• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

50 Former Nat'l Security Officials: Trump would be a "dangerous President"

JumpinJack

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2013
Messages
6,628
Reaction score
2,971
Location
Dallas, TX
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Donald Trump would be a ‘dangerous president,’ say 50 former national security officials

Fifty Republican national security veterans released a letter Monday saying “none of us will vote for Donald Trump,” voicing alarm about the GOP nominee’s views on foreign policy and national security.

Former Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte, former Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick, and former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson were among those signing the letter, which comprised a catalog of objections to Trump’s qualifications, character, values and experience. Other signatories included former homeland security chiefs Michael Chertoff and Tom Ridge.

The letter said the nominee has an “overriding ego” and “an alarming ignorance of basic facts of contemporary international politics.”

“We are convinced that he would be a dangerous president and would put at risk our country’s national security and well-being,” read the two-page letter, which included an additional six pages of signatures. Those signing the letters served in the White House in eras stretching from Richard Nixon to the second George W. Bush administration.
Donald Trump would be a ‘dangerous president,’ say 50 former national security officials - MarketWatch
 

ocean515

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
36,760
Reaction score
15,464
Location
Southern California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other

eohrnberger

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
49,829
Reaction score
32,761
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Oh My.

The GOP Politically connected and the GOP politically elite object to Trump.

Wow! Who would have thought? :roll:
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
It would be interesting to know what these veterans of national security think about current and previous efforts that have led to the state of global security and affairs being witnessed today.

Actually, they had handled it largely okay. They should have started to reshift the international security structure in the second Clinton Administration, spent too much on some things in the Bush II years and might have been more demanding on the trade rules, but all in all we have done quite well, till Obama took over and let the ball slip his grip.

Now there are 8 wasted years to make up for and time is running very short.
 

polgara

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
20,215
Reaction score
17,786
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Oh My.

The GOP Politically connected and the GOP politically elite object to Trump.

Wow! Who would have thought? :roll:

Greetings, Erik. :2wave:

I'm just chalking everything up to the fact that it's just one of those years... :lamo
 

ocean515

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
36,760
Reaction score
15,464
Location
Southern California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Actually, they had handled it largely okay. They should have started to reshift the international security structure in the second Clinton Administration, spent too much on some things in the Bush II years and might have been more demanding on the trade rules, but all in all we have done quite well, till Obama took over and let the ball slip his grip.

Now there are 8 wasted years to make up for and time is running very short.

I certainly don't disagree on your observation regarding Obama. However, I'm not so enthusiastic about previous administrations. IMO, the "too much on some things" and "more demanding" on others adds up to security risks Obama has only exacerbated.

I believe we have some of the worst trade negotiators on the planet, and that record goes back for decades. We've negotiated away our strengths as a Nation, and handed our economic viability over to other Nations who can hold us hostage. That is a severe national security issue.

These individuals mentioned in the OP participated on some level with the efforts that have dove tailed to where we are today. For me, their opinions are filtered through that result.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
68,798
Reaction score
35,195
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Oh My.

People who actually know what they are talking about object to Trump.

Wow! Who would have thought? :roll:

:) Fixed that for you. You accidentally were talking about people like McConnel, Boehner, Reince, et. al. - all of whom are backing Trump, and helped squash the conservative rebellion at the convention.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I certainly don't disagree on your observation regarding Obama. However, I'm not so enthusiastic about previous administrations. IMO, the "too much on some things" and "more demanding" on others adds up to security risks Obama has only exacerbated.

I believe we have some of the worst trade negotiators on the planet, and that record goes back for decades. We've negotiated away our strengths as a Nation, and handed our economic viability over to other Nations who can hold us hostage. That is a severe national security issue.

These individuals mentioned in the OP participated on some level with the efforts that have dove tailed to where we are today. For me, their opinions are filtered through that result.

Actually, the decision to allow Deng to sell into the US predates recent administrations and opening up our markets goes back to the early 1950s as does the shouldering of global security first hemespherically and then globally. The strategy worked fine, when we were at 45% or more of world GDP. It is now no longer politically and militarily viable. The probably earliest we could have made the shift was after the collapse of the Soviets plus two or three years of research. Clinton waited too long and Bush did an okay job, though he spent too much treasure an it. Obama should have caught the pass and run, but stumbled and lost our way.
 

ocean515

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
36,760
Reaction score
15,464
Location
Southern California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Actually, the decision to allow Deng to sell into the US predates recent administrations and opening up our markets goes back to the early 1950s as does the shouldering of global security first hemespherically and then globally. The strategy worked fine, when we were at 45% or more of world GDP. It is now no longer politically and militarily viable. The probably earliest we could have made the shift was after the collapse of the Soviets plus two or three years of research. Clinton waited too long and Bush did an okay job, though he spent too much treasure an it. Obama should have caught the pass and run, but stumbled and lost our way.

None of that changes the dismal trade negotiations the United States has embarked upon in this hemisphere, and others. That has resulted in threats to our national security, and which were undertaken during the periods the "experts" mentioned in the OP were in positions of power and influence.
 

natsb

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2015
Messages
1,647
Reaction score
689
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Establishment group prefers one of their own despite her proven security breeches. News at 11:00

Yawn. Another nothing burger. Everyone drink.
 

eohrnberger

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
49,829
Reaction score
32,761
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
:) Fixed that for you. You accidentally were talking about people like McConnel, Boehner, Reince, et. al. - all of whom are backing Trump, and helped squash the conservative rebellion at the convention.

Not sure if it's valid to equate "GOP Politically connected and the GOP politically elite" = "People who actually know what they are talking about"

I think it more likely that GOP Politically connected and the GOP politically elite see Trump as a threat to the power they've accumulated over their historically long careers in their elected offices, insider trading, and wealth already accumulated.

Its pretty clear that the electorate is very unsatisfied with that, if not just completely done with that.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
None of that changes the dismal trade negotiations the United States has embarked upon in this hemisphere, and others. That has resulted in threats to our national security, and which were undertaken during the periods the "experts" mentioned in the OP were in positions of power and influence.

Probably in parts. But in general the trade must have done its thung and stabilised the Mexican economy somewhat. That is not all bad. And State side the goods were cheaper than they would have been.
 

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
51,980
Reaction score
36,920
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Oh My.

The GOP Politically connected and the GOP politically elite object to Trump.

Wow! Who would have thought? :roll:

Oh please. Trump's claim to being an "outsider" is one of his many massive lie. The guy is just as establishment as any longtime politician.
 

eohrnberger

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
49,829
Reaction score
32,761
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Oh please. Trump's claim to being an "outsider" is one of his many massive lie. The guy is just as establishment as any longtime politician.

No, he isn't. He's not one of the 'DC Club' (political elites), and it is this very 'DC Club' that's claiming he'd be a "dangerous President" (I still rather doubt that).

Since Trump is not beholden to any of them, it's a direct threat to their power and control, which they like very much.
I think this the best for the nation position for the politically elite to be in for the next, oh say 4 years or so. Maybe 8.

This is backed by not only by the electorate on the right which are supporting Trump, but also by the electorate left, which went for Bernie and got screwed by the DNC.

No, I see this implosion / explosion of the political elites as a very positive step for the nation as a whole. It's good to blow up the oligarchy every now and then., well before it turns into a popular upraising (civil war).
 

ocean515

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
36,760
Reaction score
15,464
Location
Southern California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Probably in parts. But in general the trade must have done its thung and stabilised the Mexican economy somewhat. That is not all bad. And State side the goods were cheaper than they would have been.

There is cause and effect to everything the government does. Cheaper to what degree? And at what cost to the domestic economy? That is a problem.

How much did NAFTA stabilize Mexico, versus how much did the massive illegal exodus of it's citizens to the US do it? Add in the equally massive remittances and it's a rather substantial one way street, leaving US citizens at a huge disadvantage. That is just one example.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
There is cause and effect to everything the government does. Cheaper to what degree? And at what cost to the domestic economy? That is a problem.

How much did NAFTA stabilize Mexico, versus how much did the massive illegal exodus of it's citizens to the US do it? Add in the equally massive remittances and it's a rather substantial one way street, leaving US citizens at a huge disadvantage. That is just one example.

The competition is always unpleasant for the one that loses the business. It is not that the competitor was mean. She was economically better. From that follows that it would be wiser to worry about how to improve one's own performance instead of forbidding the trade that improves overall efficiency.
 

ocean515

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
36,760
Reaction score
15,464
Location
Southern California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The competition is always unpleasant for the one that loses the business. It is not that the competitor was mean. She was economically better. From that follows that it would be wiser to worry about how to improve one's own performance instead of forbidding the trade that improves overall efficiency.

Well, citing fundamental truths about business doesn't address the issue. Altering the playing field, neglecting to consider the regulatory incrementalism that infects the business environment, all conspire to cause business to take actions that harm domestic opportunity. Trade deals must require quid pro quo, are they are not worth the paper they are written on.

We force domestic business to comply to every increasing regulatory burdens, and then create trade deals with nations who have no problem poisoning their workforce, and paying them slave wages. We gladly accept another nations production, while allowing them to impose duties on imports from the US that all but eliminate demand.

The impact is we give away our economic advantages and jobs, while bleeding the economy dry.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Well, citing fundamental truths about business doesn't address the issue. Altering the playing field, neglecting to consider the regulatory incrementalism that infects the business environment, all conspire to cause business to take actions that harm domestic opportunity. Trade deals must require quid pro quo, are they are not worth the paper they are written on.

We force domestic business to comply to every increasing regulatory burdens, and then create trade deals with nations who have no problem poisoning their workforce, and paying them slave wages. We gladly accept another nations production, while allowing them to impose duties on imports from the US that all but eliminate demand.

The impact is we give away our economic advantages and jobs, while bleeding the economy dry.

It is not really up to us to say how people in other parts want to live. If they would rather work for $ 5 a day and die slowly of the poison instead of starving quickly, hey! That should be their call. And we are not so poor, you know. Our average income is higher than that of any comparable country's and our poor do as well after transfers as say the Germans, who pride themselves for their social democracy.

You would be right to criticize the administration for allowing currencies like the Euro to be manipulated. That does cost us jobs. But that is already forbidden under the existing treaties. We just have not done anything about it.
 

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
51,980
Reaction score
36,920
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
No, he isn't. He's not one of the 'DC Club' (political elites), and it is this very 'DC Club' that's claiming he'd be a "dangerous President" (I still rather doubt that).

Since Trump is not beholden to any of them, it's a direct threat to their power and control, which they like very much.
I think this the best for the nation position for the politically elite to be in for the next, oh say 4 years or so. Maybe 8.

This is backed by not only by the electorate on the right which are supporting Trump, but also by the electorate left, which went for Bernie and got screwed by the DNC.

No, I see this implosion / explosion of the political elites as a very positive step for the nation as a whole. It's good to blow up the oligarchy every now and then., well before it turns into a popular upraising (civil war).

Yes, he is. Trump has been buddy buddy with politicians his entire "career", even bragging about buying off politicians (while, hilariously, pretending to be opposed to the practice as part of his non-platform):

“I give to everybody. When they call, I give.” Yup, although more to the progressives, to implement the very policies he now complains are destroying the country. And why? Trump’s allocution continued: “You know what? When I need something from them, two years later, three years later, I call them, and they are there for me. . . . And that’s a broken system.”


From two alternately biased media sources:

Donald Trump Bribes Politicians & Boasts about It

Donald Trump's Surprisingly Honest Lessons About Big Money in Politics - ABC News




Also: Here are the politicians Donald Trump has 'bought' - Yahoo Finance

Noting donations to Scott Walker, Mike Huckabee, Jeb Bush, George Pataki, Hillary Clinton.




Trump is establishment. The only mark of it that he lacks is having actually been elected into political office. (Of course, that shouldn't matter. We all know that it's not the politicians pulling the strings. It's lobbyists, and their backers, who also tend to be large donors.
 

eohrnberger

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
49,829
Reaction score
32,761
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Yes, he is. Trump has been buddy buddy with politicians his entire "career", even bragging about buying off politicians (while, hilariously, pretending to be opposed to the practice as part of his non-platform):

“I give to everybody. When they call, I give.” Yup, although more to the progressives, to implement the very policies he now complains are destroying the country. And why? Trump’s allocution continued: “You know what? When I need something from them, two years later, three years later, I call them, and they are there for me. . . . And that’s a broken system.”


From two alternately biased media sources:

Donald Trump Bribes Politicians & Boasts about It

Donald Trump's Surprisingly Honest Lessons About Big Money in Politics - ABC News




Also: Here are the politicians Donald Trump has 'bought' - Yahoo Finance

Noting donations to Scott Walker, Mike Huckabee, Jeb Bush, George Pataki, Hillary Clinton.




Trump is establishment. The only mark of it that he lacks is having actually been elected into political office. (Of course, that shouldn't matter. We all know that it's not the politicians pulling the strings. It's lobbyists, and their backers, who also tend to be large donors.

You are confusing "interactions with" with being "one of". They are not the same.
 

jpn

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
8,258
Reaction score
5,737
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
By ripping off its mask, Trump is doing immense damage to the GOP.

GOP candidates are supposed to use subtle appeals to racism, nativism, and to the good ol' gay-bashing white boy crowd.

Trump is clumsily revealing all the warts of this tired old political machine. It will take years for it to recover.
 
Top Bottom