• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • 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.

The Definitive "Why I Oppose Trump!" Thread

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,643
Reaction score
21,936
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I find myself personally disgusted by the anti-Trump positions I've seen posted in this Forum and in the general forum of public opinion.

This disgust does not come from a belief that people can't have a rational, well-reasoned position upon which they base their opposition. As I've stated in all honesty before, he would not be my first choice for a candidate either.

No, it comes from the vitriolic personal attacks on the candidate based on misrepresentation, labeling, and unbridled hatred.

Even worse is how this translates into attacks on his supporters of whatever stripe, as if Anti-Trump advocates think we are in a school-yard engaged in name-calling and bullying in order to divide the "cool kids" from the socially unacceptable scapegoats.

So, while I may not be the best qualified advocate since my support for Trump is somewhat conditional, I am willing to pretend that I am acting as his defense attorney so as to try to address real concerns about his candidacy. :fyi:

The rules are simple:

1. Stick to the facts that show a problem with his becoming President.

  • Don't use labels; rather point to a direct citation I can investigate which supports your position.
  • Address actual policy issues you have concerns with, again citing the factual basis for this concern.

2. Statements of "gut feeling," labeling, or clear vitriol will be dismissed or ignored.

3. I will admit when any point presented is valid, and will state so in any reply where this is the case.


The gauntlet is thrown. I will do my best to provide rational and responsible replies to all points raised in the same vein. :cool:
 
Last edited:

PirateMk1

Resident Martian ;)
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
17,544
Reaction score
8,349
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
I find myself personally disgusted by the anti-Trump positions I've seen posted in this Forum and in the general forum of public opinion.

This disgust does not come from a belief that people can't have a rational, well-reasoned position upon which they base their opposition. As I've stated in all honesty before, he would not be my first choice for a candidate either.

No, it comes from the vitriolic personal attacks on the candidate based on misrepresentation, labeling, and unbridled hatred.

Even worse is how this translates into attacks on his supporters of whatever stripe, as if Anti-Trump advocates think we are in a school-yard engaged in name-calling and bullying in order to divide the "cool kids" from the socially unacceptable scapegoats.

So, while I may not be the best qualified advocate since my support for Trump is somewhat conditional, I am willing to pretend that I am acting as his defense attorney so as to try to address real concerns about his candidacy. :fyi:

The rules are simple:

1. Stick to the facts that show a problem with his becoming President.

  • Don't use labels; rather point to a direct citation I can investigate which supports your position.
  • Address actual policy issues you have concerns with, again citing the factual basis for this concern.

2. Statements of "gut feeling," labeling, or clear vitriol will be dismissed or ignored.

3. I will admit when any point presented is valid, and will state so in any reply where this is the case.


The gauntlet is thrown. I will do my best to provide rational and responsible replies to all points raised in the same vein. :cool:

I wish you luck. I am with you my Trump support is VERY conditional. Especially if Mr. Veto can make out of the polling basement.
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,524
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I find myself personally disgusted by the anti-Trump positions I've seen posted in this Forum and in the general forum of public opinion.

This disgust does not come from a belief that people can't have a rational, well-reasoned position upon which they base their opposition. As I've stated in all honesty before, he would not be my first choice for a candidate either.

No, it comes from the vitriolic personal attacks on the candidate based on misrepresentation, labeling, and unbridled hatred.

Even worse is how this translates into attacks on his supporters of whatever stripe, as if Anti-Trump advocates think we are in a school-yard name-calling and bullying in order to divide the "cool kids" from the socially unacceptable scapegoats.

So, while I may not be the best qualified advocate since my support for Trump is somewhat conditional, I am willing to pretend that I am acting as his defense attorney so as to try to address real concerns about his candidacy. :fyi:

The rules are simple:

1. Stick to the facts that show a problem with his becoming President.

  • Don't use labels; rather point to a direct citation I can investigate which supports your position.
  • Address actual policy issues you have concerns with, again citing the factual basis for this concern.

2. Statements of "gut feeling," labeling, or clear vitriol will be dismissed or ignored.

3. I will admit when any point presented is valid, and will state so in any reply where this is the case.


The gauntlet is thrown. I will do my best to provide rational and responsible replies to all points raised in the same vein. :minigavel

1) His policy of not defending all of our NATO allies
Donald Trump Says U.S. May Not Help NATO Allies If He Is President - Fortune

2) His condoning Russia's aggression in the Ukraine
Donald Trump says Vladimir Putin is 'not going to go into Ukraine,' despite Crimea - CNNPolitics.com

3) His willingness to allow the spread of nuclear weapons
9 Terrifying Things Donald Trump Has Publicly Said About Nuclear Weapons | ThinkProgress

4) His belief that NATO is obselete
9 Terrifying Things Donald Trump Has Publicly Said About Nuclear Weapons | ThinkProgress

5) His proposal to back only half of our national debt
Donald Trump Brings Back the Default Talk - The Atlantic

That's just off the top of my head
 

Glen Contrarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
17,688
Reaction score
8,046
Location
Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, he
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I find myself personally disgusted by the anti-Trump positions I've seen posted in this Forum and in the general forum of public opinion.

The gauntlet is thrown. I will do my best to provide rational and responsible replies to all points raised in the same vein.

1 - He strongly appears to be someone who would meet the clinical definition of a narcissist. As such, he not only feels little or no empathy for those he leads, but - even more importantly - would be easily manipulated by those who want to elicit certain responses from him.

2 - He has shown a strong preference for Russia (or, perhaps more likely, been manipulated into that preference for Russia), as evinced by:
- (1) his statement that he might not defend our NATO allies despite a half century of preventing nuclear war by presenting a united front with our allies;
- (2) removed "aid the Ukraine against Russian aggression" (or words to that effect) from the GOP platform. This is exacerbated by his statement in a recent interview that Russia would never invade the Ukraine, even though it's well known that Russians have been in fact directly fomenting and supplying a near-civil war there with weapons and personnel.
- (3) his close ties with Russian oligarchs;
- (4) his call for the Russians to find and publish the emails of our former Secretary of State in such a way that it would interfere with our national election. BTW, please don't be so ingenuous as to try to support his later claim that he was just being sarcastic.

3 - His tendency to attract white supremacists. This is exacerbated by his retweet of the "Jewish star" anti-Hillary ad. For all the brouhaha about the ad itself - and who cares what he thought that star meant - the real issue is that he - Trump - was the one who apparently had gone onto a white supremacist website, for that's where he retweeted that image from. Why, then, was the GOP presidential candidate browsing a white supremacist website? Why did he retweet any information from there at all?

4 - His xenophobia, as evinced by his attacks on Islam, against Mexicans, and against refugees. To call for having all Muslims register with the government - do we really need to discuss why that is an inexcusably bad idea?

5 - His attacks against our veterans e.g. John McCain and the parents of Capt. Khan. These were to my mind inexcusable...and are a grand exposition of the hypocrisy of Trump's supporters, for if Hillary had said what Trump did in either of these cases, the Right would have been calling for her head on a plate...and so would I. But since it was Trump, well, that apparently means it was all okay.

There's so much more, but I'll leave it at that for how.
 

Tanngrisnir

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 2, 2016
Messages
34,150
Reaction score
15,597
Location
No longer Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Tempermentally he is utterly unfit.

He in intellectually incurious and woefully ignorant on too many major issues and topics.

He is spiteful, short-tempered and easily flustered.

He's an emotional retarded man-child, bully and sideshow barker all rolled into one based on his actions and rhetoric.

He lacks the calm, sober demeanor necessary not to be goaded into lashing out about such inanities and trivialities as the size of his hands and what that implies.

Based on his history of business, it's very possible that he was mobbed up to some degree, and his current finances are neck deep with Russian oligarchs joined at the hip with Putin.

Based on his own statements and actions, it's clear that his main concern isn't the country but his brand and it's longevity.

He is over-the-top confrontational and lacks the disposition to shrug off perceived insults and slighs.

His treatement of women.

His making fun a handicapped man.

His long history in business of defrauding/ripping off subcontractors.

His ignorance of our legal system (He'll make murdering a police officer come with the death penalty by executive order, etc....)

His in ability to express himself in anything other than soundbites, slogans and, quite frequenly, nonsensical word salads.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,643
Reaction score
21,936
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
1 - He strongly appears to be someone who would meet the clinical definition of a narcissist. As such, he not only feels little or no empathy for those he leads, but - even more importantly - would be easily manipulated by those who want to elicit certain responses from him.

Okay, unless you are a clinical psychiatrist who has examined Trump and can make an informed diagnosis, then this is an example of the kind of character assassination attack that I will not be responding to.

No offense, but while you may personally buy into this new attack meme, it is nothing more than that.

2 - He has shown a strong preference for Russia (or, perhaps more likely, been manipulated into that preference for Russia), as evinced by:
- (1) his statement that he might not defend our NATO allies despite a half century of preventing nuclear war by presenting a united front with our allies;
- (2) removed "aid the Ukraine against Russian aggression" (or words to that effect) from the GOP platform. This is exacerbated by his statement in a recent interview that Russia would never invade the Ukraine, even though it's well known that Russians have been in fact directly fomenting and supplying a near-civil war there with weapons and personnel.
- (3) his close ties with Russian oligarchs;
- (4) his call for the Russians to find and publish the emails of our former Secretary of State in such a way that it would interfere with our national election. BTW, please don't be so ingenuous as to try to support his later claim that he was just being sarcastic.

3 - His tendency to attract white supremacists. This is exacerbated by his retweet of the "Jewish star" anti-Hillary ad. For all the brouhaha about the ad itself - and who cares what he thought that star meant - the real issue is that he - Trump - was the one who apparently had gone onto a white supremacist website, for that's where he retweeted that image from. Why, then, was the GOP presidential candidate browsing a white supremacist website? Why did he retweet any information from there at all?

4 - His xenophobia, as evinced by his attacks on Islam, against Mexicans, and against refugees. To call for having all Muslims register with the government - do we really need to discuss why that is an inexcusably bad idea?

5 - His attacks against our veterans e.g. John McCain and the parents of Capt. Khan. These were to my mind inexcusable...and are a grand exposition of the hypocrisy of Trump's supporters, for if Hillary had said what Trump did in either of these cases, the Right would have been calling for her head on a plate...and so would I. But since it was Trump, well, that apparently means it was all okay.

There's so much more, but I'll leave it at that for how.

Now both you and Sangha have raised a couple of similar issues reflected in the above points. Let me do my research on them and I will prepare an appropriate response. Either individually for the unshared issues, or together for the shared to save space.
 
Last edited:

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,643
Reaction score
21,936
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Tempermentally he is utterly unfit.

He in intellectually incurious and woefully ignorant on too many major issues and topics.

He is spiteful, short-tempered and easily flustered.

He's an emotional retarded man-child, bully and sideshow barker all rolled into one based on his actions and rhetoric.

He lacks the calm, sober demeanor necessary not to be goaded into lashing out about such inanities and trivialities as the size of his hands and what that implies.

Based on his history of business, it's very possible that he was mobbed up to some degree, and his current finances are neck deep with Russian oligarchs joined at the hip with Putin.

Based on his own statements and actions, it's clear that his main concern isn't the country but his brand and it's longevity.

He is over-the-top confrontational and lacks the disposition to shrug off perceived insults and slighs.

His treatement of women.

His making fun a handicapped man.

His long history in business of defrauding/ripping off subcontractors.

His ignorance of our legal system (He'll make murdering a police officer come with the death penalty by executive order, etc....)

His in ability to express himself in anything other than soundbites, slogans and, quite frequenly, nonsensical word salads.

I'm sorry but IMO your entire post contains nothing but "soundbites, slogans, and...nonsensical word salads."

You are parroting talking points, many of which have been refuted individually (but ignored) in member responses in other threads.

If you want a rational response, please follow the simple rules.

The rules are simple:

1. Stick to the facts that show a problem with his becoming President.

  • Don't use labels; rather point to a direct citation I can investigate which supports your position.
  • Address actual policy issues you have concerns with, again citing the factual basis for this concern.

2. Statements of "gut feeling," labeling, or clear vitriol will be dismissed or ignored.

3. I will admit when any point presented is valid, and will state so in any reply where this is the case.

I will do my best to provide rational and responsible replies to all points raised in the same vein. :cool:

Provide direct citations to any of your positions. I will research them and reply when I am able. Okay?
 
Last edited:

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
50,528
Reaction score
34,853
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I]]

No, it comes from the vitriolic personal attacks on the candidate based on misrepresentation, labeling, and unbridled hatred.

Insulting lies.

Not going to bother further with a thread written by someone who pretends to be neutral and then utters something like that.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,643
Reaction score
21,936
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Insulting lies.

Not going to bother further with a thread written by someone who pretends to be neutral and then utters something like that.

First...where do I pretend to be neutral?

I am a Trump supporter (however reluctantly). Moreover, I posited this thread stating I was going to act as a defense attorney. You do realize that defense attorneys are not "neutral," that their job is to DEFEND their client?

Second, my OP listed my viewpoint on how many anti-Trump campaigners mis-quote, twist quotes, and take statements out of context in order to put Mr. Trump in the very worst possible light. This has been demonstrated time and again in this very Forum. I myself have responded with evidence of the propaganda slant used almost from the beginning of his campaign for the Republican nomination. To label him a bigot, misogynist, and xenophobe...and the most recent efforts are to now label him mentally defective.

It is why I have volunteered to examine the FACTS upon which such anti-Trump positions have been based. To show that most, if not all of this propagandizing is a clear effort to demonize him, and effectively bully people into not voting for him.

Whether you agree with my rationale for taking this option, or not, is not relevant to THIS thread.

You participation in any thread is entirely up to you. Your position as to why you chose not to here is duly noted. :shrug:
 

Tanngrisnir

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 2, 2016
Messages
34,150
Reaction score
15,597
Location
No longer Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'm sorry but IMO your entire post contains nothing but "soundbites, slogans, and...nonsensical word salads."

You are parroting talking points, many of which have been refuted individually (but ignored) in member responses in other threads.

No, not particularly. They're not talking points. I'm simply giving my opinion, and with the almost innumerable quotes from him out there at finger's reach, I don't feel the need to further fill out my statements with specifics, and nothing I've said has been refuted.
If you want a rational response, please follow the simple rules.

Provide direct citations to any of your positions. I will research them and reply when I am able. Okay?

Nah. Don't really care to, given the reason I cited above.
 

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,506
Reaction score
57,521
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
I find myself personally disgusted by the anti-Trump positions I've seen posted in this Forum and in the general forum of public opinion.

This disgust does not come from a belief that people can't have a rational, well-reasoned position upon which they base their opposition. As I've stated in all honesty before, he would not be my first choice for a candidate either.

No, it comes from the vitriolic personal attacks on the candidate based on misrepresentation, labeling, and unbridled hatred.

Even worse is how this translates into attacks on his supporters of whatever stripe, as if Anti-Trump advocates think we are in a school-yard engaged in name-calling and bullying in order to divide the "cool kids" from the socially unacceptable scapegoats.

So, while I may not be the best qualified advocate since my support for Trump is somewhat conditional, I am willing to pretend that I am acting as his defense attorney so as to try to address real concerns about his candidacy. :fyi:

The rules are simple:

1. Stick to the facts that show a problem with his becoming President.

  • Don't use labels; rather point to a direct citation I can investigate which supports your position.
  • Address actual policy issues you have concerns with, again citing the factual basis for this concern.

2. Statements of "gut feeling," labeling, or clear vitriol will be dismissed or ignored.

3. I will admit when any point presented is valid, and will state so in any reply where this is the case.


The gauntlet is thrown. I will do my best to provide rational and responsible replies to all points raised in the same vein. :cool:
Mostly I find his positions to be incredibly unAmerican.

Banning Muslims. Even though I understand the reasoning behind it, it's too unAmerican for my blood. Also worth mentioning, to use Trumpian terms, it's a disaster.
Experts Say Trump'''s Muslim Ban Would Cripple Immigration System - NBC News

Deporting Millions of Mexicans: Again, although I understand the reasoning behind it, the plan would be a disaster.
Economic costs of deporting all undocumented immigrants - Business Insider

Building a wall: Same argument
Trump?s Wall: Impractical, Impolitic, Impossible

Lack of support for NATO: Total disaster in that it sews the seeds of doubt making the world a much less safe place.
Donald Trump's NATO Remarks Stuns U.S. Allies - The Atlantic
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,643
Reaction score
21,936
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Mostly I find his positions to be incredibly unAmerican.

Banning Muslims. Even though I understand the reasoning behind it, it's too unAmerican for my blood. Also worth mentioning, to use Trumpian terms, it's a disaster.
Experts Say Trump'''s Muslim Ban Would Cripple Immigration System - NBC News

Deporting Millions of Mexicans: Again, although I understand the reasoning behind it, the plan would be a disaster.
Economic costs of deporting all undocumented immigrants - Business Insider

Building a wall: Same argument
Trump?s Wall: Impractical, Impolitic, Impossible

Lack of support for NATO: Total disaster in that it sews the seeds of doubt making the world a much less safe place.
Donald Trump's NATO Remarks Stuns U.S. Allies - The Atlantic

Okay, thanks.

I am working on some of the questions already presented. You have posted one that has been posted by two other members (the NATO issue) and I am working on that first.

You've added some new issues, and I will research and reply eventually. Sorry if I don't reply quickly, I am trying to ensure I have the facts before I respond.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,643
Reaction score
21,936
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
No, not particularly. They're not talking points. I'm simply giving my opinion, and with the almost innumerable quotes from him out there at finger's reach, I don't feel the need to further fill out my statements with specifics, and nothing I've said has been refuted.

Nah. Don't really care to, given the reason I cited above.

Incorrect. MUCH has been refuted, you just refuse to accept this fact.

The point of THIS thread is to address the factual basis for your "opinions." Your position is based almost entirely on the fallacy of an argumentum ad populum:

An argumentum ad populum is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Such arguments have been based on slanted media reports about what Trump is alleged to have said, or done; salted with a portion of truth to give them credibility.

An unbiased eye, taking the time to actually follow the trail back to the source material (his actual statements) shows a tendency of the media sources to "editorialize" his statements to fit their talking points.

I actually wasn't a supporter of Trump at the initial phases of his campaign. I thought he had little or no chance to win, and honestly believe his original candidacy was noting more than a publicity stunt.

Then I heard all these accusations of racism, misogyny, and xenophobia; so I went and watched the videos and read the statements quoted. Invariably, they did not support the allegations broadcast and lampooned in the media. That's when I started to pay more attention to his campaign.

So I am sorry, but I must disagree. I offer again to respond to any citations evidencing your talking points, because the claim "everybody already knows what he said' is clearly false, since the reports do NOT reflect what he actually said most of the time.
 
Last edited:

Tanngrisnir

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 2, 2016
Messages
34,150
Reaction score
15,597
Location
No longer Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Incorrect. MUCH has been refuted, you just refuse to accept this fact.

No, I'm sorry that's simply not the case, nor have you demonstrated it to be the case.
The point of THIS thread is to address the factual basis for your "opinions." Your position is based almost entirely on the fallacy of an argumentum ad populum:

A. No, I'm sorry, it's simply not. You should likely familiarize yourself with that term before attempting to use it.
B. You enganging in what's known as a 'bare assertion'

Bare assertion fallacy - Toolkit For Thinking
Such arguments have been based on slanted media reports about what Trump is alleged to have said, or done; salted with a portion of truth to give them credibility.

Yet another bare assertion. You have absolutely no idea wha media I have reviewed, or if those media are slanted or not.
An unbiased eye, taking the time to actually follow the trail back to the source material (his actual statements) shows a tendency of the media sources to "editorialize" his statements to fit their talking points.

Given that I have access to, and have reviewed his original statements, what the media does is wholly irrelevant to my statments.
I actually wasn't a supporter of Trump at the initial phases of his campaign. I thought he had little or no chance to win, and honestly believe his original candidacy was noting more than a publicity stunt.

Then I heard all these accusations of racism, misogyny, and xenophobia; so I went and watched the videos and read the statements quoted. Invariably, they did not support the allegations broadcast and lampooned in the media. That's when I started to pay more attention to his campaign.

So I am sorry, but I must disagree. I offer again to respond to any citations evidencing your talking points, because the claim "everybody already knows what he said' is clearly false, since the reports do NOT reflect what he actually said most of the time.

I have not made that statment that 'everybody already knows what he said'. You're now engaging in what's known as a 'strawman'.

I'm detecting a pattern here.....
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,643
Reaction score
21,936
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
No, I'm sorry that's simply not the case, nor have you demonstrated it to be the case.

A. No, I'm sorry, it's simply not. You should likely familiarize yourself with that term before attempting to use it.
B. You enganging in what's known as a 'bare assertion'

Bare assertion fallacy - Toolkit For Thinking

Yet another bare assertion. You have absolutely no idea wha media I have reviewed, or if those media are slanted or not.

Given that I have access to, and have reviewed his original statements, what the media does is wholly irrelevant to my statments.

I have not made that statment that 'everybody already knows what he said'. You're now engaging in what's known as a 'strawman'.

I'm detecting a pattern here.....

Yes, the pattern is your refusal to provide citations in support of your position, clearly specified in the OP under "Simple Rules" if you were actually seeking to participate.

My "bare assertion" is not in play here. This thread is presented for me to actually provide a direct refutation OR confirmation regarding the basis for each of your positions.

That's okay. If you feel that you cannot (or need not) provide citations that I can research and respond to in support of any of your stated "opinions," then of course that is your choice. :shrug:
 
Last edited:

Glen Contrarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
17,688
Reaction score
8,046
Location
Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, he
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Okay, unless you are a clinical psychiatrist who has examined Trump and can make an informed diagnosis, then this is an example of the kind of character assassination attack that I will not be responding to.

No offense, but while you may personally buy into this new attack meme, it is nothing more than that.

I'll wait for your other response, but when it comes to you referring to the 'narcissist' statement as an "attack meme"...remember, we're hiring someone who, if he gets pissed off at someone, potentially end human civilization or perhaps even life on earth.

And that is NOT an exaggeration.

At least with Hillary, I know that she's a rational actor - she's not going to push the nuclear button unless there's truly no other choice. Trump, on the other hand, is a loose cannon, and he's far too easily manipulated, as his inability to stop himself from continuing his attacks on the Khans made painfully clear. It would be irresponsible in the extreme to allow him access to the nuclear football.
 

Helix

Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
76,147
Reaction score
60,347
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
he lacks the temperament and fitness for office required of the commander in chief of the most powerful military that humanity has ever known.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,643
Reaction score
21,936
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
TRUMP and NATO: PART I

Three members asked questions about this issue:

1) His policy of not defending all of our NATO allies

2 - He has shown a strong preference for Russia (or, perhaps more likely, been manipulated into that preference for Russia), as evinced by: (1) his statement that he might not defend our NATO allies despite a half century of preventing nuclear war by presenting a united front with our allies.

Lack of support for NATO: Total disaster in that it sews the seeds of doubt making the world a much less safe place.

My research indicates that the Forum members have some reasonable concerns about what Trump has said concerning NATO. But let's see what he actually said:

Asked about Russia’s threatening activities, which have unnerved the small Baltic States that are among the more recent entrants into NATO...“If they fulfill their obligations to us,” he added, “the answer is yes.” He said the rest of the world would learn to adjust to his approach. “I would prefer to be able to continue” existing agreements, he said, but only if allies stopped taking advantage of what he called an era of American largess that was no longer affordable.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/us/politics/donald-trump-issues.html?_r=0

There are two ways to look at his statement. The Media message that he is going to let NATO allies, especially in the Baltic States, hang out to dry vs. any attack by Russia. The second; that he meant no such thing.

Let's examine some facts regarding NATO:

Article 3: In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.
NATO - Official text: The North Atlantic Treaty, 04-Apr.-1949

Article 13:After the Treaty has been in force for twenty years, any Party may cease to be a Party one year after its notice of denunciation has been given to the Government of the United States of America, which will inform the Governments of the other Parties of the deposit of each notice of denunciation.
NATO - Official text: The North Atlantic Treaty, 04-Apr.-1949

Funding NATO: Within the principle of common funding, all 28 members contribute according to an agreed cost-share formula, based on Gross National Income, which represents a small percentage of each member’s defense budget.
NATO - Topic: Funding NATO

Now the NATO agreement under Article 5 requires that signatories come to the aid of any member nation suffering an armed attack (on land or at sea per Article 6). So as long as a nation remains a member, they must participate in mutual defense.

Trump may not unilaterally abrogate the membership requirements of the Treaty. However, as Commander-in-Chief he can decide on the timing of deployment and the nature of initial support. He may also, at any time prior to an Article 5 situation arising, act to pull out of the treaty, since it has been well over 20 years since it's establishment in 1949.

Continued in Part II
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,643
Reaction score
21,936
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
TRUMP and NATO Part II:

What is he asking for? First that all members adhere to the minimum GDP contribution established by the NATO summit in Wales 09/2014:

14. We agree to reverse the trend of declining defence budgets...NATO and EU efforts to strengthen defence capabilities are complementary. Taking current commitments into account, we are guided by the following considerations:
Allies currently meeting the NATO guideline to spend a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defence will aim to continue to do so...Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level will: halt any decline in defence expenditure; aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows; aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade with a view to meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO's capability shortfalls.
NATO - Official text: Wales Summit Declaration issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Wales , 05-Sep.-2014

Second, he is asking that they take up some of the burden of hosting American forces located in their nations:

We have spent trillions of dollars over time—on planes, missiles, ships, equipment—building up our military to provide a strong defense for Europe and Asia. The countries we are defending must pay for the cost of this defense—and, if not, the U.S. must be prepared to let these countries defend themselves.
Trump Will Withdraw from NATO?Then the World

Neither of these requests seems irrational. Since of the 28 member states currently in NATO, only 5 have met or exceeded the 2% GDP requirement to support the Organization.

Unfortunately, only five countries met this goal in 2015: Estonia, Greece, Poland, the United Kingdom and the United States.
NATO's $100 billion Defense Budget Gap | RealClearDefense

So, did he imply that he would refuse to honor the Treaty? IMO, his statement could have been taken that way. Is that what he meant? IMO, no. It is more likely than not he was seeking to compel NATO member states into taking up more of the financial burden and his REAL threat was to pull out of NATO entirely unless they do. Something the USA is entitled to do under Article 13.

So to the member questions:

Sangha: His policy of not defending all of our NATO allies.

No, he did not state he would not defend all of the NATO allies. He stated that he would adhere to the Treaty if the members fulfilled their mutual obligations, then stated he would prefer to adhere to the agreement but only if they stopped taking advantage of our largesse. The actual implication is that he would opt to withdraw from the treaty entirely and leave them on their own if they did not meet these obligations. So to him it is ALL or none, in NATO or out of it.

Glen Contrarian: He has shown a strong preference for Russia(by his NATO statements).

No, this has nothing to do with Russia per se, and everything to do with his businessman mindset. It is costing the USA major bucks to pay for the defense of NATO, and he wants member nations to either increase their share of the expenses, or expect the USA to quit. That Russia may think to take advantage of it? Quite possible. (see my response to Calamity below).

Calamity: Lack of support for NATO: Total disaster in that it sews the seeds of doubt making the world a much less safe place.

Yes, his statements do create this problem, at least in NATO Europe. There is no getting around this. IMO, even though I understand his mindset I would rather he have waited until he was elected and then push for changes while in office.

Summary: Yes, there are some rational concerns about his foreign policy position vis-à-vis NATO. It shows he is thinking more like a businessman and less like a diplomat. It demonstrates his lack of experience. However, this should not be a game-killer. A fresh set of eyes and opinions may be a good thing, and perhaps shake some things up for the better. But I can see how some members would prefer Hillary in this arena.
 
Last edited:

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,524
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So, did he imply that he would refuse to honor the Treaty? IMO, his statement could have been taken that way. Is that what he meant? IMO, no. It is more likely than not he was seeking to compel NATO member states into taking up more of the financial burden and his REAL threat was to pull out of NATO entirely unless they do. Something the USA is entitled to do under Article 13.

My criticism had nothing to do with whether he would "refuse to honor the Treaty." It was based on his comment that he might not defend NATO nations against an attack.

And the possibility that he would pull out of NATO, reinforced by his belief that NATO is "obsolete", is just an additional example of his poor judgement.

It is costing the USA major bucks to pay for the defense of NATO, and he wants member nations to either increase their share of the expenses, or expect the USA to quit.

Gee, national defense costs us money?? Who knew!! :shrug:

Threatening to leave NATO if other nations don't spend more is the problem. Arguing that it's not a problem because "what's he really saying is that he'd leave NATO if other nations don't spend more" is not addressing the concern. It's merely repeating it

It is more likely than not he was seeking to compel NATO member states into taking up more of the financial burden and his REAL threat was to pull out of NATO entirely unless they do. Something the USA is entitled to do under Article 13.

Again, the issue isn't whether the US is entitled to leave NATO. Please *address* the concern instead of merely repeating it

You said you would "address real concerns about his candidacy." and "I will do my best to provide rational and responsible replies to all points raised in the same vein." and "I will admit when any point presented is valid"

You have not addressed the concern that was raised nor have you admitted to the validity of the concern relating to the US not defending a NATO nation that comes under attack
 
Last edited:

Glen Contrarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
17,688
Reaction score
8,046
Location
Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, he
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Glen Contrarian: He has shown a strong preference for Russia(by his NATO statements).

No, this has nothing to do with Russia per se, and everything to do with his businessman mindset. It is costing the USA major bucks to pay for the defense of NATO, and he wants member nations to either increase their share of the expenses, or expect the USA to quit. That Russia may think to take advantage of it? Quite possible. (see my response to Calamity below).

Y'know, if it weren't for all his other pro-Russia actions and statements, you'd have a point. But he's already shown his preference for Russia in several other ways that I listed...and when taken in the context of those other documented facts, your point goes away.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,643
Reaction score
21,936
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
My criticism had nothing to do with whether he would "refuse to honor the Treaty." It was based on his comment that he might not defend NATO nations against an attack.

And the possibility that he would pull out of NATO, reinforced by his belief that NATO is "obsolete", is just an additional example of his poor judgement.

You said you would "address real concerns about his candidacy." and "I will do my best to provide rational and responsible replies to all points raised in the same vein." and "I will admit when any point presented is valid"

You have not addressed the concern that was raised not have you admit the validity of concern relating to the US not defending a NATO nation that comes under attack

Sorry, I was still editing my response. I think you missed my summary of points in Part II. :)
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,643
Reaction score
21,936
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Y'know, if it weren't for all his other pro-Russia actions and statements, you'd have a point. But he's already shown his preference for Russia in several other ways that I listed...and when taken in the context of those other documented facts, your point goes away.

Sorry, I was still editing. Please check out my summary at the end of Part II. :)
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,524
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Sorry, I was still editing my response. I think you missed my summary of points in Part II. :)

Summary: Yes, there are some rational concerns about his foreign policy position vis-à-vis NATO. It shows he is thinking more like a businessman and less like a diplomat. It demonstrates his lack of experience. However, this should not be a game-killer. A fresh set of eyes and opinions may be a good thing, and perhaps shake some things up for the better. But I can see how some members would prefer Hillary in this arena.

That's a little better but the fact that you think the defense of Europe "should not be a game-killer" when it's a critical aspect of our national defense is indicative of the intentional obliviousness one must assume in order to support Trump.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,643
Reaction score
21,936
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I see you edited your post as well...hmm, let me see about a more valid response. ;)

My criticism had nothing to do with whether he would "refuse to honor the Treaty." It was based on his comment that he might not defend NATO nations against an attack.

He never said he would not defend "NATO" in the event of an attack. I quoted his response exactly, from your own citation. He said he would "if they fulfill their obligations to us." He then said if the members don't meet their obligations he would no longer "continue with existing agreements." That means pay and build your own forces up or we will pull out and let you defend yourselves. If we are no longer members of NATO, we have no obligations to do anything, how hard is that to understand? :confused:

And the possibility that he would pull out of NATO, reinforced by his belief that NATO is "obsolete", is just an additional example of his poor judgement.

Perhaps, but perhaps not. Some citizens think it is a waste of time, manpower, and money. Other's think it is a necessary evil because "Russia!" I agree that we should try to maintain it rather than become isolationist, but I also agree the other members need to stop assuming they can call big brother any time the other thug on the block flexes it's muscles. They are their own first line of defense after all. :shrug:

You said you would "address real concerns about his candidacy." and "I will do my best to provide rational and responsible replies to all points raised in the same vein." and "I will admit when any point presented is valid."

You have not addressed the concern that was raised nor have you admitted to the validity of the concern relating to the US not defending a NATO nation that comes under attack

I did both. Maybe you failed to read my summary. In any case, I think like any other inexperienced President, once in office he will depend on expert advisors to guide him in real foreign policy requirements.

Is this more responsive? :)
 
Top Bottom