[Winstonm]

 ldrews, on 2017-February-21, 12:48, said:

I am not arguing anything, you are. I simply asked if any of his executive orders is inappropriate. I assert that his executive orders so far are in alignment with his campaign promises. Do you disagree?

You are correct, 1 out of all of his executive orders has been challenged by the lower courts. Apparently he is revising that executive order to be more in compliance.

So, if all else is simply his personal wish list and has no real effect on policy, then you must have no objections to them, right?

Let's make this clear. Here is your list:

Quote

If Trump does not make progress on the following (not necessarily all of them) then I would indeed no longer support him.

Significant reduction in military presence around the world
Renunciation of being the policeman for the world
Significant improvement of opportunities for the middle/working class
Significant improvement in the plight of inner cities
Significant improvement in control of our borders
Significant improvement in our educational system

You have yet to answer the basic question: what has Trump done thus far that makes you think his priorities match yours?

[ldrews]

 hrothgar, on 2017-February-21, 13:14, said:

Shouting fire in a crowded theatre has no real effect on policy either...

I am sorry, I do not understand your message. Could you expand on it, please?

[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2017-February-21, 13:45, said:

I am sorry, I do not understand your message. Could you expand on it, please?

Seriously?

[ldrews]

 hrothgar, on 2017-February-21, 14:20, said:

Seriously?

Seriously.

[mike777]

 Trinidad, on 2017-February-21, 12:46, said:

The comparison in defense spending isn't entirely fair.

The defense spending in Europe goes to ... guess what ... defense.
The defense spending in the USA goes to ... defense, the defense industry, military R&D, not so military R&D, not so military - not R&D, hidden unemployment, education.

When I was doing my PhD in the USA, about 10% of the grad students in my department were there on a DoD project. Part of the staff were fully funded by the DoD. There was little military about those projects, other than that all the research would potentially be useful for defense. But it would also be useful to the automotive industry or to silicon valley, or ... In Europe these projects would have been funded by industry, the economy/energy department or, most likely, the science department. (The US government doesn't even have a science department. The DoE has an Office of Science.)

In a similar way, American students use the ROTC to help pay for college. In Europe, the department of education takes care of that.

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't think the US DoD should stop funding research or education. But these dollars are labeled as "defense money" whereas the equivalent euros are not. If they would also be labeled "defense money", the numbers would look different.

In addition, the USA should keep in mind that the wars in the 21st century that the USA has been fighting (Afghanistan, Iraq) were started by the USA... against the advice from their European NATO partners. Nevertheless, these same NATO partners have been fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq alongside the USA for the good of the alliance. Many European NATO soldiers have died in the Middle East in what were -in essence- American wars. The European NATO countries have not been complaining to the USA for ignoring their opinions and getting them involved in a war. Instead, they have been loyal NATO members and paid the price, even if they could have said no (since these were not article 5 situations).

Currently, NATO members are active in Syria and Iraq (and on various UN missions). As an example: probably it is not known to the American public that a significant portion (I believe 50%) of the Dutch fighter jets are deployed in Syria and Iraq, alongside the US. (The remaining part is taking turns defending the Baltic states and Poland against the Russians.) I can understand that it isn't really visible in the USA if a country about the size of Maryland sends half of their fighter jets to fight alongside Americans, but in The Netherlands, this is felt. How do you think we feel about Trump's demonstration of commitment to NATO?

Just my, slightly different, perspective on these things. Thanks for reading.

Rik

Rik I don't recall making any comparisons, you make the comparisons.

What I do see at least in Germany is a lack of military capability and an unwillness to pay for it, pay for it in terms of will, euros, and trained fighting manpower.
One example is that as of 2014 Germany by some reports had only ten attack helicopters and one submarine.
But please don't take it as my perspective, read Sigmar Gabriel.

As for the Netherlands I expect you could discuss their willingness to spend on increasing their military capability far better than myself.

=================================


As far as your question regarding Trump and Nato my best response to describe Trump would be:

There are no truths; reality is negotiable
(Derrida)

[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2017-February-21, 14:20, said:

Seriously.

"Crying fire in a crowded theatre" is the classic example regarding limits to free speech.

People's freedom of expression is limited because there is a very real danger that individuals would harm themselves and others rushing towards the exit trying to escape a non-existent fire.
On a more general level, this is an example where the very use of language has the potential to have a material impact on the world.

In your original post, you suggested that President's Trump's executive orders had no impact on policy and therefore could be discounted.

I am suggesting that even if these EOs do not directly impact US policies, the way that they are perceived in the world gives them meaning.

[ldrews]

 hrothgar, on 2017-February-21, 14:30, said:

"Crying fire in a crowded theatre" is the classic example regarding limits to free speech.

People's freedom of expression is limited because there is a very real danger that individuals would harm themselves and others rushing towards the exit trying to escape a non-existent fire.
On a more general level, this is an example where the very use of language has the potential to have a material impact on the world.

In your original post, you suggested that President's Trump's executive orders had no impact on policy and therefore could be discounted.

I am suggesting that even if these EOs do not directly impact US policies, the way that they are perceived in the world gives them meaning.

I was not the one that said the EOs do not have an impact, that was Winstonm. I was just using his position to verify that since he feels they have no impact, that then he has no objection to them.

[ldrews]

 Winstonm, on 2017-February-21, 13:26, said:

Let's make this clear. Here is your list:


You have yet to answer the basic question: what has Trump done thus far that makes you think his priorities match yours?

I am sorry, I did not realize you have limited reading/comprehension. If you actually read the EOa you will find several that address reduced regulation (thereby improving small business' ability to start or expand), renegotiating trade agreements (thereby retaining/increasing US jobs), and immigration/border control.

Try reading them again and ask if you have questions.

[mike777]

 ldrews, on 2017-February-21, 14:42, said:

I am sorry, I did not realize you have limited reading/comprehension. If you actually read the EOa you will find several that address reduced regulation (thereby improving small business' ability to start or expand), renegotiating trade agreements (thereby retaining/increasing US jobs), and immigration/border control.

Try reading them again and ask if you have questions.

Regarding Trump and immigration/border control I would hope to see Trump liberally use his pardon power while he talks tough to make his base happy.
Some might call it GRACE or underserved forgiveness. I believe it would make his overall policy more effective, more productive.

[ldrews]

 mike777, on 2017-February-21, 14:58, said:

Regarding Trump and immigration/border control I would hope to see Trump liberally use his pardon power while he talks tough to make his base happy.
Some might call it GRACE or underserved forgiveness. I believe it would make his overall policy more effective, more productive.

I agree. There are better and worse ways to implement policy. I hope we get the better.

[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2017-February-21, 14:37, said:

I was not the one that said the EOs do not have an impact, that was Winstonm. I was just using his position to verify that since he feels they have no impact, that then he has no objection to them.

Damn you're stupid. Let's try this again at an even more basic level.

Winston stated that "All else is simply his personal wish list and has no real effect on policy."

You then created a framing in which the only impact that an EO can have is on policy.

This is clearly not true.

[ldrews]

 hrothgar, on 2017-February-21, 15:55, said:

Damn you're stupid. Let's try this again at an even more basic level.

Winston stated that "All else is simply his personal wish list and has no real effect on policy."

You then created a framing in which the only impact that an EO can have is on policy.

This is clearly not true.

Please spell it out for me. What are the effects of EOs other than on policy?

[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2017-February-21, 16:14, said:

Please spell it out for me. What are the effects of EOs other than on policy?

How well do you think that Trump's Muslim ban is playing in the rest of the world?

(And do you believe that this will have no impact on the how America is perceived)

[ldrews]

 hrothgar, on 2017-February-21, 16:54, said:

How well do you think that Trump's Muslim ban is playing in the rest of the world?

(And do you believe that this will have no impact on the how America is perceived)

Interesting that you ask that. If I remember correctly, the 7 countries on the list of countries on Obama/Trump's list comprise 14% of Muslim majority countries of the world, and only 12% of those countries population. My understanding is that list was comprised of countries with a history of exporting terrorism and also offered no or little ability to vet their citizens. Obviously they are not the only countries that I would put on that list, but then I wasn't asked.

It seems to me to be quite a stretch to call that list a "Muslim" ban given the facts, even if Trump, and many others in the US, harbor a fear of Muslims. Of course, their religious doctrine explicitly calls for the killing of non-Muslims. But I'm sure we shouldn't take them seriously.

I have read (sorry I have no citations) that the populace of most western civilization countries now oppose muslim/refugee immigrations. Certainly I have not heard of China, Russia, Israel, Mexico, etc., offering to accept a significant numbers of such people. Only the US and the European Union seem to be stupid enough to do so. In Europe every country which has admitted a significant number of such people seem to be experiencing a great deal of social upset.

So, how is the ban playing in the rest of the world. Depends on whether you ask the governments or the people.

Will this have an impact on the perception of America. Certainly, but whether to the good or bad remains to be seen.

[mike777]

Correction

In a previous post I suggested that Trump continue to talk tough on immigration/border patrol to keep his base happy.

I think he would be far more successful with his policy if he talked less, much less in public. Those who strongly support his policy will get bored/fatigued and stop listening, those who actively seek him to fail as President will just attack whatever he says.

Have Trump limit his public speeches, talks to one a month, more people may pay attention and be open to listen. Perhaps, just perhaps he might then be more careful with his choice of words and facts.

[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2017-February-21, 17:12, said:

I have read (sorry I have no citations) that the populace of most western civilization countries now oppose muslim/refugee immigrations. Certainly I have not heard of China, Russia, Israel, Mexico, etc., offering to accept a significant numbers of such people. Only the US and the European Union seem to be stupid enough to do so. In Europe every country which has admitted a significant number of such people seem to be experiencing a great deal of social upset.

So, how is the ban playing in the rest of the world. Depends on whether you ask the governments or the people.

Will this have an impact on the perception of America. Certainly, but whether to the good or bad remains to be seen.

I find it telling that you don't consider the impact within Muslim countries themselves...

[ldrews]

 hrothgar, on 2017-February-21, 17:35, said:

I find it telling that you don't consider the impact within Muslim countries themselves...

Please, enlighten me. What would be the impact within Muslim countries themselves?

[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2017-February-21, 17:50, said:

Please, enlighten me. What would be the impact within Muslim countries themselves?

I'm sorry, you are too stupid to waste time conversing with...

You can't follow a basic discussion and have blind spots the size of an elephant.

[ldrews]

 hrothgar, on 2017-February-21, 18:33, said:

I'm sorry, you are too stupid to waste time conversing with...

You can't follow a basic discussion and have blind spots the size of an elephant.

OK, you don't know. Why didn't you just say so? I could tell because you immediately reached for insults. The refuge of the ignorant.

[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2017-February-21, 19:18, said:

OK, you don't know. Why didn't you just say so? I could tell because you immediately reached for insults. The refuge of the ignorant.

No, ***** for brains, it is merely me showing how little respect I have for you...

For the record, I have an undergraduate degree in Middle Eastern history from one of the top schools in the US.
I have travelled extensively in Turkey, Morocco, and - most recently - spent a couple weeks in Iran.
The issue is not that I am ignorant, but rather, its just not worth the time to try to have a discussion with you.

You don't make any kind of valuable contribution or provide any kind of intellectual stimulation.
You just recite right wing talking points that you barely seem to understand.