Trump's FP speech?

Fire away.  pl

http://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/policy/2016/04/27/donald-trumps-america-first-foreign-policy-speech-full-transcript/

Comments

[Dubhaltach]

In reply to Walrus 27 April 2016 at 06:24 PM

Protecctionism never works? Name one country that industrialised successfully that did it without protectionism.

Literally for all of my life I've been hearing self-serving nonsense about how free trade agreements and creating organisations such as the WTO was a wonderful idea and how
FREE trade is wonderful, inevitable, and going to make everyone rich or richer.

What a load of cr*p.

So-called "Free" trade has been a disaster. It didn’t work as advertised, and the only reasonable conclusion seeing its effects is that it was never intended to. It's been wonderful for tiny elites who became rich by destroying the prosperity of their own countries. For the rest of us it's added to more work, less security, less leisure, poorer education, worse health, and on and on. This has been particularly pronounced in the US. But the process is going on in the EU too.

[steve]

How do we tell which is which? Does he really intend to put more missiles into Poland, or does he plan to work with the Russians? He is not the first guy running for POTUS who said he would try to work constructively with the Russians and Chinese.

I like a lot of what he says, and dislike a lot. He is vague on what he would actually do. This strikes me as excellent marketing, which is where his true genius lies. People can read into this speech just about whatever they want. I have no idea what we would really do if elected. Would he just bomb the sh*t out of IS, or would he put 30,000 troops on the ground? Beats me since he keeps changing.

However, I do love the part about having big meetings with our NATO allies and Asian allies. As we all know big meetings are the way to solve everything. Bring on the powerpoint.

Steve

[steve]

The US pays 22% of Nato's budget. Germany, France, and the UK pay 13%, 12%, and 11% respectively.

http://www.quora.com/Why-should-the-US-continue-to-supply-73-of-NATO-funds-Shouldnt-Germany-step-in-and-spend-more

[turcopolier]

cynic

In spite of the boiler plate talk about the wonderful "allies" etc., this was clearly a trumpet sounding announcement of a new era. pl

[jonst]

I suggest you reread my comments.

[Jackrabbit]

To Trump 'America First' seems to mean economic realism more than foreign policy realism (when you've got a hammer ...).

He has previously said that he forms opinions by "watching the shows" (Sunday morning talk shows). This seems to be reflected in gaps and inconsistencies in his speech that follow the contours of the MSM narrative. Some examples:

>> he talks about ISIS and 'radical Islamic terr0rism' but fails to mention KSA or madrasas.

>> he says military spending is down since 2011 but fails to say WHY (end of Iraq War), and fails to take note of the big increase in 'black budget' military expenditures.

>> he says allies should pay more, but what does that mean? Allies pay tribute? (like Mexico builds the wall.) Would he accept allies (like Europeans) forming security alliances that exclude USA?

>> he takes OBama's FP to task but doesn't address the "lead from behind" policy that emboldens and sanctifies their mischief (Note: that policy is convenient cover for the Borg).

These points indicate that the major flaws in Trump's current FP approach: Trumps ego and his political unease (he is not yet won the nomination). I wonder if what he is mainly trying to do in this speech is counter the neocon establishment's NEVER TRUMP campaign. To the neocons, no one can be 'serious' about FP without constantly fretting about Israel's defense and constantly pushing for higher defense spending.

With that said, it is difficult to NOT apply Trump's warning, "we must be unpredictable - starting NOW", to this very speech. Trump is always negotiating. This signals that a careful reading is in order. And what Trump DOESN'T say is just as important as what he does say. Trump:

>> doesn't repeat the neocon 'exceptionalism' and 'indispensable nation' mantra (key to NWO ambitions);

>> doesn't say that he will increase US defense budget (as one would expect form a hawk) - but that allies must pay more.

=

Note: Reworked, expanded on thoughts from my comment at MoA:
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/04/open-thread-2016-16.html#c6a00d8341c640e53ef01bb08ef361f970d

[Bill H]

:-)

[Babak Makkinejad]

Meant only that Japan has been practicing mercantilism for better part of 150 years and they are doing just fine - as you have observed.

[eakens]

Once he he's to the table, which will be the biggest challenge, then he will find that he can work with them just fine.

On another note, I did love how he called Obama the bs that was Obama not being received properly in Cuba and Saudi Arabia.

[Babak Makkinejad]

The dynasties were tribal and enjoyed what Ibn Khaldun called "Assabiyah" - an amalgam of Tribal Honor and Cohesion; "All for one and one for all." sort of thing.

The entrepreneurs infuse their businesses with their own version of personal "Assabiyah" - an amalgam of personal honor and personal dream of how things could be.

Once that entrepreneur is out of the picture, the inevitable decline will set in.

There are exceptions - such as IBM or Xerox but those, as far as I can tell, brought men with Assabiyah and bet everything on those new visions of how things ought to be.

Apple Inc. actually demonstrated this - the useless royalist board got rid of Jobs, Apple went into a death spiral, and another board had to bring the Man-with-Assabiya back.

SAS and National Instruments are still run by their original founders - once they are gone, the death spiral sets in.

[Babak Makkinejad]

Please see here:

http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf

[Matthew]

Dubhaltach:

Free trade is both good and bad. If you have a job that cannot be outsourced, then "free trade" has been great. We have more products available at cheaper prices.

If you are out-sourced, then free trade is misery. You see your neighbors getting richer and richer, and you have no money to spend on these cheaper, more plentiful goods.

Trump has noticed that lots of Americans are in the latter group. These Americans just don't appear on Morning Joe and don't give taxi rides to Tom Friedman, so the "economic theorists" are deaf to their cries.

[Tyler]

Robert,

You know nothing about me so shut your manpleaser about what I have or haven't done.

Americans will do that work when the wages aren't pennies on the dollar. The purpose of a country isn't so agribusiness can save itself billions not having to pay actual wages.

Americans did fine in this country before plutocrats decided to import serf labor. We will continue to do just fine after we deport them all.

[Tyler]

Steve,

Eventually you will accept the wall is being built. I hope you have a successful road to acceptance.

[Prem]

I thought it was a pretty good speech. The man's instincts seem to be good, but I wish he was less of a clown.
Is there a more serious politician who advocates similar policies? Pat Buchanon, Rand Paul - why couldn't they get any traction?
It's not as if Trump is spending loads of money. Is his success the result of his reality TV fame?

[Tyler]

Kyle,

A wall seemed to work really good for the Israelis and Eastern Europeans.

Meanwhile how's that "war on poverty" we have thrown so many trillions into working out?

[Tyler]

James,

Stop pretending it's a "one or the other" solution. You can do both things equally.

[Tyler]

Kyle,

I agree China has other extremely serious problems that are papered over and lied about, but to make sweeping statements like "Protectionism never works" is silly in the extreme.

[Kyle Pearson]

>>>Meant only that Japan has been practicing mercantilism for better part of 150 years and they are doing just fine - as you have observed

My bad. Please accept my apologies.

I think you understand my sensitivities, in this regard.

[Tyler]

Kyle,

His comments seemed to be aimed more at getting the military back to its job of fighting wars vs. A trannies & women jobs program/social Petri dish

[Tyler]

Steve,

It's obvious some people are nitpicking because it's Trump. If it was Bernie saying this the reaction would have been quite different.

[Kyle Pearson]

Sorry. I was too quick to stop reading.

[Tyler]

Matthew,

I think he's playing the game, as it were. The last thing he needs is Cruz getting the people in Jesusland fired up over statements twisted out of context. Im no Israel lover or philosemite, but thought his words were pretty much boilerplate.

[Tyler]

Oofda

If you're going to crib articles written by hacks from The Federalist you should at least give credit where it's due.

Amazingly you can support another nation without being malignantly codependent.

[Tyler]

AE,

Sessions is going to either stay in the Senate or become my boss at DHS, depending on whether or not be wants to retire soon.

My guess for VP will be Sen. Jim Webb.