Trump takes on NATO, U.S. presence overseas

[RonPaulFanInGA]

“Ukraine is a country that affects us far less than it affects other countries in NATO and yet we’re doing all of the lifting,” Trump said. “They’re not doing anything. And I say, ‘Why is it that Germany’s not dealing with NATO on Ukraine? Why is it that other countries that are in the vicinity of Ukraine, why aren’t they dealing? Why are we always the one that’s leading, potentially the third world war with Russia.’”

Trump declared U.S. involvement in NATO may need to be significantly diminished in the coming years, breaking with nearly seven decades of consensus in Washington. “We certainly can’t afford to do this anymore,” Trump said, adding later, “NATO is costing us a fortune and yes, we’re protecting Europe with NATO, but we’re spending a lot of money.”

Trump steered away from interventionist policies overseas.

“I do think it’s a different world today and I don’t think we should be nation-building anymore,” Trump said. “I think it’s proven not to work and we have a different country than we did then. We have $19 trillion in debt. We’re sitting, probably, on a bubble. And it’s a bubble that if it breaks, it’s going to be very nasty. I just think we have to rebuild our country.”

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...n-2016-live-trump-clinton-sanders-cruz-kasich

 

[CPUd]

 

[undergroundrr]

That would be a nice one step forward. Unfortunately, there's a two steps back -

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/11/politics/donald-trump-30000-troops-isis/

 

[phill4paul]

“I do think it’s a different world today and I don’t think we should be nation-building anymore,” Trump said. “I think it’s proven not to work and we have a different country than we did then. We have $19 trillion in debt. We’re sitting, probably, on a bubble. And it’s a bubble that if it breaks, it’s going to be very nasty. I just think we have to rebuild our country.”

Trump continues to re-invent himself from Ron's playbook. Somehow I don't feel the same sincerity for a Johnny-come-lately.

 

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

FYI:

interventionalist

Definitions:
1. Physician specifically trained to perform interventional or minimally invasive procedures.
​

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Trump takes on NATO

It's funny, because the leader of his foreign policy team, Jeff Sessions, voted for the expansion of NATO to eastern Europe.

 

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Trump continues to re-invent himself from Ron's playbook. Somehow I don't feel the same sincerity for a Johnny-come-lately.

“Pulling back from Europe would save this country millions of dollars annually. The cost of stationing NATO troops in Europe is enormous. And these are clearly funds that can be put to better use.” - Donald J Trump, 2000 A.D.

 

[luctor-et-emergo]

“Ukraine is a country that affects us far less than it affects other countries in NATO and yet we’re doing all of the lifting,” Trump said. “They’re not doing anything. And I say, ‘Why is it that Germany’s not dealing with NATO on Ukraine? Why is it that other countries that are in the vicinity of Ukraine, why aren’t they dealing? Why are we always the one that’s leading, potentially the third world war with Russia.’”

He's right about some things, wrong about other things.

I don't like his methods and it scares me that most of the people on these boards have more knowledge about foreign policy.

 

[Cleaner44]

Trump continues to re-invent himself from Ron's playbook. Somehow I don't feel the same sincerity for a Johnny-come-lately.

I don't know if Trump is sincere, but I do know that Cruz and Hilary are full blown interventionist.

This again falls under my 5% rule. If there is only a 5% chance that Trump will be non-interventionist, that is 5% more than Cruz or Hilary.

Considering Trump is likely to win the White House without my vote, we will get the interesting experience of finding out if he is actually sincere.

Is there any chance that the advisors in question have had a Doug Wead type of growth in their views and are leaving behind their previously stupid positions?

What do we really know about these people?

 

[Zippyjuan]

He wants to go after ISIS and North Korea though.

 

[undergroundrr]

He's right about some things, wrong about other things.

I don't like his methods and it scares me that most of the people on these boards have more knowledge about foreign policy.

 

[trey4sports]

I don't know if Trump is sincere, but I do know that Cruz and Hilary are full blown interventionist.

This again falls under my 5% rule. If there is only a 5% chance that Trump will be non-interventionist, that is 5% more than Cruz or Hilary.

Considering Trump is likely to win the White House without my vote, we will get the interesting experience of finding out if he is actually sincere.

Is there any chance that the advisors in question have had a Doug Wead type of growth in their views and are leaving behind their previously stupid positions?

What do we really know about these people?

QFT.

I am supporting Trump because he is the only major candidate who has at least made some comments about reducing our military footprint abroad. Again, I know Trump talks to John Bolton and plenty of other hawks, and I know he has made some hawkish comments but a the end of the day the chance of him reducing our military footprint abroad is better than Cruz or Clinton.

 

[luctor-et-emergo]

QFT.

I am supporting Trump because he is the only major candidate who has at least made some comments about reducing our military footprint abroad. Again, I know Trump talks to John Bolton and plenty of other hawks, and I know he has made some hawkish comments but a the end of the day the chance of him reducing our military footprint abroad is better than Cruz or Clinton.

He needs your vote to win.

That is literally the only reason he says these things. He doesn't give a shit about foreign policy or he would have known a fuck about it. That's why he surrounds himself with these advisors because at this point he has seen there are a bunch of libertarian leaning Republicans, constitutional conservatives and whatnot that want a smaller military footprint and will believe anything he says.

Remember, his thing is marketing. Marketing is about making people feel good about stuff so they get suckered in.

Don't get suckered into it.

 

[Cleaner44]

He needs your vote to win.

That is literally the only reason he says these things. He doesn't give a $#@! about foreign policy or he would have known a $#@! about it. That's why he surrounds himself with these advisors because at this point he has seen there are a bunch of libertarian leaning Republicans, constitutional conservatives and whatnot that want a smaller military footprint and will believe anything he says.

Remember, his thing is marketing. Marketing is about making people feel good about stuff so they get suckered in.

Don't get suckered into it.

I am not so sure you are correct on this. I think he is taking a risk by taking this different approach and it is a risk that he doesn't need to take. It would be safer to replicate the Hilary/Cruz position.

 

[luctor-et-emergo]

I am not so sure you are correct on this. I think he is taking a risk by taking this different approach and it is a risk that he doesn't need to take. It would be safer to replicate the Hilary/Cruz position.

What risk exactly, I'm not following ?

You mean the risk of saying things that appeal to 'our type of crowd' ? While also having establishment advisors to appeal to a different crowd ? If that's what you mean then I agree with you, he's taking a risk there. Unfortunately it's working, in my opinion, I have absolutely no illusion that he will advocate for a non-interventionist foreign policy if he is elected president.

 

[Cleaner44]

What risk exactly, I'm not following ?

You mean the risk of saying things that appeal to 'our type of crowd' ? While also having establishment advisors to appeal to a different crowd ? If that's what you mean then I agree with you, he's taking a risk there. Unfortunately it's working, in my opinion, I have absolutely no illusion that he will advocate for a non-interventionist foreign policy if he is elected president.

What I am saying is that the easy thing to do is continue doing what all of the other candidates have been doing.

Advocating a Ron Paul type position is risky, especially with the Republican party.

I don't know if he really wants Ron Paul type non-intervention, but I do know that rejecting Bush policies in favor of Ron Paul policies is not the safe route with the GOP.

 

[CPUd]

Based on his history of statements and positions, Trump will be non-interventionist, except for those times when he will be interventionist.

 

[undergroundrr]

He wants to go after ISIS and North Korea though.

Yeah, I think the thread title is misleading. He's really talking exclusively about Europe in those comments, not "overseas" in general. I'm one who's very cautionary about his attitude towards China as well. Trade restrictions aren't going to turn out nicely and could get physical eventually.

The comment about nation-building is very nice to hear. As long as he doesn't replace it with nation-destroying. Or nation-acquiring.

 

[Cleaner44]

Based on his history of statements and positions, Trump will be non-interventionist, except for those times when he will be interventionist.

I think this is very fair. We really don't know how he will act until he does it.