Trump will turn US (neocon) foreign policy upside down

[openfire]

..

 

[Jan2017]

But can Trump "out-Israel" neocons like his AG Chris Christie ?

 

[phill4paul]

Trumps a Pottery Barn diplomacy adherent. So, no. Neocons still get what they want when he sends 30k troops to destroy ISIS.

 

[Spikender]

Trumps a Pottery Barn diplomacy adherent. So, no. Neocons still get what they want when he sends 30k troops to destroy ISIS.

And since Trump supports waterboarding and much worse, I think things are going to be business as almost usual in Washington.

 

[timosman]

Trumps a Pottery Barn diplomacy adherent. So, no. Neocons still get what they want when he sends 30k troops to destroy ISIS.

Pottery Barn Rule, “you break it, you own it.” - seems like a good rule.

 

[phill4paul]

Pottery Barn Rule, “you break it, you own it.” - seems like a good rule.

No. No, it doesn't.

 

[erowe1]

The 3 pillars of neocon foreign policy:

• US - Saudi alliance
• Unwavering support for Israeli national and regional strategic interests
• Containment of Russia and demonization of Putin

What's your source for this?

 

[Unknown.User]

..

 

[Unknown.User]

..

 

[enhanced_deficit]

Will Trump attack Hillary's support for Iraq war also during general?

[h=3]Hillary: ‘What certainly influenced me’ to support Iraq war was Bush’s billions aid to NYC[/h]

 

[erowe1]

See my post

I see 3 videos that look like they're all about Trump. If any of those explain why we should define neoconservatism according to the 3 pillars listed in the OP, could you tell me which one and at which point in it that is explained?

 

[Unknown.User]

..

 

[erowe1]

Nice pivot. Certainly you agree these are misguided views that neocons promote. Allow me to cite Ron Paul affiliated quotes on these topics.

It's not a pivot. That was precisely my question in post #7.

I've never seen neoconservatism defined that way before. It looks like the whole point of calling those the three pillars of neoconservatism is so that you can say that Trump isn't one by cherry-picking quotes from him.

If that's not the case, then what's the reason for defining neoconservatism that way?

 

[Unknown.User]

..

 

[erowe1]

Well, you will respond that way no matter what I respond. I just hope you have thought about what Ron was speaking out against when he warned against foreign intervention and entangling alliances in the modern era. Below is an answer to your question. You can twist it to say it doesn't correspond with the OP if you want, but at that point you are arguing semantics instead of intention of content.



http://www.theamericanconservative.com/2011/06/23/whats-a-neoconservative/

Now we're getting somewhere.

Notice that when you use a decent definition of neoconservatism, there's really no evidence to say that Trump is not one, certainly not that he turns it upside-down the way the OP says, and tries to defend by positing three pillars of neoconservatism that don't actually have to do with neoconservatism.

And yes, Ron Paul spoke out against foreign intervention and entangling alliances. But Trump has no problem whatsoever with foreign intervention and entangling alliances. The OP would have us think that there's something virtuous about Trump's wanting to get into an entangling alliance with no less a demon than Putin (who, by the way, deserves any demonizing anyone might apply to him).

 

[Unknown.User]

..

 

[erowe1]

With respect to endless wars and federal welfare for foreign nations Trump does agree with Paul. For video evidence, see some of my recent posts. I do not want to keep flooding threads with the same videos.

You can find video evidence of Trump supporting any position and its opposite. But you're dreaming if you think he really agrees with Ron Paul on those things.

Trump thinks he can get us into wars and somehow they won't turn out to be endless wars because he'll be such a great manager of everything. He's delusional. But he has no underlying principles that make him any less likely to cause all the same kinds of international problems Bush did.

It's easy to be against the Iraq war today and criticize it with the benefit of hindsight. But when the decision to invade was made Trump supported it. He supports policing the world. In fact, when you consider all the ways he wants to use economic sanctions to manipulate other countries to do his bidding, he is more of an interventionist than Cruz.

 

[Unknown.User]

..

 

[openfire]

What's your source for this?

Documented modern world history. "Common knowledge".

None of those 3 are controversial, so which of the "3 pillars" do you dispute? What would you like a source for? Get specific.

*edit: I've just read the new guidelines and am unsure whether or not this post (and thread) is in adherence with the new policy*

 

[CPUd]