60 to 75 percent of the Hispanic and Asian vote. Unless Republicans run the table on the white vote, they lose.


If there's still hope, it lies with Trump and only Trump. Donald Trump will do better with black and Hispanic voters than any other Republican. But it's with white voters that he really opens up the electoral map.


A Republican Party that wasn't intent on committing suicide would know that. But Stuart Stevens, the guy who lost a winnable presidential election in 2012, says it's impossible for Republicans to get one more white vote -- and the media are trying to convince the GOP that he's right.


Stevens says Romney tapped out every last white voter and still lost, so he says Republicans are looking for "the Lost Tribes of the Amazon" hoping to win more white votes: "In 1980, Ronald Reagan won 56 percent of white voters and won a landslide victory of 44 states. In 2012, Mitt Romney won 59 percent of whites and lost with 24 states."


Apparently, no one's told Stevens about the 50-state Electoral College. The national white vote is irrelevant. Presidential elections are won by winning states. (Only someone who got his ### kicked running an eminently electable candidate might not know this.)


Excluding third parties and breaking it down to a two-man race, Mitt Romney won 88 percent of the white vote in Mississippi, but only 40 percent of the white vote in Massachusetts. What sense does it make to talk about his national percentage of the white vote with disparities like that?


Romney lost the white vote to Obama in five crucial swing states: Maine (42 percent of the white vote), Minnesota (47 percent), New Hampshire (48 percent), Iowa (48 percent) and Wisconsin (49 percent). He only narrowly beat Obama's white vote in other important swing states -- Illinois (51 percent), Colorado (52 percent), Michigan (53 percent), Ohio (54 percent) and Pennsylvania (54 percent).
Click to expand...

 
dfsguy said:
Ann Coulter has been that way since the start. She loves Trump on immigration but gets annoyed from time to time with his tweets. Non-story.
Click to expand...
No, no, it IS a story.

A non-story is a link to a YouTube video with a staged 'fight' involving a guy dressed up as a woman.  In a Trump thread, for no apparent reason.  

 
squistion said:
Yeah, you are right, what difference would it make? :hophead:
Click to expand...
A lot. Hillary and Donald each have gifts and flaws, but they are very different gifts and flaws. Hillary minimizes mistakes and opportunities for mistakes. I don't recall Hillary ever having a gaffe-fest like the last 24 hours that Donald has had.

 
massraider said:
No, no, it IS a story.

A non-story is a link to a YouTube video with a staged 'fight' involving a guy dressed up as a woman.  In a Trump thread, for no apparent reason.  
Click to expand...
it's a lame story, everyone knows Ann still loves Trump the most, and there isn't anyone even close to Trump for her.

youtube link with Muslims acting like savages is quite relevant in a Trump thread since he is the only one willing to bring common sense into the picture with them.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
It would be more like imagining Hillary being led down a primrose path in an interview with Sean Hannity. First we would have to imagine allowing herself being put in that situation. [..... yeah....] and then allowing him to set her up on a tee and knock her out the park that way. Hillary is a lot of things but uncareful with her words is not one of them.

- Ok, good point, so having considered it I could see how someone who read the tweet as put out by Msnbc could imagine that Donald said that women having (legal) abortions should be punished. I never read it that way but you're right I could see how others might see it like that.

But that is just double or maybe even triple his trouble - so first of all congrats you're right he let Msnbc get out a misrepresentation of his position, but then he explained he actually meant women having illegal abortions, but that is still a position no one in the GOP is taking or has ever taken, then he also backtracked on his position while saying he is "unclear" on the final position (which pzzes off everyone on all sides and makes him look clueless about a basic subject), and he still gets to watch the interview get played again tonight and then reinterpreted yet again on Msnbc.
Click to expand...
Oh the guy's a mess, we've already established that.  :lmao:

 
Coulter on Trump:  ‘Mental.’ ‘Utterly Stupid.’ ‘Trump Only Cares About Trump.’

He is her favorite, because Cruz is only a little more popular than herpes.  

 
massraider said:
Coulter on Trump:  ‘Mental.’ ‘Utterly Stupid.’ ‘Trump Only Cares About Trump.’

He is her favorite, because Cruz is only a little more popular than herpes.  
Click to expand...
Sucks to be a Conservative right now, that's fo sho.

(shout out to my buddy)

 
dfsguy said:
it's a lame story, everyone knows Ann still loves Trump the most, and there isn't anyone even close.

youtube link with Muslims acting like savages is quite relevant in a Trump thread since he is the only one willing to bring common sense into the picture with them.
Click to expand...
Is there an earlier video that shows the 'muslim' sexually attacking someone?  

I know how important it is to you to find video evidence of groping.  I will certainly praise this German 'woman' the second that video shows up.  I'll wait here while you produce the evidence.

 
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2016/03/29/the-trump-challenge/

The Trump Challenge

He’s confronting the post-World War II international order – and winning

Quote
The candidacy of Donald J. Trump has upended American politics, and, indeed, has changed the political landscape in ways our liberal and conservative elites never expected and clearly abhor. He talks like an ordinary person, for one thing – a rarity in a realm where politicians routinely speak as if they are giving a speech before the Peoria Rotary Club. Unrehearsed and raw, he doesn’t do  “talking points” – and this, I think, more than his controversial proposal to deport millions of illegal immigrants, has provoked the policy wonks and the “intellectuals” into paroxysms of contempt. It’s also what’s endears him to ordinary people, and makes them listen – perhaps for the first time – to what a candidate for the highest office in the land is saying about where America is today and where he wants the country to go.

Trump’s domestic platform, such as it is, doesn’t really interest me: his proposal to “temporarily” ban Muslims from entering the US is unenforceable and downright silly. (How can you know if someone is a Muslim?) The issue that catapulted him to national attention – immigration – has already been settled, for better or worse: with millions of illegal immigrants already here, largely as a result of US laxity in maintaining border security, the immigration restrictionists are about forty years too late. His plan to deport illegals will never happen.

It’s in the realm of international affairs that Trump has really made a significant and lasting contribution to the discourse. As Bill Schneider writes in a Reuters opinion piece: “Trump is repudiating the entire framework of US foreign policy since 1947.” That dramatic and unmistakable fact is being lost amid the theatrics of a campaign season that often resembles an episode of the Jerry Springer Show.

In a recent interview with the New York Times, Trump explicates his consensus-busting view of America’s proper role in the world:

·  On defending Korea and Japan – “[A]t some point, there is going to be a point at which we just can’t do this anymore. … at some point, we cannot be the policeman of the world.” “f we are attacked, [Japan doesn’t] have to do anything. If they’re attacked, we have to go out with full force. You understand. That’s a pretty one-sided agreement, right there.”





This gets straight to the heart of Trump’s challenge to the foreign policy elites. Since the end of World War II, the US has occupied Japan. In effect, Japan is a conquered nation: and yet it’s an open question as to who conquered whom. As an economic entity, Japan exists to send cheap tariff-free exports to America in exchange for complete subordination to Washington’s imperial diktat. Only a few right-wing Japanese nationalists – and most of the inhabitants of Okinawa – object to that: as for the great majority, they are content to live prosperous lives under the American defense umbrella. Trump is quite right that this is a one-sided agreement: the Japanese don’t have to worry about defending themselves and they also get the economic benefits of having a strictly protected market while they hollow out our industrial base with cheap cars and precision machinery. This is the price we pay for the American empire – an imperium, as the Old Right writer and editor Garet Garrett put it many years ago, “where everything goes out and nothing comes in.”





·  On protecting the Saudis – “The beautiful thing about oil is that, you know, we’re really getting close, because of fracking, and because of new technology, we’re really in a position that we weren’t in, you know, years ago, and the reason we’re in the Middle East is for oil. And all of a sudden we’re finding out that there’s less reason to be. …[W]e protect countries, and take tremendous monetary hits on protecting countries. That would include Saudi Arabia, but it would include many other countries, as you know. We have, there’s a whole big list of them. We lose, everywhere. We lose monetarily, everywhere. And yet, without us, Saudi Arabia wouldn’t exist for very long. … I would say at a minimum, we have to be reimbursed, substantially reimbursed, I mean, to a point that’s far greater than what we’re being paid right now. Because we’re not being reimbursed for the kind of tremendous service that we’re performing by protecting various countries.”





This must have sent shivers through the powerful Saudi lobby in Washington and the many politicians and policy wonks on the take. The Kingdom has enjoyed a symbiotic relationship with Washington ever since Franklin Delano Roosevelt cemented the alliance in a meeting with King Ibn Saud in 1945 aboard the USS Quincy. US oil companies captured valuable franchises and the US military followed in their wake, with overflight privileges, military training programs, and a firm commitment by the US to defend the Kingdom against all comers.





Although the relationship has had its ups and downs, it has continued to this day essentially in its original form, due largely to the efforts of a well-funded Washington lobby backed by US oil interests, who are most interested in utilizing the US military to protect their profits.





Trump’s critique of US-Saudi relations threatens a self-interested claque of privileged plutocrats and their lobbyist supporters, just as his threat to cut off our other mostly useless “allies” from the gravy train has induced panic from Paris to the Potomac.





·  On NATO – “I have two problems with NATO. No. 1, it’s obsolete. When NATO was formed many decades ago we were a different country. There was a different threat. Soviet Union was, the Soviet Union, not Russia, which was much bigger than Russia, as you know. And, it was certainly much more powerful than even today’s Russia…. Today, it has to be changed. It has to be changed to include terror. It has to be changed from the standpoint of cost because the United States bears far too much of the cost of NATO. And one of the things that I hated seeing is Ukraine…. Why is it always the United States that gets right in the middle of things, with something that – you know, it affects us, but not nearly as much as it affects other countries.”





NATO became obsolete when the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union disintegrated. Yet instead of going the way of the horse-and-buggy, it grew until it reached the very gates of Moscow – in spite of a promise by George H.W. Bush that NATO would freeze its membership if Mikhail Gorbachev would allow East Germany to reunify with the West. What Trump is proposing is the dissolution of NATO as we know it – essentially an anti-Russian alliance – and its reconfiguration into an instrument devoted to counterterrorism. Indeed, later on in the interview with the Times, he suggests that NATO could be scrapped, and a new institution devoted to a more current problem – terrorism – would take its place.





This is a direct challenge to the military-industrial complex in this country, which lobbied heavily for NATO expansion in the post-Soviet era and made multi-billions. NATO requires member states to upgrade their militaries to meet certain standards, and of course it’s just a coincidence that they invariably turn to US military contractors to do the job. The prospect of this pot of gold being snatched away from Lockheed, Boeing, General Dynamics, and all the rest has the War Party in a lather – no wonder the neoconservatives (whose thinktanks are largely funded by these characters) is shouting ”Never Trump!”





·  On Syria – “I thought the approach of fighting Assad and ISIS simultaneously was madness, and idiocy. They’re fighting each other and yet we’re fighting both of them. You know, we were fighting both of them. I think that our far bigger problem than Assad is ISIS, I’ve always felt that. Assad is, you know I’m not saying Assad is a good man, ’cause he’s not, but our far greater problem is not Assad, it’s ISIS.”





With our Pentagon-funded Syrian rebels fighting our CIA-backed Syrian rebels, the absurdity of our foreign policy of regime change is so obvious that only a Washington policy wonk could fail to see it. Both parties have supported this insane policy, having learned nothing from the destruction of Iraq and the fall of the Iraqi Ba’athist regime. Although ISIS is portrayed as an “existential” threat to the US by the neoconservatives and our sensationalistic media, Washington has been trying to destroy the only effective fighting force that is today succeeding in defeating the “Caliphate” – the government of Bashar al-Assad.





If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result, then our Syria policy surely fits the bill. And yet from Hillary Clinton – the architect of our pro-rebel policy – to Lindsey Graham, the Washington consensus is that “Assad must go.”





Trump is challenging this nonsense – and performing a great service in doing so.





·  On nuclear weapons – “When people talk global warming, I say the global warming that we have to be careful of is the nuclear global warming. Single biggest problem that the world has. Power of weaponry today is beyond anything ever thought of, or even, you know, it’s unthinkable, the power. You look at Hiroshima and you can multiply that times many, many times, is what you have today. And to me, it’s the single biggest, it’s the single biggest problem.”





This part of the interview came up front, and it looked to me like the reporters were baiting Trump, expecting him to come out with some belligerent statement implying that of course he wouldn’t hesitate to nuke anyone. He didn’t fall for it. Indeed, his critique of the Iraq war and his general unwillingness to commit to putting ground troops in the Middle East – a statement he made several times in the course of the interview – shows that underneath the combative persona Trump is a bit of a peacenik. He clearly understands the horror of war, and in my view would be less likely than any other candidate to go to war, let alone use nuclear weapons.





·  An overview – “I’m not isolationist, but I am ‘America First.’ So I like the expression. I’m ‘America First.’ We have been disrespected, mocked, and ripped off for many many years by people that were smarter, shrewder, tougher. We were the big bully, but we were not smartly led. And we were the big bully who was — the big stupid bully and we were systematically ripped off by everybody.”





Trump’s appropriation of this slogan is the final insult to the globalists of the Washington set: it conjures their favorite “isolationist” bogeymen, the generally conservative “isolationists” who opposed US entry into World War II. The true history of the America First Committee – the biggest antiwar movement of modern times – is almost completely unknown, and it is regularly smeared by both liberals and conservatives as a “pro-Nazi” fifth column, when it in fact it was nothing of the sort.





America’s entry into the world war marked the beginning of our emergence as a global empire, and our role as self-appointed enforcer of the world order. Now that we have exhausted ourselves playing out that role, running up a debt of $18 trillion in the process, it’s only fitting that the slogan of “America First” should come back into circulation.





As Bill Schneider put it:





“During the debate in 2013 over a U.S. military strike to punish Syria for using chemical weapons, Benjamin Rhodes, President Barack Obama’s deputy national security adviser, said, ‘The US for decades has played the role of undergirding the global security architecture and enforcing international norms. And we do not want to send a message that the United States is getting out of that business in any way.’





“That’s precisely the message Trump is sending. And millions of Americans seem eager to endorse it.”





Yes, there are problems with Trump’s foreign policy pronouncements: his AIPAC speech was horrific, there was no mention of the “evenhanded’ approach he had previously said he’d employ in trying to reach a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He’s not a consistent opponent of US intervention overseas, and, worst of all, he can’t be trusted. He’s simply too unpredictable.





Yet this is all quite irrelevant to the question of his significance, whether or not he actually succeeds in grasping the GOP nomination. The point is that he has changed the foreign policy discourse in the Republican party, wresting it from the heretofore iron grip of the neocons and successfully selling a demonstrably less interventionist policy to GOP primary voters. You’ll recall that the pundits routinely discounted Rand Paul’s presidential campaign on account of his anti-interventionist views – which are quite mild compared to Trump’s. Given Trump’s popularity, however, from this day forward they won’t be able to get away with that again. The terms of the debate have been irrevocably changed – and that is Trump’s great achievement, for which he must be given full credit.
Click to expand...



 


 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Ministry of Pain
For those starting a Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program with family or friends
Replies
11
Views
500
Hoh
H
B Maverick
Router Suggestions
Replies
4
Views
164
gianmarco
gianmarco
Todem
Official Rush “Fifty Something Tour” Thread
2
Replies
93
Views
2K
Ghost Rider
Ghost Rider

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top