Trump’s FP speech?


Fire away.  pl

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

185 Responses to Trump’s FP speech?

  1. LondonBob says:

    Couple of thoughts.
    Trump believes, almost, every word he says, people respond to the authenticity.
    Shame it has the, perhaps inevitable, Iran and Israel bit. Noticed the son in law was there.
    Should have got Pat Buchanan to write it, would have cleaned it up.
    I think Trump will beat Clinton in a landslide.

  2. Dubhaltach says:

    And while all that was going on Cruz selected the woman who took two of the most successful US information technology companies and turned them into a financial and technological wasteland. Lots of material out there for people not familiar with the story this report is the tip of a very large iceberg.
    In all seriousness is there a race on as to see who can do most damage to what’s left of US manufacturing?

  3. 505thPIR says:

    He should stick to a beginners level game of RISK. Better yet, checkers. No specifics on his part, just strong “feelings” and speaking as though waving his wand will compel or in his terms “make” the other kids play according to his rules. What happens when his bluffs are called. Who is going to fight his wars? Well, it seems he will have Israel’s back not matter what. His speech gave much cause for celebration in Moscow and Tel Aviv.

  4. The Beaver says:

    Surprisingly one of his advisers didn’t sign this letter :
    “In light of Israel’s dramatically rising defense challenges, we stand ready to support a substantially enhanced new long-term agreement to help provide Israel the resources it requires to defend itself and preserve its qualitative military edge.”
    those who didn’t sign it are:
    Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
    Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
    Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
    Tom Carper (D-DE)
    Bob Corker (R-TN)
    Al Franken (D-MN)
    Tim Kaine (D-VA)
    Angus King (I-ME)
    Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
    Chris Murphy (D-CT)
    Rand Paul (R-KY)
    Jack Reed (D-RI)
    Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
    Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
    Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
    Jon Tester (D-MT)
    Tom Udall (D-NM)

  5. Norbert M Salamon says:

    As an outsider to the USA, I believe that Mr. Trump had voiced a political manifesto in line with the aims to make America great again!.
    However, there are factual discrepancies, which make the plan rather unbelievable and unachievable. With respect to the Iran accord, the US is in fact negating the undertaking of the financial aspects .
    His notion of increasing military spending by the allies is a wet dream, for most allies have major financial problems, as is the USA – there is no money for more military spending. Furthermore, were Mr. Trump’s promise to work with China and Russia, a large part of the military spending requisite is moot.
    Israel might be a darling of the Republicans [and some democrats] but she is not a democracy – therefore she must be disciplined, not further spoon fed by money, arms and political cover – contrary to Mr. Trump’s position.
    While Mr. Obama had made many mistakes in the past years, there was no transgression by Syria on his red line, contrary to Mr. Trump’s stated position. Nor did Iran transgress against the accord with respect to nuclear issues, in fact Iran has fulfilled all the requirements.
    Mr. Trump is correct in his plan for ISIS, it will take more than military measures to negate this horrendous group’s viability.
    I found his lack of mentioning of the tax-dogging and US banks’ predatory behavior [and lack of acceptable accounting milieus] rather disappointing.
    It is possible if the hidden wealth [in various tax havens, in and out of US] is put to use within the US, that the economy might be revived to a slow growth – but this has a correlative dependence on the limits of natural products’ availability at an affordable price [where low grade ore, low grade fossil fuel and low grade farm land put limits to growth]. It should be recalled that the per capita energy amount has started to decline a few years ago, with ne positive change foreseeable in the near future.

  6. Matthew says:

    Lots to like, but one major contradiction. You can’t be America First, and then talk about sticking with “friends” when those friends (Saudi Arabia and Israel) are sabotaging our policies. Trump needs to address Israel’s and Saudi Arabia’s behavior toward us.
    And if requiring NATO countries to fulfill their financial and military commitments is controversial, then NATO is not a defensive alliance, but merely a auxiliary UN.

  7. Chris Chuba says:

    Either the Neocon weeds are slowly reclaiming the garden or he is shrewdly navigating the waters (I can always hope).
    The Bad, Trump is …
    1. Promoting the myth of Iranian non-compliance with the agreement, along with Iranian hegemony.
    2. Trotting out some neocon classics, a variation of ‘never have our friends been so afraid and our enemies been so emboldened’, ‘the world is safer when …’.
    3. The Cruz/Rubio obsession over the size rather than quality and mission of the military.
    4. More bad but these were the highlights for me, at least he managed not to talk about torture for once.
    The good…
    1. The vacuums in the M.E. were caused by the destruction of local govts, not the absence of the U.S. (but there was a disturbing reference to the Syrian line in the sand).
    2. He will actively seek a working relationship with Russia/China and recognizes that our conflict with China is primarily economic and not military nature (he wins the doll for that revelation, I wish other politicians would see this rather obvious point). He oscillated between ‘common interest’ and ‘position of strength’ and ‘walking away’ but overall more reasonable than HRC.
    3. A more national interest rather than ‘saving the world’ tone. I got the sense that he was trying to split the difference by adopting some familiar Neocon lingo. I hope this is not the start of his assimilation into the Borg collective.
    Overall, I still prefer him over that evil, harpy he is going to run against in November (burning building analogy).

  8. Daniel Nicolas says:

    Although many of the ideas are not unique to here. perhaps Trump and his advisors are reading SST regularly.
    As an American strongly against the Globalist Borg, what’s not to like?

  9. Walrus says:

    Quite a good foreign policy job I thought. There were sops to Israel and the military industrial complex – “Iran” and “Rebuilding the Military” references. However the guts of the speech seem to put a stake through the heart of the “Responsibility to protect” crowd as well as making the cogent observation that NATO members have been free riding for years judging by their defence budget share of GDP. I fail to see the relevance of a Two percent target though, that is a bit high.
    I am not sure how far Trump can go in winding back “Globalism” without dealing the American economy another self inflicted wound. Basically, the problem is successive American administrations have made no allowance for any arrangements for the American workforce to transition to a post industrial economy. Market forces doesn’t do that. Trade wars with China will bring back jobs on shore, but will also saddle the rest of the American economy with higher costs. Protectionism never works.
    Perhaps Trump can alter industry behaviour by loading onto them the social costs of jettisoning their American workforce? I’d like to see that.
    Do I hear sabre rattling? I hope not.

  10. steve says:

    Why on earth Cruz picked her with the California primary coming up is beyond me. She has to be one of the most despised women in the state.

  11. steve says:

    While this isn’t specifically relative to Trump’s speech today, I don’t think he believes for a minute that he will build a wall that Mexico will pay for, nor do I think his supporters believe it.
    I attribute that to support for audacity more than authenticity.

  12. Babak Makkinejad says:

    DEC was destroyed by the limited vision of its founder, Olson. There was a time that with the right pricing, DEC would have been what PC is today – or at the very least MAC.
    Comapq bought what was left of DEC after Olson’s ouster – and HP gobbled up Compaq and spun-off the soul of HP – its instrumentation division.
    This is the same story in US; a fire-in-the-belly founder (or founders) create a successful company, they grow it and then they are either ousted (by the greedy) or retire.
    Next comes the Administrators that preside over the slow process of decay and leave with their tens of millions of dollars in retirement or severance packages.
    The board, the timid grey man with no original though or imagination (otherwise they would not be there in the first place) bring in the Marketer who is going to propagandize the company out of its decline.
    When that fails, they bring in the Bean Counter to cut the workforce and make the company look as though it is profitable to sell it to some other sucker.
    The new Owner, then proceeds to sell off what he can and what makes some sense to keep.
    This is basically the same process that Ibn Khaldun described in connection with North African dynasties.
    First Generation prepares for the conquest
    Second generation win the prize
    Third generation presides over decline
    Fourth generation loses the city to the rival tribe.

  13. LeaNder says:

    If I may leave my usual sweet nothings?
    I felt lulled into a trance at the start and in the end. Vague enough to associate for everyone in and outside the establishment whatever he likes, I guess. Make America great again! Almost caught me, partly. It seems to have an overall strategy to please everyone, never mind internal contractions. Except maybe the wrong Iranians may be pleased, which may not please other parties to the deal either.
    Struggling, with best-friends, friends, allies and rivals or enemies on the the top issue. No doubt some acceptable talking point strewn in.
    The cold war has ended but once again a century of peace can best be guaranteed by getting new tools for those many itching fingers on the red buttons?
    “Secondly, we have to rebuild our military and our economy.
    The Russians and Chinese have rapidly expanded their military capability, but look what’s happened to us!
    Our nuclear weapons arsenal – our ultimate deterrent – has been allowed to atrophy and is desperately in need of modernization and renewal.
    Our active duty armed forces have shrunk from 2 million in 1991 to about 1.3 million today.
    The Navy has shrunk from over 500 ships to 272 ships during that time.
    The Air Force is about 1/3 smaller than 1991. Pilots are flying B-52s in combat missions today which are older than most people in this room.
    And what are we doing about this? President Obama has proposed a 2017 defense budget that, in real dollars, cuts nearly 25% from what we were spending in 2011.
    Our military is depleted, and we’re asking our generals and military leaders to worry about global warming.”
    I suppose if I were American, I would join the camp of non-voters. Ap­rès moi le dé­luge!
    Apart from that, I do not begrudge Americans the chance to see Air Force once again respected as it should be.

  14. Fred says:

    “It all began with the dangerous idea that we could make Western democracies out of countries that had no experience or interest in becoming a Western Democracy.” …. ”
    Looks like he reads SST. The Borg will go ballistic.
    I thought I heard some howling from the local university campus, now I know why:
    “Instead of trying to spread “universal values” that not everyone shares, we should understand that strengthening and promoting Western civilization and its accomplishments will do more to inspire positive reforms around the world…”

  15. Farooq says:

    Very well put!

  16. Tyler says:

    Trump has rustled all the right feathers. More thoughts later.

  17. Castellio says:

    Off topic, or topic skewed. Someone was asking about Christian Palestinians. In this Mondoweiss article, young Christians are apparently supporting Hamas. Not surprising if you follow the situation.

  18. Tidewater says:

    Tidewater to All,
    “President Obama gutted our missile defense program, then abandoned our missile defense plan with Poland and the Czech Republic.”
    That seems to me to be a neocon remark. Trump seems not to understand historic Russian sensitivities about their frontiers, which have been famously talked about recently, including here. The warning time issue is basic 101. It goes all the way back to the Jupiter missiles, which the US secretly removed (secretly, to save face) from Turkey to resolve the Cuban missile crisis. Missiles in Poland of any sort raise the threat level. Trump should never have said that. There was no need to say that. This seems to me to be one of those little signs that Trump is a hard-core New York Zionist and a neocon at heart. He’s never much thought about it. He’s the Manchurian candidate who hasn’t yet heard his cue.
    If Trump thinks he can negotiate with Putin about putting missiles of any type in Poland and Eastern Europe, which would include a substantial number of troops to man, support,and protect them, it would seem to me that he would not need to walk away from a negotiating table; he would never get to the table.
    If the US and Poland go ahead with positioning troops and missiles that close to Russia, it would lead to an extreme worsening of the relations between Russia and NATO. I don’t think the Europeans could take that. They are in a state of shock right now, as is. If what comes out of a Trump failed “art of the deal”meeting is inevitably exacerbated tensions, it might just be the Europeans who finally begin to take charge of their own destiny and renegotiate their security arrangements with Russia. They are the ones who will begin the shrinkage of NATO. And it will be against American demands. Trump looks to me like the proverbial bull in the china shop.
    The Europeans must be spending billions on the new immigration crisis; the defense of the southern frontiers; and for extremely intensified internal security. Whether they want to continue the NATO economic aggression against Russia or not, where is the money going to come from?
    Climate change seems to be something that is just too damn much to talk about.
    I am afraid that if what is happening now in the Arctic continues as it has been going these last few years, month after month, season after season — like a black line crawling up your leg–there is a great deal that one might think matters today that is not really going to matter at all.
    Four more years of this, steady as she goes, and we will be dealing with only one thing, The Emergency.

  19. Tyler says:

    Some of the people here want to like Trump what is saying but damned if it ain’t killing them internally to have to admit it so we get this half ass soft pedaling.

  20. Tyler says:

    This is the denial/bargaining phase of grief. There’s going to be a wall. Accept it.

  21. Tyler says:

    The amount of neocon screeching from Trump’s speech can be heard in Alexandria, VA at this point I’m sure.
    Man is carefully hedging his bets but its pretty obvious the last 16 years of neocon R2P is done.

  22. Tyler says:

    “Protectionism never works.”
    Yeah, which is why China is in economic shambles right now.

  23. Tpinlb says:

    Neocon R2P is not done, it will just be realized by Hillary Clinton instead of by the republicans. I expect more and more neocons will be announcing their support of Mrs. Clinton

  24. steve says:

    I’m hardly grieving over whether a wall is built or not or whether Mexico pays for it or doesn’t. I couldn’t care less.
    I don’t think Trump’s wall is any more an expression of authenticity than Hillary’s statement that she is now opposed to the TPP. However, I do appreciate his rhetorical audacity, as I said.

  25. BraveNewWorld says:

    Does any one here think that if Trump wins he gets any where near the latitude he predecessors have had if his wars of choice go bad?

  26. Tpinlb says:

    Protectionism did work for the United States in the nineteenth century. We grew our industries and protected them against cheap imports from the British empire. In that century, under the American System policies, we grew from small republic to become the greatest economy in the world.
    Trump should pursue cooperative investment with the Russians and the Chinese in developing the new Silk Road economic corridor projects, including rail tunnel linking Siberia and Alaska. Shifting to investment in big infrastructure projects could sustain employment if we move to less war and less employment in the military industrial complex.

  27. Babak Makkinejad says:

    There is no such thing called a post-Industrial economy – there is a pre-industrial economy the achievements of which you can see in much of Africa and parts of Asia.
    A service economy, has to be based on a robust manufacturing economy, just as a robust manufacturing economy is predicated on a robust farm economy – which, itself needs to be squarely based on government-supplied finance.
    US was so rich and so industrialized that decades of selling her industry abroad did not make an impression until the proverbial camel’s back was broken by 2008.
    Even prior to 2008, US standard of living was being supported by debt – and that also crashed and burnt.
    Observing to one of my colleague who was being let go a few years ago – I said: “I am one of the most highly educated and skilled people on this planet. But if this job is also shipped abroad, what am I going to do? What subject matter could I study to get me a job?”
    And that is just for me.
    There are tens of millions of people who cannot even do Algebra II – the Gatekeeper to Good Jobs – what are they going to do?
    There was something that US Government could have done and that was to delay and retard the flow of jobs from US to other countries – by hook or by crook; through taxation, regulation, or any and all dirty tricks in the book.
    That was not to be.

  28. steve says:

    Or then again, perhaps they liked parts of his speech and disliked other parts.

  29. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Japan was the worst offender before China was even on the radar screen.

  30. Babak Makkinejad says:

    What on Earth are you talking about? Another Climate alarmist?
    How many people live near the arctic?
    They can all move to Edmonton or Calgary.
    Even the large mammals can be relocated.
    There is global warming of the planet but I cannot see any reasons to panic.

  31. turcopolier says:

    The moans and cries of rage are clearly audible from across the river. pl

  32. John Halligan says:

    Trump is smart. He said no longer would the US put other countries interests above our own .I believe that applies to Israel as well as some others .He can’t make that explicit since the Jewish lobby is the most powerful in Washington and could deliver a fatal blow to his campaign .I believe He means that we will no longer fight Israel’s wars but any changes will not be revealed until He wins the election .

  33. pob2 says:

    Yep – got a tight lock on the the feather rustler vote.

  34. Miranda says:

    Amen. That is indeed the crux of the matter.

  35. After a quick read of the transcript, I thought it was a damned good first effort. How can one argue with a call to not make the same mistakes we’ve been making since the fall of the Soviet Union? The call to seek cooperation with Russia is music to my ears. And to declare an end to our nation building… brilliant.
    However, I still view Trump as a consummate con-man. Why the emphasis on building up a more powerful military, including the nuclear arsenal, if you want a more restrained foreign policy? Maybe it’s a reference to Reagan’s policy of peace through strength. But the purpose of that policy was to confront the Soviet Union and spend them into submission. We don’t need a more powerful and expensive military unless we want to intimidate Russia and/or China.
    Trump called for an end to ISIS. Good. I’ve called for a formal declaration of war on the IS and it’s allies. However, he still maintains a stance of vitriolic belligerence towards Iran, a nation doing more than most to destroy the IS.
    Even with these criticisms, I look forward to Trump developing the ideas he touched on in this speech. I have little doubt he will be the Republican nominee and we will see if he can resolve contradictions and develop realistic details to flesh out his refreshingly different foreign policy aphorisms.

  36. eakens says:

    Trump is a deal maker. Iranians are deal makers. Everything will be fine.

  37. John Halligan says:

    Trump took Pat Buchanans playbook from 1992 off the shelf dusted it off and deleted the social conservative issues such as gay marriage and abortion .The Evangelicals came to realize that the party was using the issues like boob bait for the uninformed .The promises were forgotten as soon as the election was won. And not revived until the next election .With Pat we could have had a beautiful wall and lower levels of legal immigration .We also would have had fair trade not free trade and most importantly we would not have invaded Iraq, participated in the destruction of Syria occupied Afghanistan for nation building or helped in the destruction of Libya.Unfortutanely He was called anti-sematic.

  38. oofda says:

    He was incoherent- saying one thing and a few minutes later contradicting it.
    For example: “Our allies are not paying their fair share… Our allies must contribute toward their financial, political, and human costs, have to do it, of our tremendous security burden. But many of them are simply not doing so…. The countries we are defending must pay for the cost of this defense, and if not, the U.S. must be prepared to let these countries defend themselves. We have no choice.”
    But shortly he said: “To our friends and allies, I say America is… going to be a great and reliable ally again. It’s going to be a friend again.”
    So are we going to let ‘deadbeat allies’ fend for themselves, or be a ‘great and reliable ally’ ourselves?
    Or this: “America no longer has a clear understanding of our foreign policy goals. Since the end of the Cold War and the breakup of the Soviet Union, we’ve lacked a coherent foreign policy.”
    But late: “We must as a nation be more unpredictable. We are totally predictable.” Which is it- having a coherent foreign policy or being unpredictable.”
    And so on….

  39. Max says:

    Yeah, the wall will be built once Americans learn the details of how Mexican drug cartels were connected to the Ohio murders.

  40. MRW says:

    Ibn Khaldun, another Islamic genius whose inventions the Europeans–in this case the Italians–purloined and told history they invented.

  41. Max says:

    Carly makes Gen. Buck Turgidson look like Gandhi.

  42. Mark Logan says:

    It’s a amazing how Trump gets away with contradicting himself. It’s natural for people to only remember the bits they liked, and his job is to pack the pie with all kinds of cherries so everybody has one to pick. Optimism is a hell of a drug, and he’s an expert deal-closer.
    I think if he gets the job the most accurate predictor of how he will act will be who his advisers are.

  43. Robert C says:

    No wall will be built. American’s need for cheap pork, beef, cauliflower, apples, and asparagus will garentee that.
    Who’s going to do that work? You Tyler?… Certainly no white Americans. I’m almost in my 5th decade and the same people do all the scut work in this country….and the white people in flyover country…complain….and vote for politicians (Trump et al) who promise the moon. Never underestimate an Americans ability to vote against their best interest.

  44. I listened to his address. In his heart and head he believes that America has declined. But it still consumes 25% annually of the world’s resources [so I have been told or read] and I assume Trump believes that can continue? Am I correct?
    E.G. I have read that Home Depot, IKEA, and Lowes consume 1/3 of the world’s limber each year! Will that continue?
    No enunciation of why America was great in the past and how making it great in that vein again might be accomplished except by continuing domination of world.s resources and supply chains.
    Any know how Trump and Carlos Slim get along? Would Slim contribute to Trump’s wall project?

  45. Walrus says:

    The moans and cries of rage can also be heard in Australian ivory towers.

  46. Mark Pyruz says:

    Saw a necon from Hoover Inst. respond to speech on PBS today. Neocons are in full tilt over the threat of an independent Trump positing conflict resolution with Putin and Russian Federation, as well as any hint of United States possibly relinquishing the outrageously expensive posture as leader of unipolar global security order.

  47. JLCG says:

    Ibn Khaldun describes the process you mention but he gives also a reason for the process and that is the development and disappearance of group feeling. The development and permanence and disappearance of group feeling is something metaphysical.I subscribe to the idea
    of history being metaphysical. Discussion of actual politics is simply discussion of accidents but not of the Idea of history which is dialectical.

  48. Jag Pop says:

    At AIPAC they laughed when Trump displayed chutzpah, he did a book promotion from the podium.
    Here are the eleven guidelines from “Art of the Deal”.
    Do you see his campaign in here?
    1. Think big
    “I like thinking big. I always have. To me it’s very simple: if you’re going to be thinking anyway, you might as well think big.”
    2. Protect the downside and the upside will take care of itself
    “I always go into the deal anticipating the worst. If you plan for the worst–if you can live with the worst–the good will always take care of itself.”
    3. Maximize the options
    “I never get too attached to one deal or one approach…I keep a lot of balls in the air, because most deals fall out, no matter how promising they seem at first.”
    4. Know your market
    “I like to think that I have that instinct. That’s why I don’t hire a lot of number-crunchers, and I don’t trust fancy marketing surveys. I do my own surveys and draw my own conclusions.”
    5. Use your leverage
    “The worst thing you can possibly do in a deal is seem desperate to make it. That makes the other guy smell blood, and then you’re dead.”
    6. Enhance your location
    “Perhaps the most misunderstood concept in all of real estate is that the key to success is location, location, location…First of all, you don’t necessarily need the best location. What you need is the best deal.”
    7. Get the word out
    “One thing I’ve learned about the press is that they’re always hungry for a good story, and the more sensational the better…The point is that if you are a little different, a little outrageous, or if you do things that are bold or controversial, the press is going to write about you.”
    8. Fight back
    “In most cases I’m very easy to get along with. I’m very good to people who are good to me. But when people treat me badly or unfairly or try to take advantage of me, my general attitude, all my life, has been to fight back very hard.”
    9. Deliver the goods
    “You can’t con people, at least not for long. You can create excitement, you can do wonderful promotion and get all kinds of press, and you can throw in a little hyperbole. But if you don’t deliver the goods, people will eventually catch on.”
    10. Contain the costs
    “I believe in spending what you have to. But I also believe in not spending more than you should.”
    11. Have fun
    “Money was never a big motivation for me, except as a way to keep score. The real excitement is playing the game.”
    (eleven points as found in an article by Peter Economy, )

  49. LeaNder says:

    Sorry, I shouldn’t have chattered here: Air Force One, I meant.

  50. elev8 says:

    The speech reads like an amalgam of the pre-presidential rhetoric of Kennedy, Reagan, Bush II and Obama. Trump adds trade, immigration and burden sharing among allies to the mix.
    Kennedy and Reagan were lucky in that Krushchev and Gorbachev played into their hands. Looking at Trump’s ambitious agenda, I see possibilities for significant successes for him on the burden-sharing, immigration and anti-ISIS fronts.
    However, there is a fundamental contradiction in his outlook that he doesn’t address: an apparent desire to increase military spending that runs counter to his promise to improve both the U.S. trade balance and the living standards of American workers.
    He is proposing to do much more than he will realistically be able to deliver, but his rhetoric leaves no clue as to where he might compromise. Evaluations of this speech will likely reduce to affirmation of pre-conceived notions about Trump’s character. My assessment of his personality doesn’t let me share in the optimism of his fans.

  51. elev8 says:

    The speech reads like an amalgam of the pre-presidential rhetoric of Kennedy, Reagan, Bush II and Obama. Trump adds trade, immigration and burden sharing among allies to the mix.
    Kennedy and Reagan were lucky in that Krushchev and Gorbachev played into their hands. Looking at Trump’s ambitious agenda, I see possibilities for significant successes for him on the burden-sharing, immigration and anti-ISIS fronts.
    However, there is a fundamental contradiction in his outlook that he doesn’t address: an apparent desire to increase military spending that runs counter to his promise to improve both the U.S. trade balance and the living standards of American workers.
    He is proposing to do much more than he will realistically be able to deliver, but his rhetoric leaves no clue as to where he might compromise. Evaluations of this speech will likely reduce to affirmation of pre-conceived notions about Trump’s character. My assessment of his personality doesn’t let me share in the optimism of his fans.

  52. LeaNder says:

    That’s probably one of the better statements, Fred
    But: Ironically enough the spreading of democracy has triggered from very, very early on questions about “Western Values” and or the “Western Civilization” at home too, and it is exactly this constantly increasing dissent from the earliest post 9/11 years on that he is trying to exploit.
    Let’s see to what extend he can please his supporters.
    Basically, I by now assume that the ‘American machinery’ has quite a bit of inbuilt inertia concerning abrupt change. What worries me most is the challenge he offers with this as a signal: Let’s upgrade and develop our nuclear arsenal, but never ever even allow the Iranians to study the field even for peaceful means.
    I don’t think the Russians and Chinese will like this patronizing position. And strictly I doubt Europeans do.
    But if he considers it a piece of the puzzle in how to make America great again, so be it. 😉

  53. LeaNder says:

    Yes, Tidewater, one of the obvious contradictions in a speech something thinks: may please Russia.
    “Poland and the Czech Republic”, the Czech Republic made me slightly wonder in this context, admittedly. Could it be, he hasn’t yet looked it up on a map? I am not aware of any demands by the Czech for defense shield, neither of any historical activities there post 1989. A shield defending against whom exactly? Could only be Russia really. (1968, Prague Spring in mind 😉 – could this provide a start for talks?) But then, doesn’t he say the Cold War is over?
    In earlier times of this young century I watched US neoconnish activities moving or surfacing there. Some via Berlin caught my attention and I took a closer look.

  54. alba etie says:

    Who do you think Trump has on his short list for VP – Senator Jeff Sessions perhaps ? Sen . Sessions has been very skeptical of foreign engagements they might make a formidible national ticket .

  55. LeaNder says:

    can you translate, steve:
    “but damned if it ain’t killing them internally to have to admit it so we get this half ass soft pedaling.”
    Accepting to be part of the “some people”: I am somewhat hypnotized by Trump’s brilliance and superior intellect, but it is killing me internally to admit I am. Resulting in no clear support but instead in half-assed criticism? Or skepticism?

  56. divadab says:

    You are right – it’s a call-out to the rubes by the master carney.

  57. divadab says:

    Right – because the US ruling class is ideologically and psychologically unable to feel any obligation to the common people. The neo-liberal consensus is fundamentally traitorous, which Mr. Trump has pointed out.

  58. Bill Herschel says:

    My completely idiosyncratic personal opinion. First, he does say a lot that is well outside the neocon dogma. And a lot that is well inside. But this is what impresses me. Like Cyril Raffaelli at the beginning Banlieue 13 he has defeated the entire “deep bench” of Republican candidates, one against many, in a closed room. You don’t have to share my opinion that the “deep bench” was spawned by Satan in the bowels of Hell in order to acknowledge that the American people have been deceived once too often and are truly pissed off. This will be a Presidential Campaign for the ages.

  59. Chris Chuba says:

    Tactically, he is giving HRC a lifeline in the debates. Twice he mentioned the ‘line in the sand’ in Syria. Actually, that makes him sound a little Archie Bunkeresque, it was a ‘red’ line, but in any case if he tries to drive home the point that Obama didn’t enforce the ‘line’ then the harpy’s head will spin around with glee as she will point out that she was all in on bombing Syria and even arming the rebels early.
    I hope Trump sticks with his more consistent argument against regime change and doesn’t fall for the neocon argument that you should follow through on a bad idea just because you made a threat just to look strong. It also reeks of partisan sniping which is one of the reasons I think that voters are rejecting the traditional candidates.

  60. turcopolier says:

    Both Poland and Czecho joined NATO. pl

  61. turcopolier says:

    Trump is unabashedly an American Nationalist unlike the Borgists who have followed Europe in a search for universal identity. He sees US interest as his prime criterion, not “fairness,” and certainly not “fairness” in the “right” of Iran to possess nuclear weapons which he sees as ultimately a menace to the US when combined with the ICBM that they rather clearly are working on as a goal. pl

  62. jonst says:

    I’m not aware of Trump taking a strong and leading position AGAINST building a “wall”, as Hillary did supporting TPP. So I fail to see the comparison to Hillary. He may be dead wrong about the wall..or disingenuous about it, but he has done nothing to contradict himself re his previous positions. Like Hillary has once she started running for President.

  63. turcopolier says:

    IMO he was not incoherent. Many of his statements are conditioned one upon the other. i.e., we will be great allies and you will love it once you do what we want. this is a standard business technique in negotiations. pl

  64. jonst says:

    yeah, but when those “dynasties” you speak of ‘Fall’–so far, anyway, they never rise up to anything substantial (compared to their previous positions) again. When the Romans/Spanish/Portuguese/Dutch/English (purposeful not UK) go down…one still is left with Italy, Spain, Portugal, Holland, and the UK….not grandeur, but not bad places to live, visit, and do business in.

  65. jonst says:

    every one she announces, just might be met by a Bernie supports saying, publicly or not, ‘I’m outta here.’

  66. jonst says:

    and South Korea, too. And India, to a lesser extent.

  67. A. Pols says:

    The lesson I drew from reading the transcript is: we’re over extended.
    Much of the rest talked about ways to extend that over extension.
    But I do understand the need to throw red meat to the dogs.

  68. turcopolier says:

    A Pols
    Yes, IMO some of it is what he really thinks and some is just BS to keep the “special interests” off his back in order to get elected. pl

  69. Fred says:

    The audacity of hope. Of course he won’t build it. Think of the jobs program for returnees that will be created when Mexico builds it.

  70. Fred says:

    Just the question to ask the Governor of Ohio.

  71. Fred says:

    This is not an abrupt change, it is a manifestation of the societal resistance to the changes unleashed by the 1960’s generation.

  72. LeaNder says:

    Hmm, not quite mentally present, I better keep my fingers off the keyboard for a while. And return to other interests.
    I meant: a member of the SST community, or short: someone, suggested that Russia and Israel will be pleased. I am not so sure about Russians, really. It’s a mixed bag.
    Sorry, Tidewater, and whoever else concerned.

  73. turcopolier says:

    Wonderful! On our side of the river we have a lot of left people in Alexandria, but they are different from those who lurk in Washington, DC across the Potomac. The ones over here are a mixture of; yellow dog Democrats, Yankee carpet bagger immigrants who didn’t understand that they really wanted to be in DC or suburban Maryland, blacks, and as yet unassimilated Latino working class folks. This assemblage makes an electable majority, but these are not powerful people (except in municipal affairs). The true Borgist grandees live in Washington or perhaps Bethesda, Maryland. Alexandria, is oft referred to in Richmond as “the people’s republic of…” I would have “refugeed” long ago but I would have had to leave alone and without the dogs. I do promise you though that when the creatures in city hall start removing the names of Confederate soldiers from streets I will do all I can to create a stir in favor of removing all mention of Washington (a major slaveholder) from this fair city. the Chamber of Commerce and the like in the business community will not like that. This is Washington’s home town and his name brings a lot of money here. pl

  74. Kyle Pearson says:

    >>>I’m not aware of Trump taking a strong and leading position AGAINST building a “wall”, as Hillary did supporting TPP.
    You mean the same TPP she did everything she could as Sec. of State to get passed?

  75. Kyle Pearson says:

    >>>I think he can pivot from building a wall to something else that will solve the same problem. If I was him, after securing the Republican nomination I would confer with some people then announce “I’ve decided that it is not the Mexicans that are the problem – but the people hiring them and exploiting them.
    Yes. That is exactly what he will do.
    The idea of a wall down there being a solution to anything is absurd.

  76. Kyle Pearson says:

    >>>Why on earth Cruz picked her with the California primary coming up is beyond me. She has to be one of the most despised women in the state.
    Because Cruz is an ideologue who’s cruised on his family’s covert government connections. He’s got a very tenuous and weak grasp on how the world actually works, and nary a clue about how any person is actually useful or valuable in this world.

  77. Matthew says:

    Robert C: That will change when the labor market changes. My high school janitor was white man. So were others. There is no “work white people won’t do.” It will just cost more.

  78. Kyle Pearson says:

    >>>This is basically the same process that Ibn Khaldun described in connection with North African dynasties.
    And he took it from the Greeks, who extended it beyond dynasties (“Tyrannies”) and on into representative government (“democracies”), oligarchies, and then back again.

  79. Matthew says:

    Walrus: America’s 19th Century Industrial Juggernaut was based on protectionism. (Thank you, Alexander Hamilton.)
    People forget that.

  80. Kyle Pearson says:

    >>>Lots to like, but one major contradiction. You can’t be America First, and then talk about sticking with “friends” when those friends (Saudi Arabia and Israel) are sabotaging our policies.
    The general gist of his remarks, here, indicate a strong confrontation against the Saudis – about whom, during the speech, he never voiced anything but indignation and contempt.
    Reading between the lines – and Trump has been very skillful about this, during his campaign – he leaves a lot of space for how he would handle Israel and the Saudis.

  81. turcopolier says:

    Kyle Pearson
    IMO the Israelis, Saudis, EU, Russia and China are all aware that this was an announcement that approaches and attitudes would be different under Trump. pl

  82. Matthew says:

    Fred: Trump’s comment was very wise, and it is the opposite of “Ugly Americanism.” If more R2P people actually gave a damn about Arab lives–instead of worshipping the idea that every Arab society actually needs a GLBT caucus–we might cause a lot less damage in the ME.
    I’m a liberal. I just don’t believe in liberalism-by-force.

  83. Matthew says:

    Tyler: I like the Trump speech, I just think he needs to jettison the notion that we’ve treated Israel badly. That’s pure nonsense.

  84. Kyle Pearson says:

    (and to Tyler):
    China’s economy is rotting from the foundations, right now, with social justice being the primary worm eating away at the facade.
    And Babak: Japan’s people, as a whole, enjoy a VASTLY superior standard of living to any other people in Asia, and most people in Europe – so this myth about how Japan’s “protectionism” has ruined it is just that: a myth.
    Japan’s youth may not be thrilled with the way things are, but they’re a heckuvalot happier than US / Greater American, African, Eastern European, and Muslim youth across the planet.
    I am always entertained by how armchair economists talk about how Japan’s economy is ‘stagnating’: people are happy, fed, housed, and employed there. The arts, sciences, humanity, and educaiton in Japan remain among the best in the world.
    Opportunities are limited, there, but in no way are the limited the way they are in the US, nor even in many places in Western Europe.

  85. Matthew says:

    Eakens: If Trump wants Iranians to buy American products, we need to remove the sanctions. He was complaining about Iran entering into a deal with Airbus. We can’t have both sanctions and trade.

  86. Matthew says:

    Col: It is a mystery to me why unabashed American Nationalism is even controversial.

  87. Robert C says:

    I hope so.

  88. Dubhaltach says:

    In reply to Babak Makkinejad 27 April 2016 at 07:10 PM
    I think it’s a universal every North European culture has some version of this proverb.
    “Clogs to clogs in three generations”
    I’ve only read the one volume abdridged edition of The Muqaddimah and even that I found it hard going perhaps because I’m missing too many referents.

  89. Babak Makkinejad says:

    All human organizational constructs have inertia – resistance of change – some times for ill some times for good.
    I do not think US is exceptional.
    Russia, China, and US, and likely a number of other states are working on hyper-sonic nuclear weapons to be delivered within 15 minutes all over the world.
    And I ask myself, “What is the point?”
    It is not going to buy strategic stability or security – on the contrary – it will make things that much worse for them and for others.
    Why does the Russian Federation need to deliver a nuclear bomb to Lagos within 15 minutes?
    Why does China require the ability to annihilate Santiago (Chile) within 15 minutes?
    Did the Chileans do something to China?
    Or will do so in the future?
    We really need to all work together and contribute to the realization of the Makkinejad Proposal.
    We all will live better knowing that we have interstellar distances between ourselves and others who are not us.

  90. cynic says:

    Or, as they used to say in the North of England,’Clogs to clogs in three generations’.

  91. bth says:

    Things we might expect to see from Trump in coming months.
    1. Trump to meet Putin. Staged handshakes. Pledge to improve relations. Short but off camera meeting. Internet trolls wait for cue, Putin smiles, they smile and post on blogs wildly. Eastern Europe freaks, German industrialists cheer at the prospect of reduced sanctions, EU military force concept begins to be talked of seriously with fear of declining US Nato commitment. Clinton races to take advantage. Putin uses German publications to dish the dirt on Clinton.
    2. Trump to Israel. Pledge undying love. Bibi asks for more.
    3. Trump to strap Trans Pacific Trade agreement around Obama-Clinton party and light on fire. Trump declares we can negotiated better deals one on one without secret provisions. Congress and Clinton disown TPT.
    4. Trump to offer Puerto Rico statehood for reconciliation of debts much the way the US did with Texas in the 1840s.
    5. Trump proposes oil import tax to protect domestic industry.
    Food for thought as we begin to review scenarios for the next 6 months.

  92. swampy says:

    Shirt sleeves to Shirt sleeves in 3 generations

  93. Matthew says:

    Great quote: “New ideas are rarely popular with those making a living off the old ideas.”
    –Bill Mitchell

  94. Matthew says:

    Kyle: He did say earlier in the campaign he expects Israel and other countries to pay us back. You can imagine how happy that made the Neo-Cons.

  95. Kyle Pearson says:

    His comments about “rebuilding the military” worried me, too – particularly the part about the nuclear arsenal.
    But then, flip it around and he ALSO made pointed comments about building better, “working” relationships with the Russians and Chinese that he pointedly said did not have to be antagonistic or confrontational.
    Each strategy rather overshadows the other, but of the two, the ONE thing i have heard him say from day one of his foreign policy comments is that he is dedicated to building a working relationship with China and Russia.
    Both are battlefield-allies to Iran, these days, and Iran is part of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, as well –
    I’m wondering if his comments about rebuilding the military weren’t aimed at flattering the audience? He did spend a LOT of that speech condemning US militarism over the last 24 years.

  96. Matthew says:

    Tpinlob: South Korea used protectionism to go from being a rural nation to an industrial powerhouse in 50 years. 50 years from now under CAFTA, Central America will still be exporting people and bananas.

  97. Kyle Pearson says:

    >>>If Trump thinks he can negotiate with Putin about putting missiles of any type in Poland and Eastern Europe, which would include a substantial number of troops to man, support,and protect them, it would seem to me that he would not need to walk away from a negotiating table; he would never get to the table.
    A *central* point of Trump’s foreign policy declarations has been to build a mutually respectful, working relationship with Russia.
    The other side of Trump’s foreign policy comments has been that he’s not inclined to give away any bargaining chip.
    I can easily see Trump sitting at a bargaining table and saying “Look, i’ve got these forces that are pushing to put missiles, here. How can we convince them that’s not necessary? Let’s work to make that happen.”

  98. cynic says:

    Does it much matter what Trump, or any other politician says, particularly before election? Remember that, ‘when all is said and done, more is said than done’.
    If elected, Trump might prove to be not very different from the others. He obviously likes to unsettle people a little, to remind them that he is the boss. It would be very amusing to be at the head of the vast Federal bureaucracies, and be able to point to people and say,”You’re fired!” It might even concentrate some minds.
    However, Trump has lived and made money amongst the sleazy people who constitute the political and upper business class, and is comfortable there. He is known to have been friendly with the Clinton’s, so unless she greatly offends him, he would be unlikely to press for Hillary’s prosecution, and could be open to a deal to pardon her, maybe after minimal punishment.
    There would be some change of snouts around the trough, but basically his administration would and probably could not be very different from his rivals’. He might shake things up a little, but afterwords people might realise that just as Obama has disappointed those on the left, so Trump (or another) would disappoint those on the right.

  99. Dubhaltach says:

    In reply to Walrus 27 April 2016 at 06:24 PM
    Protecctionism never works? Name one country that industrialised successfully that did it without protectionism.
    Literally for all of my life I’ve been hearing self-serving nonsense about how free trade agreements and creating organisations such as the WTO was a wonderful idea and how
    FREE trade is wonderful, inevitable, and going to make everyone rich or richer.
    What a load of cr*p.
    So-called “Free” trade has been a disaster. It didn’t work as advertised, and the only reasonable conclusion seeing its effects is that it was never intended to. It’s been wonderful for tiny elites who became rich by destroying the prosperity of their own countries. For the rest of us it’s added to more work, less security, less leisure, poorer education, worse health, and on and on. This has been particularly pronounced in the US. But the process is going on in the EU too.

  100. steve says:

    How do we tell which is which? Does he really intend to put more missiles into Poland, or does he plan to work with the Russians? He is not the first guy running for POTUS who said he would try to work constructively with the Russians and Chinese.
    I like a lot of what he says, and dislike a lot. He is vague on what he would actually do. This strikes me as excellent marketing, which is where his true genius lies. People can read into this speech just about whatever they want. I have no idea what we would really do if elected. Would he just bomb the sh*t out of IS, or would he put 30,000 troops on the ground? Beats me since he keeps changing.
    However, I do love the part about having big meetings with our NATO allies and Asian allies. As we all know big meetings are the way to solve everything. Bring on the powerpoint.

  101. steve says:

    The US pays 22% of Nato’s budget. Germany, France, and the UK pay 13%, 12%, and 11% respectively.

  102. turcopolier says:

    In spite of the boiler plate talk about the wonderful “allies” etc., this was clearly a trumpet sounding announcement of a new era. pl

  103. jonst says:

    I suggest you reread my comments.

  104. Jackrabbit says:

    To Trump ‘America First’ seems to mean economic realism more than foreign policy realism (when you’ve got a hammer …).
    He has previously said that he forms opinions by “watching the shows” (Sunday morning talk shows). This seems to be reflected in gaps and inconsistencies in his speech that follow the contours of the MSM narrative. Some examples:
    >> he talks about ISIS and ‘radical Islamic terr0rism’ but fails to mention KSA or madrasas.
    >> he says military spending is down since 2011 but fails to say WHY (end of Iraq War), and fails to take note of the big increase in ‘black budget’ military expenditures.
    >> he says allies should pay more, but what does that mean? Allies pay tribute? (like Mexico builds the wall.) Would he accept allies (like Europeans) forming security alliances that exclude USA?
    >> he takes OBama’s FP to task but doesn’t address the “lead from behind” policy that emboldens and sanctifies their mischief (Note: that policy is convenient cover for the Borg).
    These points indicate that the major flaws in Trump’s current FP approach: Trumps ego and his political unease (he is not yet won the nomination). I wonder if what he is mainly trying to do in this speech is counter the neocon establishment’s NEVER TRUMP campaign. To the neocons, no one can be ‘serious’ about FP without constantly fretting about Israel’s defense and constantly pushing for higher defense spending.
    With that said, it is difficult to NOT apply Trump’s warning, “we must be unpredictable – starting NOW”, to this very speech. Trump is always negotiating. This signals that a careful reading is in order. And what Trump DOESN’T say is just as important as what he does say. Trump:
    >> doesn’t repeat the neocon ‘exceptionalism’ and ‘indispensable nation’ mantra (key to NWO ambitions);
    >> doesn’t say that he will increase US defense budget (as one would expect form a hawk) – but that allies must pay more.
    Note: Reworked, expanded on thoughts from my comment at MoA:

  105. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Meant only that Japan has been practicing mercantilism for better part of 150 years and they are doing just fine – as you have observed.

  106. eakens says:

    Once he he’s to the table, which will be the biggest challenge, then he will find that he can work with them just fine.
    On another note, I did love how he called Obama the bs that was Obama not being received properly in Cuba and Saudi Arabia.

  107. Babak Makkinejad says:

    The dynasties were tribal and enjoyed what Ibn Khaldun called “Assabiyah” – an amalgam of Tribal Honor and Cohesion; “All for one and one for all.” sort of thing.
    The entrepreneurs infuse their businesses with their own version of personal “Assabiyah” – an amalgam of personal honor and personal dream of how things could be.
    Once that entrepreneur is out of the picture, the inevitable decline will set in.
    There are exceptions – such as IBM or Xerox but those, as far as I can tell, brought men with Assabiyah and bet everything on those new visions of how things ought to be.
    Apple Inc. actually demonstrated this – the useless royalist board got rid of Jobs, Apple went into a death spiral, and another board had to bring the Man-with-Assabiya back.
    SAS and National Instruments are still run by their original founders – once they are gone, the death spiral sets in.

  108. Matthew says:

    Free trade is both good and bad. If you have a job that cannot be outsourced, then “free trade” has been great. We have more products available at cheaper prices.
    If you are out-sourced, then free trade is misery. You see your neighbors getting richer and richer, and you have no money to spend on these cheaper, more plentiful goods.
    Trump has noticed that lots of Americans are in the latter group. These Americans just don’t appear on Morning Joe and don’t give taxi rides to Tom Friedman, so the “economic theorists” are deaf to their cries.

  109. Tyler says:

    You know nothing about me so shut your manpleaser about what I have or haven’t done.
    Americans will do that work when the wages aren’t pennies on the dollar. The purpose of a country isn’t so agribusiness can save itself billions not having to pay actual wages.
    Americans did fine in this country before plutocrats decided to import serf labor. We will continue to do just fine after we deport them all.

  110. Tyler says:

    Eventually you will accept the wall is being built. I hope you have a successful road to acceptance.

  111. Prem says:

    I thought it was a pretty good speech. The man’s instincts seem to be good, but I wish he was less of a clown.
    Is there a more serious politician who advocates similar policies? Pat Buchanon, Rand Paul – why couldn’t they get any traction?
    It’s not as if Trump is spending loads of money. Is his success the result of his reality TV fame?

  112. Tyler says:

    A wall seemed to work really good for the Israelis and Eastern Europeans.
    Meanwhile how’s that “war on poverty” we have thrown so many trillions into working out?

  113. Tyler says:

    Stop pretending it’s a “one or the other” solution. You can do both things equally.

  114. Tyler says:

    I agree China has other extremely serious problems that are papered over and lied about, but to make sweeping statements like “Protectionism never works” is silly in the extreme.

  115. Kyle Pearson says:

    >>>Meant only that Japan has been practicing mercantilism for better part of 150 years and they are doing just fine – as you have observed
    My bad. Please accept my apologies.
    I think you understand my sensitivities, in this regard.

  116. Tyler says:

    His comments seemed to be aimed more at getting the military back to its job of fighting wars vs. A trannies & women jobs program/social Petri dish

  117. Tyler says:

    It’s obvious some people are nitpicking because it’s Trump. If it was Bernie saying this the reaction would have been quite different.

  118. Kyle Pearson says:

    Sorry. I was too quick to stop reading.

  119. Tyler says:

    I think he’s playing the game, as it were. The last thing he needs is Cruz getting the people in Jesusland fired up over statements twisted out of context. Im no Israel lover or philosemite, but thought his words were pretty much boilerplate.

  120. Tyler says:

    If you’re going to crib articles written by hacks from The Federalist you should at least give credit where it’s due.
    Amazingly you can support another nation without being malignantly codependent.

  121. Tyler says:

    Sessions is going to either stay in the Senate or become my boss at DHS, depending on whether or not be wants to retire soon.
    My guess for VP will be Sen. Jim Webb.

  122. Tyler says:

    Because it is a threat to cultural Marxism and globalism, the twin religions of the West

  123. Tyler says:

    Why would Trump give the Democrats two more Senators and bring in a useless territory like PR? Likely he will push for their independence.

  124. Serge says:

    Some things, due to inordinate influence over all spheres of both political and societal life touching on the greater public psyche, simply cannot be touched. I may be taking the following analogy too far but bear with me in making the historical parallels: I would liken the Israel issue to the role of the Iranian Shia clergy during all of the revolutions that took place in the 100 years prior to 1979. A sacred cow, inseparable from any idea of the USA as a nation state, and woe be to anyone that seeks to even suggest a change on this reality.

  125. LeaNder says:

    “But if you don’t deliver the goods, people will eventually catch on.”
    No doubt a basic wisdom’s but you may want to correct this part of the sentence. Maybe? Basically it reminds me of some of the more worthwhile paths in Public Relations along a win-win line of thought, or starting at home …
    “…people won’t eventually catch on?” If you sell them fake goods? Unfortunately there are many, including me occasionally.
    Beyond basic human wisdom, it may also be wishful thinking partly, it feels. It definitively gets a lot more complicated in less tangible realms.
    Strictly I wonder to what extend–notice I am not intending to degrade his business experience–the Art of the Deal, was a clever deal by a publisher looking for a name that would inspire costumers.
    Have I outed myself as strongly attracted by conspiracy theories yet? If not, I do now.

  126. Kyle Pearson says:

    And are you so linguistically facile that you think any of our hosts would answer that question?

  127. Lally says:

    “America First” has the neos churning on full boil; they are likening Trump to Charles Lindbergh. If he thought his pro Israel pablum would shield him from their very collective wrath, he could not be more mistaken.

  128. Bill Herschel says:

    Well, I guess my views aren’t that idiosyncratic after all:
    “Former House Speaker John A. Boehner described Senator Ted Cruz as “Lucifer in the flesh” during a forum at Stanford University on Wednesday and said that he would not vote for the Texas Republican if he is the party’s presidential nominee.
    Mr. Boehner, who resigned from Congress last year, said that he would vote for Donald J. Trump if he is nominated, according to a report in The Stanford Daily. The two men have played golf together over the years, and Mr. Boehner described them as “texting buddies.””

  129. Origin says:

    A fact checking question for the Committee.
    Trump alleges in his speech that ISIS is profiting from the sale of oil. Often discussed on this blog is the bombing of ISIS tankers on their way to Turkey and the sale of ISIS oil through Turkey to Malta, and on to Israel. Other links posted on this site indicate that ISIS is even selling oil to the Syrian regime because the regime has to get oil.
    Today the New York Times alleges in an editorial, “Mr. Trump repeatedly states outright falsehoods, often based on wrong assumptions. He’s been refuted before on his claim that the Islamic State is making “millions of dollars a week” by selling Libyan oil. There is zero evidence of that.”
    Someone is lying. Where is the truth?

  130. Jackrabbit says:

    Things we might expect from Hillary in the coming months:
    1. Pleads to a lesser-charge (misdemeanor) in email scandal, claiming that she would fight it, but doesn’t have the time and wants to get it out of the way before the election.
    2. Appeals to Sanders voters with lip-service, ambiguously worded platform (always a qualification or “but” from neolib “Third-way” Centrists that pander to the left), and a cabinet position for Sanders (Health & Human Services?) the loyal sheepdog.
    Mean-spirited surrogate attacks against ex-Sanders supporters that will not vote for Hillary. (“All your base are belong to us! … For great justice.” – )
    3. Vehement attacks on Trump but little to say about the establishment candidate (who ever that is – Rubio/Rand?).
    Conservative NEVER TRUMP Republican’s that vow that their real aim is to ensure that Hillary is NOT elected, are lying of course.
    4. Hillary doubles down on the Obama god-head, fear-mongering, motherhood (women!) and apple pie-in-the-sky (promises that will be broken).
    Enjoy the show.

  131. rjj says:

    “They never rise up to anything substantial (compared to their previous positions) again.”
    Ibn Khaldun emphasizes that he only writes of what he knows so what he says only applies to Maghreb and maybe some neighbors.
    China. Except Han the dynasties all fall in less than 300 years. Another emerges after an interval of disintegration and high-intensity squabbling. The reinvigoration comes from below; from without; and when from within, by men of action. Founders of Han and Ming were peasant warlords; Yuan and Qing were northern barbarians.
    [sort of … more or less…. wave hands back and forth]

  132. Tyler says:

    A serious politician would have folded after the first salvo.
    It takes a dude with balls so big he sells water with his name on it to really dig in and say “No, f–k you!”

  133. robt willmann says:

    Donald Trump, the salesman, continued in that mode as he made vague statements into which the listener can put his own hopes, desires, opinions, and attitudes. However, he did clearly reject, and even repudiate, policies by neocons and globalists that have been about which the public has been carefully indoctrinated. He said–
    “We have made the Middle East more unstable and chaotic than ever before.”
    “We tore up what institutions they had and then were surprised at what we unleashed.”
    “We left Christians subject to intense persecution and even genocide.”
    And the big one–
    “We will no longer surrender this country, or its people, to the false song of globalism. The nation-state remains the true foundation for happiness and harmony. I am skeptical of international unions that tie us up and bring America down, and will never enter America into any agreement that reduces our ability to control our own affairs.”
    Although a lot of money is made on the foreign interventions and wars, the main goal is to establish through “trade agreements” a superstructure of de facto governance through their secret dispute resolution tribunals and courts that are superior to any State’s legislature and court system. JPMorgan Chase Bank has made a lot of money in Iraq after the invasion, but it is nothing compared to locking countries into a financial and corporate system worldwide run by a relatively few organizations.
    For someone who jabbers a lot about negotiating, Trump really stepped in it and set himself up for trouble when he said, “Our friends and enemies must know that if I draw a line in the sand, I will enforce it.” Restricting yourself that way is asking for it, as the information on which you are establishing a “line in the sand” might be mistaken, or it is stale, or it is misleading as in the devious National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq, or it is the result of a false flag operation, or your position has been “overtaken by events”, as they say in the State Department.
    Nevertheless, the overall theme kicked the necons and globalists hard, as politicians had become cowed down and would not definitively attack the destructive Middle East policy. Moreover, it was a clear assertion of a significant change.
    Unfortunately, he spoke of building up nuclear weapons. Perhaps Richard Burt did not participate in preparing the speech after all. However, he did not endorse the Paul Wolfowitz Doctrine of hegemony and regime change to keep other countries weak. Rather, he seemed to emphasize deterrence.
    Note: Yesterday, former U.S. House Speaker John Boehner spoke at Stanford University and perhaps had a few sips of whiskey before the function, as he called Ted Cruz “Lucifer in the flesh … I have never worked with a more miserable son of a b**ch in my life”. In addition, Boehner has “played golf with Donald Trump for years, and they were “texting buddies”–
    Wow! Cruz was flopping around like a gigged flounder, and then Boehner gives him a gift on a silver platter, so, there is Cruz today on national television, back in his element with newly found strength in his voice, blasting the Washington establishment, blah blah blah.
    Never a dull moment.

  134. turcopolier says:

    Webb? Cross party? pl

  135. LeaNder says:

    appreciated, Pat. Ok: ICBM, I see.
    Concerning the Check Republic, no doubt unnecessary dot connection. A vague memory from much more confused times. 😉

  136. rjj says:

    You are well intended but the more similarity the more petty the differences and the more vicious the conflict. Think academic and family feuds, civil and sectarian wars. Once made up a tale about an H. sap. sap. clone living in an isolated colony. Within a few generations the progeny sorted into groups wearing symbols ↕ ↺ ↻ ↓ ↑, and after many disputes with much argument to justify the rightness of their beliefs, they went to war killing each other off over the one true way to wipe …

  137. Charles Michael says:

    For what it’s worst, being a foreigner (French), I find Donald Trump a great communicator
    and that’s include the part of manipulation inherent to any political discourse, after all the exercice is just “words of the mouth”.
    First step was to stay the same while piping down a little to start building acceptance by the pundits of the GOP.
    Second step is having passed nomination to precise some selected points according to public reactions and polls; maybe even viewing the dispirited Sanders supporters.
    All in all Master Pragmatical Trump has made a Victoria Nuland distribution of cookies wrappedd in many colors.
    Neocons pure borgist won’t buy them, AIPAC? MIT? maybe some
    US citizen, I hope in mass.

  138. mbrenner says:

    Re. Trump’s plan for immigration from Mexico and Central America: it strikes me that the sequencing of the measures he proposes is crucial. If the mass deportation is done before construction of The Wall begins, who will work on building it?

  139. rjj says:

    “I will do all I can to create a stir in favor of removing all mention of Washington …”
    Hold that thought.

  140. Fred says:

    If Tom Friedman were to ever take a taxi ride through Baltimore, Detroit or St. Louis he might learn something. Provided he could get a cab to take him to the neighborhoods he has never seen.

  141. Fred says:

    Looks like China has an anti-dote to the neocon NGO’s. I wonder just how bad China’s economy is going to be in the next 2-3 years:

  142. Jackrabbit says:

    Good comment.
    “… [Trump] clearly reject[s], and even repudiate[s], policies by neocons and globalists that have been about which the public has been carefully indoctrinated”
    I think most Americans only hear: “ME in chaos” and think: “same as always”. The attitude: it was broken when we got there. This ‘chaos’ meme has also been carefully cultivated and always ends with: we must support Israel and our “interests in the region”.
    Trump: “… false song of globalism. The nation-state remains the true foundation for happiness and harmony.”
    Do most Americans understand what the fuss is really all about? Sadly, to most “carefully indoctrinated” Americans FP = ‘security’.
    IMO the neocons will hound Trump until Trump reveals them to be essentially a cult that runs a security racket. This speech was a start in that direction.

  143. Mark Logan says:

    The truth? We The People don’t want it, We want to be pandered to, and Trump’s a master of the art. As a lawyer who deposed him described it: “Slippery as two eels fornicating in a bucket of snot”. He’s going to run the table on the GOP, who abandoned integrity long ago and are about to pay the price.
    I think his mentioning of non-intervention is a good sign, but I worry about his narcissism.

  144. Lars says:

    The odds that Donald Trump will be the next president are very long, so it does not matter too much what he has to say. It would probably be better to focus on helping Hillary Clinton make the best policy choices.
    Looking at the F-35 and still building tanks the Army no longer wants, there is plenty of room for improvement.

  145. turcopolier says:

    You needn’t worry. I will organize people to demand that this “evil man” be eschewed along with all the other “evil men.” pl

  146. turcopolier says:

    Czech Republic? How boring! I prefer Czecho or Mohemia or maybe Boravia. BTW, the café in the Prague opera house makes the best cream of mushroom soup in the world. “Ok: ICBM, I see.” What do you see? That I am a military idiot? Well, if you do not think the present line of Iranian missile development leads to an ICBM you are not paying attention. In the absence of détente with the US they will want to hold a few of our cities at risk to establish a deterrent. pl

  147. Matthew says:

    Fred: But as one wag said, all Tom Friedman’s cab drivers talk like Tom Friedman.

  148. bth says:

    Hillary might pick the mayor of San Antonio as a running mate. Also he is going to need to split the Hispanic vote.

  149. Matthew says:

    Lars: I have this debate with people every day. Please consider the phenomenon of “social permission.” We were told that DT would top out at 25%. Then 30%. He is now getting 50%.
    Moreover, polls at this point are meaningless. Reagan was way behind Carter at this point in the 1980 election cycle.
    Finally, I suspect immigration and trade are lot more important in areas outside of NYC, DC, and Los Angeles, i.e., most of America, than many non-Americans realize. You are fed our media’s view of America. And the media totally misjudged Trump.
    This election is going to be between two very flawed people. And Trump doesn’t have to be better than most hypothetical opponents. He only needs to be better than one: Hillary Clinton.

  150. Wondook says:

    The fifth Moscow Security Conference has just concluded. Speeches here:
    I guess some of Trump’s proposals would be well received, as stabilization of the Middle East was really the most important theme, and ISIL was seen from Indonesia to Russia as the most active threat to all. The second most important theme for the Russians was the military build-up in Eastern Europe. US taxdollars and EU/WB/IMF lifelines at work right up to the Russian border to countries who could otherwise never afford a confrontational stance towards their substantive Russian ethnic minorities. Here, Trump’s announcement that the US “must be prepared to let these countries defend themselves” might ring as if he were indeed ready to take back some of this. Or force these countries to go all the way and expand military spending, maybe on loans with zero-interest rates. In either scenario, I suppose most people on the speakers’ list here, if confronted would mostly seek to roll back NATO membership (they understand how difficult this is), return to regular inspections of conventional arms and use OSCE to manage the various conflicts. They’d respond aggressively to a ballistic missile shield and massive build-up. I am not sure how to read Trump’s alternatives, with only a small window opening for making a deal and otherwise “quickly walk from the table”. A lot of the people at this conference might think the process of reaching a deal with the US will take a lot of time, as they have long (and plausible) lists of reasons why it’s going to be complicated even if both sides are committed to make it work.

  151. turcopolier says:

    Matthew & Lars
    It is not a question of who is marginally better or worse than the other. Trump is going to concentrate on destroying HC as a candidate. He is not going to be very interested in issues. Every day, he and his surrogates, will undermine her as a human, a politician and a policy maker. He has tremendous resources and is steadily amassing a wealth of material on her that can be said over and over again until the voters simply believe that it is true whether or not it is. Politics today is seen as largely a marketing exercise about brand development. He is going to try very hard to destroy her brand as a candidate. There is a lot of baggage that she carries, and it will be used. pl

  152. Gary Orton says:

    To paraphrase economist Dean Baker, it was not free trade or globalization that put American workers in competition with low paid foreign workers in the last decade. China and other developing countries bought massive amounts of U.S. dollars to hold as reserves in this period, causing the dollar to rise and our goods and services to be less competitive.
    It’s not surprising our trade negotiators didn’t press China and the others to raise the value of their currencies. More powerful US interests, such as Walmart and other major retailers have business models based on using low cost imports as a way to undercut competitors. The same applies to manufacturers like GE who profit by outsourcing production to countries with low cost labor. Besides, the US trade negotiators’ agenda is already full, protecting other powerful interests—Pfizer’s patents, Disney and Microsoft’s copyrights, and advancing the desire of Goldman Sachs and Citigroup for more access to China’s markets.

  153. rjj says:

    “… undermine her as a human, a politician and a policy maker.”
    this has been going on for 25 years. she is now too compromised and too weak to be believed or trusted.

  154. Tyler says:

    Shorter Mark:
    “Heh, let me mouth the neocon talking points and view Trump’s speech with the most mendacious of lenses. That’ll show em.”

  155. Tyler says:

    He was a Republican first, and Reagan’s Secretary of the Navy before his Senate run as a Democrat due to his opposition to the Iraq War. I think it’s an easy sell, and he complements Trump well.

  156. Tyler says:

    Look at how hard he is in denial. I bet Lars believes a man wearing a dress is a woman too!

  157. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Then they can leave too and found a new colony.
    And they will not need ever run out of suitable planets – Cosmos is a pretty big place.

  158. charly says:

    Because you don’t only have to sell foreign policy to Americans but also to the rest of the world.

  159. gemini33 says:

    “There is no such thing called a post-Industrial economy”
    Well I guess there is some such thing but it looks like some kind of neo-feudalism, or ends up like some kind of Dickens era scene.
    I can’t, for the life of me, understand why we gave away our manufacturing. I was a manufacturing engineer. I hear people talking as if you can just put up a manufacturing operation like a piece of cake. They have no idea how many iterations it takes to get things right.
    The idea that you can outsource the manufacturing and keep the engineering and R&D jobs here is a joke that only an ignorant fool could believe. The engineering jobs go too. The research and development goes later. My fiance is a research chemist. The labs have been moving to India and China for a decade.
    We gave away a century of knowledge and know how. I don’t think a country can recover from that. The advantages that we had, both earned and unearned, we gave away. You don’t get those back.

  160. SmoothieX12 says:

    “His speech gave much cause for celebration in Moscow”
    Why? Do you think that Russia really cares about the show?

  161. Ulenspiegel says:

    “Americans did fine in this country before plutocrats decided to import serf labor. We will continue to do just fine after we deport them all.”
    Here you confuse very likely correlation with causation. American did fine as long as the USA possessed a strong industry, e.g. after WWII more than 50% of the global industry was located in the USA. With the destrcution of the industry, this started around 1980, you got into trouble. At the same time you had the immigration issue. Solving the latter will imoprove the whole situation but will not solve the underlying first issue.

  162. Peter Reichard says:

    All very true but the formidable Clinton machine has survived everything thrown at it so far, is very devious and will have mainstream media support. No doubt their opposition research is working overtime. You can’t run a casino in New Jersey or build with NYC construction unions without rubbing elbows with the “wise guys” of the Italian Families. God knows what, real or unreal, they will try to make stick to him. This ain’t going to be Eisenhower versus Stevenson but a wild and dirty campaign. I’m almost looking forward to it.

  163. Ken Roberts says:

    SmoothieX12 at 28 April 2016 at 09:21 PM asks if the Russian people cared about Trump’s foreign policy speech. Perhaps not many, but I’m sure some did.
    Here’s the recent “speechifying” event that did get the attention of Russians: 2.5 million questions reportedly. Saker’s transcript seems compressed for an event of 3.5 hours, but there is plenty here that can be parsed for clarity on questions such as likely future actions/reactions re Syria, E. Ukraine, etc.

  164. Tyler says:

    It’s actually both, unless you’re disingenous enough to pretend that 30 million illegal aliens and untold H1Bs & refugees have zero effect on the social safety net and wages.

  165. Croesus says:

    Americans think building a wall to keep their neighbors out is a fine thing and their right, to “protect USA national interests FIRST,” but can’t or won’t make the obvious leap to the concept that other nations have their own borders and their own interests, which the USA encroaches upon at will. Borders for We but not for Thee.
    Trump alluded to the first of these encroachments when he noted that “after the Cold War US foreign policy went off track,” (which I assign to Bush SR.’s Persian Gulf adventure). But Trump did not properly analyze the problems with that “off trackness,” and seems to be committed to pursuing the same wrong track rather than pulling in philosophically; he’s allowing military capability to drive philosophy/policy rather than make military the handmaid of a corrected policy. (OTOH Bush Jr proclaimed a “humble” foreign policy but that was a lie.)
    Trump’s demonization of Iran and adulation of Israel mark him as just as craven as any other Establishment candidate — another Obama, wasting his power and opportunity.

  166. Fred says:

    I noticed the news reports of protests outside the Trump rally in Costa Mesa CA last night. You can see the foreign flags (Mexico) being waved around. It’s going to be a long summer.

  167. turcopolier says:

    Several years ago Mexican national flags were carried in demonstrations in LA. That ended when the Mexican nationalist leaders realized the negative effect of that on US public opinion. Now this has returned? A number of years ago I was at a luncheon in Washington at which the Mexican ambassador to the US was the guest speaker. In his remarks he said that eventually Mexico would take back the US southwest to include California. the audience laughed and he said he was quite serious. When asked how, he said “by inundation.” Now we have demonstrators carrying the Mexican flag beating people leaving a Trump rally in southern California, the enemies of the US here will probably be pleased. pl

  168. alba etie says:

    That would be interesting if Sen Jim Webb would be his pick . Trump is making some good sense here in his first swipe at FP . I do however fully support the Iranian Nuclear Deal. I believe Presumptive Nominee Trump and former Secretary of the Navy Webb do not support the Iranian Deal , that could be a full stop barrier to my voting for the Trump /Webb ticket . And Senator Sessions as your boss at DHS – that would be a departure from former Gov Napititano yes ?

  169. alba etie says:

    … like we give a rat’s b–utt about what the great brain trust from the Brooking’s Echo Chamber thinks about Trump’s foreign policy …

  170. alba etie says:

    Col Lang
    And we deployed two F22’s to Romania this week …( sigh )

  171. alba etie says:

    Col Lang
    Do you still support the Iranian Deal ? I do still think itys a good agreement .

  172. alba etie says:

    have already seen several Clinton /Castro 2016 bumper stickers here in Austin , Texas .

  173. Paul Mooney says:

    R2P means “responsibility to protect.” Is that it? Thanks! I’ve been wondering! 🙂

  174. alba etie says:

    Babak Makkinejad
    National Instruments grew up in Austin Texas – as did Whole Foods Market both Mr Truchard & Mr Mackey would fit your Assabiya ‘one for all all for one ” profile. Both of these companies have kept many of us in Central Texas either employed or as profitable vendors for many years. . We are blessed to have them both .

  175. Mark Logan says:

    I’m not a neo-con.

  176. Chris Chuba says:

    Babak, I’m going to bet that the Russians and Chinese are developing hyper-sonic missiles to keep ahead of our ABM technology and to neutralize our superior naval forces. The Russians have pretty much stated that they consider our ABM development a threat to their security if it can defeat MAD.

  177. Bandolero says:

    The Beaver
    I didn’t know that. Thank you! That Jeff Sessions didn’t sign the “more aid for Israel letter” makes me feel a lot more comfortable with Donald Trump after his pandering to AIPAC.
    Btw, Trump’s foreign policy speech I find very brave and fine – especially given the tight circumstances of pending elections – and it looks to me very much that Jeff Sessions was “the brain” behind it.

  178. Tyler says:

    Fooled me. You sound like George Will or David Harsanyi.

  179. Kyle Pearson says:

    …just as Trump was a (northern) Democrat, first….

  180. Kyle Pearson says:

    People said the same thing about G. W. Bush Jr.
    ‘Nuff said.

  181. Kyle Pearson says:

    Or Rosicrucian Bohemia – now, there was a shining flash-in-the-pan…..

Comments are closed.