Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
ellapenella

Trump's foreign policy for America

499 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

ellapenella

He shares/talks about how to develop a new direction of America's foreign policy --- he would replace randomness with purpose, ideology with strategy and chaos with peace..Donald Trump say's it's time to shake the rust off America's foreign policy. I concur with his vision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

Trump is making the terrible mistake of equating business with politics/diplomacy. "You have to be willing to walk", he says. That might work fine in business, but it doesn't cross over to diplomacy. He is a businessman trying to be a politician and diplomat, with no experience of the latter. His policies and approach to diplomacy will be an epic disaster for the US, not a renaissance.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ellapenella

I wish we here in America would have walked many X's in many deals....We shouldn't ever make bad deals.We should walk away from them, why not.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ellapenella

So sorry if you all don't agree with the fact that we need to like he said scrape the rust off our foreign policy.

Edited by Ellapennella
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

Trump is making the terrible mistake of equating business with politics/diplomacy. "You have to be willing to walk", he says. That might work fine in business, but it doesn't cross over to diplomacy. He is a businessman trying to be a politician and diplomat, with no experience of the latter. His policies and approach to diplomacy will be an epic disaster for the US, not a renaissance.

Right, and i trust we can trust you to similarly attack Hillary Clinton, who will without a doubt bring yet more war to the world? Or don't you care about that and are solely concerned with attacking Trump? Edited by Otto von Pickelhaube
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ellapenella

Trump is making the terrible mistake of equating business with politics/diplomacy. "You have to be willing to walk", he says. That might work fine in business, but it doesn't cross over to diplomacy. He is a businessman trying to be a politician and diplomat, with no experience of the latter. His policies and approach to diplomacy will be an epic disaster for the US, not a renaissance.

and what exactly makes a great politician ? I hear so much negative talk from you and others , but who exactly are you holding up in favor of a great politician running in this election? as far as i can tell, the establishment want nothing to do with him and why is that? so you think it's because they're all good great politicians?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ellapenella

and good for him that he's a businessman - doesn't it take a business thinking mind to run things?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ellapenella

maybe a businessman like Trump can't be lead like a puppet....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

Right, and i trust we can trust you to similarly attack Hillary Clinton, who will without a doubt bring yet more war to the world? Or don't you care about that and are solely concerned with attacking Trump?

While Clinton is an experienced politician, and isn't making the noobie mistakes Trump is making with his rhetoric, her prior behaviour does not lead me to support her at all. She has shown herself to be treacherous and disingenuous, and also has shown an arrogant disregard for procedure and legality.

However, she isn't really any different to the numerous politicians who have preceded her, and in that regard I do not feel obliged to point out her flaws and failings. Trump, on the other hand, is painting himself as "something different" and a multitude of naive voters, being fed-up with the usual fare politicians dish out, have flocked to his "message". In light of this I do feel it better to point out how he is not really in any way different from all the other politicians, except for having no real experience. America will be no better off with someone like Hillary Clinton in the Presidency, but it also won't be much worse off - but the situation with Trump is very different because of his naivete and muddled approach to policy. He is, in my opinion, the worst of all the candidates.

However, of all the candidates it is my opinion that Sanders and Kasich respectively would be the "least-worst options".

Edited by Leonardo
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

While Clinton is an experienced politician, and isn't making the noobie mistakes Trump is making with his rhetoric, her prior behaviour does not lead me to support her at all. She has shown herself to be treacherous and disingenuous, and also has shown an arrogant disregard for procedure and legality.

However, she isn't really any different to the numerous politicians who have preceded her, and in that regard I do not feel obliged to point out her flaws and failings. Trump, on the other hand, is painting himself as "something different" and a multitude of naive voters, being fed-up with the usual fare politicians dish out, have flocked to his "message". In light of this I do feel it better to point out how he is not really in any way different from all the other politicians, except for having no real experience. America will be no better off with someone like Hillary Clinton in the Presidency, but it also won't be much worse off - but the situation with Trump is very different because of his naivete and muddled approach to policy. He is, in my opinion, the worst of all the candidates.

However, of all the candidates it is my opinion that Sanders and Kasich respectively would be the "least-worst options".

I had the hope that the Republicans would put up something that actually, while not changing much, would not do more harm than good as it was getting evident that the Democrtas were going to nominate their worst option. It looks like that train has left the station leaving all the moderates on the platform. Now they are banking on people being loyal.... well guys, loyalty is not shown by a bunch of Lemming jumping down a cliff to be joined. That is called suicide.

So, lets see who runs outside the big parties....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor

Eh, don't lose hope just yet there Q. The republican nomination can still go to convention and a moderate could be selected as their nominee by the delegates.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

I had the hope that the Republicans would put up something that actually, while not changing much, would not do more harm than good as it was getting evident that the Democrtas were going to nominate their worst option. It looks like that train has left the station leaving all the moderates on the platform. Now they are banking on people being loyal.... well guys, loyalty is not shown by a bunch of Lemming jumping down a cliff to be joined. That is called suicide.

So, lets see who runs outside the big parties....

As Gromdor said, there is still hope for the Republicans to decide on a moderate candidate (Kasich, hopefully) provided Trump's momentum fades a bit in the upcoming primaries. However, I fear if that does happen they will actually go for Cruz who, to my mind, is no better than Hillary.

I consider Sanders as a "least-worst option" not because he is a moderate - because he isn't - but because many people seem to want a candidate who will "shake the tree", and for my money the best in the current pack for that is Sanders.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword

Yep, in 40 minutes he said nothing... quite an achievement for a novice politician... quite an achievement.

Disagree. Out of all of the candidates running he makes the most sense.
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword

Trump is making the terrible mistake of equating business with politics/diplomacy. "You have to be willing to walk", he says. That might work fine in business, but it doesn't cross over to diplomacy. He is a businessman trying to be a politician and diplomat, with no experience of the latter. His policies and approach to diplomacy will be an epic disaster for the US, not a renaissance.

Walking away or boycotting has always been a diplomatic tool.
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

Yep, in 40 minutes he said nothing... quite an achievement for a novice politician... quite an achievement.

He said a whole lot. And presented it in a way that even a 5 year old could understand. I guess you didn't understand...

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Summerin1905

the only reason i hate Donald trump is hes trying to get rid of Oreos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

Walking away or boycotting has always been a diplomatic tool.

In diplomatic negotiations you can stall, but if you are sincere about the negotiations you cannot just walk away. When dealing with a sovereign state, the laws and ethics you operate under do not necessarily apply to how the "other side" operates - but in business deals you are both constrained by the same system of "rules". This is only one of the aspects in which business negotiation is different to diplomatic.

Trump is used to negotiating when the rules are the same for both sides, and he has confidence he either knows those rules better than the other party or can bluff that he does. This will not apply in diplomatic situations. His boast of being a strong negotiator is meaningless in this context.

Look at his claim about Prez Obama's "weak deal with Iran" as an example. Iran was under all sorts of sanctions (boycotts) already yet was still developing it's nuclear industry. Obama had a choice between "walking away" and letting Iran develop nuclear power without any international oversight involved, or engage in diplomacy to give up something to Iran (ease the sanctions) in return for Iran allowing greater access to it's nuclear program by international authorities as well as an agreement/deal that nuclear weapons were not part of that program's ambitions.

"Walking away" is never an option, unless you want to surrender to the other party's whim. The US got more-or-less the best deal they could get, and Iran got more-or-less the best deal they could get. In addition, the relationship between the US and Iran got just a little bit better. That's not "weak", that is effective diplomacy. Trump, if he sticks to his "walk away" tough line, would have allowed Iran to continue to develop it's nuclear program without any international oversight and would probably have worsened the US-Iran relationship to boot.

You tell me what is the best outcome.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

He said a whole lot. And presented it in a way that even a 5 year old could understand. I guess you didn't understand...

or to the contrary of others I know an empty word shell when I hear it. But I give you this, he sure used a lot of words to say what he has been saying the whole time in one sentence. 40 minutes worth to be exact.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

As Gromdor said, there is still hope for the Republicans to decide on a moderate candidate (Kasich, hopefully) provided Trump's momentum fades a bit in the upcoming primaries. However, I fear if that does happen they will actually go for Cruz who, to my mind, is no better than Hillary.

Yes, but strategically, do you think that a "Moderate" candidate (probably someone no one's heard of before now) would stand an earthly chance against the Clinton? Surely that would be committing blatant suicide for the sake of the principle of "anyone but the monster Trump". Anyway, what do you think is the likelihood that the Republicans would ever decide to go for a "moderate" candidate? None of the other or former candidates have shown any suggestion of any such thing, have they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Yes, but strategically, do you think that a "Moderate" candidate (probably someone no one's heard of before now) would stand an earthly chance against the Clinton? Surely that would be committing blatant suicide for the sake of the principle of "anyone but the monster Trump". Anyway, what do you think is the likelihood that the Republicans would ever decide to go for a "moderate" candidate? None of the other or former candidates have shown any suggestion of any such thing, have they?

In a nutshell you just explained why the Republicans are dead in the water - a total inability to choose anyone of moderation.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword

In diplomatic negotiations you can stall, but if you are sincere about the negotiations you cannot just walk away. When dealing with a sovereign state, the laws and ethics you operate under do not necessarily apply to how the "other side" operates - but in business deals you are both constrained by the same system of "rules". This is only one of the aspects in which business negotiation is different to diplomatic.

Trump is used to negotiating when the rules are the same for both sides, and he has confidence he either knows those rules better than the other party or can bluff that he does. This will not apply in diplomatic situations. His boast of being a strong negotiator is meaningless in this context.

Look at his claim about Prez Obama's "weak deal with Iran" as an example. Iran was under all sorts of sanctions (boycotts) already yet was still developing it's nuclear industry. Obama had a choice between "walking away" and letting Iran develop nuclear power without any international oversight involved, or engage in diplomacy to give up something to Iran (ease the sanctions) in return for Iran allowing greater access to it's nuclear program by international authorities as well as an agreement/deal that nuclear weapons were not part of that program's ambitions.

"Walking away" is never an option, unless you want to surrender to the other party's whim. The US got more-or-less the best deal they could get, and Iran got more-or-less the best deal they could get. In addition, the relationship between the US and Iran got just a little bit better. That's not "weak", that is effective diplomacy. Trump, if he sticks to his "walk away" tough line, would have allowed Iran to continue to develop it's nuclear program without any international oversight and would probably have worsened the US-Iran relationship to boot.

You tell me what is the best outcome.

When you walk away you're not giving up and allowing the other guy to do whatever he wants. It's a sign you're through negotiating because the results of compromise are unacceptable or negotiations are turning out to be one sided and are now moving to more aggressive tactics to reach your desired outcome. Read into aggressive and reach your own conclusions.
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

Yes, but strategically, do you think that a "Moderate" candidate (probably someone no one's heard of before now) would stand an earthly chance against the Clinton? Surely that would be committing blatant suicide for the sake of the principle of "anyone but the monster Trump". Anyway, what do you think is the likelihood that the Republicans would ever decide to go for a "moderate" candidate? None of the other or former candidates have shown any suggestion of any such thing, have they?

Do you thunk Trump has a chance against Clinton... like in suddenly the moderate Republicans will discover their radical side?

Kasich had a chance, Rubio had a chance... but I guess running behind a radical sales man expert in selling himself (and not much else as the pending law suits against him show) was much more important to make "America Great Again" And speaking of lawsuits, it sounds very likely that Mr. Trump will be dragged to court in the middle of the campaign because he got sued for fraud in connection of his Trump University. If that makes people think that he is any different than Hillary is very doubtful.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

When you walk away you're not giving up and allowing the other guy to do whatever he wants. It's a sign you're through negotiating because the results of compromise are unacceptable or negotiations are turning out to be one sided and are now moving to more aggressive tactics to reach your desired outcome. Read into aggressive and reach your own conclusions.

What, besides that the Mullahs turn over and die, did we not get out of the Iran deal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.