Skip to main content

Election 2016: Trump flaw 4: Foreign “policy” craziness #NeverTrump

This is part of a series of posts on Election 2016.

If Donald Trump has a foreign policy, it seems to be to praise our enemies, insults our allies, and move us closer to nuclear war. This is all done while showing startling lapses in knowledge.

Let’s start with praising our enemies. Obviously Vladimir Putin leads this list.  “I’ve already said he is very much a leader. This man has very strong control over his country.”  This has rightly drawn criticism from people such as (implicit) Paul Ryan  and (explicit) Lindsey Graham.

What was worse – much worse – was when Trump suggested that Russian hackers of the DNC should find information about the “missing” emails from Hillary Clinton’s server. Asking a foreign government involved in spying in our nation to help you in an election is, to state it mildly, unprecedented. In the same speech, he suggested that we should consider accepting Russia’s claims of annexing the Crimean Peninsula. That stance on Russia is bizarre, especially coming from the normally bellicose GOP, but really coming from anyone that has any knowledge of current international politics, or historical international politics, or … well, basically anyone.

But Putin isn’t the only dictator Trump has praised. He said some remarks concerning Kim Jong Un that, were the about business, would seem to be laudatory (“[H]e goes in, he takes over, he’s the boss… It’sincredible”).  He re-tweeted a quote of Italian dictator Mussolini. He had business deals with Gadhafi  and said (but later recanted) that it was 100% certain Libya would have been better off with the dictator still in power.  And, of course, he thought Saddam Hussein was a great killer of terrorists. Hussein “didn’t read them therights.” That is, again, bizarre.

And what about insulting allies? Mexico.  Japan.  NATO.  And, though this isn’t insulting, what about neutrality with respect to Israel?  This behavior scares our allies, with good reason.
    
What is that good reason? Trump thinks more countries need nukes, and it was reported that he doesn’t understand why we can’t use them.  He didn’t appear to understand that Russia had invaded Crimea: “He’s not going into Ukraine, OK, just so you understand. He’s not going into Ukraine, all right?” When questioned about whether he was already there, he responded, “OK –well, he’s there in a certain way.”  Yes, and that certain way is already in Crimea, which is part of Ukraine. It appears that he didn’t know, but maybe he did and was saying that his policy is that Crimea isn’t part of Ukraine. Scary either way, and much worse than Johnson’s Aleppo moment.

The rest of the world doesn’t know what is going on.  They call Trump “the man who made us miss the Bush clan” and talk about how he shows “the dark side of American Populism.” It is basically summed up this way: “God help us all if Trump wins.”

Trump’s crazy foreign policy is completely unrecognizable by any party or expert, and it seems designed to push us toward an unstable period in the world. He wonders why we can’t drop nukes, and, if he wins, by law nobody can stop him from doing so. It’s horrifyingly scary, and it is by far one of the reasons that I cannot understand people choosing to vote for him.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How to read the Bill of Rights

The legal rights in the Bill of Rights didn't exist until the 20th century Social media has been abuzz with the Bill of Rights, and in particular the 1st Amendment, recently. Many posts, explicitly or implicitly, trace the Bill of Rights to the Founders.  That's wrong and leads to a poor understanding. A proper reading of the Constitution and the law reveals that, while the text was written then, these rights did not apply even on paper to the states until 1868, in fact until the middle of the 20th century, or even into the 21st century for the 2nd Amendment. “It is a Constitution we are expounding.” The Constitution sets out principles and goals, structures and limitations, and we must never forget that . It is law -- the highest law of the land , in fact -- but it is not code , which is detailed and often attempts to be exhaustively complete and explicit. The Constitution was written to provide a framework of balances by a group of  flawed aristocrats trying to rebel from ano
Post a Comment
Read more

Election 2016: Why Hillary’s conflated scandals are unconvincing #ImWithHer

This is part of a series of posts on Election 2016 . To be honest, I’ve stopped listening to most of the scandals about Hillary. That’s not because I think she is perfect or would never do something scandalous, but because the noise of obvious crap, generated over 3 decades, has made me jaded about spending any time investigating stories by people who think Killary is a fascist Communist. To be clear, I think she is an imperfect human. We don’t subject most politicians to the kind of scrutiny that Hillary has faced – how much do we know about George and Laura’s relationship, or his struggles with addiction, for instance?  But she isn’t perfect.  I think she is a bit paranoid and has a tendency to “circle the wagons” at the slightest sign of problems, and I think she is a fierce competitor that swings first and asks questions later. Like all successful politicians, she is willing to spin the truth to meet her needs, and she comes across, in crowd settings, as a bit fake.  Unlik
Post a Comment
Read more

Astrologists and racists, or this is where the party ends

How are astrologists like racists?  There could be a funny one-liner response to that, I'm sure, but the answer I'm looking for is simple:  They are lazy thinkers. I'm going to spend a few paragraphs here doing a cursory job of debunking both viewpoints and showing why they are lazy, but I'm not going to go into much detail, as that's not the real point I want to make. Astrology:  Really?  You honestly think that 1/12th of the human race will have the same general set of experiences based on when they were born?  (This is assuming the "normal" Zodiac, though a similar thing can be said about, for instance, the Chinese Zodiac, and this is ignoring the silliness added in by distinguishing between "Sun signs" and "moon signs.")  Do you realize that these signs were based on people believing some quite inaccurate things about the stars (like virtually anything besides that they are gaseous giants that are light years away)?  Did you kno
2 comments
Read more