Watch Live: Donald Trump's Teleprompted Foreign Policy Speech

Yes, I know that speech inside out. I've shared it many times over the years.

You fail to recognize what Trump's speech represents and how it advances the most of the ideals and goals in Ron's speech. Hence, my comment.

"1000% opposite"?

Point by point, I can find only one "opposite of Trump":



What if our foreign policy of the past century is deeply flawed and has not served our national security interest?

What if we wake up one day and realize that the terrorist threat is the predictable consequence of our meddling in the affairs of others, and has nothing to do with us being free and prosperous?

What if propping up repressive regimes in the Middle East endangers both the United States and Israel?

What if occupying countries like Iraq and Afghanistan and bombing Pakistan is directly related to the hatred directed toward us?

What if someday it dawns on us that losing over 5,000 American military personnel in the Middle East since 9/11 is not a fair tradeoff with the loss of nearly 3,000 American citizens no matter how many Iraqi, Pakistanian, Afghan people are killed or displaced?


What if we finally decide that torture, even if called “enhanced interrogation technique”, is self-destructive and produces no useful information and that contracting it out to a third world nation is just as evil?


What if it is finally realized that war and military spending is always destructive to the economy?

What if all war-time spending is paid for through the deceitful and evil process of inflating and borrowing?

What if we finally see that war-time conditions always undermine personal liberty?

What if Conservatives who preach small government wake up and realize that our interventionist foreign policy provides the greatest incentive to expand the government?

What if Conservatives understood once again that their only logical position is to reject military intervention and managing an empire throughout the world?

What if the American people woke up and understood that the official reasons for going to war are almost always based on lies and promoted by war propaganda in order to serve special interests?

What if we as a nation came to realize that the quest for empire eventually destroys all great nations?

What if Obama has no intention of leaving Iraq?

What if a military draft is being planned for for the wars that would spread if our foreign policy is not changed?

What if the American people learned the truth, that our foreign policy has nothing to do with national security, that it never changes from one administration to the next?

What if war in preparation for war is a racket serving the special interests?

What if President Obama is completely wrong about Afghanistan and it turns out worse than Iraq and Vietnam put together?

What if Christianity actually teaches peace and not preventive wars of aggression?

What if diplomacy is found to be superior to bombs and bribes in protecting America?

No.

This is Ron's speech and Trump's solutions:

RP Speech


What if our foreign policy of the past century is deeply flawed and has not served our national security interest?

What if we wake up one day and realize that the terrorist threat is the predictable consequence of our meddling in the affairs of others, and has nothing to do with us being free and prosperous?

Trump’s Solution:
First, we need a long-term plan to halt the spread and reach of radical Islam.
Containing the spread of radical Islam must be a major foreign policy goal of the United States.
Events may require the use of military force. But it’s also a philosophical struggle, like our long struggle in the Cold War.
In this we’re going to be working very closely with our allies in the Muslim world, all of which are at risk from radical Islamic violence.
We should work together with any nation in the region that is threatened by the rise of radical Islam. But this has to be a two-way street – they must also be good to us and remember us and all we are doing for them.
The struggle against radical Islam also takes place in our homeland. There are scores of recent migrants inside our borders charged with terrorism. For every case known to the public, there are dozens more.
We must stop importing extremism through senseless immigration policies.
A pause for reassessment will help us to prevent the next San Bernardino or worse -- all you have to do is look at the World Trade Center and September 11th.
And then there’s ISIS. I have a simple message for them. Their days are numbered. I won’t tell them where and I won’t tell them how. We must as, a nation, be more unpredictable. But they’re going to be gone. And soon.


What if propping up repressive regimes in the Middle East endangers both the United States and Israel?

What if occupying countries like Iraq and Afghanistan and bombing Pakistan is directly related to the hatred directed toward us?

What if someday it dawns on us that losing over 5,000 American military personnel in the Middle East since 9/11 is not a fair tradeoff with the loss of nearly 3,000 American citizens no matter how many Iraqi, Pakistanian, Afghan people are killed or displaced?

What if we finally decide that torture, even if called “enhanced interrogation technique”, is self-destructive and produces no useful information and that contracting it out to a third world nation is just as evil?

What if it is finally realized that war and military spending is always destructive to the economy?

What if all war-time spending is paid for through the deceitful and evil process of inflating and borrowing?

What if we finally see that war-time conditions always undermine personal liberty?

What if Conservatives who preach small government wake up and realize that our interventionist foreign policy provides the greatest incentive to expand the government?

What if Conservatives understood once again that their only logical position is to reject military intervention and managing an empire throughout the world?

Trump’s Solution:
Secondly, we have to rebuild our military and our economy.
The Russians and Chinese have rapidly expanded their military capability, but look what’s happened to us!
Our nuclear weapons arsenal – our ultimate deterrent – has been allowed to atrophy and is desperately in need of modernization and renewal.
Our active duty armed forces have shrunk from 2 million in 1991 to about 1.3 million today.
The Navy has shrunk from over 500 ships to 272 ships during that time.
The Air Force is about 1/3 smaller than 1991. Pilots are flying B-52s in combat missions today which are older than most people in this room.
And what are we doing about this? President Obama has proposed a 2017 defense budget that, in real dollars, cuts nearly 25% from what we were spending in 2011.
Our military is depleted, and we’re asking our generals and military leaders to worry about global warming.
We will spend what we need to rebuild our military. It is the cheapest investment we can make. We will develop, build and purchase the best equipment known to mankind. Our military dominance must be unquestioned.
But we will look for savings and spend our money wisely. In this time of mounting debt, not one dollar can be wasted.



What if the American people woke up and understood that the official reasons for going to war are almost always based on lies and promoted by war propaganda in order to serve special interests?

What if we as a nation came to realize that the quest for empire eventually destroys all great nations?

What if Obama has no intention of leaving Iraq?

What if a military draft is being planned for for the wars that would spread if our foreign policy is not changed?

What if the American people learned the truth, that our foreign policy has nothing to do with national security, that it never changes from one administration to the next?

What if war in preparation for war is a racket serving the special interests?

Trump’s Solution:
Our foreign policy goals must be based on America’s core national security interests, and the following will be my priorities.
In the Middle East, our goals must be to defeat terrorists and promote regional stability, not radical change. We need to be clear-sighted about the groups that will never be anything other than enemies.



What if President Obama is completely wrong about Afghanistan and it turns out worse than Iraq and Vietnam put together?

What if Christianity actually teaches peace and not preventive wars of aggression?

Trump:
Although not in government service, I was totally against the War in Iraq, saying for many years that it would destabilize the Middle East. Sadly, I was correct, and the biggest beneficiary was Iran, who is systematically taking over Iraq and gaining access to their rich oil reserves – something it has wanted to do for decades. And now, to top it all off, we have ISIS.


What if diplomacy is found to be superior to bombs and bribes in protecting America?

Trump's foreign policy is to build a much bigger military and to fight terrorists.

In other words, more of the same, only bigger.
 
No.

This is Ron's speech and Trump's solutions:

Trump's foreign policy is to build a much bigger military and to fight terrorists.

In other words, more of the same, only bigger.

Actually, Rand also wanted to rebuild our military.

During Trump's speech, if you actually listened to it, you would have noticed that he strongly denounced the neocon foreign policy. Instead opting for peace and prosperity and being friendly towards other nations.

But, what may upset some is that he is not a pacifist, who would just sit on his ass if our country was attacked or there was an imminent threat of same.
 
Actually, Rand also wanted to rebuild our military.

During Trump's speech, if you actually listened to it, you would have noticed that he strongly denounced the neocon foreign policy. Instead opting for peace and prosperity and being friendly towards other nations.

But, what may upset some is that he is not a pacifist, who would just sit on his ass if our country was attacked or there was an imminent threat of same.

No, it's just that some know the difference between interventionism and non-interventionism and it has nothing to do with being a pacifist.
 
Actually, Rand also wanted to rebuild our military.

During Trump's speech, if you actually listened to it, you would have noticed that he strongly denounced the neocon foreign policy. Instead opting for peace and prosperity and being friendly towards other nations.

But, what may upset some is that he is not a pacifist, who would just sit on his ass if our country was attacked or there was an imminent threat of same.

He doesn't talk about "attacked" in his speech- he says:

First, we need a long-term plan to halt the spread and reach of radical Islam.
Containing the spread of radical Islam must be a major foreign policy goal of the United States.

This means continual war.
 
I'm sure bombing the shit out of women and children, torturing POWs, taking their natural resources will do wonders fro creating peace and stability for the region.
 
People will hear want they want to hear in Trump's words. That's what you are not getting.

This "speech" was full of platitudes and vagueness. And it was carefully crafted to be that way - to allow the listener to find evidence to support his preconceived notions. He's still "selling the fantasy". If you think Trump is a non-interventionist, you have your words. If you think he's an authoritarian that will continue the current policy, you have your words.

If, like me, you think he's an opportunistic self-promoter, then you have everything he has every said - on stage and off.
 
This speech represents one of the greatest opportunities for the Liberty Movement in many of our lifetimes. Peace with Russia, Europe taking care of Europe, No More "Spreading Democracy" around the globe, even questioning the very existence of NATO and the UN are now fully within the pale of mainstream discussion. This is a battle that goes back all the way to 1952 when the Neocons hijacked Republican Foreign Policy and continued through the Cold War with William F. Buckley "denouncing" Rothbard, Buchanan, and anybody who dared to question the prevailing interventionist paradigm. If Trump is able to win the GOP nomination on this platform, it will be HUGE.

The nitpicking and whining from some of you in this thread is ridiculous. Trump advances the ball 99 yards and you are bitching about him not punching it through for a touchdown. That is our job! And because our ideas can no longer be dismissed as "fringe" we are going to be in a hell of a lot stronger position to do exactly that. This is why Lindsay Graham and Charles Krauthammer are losing it. Trump has unleashed ideas that have been subject to a highly effective blackout for over a century. The suppression of these ideas has been the basis of the Neocon's power. And now that they've been released in to the wild they will spread out to their logical conclusion whether Trump himself wants to fully take them their or not.
 
People will hear want they want to hear in Trump's words. That's what you are not getting.

This "speech" was full of platitudes and vagueness. And it was carefully crafted to be that way - to allow the listener to find evidence to support his preconceived notions. He's still "selling the fantasy". If you think Trump is a non-interventionist, you have your words. If you think he's an authoritarian that will continue the current policy, you have your words.

If, like me, you think he's an opportunistic self-promoter, then you have everything he has every said - on stage and off.

Yep:

This speech represents one of the greatest opportunities for the Liberty Movement in many of our lifetimes. Peace with Russia, Europe taking care of Europe, No More "Spreading Democracy" around the globe, even questioning the very existence of NATO and the UN are now fully within the pale of mainstream discussion. This is a battle that goes back all the way to 1952 when the Neocons hijacked Republican Foreign Policy and continued through the Cold War with William F. Buckley "denouncing" Rothbard, Buchanan, and anybody who dared to question the prevailing interventionist paradigm. If Trump is able to win the GOP nomination on this platform, it will be HUGE.

The nitpicking and whining from some of you in this thread is ridiculous. Trump advances the ball 99 yards and you are bitching about him not punching it through for a touchdown. That is our job! And because our ideas can no longer be dismissed as "fringe" we are going to be in a hell of a lot stronger position to do exactly that. This is why Lindsay Graham and Charles Krauthammer are losing it. Trump has unleashed ideas that have been subject to a highly effective blackout for over a century. The suppression of these ideas has been the basis of the Neocon's power. And now that they've been released in to the wild they will spread out to their logical conclusion whether Trump himself wants to fully take them their or not.

DDaNUHq.jpg
 
Last edited:
How convenient.

We create an "enemy" and then become involved in continual unconstitutional wars. 2nd verse same as the 1st.

There's nothing unconstitutional about fighting an enemy. Jefferson fought the same sort of enemy with the Barbary pirates, and it didn't stop until he did.
 
The nitpicking and whining from some of you in this thread is ridiculous. Trump advances the ball 99 yards and you are bitching about him not punching it through for a touchdown. That is our job! And because our ideas can no longer be dismissed as "fringe" we are going to be in a hell of a lot stronger position to do exactly that. This is why Lindsay Graham and Charles Krauthammer are losing it. Trump has unleashed ideas that have been subject to a highly effective blackout for over a century. The suppression of these ideas has been the basis of the Neocon's power. And now that they've been released in to the wild they will spread out to their logical conclusion whether Trump himself wants to fully take them their or not.

So they keep the liberty movement tied up with itself by noticing them, instead of us going to the next step.
 
This speech represents one of the greatest opportunities for the Liberty Movement in many of our lifetimes. Peace with Russia, Europe taking care of Europe, No More "Spreading Democracy" around the globe, even questioning the very existence of NATO and the UN are now fully within the pale of mainstream discussion. This is a battle that goes back all the way to 1952 when the Neocons hijacked Republican Foreign Policy and continued through the Cold War with William F. Buckley "denouncing" Rothbard, Buchanan, and anybody who dared to question the prevailing interventionist paradigm. If Trump is able to win the GOP nomination on this platform, it will be HUGE.

The nitpicking and whining from some of you in this thread is ridiculous. Trump advances the ball 99 yards and you are bitching about him not punching it through for a touchdown. That is our job! And because our ideas can no longer be dismissed as "fringe" we are going to be in a hell of a lot stronger position to do exactly that. This is why Lindsay Graham and Charles Krauthammer are losing it. Trump has unleashed ideas that have been subject to a highly effective blackout for over a century. The suppression of these ideas has been the basis of the Neocon's power. And now that they've been released in to the wild they will spread out to their logical conclusion whether Trump himself wants to fully take them their or not.

Oh wow... The delusions. I suspect you believed George Bush was going to have a "humble foreign policy" too?

Perhaps the liberty movement should have jumped on the Bush bandwagon when he said such things? Or, you know, we could have looked at evidence instead...
 
Trump fails to impress foreign-policy experts

A speech aimed at boosting his credibility got low marks from across the spectrum.

By Michael Crowley
04/27/16 05:58 PM EDT

In his address to an elite, invitation-only Washington foreign policy audience Wednesday, Donald Trump promised that, as president, he would restore a “coherent” vision to America’s role in the world.

But across the ideological spectrum, and even among natural allies, Trump’s speech received a failing grade for coherence and drew snickering and scorn from foreign policy insiders who remain unconvinced that Trump is up to the job.

“It struck me as a very odd mishmash,” said Doug Bandow, a foreign policy scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute, who shares many of Trump’s beliefs about scaling back America’s role abroad. “He called for a new foreign policy strategy, but you don’t really get the sense he gave one.”

Trump’s speech was “lacking in policy prescriptions,” and its “strident rhetoric masked a lack of depth,” said Robert “Bud” McFarlane, a former national security adviser to President Ronald Reagan who attended the speech.

Speaking at Washington’s Mayflower Hotel, Trump mostly repeated familiar themes from his campaign, including promises to cut better trade deals with China, swiftly defeat the Islamic State, rebuild the military and reduce the expense America incurs in upholding international security from Europe to Asia.

Trump spoke from a teleprompter and in tones that were subdued by the standards of his raucous rallies. He also unveiled a new theme, saying that the U.S. would “finally have a coherent foreign policy” based on narrow self-interest, economic gain and global stability.

But Trump offered few specifics about his strategy, focusing on the alleged “disasters” created by past presidents and a foreign policy establishment who “frankly don’t know what they’re doing, even though they may look awfully good writing for The New York Times or talking on television.”

...
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/donald-trump-foreign-policy-speech-reaction-222544
 
Back
Top