Politics TRUMP VOWS TO PUT "AMERICA FIRST" IN FOREIGN POLICY

[Denny Crane]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-04-27-12-04-37

WASHINGTON (AP) -- In a rare formal policy speech, Republican front-runner Donald Trump vowed Wednesday to put American security "above all else" if elected president, warning allies they would be left to defend themselves if they don't "pay their fair share." He also called for an easing of tensions with Russia "from a position of strength, only."

...

Trump appeared to send a mixed message to America's allies. He doubled down on his previous assertion that other countries must contribute to international security agreements, such as NATO, if they're to get the benefits of American military protection. Yet he also assured allies that the U.S. will have a renewed commitment to its overseas friends if he's elected president.

"To our friends and allies, I say America is going to be strong again, America is going to be reliable again," Trump said. "It's going to be a great and reliable ally again."

He called for a summit with NATO allies and Asian partners shortly after taking office. And he made direct appeals to Russia and China, saying the U.S. and those world powers are "not bound to be adversaries."

"We should seek common ground based on mutual interests," Trump said, citing Russia's own concerns about the rise of Islamic extremists.

Many elements of Trump's speech were similar to his typical campaign remarks, but he delivered them in a much more sober, restrained manner. Critics have said repeatedly that he has not shown an ability to act and sound "presidential."

 

[Denny Crane]

Trump would actually be appealing to me if not for his statements about women, muslims, mexicans, etc.

European countries have for years spent less on defense than the U.S. relative to the size of their economies and have cut back further in recent years so that the U.S. accounts for 73% of NATO's military spending. Now, some countries say they will reconsider—even though they don't think more military spending would have changed events in Ukraine.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303725404579461393570889098

Why should the US pay 73% of the cost?

 

[magnifier661]

Trump would actually be appealing to me if not for his statements about women, muslims, mexicans, etc.

European countries have for years spent less on defense than the U.S. relative to the size of their economies and have cut back further in recent years so that the U.S. accounts for 73% of NATO's military spending. Now, some countries say they will reconsider—even though they don't think more military spending would have changed events in Ukraine.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303725404579461393570889098

Why should the US pay 73% of the cost?

Yeah, he appeals to a lot of libertarians. I can see why you don't like his statements.

 

[Denny Crane]

I am not pro Trump at all. I'm not pro Hiliar either.

If I had a gun to my head to choose between the two, it'd be Trump. Why?

1) I'd rather he appoint the next justices to SCOTUS.
2) I think we can keep him on a short enough leash that he doesn't do serious harm.
3) I have no doubt he'd hire quality guys around him to handle all the governing.
4) I do not trust Hiliar's judgment on anything, especially foreign policy.

I would probably oppose most of what Trump would propose, legislation-wise.

 

[magnifier661]

I already know you don't support Trump! hahaha

 

[barfo]

3) I have no doubt he'd hire quality guys around him to handle all the governing.

Based on what? For his campaign, he did not hire quality guys. He hired hacks and yes-men who didn't know what they were doing. He's succeeded in the primaries because of his personality, not because of his team.

Why would you assume he'd hire differently once in office?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Based on what? For his campaign, he did not hire quality guys. He hired hacks and yes-men who didn't know what they were doing. He's succeeded in the primaries because of his personality, not because of his team.

Why would you assume he'd hire differently once in office?

barfo

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...s-paul-manafort-to-lead-delegate-effort/?_r=0

Donald Trump Hires Paul Manafort to Lead Delegate Effort

Donald J. Trump, girding for a long battle over presidential delegates and a potential floor fight at the Cleveland convention, has enlisted the veteran Republican strategist Paul J. Manafort to lead his delegate-corralling efforts, according to people briefed on Mr. Trump’s plans.

Mr. Trump confirmed the hire in a brief telephone interview. “Yes,” he said, “it is true.”

Mr. Manafort, 66, is among the few political hands in either party with direct experience managing nomination fights: As a young Republican operative, he helped manage the 1976 convention floor for Gerald Ford in his showdown with Ronald Reagan, the last time Republicans entered a convention with no candidate having clinched the nomination.

He performed a similar function for Mr. Reagan in 1980, and played leading roles in the 1988 and 1996 conventions, for George Bush and Bob Dole.

...

Bringing Mr. Manafort on board may shore up Mr. Trump’s operation in an area where his opponents currently see him as vulnerable. In an alarming tactical setback for Mr. Trump, The Wall Street Journal reported last week that he might harvest fewer delegates from his primary win in Louisiana than Senator Ted Cruz, whose campaign has aggressively picked off delegates who are uncommitted or apportioned to candidates no longer in the race.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/25/politics/donald-trump-chris-christie-ken-mckay/

(CNN)The Trump campaign is continuing to beef up its political operations, bringing on board New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's former presidential campaign manager, Ken McKay.

McKay confirmed the new role -- first reported by Bloomberg -- to CNN on Monday, though he declined to comment further.

The move comes just weeks after Trump hired GOP veteran strategist Paul Manafort, as well as Rick Wiley, ex-manager of Scott Walker's failed 2016 campaign.

All of these moves signal Trump's desire to add to his inner circle experienced GOP strategists who can navigate the workings of the Republican Party amid intensifying efforts by his critics to deny him the nomination.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/donald-trump-republican-delegates-222116

Donald Trump hires top GOP lawyer for delegate fight

Donald Trump has made another new significant hire as he prepares for the possibility of a contested convention, bringing William McGinley, a prominent Republican political attorney and a veteran of past delegate battles, into his campaign.

...

McGinley knows the legal inner workings of the Republican Party’s rules as well as almost anyone. At the 2012 GOP convention, he pushed the credentials committee, which determines which delegates are seated, to swap out 10 Ron Paul delegates from Maine for 10 aligned with Mitt Romney.

 

[Denny Crane]

Based on what? For his campaign, he did not hire quality guys. He hired hacks and yes-men who didn't know what they were doing. He's succeeded in the primaries because of his personality, not because of his team.

Why would you assume he'd hire differently once in office?

barfo

As you can see, for his campaign he did hire quality guys.

 

[magnifier661]

And Manafort lead the effort to win 47 of the 54 total "unbound delegates" in PA.

 

[barfo]

As you can see, for his campaign he did hire quality guys.

After screwing up for almost a year.

barfo

 

[magnifier661]

After screwing up for almost a year.

barfo

Obama has been screwing up for almost 8 years.

 

[barfo]

Obama has been screwing up for almost 8 years.

I knew you'd say that

But it doesn't make Corey Lebowski or whatever his name is any more competent. Nor does it suggest that Trump will hire well as President.

barfo

 

[stampedehero]

I see him as a BSer. If he gets elected he will hone his craft to championship level.

 

[Denny Crane]

After screwing up for almost a year.

barfo

Backpedal.

He hired who he had to hire and when he needed to hire. That's a good thing.

 

[barfo]

Backpedal.

He hired who he had to hire and when he needed to hire. That's a good thing.

Interesting thesis. So screwing up is ok, as long as you realize it sometime afterwards?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Interesting thesis. So screwing up is ok, as long as you realize it sometime afterwards?

barfo

Whatever he was doing before, he was #winning. He hired who he needed when he needed to. That's a sign of good possibilities.

I don't see why he and his fans would have any complaint about that.

 

[barfo]

Whatever he was doing before, he was #winning. He hired who he needed when he needed to. That's a sign of good possibilities.

I don't see why he and his fans would have any complaint about that.

His fans won't have any complaint about anything he does, no matter what it is. As he has pointed out himself.

He's #winning in the same sense that Charlie Sheen was #winning.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

His fans won't have any complaint about anything he does, no matter what it is. As he has pointed out himself.

He's #winning in the same sense that Charlie Sheen was #winning.

barfo

Sheen was fired. Looks like Trump might get hired. Nice try anyway.

 

[barfo]

Sheen was fired. Looks like Trump might get hired. Nice try anyway.

Hmm, hired to run in the general election, anyway. Not sure that job pays real well.

In fact, it really isn't clear how Trump is going to fund his campaign. It's pretty clear he won't spend much of his own money. Most of the major Republican donors aren't interested in him. And he doesn't inspire, so far, lots of small donors.

He'll still get lots of free airtime - but so will his opponent.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Hmm, hired to run in the general election, anyway. Not sure that job pays real well.

In fact, it really isn't clear how Trump is going to fund his campaign. It's pretty clear he won't spend much of his own money. Most of the major Republican donors aren't interested in him. And he doesn't inspire, so far, lots of small donors.

He'll still get lots of free airtime - but so will his opponent.

barfo

His campaign hasn't been typical in all ways. Including the need to spend vast sums of money.

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00023864



Compared to Jeb Bush:



Or Cruz:



Or oh, my, look at all the people Hiliar owes favors:





You obviously like the best candidate money can buy.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

His campaign hasn't been typical in all ways. Including the need to spend vast sums of money.

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate.php?id=N00023864

View attachment 8841

Isn't he considering the money he's spent as his own a loan?

 

[barfo]

Isn't he considering the money he's spent as his own a loan?

Yes, so expect that $36M to be paid back out of whatever general election cash he can raise.

Maybe the strategy will be to spend nothing and whine about how much is spent against him. Not sure that is going to be a winning strategy, but we'll see.

I guess maybe he'll accept public financing? I can see him doing that if he's going to be cash-poor anyway.

barfo

 

[Stevenson]

I am not pro Trump at all. I'm not pro Hiliar either.

If I had a gun to my head to choose between the two, it'd be Trump. Why?

1) I'd rather he appoint the next justices to SCOTUS.
2) I think we can keep him on a short enough leash that he doesn't do serious harm.
3) I have no doubt he'd hire quality guys around him to handle all the governing.
4) I do not trust Hiliar's judgment on anything, especially foreign policy.

I would probably oppose most of what Trump would propose, legislation-wise.

These are all the reasons I would pick her, esp. #1. This year really will be the lesser of two evils.

 

[PDXFonz]

What were the names of those Mark Twain characters?

Huck Filary and Tuck Frump?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Trump fever is spreading!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-...te-rodrigo-duterte-vows-murder-pardon/7365436

 

[barfo]

Trump fever is spreading!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-...te-rodrigo-duterte-vows-murder-pardon/7365436

That is just awesome. Can we get that guy instead of Trump? I think I like him better. His hands aren't as small.

barfo

 

[jlprk]

Why should the US pay 73% of the cost?

1) Because the money would still be spent if the U.S. moved its military units back to domestic bases from those forward bases.

2) Because in exchange, America gets favorable trade agreements, the value of which are not included in your military-only numbers.

3) Because each base and embassy contains a den of spies. Without the bases, the CIA would have to spend more.

 

[KingSpeed]

I am not pro Trump at all. I'm not pro Hiliar either.

If I had a gun to my head to choose between the two, it'd be Trump. Why?

1) I'd rather he appoint the next justices to SCOTUS.
2) I think we can keep him on a short enough leash that he doesn't do serious harm.
3) I have no doubt he'd hire quality guys around him to handle all the governing.
4) I do not trust Hiliar's judgment on anything, especially foreign policy.

I would probably oppose most of what Trump would propose, legislation-wise.

Trump has promised to appoint justices that are approved by an anti-gay anti-woman organization. Vote for Trump and you're voting against my rights and the rights of women. I mean, Jesus Christ, he thinks women should be punished for having abortions.