Quote (ofthevoid @ Nov 1 2019 08:25am)

We’re involved in a multi year trade war that puts ‘America first’.

Not sure what short term gains you’re seeing here considering it’s essentially short term pain to achieve something long term.

Quote (Thor123422 @ 1 Nov 2019 09:13)

Better described as short term gains, not America First. The idea that he does things "america first" is to imply that other administrations dont focus on their own country as a first priority which is dumb as hell and is just buying into the propaganda.

Trump is short sighted, and thats not part if his foreign policy plan, its a fundamental part of him as a person.

Quote (bogie160 @ 1 Nov 2019 14:08)

In a real sense, they didn't.

Freerolling NATO is obviously not in the short or long-term interests of the United States. It was at a time when the USSR was an existential threat to the United States, but the foreign policy establishment often finds it hard to adapt.

Our China policy has been driven by economics concerns for decades. Under Nixon, that made sense, there was a strategic need for rapproachment in order to outflank the USSR. Under Clinton and Bush, there was (misguided) hope that economic growth would inspire economic liberalization. That ship has sailed, and yet there's still intense resistance to a trade war that absolutely must occur.

North Korea is a nuclear armed state. The United States is not in any position to remove Kim from power. Obama ignored North Korea for years, which wasn't the worst option, but Trump should not be condemned for attempting to negotiate with a dangerous regime in a volatile part of the world. Analyzing Kim's purges, he's concerned with Chinese influence over North Korea and has taken concrete action to thwart it. The United States has a unique opportunity to drive a wedge between the DPRK and China.

Iran is the natural Middle Eastern powerhouse. That's just a function of demographics and geography. Assuming we have interests to protect in the region, which (oil), yes, we do, we should look to constrain powerful states and aid their weaker neighbors as a form of balance. That explains 90% of American involvement on behalf of Saudi Arabia. Obama's Iranian policy emboldened and enriched Iran and disheartened our natural allies. And for what? A more active Iran? Trump has restored pressure on Iran, and the end result hasn't be war.

There are small failures here and there; his generally poor temperament and horrible organizational skills means that American policy comes across needlessly muddy. But by and large, it has been a marked improvement on Obama.

Quote (IceMage @ 1 Nov 2019 14:31)

If Pat Buchanan were president he would have a long-term and competent plan to withdraw American military power from the world. Trump is a day trader on almost everything.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Nov 1 2019 12:12pm)

There's simply a big disagreement about what is good for America and what isnt. And just for the record: even before Trump, a lot of people considered the oh-so long-term, strategical course of the foreign policy establishment a failure.

That I used the obvious name for Trump's doctrine doesnt mean that I fully buy into the propaganda, or am not aware it is propaganda in the first place. It's also quite ridiculous to call Trump out for his propaganda when Obama's "change" and "hope" platforms were just as much of a lie; as was GWBush's selling of the Iraq war as something guided by humanitarian concerns and with nation-building in mind. Heck, Obama received a freakin' Nobel Peace Prize for absolutely nothing but rosy words, and a lot of his supporters bought into all the high-spirited speeches that lead absolutely nowhere.



Well said. It must be noted, however, that the China stuff is by far the most important item from the list, and it is very much in doubt whether Trump's approach will be successful in the end. So while I agree that I prefer Trump's foreign policy decisions* over Obama's in the grand scheme of things, the final verdict is definitely still out. A lot will hinge on China and whether or not SA and Iran can be prevented from escalating their "middle eastern cold war" even further.

Quote (thesnipa @ 1 Nov 2019 18:17)

there's a bag of disagreement in what Trump says is good for america and what Trump does, too.

"we all need a tax cut".....75% of america sees virtually no tax cut and loses deductions.

"we need to leave afghanistan"....still there

"we're bringing troops home".....shifts them from Syria to northern Iraq

etc.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Nov 1 2019 12:25pm)

50% of america doesnt pay notable amounts of taxes to begin with. Ending the SALT deductions (which effectively represented a subsidy of rich, urban, 'high tax high benefits' states by poorer, rural, 'low tax low benefits' states) was definitely the right move, even though it hurt the GOP in places like California.

That he wasnt able to bring the troops home yet is not due to him being unwilling to do that, it's due to very complicated and nasty geopolitical realities that he cant escape. Obama also ran on bringing the troops home, and I believe that he genuinely wanted to, but in the end, he couldnt do it either.
Trump is saying A while doing B on a lot of occasions, but I wouldnt hold this specific one against him. You're right in general though, he's awfully inconsistent in his day to day decision-making and messaging.

Quote (thesnipa @ Nov 1 2019 12:17pm)

there's a bag of disagreement in what Trump says is good for america and what Trump does, too.

"we all need a tax cut".....75% of america sees virtually no tax cut

Quote

The Tax Policy Center estimates that 65 percent of people paid less under the law

Quote

The Joint Committee on Taxation found that every income group would see a tax cut on average. So did the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. In fact, in a December 2017 analysis, it found that every income group in every state would pay less on average under the law in 2019.

Quote

So far, tax season seems to be playing out more or less as the experts predicted. H&R Block said last week that two-thirds of returning customers had paid less tax this year than last. Taxes were down, on average, in every state.

“The vast majority of people did get a tax cut,” said Nathan Rigney, an analyst at H&R Block’s Tax Institute. That’s been clear all along, he added, “just now we have real data to back that up.”

Quote (thesnipa @ 1 Nov 2019 18:30)

staying in some places is the right decision. that doesnt change that his messaging is just pandering and not what he follows through on. and in the case of Syria specifically it was moving to Iraq and a lie, as it was sold as bringing troops home.

the only reason that i bring it up at all is that a LARGE percent of Trump voters agree with the pandering rhetoric, then dont accept that they got an apple instead of the orange they agreed with. it makes the problem more complicated when people will stand by someone on instinct rather than seeing if they're following through on promises, all the while touting how Trump is following through on promises. even though in reality he hasn't done much at all. Trump wasn't stumping for conservative justices as a top platform piece, and yet it's far and away his greatest accomplishment. they're basically waving around a participation medal like they took first place.

these types of nuances make political discourse (what's needed to decide what is best for the country) all but impossible. and i dont think whataboutism even applies that much, as Obama generally got a lot done (he just did it through EOs). the whataboutism would be the dem voters backing dems promising to bring Trump down that have failed thusfar, but boy have they tried.

Quote (IgoSoHard @ Nov 1 2019 12:41pm)

Not exactly true








https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/14/business/economy/income-tax-cut.html

I do agree with your main point though, that sometimes, probably most of the time, there’s a difference between what Trump says he’s going to do, & what actually ends up happening.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Nov 1 2019 01:46pm)

The Syria thing was a disaster, no one can deny that.

About your other point: what's really making things complicated is that Trump ran on a platform which resonated very well with a sizable share of the population (push back on globalization, free trade, immigration, foreign wars, SJWs) and that no other major candidate in a generation has offered. A lot of his voters know that if he fails or falls, there's a high chance that they wont find another candidate, Republican or Democrat, who's offering them this specific platform which they like. They see that the Democrats have ostensibly moved in the other direction, and they know that the GOP establishment doesnt like this agenda and would happily use Trump's downfall as an argument to prevent similar candidates from finding success in the future.

To complicate things even further, Democrats have shifted hard left since Trump's election, going even further away from the things Trump's base wants. For a voter who supports the things I listed above, the current Democratic agenda is so horrible that Trump is basically fool proof, he can fail and break promises and lie and be incompetent as much as he wants, he will still easily be the lesser of two evils compared to the 2020 Dem platform.

I think I've said this before: the radicalization of the Democrats since 2016 is the major reason why Trump's presidency hasnt disintegrated yet. If they had pivoted slightly to the center after 2016 (as is the normal reaction after losing an election...), he'd already be toast because all independents and even some Republicans would have broken with him. Hyperpolarization is what got him across the finish line in 2016, and it's what has kept him in the race ever since.