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 - MarketWatchDonald 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.
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.
Oh My.
The GOP Politically connected and the GOP politically elite object to Trump.
Wow! Who would have thought? :roll:
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.
Oh My.
People who actually know what they are talking about object to Trump.
Wow! Who would have thought? :roll:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?