Octopus Overlords

Trump fails to impress foreign-policy experts.

In his address to an elite, invitation-only Washington foreign policy audience Wednesday, Donald Trump promised that, as president, he would restore a "coherent" vision to America's role in the world.

But across the ideological spectrum, and even among natural allies, Trump's speech received a failing grade for coherence and drew snickering and scorn from foreign policy insiders who remain unconvinced that Trump is up to the job.

Trump has largely been shunned by foreign-policy veterans of past Republican administrations, more than 100 members of whom recently signed an open letter saying they would not join his administration; some have threatened to vote for Hillary Clinton over Trump in November.

Holman wrote:Trump fails to impress foreign-policy experts.

In his address to an elite, invitation-only Washington foreign policy audience Wednesday, Donald Trump promised that, as president, he would restore a "coherent" vision to America's role in the world.

But across the ideological spectrum, and even among natural allies, Trump's speech received a failing grade for coherence and drew snickering and scorn from foreign policy insiders who remain unconvinced that Trump is up to the job.

Trump has largely been shunned by foreign-policy veterans of past Republican administrations, more than 100 members of whom recently signed an open letter saying they would not join his administration; some have threatened to vote for Hillary Clinton over Trump in November.

Despite the criticism, Trump’s speech seemed to resonate with the working class Americans who have comprised the backbone of his growing support. A YouTube live feed of the speech showed a steady stream of positive comments from adoring fans who called it “historical” and vowed to watch it again.

“Fantastic!” wrote Judy Pommett. “Go Donald GO!”

http://www.worldmag.com/2016/04/donald_ ... icy_vision

Looking for the speech I ended up here

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... 7-12-04-37

Trump also contradicted his own broad-brush approach to foreign policy. He said at one point that the best way to achieve his goals was through "disciplined, deliberate and consistent" policy. Later, however, he exhorted the nation to "be more unpredictable" in how it combats enemies.

"We have to be unpredictable starting now," Trump declared in the 38-minute speech hosted by the Center for the National Interest, an organization founded by President Richard Nixon.

I decided I don't need to read or sit through it... Still I read on...

Some of the messaging was no different than Obama's, Bush's or any other recent U.S. leader. "We should seek common ground based on mutual interests," Trump said of Russia and China, two leading geopolitical rivals.

WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT. Cold War! Nazi! Socialism bad bad bad! Oh wait but we need to find common ground with China and Russia? And now I have the conversation stopper to Socialism for every single Trump supporter who goes off on it.

Rip wrote:

Holman wrote:Trump fails to impress foreign-policy experts.

In his address to an elite, invitation-only Washington foreign policy audience Wednesday, Donald Trump promised that, as president, he would restore a "coherent" vision to America's role in the world.

But across the ideological spectrum, and even among natural allies, Trump's speech received a failing grade for coherence and drew snickering and scorn from foreign policy insiders who remain unconvinced that Trump is up to the job.

Trump has largely been shunned by foreign-policy veterans of past Republican administrations, more than 100 members of whom recently signed an open letter saying they would not join his administration; some have threatened to vote for Hillary Clinton over Trump in November.

Despite the criticism, Trump’s speech seemed to resonate with the working class Americans who have comprised the backbone of his growing support. A YouTube live feed of the speech showed a steady stream of positive comments from adoring fans who called it “historical” and vowed to watch it again.

“Fantastic!” wrote Judy Pommett. “Go Donald GO!”

http://www.worldmag.com/2016/04/donald_ ... icy_vision

You're... actually citing YouTube comments vs. a whole spectrum of seasoned and acknowledged foreign policy experts?

But Judy Pomett!!!

Holman wrote:You're... actually citing YouTube comments vs. a whole spectrum of seasoned and acknowledged foreign policy experts?

http://reason.com/blog/2016/04/27/trump ... ech-3-good

There were other random inconsistencies or ironies in the talk, such as leading with the historically charged, neocon-alarming term "America First!" then instantly praising the wars with Germany and Japan that that original movement preferred we tried to keep out of; mixing calls for stability with calls for unpredictability; mixing stubborn imperial hubris and obsession over dumb symbolic alleged lack of respect for the U.S. that likely get his populist base's blood boiling with a supposed overarching love for peace that is ill served by being so chip-on-shoulder about dumb shit.

But he is still saying things that actually make some sense of the fact that some libertarian noninterventionists openly consider him the best of a set of bad major party choices.

Holman wrote:
You're... actually citing YouTube comments vs. a whole spectrum of seasoned and acknowledged foreign policy experts?

Foreign policy experts make up an insignificant number of voters. Blue collar voters are more than enough to swing the election.

If Trump is going to win the election it won't be by appealing to logic. It will be by appealing to emotion exactly what he has been doing.

The elites may not like him, but he and Sanders are reaching out to large numbers of people who are being ignored or worse, dismissed as stupid.

I think Trump will be a disaster, but we as a country need to take a very long and hard look at how we reached a point where this many people are eager to vote for him. Or even Sanders.

Smoove_B wrote:

Fitzy wrote: or worse, dismissed as stupid.

Sadly, they're showing everyone why that is.

Fitzy wrote:

Holman wrote:
You're... actually citing YouTube comments vs. a whole spectrum of seasoned and acknowledged foreign policy experts?

Foreign policy experts make up an insignificant number of voters. Blue collar voters are more than enough to swing the election.

If Trump is going to win the election it won't be by appealing to logic. It will be by appealing to emotion exactly what he has been doing.

The elites may not like him, but he and Sanders are reaching out to large numbers of people who are being ignored or worse, dismissed as stupid.

I think Trump will be a disaster, but we as a country need to take a very long and hard look at how we reached a point where this many people are eager to vote for him. Or even Sanders.

None of this changes the fact that a muddled growl of jingoistic rage is not a legitimate foreign policy.

I'm surprised Trump didn't just play the theme from Team America, then drop the mic and waddle off the stage.

Foreign policy for the last sixty years vs whatever Trump puts together. Which one would I take, hmm? Only good thing I can say about foreign policy since WWII is that we never got into a full blown nuke exchange with the USSR, that's about it.

Fitzy wrote:or worse, dismissed as stupid.

Ummm...based on the internet comments that felt his speech was spell-binding....isn't that actual evidence that they are, in fact, stupid?

I mean, the problem with working class Americans is that they literally don't know anything about foreign policy. Like, completely nothing. Most Americans don't know *anything* about foreign policy.

Why on earth would anyone sample (or rather, value) their opinion on someone else (who knows nothing about foreign policy) who said something about foreign policy?

It would be like polling me on how I felt about a speech on quantum mechanics. My opinion is "I don't know enough about quantum mechanics to answer your question, why do you care what I think?"

His supporters *are* stupid. That's the problem with them. We let stupid people vote, and this is the dumb shit they do.

Representative democracy looks so much better on paper.

em2nought wrote:Foreign policy for the last sixty years vs whatever Trump puts together. Which one would I take, hmm? Only good thing I can say about foreign policy since WWII is that we never got into a full blown nuke exchange with the USSR, that's about it.

Not dying in a nuclear war seems like a goddamn successful foreign policy to me.

Fitzy wrote:

Holman wrote:
You're... actually citing YouTube comments vs. a whole spectrum of seasoned and acknowledged foreign policy experts?

Foreign policy experts make up an insignificant number of voters. Blue collar voters are more than enough to swing the election.

If Trump is going to win the election it won't be by appealing to logic. It will be by appealing to emotion exactly what he has been doing.

The elites may not like him, but he and Sanders are reaching out to large numbers of people who are being ignored or worse, dismissed as stupid.

I think Trump will be a disaster, but we as a country need to take a very long and hard look at how we reached a point where this many people are eager to vote for him. Or even Sanders.

+1. The rabble is rising and coherent arguments are not going to convince them to put their torches and pitchforks away again.

hepcat wrote:Not dying in a nuclear war seems like a goddamn successful foreign policy to me.

To be fair, he's obviously more of an educated foreign policy expert than you (or any of the people that are actually foreign policy experts). Just accept his wisdom bro.

hepcat wrote:

em2nought wrote:Foreign policy for the last sixty years vs whatever Trump puts together. Which one would I take, hmm? Only good thing I can say about foreign policy since WWII is that we never got into a full blown nuke exchange with the USSR, that's about it.

Not dying in a nuclear war seems like a goddamn successful foreign policy to me.

That's why I gave them props, although I've heard that it almost happened accidentally a few times which takes their score down a bit.

You may also want to give credit for ending the cold war without ww3.

RunningMn9 wrote:

Fitzy wrote:or worse, dismissed as stupid.

Ummm...based on the internet comments that felt his speech was spell-binding....isn't that actual evidence that they are, in fact, stupid?

I mean, the problem with working class Americans is that they literally don't know anything about foreign policy. Like, completely nothing. Most Americans don't know *anything* about foreign policy.

Why on earth would anyone sample (or rather, value) their opinion on someone else (who knows nothing about foreign policy) who said something about foreign policy?

It would be like polling me on how I felt about a speech on quantum mechanics. My opinion is "I don't know enough about quantum mechanics to answer your question, why do you care what I think?"

His supporters *are* stupid. That's the problem with them. We let stupid people vote, and this is the dumb shit they do.

We let stupid people vote, and this is the dumb shit they do!

Yep that is exactly the attitude that results in this type of voter revolt. Throw it on a billboard, I'm sure that will change their minds.

Rip wrote: We let stupid people vote, and this is the dumb shit they do!

Yep that is exactly the attitude that results in this type of voter revolt. Throw it on a billboard, I'm sure that will change their minds.

This is so the current Republican party. At one point they actually lived in a fact based world, but now if some mouth-breather in Ohio thinks Trump is awesome for simultaneously saying we should cooperate with our allies and cut them loose, well, that's just as valid as someone who has been studying international diplomacy for 30 years. Shit, I've played Axis and Allies - by their current standards my opinions on how best to fight ISIS puts me in the running for SecDef.

Why would they care now when they have watched the current admin do so many non-sensical things.

Hey, let's hit the reset button on Russia.....just to see if it works.

Give Iran access to billions in frozen funds if they pinkie promise not to quite finish developing a nuclear weapon.

Restore diplomatic ties with Cuba only to enjoy an expected welcome.

U.S. President Barack Obama's visit to Communist-led Cuba was an "attack" on its history and culture aimed at misleading a new business class, Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez said on Monday, the latest sign of blow-back after the ground-breaking trip last month.

"In this visit, there was a deep attack on our ideas, our history, our culture and our symbols," Rodriguez said at the Communist Party congress.

I don't think Trump could do any worse than what the "experts" have delivered for the last 30 years or so.

New policy direction.

Stumble loudly and carry a Yuge sctick in Tiny hands!

Pyperkub wrote:You may also want to give credit for ending the cold war without ww3.

And building an empire. That's good for some points even though it seems to have tipped from rising to falling over the past few decades.

Rip wrote:
I don't think Trump could do any worse than what the "experts" have delivered for the last 30 years or so.

New policy direction.

Stumble loudly and carry a Yuge sctick in Tiny hands!

The hell he couldn't! There are so many potential hotspots right now it's crazy. Trump is going to talk tough with the Chinese? That could easily blow up over the South China Sea or Taiwan. We've been shitting all over Russia's doorstep for 20 years now and Putin is flexing his muscles. He's promised to magically somehow fix ISIS without *any* specifics of any sort, which feeds back into the Russia question given that they are backing Assad. That doesn't even get into the rest of the Middle East, SE Asia or North Korea.

Trump's big mouth and ego almost guarantee he will get us a worse outcome than some petulant words.

gbasden wrote:

Rip wrote:
I don't think Trump could do any worse than what the "experts" have delivered for the last 30 years or so.

New policy direction.

Stumble loudly and carry a Yuge sctick in Tiny hands!

The hell he couldn't! There are so many potential hotspots right now it's crazy. Trump is going to talk tough with the Chinese? That could easily blow up over the South China Sea or Taiwan. We've been shitting all over Russia's doorstep for 20 years now and Putin is flexing his muscles. He's promised to magically somehow fix ISIS without *any* specifics of any sort, which feeds back into the Russia question given that they are backing Assad. That doesn't even get into the rest of the Middle East, SE Asia or North Korea.

Trump's big mouth and ego almost guarantee he will get us a worse outcome than some petulant words.

South China sea is already heading toward a blowup, as far as Russia it isn't a coincidence that the muscle flexing you refer to happened to begin when that awesome reset button was pushed.

Clinton has been instrumental in creating these hotspots and you want to look to her to fix them? If she sets your house on fire is she going to be your first choice to put it out?


I'm thinking all you anti_Trumpsters might want to go ahead and put together an OO escape protocol. Not everyone can stay at FP's house so I would suggest making a list of non-US OOers and start deciding who will live with whom..........

Kraken wrote:

Pyperkub wrote:You may also want to give credit for ending the cold war without ww3.

And building an empire. That's good for some points even though it seems to have tipped from rising to falling over the past few decades.

Trump is seemingly a lagging indicator for the decline. Amongst other factors like not having a functioning judiciary in many federal districts or a functioning legislative body.

Rip wrote:South China sea is already heading toward a blowup, as far as Russia it isn't a coincidence that the muscle flexing you refer to happened to begin when that awesome reset button was pushed.

Actually way more coincidence than not. Obama had way less to do with Russian muscle flexing (Syria antagonism aside) than internal Rssian strongman politics and the long-term decline in the Russian economy. We have almost nothing to do with that. The reset button might have been pointless but not all gambles pay out.

I've been one of the biggest critics of Obama's foreign policy on the entire board, and even I think Trump would be worse. I'll take ineffectiveness over recklessness any day of the week.

Popularity does not = best choice. That's why we have research vessels named "Boaty McBoatface" and Transformers 6 can be the top-grossing movie of the summer.

Rip wrote:
South China sea is already heading toward a blowup,

So the very best thing we can do is put a moron in charge who will constantly refer to himself in the third person while telling the world he's ready to commit war crimes, informing everyone he's dealing with that he's a genius...even when he's clearly uninformed on the things he's discussing, and is telling the world that he's not willing to play ball with anyone?

Rip wrote: Clinton has been instrumental in creating these hotspots and you want to look to her to fix them? If she sets your house on fire is she going to be your first choice to put it out?

Your facts are missing. But even if that were the case, your plan is to find a better arsonist.

Rip wrote: I'm thinking all you anti_Trumpsters might want to go ahead and put together an OO escape protocol. Not everyone can stay at FP's house so I would suggest making a list of non-US OOers and start deciding who will live with whom..........

Only if you promise to leave the country when Hillary wins.



edit: you know what? don't leave. I want to witness your meltdown. the rage posts will be epic, I tell you!

Guys, come on, go easy on the guy. He's running for office while simultaneously working on his first collection of poems.

YellowKing wrote:I've been one of the biggest critics of Obama's foreign policy on the entire board, and even I think Drumpf would be worse.

Maybe today isn't the best day, but some day I want to explore this.

Not that you were a critic of Obama's foreign policy, I'm fine with that. But as I get older, I find myself being a lot more aware of the difference between what I think and what I know - and in the case where I legitimately have no basis to "know" something, to be a little more lenient of other viewpoints (at least in so much as me being personally opposed to them).

I've pontificated a lot on these boards about foreign policy in the past - but the reality is that I have virtually no qualifications at all towards having an informed opinion. I mean, I read stuff - but there are plenty of times where I have to wonder - who the F am I to judge "yay" or "nay" on this guys opinion? And if I end up in the "yay" camp, I'm really just parroting someone else's opinion. It's not my own educated opinion, because I'm not a foreign policy expert.

I mean, yeah, I *think* that Trump would be an epic disaster in terms of foreign policy because he sounds like he knows even less than the average citizen, and the average citizen doesn't know jack shit (about almost any complex topic). But do I know that? I'm no Rip, expert extraordinaire in all topics under the sun. How can I hope to "know" all of these things?

And if I just think, and don't know, maybe I should keep that in mind when talking with others and be a bit less forceful in my language?

The Socratic paradox has no place here! We're all experts on everything!

I'm less worried about Trump's complete ignorance of foreign affairs than I am about who he would appoint to actually make those decisions if he got to the white house - I assume it would be another group of warmongering Republican neo-cons like during the Bush administration.

Because that worked out so well the last time.

From what I've read, the large majority of foreign policy experts from other administrations and academia aren't exactly volunteering to work with him.

hepcat wrote:From what I've read, the large majority of foreign policy experts from other administrations and academia aren't exactly volunteering to work with him.

I would be entertained if he ran an apprentice like reality show to fill his prospective cabinet.

Personally, I would love to see how he'd react the first time another country's leader told him no, or refuses to acknowledge his brilliance. It won't be pretty.

Putting a petulant 10 year old in charge of nukes is a really bad idea, people.

hepcat wrote:Personally, I would love to see how he'd react the first time another country's leader told him no, or refuses to acknowledge his brilliance. It won't be pretty.

Putting a petulant 10 year old in charge of nukes is a really bad idea, people.

The rest of NATO will pony up when they see the glowing, rubbled crater where Norway used to be.

He should make Kanye West his VP. They could fight over who's the smartest while those who actually know what they're doing can hopefully run things while they're busy.

No, Trump is going to make Charlie Sheen his VP. Winning!!