- Joined
- Jun 27, 2015
- Messages
- 395
- Reaction score
- 93
That's just rhetoric to give himself an image of strength. He has spoken far more on the need to end neocon wars and work together with Russia; while Hillary Clinton has been essentially calling for WW3.Fun Fact: Trump said he wouldn't take nukes off the table when dealing with conflicts in Europe.
Is at least something that exists and is tangible against Trump, whose "foreign policy" - when asked in an MSNBC interview who he "consistently consults with" on such issues - consists of such notable gems as:
“I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things."
So by that logic, I have a marvelous grasp on foreign policy as well. I believe I've said a lot of things in my life, too.
Now to scrounge up enough money to run for President. Because, you know, saying a lot of things is apparently the only qualification one needs to have all the answers to all the problems.
The man has no foreign policy. He has no "great plan" to "make America great again.". What he is is an arrogant, overblown egotistical narcissist who wants to line his pockets and entertains delusional fantasies (I assume anyway) of people calling him "Mr. President". And on top of that, he damn near idolizes Putin (source quotes).
Now, my history might be a little hazy, but the last time Europe had a leader with a case of idol worship like this, some dude called Hitler looked at what some other dude named Mussolini was doing in Italy at the time, and managed to take that example and start a world war. Oh, he also kinda murdered a couple million people for no greater reason than their religion/sexual orientation/place of birth/mental health issues.
But history can't repeat itself, I guess.
Trump is not in this election for the office. He's not in it for the country. He's in it to feed his own grotesque demigod complex and soak up unwarranted praise from the "poorly educated" masses - whom he absolutely LOVES, by the way - who are literally the only people on the planet (aside from misogynistic, bigoted, homophobic racists) who could reasonably support anything this man has said or done over the course of this Barnum & Bailey style sideshow "election campaign" he's been running.
So in other words, you're saying something with a history of failure is better than something that has not yet been tried? That is in essence the difference between Hillary and Trump in foreign policy -- Clinton has a history of failure and incompetence, and indicates that there will be no change in that regard, while Trump has something new to offer: a foreign policy that is, while not pacifistic, at least denounces and rejects the useless wars supported by Clinton and others. Plus, there is the elephant in the room: the fact that Hillary is intending to start WW3. Trump has stated he wants to avoid it, while Hillary is going all for it.
And so what if he idolizes a strong leader who who cares about his country, restored it from the brink of collapse, and has no qualms going up against enemies to defend it's interests, while carefully balancing the usage of diplomacy and military force to prevent all-out war? And not to mention that even polling organizations critical of him admit that his approval rating is around 80-90% among the people (far higher than any Western politician, or US Congress's dismal 9%). A Putin-type leader is exactly what America needs right now.
And the old "Trump is LITERALLY Hitler" argument again. Patriotism and strong leadership are not synonymous with fascism. Ronald Reagan also espoused traditional values and the need to restore America, yet did he end up starting a world war or committing mass genocide? No.
That claim is just nothing more than a last-ditch attempt by the leftists at lowering Trump's image by irrationally trying to affiliate him with Hitler. Given how anyone who doesn't support the regressive left gets accused of being a fascist or a Neo Nazi, such accusations don't really mean anything anymore.
Last edited: