CDZ The Moral Philosophy Of Donald Trump

[Correll]

You know, one of the things that Trump said that kinda makes me nervous is the fact that he's said he wants to bring all of our military out of Japan and S. Korea.

Considering that the only think keeping S. Korea from being attacked by N. Korea is the presence of the U.S. Military, I think bringing all our military assets out of that area could only serve to destabilize the area.

Trump is as ignorant as he is amoral.......as if he has the power to single handedly abrogate international treaties and defense agreements. Perhaps he isn't ignorant so much as disingenuous.......another moral failing.

Treaties and Alliances are made to serve national interests and are rarely permanent.

The alliances with South Korea and Japan are Cold War relics that do NOT serve US interests anymore.

Anyone that thinks that the only thing keeping North Korea from attacking South Korea is US troops is ignorant of the massive economic and population growth in South Korea and it's massive improvement in it's military since the 1959s.


The Cold War has been over for 15 years, and Trump is the first potential President that seems ready to adjust strategy accordingly.

For you to take this as "evidence" of him being either ignorant or amoral is just Confirmation Bias on your part.

And supports my earlier point that this entire thread is you being dishonest because despite the title and OP being phrased as a question, you never intended any serious discussion, just propaganda smears and lies.

 

[Correll]

You are a little confused about the Golden Rule. It has nothing to do with respecting other people's rights to destroy each other.

??? No, I am most definitely not confused about it.

Would you want someone else to destroy you? I am going to assume your answer and everyone else's is "no." Therefore, don't destroy someone other than yourself.

If I am of a mind to destroy someone, I must ask myself, "Would I want them to destroy me?" My answer is "no." Therefore I must refrain from destroying them.

Is it really that difficult to see that the rule applies to every action quite easily? All the reasons why I might initially conceive to destroy another don't matter. What does matter is the act I want to commit, destroying them. All the reasons why my answer is "no" don't matter. What matters is that my answer is "no."

Why is it really just that simple? Because all those reasons -- the reasons why I want to destroy another and reasons why I don't want to be destroyed by another -- can change, but the act itself, every act in fact, once performed cannot be unperformed. One may be able to make restitution for having performed it, but act, once done, is done; it is at that instant a fact of history. When someone figures out how to reverse the flow of time itself I will almost surely have to reconsider the value of the Golden Rule. For now, however, nobody has accomplished that.

Your position is completely immoral due to the obvious fact that more nuclear armed nations means greatly increasing the number of variables and possibilities, thereby multiplying the odds for the inevitability of nuclear war.

Applying the principle I've advocated is not immoral at all unless one considers spending money on nuclear weapons immoral as a use of resources.

Would you want to have another nation explode a nuclear device on your home/homeland? If not, don't explode one on another's home/homeland. Since that thought process informs you that you won't explode a nuclear device on someone else's home/homeland, one has to ask oneself, :"Why invest the resources to build one or several nuclear devices to begin with?"

If one just wants to spend the money for the sake of doing so, well, okay, but knowing one won't use the thing, that makes expenditures much like climbing a mountain, it's something one does merely because one can. Well, okay. Have at it because you can. I suspect that if in spending that money one thus cannot use it to do something else that is clearly needed, it is an immoral use of resources to have build the device.

In the case of South Korean and Japan the obvious use is to deter potential aggression from China.


Deterring war does not strike me as immoral.

That way the United States can have even less influence over global events.........brilliant!

That was a simplistic answer, that does not take in the dangers of over extension.

Indeed, it is almost as though you are "ignorant" of the downside of such policies, or just don't care because of a lack of morals on your part.


Not that I really expect a serious answer from you, since everything you have done was as I predicted, ie dismiss anything and everything that runs counter to your prearrived at conclusion.

 

[Liminal]

You know, one of the things that Trump said that kinda makes me nervous is the fact that he's said he wants to bring all of our military out of Japan and S. Korea.

Considering that the only think keeping S. Korea from being attacked by N. Korea is the presence of the U.S. Military, I think bringing all our military assets out of that area could only serve to destabilize the area.

Trump is as ignorant as he is amoral.......as if he has the power to single handedly abrogate international treaties and defense agreements. Perhaps he isn't ignorant so much as disingenuous.......another moral failing.

Treaties and Alliances are made to serve national interests and are rarely permanent.

The alliances with South Korea and Japan are Cold War relics that do NOT serve US interests anymore.

Anyone that thinks that the only thing keeping North Korea from attacking South Korea is US troops is ignorant of the massive economic and population growth in South Korea and it's massive improvement in it's military since the 1959s.


The Cold War has been over for 15 years, and Trump is the first potential President that seems ready to adjust strategy accordingly.

For you to take this as "evidence" of him being either ignorant or amoral is just Confirmation Bias on your part.

And supports my earlier point that this entire thread is you being dishonest because despite the title and OP being phrased as a question, you never intended any serious discussion, just propaganda smears and lies.

Feel free to explain how those treaties don't serve US interests.

 

[Liminal]

??? No, I am most definitely not confused about it.

Would you want someone else to destroy you? I am going to assume your answer and everyone else's is "no." Therefore, don't destroy someone other than yourself.

If I am of a mind to destroy someone, I must ask myself, "Would I want them to destroy me?" My answer is "no." Therefore I must refrain from destroying them.

Is it really that difficult to see that the rule applies to every action quite easily? All the reasons why I might initially conceive to destroy another don't matter. What does matter is the act I want to commit, destroying them. All the reasons why my answer is "no" don't matter. What matters is that my answer is "no."

Why is it really just that simple? Because all those reasons -- the reasons why I want to destroy another and reasons why I don't want to be destroyed by another -- can change, but the act itself, every act in fact, once performed cannot be unperformed. One may be able to make restitution for having performed it, but act, once done, is done; it is at that instant a fact of history. When someone figures out how to reverse the flow of time itself I will almost surely have to reconsider the value of the Golden Rule. For now, however, nobody has accomplished that.

Your position is completely immoral due to the obvious fact that more nuclear armed nations means greatly increasing the number of variables and possibilities, thereby multiplying the odds for the inevitability of nuclear war.

Applying the principle I've advocated is not immoral at all unless one considers spending money on nuclear weapons immoral as a use of resources.

Would you want to have another nation explode a nuclear device on your home/homeland? If not, don't explode one on another's home/homeland. Since that thought process informs you that you won't explode a nuclear device on someone else's home/homeland, one has to ask oneself, :"Why invest the resources to build one or several nuclear devices to begin with?"

If one just wants to spend the money for the sake of doing so, well, okay, but knowing one won't use the thing, that makes expenditures much like climbing a mountain, it's something one does merely because one can. Well, okay. Have at it because you can. I suspect that if in spending that money one thus cannot use it to do something else that is clearly needed, it is an immoral use of resources to have build the device.

In the case of South Korean and Japan the obvious use is to deter potential aggression from China.


Deterring war does not strike me as immoral.

That way the United States can have even less influence over global events.........brilliant!

That was a simplistic answer, that does not take in the dangers of over extension.

Indeed, it is almost as though you are "ignorant" of the downside of such policies, or just don't care because of a lack of morals on your part.


Not that I really expect a serious answer from you, since everything you have done was as I predicted, ie dismiss anything and everything that runs counter to your prearrived at conclusion.

Well then General, no doubt you can tell everyone at what point we became overextended. Iraq maybe?

 

[Liminal]

Simply regurgitating Trump's lines without explanation has evidently become a standard for evidence.

 

[Liminal]

Perhaps Donald Trump just missed the fact that North and South Korea are still technically at war, there never was a peace treaty, only a cease fire. But Trump's brilliant idea is to simply walk away from long term allies, create global instability, and just watch and see what happens.

 

[Correll]

You know, one of the things that Trump said that kinda makes me nervous is the fact that he's said he wants to bring all of our military out of Japan and S. Korea.

Considering that the only think keeping S. Korea from being attacked by N. Korea is the presence of the U.S. Military, I think bringing all our military assets out of that area could only serve to destabilize the area.

Trump is as ignorant as he is amoral.......as if he has the power to single handedly abrogate international treaties and defense agreements. Perhaps he isn't ignorant so much as disingenuous.......another moral failing.

Treaties and Alliances are made to serve national interests and are rarely permanent.

The alliances with South Korea and Japan are Cold War relics that do NOT serve US interests anymore.

Anyone that thinks that the only thing keeping North Korea from attacking South Korea is US troops is ignorant of the massive economic and population growth in South Korea and it's massive improvement in it's military since the 1959s.


The Cold War has been over for 15 years, and Trump is the first potential President that seems ready to adjust strategy accordingly.

For you to take this as "evidence" of him being either ignorant or amoral is just Confirmation Bias on your part.

And supports my earlier point that this entire thread is you being dishonest because despite the title and OP being phrased as a question, you never intended any serious discussion, just propaganda smears and lies.

Feel free to explain how those treaties don't serve US interests.

You weren't able to understand the implications of "Cold War relic"?

The Cold War is over. The massive Communist bloc, with it's credible plan for world conquest is gone.

These alliances no longer help contain that terrible threat.

NOw, the most they could accomplish is to get US into a war with China, which would be against our interests.

 

[Correll]

Your position is completely immoral due to the obvious fact that more nuclear armed nations means greatly increasing the number of variables and possibilities, thereby multiplying the odds for the inevitability of nuclear war.

Applying the principle I've advocated is not immoral at all unless one considers spending money on nuclear weapons immoral as a use of resources.

Would you want to have another nation explode a nuclear device on your home/homeland? If not, don't explode one on another's home/homeland. Since that thought process informs you that you won't explode a nuclear device on someone else's home/homeland, one has to ask oneself, :"Why invest the resources to build one or several nuclear devices to begin with?"

If one just wants to spend the money for the sake of doing so, well, okay, but knowing one won't use the thing, that makes expenditures much like climbing a mountain, it's something one does merely because one can. Well, okay. Have at it because you can. I suspect that if in spending that money one thus cannot use it to do something else that is clearly needed, it is an immoral use of resources to have build the device.

In the case of South Korean and Japan the obvious use is to deter potential aggression from China.


Deterring war does not strike me as immoral.

That way the United States can have even less influence over global events.........brilliant!

That was a simplistic answer, that does not take in the dangers of over extension.

Indeed, it is almost as though you are "ignorant" of the downside of such policies, or just don't care because of a lack of morals on your part.


Not that I really expect a serious answer from you, since everything you have done was as I predicted, ie dismiss anything and everything that runs counter to your prearrived at conclusion.

Well then General, no doubt you can tell everyone at what point we became overextended. Iraq maybe?

Smooth. I note how you did implicitly admitted that I had a point, but instead of admitting that that showed that Trump was both NOT ignorant or amoral, you tried to deflect onto another topic.

BUT you left enough wiggle room that you could, being as dishonest as you libs are, walk it back and argue that we aren't overextended.

SO, as I said, we are overextended and long term the Japanese and the South Koreans would be wise to doubt our long term commitment to their defense and to look to their own devices.

Trump said pretty much the same thing.

YOUR attack on him, specifically on this issue is shown to be dishonest propaganda.

As I said.

I now await with interest to see how you will lie about this, to avoid having to give Trump any credit for anything.

 

[Correll]

Simply regurgitating Trump's lines without explanation has evidently become a standard for evidence.

Try to fill pages with dishonest propaganda has been a standard lib tactic for many years.

THat you have to lie to try to "win" a debate, doesn't that ever make you wonder if you might be on the wrong side?

 

[Liminal]

You know, one of the things that Trump said that kinda makes me nervous is the fact that he's said he wants to bring all of our military out of Japan and S. Korea.

Considering that the only think keeping S. Korea from being attacked by N. Korea is the presence of the U.S. Military, I think bringing all our military assets out of that area could only serve to destabilize the area.

Trump is as ignorant as he is amoral.......as if he has the power to single handedly abrogate international treaties and defense agreements. Perhaps he isn't ignorant so much as disingenuous.......another moral failing.

Treaties and Alliances are made to serve national interests and are rarely permanent.

The alliances with South Korea and Japan are Cold War relics that do NOT serve US interests anymore.

Anyone that thinks that the only thing keeping North Korea from attacking South Korea is US troops is ignorant of the massive economic and population growth in South Korea and it's massive improvement in it's military since the 1959s.


The Cold War has been over for 15 years, and Trump is the first potential President that seems ready to adjust strategy accordingly.

For you to take this as "evidence" of him being either ignorant or amoral is just Confirmation Bias on your part.

And supports my earlier point that this entire thread is you being dishonest because despite the title and OP being phrased as a question, you never intended any serious discussion, just propaganda smears and lies.

Feel free to explain how those treaties don't serve US interests.

You weren't able to understand the implications of "Cold War relic"?

The Cold War is over. The massive Communist bloc, with it's credible plan for world conquest is gone.

These alliances no longer help contain that terrible threat.

NOw, the most they could accomplish is to get US into a war with China, which would be against our interests.

Where's the part where you explain how these treaties don't continue to serve US interests?

 

[Correll]

Perhaps Donald Trump just missed the fact that North and South Korea are still technically at war, there never was a peace treaty, only a cease fire. But Trump's brilliant idea is to simply walk away from long term allies, create global instability, and just watch and see what happens.

Nothing but a strawman.

Trump's rational was included in the link. YOu have agreed with it. We are overextended.

Why are you lying?

 

[Correll]

You know, one of the things that Trump said that kinda makes me nervous is the fact that he's said he wants to bring all of our military out of Japan and S. Korea.

Considering that the only think keeping S. Korea from being attacked by N. Korea is the presence of the U.S. Military, I think bringing all our military assets out of that area could only serve to destabilize the area.

Trump is as ignorant as he is amoral.......as if he has the power to single handedly abrogate international treaties and defense agreements. Perhaps he isn't ignorant so much as disingenuous.......another moral failing.

Treaties and Alliances are made to serve national interests and are rarely permanent.

The alliances with South Korea and Japan are Cold War relics that do NOT serve US interests anymore.

Anyone that thinks that the only thing keeping North Korea from attacking South Korea is US troops is ignorant of the massive economic and population growth in South Korea and it's massive improvement in it's military since the 1959s.


The Cold War has been over for 15 years, and Trump is the first potential President that seems ready to adjust strategy accordingly.

For you to take this as "evidence" of him being either ignorant or amoral is just Confirmation Bias on your part.

And supports my earlier point that this entire thread is you being dishonest because despite the title and OP being phrased as a question, you never intended any serious discussion, just propaganda smears and lies.

Feel free to explain how those treaties don't serve US interests.

You weren't able to understand the implications of "Cold War relic"?

The Cold War is over. The massive Communist bloc, with it's credible plan for world conquest is gone.

These alliances no longer help contain that terrible threat.

NOw, the most they could accomplish is to get US into a war with China, which would be against our interests.

Where's the part where you explain how these treaties don't continue to serve US interests?

The part where I pointed out that the enemy they were made against, the massive communist bloc, is gone.

And that a war with China would not be in our best interest.

How can you not realize that if you have to be so dishonest in defending your position, that that means you are wrong?

 

[Liminal]

Applying the principle I've advocated is not immoral at all unless one considers spending money on nuclear weapons immoral as a use of resources.

Would you want to have another nation explode a nuclear device on your home/homeland? If not, don't explode one on another's home/homeland. Since that thought process informs you that you won't explode a nuclear device on someone else's home/homeland, one has to ask oneself, :"Why invest the resources to build one or several nuclear devices to begin with?"

If one just wants to spend the money for the sake of doing so, well, okay, but knowing one won't use the thing, that makes expenditures much like climbing a mountain, it's something one does merely because one can. Well, okay. Have at it because you can. I suspect that if in spending that money one thus cannot use it to do something else that is clearly needed, it is an immoral use of resources to have build the device.

In the case of South Korean and Japan the obvious use is to deter potential aggression from China.


Deterring war does not strike me as immoral.

That way the United States can have even less influence over global events.........brilliant!

That was a simplistic answer, that does not take in the dangers of over extension.

Indeed, it is almost as though you are "ignorant" of the downside of such policies, or just don't care because of a lack of morals on your part.


Not that I really expect a serious answer from you, since everything you have done was as I predicted, ie dismiss anything and everything that runs counter to your prearrived at conclusion.

Well then General, no doubt you can tell everyone at what point we became overextended. Iraq maybe?

Smooth. I note how you did implicitly admitted that I had a point, but instead of admitting that that showed that Trump was both NOT ignorant or amoral, you tried to deflect onto another topic.

BUT you left enough wiggle room that you could, being as dishonest as you libs are, walk it back and argue that we aren't overextended.

SO, as I said, we are overextended and long term the Japanese and the South Koreans would be wise to doubt our long term commitment to their defense and to look to their own devices.

Trump said pretty much the same thing.

YOUR attack on him, specifically on this issue is shown to be dishonest propaganda.

As I said.

I now await with interest to see how you will lie about this, to avoid having to give Trump any credit for anything.

Having nations all around the world doubt US commitment to long standing defense treaties will accomplish what exactly?

 

[Liminal]

Trump is as ignorant as he is amoral.......as if he has the power to single handedly abrogate international treaties and defense agreements. Perhaps he isn't ignorant so much as disingenuous.......another moral failing.

Treaties and Alliances are made to serve national interests and are rarely permanent.

The alliances with South Korea and Japan are Cold War relics that do NOT serve US interests anymore.

Anyone that thinks that the only thing keeping North Korea from attacking South Korea is US troops is ignorant of the massive economic and population growth in South Korea and it's massive improvement in it's military since the 1959s.


The Cold War has been over for 15 years, and Trump is the first potential President that seems ready to adjust strategy accordingly.

For you to take this as "evidence" of him being either ignorant or amoral is just Confirmation Bias on your part.

And supports my earlier point that this entire thread is you being dishonest because despite the title and OP being phrased as a question, you never intended any serious discussion, just propaganda smears and lies.

Feel free to explain how those treaties don't serve US interests.

You weren't able to understand the implications of "Cold War relic"?

The Cold War is over. The massive Communist bloc, with it's credible plan for world conquest is gone.

These alliances no longer help contain that terrible threat.

NOw, the most they could accomplish is to get US into a war with China, which would be against our interests.

Where's the part where you explain how these treaties don't continue to serve US interests?

The part where I pointed out that the enemy they were made against, the massive communist bloc, is gone.

And that a war with China would not be in our best interest.

How can you not realize that if you have to be so dishonest in defending your position, that that means you are wrong?

So evidently your theory is that the United States doesn't need allies because the cold war is over. That is good news. Evidently we shouldn't be concerned about increasing expansionism from China or Russia because those things will just sort themselves out all by themselves.

 

[JimH52]

You talking "moral philosophy " about someone who has been married three times and boasts of multiple affairs? REALLY?

 

[Correll]

In the case of South Korean and Japan the obvious use is to deter potential aggression from China.


Deterring war does not strike me as immoral.

That way the United States can have even less influence over global events.........brilliant!

That was a simplistic answer, that does not take in the dangers of over extension.

Indeed, it is almost as though you are "ignorant" of the downside of such policies, or just don't care because of a lack of morals on your part.


Not that I really expect a serious answer from you, since everything you have done was as I predicted, ie dismiss anything and everything that runs counter to your prearrived at conclusion.

Well then General, no doubt you can tell everyone at what point we became overextended. Iraq maybe?

Smooth. I note how you did implicitly admitted that I had a point, but instead of admitting that that showed that Trump was both NOT ignorant or amoral, you tried to deflect onto another topic.

BUT you left enough wiggle room that you could, being as dishonest as you libs are, walk it back and argue that we aren't overextended.

SO, as I said, we are overextended and long term the Japanese and the South Koreans would be wise to doubt our long term commitment to their defense and to look to their own devices.

Trump said pretty much the same thing.

YOUR attack on him, specifically on this issue is shown to be dishonest propaganda.

As I said.

I now await with interest to see how you will lie about this, to avoid having to give Trump any credit for anything.

Having nations all around the world doubt US commitment to long standing defense treaties will accomplish what exactly?

The point in discussion over extension is to draw back to where our ABILITY TO MEET our commitments is more matched to our actual commitments.

The goal is to avoid being drawn into entanglements that we lose, or expend great effort and cost for no benefit to our nation.

That is what it is to "accomplish".

That Trump can understand that, makes him LESS ignorant that the vast majority of the Political Class, and quite moral.

Not that you will really read or consider these words.

You will just skim it to look for something to misrepresent into something to attack so that you can avoid dealing honestly and seriously with my point.

Like the good little leftist propagandist you are.

If you have to lie to defend your position, it means you are wrong.

 

[Correll]

Treaties and Alliances are made to serve national interests and are rarely permanent.

The alliances with South Korea and Japan are Cold War relics that do NOT serve US interests anymore.

Anyone that thinks that the only thing keeping North Korea from attacking South Korea is US troops is ignorant of the massive economic and population growth in South Korea and it's massive improvement in it's military since the 1959s.


The Cold War has been over for 15 years, and Trump is the first potential President that seems ready to adjust strategy accordingly.

For you to take this as "evidence" of him being either ignorant or amoral is just Confirmation Bias on your part.

And supports my earlier point that this entire thread is you being dishonest because despite the title and OP being phrased as a question, you never intended any serious discussion, just propaganda smears and lies.

Feel free to explain how those treaties don't serve US interests.

You weren't able to understand the implications of "Cold War relic"?

The Cold War is over. The massive Communist bloc, with it's credible plan for world conquest is gone.

These alliances no longer help contain that terrible threat.

NOw, the most they could accomplish is to get US into a war with China, which would be against our interests.

Where's the part where you explain how these treaties don't continue to serve US interests?

The part where I pointed out that the enemy they were made against, the massive communist bloc, is gone.

And that a war with China would not be in our best interest.

How can you not realize that if you have to be so dishonest in defending your position, that that means you are wrong?

So evidently your theory is that the United States doesn't need allies because the cold war is over. That is good news. Evidently we shouldn't be concerned about increasing expansionism from China or Russia because those things will just sort themselves out all by themselves.

We certainly need fewer allies.

China does not have an attractive ideology that makes world domination a real possibility.

Russia? Russia is a dying nation, and if Europe allows itself to be dominated by Russia, that is them being stupid and weak.

 

[Agit8r]

What is the moral philosophy of Donald Trump? Does he have one? If so, what's it based on? What moral principles does he use to guide his actions? What are the foundations for his sense of ethics?

I'm not sure that might-makes-right can be called a moral philosophy

 

[Liminal]

What is the moral philosophy of Donald Trump? Does he have one? If so, what's it based on? What moral principles does he use to guide his actions? What are the foundations for his sense of ethics?

I'm not sure that might-makes-right can be called a moral philosophy

That would be a completely amoral philosophy, one that seems to suit Donald Trump's view of the world perfectly.

 

[Correll]

Good stuff, on topic.

Is Trump Right About NATO?


"But when the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Empire, the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, and the breakup of the Soviet Union into 15 nations, a new debate erupted.

The conservative coalition that had united in the Cold War fractured. Some of us argued that when the Russian troops went home from Europe, the American troops should come home from Europe.

Time for a populous prosperous Europe to start defending itself.

Instead, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush began handing out NATO memberships, i.e., war guarantees, to all ex-Warsaw Pact nations and even Baltic republics that had been part of the Soviet Union."



"Why should America fight Russia over who rules in the Baltic States or Romania and Bulgaria? When did the sovereignty of these nations become interests so vital we would risk a military clash with Moscow that could escalate into nuclear war? Why are we still committed to fight for scores of nations on five continents?"


"Trump is challenging the mindset of a foreign policy elite whose thinking is frozen in a world that disappeared around 1991.

He is suggesting a new foreign policy where the United States is committed to war only when are attacked or U.S. vital interests are imperiled. And when we agree to defend other nations, they will bear a full share of the cost of their own defense. The era of the free rider is over.

Trump’s phrase, “America First!” has a nice ring to it."



For you to dismiss Trump's position on this as evidence of ignorance and immorality is actually YOUR ignorance and immorality talking.