Trump’s ‘America First’ Has Ugly Echoes From U.S. History

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump delivered his most comprehensive foreign policy speech to date in Washington, outlining a general vision for international relations that would reconfigure American responsibilities abroad to put “America first.”

Trump said during a speech organized by the National Interest magazine:

“My foreign policy will always put the interests of the American people and American security above all else. That will be the foundation of every single decision that I will make. ‘America First’ will be the major and overriding theme of my administration.”

The speech included no dramatic new policy proposals that might generate headlines, such as his past calls to bar Muslims from entering the United States or to build a wall on the frontier with Mexico.

The real estate mogul said that a Trump administration would install a foreign policy vision that “replaces randomness with purpose, ideology with strategy, and chaos with peace.” He said that as president he would call for summits with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, and with Asian allies in the Pacific. Chief among his goals would be to update existing organizations to “confront shared problems, like terrorism and migration.”

Where he was specific, like rejecting the terms of last year’s nuclear deal with Iran, calling for more investment in missile defense in Europe and accusing the Obama administration of tepid support for Israel, he was firmly within the Republican mainstream.

(h/t Washington Post, Reuters, CNN)

Reality

Although Trump called for the United States to “shake the rust off of America’s foreign policy,” he delivered few specific proposals, instead focusing on outlining a broad framework the rests on demanding respect for the United States abroad.

It is extremely unfortunate that in his speech outlining his foreign policy goals, Donald Trump chose to brand his foreign policy with the noxious slogan “America First,” the name of the isolationist, defeatist, anti-Semitic national organization that urged the United States to appease Adolf Hitler.

At best the Trump campaign simply did not perform adequate research, which highlights how they are not prepared for presidential politics. At worst they are again appealing to white supremacists with another dog-whistle message.

Media

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOW8O_D_Uvw

Trump Terrifies World Leaders

Politico President Barack Obama is trying but failing to reassure foreign leaders convinced that Donald Trump will be the next president of the United States. They’re in full-boil panic.

According to more than two dozen U.S. and foreign-government officials, Trump has become the starting point for what feels like every government-to-government interaction. In meetings, private dinners and phone calls, world leaders are urgently seeking explanations from Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, Defense Secretary Ash Carter and Trade Representative Michael Froman on down. American ambassadors are asking for guidance from Washington about what they’re supposed to say.

“They’re scared and they’re trying to understand how real this is,” said one American official in touch with foreign leaders. “They all ask. They follow our politics with excruciating detail. They ask: ‘What is this Trump phenomenon? Can he really win? What would it mean for U.S. policy going forward or U.S. engagement in the world?’ They’re all sort of incredulous.”

Obama hears world leaders’ fears about the Republican front-runner so often that he has developed a speech meant to ease their nerves.

First, he walks them through the Republican primary process: Trump has had success, but there are big states yet to vote and the front-runner could still stumble. Then he explains the complications of the GOP convention and how weak rules and convoluted balloting could leave Trump a loser. And finally, Obama assures America’s allies that Hillary Clinton can defeat the Manhattan billionaire.

It’s a familiar routine but not a particularly successful one. They respond — sometimes directly to Obama and other top administration officials, sometimes stewing privately about being brushed off again — that the Obama administration has been downplaying Trump’s odds for six months.

“Most people said that he didn’t have the wit, wisdom or wealth to get very far in the primaries,” said Peter Mandelson, a member of the British Cabinet under Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, as well as a former European commissioner for trade who remains in touch with many leaders. “And they’ve been wrong.”

Now, world leaders cop to being afraid of a Trump presidency, and they’re making preparations: scrambling to get deals done with the Obama administration while they still have the chance.

Leaders, members of their governments, even their aides are so spooked that they don’t want to say anything, and many privately admit that it’s because they think he’ll win, and a quote now could mean a vengeful President Trump going after them personally next year.

“As we’re on the record, I’m rather hesitant to give you big headlines on this,” said Olli Rehn, the Finnish minister of economic affairs. “In Europe, we are concerned about the U.S. possibly turning toward a more isolationist orientation. That would not be good for United States, good for Europe, good for the world. We need the U.S. engaged in global affairs in a constructive, positive way.”

They’re not caught up in some gushy lament about what’s become of American politics, as Obama has sometimes framed the conversations when he’s talked about them publicly. They’re worried about what it means for them: for their arms deals, for their trade deals, for international funding and alliances that they depend on.

“However much people recoiled from George W. Bush or have been disappointed by Obama, they see Trump as off the Richter scale,” Mandelson said. “The reason for that is not that he must be stupid — nobody thinks that — but that he’s disdainful, unscrupulous, prepared to say anything to harvest the populist vote. And that makes people frightened.”

Then there are the more parochial concerns: that Trump’s rise will encourage and empower their own nationalists.

“Trump solutions for me are false solutions, but they’re not original. They’re things that we have heard in Europe from extremist sections,” said Sandro Gozi, a member of the Italian parliament and undersecretary for European affairs in Prime Minister Mateo Renzi’s Cabinet.

Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks did not respond to requests for comment for this story.

White House aides are bracing for more of these conversations — at the Persian Gulf leaders’ summit that wraps up in Riyadh on Thursday, a stay in London over the weekend and a trip to Germany that will include a joint meeting of Obama, Merkel, Renzi, British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President François Hollande.

“It’s not the America that they’re used to dealing with,” another senior administration official said. “Our message back to them is we’re committed to the policies we’re pursuing now. That is not going to change. A message of reassurance, but we can’t control the campaign rhetoric, the election process. But we can control what we’re doing and are committed to.”

Many governments have stepped up their requests for information from their embassies, and a number of leaders ordered up expanded briefings while in Washington for the Nuclear Security Summit.

“We are trying really to understand the different kinds of messages,” said Andris Razans, the Latvian ambassador to the United States, where Trump’s praise for Russian President Vladimir Putin has sparked fears in the media that as president he would hand Ukraine, Syria and the Baltic region to the Russian autocrat. “It is part of our daily business to understand how the picture is unfolding.”

When Razans raises questions in private about Trump, he said the Obama administration tries to assuage any concerns by saying the candidate won’t be able to follow through on his most provocative pronouncements if he lands in the White House.

“People say, ‘Well it is an election campaign and when things come down to governing after the elections, they are often changing because there are some realities that simply one has to take into account,’” Razans said.

Larger European nations have been more patient, reassured by embassies in Washington that tend to have more experience monitoring and interpreting American politics, though they are annoyed to be portrayed as useless freeloaders by Trump on NATO and other issues.

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, said that during a recent congressional trip to Africa he was startled in meetings with many heads of state and their ministers “with very spotty records of their own, to put it mildly,” mentioned their shock at Trump’s success.

Representatives of Arab governments have, so far, seemed the calmest, still largely laughing off Trump and dismissing his chances.

The Israelis are walking their own weird tightrope: Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has been perennially at odds with the Obama administration, but with the prime minister condemning the Muslim ban proposal and ducking a meeting on what was supposed to be a Trump tour of the Holy Land in December — all while his U.S. ambassador and confidant, Ron Dermer, consulted with the candidate’s son-in-law, who was writing Trump’s speech to AIPAC last month.

Asked about their interactions with the Obama administration and views on Trump, Israeli Embassy spokesman Aaron Sagui declined comment altogether.

Asia-Pacific countries have long been expressing the most concern that Trump and what he represents will lead to an American withdrawal from the region, particularly on trade negotiations, that will empower China, and since Trump’s comments about the North Korean nuclear threat and other Asian issues in his extensive foreign policy interview with The New York Times last month, they’ve gotten manic.

“They want to know if this represents a fundamental change. Is this retrenchment? Retreat?” said a senior State Department official, citing “angst and concern” across the region that decades-long American commitments on security and trade might be in jeopardy.

In South Korea and Japan in particular, the official said, “there is a backlash” over Trump’s repeated — and false — assertions that those countries do not contribute financially to the U.S. security umbrella. “They take that personally.”

American officials have begun pointing to Jimmy Carter to ease frayed nerves. When he was running in 1976, then-candidate Carter pledged to pull all U.S. troops out of South Korea. He didn’t follow through. “That provoked a huge crisis in the alliance,” the State official said. “The older people remember that.”

Administration officials, though, see an upside: Trump anxiety overseas has translated to a surprising eagerness on the part of foreign governments to ink new agreements.

At the Department of Energy, which interacts daily with foreign nations to address climate change, boost the security of nuclear weapons, and cooperate on a host of civilian power projects, the deep uncertainty has translated into an unusual level of engagement, according to a top official.

“It has really focused people on getting work done with us,” said Deputy Energy Secretary Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, citing a new high-level commission to cooperate with South Korea on nuclear energy and a formal discussion with the United Arab Emirates to build new partnerships on civil-nuclear cooperation, energy and nuclear security, and climate change.

“We come with opportunities that are serious and important to them,” Sherwood-Randall said. “They want to do everything they can to get it done.”

Rehn, the Finnish minister, pointed to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiations between the United States and the European Union. “At least on the European side, there is an effort to try to speed things up,” Rehn said.

There’s always some interest in closing up negotiations with an outgoing administration rather than waiting for a new one to get on its feet. The prospect of Trump has heightened that, said the American official who’s in touch with foreign leaders.

“They see that this is an administration that they can work with, and they don’t know what’s going to come next,” the official said.

Certainly, there’s some schadenfreude at play, too, particularly in Germany. After years of being lectured about democracy by Americans, they’re taking in over a million refugees while Trump’s talking about a ban on Muslim immigration. That say that gives them the moral high ground, and a sense of the erosion of America’s soft power in Europe.

But all over the world, leaders are trying to decipher how serious Trump is about what he’s saying. Some are convinced he’ll back away from the policies he’s espoused on the campaign trail, while others worry that he’ll have to stick to at least some of it — and for them, any percentage would be a problem. In Germany, for example, gauging Trump’s commitment to his promises is the extent to which they’ve brought him up with their American counterparts.

Gozi said allies are just as concerned about what a new world order would be like if Trump holds firm to his promises as they are if he starts to drop some of them.

“We would open a more and more complicated phase if he does what he’s saying he would do,” Gozi said. “If he doesn’t, it’ll be a big question mark.”

(h/t Politico)

Donald Trump Skips West Bank Answer

Donald Trump took a pass when asked Thursday how he would refer to the West Bank, territory hotly contested by Israelis and Palestinians, and asked his company’s top attorney — who is Jewish — for an answer.

“Jason, how would you respond to that?” Trump said, turning to Jason Greenblatt, the chief legal officer for the Trump Organization.

The question came from a reporter with the Forward, a leading Jewish newspaper, during a meeting Trump held Thursday with two dozen reporters from Jewish and Israel-focused publications and Orthodox activists, according to the outlet.
Trump did not offer up a name for the territory. Many Israelis call the area, which their government controls, by the biblical names of Judea and Samaria, terms often embraced by pro-Israel activists and evangelical Christians.

Instead, Trump said simply that there are “many words that I’ve seen to describe it,” before deferring to Greenblatt.

The Trump campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment asking how Trump would refer to the area, home to the Palestinian Authority and a key part of the territory Palestinians claim for an independent state.

The United States government calls the territory the West Bank and successive administrations have consistently urged the Israeli government to cease new construction of Israeli settlements there, which most legal experts view as contrary to international law.

Trump’s positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have consistently faced close scrutiny.

The question came from a reporter with the Forward, a leading Jewish newspaper, during a meeting Trump held Thursday with two dozen reporters from Jewish and Israel-focused publications and Orthodox activists, according to the outlet.

Trump did not offer up a name for the territory. Many Israelis call the area, which their government controls, by the biblical names of Judea and Samaria, terms often embraced by pro-Israel activists and evangelical Christians.

Instead, Trump said simply that there are “many words that I’ve seen to describe it,” before deferring to Greenblatt.

The Trump campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment asking how Trump would refer to the area, home to the Palestinian Authority and a key part of the territory Palestinians claim for an independent state.

The United States government calls the territory the West Bank and successive administrations have consistently urged the Israeli government to cease new construction of Israeli settlements there, which most legal experts view as contrary to international law.

Trump’s positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have consistently faced close scrutiny.

Trump first said late last year that he would like to remain “neutral” in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in order to better negotiate a peace settlement in the decades-old conflict.

The Republican front-runner then delivered a speech before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the leading pro-Israel lobby in the U.S., during which he sought to remove any doubt about his support for the Jewish state.

Trump made no mention of his neutrality pledge, instead promising to be a stalwart partner for Israel as president and leveling a hefty critique of Palestinian society, which he claimed glorifies terrorism.

Trump hasn’t always been in line with his party’s base in answering questions on the conflict.

Speaking before an audience of Jewish Republican donors in November, Trump declined to say whether he would support recognizing Jerusalem as the undivided, undisputed capital of Israel — a position favored by Israel supporters on the right.

(h/t CNN)

Reality

We need some help understanding how this is not an embarrassment, or at least concerning.

We agree that it is reasonable to expect the President or a presidential candidate to have advisors and experts to consult with. But would it not also be equally reasonable to expect a world leader candidate to have some understanding of basic foreign policy or at least study up before publicly speaking to a group?

Can you imagine a President sitting across from Russian President Vladimir Putin and taking a pass? We can’t either.

This is yet another example of how Donald Trump is unqualified for the Presidency.

Trump Outlines Stupid Plan To Get Mexico To Pay For Border Wall

Great Wall of Trump

Donald Trump announced he would use a federal anti-terrorism surveillance law as a tool to force Mexico to pay for the border wall he has pledged to build on the U.S.’s southern border.

Trump outlined the steps his administration would undertake to compel Mexico to pay the U.S. “$5-10 billion” to fund a border wall in a memo his campaign released Tuesday morning — a plan that relies largely on threatening to bar undocumented Mexican immigrants in the United States from wiring money to relatives in Mexico.

Using a broad interpretation of the post-9/11 USA Patriot Act, Trump writes in the memo that he would threaten to issue new regulations that would compel money transfer companies like Western Union to verify a client’s identity and legal status before authorizing a wire transfer.

Trump’s plan reads just like how he talks.

  1. Day 1, broaden a provision in the Patriot Act, a (shitty) law used in the fight against terrorism, to include wire transfers. Also include a requirement that no alien may wire money outside of the United States unless the alien first provides a document establishing his lawful presence in the United States. So if you are brown skin then Trump’s plan requires you to first provide proof of citizenship to wire money to Mexico.
  2. Mexico waits 24 hours to complain. No really here is the exact quote, “On day 2 Mexico will immediately protest.” It goes on to claim without citation that “they” receive approximately $24 billion a year in remittances from Mexican nationals working in the United States, mostly from illegal aliens.
  3. Day 3, Trump publicly threatens the Mexican government to pay for the wall now, otherwise he will enact tariffs so harsh it will hurt both economies.
  4. Enact trade tariffs that will hurt both economies should the Mexican government not comply. And to quote, “Mexico needs access to our markets much more than the reverse, so we have all the leverage and will win the negotiation.”
  5. Threatens to cancel visas.
  6. Threatens to increase visa fees which Trump claims would pay for the wall all by itself.

The memo then concludes by blaming Mexico directly for crime, drugs, and the costs to the legal system from prosecution and incarceration.

Mexico has taken advantage of us in another way as well: gangs, drug traffickers and cartels have freely exploited our open borders and committed vast numbers of crimes inside the United States. The United States has borne the extraordinary daily cost of this criminal activity, including the cost of trials and incarcerations. Not to mention the even greater human cost. We have the moral high ground here, and all the leverage. It is time we use it in order to Make America Great Again.

Reality

Here’s the really stupid thing about Trump’s plan. If I’m a person who entered this country illegally, and live in this country illegally, what makes him think that I would only resort to purely legal ways of sending money back home. If a black market exists to get me here, why wouldn’t a black market exist to send my money back? And like most illegal immigrants I stay away from criminal elements, why not instead legally send a check or pre-paid Visa card in the mail? If you stop and think about each one of Trump’s proposals, it gets defeated with simple logic.

The sad fact is Donald Trump is single-handedly destroying the United State’s relationship with our 3rd largest trading partner. Our economy with Mexico is so intertwined that a goal to force economic hardships will amount to shooting ourselves in the foot. Look around your room,in your garage, or in your fridge, without a doubt you are looking at something that you purchased inexpensively and was made entirely or in part in Mexico. Now image you paid more for all of those things you see all because Donald Trump raised tariffs.

Furthermore, to bastardize an already questionable anti-terror law to require anyone who wishes to send money outside of the United States to first prove their citizenship could place an undue burden on that individual and would be difficult to prove that it is not illegal or unconstitutional.

Now about the actual cost. As we’ve discussed before, The Great Wall of Trump will not cost $10 billion but $25 billion plus $750 million every year for maintenance.  Let’s forget for a moment the illogical conclusion that blocking person-to-person money transfers will somehow effect the the Mexican government so drastically it will cause Enrique Nieto cave in and pay for a wall. Mexico does not receive $24 billion per yer in remittances as Trump claimed, but instead $19.9 billion.

There is a problem with that $19.9 billion number as it includes all remittance outflow to Mexico from both citizens and illegal immigrants. The real number, according to The World Bank for money transfers to Mexico from migrants is only $7 billion per year. It would take 4 years of unconstitutionally and magically collecting wire transfers until we would break even, and at that point the damage to both of our economies would be felt by the average American.

Links

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/05/politics/donald-trump-mexico-wall-pay/index.html

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/pay-for-the-wall

Trump Doubles Down on Nuclear Talk

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump on Thursday doubled down on his promise to not rule out using nuclear weapons in Europe.

“I don’t want to take cards off the table; I’d never do that,” Trump said during a phone interview on “The O’Reilly Factor,” adding, “the last person to press that button would be me.”

Guest host Eric Bolling acknowledged not ruling out using nuclear weapons against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), but he pressed Trump about the possibility of using them in Europe.

“Europe is a big place. I’m not going to take cards off the table,” Trump said.

Trump raised eyebrows Wednesday for insisting during a town hall on MSNBC that he wouldn’t take nukes off the table in any situation, including in Europe.

The businessman has argued that he wants to remain unpredictable on foreign policy matters and has suggested a U.S. military presence in Japan and South Korea be replaced by their own nuclear arsenals.

White House deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes said Thursday it’d be “catastrophic” if countries like Japan and South Korea obtained nuclear weapons, citing opposition to nuclear proliferation.

During his Fox News interview, Trump appeared to tout his opposition to the Iraq War in an attempt to cast himself as cautious on major foreign policy decisions.

“The last person that wants to play the nuclear card, believe me, is me,” Trump said.

Reality

Yes, Europe is a big place. That we can agree on.

Current US nuclear policy says we will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear opponents. That has been US policy for about a half-century. Just because that is policy doesn’t mean it is a great idea or anything, but what it does mean is that before you throw that policy under the bus, a policy which undergirds many of our defense alliances, you need to have some really good reason for doing so. “Not taking any cards off the table” is not such a reason.

This policy, as well as the nuclear non-proliferation policy, which tries to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of new countries, such as Iran, has helped to keep nuclear weapons from being used for over 65 years. Allowing new countries to obtain nuclear weapons would be bad to destabilizing in some cases.

Also side note, at the 2 minute mark in the media clip below Eric Boling admits to taking orders from the RNC.

Media

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ct8CvM74I5k

Links

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/274862-trump-wont-rule-out-nukes-in-europe

http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/03/31/donald-trump-sure-might-use-nuclear/

Trump says he wouldn’t take use of nuclear weapons ‘off the table’

Donald Trump discusses arresting women who get an abortion.

Donald Trump refused to take the use of nuclear weapons off the table in any situation, including in Europe or the Middle East, during a wide-ranging town hall on MSNBC.

The GOP presidential front-runner said he would consider using a nuclear weapon if the U.S. were attacked by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, according to an MSNBC transcript of the interview released Wednesday afternoon.

“Somebody hits us within ISIS, you wouldn’t fight back with a nuke?” he said.

When host Chris Matthews asked if the real estate mogul could definitively say he wouldn’t use nuclear weapons, he responded: “I would never say that. I would never take any of my cards off the table.”

Matthews pressed him, asking if he would consider using nuclear weapons in Europe.

“No, I don’t think so,” Trump said, but he again said he wouldn’t definitively write off the option.

In a New York Times interview published over the weekend, Trump stressed the importance of unpredictability in his foreign policy. He told Matthews Wednesday that “you’d be a bad negotiator” for taking any strategy off the table.

He called nuclear weapons “sort of like the end of the ball game.”

“I’m not going to use nuclear, but I’m not taking any cards off the table,” he said.

Reality

The world freaked the fuck out upon hearing a candidate for the President of the United States was willing to use nuclear weapons against them should terrorists be found on their soil.

  • Japan, a country with a pacific constitution and knows first hand the power of nuclear weapons, was so concerned, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe felt the need to respond publicly, saying, “whoever will become the next president of the United States, the Japan-U.S. alliance is the cornerstone of Japan’s diplomacy.”
  • South Korea, a country technically at war with the nuclear state North Korea, just had to deal with an H-bomb test by North Korea just a few weeks prior. This would not be the best time to threaten to pull out troops. The South Korean government reaction has been more focused on Trump’s assertion that South Korea is not paying its way. Furthermore Daniel Pinkston of Troy University said it would play into North Korea’s hands. “The hardliners in Pyongyang would just love such an outcome because if that were to occur, it would completely justify their nuclear status … and validate Kim Jong Un’s policy line as absolutely brilliant and absolutely correct.”

For the record, Japan spends more than $2 billion a year for the privilege of hosting U.S. forces, while South Korea pays close to $900 million, meaning it’s cheaper to the U.S. to keep our forces there than bring them home.

Media

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCj0B7HhEFs

Links

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/274730-trump-says-he-would-not-take-nuclear-off-the-table-in-any-situation

Donald Trump: Sure, I Might Use Nuclear Weapons In Europe.

Donald Trump has refused to rule out dropping a nuclear bomb on Europe, saying he is not willing to “take any cards off the table”.

In an MSNBC interview which has already made headline for Mr Trump’s comments on punishing women for having abortions, the presidential candidate said if the US wasn’t willing to use its nuclear weapons, “why are we making them?”

Mr Trump did say he “would be the last one to use the nuclear weapons” and added his now-familiar line that he was “against Iraq” – which is not strictly the case.

“I would be very, very slow to pull that trigger,” Mr Trump said. “[But] if someone hits us with a nuke, you wouldn’t fight back with a nuke?”

Here’s the exchange with Chris Matthews in full:

Donald Trump: “First of all, you don’t want to say take everything off the table because you would be a bad negotiator if you do that.

 

Chris Matthews: “Just nuclear?”

 

DT: “Look, nuclear should be off the table, but would there be a time that it could be used? Possibly.”

 

CM: “The problem is when you say that, the whole world heard that. David Cameron heard that in Britain, the Japanese where we bombed them in ’45 heard it. They are hearing a guy running for President of the United States talking about maybe using nuclear weapons. Nobody wants to hear that about an American president.”

 

DT: “Then why are we are making them? Why do we make them?”
Which countries have nuclear weapons?

 

CM: “Because of the old mutually assured destruction, which Reagan hated and tried to get rid of.”

 

DT: “I was against Iraq, I would be the last one to use the nuclear weapons because that’s sort of like the end of the ball game.”

 

CM: “Can you tell the Middle East we’re not using nuclear weapons?”

 

DT: “I would never say that. I would never take any of my cards off the table.”

 

CM: “How about Europe? We won’t use in Europe?”

 

DT: “I’m not going to take it off the table for anybody.”

 

CM: “You’re going to use it in Europe?”

 

DT: “No! I don’t think so. But…”

 

CM: “Just say it, say ‘I’m not going to use a nuclear weapon in Europe’.”

 

DT: “I am not taking cards off the table. I’m not going to use nukes – but I’m not taking any cards off the table.”

 

CM: “The trouble is, the sane people hear you, and the insane people are not affected by your threats. The real fanatics say good, keep it up.”

 

DT: “I think they are more affected than you think.”

Earlier this week, Mr Trump struggled with another question on the nuclear issue when he was asked by right-wing radio host Hugh Hewitt which of the US’s “triad” of weapons – by land, by sea or by air – was in most urgent need of an upgrade.

The candidate appeared not to understand the question, even when it was repeated, eventually responding: “I think – I think, for me, nuclear is just the power, the devastation is very important to me.”

David Cameron has previously said he would be willing to use nuclear bombs if an attack was “justified”, describing them as “the ultimate insurance policy”.

He was speaking in October last year, after opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn said he could conceive of no circumstances in which he would order the use of a nuclear weapon.

(h/t Independent.uk)

Reality

Let’s just let this sink in for a moment. A leading candidate for the Presidency of the United States of America said that using a nuclear weapon in Europe is not off the table. That immediately put our allies in Europe on edge.

Media

 

Trump Fails at Foreign Policy With The New York Times

It’s a tradition for The New York Times to have a 1-on-1 interview with a presidential candidate to dig deep into their foreign policy positions so the public can come away with a better understanding. This usually happens much later in the race but this year however is not usual as the front-runner for the Republican candidacy for the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, has little-to-none public foreign policy positions. So the Times reached out to Trump to get some info out of him and what we got was a rambling mess and some really bad ideas.

Some highlights of the conversation include:

  • Trump would use nuclear weapons in the fight against ISIS.
  • Trump had no idea who the head of China is.
  • He is willing to pull troops from Japan and South Korea.
  • He believes it is okay for Japan and South Korea to develop their own nuclear weapons.
  • He is totally cool with Saudi Arabia collapsing if they don’t join the fight with ISIS.

Reality

Stop The Donald Trump is reading the transcript of the conversation and working on an analysis, which will be coming soon.

If you don’t have an opportunity to read the transcript allow us to sum up the conversation: Trump is asked a direct question, he rambles about nothing for 200 words, then The Times reporter asks if he can please answer the question, repeat.

 

Trump got many details just plain wrong. For example:

Trump had no idea who the head of China is.

That would be President Xi Jinping

 

Some of the ideas that Trump put forward are just outright stupid and dangerous. For example:

He is willing to pull troops from Japan and South Korea.

And then what? China and North Korea become stronger which would destabilize Asia.

He believes it is okay for Japan and South Korea to develop their own nuclear weapons.

And then what? Now we have an arms race in Asia, exactly what we’ve been trying to avoid for the past 50 years.

He is totally cool with Saudi Arabia collapsing if they don’t join the fight with ISIS.

And then what? With no Saudi Arabia to balance the region, Iran becomes stronger.

Links

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/us/politics/donald-trump-transcript.html

After Terror Attack in Brussels, Trump Insults Then Calls For Torture

Asked by the Fox Business Network anchor Maria Bartiromo about the feasibility of his proposal to bar foreign Muslims from entering the United States, Mr. Trump argued that Belgium and France had been blighted by the failure of Muslims in these countries to integrate.

“There is something going on, Maria,” he said. “Go to Brussels. Go to Paris. Go to different places. There is something going on and it’s not good, where they want Shariah law, where they want this, where they want things that — you know, there has to be some assimilation. There is no assimilation. There is something bad going on.”

Warming to his theme, he added that Brussels was in a particularly dire state.

“You go to Brussels — I was in Brussels a long time ago, 20 years ago, so beautiful, everything is so beautiful — it’s like living in a hellhole right now,”

Trump went on to promote war crimes as a reasonable response.

“Frankly, the waterboarding, if it was up to me, and if we changed the laws or had the laws, waterboarding would be fine,” Trump said. “If they could expand the laws, I would do a lot more than waterboarding. You have to get the information from these people.” He continued, “I am in the camp where you have to get the information and you have to get it rapidly.”

Reality

Torture is illegal, unethical, and simply does not work. When a subject is in pain, people will say anything to get the pain to stop. Most of the time, they will lie, make up anything to make you stop hurting them. That means the information provided during the time of torture is useless. It is irresponsible to forget the lessons we learned during the war against terror for Donald Trump to suggest a war crime.

Furthermore Trump’s hellhole comment was tasteless during a time of mourning and should highlight his repeated failures at foreign policy. His comments about the city inspired quite a backlash on social media, with Brussels denizens using the hashtag #hellhole, to defend their city.

Media

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9JBQvGJ4as

Links

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/28/world/europe/trump-finds-new-city-to-insult-brussels.html?_r=0

http://www.today.com/news/donald-trump-responds-brussels-attacks-it-s-very-dangerous-city-t81716

Trump Questions Need For NATO

Donald Trump said the U.S. should rethink its involvement in NATO because the defense alliance costs too much money.

In remarks to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, Trump said the U.S. pays a disproportionate amount to NATO to ensure the security of allies.

“Frankly, they have to put up more money,” he said. “We are paying disproportionately. It’s too much, and frankly it’s a different world than it was when we originally conceived of the idea.”

In a CNN Town Hall Trump said about NATO:

“[NATO is] costing us too much money, and frankly, have to put up more money… We’re taking care of, as an example, the Ukraine. I mean, the countries over there don’t seem to be so interested. We’re the ones taking the brunt of it. So I think we have to reconsider — keep NATO, but maybe we have to pay a lot less toward the NATO itself. “

Reality

Ukraine is not a member of NATO, and Washington is not providing arms to the government as it is fighting pro-Moscow rebels, though has provided nonlethal aid and has helped support international bailouts of the Ukrainian economy. Once the third-largest nuclear power in the world, Ukraine agreed to give up its nuclear weapons in return for an assurance that the U.S. would help protect its sovereignty. Critics point out that Trump’s remarks were “really quite astonishing,” speculating that Trump is ignorant of the United States’ diplomatic relations with Ukraine.

It’s unfortunate that a day after making these remarks a terrorist attack occurred in Brussels, highlighting the importance of NATO.

It is important to point out that the United States “taking the brunt” as Mr. Trump has suggested, is a bit of loaded statement. All member countries have pledged at lest 2% of their GDP to fund NATO, and the United States has by far and away the highest GDP of all member nations, in-fact 6 times more than Germany who has the next highest GDP of the NATO members. The whole theory of NATO is to keep the United States involved in Europe long-term, to promote our goals, and to deter another world war, so of course we would be spending more. However it is fair to point out that President Obama has been critical of some of the European partners for not spending enough to fund NATO.

Links

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/21/politics/elections-2016-final-five-highlights/index.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-hopelessly-naive-dead-wrong-on-nato-gop-candidates-say/

1 41 42 43 44 45