German foreign minister criticizes Trump's 'America first' foreign policy

you sound like a trump supporter. Rubio would be dissapointed in you.

 

There is no war, no bombing, no drone strike and no intrusion in other countries that Hillary Clinton isn't for. She outright wanted to go to war directly against Russia over Syria.

Other than Democrat PC liberal social talking points, Clinton is a pro-war neo-con, and the shill for big banks, Wall Street and International corporations. She believes women should be paid less than men and that women are inherently inferior in employment, and believes black men should receive longer sentences than white been because black men are "super predators."

Other than words she says that she has never acted on concerning social issues, name anything about Clinton that is "progressive?"

 

Blaming the Cold War etc for creating the Taliban etc is yuuuugely misguided and uninformed. Islam, as a conquering religion, has been around for well over a millennia. Our first interaction with such was when the Barbary states declared war on our shipping because their religion commanded it. Look it up. Adams and Jefferson in fact. The Taliban, ISIS, etc is just the modern day version of that bullchit.

 

Allow me to fix this for you.

Let the UK, France and Germany ally with Russia, let Japan and South Korea ally with China.

 

OK.

So?

 

That is a good point. This very likely is one of those areas where a majority on both sides would like to see our allies pick up their share of the load, and I suspect they will.

 

ON BASE: More than 85 percent of military residents in the local area live off-base. Those seeking on-base housing should be prepared to initially live off base, and may be on a waiting list from 0-36 months.

http://www.ramstein.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=17052

Cheers
Labour

Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk

 

The thing is: I've never really seen Trump as "our guy". He's a mix of several policy positions(and ideas) at once. Maintaining some Liberalism(as admittedly, I have as well but I've incorporated it far better IMO). While staking out some of these Nationalist positions as well. In of itself, not too big of a problem if he were coherent on them. But his lack of coherency(as well as decency) are two big red alarms. Then his numerous gaffes which would have doomed just about any other candidate.

In the reverse: If any other candidate had the support Trump has, that candidate would be unstoppable. You bet Hillary's jealous of the Trump camp. There'd be a hell of a lot less questions, and Hillary would do more campaigning than bullet sweating.

As for me, Trump's flamboyance, and his lackthereof political IQ are simply too big of a risk to officially link it to "the movement" and thus my vote. If I do make this link, and he loses. I'm going to have to put a tremendous amount of effort(which I might have to do anyway) of convincing voters that this isn't "Trumpism". If I make this link, and he flops as a President, we may just never live it down even though I'm certain I'm more competent than Trump at this stage .

The only way a major link actually succeeds, is if Trump succeeds as President. Which is possibly the biggest gamble America's ever made. It'd be an unusual gamble for a country that like I said: Has not broken the grip of the GOP-Dems since the mid-1800's(But, if you're of the opinion that the Whigs were merely an offshoot of the Republican Party, then even this wasn't really a break).

I hope Trump succeeds in this pivot strategy, I hope he makes a good president if elected. But putting our chances on him, means putting the entire movement in jeopardy. It means getting THIS guy in, and risking never able to make a dent again. He's that bad for us.

It's do or die with Trump, while I'd rather wait. For Trump to sell me, he's going to have to find a way to make a coalition.

 

i think you misunderstand that the movement is already mixed in with trump. If your a socialist or communist you cant just say russia and china did it wrong. They tried it and failed. No matter what Trump will be linked with nationalism and we have to do what we can to make it work. Personally I think we can sway unions, blacks, and bernie supporters to trump.

 

I said many times that I am for reducing the defense budget substantially.

Seeing Trump supporters agree to this is very surprising, though. If Bernie or Obama would have proposed the same thing, they would have been painted immediately as traitors who are weak in foreign policy and want to hand over our allies to Russia, by abandoning our bases.

Finally, I think Trump will find it a lot harder to make those "deals" once he understands how the US benefits from them. Right now, it seems he can see the situation only from the US perspective, like may of his supporters. He may be surprised if Germany tells him to actually take a hike (MANY Germans I know would strongly support this). What is he going to do when there is a risk that one of the US's strongest allies will be pushed further into Russian influence, which has happened over the years already due to German reliance on Russian natural gas?

 

Only if you misunderstand them. It makes perfect sense to me. Trump supporters are not Wilsonian interventionists, most of Washington, Hillary included (and Bush) are. This is part of what destroyed all the GOP establishment candidates. Trump can be wrong on a lot, but if he remains right on our meddling militarized foreign policy, folks will stay with him simply because this is such a yuge problem that has to be fixed.

Whining isn't really helpful.

Why would we want to alter a deal that benefits us? The concern is the deals that don't.

There is nothing improper about American Leaders looking out for OUR interests first. Every other Nation's leaders does. Only ours seem to see virtue in screwing their own country over for the benefit of what? Their abstract concepts of globalism? Let someone else fund these clowns, better yet, let these clowns self-fund. One thing for damn sure, I'm tired of the globalists being US taxpayer funded.

Are we in an alliance or are we occupying them?

I guess the Germans will do what they think is in their best interests. We don't mind helping folks in exchange for fair value. But I'm not clear on why we should carry the defense costs of a multitude of nations, nations that then turn around and lecture us on the virtue of socialism.

But we have our own problems and we also have the resources and talent to take care of them. The multinational parasites though are going to be in for a rough ride under a Trump Administration.

 

If the only way to keep these "allies" is to bleed America white doing it then we have to accept the fact that these allies are not worth having.

Reducing the budget may not be the concern but rather redirecting most of the spending offshore to inshore. I would rather a unit be stationed in baltimore contributing to that economy than in berlin.

 

German foreign minister criticizes Trump's 'America first' foreign policy. That and a couple of bucks will get him a cup of coffee otherwise who really gives a rats Asp what this Kraut says?

 

That's the funny think though: Trump and his supporters seem to think that it is the US doing other countries a favor, where in reality it is the other countries doing the US a favor, by allowing them to use their land for bases.

Also, these contracts are a lot more complicated than Trump alludes to. One brief explanation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_forces_agreement

Criminal issue are often the biggest problem. For example: In 1998, a American fighter jet cut a cable car cable in Italy, resulting in the death of 20 people.

Now imagine the outrage if an incident like that had occurred in the US, cause by a foreign fighter on US soil. Wouldn't the US population have asked for immediate termination of these contracts, and rightly so? But other nations are just supposed to shut up and tolerate American troops on their soil, and now Trump is even telling them that they have to pay up for the privilege? How do you think the family of those Italian victims are feeling about this?

Only in Trump land....

 

We need 662 overseas bases in 38 foreign countries? Our national security will be harmed if we close any of them? And you are certain of this... how again? Why do you support this massive American funded global militarism? How can you not even question it? How come Trump is the only guy that says "Why are we doing this?" "Should we be doing this?"

I have a completely different take on this. Trump says "This is what it costs us to keep this base open, here is the bill." At that point they will either; pay it, refuse to pay it, or ask for a reduction. My concern is that some of these "allies" might actually feel like they are being occupied. So take your example. Trump hands them a bill, they say "actually we would just as soon you left." Now we have clarity. I want this clarity. What kind of bull(*)(*)(*)(*) is it to pretend we are "allies" when actually we are an occupying power? Would the American People accept us forcibly occupying an "ally"? I would like to find out.

Probably. Only Trump seems to ask the very obvious questions the rest of us have been wondering for 30 years.