Donald Trump reveals his chief foreign policy advisor.

[cpwill]

You support Hillary, so what's the problem?

Nah. If Cruz falls, I'll be a Johnston voter. And then I'll choke down bile and fury at the hordes of idiot slackjaws that so royally ****ed up the GOP in 2016 for the next four years. After that, I may let bygones be.

Except for leadership. For Hannity, Coulter, Sessions, et al, there is no political redemption until they repent and confess.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

This is an internet poll. Of republican primary voters only.

View attachment 67198822

Get ready for Her Majesty.

no way, in first super tuesday, Trump drew obama sized crowds to vote, while hillary pulled romney style crowds. The polls are all wackadoo... you have several factors.


1. the super tuesday turnout I just mentioned.
2. depressed democrats
3. the "bernback" when she gets the nod
4. People who are telling people they wont vote for trump but will (I think this is a larger crowd than you think)


these polls are insane for clinton, but who here knows anyone that is THAT for clinton.

 

[cpwill]

no way, in first super tuesday, Trump drew obama sized crowds to vote, while hillary pulled romney style crowds. The polls are all wackadoo... you have several factors.

1. the super tuesday turnout I just mentioned.

Which is anecdotal. < Data

2. depressed democrats
3. the "bernback" when she gets the nod

both of which dissipates approximately a third of a second after Trump gets the nod. He is the only GOP candidate that can GOTV for Hillary like that.

4. People who are telling people they wont vote for trump but will (I think this is a larger crowd than you think)

I think it's a significant crowd. If I had to guess, I'd say that, of the 37% who polled that way last night, somewhere between one-half and two-thirds would pull the lever for Trump. Maybe. 10% of the Republican Party saying "**** this guy", however, cripples a candidate.

you are forgetting

1. All of Clinton's negatives are already baked in. Trump's are not (in fact, they are generally not as widely known).
2. Trump only recently faced any negative press or advertisements. The Clintons are going to drop a $Billion in that on him between July and November.
3. Trump's extremely high unfavorables militate against him being able to take those numbers and dramatically alter them.

A major exogenous event (something like Desert One in 1980, or the market meltdown in 2008) could still swing the race. But at this point, there is nothing that indicates anything other than a nice, solid, Hillary victory in November over Donald Trump. Anything that runs off the data with a "but what if!" is magical thinking.

these polls are insane for clinton, but who here knows anyone that is THAT for clinton.

Nope. But they are that THAT against Trump. If necessary, I'll get myself blinding drunk, go vote Hillary, and then take a day of leave so I can spend 24 hours showering, after.

Take a look at how well Bush did (40%) versus how well Romney did (25%) with Hispanics, for example. As yourself how well Trump is going to do with his 12% (which, again, is the number before a billion dollars in negative ads get dropped on him, aimed at those communities). Trump is going to lock Hispanics into the Democrat party like African Americans already are.

 

[Casper]

I don't think so, he likes to put his name on ****, not run ****. if you look at his properties, he's not in the day to day ****. I mean of all things, this is really trivial. 3 months out from the election if we have no idea of his cabinet and advisorts then we should worry.

Fair enough on the Cabinet not so open to vagaries when it comes to his ideas and promises.

 

[Cavendish]

Nah. If Cruz falls, I'll be a Johnston voter. And then I'll choke down bile and fury at the hordes of idiot slackjaws that so royally ****ed up the GOP in 2016 for the next four years. After that, I may let bygones be.

What about Shillary's neocon foreign policy do you find most disagreeable? What about Shillary's GOPe views on immigration do you find most disagreeable? What about Shillary's Washington-cartel (certainly includes the "free traders" at NR :lol: ) views on trade do you find most disagreeable?

She's your candidate! Get out and campaign already.

 

[cpwill]

What about Shillary's neocon foreign policy do you find most disagreeable?

It's lack of competency, it's emphasis on soft power approaches sans credible threat of force, and it's vain pretension that hostile actors share our goals or assumptions.

What about Shillary's GOPe views on immigration do you find most disagreeable?

I do not beleive in extending citizenship to illegals, ever. I think we should secure the border, manage E-Verify (and punish those who don't enough to make it hurt}, and require that people pay taxes, learn English, and never allow them public assistance. I think that we should cease importing large numbers of unskilled laborers, and focus reduced immigration toward the educated.

What about Shillary's Washington-cartel (certainly includes the "free traders" at NR [emoji38] ) views on trade do you find most disagreeable?

I think I disagree with some NRO (whom you mislabel) authors in the same place that I do Hillary: the TPP, which I am a supporter of. Generally, where we can free up trade, we should.

She's your candidate! Get out and campaign already.

Only if that is the only way to so Trump. God I hope it doesn't come to that - I'd feel dirty for a long time.

 

[justabubba]

Oh yeah, you mean like the 33 JEB! Bush foreign policy advisors; nearly all of whom had a hand in the quagmire in IRAQ. And isn't it ironic that you're criticising Trump on this when he's mentioned several Supreme Court justices and someone who wants to manage the Trade Deals. Yes, you claim Trump isn't doing x, when in reality he's pretty much the only one doing x. Try to control your hatred.

glad you offered that example
it illustrates the extant advisory issue with trump
dubya had no advisors on his own of a calibre to operate the white house
so he went to one of his dad's old hands and asked him to identify who would be the best person to run beside him as VP
and that dick, cheney named himself
and thereafter brought on board many of the other old hands from HW's era
in effect, dubya arrived in much the position we find trump in now, without a clue about who could best advise him
and i fully expect the donald - and thus, our nation - to suffer because of such weak counsel

 

[reinoe]

glad you offered that example
it illustrates the extant advisory issue with trump
dubya had no advisors on his own of a calibre to operate the white house
so he went to one of his dad's old hands and asked him to identify who would be the best person to run beside him as VP
and that dick, cheney named himself
and thereafter brought on board many of the other old hands from HW's era
in effect, dubya arrived in much the position we find trump in now, without a clue about who could best advise him
and i fully expect the donald - and thus, our nation - to suffer because of such weak counsel

And JEB! had 33 foreign policy advisors and it didn't help him at all. Trump doesn't have nepotism to recommend failed policies. He can just go and get the people he thinks are best for the job with no strings attached. Thanks for drawing the completely wrong conclusion while highlighting that Trump isn't going to have the problems you mentioned. I almost gave you a "like".

 

[Lovebug]

Solid.


[/indent]

"and I've said a lot of things" Analysis: TRUE!



"So, I know what I'm doing" Analysis: Not So Much.

And to think, the dear has to live with himself too. Not to mention looking in the mirror. lol

 

[Fiddytree]

Ben Carson revealed himself as Trump's education adviser.

Between Trump, Ben Carson, and Trump's son (illegal, no?), this is shaping up to be a rather tragic cabinet.

 

[sangha]

Why wasn't hillary asked these questions?

Because they know who her advisors are

Inside Hillary Clinton’s Massive Foreign-Policy Brain Trust | Foreign Policy

 

[Fearandloathing]

Well, to be honest, could it really be much worse? Our current foreign policies are a very sad and tragic joke. We are trying to rekindle the cold war with Russia and our actions have directly contributed to the humanitarian crisis in Syria and Iraq, right now. That's just two of many options to choose from.

You still have some friends, who won't be if Trump starts trying to circumvent these trade agreements he hates so much. He has already incurred the negative attention from Mexico, China, Japan and Canada and he isn't even elected yet.

 

[Fishking]

You still have some friends, who won't be if Trump starts trying to circumvent these trade agreements he hates so much. He has already incurred the negative attention from Mexico, China, Japan and Canada and he isn't even elected yet.

That's because they are bending us over in those trade deals and they are not very good for keeping quality jobs in our country. I have no issue with having trade deals with more advanced countries like Canada or any number of European countries but not with countries who operate off of extremely cheap labor, reduced labor regulations, and reduced environmental regulations.

Any true environmentalist would not be a fan of trade deals to these countries, either.

 

[Fearandloathing]

That's because they are bending us over in those trade deals and they are not very good for keeping quality jobs in our country. I have no issue with having trade deals with more advanced countries like Canada or any number of European countries but not with countries who operate off of extremely cheap labor, reduced labor regulations, and reduced environmental regulations.

Any true environmentalist would not be a fan of trade deals to these countries, either.

Good luck with that. Try going through ONE DAY not using something from China. Did you drink juice today? The base came from China. The paper you used at any time between the bathroom and a contract, yep: China.

The jobs you are trying to protect left more than a decade ago. As for cheap labor, environment etc., that's why American industry out-sourced everything in the first place.

The US still cannot see that its future lies in a highly skilled, highly educated work force in health care, aerodynamics, communications technology etc., not in making widgets. The problem however, is that as globilization came in like a tide, no one in office paid any attention to warnings from economists and a string of governments were content to let the service industry make up the difference. Unfortunately they have robots now.

Interesting side note, our transit system is already looking into self-drive cars. Watch what happens when you throw a few million bus drivers out into the street

 

[Captain America]

Ben Carson revealed himself as Trump's education adviser.

Between Trump, Ben Carson, and Trump's son (illegal, no?), this is shaping up to be a rather tragic cabinet.

Illegal in what way? I ask because I truly don't know.

However, if Ben Carson was promised some cabinet position or other favors for his endorsement, that might be frowned upon.

 

[Fishking]

Good luck with that. Try going through ONE DAY not using something from China. Did you drink juice today? The base came from China. The paper you used at any time between the bathroom and a contract, yep: China.

The jobs you are trying to protect left more than a decade ago. As for cheap labor, environment etc., that's why American industry out-sourced everything in the first place.

The US still cannot see that its future lies in a highly skilled, highly educated work force in health care, aerodynamics, communications technology etc., not in making widgets. The problem however, is that as globilization came in like a tide, no one in office paid any attention to warnings from economists and a string of governments were content to let the service industry make up the difference. Unfortunately they have robots now.

Interesting side note, our transit system is already looking into self-drive cars. Watch what happens when you throw a few million bus drivers out into the street

We didn't lose those jobs overnight and we won't get them back overnight. It will have to be a concerted effort over decades. That aside, I don't think it's realistic to have a viable economy based off of the jobs you mentioned for multiple reasons.

1. There wouldn't be enough of the high end jobs for it to employ enough people with decent pay.

2. Having an economy based off of service industry is an economy built on a house of cards.

3. Advanced aerodynamics and communications technology is not a viable position because under the current dynamics you're really only talking about a very small number of jobs in the R&D fields because once the tech is developed then you can just ship it out of country again.

Fact is, we have to reverse our trade dynamics with the cheap countries if we want to have enough decent paying jobs for everyone. If not, you're just going to try and improve the bottom of the barrel scrapings by using legislation to bump up the meager pay of low skill jobs that simply cannot be outsourced, like getting $15/hr for fast food workers.

 

[mmi]

I don't think it's realistic to have a viable economy based off of the jobs you mentioned for multiple reasons.

I think the key to that sentence is the "etc" part:

The US still cannot see that its future lies in a highly skilled, highly educated work force in health care, aerodynamics, communications technology etc., not in making widgets.​

A more complete list would include services in a wide variety of industries: banking, finance, accounting, law, insurance, engineering, computer technology and software development, business consulting, marketing, product design, energy development and resource management, and many more. The US has a strong base in specialized manufacturing, e.g., pharmaceuticals and the development and production of testing, measuring, and control instruments. We arguably have a major strategic advantage in broad areas like scientific research and higher education.

I wouldn't single out the US — the facilities and knowledge/labor force associated with these fields are also present in other (higher-wage) advanced, Western economies.

>>Having an economy based off of service industry is an economy built on a house of cards.

It may be that service industries like these are better able to adapt to rapid economic changes than more traditional manufacturing industries. And with sophisticated automation/robotics, we may be able to hold onto at least a decent market share in industries like automobile manufacturing.

 

[Zyphlin]

Still having a laugh that there are those who, during the entire primary season, have been shouting "BUT THE DATA" and "The numbers say he will lose" and predicting time and again Trumps demise.....arnd are now still going "but seriously you all, I was wrong the past half a dozen times but THIS time I'm right, the numbers say he's definitely done for in the primary! It'll be different this time, trust me"

Serious, anyone who's telling you that the general election is all but guaranteed for either side is either ignorant of what's been happening the past 6 months or they'll foolishly ignoring it because "it's totally going to be different this time"

 

[Fearandloathing]

We didn't lose those jobs overnight and we won't get them back overnight. It will have to be a concerted effort over decades. That aside, I don't think it's realistic to have a viable economy based off of the jobs you mentioned for multiple reasons.

1. There wouldn't be enough of the high end jobs for it to employ enough people with decent pay.

2. Having an economy based off of service industry is an economy built on a house of cards.

3. Advanced aerodynamics and communications technology is not a viable position because under the current dynamics you're really only talking about a very small number of jobs in the R&D fields because once the tech is developed then you can just ship it out of country again.

Fact is, we have to reverse our trade dynamics with the cheap countries if we want to have enough decent paying jobs for everyone. If not, you're just going to try and improve the bottom of the barrel scrapings by using legislation to bump up the meager pay of low skill jobs that simply cannot be outsourced, like getting $15/hr for fast food workers.

Ah....you assumed a whole lot out of one sentence. Way too much in fact.

Have a nice day

 

[Fishking]

Ah....you assumed a whole lot out of one sentence. Way too much in fact.

Have a nice day

Assumed too much? I didn't assume anything. You made a statement and I gave my reasons why I thought your position was not viable.

 

[ocean515]

Very interesting take on this.

And you're right.

We think of Trump as an 'outsider', but he's only an outsider in terms of political parties and organized politics. He actually has a great amount of real-world experience compared to other politicians and President Obama, whose only experience was moderate political experience.

Most telling of the above might be onstage at the debate where Marco Rubio shouted, "And Mr. Trump, you hired illegal Polish workers on your jobsite for Trump Tower"; to which Trump very adroitly & boisterously rebuked: "I'm the only one on this stage that's hired *anyone*"! You haven't hired *anyone*!
I couldn't stop ROFLMOA'ing! :lamo

It was an awesome moment where Trump towered over the field, IMO.

I've got to admit, the guy can be pretty dayem good sometimes.

Having done business in NYC for decades, I can attest to the fact there is such a thing as a "New York" attitude. I don't know if it's because of the hustle and bustle of the area, the winters, congestion, I don't know, but it's definitely an "in your face" approach that can be a bit alarming at first. Once you figure out it's just SOP, it doesn't really mean anything.

I think that is likely how Trump is. Just "in your face" because that is how things are done in his world.

One thing is certain, Trump has domestic and international experience. Developing on his level takes political savvy and an ability to negotiate around local customs and attitudes. I think this reflects far more skill in multiple areas of politics and business than any other candidate running for President. It doesn't mean I would automatically vote for him, but it's foolish to dismiss his accomplishments and experience the way so many people are trying to do.

 

[ocean515]

Oh. Trump has experience. I am not so sure its nature gives him much to go on in running a government, designing or handling foreign policy or defining defense. Negotiating a bankruptcy, now... or building a high rise in a city in which the building is in the hands of very dangerous men... well, yes. That might be a different deal.

I don't think I can agree with you there. Given the breadth of his dealings, I believe he probably has more experience in all the areas you mention than any other candidate running for President. That doesn't mean he should be President, the voters will decide that, but when you combine the things Trump has likely had to develop skills in, Trump has shown he has experience in all of them.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Which is anecdotal. < Data

that's not "anecdotal" and data from polls is often wrong, and manipulated. Trump has defied the polls before.

both of which dissipates approximately a third of a second after Trump gets the nod. He is the only GOP candidate that can GOTV for Hillary like that.

I disagree, I think if Bernie were to get the nod you would see an influx of young voters, but if it's hillary, you'll see apathy.

I think it's a significant crowd. If I had to guess, I'd say that, of the 37% who polled that way last night, somewhere between one-half and two-thirds would pull the lever for Trump. Maybe. 10% of the Republican Party saying "**** this guy", however, cripples a candidate.

you are forgetting

1. All of Clinton's negatives are already baked in. Trump's are not (in fact, they are generally not as widely known).
2. Trump only recently faced any negative press or advertisements. The Clintons are going to drop a $Billion in that on him between July and November.
3. Trump's extremely high unfavorables militate against him being able to take those numbers and dramatically alter them.

Are you kidding? trump's been considered a celebrity clown for YEARS, nothing negative yet including the trump university scam has hurt him, what do you think hillary can say about him that's going to change this?

A major exogenous event (something like Desert One in 1980, or the market meltdown in 2008) could still swing the race. But at this point, there is nothing that indicates anything other than a nice, solid, Hillary victory in November over Donald Trump. Anything that runs off the data with a "but what if!" is magical thinking.

I disagree, I think you have to consider the history of turnout in primaries as a driving factor into who is going to win. What you and I are being told by the msm is a sham. how many 20k plus rallies has this guy had that they refused to cover?

Nope. But they are that THAT against Trump. If necessary, I'll get myself blinding drunk, go vote Hillary, and then take a day of leave so I can spend 24 hours showering, after.

Take a look at how well Bush did (40%) versus how well Romney did (25%) with Hispanics, for example. As yourself how well Trump is going to do with his 12% (which, again, is the number before a billion dollars in negative ads get dropped on him, aimed at those communities). Trump is going to lock Hispanics into the Democrat party like African Americans already are.

wait... did you just state you will vote for hillary? :shock:

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Fair enough on the Cabinet not so open to vagaries when it comes to his ideas and promises.

I mean the way the media should go after trump, and any candidate for that matter, is to needle them on specifics on policy issues. I mean the guy for ****s sake is for an Assault weapons ban. instead of calling him hitler, make that a highlight. On immigration, ask him specificialy to line out his plans. etc etc..


instead we have "fascism"! and "racist" and "he has a hairpiece and wants to **** his daughter" ****....


When trump says he loves the uneducated, he's not the only one/.

 

[MrT]

What's missing here, is the fact that Mr. Trump's followers don't support him because he has solutions, but rather they hope or believe he can find solutions and recruit people to help him to this effect. His stature and personal success & accomplishments lead many to believe in his abilities, rather than his platform specifics. This last item is accentuated by the fact that the specifics offered by competing candidates are thought to be hollow words which will never come to fruition, and that perception is largely accurate.

It's actually a pretty slick & novel approach, and no other Presidential candidate has been able to pull it off previously.

Now as to whether Mr. Trump will actually be able to provide solutions once in office, it remains to be seen; but his supporters believe he will and that's why he maintains a Party plurality, with the possibility to even become a majority.

The ultimate example of "Fake it until you make it."