The Trump Doctrine

[Dim Bulb]

Sorry, after watching President Trump, I think it is fair to say thus far that his foreign policy doctrine can be summarized in one word:

React.

The fact is that he and his administration put a premium on, as he said during the campaign, "When they hit me, I hit them back." That's cool and it establishes the US as a leader in the world again, not a follower.

The only detriment is of course that reaction does not always mean that we will have a coherent and logically consistent foreign policy. There is probably some value to being a bit predictable especially for our allies (not so much our enemies). Hope this works out okay and that it doesn't turn into a Ponzi scheme of reaction at all costs.

 

[Correll]

THe hype the media and the deep state generated required an reaction.

Step one they ginned up a massive campaign demanding action.

Step two they gin up a massive campaign attacking Trump for acting.


The only question is, are we dumb enough to give such p.o.s. the credibility to control us.

 

[Dim Bulb]

I think there is more than one question worth having in our minds. Are we dumb enough to want to make sure by reacting we are actually making ourselves definitively safer? And are we dumb enough to now ignore the non interventionist rhetoric on the campaign trail and not hold the President accountable for lying to us? We know the media lies, does that mean only they should be criticized? Why not criticize the guy in charge for lying?

 

[washamericom]

Sorry, after watching President Trump, I think it is fair to say thus far that his foreign policy doctrine can be summarized in one word:

React.

The fact is that he and his administration put a premium on, as he said during the campaign, "When they hit me, I hit them back." That's cool and it establishes the US as a leader in the world again, not a follower.

The only detriment is of course that reaction does not always mean that we will have a coherent and logically consistent foreign policy. There is probably some value to being a bit predictable especially for our allies (not so much our enemies). Hope this works out okay and that it doesn't turn into a Ponzi scheme of reaction at all costs.

anticipate and react.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The Trump Doctrine.
1. Threaten
2. Lob a few bombs for show

3. Act like it is no big deal....

Different from the Obama doctrine that was
1. Drone your ass
2. Send in more troops
3. Means what you say.
4. Get deals done

 

[Correll]

I think there is more than one question worth having in our minds. Are we dumb enough to want to make sure by reacting we are actually making ourselves definitively safer? And are we dumb enough to now ignore the non interventionist rhetoric on the campaign trail and not hold the President accountable for lying to us? We know the media lies, does that mean only they should be criticized? Why not criticize the guy in charge for lying?

Do you think considering the public hysteria on the gas attack that non action was a viable option?

 

[Correll]

The Trump Doctrine.
1. Threaten
2. Lob a few bombs for show

3. Act like it is no big deal....

Different from the Obama doctrine that was
1. Drone your ass
2. Send in more troops
3. Means what you say.
4. Get deals done

Did you WANT the bombing or not?

 

[Dim Bulb]

I think there is more than one question worth having in our minds. Are we dumb enough to want to make sure by reacting we are actually making ourselves definitively safer? And are we dumb enough to now ignore the non interventionist rhetoric on the campaign trail and not hold the President accountable for lying to us? We know the media lies, does that mean only they should be criticized? Why not criticize the guy in charge for lying?

Do you think considering the public hysteria on the gas attack that non action was a viable option?

Yes.

 

[Cellblock2429]

The Trump Doctrine.
1. Threaten
2. Lob a few bombs for show

3. Act like it is no big deal....

Different from the Obama doctrine that was
1. Drone your ass
2. Send in more troops
3. Means what you say.
4. Get deals done

 

[Correll]

I think there is more than one question worth having in our minds. Are we dumb enough to want to make sure by reacting we are actually making ourselves definitively safer? And are we dumb enough to now ignore the non interventionist rhetoric on the campaign trail and not hold the President accountable for lying to us? We know the media lies, does that mean only they should be criticized? Why not criticize the guy in charge for lying?

Do you think considering the public hysteria on the gas attack that non action was a viable option?

Yes.

I disagree. I think Trump's hand was forced.

 

[Dim Bulb]

The Trump Doctrine.
1. Threaten
2. Lob a few bombs for show

3. Act like it is no big deal....

Different from the Obama doctrine that was
1. Drone your ass
2. Send in more troops
3. Means what you say.
4. Get deals done

I disagree almost completely. Obama did do #1 but pretty much the opposite on 2&3. I am one of those few conservatives who wasn't blinded by incoherent hatred for Obama to trash the Iran deal, which was going to get made by our allies with or without us. I honestly don't know the Trump administration's position on the Iran deal today, too many changes for me to keep up. But in any event I think you are not right on 2&3 and mostly on 4.

 

[Slade3200]

I think there is more than one question worth having in our minds. Are we dumb enough to want to make sure by reacting we are actually making ourselves definitively safer? And are we dumb enough to now ignore the non interventionist rhetoric on the campaign trail and not hold the President accountable for lying to us? We know the media lies, does that mean only they should be criticized? Why not criticize the guy in charge for lying?

The problem is Trump supporters don't see it as lying, they see it as him setting high bars to use for negotiations. With a binary election consisting of two horrible candidates most of us were left very frustrated and nervous about our future, but for those who support smaller government and more conservative ideals they are going to stand behind Trump for now as a President Clinton would be taking the country I the opposite direction as they would have liked. That loyalty and support will wear thin after some time and if Trump continues with the lies and flip flops he will be out of politics quicker than he came in.

 

[Slade3200]

The Trump Doctrine.
1. Threaten
2. Lob a few bombs for show

3. Act like it is no big deal....

Different from the Obama doctrine that was
1. Drone your ass
2. Send in more troops
3. Means what you say.
4. Get deals done

I disagree almost completely. Obama did do #1 but pretty much the opposite on 2&3. I am one of those few conservatives who wasn't blinded by incoherent hatred for Obama to trash the Iran deal, which was going to get made by our allies with or without us. I honestly don't know the Trump administration's position on the Iran deal today, too many changes for me to keep up. But in any event I think you are not right on 2&3 and mostly on 4.

Tillerson and McMaster have expressed no desire to break from the Iran deal... yet another break from Trumps campaign rhetoric and what's actually happening in his administration

 

[Dim Bulb]

I think there is more than one question worth having in our minds. Are we dumb enough to want to make sure by reacting we are actually making ourselves definitively safer? And are we dumb enough to now ignore the non interventionist rhetoric on the campaign trail and not hold the President accountable for lying to us? We know the media lies, does that mean only they should be criticized? Why not criticize the guy in charge for lying?

The problem is Trump supporters don't see it as lying, they see it as him setting high bars to use for negotiations. With a binary election consisting of two horrible candidates most of us were left very frustrated and nervous about our future, but for those who support smaller government and more conservative ideals they are going to stand behind Trump for now as a President Clinton would be taking the country I the opposite direction as they would have liked. That loyalty and support will wear thin after some time and if Trump continues with the lies and flip flops he will be out of politics quicker than he came in.

I don't know about that. From what I see on this board for example, President Trump can do no wrong. I excoriated Obama for many things, including lying to the people. And I do the same for President Trump. But in so doing I am labeled all kinds of things other than what I am: listening carefully.

 

[Slade3200]

I think there is more than one question worth having in our minds. Are we dumb enough to want to make sure by reacting we are actually making ourselves definitively safer? And are we dumb enough to now ignore the non interventionist rhetoric on the campaign trail and not hold the President accountable for lying to us? We know the media lies, does that mean only they should be criticized? Why not criticize the guy in charge for lying?

The problem is Trump supporters don't see it as lying, they see it as him setting high bars to use for negotiations. With a binary election consisting of two horrible candidates most of us were left very frustrated and nervous about our future, but for those who support smaller government and more conservative ideals they are going to stand behind Trump for now as a President Clinton would be taking the country I the opposite direction as they would have liked. That loyalty and support will wear thin after some time and if Trump continues with the lies and flip flops he will be out of politics quicker than he came in.

I don't know about that. From what I see on this board for example, President Trump can do no wrong. I excoriated Obama for many things, including lying to the people. And I do the same for President Trump. But in so doing I am labeled all kinds of things other than what I am: listening carefully.

I agree and often encounter the same reaction on this board, you gotta remember though that there a lot of extremely partisan wingnuts from both sides on this board who dominate the conversations. Can't take these people too seriously.

I want Trump to do well, I think he has potential to do some good things that our country really needs, but every step of the way I see his ego and child like temperament creating needless obstacles. With the forgiven policy stuff, as you brought up, I'm greatly concerned as one of his tough guy, "hit back harder" reactions could easily cost American lives or get us into a war. It's a scared thought and he hasn't even come close to earning my trust in his abilities to handle these world issues like a civilized grown up.

 

[JBond]

Sorry, after watching President Trump, I think it is fair to say thus far that his foreign policy doctrine can be summarized in one word:

React.

The fact is that he and his administration put a premium on, as he said during the campaign, "When they hit me, I hit them back." That's cool and it establishes the US as a leader in the world again, not a follower.

The only detriment is of course that reaction does not always mean that we will have a coherent and logically consistent foreign policy. There is probably some value to being a bit predictable especially for our allies (not so much our enemies). Hope this works out okay and that it doesn't turn into a Ponzi scheme of reaction at all costs.

You are wrong, but that is nothing new.

Remember the Obama doctrine? Ship the enemy tons of weapons and plane loads of cash? That didn't work real well.

 

[Slade3200]

Sorry, after watching President Trump, I think it is fair to say thus far that his foreign policy doctrine can be summarized in one word:

React.

The fact is that he and his administration put a premium on, as he said during the campaign, "When they hit me, I hit them back." That's cool and it establishes the US as a leader in the world again, not a follower.

The only detriment is of course that reaction does not always mean that we will have a coherent and logically consistent foreign policy. There is probably some value to being a bit predictable especially for our allies (not so much our enemies). Hope this works out okay and that it doesn't turn into a Ponzi scheme of reaction at all costs.

You are wrong, but that is nothing new.

Remember the Obama doctrine? Ship the enemy tons of weapons and plane loads of cash? That didn't work real well.

Are you joking or just trying to sound uneducated?

 

[JBond]

Sorry, after watching President Trump, I think it is fair to say thus far that his foreign policy doctrine can be summarized in one word:

React.

The fact is that he and his administration put a premium on, as he said during the campaign, "When they hit me, I hit them back." That's cool and it establishes the US as a leader in the world again, not a follower.

The only detriment is of course that reaction does not always mean that we will have a coherent and logically consistent foreign policy. There is probably some value to being a bit predictable especially for our allies (not so much our enemies). Hope this works out okay and that it doesn't turn into a Ponzi scheme of reaction at all costs.

You are wrong, but that is nothing new.

Remember the Obama doctrine? Ship the enemy tons of weapons and plane loads of cash? That didn't work real well.

Are you joking or just trying to sound uneducated?

Obama shipped $500 million in weapons to the moderates, aka ISIS. He also gave at least $12 billion to Iran. I have posted all the links multiple times. Obama was also the same one that lied about chemical weapons in Syria. Also, lets not forget about his magic reset button. Everything he attempted to do ended in dramatic failure.

 

[Slade3200]

Sorry, after watching President Trump, I think it is fair to say thus far that his foreign policy doctrine can be summarized in one word:

React.

The fact is that he and his administration put a premium on, as he said during the campaign, "When they hit me, I hit them back." That's cool and it establishes the US as a leader in the world again, not a follower.

The only detriment is of course that reaction does not always mean that we will have a coherent and logically consistent foreign policy. There is probably some value to being a bit predictable especially for our allies (not so much our enemies). Hope this works out okay and that it doesn't turn into a Ponzi scheme of reaction at all costs.

You are wrong, but that is nothing new.

Remember the Obama doctrine? Ship the enemy tons of weapons and plane loads of cash? That didn't work real well.

Are you joking or just trying to sound uneducated?

Obama shipped $500 million in weapons to the moderates, aka ISIS. He also gave at least $12 billion to Iran. I have posted all the links multiple times. Obama was also the same one that lied about chemical weapons in Syria. Also, lets not forget about his magic reset button. Everything he attempted to do ended in dramatic failure.

See the problem with your propaganda is many people on this board have actually been paying attention to what's been going on. We arent all puppets being spoon fed talking points from wingnut media outlets. The points you are trying to make are extremely distorted and pointed accusation that don't even come close to reflecting the full scope or realities of any of the situations you are bringing up. You either know that and consciously the spread the lies because you are a partisan hater or you really believe they are true, which would make you a misinformed puppet

 

[JakeStarkey]

Best post of the day: Slade3200 "That loyalty and support will wear thin after some time and if Trump continues with the lies and flip flops he will be out of politics quicker than he came in."