Trump broke through the moralistic BS of American foreign policy

But the stark and troubling fact is that the U.S. has an extremely bad habit of starting wars (and spreading chaos and bloodshed) with the very best of moral intentions. If Trump can help us to break that habit, laying the foundations for a foreign policy grounded in greater realism and restraint, it will be a very good thing indeed.
http://theweek.com/articles/802111/how-trump-broke-through-moralistic-bs-american-foreign-policy

Interesting read. Thank you for posting it.
 
He's pulled back exactly nowhere and seems to be itching to open up the next war. We'd be knee deep in shit in Venezuala right now if Mattis didn't tell him to btfo.
Trump asks a lot of open ended questions. We aren't in Venezuela. we are not going into Venez.

I want us completely out of Syria, instead of baby sitting the Kurds from Erdogan's wrath
 
$audi Arabia has been a particularly generous benefactor. The kingdom gave between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation. (Donations are typically reported in broad ranges, not specific amounts.) At least $1 million more was donated by Friends of $audi Arabia, which was co-founded by a $audi prince.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign-charity.html

I'm sure trump would have gladly accepted Saudi donations to his foundation.

IF he had a legitimate foundation, not a slush fund.
 
I'm sure trump would have gladly accepted Saudi donations to his foundation.

Like Hillary did?

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/25/why-did-the-saudi-regime-and-other-gulf-tyrannies-donate-millions-to-the-clinton-foundation/

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign-charity.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hacked-emails-show-extent-of-foreign-government-donations-to-clinton-foundation/2016/10/16/ce871a82-9319-11e6-a6a3-d50061aa9fae_story.html?utm_term=.cea1cbf5afe0
 
Like Hillary did?

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/25/why-did-the-saudi-regime-and-other-gulf-tyrannies-donate-millions-to-the-clinton-foundation/

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign-charity.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hacked-emails-show-extent-of-foreign-government-donations-to-clinton-foundation/2016/10/16/ce871a82-9319-11e6-a6a3-d50061aa9fae_story.html?utm_term=.cea1cbf5afe0

We already know the Clinton Foundation took donations. Do try and keep up.
 
Just reminding you...I know that ladies of a certain age tend to forget things. ;)

:rolleyes:
brlgogorefined.jpg
 
forget that noise.
China uses realpolitik, Putin at least attempted to before we buried him in counter-productive sanctions

no more moralistic muddling as stated

China executes business owners outside their own factories with no due process.
Chinese doctors inject iodine into the brains of female babies because the parents wanted male babies.
Chinese factories are walled like prisons and have anti suicide nets.

Why would you use China as an example?
 
China executes business owners outside their own factories with no due process.
Chinese doctors inject iodine into the brains of female babies because the parents wanted male babies.
Chinese factories are walled like prisons and have anti suicide nets.

Why would you use China as an example?
Because we don't deal with China as a human rights abuser ( you forgot the Uigers / Xinjiang reeducation camps)
we deal with them as a malign military power and global hegemon, and as a trade partner
 
Because we don't deal with China as a human rights abuser ( you forgot the Uigers / Xinjiang reeducation camps)
we deal with them as a malign military power and global hegemon, and as a trade partner

I would surmise that nearly everything in most Americans homes is made in China, so the "human rights" virtue signaling that leftists conveniently cough up constantly in a cacophony of cuckish caterwauling is incompatible with their consumer consumption, isn't it?
 
I understand your position- but I believe that she would have launched the US into Syria on Izrael's behalf. In that respect the OP is correct.
She was/is viewed as an embittered crone seeking revenge in some form- just as unhinged as the incumbent but more difficult to dislodge.

Well, despite rumblings to the contrary, Secretary Clinton is completely out of the picture, now-- to pretty much everybody's relief.
The Democratic candidates will not be calling for an occupation of Syria.
The Democratic candidates will in most cases be the only ones with a chance to beat the Republican candidates.
Not coming out in massive numbers to vote for the Democratic candidates would be an abdication of social responsibility.

For better, or worse, and arguably worse many might say, the two-party system is here for the remainder of our republic's existence.
To those of us who reject attempts within the Democratic Party to move to the irrelevant center,
it is import to do what the tea-baggers and Tumpanzees did--
commandeer the other major party the way they did with the pachys.

Bernie gave it a good try running as a Democrat in 2016.
He wouldn't have been a blip on the radar screen running as something else.
Progressive liberals must wrest the Democratic Party from its centrist elements.

But when we don't immediately get our candidates nominated in the primaries,
we have to vote foir the Democrats who did get nominated.
It won't immediately forward all of our causes,
but it's the only way to block the hideous Trumpanzee policies.
That's extremely important, too.

Unless you love the oranguatan's ass,
you have to get to the polls in massive numbers and vote straight Democratic tickets.
Otherwise, you'll have the orangutan's ass in your face whether you like it or not.
 
Back
Top