CDZ The Moral Philosophy Of Donald Trump

[Liminal]

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.

A good example of the very quaint, but long ago completely discredited isolationist non solutions for an increasingly complicated world.

 

[Correll]

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.

Unsupported smears. YOu can't have a liberal circle jerk when there are conservatives around willing to break up your fantasies.

 

[Correll]

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.

A good example of the very quaint, but long ago completely discredited isolationist non solutions for an increasingly complicated world.

Wanting to avoid commitments we can't meet has been discredited?

Wanting to avoid conflicts that we lose or that don't serve our interests has been discredited?

Please explain how.

Rhetorical question. I know that you won't.

Because this is nothing but a smear propaganda thread. And you are not interested in actual discussion, but just propaganda.

Like a good little leftist.

 

[Liminal]

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.

Trump shares the same short sighted ignorance with historic leaders who have blithely precipitated every war in history.

 

[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

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

I wouldn't ascribe any uniqueness to it. It's certainly been heard before:

"He who wants to live asserts himself. He who cannot assert himself does not deserve to live. He will perish. This is an iron, yet also a just principle. The earth is not there for cowardly peoples, not for weak ones, not for lazy ones. The earth is there for him who takes it and who industriously labors upon it and thereby fashions his life. That is the will of Providence."
-- Adolf Hitler; from speech in Sportpalast Berlin (May 3, 1940)

"If once popular support, power and the authority of tradition are united in one, that authority may be considered to be unshakable."
-- from 'Mein Kampf'

"I also have the conviction and the certain feeling that nothing can happen to me, for I know that Providence has chosen me to fulfill my task."
-- Adolf Hitler; from speech in Munich (September 4, 1932)

"There will probably never again in the future be a man with more authority than I have. My existence is therefore a fact of great value."
-- Adolf Hitler; from speech to his generals (August 22, 1939)

 

[Liminal]

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.

A good example of the very quaint, but long ago completely discredited isolationist non solutions for an increasingly complicated world.

Wanting to avoid commitments we can't meet has been discredited?

Wanting to avoid conflicts that we lose or that don't serve our interests has been discredited?

Please explain how.

Rhetorical question. I know that you won't.

Because this is nothing but a smear propaganda thread. And you are not interested in actual discussion, but just propaganda.

Like a good little leftist.

Ever since Republicans campaigned to keep us out of the Second World War isolationists have had no legitimate argument to support their view.

 

[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.

Unsupported smears. YOu can't have a liberal circle jerk when there are conservatives around willing to break up your fantasies.

Which conservatives? Trump has never been a conservative, just a loud mouth self promoter.

 

[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.

I wouldn't ascribe any uniqueness to it. It's certainly been heard before:

"He who wants to live asserts himself. He who cannot assert himself does not deserve to live. He will perish. This is an iron, yet also a just principle. The earth is not there for cowardly peoples, not for weak ones, not for lazy ones. The earth is there for him who takes it and who industriously labors upon it and thereby fashions his life. That is the will of Providence."
-- Adolf Hitler; from speech in Sportpalast Berlin (May 3, 1940)

"If once popular support, power and the authority of tradition are united in one, that authority may be considered to be unshakable."
-- from 'Mein Kampf'

"I also have the conviction and the certain feeling that nothing can happen to me, for I know that Providence has chosen me to fulfill my task."
-- Adolf Hitler; from speech in Munich (September 4, 1932)

"There will probably never again in the future be a man with more authority than I have. My existence is therefore a fact of great value."
-- Adolf Hitler; from speech to his generals (August 22, 1939)

Trump's appeal has a lot in common with Hitler's style of communicating. It isn't designed to provoke any kind of thought, only to exploit emotions.

 

[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

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

I wouldn't ascribe any uniqueness to it. It's certainly been heard before:

"He who wants to live asserts himself. He who cannot assert himself does not deserve to live. He will perish. This is an iron, yet also a just principle. The earth is not there for cowardly peoples, not for weak ones, not for lazy ones. The earth is there for him who takes it and who industriously labors upon it and thereby fashions his life. That is the will of Providence."
-- Adolf Hitler; from speech in Sportpalast Berlin (May 3, 1940)

"If once popular support, power and the authority of tradition are united in one, that authority may be considered to be unshakable."
-- from 'Mein Kampf'

"I also have the conviction and the certain feeling that nothing can happen to me, for I know that Providence has chosen me to fulfill my task."
-- Adolf Hitler; from speech in Munich (September 4, 1932)

"There will probably never again in the future be a man with more authority than I have. My existence is therefore a fact of great value."
-- Adolf Hitler; from speech to his generals (August 22, 1939)

Trump's appeal has a lot in common with Hitler's style of communicating. It isn't designed to provoke any kind of thought, only to exploit emotions.

Yep. Aimed squarely at the reptilian brain. Nothing there for the neocortex.

 

[320 Years of History]

That may be, but that it be doesn't make it the right direction in which we should allow our society to progress. I'll be damned and dead before I encourage or support moving away from the principle of the Golden Rule. And since this is a thread about moral philosophy, I think that is a relevant to consider for the point of morality is to address and resolve what should be not what is or was.

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.

Well then in principle what's good for one must be good for others as well......I see. Why not see if we can encourage Mexico to become a nuclear armed nation? Or how about Brazil or maybe Saudi Arabia.........does that sound good to you?

Red:
What the hell does that have to do with anything I wrote in the post to which you replied?

I offered no conclusions about what outcome or activity is or is not good for one or many, other than the act of applying the Golden Rule. And yes, I think that applying the Golden Rule is good for everyone to do all the time.

Blue:
I didn't encourage that anyone or any nation do anything other than apply the Golden Rule when choosing to perform an action that affects anyone other than themselves.

Imagine that I'd written "Always check your fruit to make sure it's not rotten before eating it," and your in turn asking me, "Why not encourage people to eat rotten fruit?"

You've determined that there is something in play within my remark that simply is not.

 

[Liminal]

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.

Well then in principle what's good for one must be good for others as well......I see. Why not see if we can encourage Mexico to become a nuclear armed nation? Or how about Brazil or maybe Saudi Arabia.........does that sound good to you?

Red:
What the hell does that have to do with anything I wrote in the post to which you replied?

I offered no conclusions about what outcome or activity is or is not good for one or many, other than the act of applying the Golden Rule. And yes, I think that applying the Golden Rule is good for everyone to do all the time.

Blue:
I didn't encourage that anyone or any nation do anything other than apply the Golden Rule when choosing to perform an action that affects anyone other than themselves.

Imagine that I'd written "Always check your fruit to make sure it's not rotten before eating it," and your in turn asking me, "Why not encourage people to eat rotten fruit?"

You've determined that there is something in play within my remark that simply is not.

Well then I guess you can hope for and imagine a world full of well intentioned people who never existed.

 

[320 Years of History]

??? 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.

Well then in principle what's good for one must be good for others as well......I see. Why not see if we can encourage Mexico to become a nuclear armed nation? Or how about Brazil or maybe Saudi Arabia.........does that sound good to you?

Red:
What the hell does that have to do with anything I wrote in the post to which you replied?

I offered no conclusions about what outcome or activity is or is not good for one or many, other than the act of applying the Golden Rule. And yes, I think that applying the Golden Rule is good for everyone to do all the time.

Blue:
I didn't encourage that anyone or any nation do anything other than apply the Golden Rule when choosing to perform an action that affects anyone other than themselves.

Imagine that I'd written "Always check your fruit to make sure it's not rotten before eating it," and your in turn asking me, "Why not encourage people to eat rotten fruit?"

You've determined that there is something in play within my remark that simply is not.

Well then I guess you can hope for and imagine a world full of well intentioned people who never existed.

??? Say what? Anyone can hope for anything at anytime, and you can certainly guess about that for which they may hope 'til the cows come home. What an empty remark.

 

[Liminal]

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.

Well then in principle what's good for one must be good for others as well......I see. Why not see if we can encourage Mexico to become a nuclear armed nation? Or how about Brazil or maybe Saudi Arabia.........does that sound good to you?

Red:
What the hell does that have to do with anything I wrote in the post to which you replied?

I offered no conclusions about what outcome or activity is or is not good for one or many, other than the act of applying the Golden Rule. And yes, I think that applying the Golden Rule is good for everyone to do all the time.

Blue:
I didn't encourage that anyone or any nation do anything other than apply the Golden Rule when choosing to perform an action that affects anyone other than themselves.

Imagine that I'd written "Always check your fruit to make sure it's not rotten before eating it," and your in turn asking me, "Why not encourage people to eat rotten fruit?"

You've determined that there is something in play within my remark that simply is not.

Well then I guess you can hope for and imagine a world full of well intentioned people who never existed.

??? Say what? Anyone can hope for anything at anytime, and you can certainly guess about that for which they may hope 'til the cows come home. What an empty remark.

Empty remarks seem well matched with all the insipid twaddle about the Golden Rule.

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

Well then in principle what's good for one must be good for others as well......I see. Why not see if we can encourage Mexico to become a nuclear armed nation? Or how about Brazil or maybe Saudi Arabia.........does that sound good to you?

Red:
What the hell does that have to do with anything I wrote in the post to which you replied?

I offered no conclusions about what outcome or activity is or is not good for one or many, other than the act of applying the Golden Rule. And yes, I think that applying the Golden Rule is good for everyone to do all the time.

Blue:
I didn't encourage that anyone or any nation do anything other than apply the Golden Rule when choosing to perform an action that affects anyone other than themselves.

Imagine that I'd written "Always check your fruit to make sure it's not rotten before eating it," and your in turn asking me, "Why not encourage people to eat rotten fruit?"

You've determined that there is something in play within my remark that simply is not.

Well then I guess you can hope for and imagine a world full of well intentioned people who never existed.

??? Say what? Anyone can hope for anything at anytime, and you can certainly guess about that for which they may hope 'til the cows come home. What an empty remark.

Empty remarks seem well matched with all the insipid twaddle about the Golden Rule.

If that's honestly what you think of the Golden Rule and applying it, then I suggest you denounce Christianity, Islam, Judaism and every other culture, belief system and philosophy that espouses and promotes living by the Golden Rule. Then you can present the case for what makes applying it an insipid act. I would gladly respect, perhaps even accede to, that sort of reply. Empty remarks are, however, just that, devoid of merit thus unconvincing.

 

[Liminal]

Well then in principle what's good for one must be good for others as well......I see. Why not see if we can encourage Mexico to become a nuclear armed nation? Or how about Brazil or maybe Saudi Arabia.........does that sound good to you?

Red:
What the hell does that have to do with anything I wrote in the post to which you replied?

I offered no conclusions about what outcome or activity is or is not good for one or many, other than the act of applying the Golden Rule. And yes, I think that applying the Golden Rule is good for everyone to do all the time.

Blue:
I didn't encourage that anyone or any nation do anything other than apply the Golden Rule when choosing to perform an action that affects anyone other than themselves.

Imagine that I'd written "Always check your fruit to make sure it's not rotten before eating it," and your in turn asking me, "Why not encourage people to eat rotten fruit?"

You've determined that there is something in play within my remark that simply is not.

Well then I guess you can hope for and imagine a world full of well intentioned people who never existed.

??? Say what? Anyone can hope for anything at anytime, and you can certainly guess about that for which they may hope 'til the cows come home. What an empty remark.

Empty remarks seem well matched with all the insipid twaddle about the Golden Rule.

If that's honestly what you think of the Golden Rule and applying it, then I suggest you denounce Christianity, Islam, Judaism and every other culture, belief system and philosophy that espouses and promotes living by the Golden Rule. Then you can present the case for what makes applying it an insipid act. I would gladly respect, perhaps even accede to, that sort of reply. Empty remarks are, however, just that, devoid of merit thus unconvincing.

All wonderfully esoteric I'm sure. Unfortunately you might have some difficulty in pointing to historic examples of any nations ever using any kind of Golden Rule to guide their actions.

 

[320 Years of History]

Red:
What the hell does that have to do with anything I wrote in the post to which you replied?

I offered no conclusions about what outcome or activity is or is not good for one or many, other than the act of applying the Golden Rule. And yes, I think that applying the Golden Rule is good for everyone to do all the time.

Blue:
I didn't encourage that anyone or any nation do anything other than apply the Golden Rule when choosing to perform an action that affects anyone other than themselves.

Imagine that I'd written "Always check your fruit to make sure it's not rotten before eating it," and your in turn asking me, "Why not encourage people to eat rotten fruit?"

You've determined that there is something in play within my remark that simply is not.

Well then I guess you can hope for and imagine a world full of well intentioned people who never existed.

??? Say what? Anyone can hope for anything at anytime, and you can certainly guess about that for which they may hope 'til the cows come home. What an empty remark.

Empty remarks seem well matched with all the insipid twaddle about the Golden Rule.

If that's honestly what you think of the Golden Rule and applying it, then I suggest you denounce Christianity, Islam, Judaism and every other culture, belief system and philosophy that espouses and promotes living by the Golden Rule. Then you can present the case for what makes applying it an insipid act. I would gladly respect, perhaps even accede to, that sort of reply. Empty remarks are, however, just that, devoid of merit thus unconvincing.

All wonderfully esoteric I'm sure. Unfortunately you might have some difficulty in pointing to historic examples of any nations ever using any kind of Golden Rule to guide their actions.

I wasn't trying to make the point that anyone ever has used it nor is there a need to show that any nation ever has unfailingly applied it. It is a principle that people apply to their actions. Insofar as people run nations, it takes only that the people running nations apply it in making their choices about what the nation should or shouldn't do. At the the end of the day, the burden for "doing the right thing" falls not on nations, but on people, both the governors and the governed.

One point I was making is that regardless of what's transpired in the past, we should and can begin to use it now and going forward. Unlike so many other principles and policy decision making approaches, it's one that can be implemented immediately and with zero preparation.

 

[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.

Trump shares the same short sighted ignorance with historic leaders who have blithely precipitated every war in history.

Umm, that was an insanely ignorant statement.

If I show one example of a war in history "precipitated" NOT by a leader trying to avoid alliances and entanglements will you admit you are wrong about that?

Rhetoric question. I know you don't have any Intellectual Honesty, so such a feat would be WAY beyond your understanding, let alone actual ability to DO.


And you behavior continues to demonstrate that you were never interested in any real discussion and that this whole thread is dishonest propaganda by a dishonest leftist.

 

[Correll]

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.

I wouldn't ascribe any uniqueness to it. It's certainly been heard before:

"He who wants to live asserts himself. He who cannot assert himself does not deserve to live. He will perish. This is an iron, yet also a just principle. The earth is not there for cowardly peoples, not for weak ones, not for lazy ones. The earth is there for him who takes it and who industriously labors upon it and thereby fashions his life. That is the will of Providence."
-- Adolf Hitler; from speech in Sportpalast Berlin (May 3, 1940)

"If once popular support, power and the authority of tradition are united in one, that authority may be considered to be unshakable."
-- from 'Mein Kampf'

"I also have the conviction and the certain feeling that nothing can happen to me, for I know that Providence has chosen me to fulfill my task."
-- Adolf Hitler; from speech in Munich (September 4, 1932)

"There will probably never again in the future be a man with more authority than I have. My existence is therefore a fact of great value."
-- Adolf Hitler; from speech to his generals (August 22, 1939)

 

[Correll]

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.

A good example of the very quaint, but long ago completely discredited isolationist non solutions for an increasingly complicated world.

Wanting to avoid commitments we can't meet has been discredited?

Wanting to avoid conflicts that we lose or that don't serve our interests has been discredited?

Please explain how.

Rhetorical question. I know that you won't.

Because this is nothing but a smear propaganda thread. And you are not interested in actual discussion, but just propaganda.

Like a good little leftist.

Ever since Republicans campaigned to keep us out of the Second World War isolationists have had no legitimate argument to support their view.

I presented two legitimate arguments above. You have not challenged them in any way.

 

[Correll]

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.

Unsupported smears. YOu can't have a liberal circle jerk when there are conservatives around willing to break up your fantasies.

Which conservatives? Trump has never been a conservative, just a loud mouth self promoter.

Umm, did you really think that I was claiming that Trump was on this site commenting in this thread?

LOL!

You can't help lying can you?