F-ZeroOne wrote:"Speaking to the New York Times, Mr Trump said the US would only come to the aid of allies if they have "fulfilled their obligations to us"."
"He also suggested he would close US bases abroad. "If we decide we have to defend the United States, we can always deploy" from American soil, he said "and it will be a lot less expensive".
The closing of bases abroad started during Clinton Admin and it has continued thru all the others. The Azores Base is being closed right now.
Note: Isn't that kind of thinking in a way similar to the Roman Administration. The occupied nations used to pay taxes to Rome in exchange for protection.
F-ZeroOne wrote:"Speaking to the New York Times, Mr Trump said the US would only come to the aid of allies if they have "fulfilled their obligations to us"."
"He also suggested he would close US bases abroad. "If we decide we have to defend the United States, we can always deploy" from American soil, he said "and it will be a lot less expensive".
The closing of bases abroad started during Clinton Admin and it has continued thru all the others. The Azores Base is being closed right now.
Note: Isn't that kind of thinking in a way similar to the Roman Administration. The occupied nations used to pay taxes to Rome in exchange for protection.
Same way Mafia works, you pay the "protection quota" or "strange accidents" may happen
You really think so? It would have been far worse if Clinton had felt the need to still compete for Sanders’s supporters by e.g. choosing someone on the left of the party. Of course she should not take anything for granted but Sanders has endorsed her, Warren has endorsed her, she has endorsements and support from across the party.
Trump had to choose someone very conservative, as if he was still fighting the primaries. Not that it made much difference – his main rival in the primaries Cruz made all the wrong sorts of headlines for Trump by standing up at the RNC and in primetime pointedly refusing to endorse Trump. On top of the other problems (plagiarism, the delusional platform, the time wasted on demagogic grandstanding) it was a disastrous convention for Trump.
The Democrats have theirs next week and it should go much better. No notable absences, no-one actively hostile like Cruz, a unified and on message party willing to support Clinton wholeheartedly. A week from now I think things will look much better for her, and much worse for Trump.
F-ZeroOne wrote:"Speaking to the New York Times, Mr Trump said the US would only come to the aid of allies if they have "fulfilled their obligations to us"."
"He also suggested he would close US bases abroad. "If we decide we have to defend the United States, we can always deploy" from American soil, he said "and it will be a lot less expensive".
The closing of bases abroad started during Clinton Admin and it has continued thru all the others. The Azores Base is being closed right now.
While thats true, Trump comes across as if he wants to close all of them (think how this looks to Japan for example; US bases there have long been controversial but it would be a move that would very much alarm the Japanese government, particularly given the current tensions in that area) whilst at the same time thinking that this would not make it more difficult to deploy US troops abroad. One of the bases the US is closing in the UK supports aerial refuelling tankers; these will be moved to Germany - not removed from Europe completely.
Yes. The current policy is dynamic and flexible. While they have scaled back in some parts of the world, such as in Western Europe as the Berlin Wall came down, they’ve expanded or are expanding in others such as Eastern Europe. They withdrew from the Philippines but there are now discussions about going back there, due to heightened tensions in the South China Sea. And some bases seem very permanent: Okinawa, Saudi Arabia, Diego Garcia.
Trump though seems keen to tear all that up. The danger is that withdrawing would dramatically reduce America’s influence around the world, as the bases serve a diplomatic purpose as much as a military one. It’s unclear it would save much money as the people would still be employed but at American expense back in the US, while the cost of deploying overseas would rocket without bases to operate out of.
Mostly though it would be an invitation to every thug and crazy to start a fight, knowing America was no longer interested in supporting its allies. The world could easily and quickly get much more unstable and dangerous. One particular danger if America withdraws from Saudi Arabia, which Trump has singled out for criticism. Saudi Arabia is the centre of Islam and the source of much Islamic radicalism. But it has so far escaped serious conflict, in large part due to American presence and support. If the Americans leave who knows what could happen.
Yeah, I saw that. Stewarts probably had that boiling inside him quite awhile now.
A lot of well directed anger at work.
(The early bit they had were Colbert visits Stewart in his remote cabin to pull his old character out of retirement was amusing too, albeit it less substance)
Yesterday we saw an interesting documentary on TV about Trump.
Let's say so "it's quite easy and someway quite logical to understand/see why Trump appeals to a number of people", that is quite clear.
What is really NOT clear to me NOT knowing much of the whole situation is "why Hillary is NOT so much loved and/or why many people believe she's some sort of evil witch".
Now this I really don't know, there are quite some we saw interviewed saying "Yes Trump is maybe not perfect but between Trump and Hillary he's better".
So what's this "perception" about Hillary ? What are we missing here ?
I think there are two parts to it. First she is not very charismatic, unlike her husband or Obama. Even Trump in his own way is more relatable than Clinton (though his negatives vastly outweigh his positives). Second Republicans have spend the last year or more attacking her, over Benghazi and her e-mail server. They’ve used their majorities in Congress to hold hearings, pursued every avenue of investigation. They have turned up nothing, no evidence of wrongdoing, but the sheer weight of coverage has weighed down on her.
I’m hopeful it won’t matter. We now have 3-4 months of a straightforward election campaign, where voters get to compare the candidates. I.e. voters will be able to see for themselves what she is like, free of Republican smear campaigns, and contrast her with Trump, whose shown little inclination to moderate and rein in his extremism since winning the primaries.
Starting with the Democratic Party Convention, which starts today. Compared to last week’s Republican one it should be much better – more unified, better run, better attended - and so give her a boost in the polls to set her up for a successful campaign.
