2020 Elections - Trump FIRED

[Typical Lax Dad]

The intelligence community BRIEFED Bernie Sanders about Russian election interference but they got a FISA warrant and investigated Trump for the same thing. That seems fair and balanced.

I don't think they're building any towers in Moscow either, much less insisting on changes in the Democrat platform...but, hey, who knows, maybe Bernie will deny that the Russians are trying to do anything on his behalf, it's really Ukraine that's interfering...

Has Bernie said what the 2020 DNC platform should say re. military aid to Ukraine ?

Tell us MDLF76 -- what did the 2016 DNC platform say re. military aid to Ukraine ?
How'd it compare to the RNC platform, both draft & final versions ?

Bernie's staunch support for Ukraine when Russia annexed the Crimea in 2014.

I take it that you're now a Bernie supporter, after all, if Putin supports him, that should be good enough for you, right?

Isolationist, wants to end all 'endless wars', withdraw from ME...perfect for you and Vlad, right?

As I'm not in the least bit a Bernie supporter, I have no difficulty imagining that he'd be softer on Russia than lots of other candidates. On the other hand, we absolutely know that Trump is a disaster and will be only worse in a second term, so if Bernie is the Dem candidate in the general, we'll be back to a binary choice and I'll go Dem for the very first time in more than 4 decades of voting. I'll hold my nose and, if elected, hope (as we did with Trump) that Bernie hires decent folks and that he's frustrated in getting his most extreme policy prescriptions achieved.

Wait a second. I thought you said you'd support anybody who might beat Trump.
Do you think our NATO allies threatened by Russia, like Poland & the Baltics, prefer Bernie to Trump ?

Typical of your perverted logic that you would conclude I'm a Bernie supporter when I challenge you for still clinging to the disproven Ukrainian RNC platform plank as evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.

Apparently you don't even know what the 2016 DNC platform said about military aid to Ukraine.

I would hope that right minded NeoCon GOP Never Trumpers, such as you, are terrified that the (D) front runner does not support the Ukrainians who are defending us from the Rooskies --they'll soon be moving to retake their dacha on the E shore. They've already inserted little green people posing as seasonal workers Downy Oshun.

Yup, make fun of the threat posed by Putin, that's what you do...along with OANN and Trump, you guys think ol'Vlad's a swell fella.

"disproven"??? where was anything actually "disproven'?

I have zero idea whether anyone in Eastern Europe prefers Bernie over Trump, they're both bozos on this topic in my book. It doesn't surprise me, that other than Tulsi, Vlad's choice on the Dem side would be Bernie...after all, he's the least likely to actually beat Trump, and heck, if he does, it's not the end of the world for Vlad given that Bernie's an isolationist, get out of the ME guy too...just like Trump and you.

I just think Trump's worse than just a bozo, he's bought and sold.

But Bernie's views seem to align with yours as well, which is why you say you're ok with Trump and support him at every turn, so why not Bernie?

You won’t get a straight answer.

Why reply to TDS fevered babbling. I've never said anything remotely supportive of Bernie.

I find him amusing. I am enjoying watching the Dems come to grips with the prospect that their front runner is an isolationist & a socialist.

It's really funny watching the humana-humana-humana of never-Trumper (R}'s who've pledged to support & vote for anyone but Trump.

You never let me down.

Salty's answer reveals what we've long suspected, his attraction to Trump and Trumpism isn't actually because of the foreign policy, isolationist alignment he purports to have with Trump. Else Bernie would be attractive to him as well.

Nope, it's much more than that.

Salty's grievances with the "Deep State" and the appeal of right wing authoritarianism....

.. ...yes Tailgunner Joe, your suspicions are quite revealing, ...of you.

Trump's "isolationism" is not really isolationism. It's pragmatism. He has strengthened our military & forced our allies to contribute more to our shared defense. He has increased our force levels confronting & containing Russia. Combat power withdrawning from the ME is being shifted to W Pac to confront & contain China. He has restructured our presence in the ME to be more defensive, rather than offensive. Trump wants to reduce our grinding stalemate combat presence in the ME. Our forces there now are at much lower risk. After 3 years of Trump, what has been the impact of his isolationism, beyond getting our allies to invest more in their own military forces ?

When Bernie says he intends to bring our troops home, he really means it. ...& his energy policy is magical thinking.

After all our debates about "isolationism", you are now saying you are for "pragmatism" and not for isolationism???

good lord, I'll take that as a 'win'.
(Even if it's total BS that Trump has ANY such "pragmatism" policy himself beyond whatever he perceives in his own personal interest).

How about we do the same with "nationalism" while we're at it?

My version of pragmatic isolationism --
(1) exerting constant pressure on our allies to shoulder an increasing share of the burden of our common defense.
(2) leverage our allies to bear more or the cost of our forces forward deployed in their defense.
(3) as our allies accomplish (1) & (2) above, reduce our overseas presence, leaving a cadre of enablers & trainers to sustain our capability to operate jointly with our allies & to rapidly reinforce them in an emergency.
(4) encouraging our allies to assume more of a leadership role in their region. With the US becoming better followers & less assertive leaders in their regional issues.
(5) No more entry into, or expansion of, open ended alliances like NATO, which relieve allies of the responsibility of their own defense.
(6) Keep the sea lanes open & maintain the capability to project power globally.
(7) Give up on the fantasy that we can right every wrong in the world.

American Nationalism is a virtue that has no racial implications.

6&7 are not congruent. Drop 6.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://hac.bard.edu/amor-mundi/the-cul ... 2019-08-27

Keep fighting the good fight....

[a fan]

My version of pragmatic isolationism --
(1) exerting constant pressure on our allies to shoulder an increasing share of the burden of our common defense.
(2) leverage our allies to bear more or the cost of our forces forward deployed in their defense.
(3) as our allies accomplish (1) & (2) above, reduce our overseas presence, leaving a cadre of enablers & trainers to sustain our capability to operate jointly with our allies & to rapidly reinforce them in an emergency.
(4) encouraging our allies to assume more of a leadership role in their region. With the US becoming better followers & less assertive leaders in their regional issues.
(5) No more entry into, or expansion of, open ended alliances like NATO, which relieve allies of the responsibility of their own defense.
(6) Keep the sea lanes open & maintain the capability to project power globally.
(7) Give up on the fantasy that we can right every wrong in the world.

The problem, as you know, is that you can apply this "isolationism" of yours to any point in the last 30 years of our overseas behaviors, regardless of President.

In other words, you can look at the years 1991, 2001, 2005, 2014, or 2019.....and ask "are #'s 1-7 being satisfied?"

And the answer is yes. Well, unless you want to nitpick about adding Montenegro or Albania & Croatia to NATO.


So that's not a very helpful definition.

[old salt]

My version of pragmatic isolationism --
(1) exerting constant pressure on our allies to shoulder an increasing share of the burden of our common defense.
(2) leverage our allies to bear more of the cost of our forces forward deployed in their defense.
(3) as our allies accomplish (1) & (2) above, reduce our overseas presence, leaving a cadre of enablers & trainers to sustain our capability to operate jointly with our allies & to rapidly reinforce them in an emergency.
(4) encouraging our allies to assume more of a leadership role in their region. With the US becoming better followers & less assertive leaders in their regional issues.
(5) No more entry into, or expansion of, open ended alliances like NATO, which relieve allies of the responsibility of their own defense.
(6) Keep the sea lanes open & maintain the capability to project power globally.
(7) Give up on the fantasy that we can right every wrong in the world.

The problem, as you know, is that you can apply this "isolationism" of yours to any point in the last 30 years of our overseas behaviors, regardless of President.

In other words, you can look at the years 1991, 2001, 2005, 2014, or 2019.....and ask "are #'s 1-7 being satisfied?"

And the answer is yes. Well, unless you want to nitpick about adding Montenegro or Albania & Croatia to NATO.


So that's not a very helpful definition.

I suggest you review NATO expansion & NATO member defense spending since 1991

This may help with (1) - (5).
https://www.cato.org/publications/polic ... ry-posture

[a fan]

That's all fine. So this big paradigm shift of yours is simply "don't expand NATO anymore".

Maybe just stick with the phrase "military pragmatism". That fits just fine.

The world "isolationism" doesn't belong anywhere near what you're describing. Not even close.

So sure, drop that word? I'm down.

[old salt]

That's all fine. So this big paradigm shift of yours is simply "don't expand NATO anymore".

Maybe just stick with the phrase "military pragmatism". That fits just fine.

The world "isolationism" doesn't belong anywhere near what you're describing. Not even close.

So sure, drop that word? I'm down.

We've had this discussion before. Using your all-or-nothing logic, isolationism must be a complete withdrawal into Fortress America.
Nothing less will satisfy your absolutist definition. You do not acknowledge nuance.
That's why (even before Trump) I used " isolationist tendencies".

Trump's critics are not hesitant to brand him an isolationist.
That's one reason they're apoplectic with the prospect that Bernie might be his opponent.

imho -- it's fair to say that Trump is an isolationist compared to W, HRC, & the NeoCons. He has so far been limited in his ability to act upon his isolationist instincts because of the situations he inherited & the advise he has received from his national security establishment upon whom he must still rely. He also followed through on his pledge to repair & strengthen the military.

Trump's isolationism is based upon the US acting from a position of strength. Speak loudly & carry a Big Stick.
Bernie's isolationism is based upon withdrawl, demilitarization & soft power. A weak hand within a velvet glove.

[a fan]

We've had this discussion before. Using your all-or-nothing logic, isolationism must be a complete withdrawal into Fortress America.
Nothing less will satisfy your absolutist definition. You do not acknowledge nuance.
That's why (even before Trump) I used " isolationist tendencies".

I'm not giving you an absolutist definition. Not even close. I'm telling you how words work.

Here's the definition: a policy of remaining apart from the affairs or interests of other groups, especially the political affairs of other countries.

At some point, a word doesn't fit. Nothing about that definition fits what Trump is doing. Or the next President, for that matter, and I don't even have to know who the President is. Yep, even Bernie.

It's the wrong word, and doesn't come close to communicating what you're trying to communicate.

imho -- it's fair to say that Trump is an isolationist compared to W, HRC, & the NeoCons. He has so far been limited in his ability to act upon his isolationist instincts because of the situations he inherited & the advise he has received from his national security establishment upon whom he must still rely. He also followed through on his pledge to repair & strengthen the military

Did he hit Syria when they didn't attack the US? Did Trump reinforce NATO positions?

There is nothing isolationist about what he's doing.

Pick a better word that fits. Show me this nuance that you think you have, yet I don't.....

How about "pragmatic globalism"?

[Farfromgeneva]

Ad Hoc?

[old salt]

We've had this discussion before. Using your all-or-nothing logic, isolationism must be a complete withdrawal into Fortress America.

That's why (even before Trump) I used " isolationist tendencies".

I'm not giving you an absolutist definition. Not even close. I'm telling you how words work.

At some point, a word doesn't fit. Nothing about that definition fits what Trump is doing. Or the next President, for that matter, and I don't even have to know who the President is. Yep, even Bernie.

It's the wrong word, and doesn't come close to communicating what you're trying to communicate.

imho -- it's fair to say that Trump is an isolationist compared to W, HRC, & the NeoCons. He has so far been limited in his ability to act upon his isolationist instincts because of the situations he inherited & the advise he has received from his national security establishment upon whom he must still rely. He also followed through on his pledge to repair & strengthen the military

Did he hit Syria when they didn't attack the US? Did Trump reinforce NATO positions?

There is nothing isolationist about what he's doing.

Pick a better word that fits. Show me this nuance that you think you have, yet I don't.....

How about "pragmatic globalism"?

Quibble over words, as you like. Trump's critics call him an isolationist. If so, what does that make Bernie ?
Here's the latest example of (2) :

ULTIMATUM: When Defense Secretary Mark Esper welcomes his South Korean counterpart Kyeong-doo Jeong to the Pentagon this afternoon there will be heartfelt expressions of the unbreakable bonds between the two countries and America's “ironclad” commitment to defending the South against the North.

But underlying the bonhomie is a simmering dispute over the Trump administration’s demands that Korea vastly increase the annual payments to U.S. to reimburse the Pentagon for the cost of maintaining more than 28,000 U.S. troops on South Korea soil — from the current $870 million to roughly $5 billion.

THREAT: In advance of the Jeong's arrival, the Pentagon issued a rare Sunday night statement warning that failure to come to terms by the end of the month on what’s known as the Special Measures Agreement will force the U.S. military to furlough nearly 9,000 South Korean workers currently employed American bases.

TIME IS RUNNING OUT: When Esper visited Seoul late last year, he delivered a blunt message, in line with President Trump’s insistence that U.S. allies pay their fair share of the burden of their own defense, "South Korea,” he said, “is a wealthy country and could and should pay more to offset the cost of defense.”

The current SMA expired Dec. 31, and the Pentagon says it has been using other funds to keep workers on the job, but that will stop April 1. The vast majority of SMA contributions go back into the South Korean economy,” the U.S. argues, “with the money going for salaries of South Korean workers, logistics support, or construction projects.”

“Unless the ROK [Republic of Korea] government agrees to materially increase its support for U.S. forces committed to the defense of the ROK,” the Pentagon warns, “It will be necessary to furlough most [Korean National] employees on April 1, 2020, and suspend many construction and logistics activities.”

CRITICAL SERVICES MAINTAINED: U.S. Forces Korea says it has been conducting “continuous planning to mitigate risk to life, health, safety and minimize impacts to readiness.”

“The Department of Defense will fund critical USFK logistics cost sharing contracts and the salaries of key USFK Korean National employees who provide these services. All other services supported by KN employees will need to be suspended in an orderly and deliberate fashion,” the Sunday night statement said.

Good Monday morning and welcome to Jamie McIntyre’s Daily on Defense, written and compiled by Washington Examiner

[MDlaxfan76]

We've had this discussion before. Using your all-or-nothing logic, isolationism must be a complete withdrawal into Fortress America.
Nothing less will satisfy your absolutist definition. You do not acknowledge nuance.
That's why (even before Trump) I used " isolationist tendencies".

I'm not giving you an absolutist definition. Not even close. I'm telling you how words work.

Here's the definition: a policy of remaining apart from the affairs or interests of other groups, especially the political affairs of other countries.

At some point, a word doesn't fit. Nothing about that definition fits what Trump is doing. Or the next President, for that matter, and I don't even have to know who the President is. Yep, even Bernie.

It's the wrong word, and doesn't come close to communicating what you're trying to communicate.

imho -- it's fair to say that Trump is an isolationist compared to W, HRC, & the NeoCons. He has so far been limited in his ability to act upon his isolationist instincts because of the situations he inherited & the advise he has received from his national security establishment upon whom he must still rely. He also followed through on his pledge to repair & strengthen the military

Did he hit Syria when they didn't attack the US? Did Trump reinforce NATO positions?

There is nothing isolationist about what he's doing.

Pick a better word that fits. Show me this nuance that you think you have, yet I don't.....

How about "pragmatic globalism"?

He also thinks "American Nationalism" is somehow different than all other Nationalism, nothing racial or ethnic or tribal about it...

[kramerica.inc]

We've had this discussion before. Using your all-or-nothing logic, isolationism must be a complete withdrawal into Fortress America.
Nothing less will satisfy your absolutist definition. You do not acknowledge nuance.
That's why (even before Trump) I used " isolationist tendencies".

I'm not giving you an absolutist definition. Not even close. I'm telling you how words work.

Here's the definition: a policy of remaining apart from the affairs or interests of other groups, especially the political affairs of other countries.

At some point, a word doesn't fit. Nothing about that definition fits what Trump is doing. Or the next President, for that matter, and I don't even have to know who the President is. Yep, even Bernie.

It's the wrong word, and doesn't come close to communicating what you're trying to communicate.

imho -- it's fair to say that Trump is an isolationist compared to W, HRC, & the NeoCons. He has so far been limited in his ability to act upon his isolationist instincts because of the situations he inherited & the advise he has received from his national security establishment upon whom he must still rely. He also followed through on his pledge to repair & strengthen the military

Did he hit Syria when they didn't attack the US? Did Trump reinforce NATO positions?

There is nothing isolationist about what he's doing.

Pick a better word that fits. Show me this nuance that you think you have, yet I don't.....

How about "pragmatic globalism"?

He also thinks "American Nationalism" is somehow different than all other Nationalism, nothing racial or ethnic or tribal about it...

Since we're arguing semantics, how do you define "America's" race or ethnicity?

If you define American Nationalism by the race and ethnicity it consists of, American nationalism is most certainly different than nationalism in countries that have any one supermajority race or ethnicity.

[old salt]

We've had this discussion before. Using your all-or-nothing logic, isolationism must be a complete withdrawal into Fortress America.
Nothing less will satisfy your absolutist definition. You do not acknowledge nuance.
That's why (even before Trump) I used " isolationist tendencies".

I'm not giving you an absolutist definition. Not even close. I'm telling you how words work.

Here's the definition: a policy of remaining apart from the affairs or interests of other groups, especially the political affairs of other countries.

At some point, a word doesn't fit. Nothing about that definition fits what Trump is doing. Or the next President, for that matter, and I don't even have to know who the President is. Yep, even Bernie.

It's the wrong word, and doesn't come close to communicating what you're trying to communicate.

imho -- it's fair to say that Trump is an isolationist compared to W, HRC, & the NeoCons. He has so far been limited in his ability to act upon his isolationist instincts because of the situations he inherited & the advise he has received from his national security establishment upon whom he must still rely. He also followed through on his pledge to repair & strengthen the military

Did he hit Syria when they didn't attack the US? Did Trump reinforce NATO positions?

There is nothing isolationist about what he's doing.

Pick a better word that fits. Show me this nuance that you think you have, yet I don't.....

How about "pragmatic globalism"?

He also thinks "American Nationalism" is somehow different than all other Nationalism, nothing racial or ethnic or tribal about it...

Since we're arguing semantics, how do you define "America's" race or ethnicity?

If you define American Nationalism by the race and ethnicity it consists of, American nationalism is most certainly different than nationalism in countries that have any one supermajority race or ethnicity.

All other Nationalism. You know like British or French Nationalism, which are obviously racial, ethnic &/or tribal.

[Typical Lax Dad]

We've had this discussion before. Using your all-or-nothing logic, isolationism must be a complete withdrawal into Fortress America.
Nothing less will satisfy your absolutist definition. You do not acknowledge nuance.
That's why (even before Trump) I used " isolationist tendencies".

I'm not giving you an absolutist definition. Not even close. I'm telling you how words work.

Here's the definition: a policy of remaining apart from the affairs or interests of other groups, especially the political affairs of other countries.

At some point, a word doesn't fit. Nothing about that definition fits what Trump is doing. Or the next President, for that matter, and I don't even have to know who the President is. Yep, even Bernie.

It's the wrong word, and doesn't come close to communicating what you're trying to communicate.

imho -- it's fair to say that Trump is an isolationist compared to W, HRC, & the NeoCons. He has so far been limited in his ability to act upon his isolationist instincts because of the situations he inherited & the advise he has received from his national security establishment upon whom he must still rely. He also followed through on his pledge to repair & strengthen the military

Did he hit Syria when they didn't attack the US? Did Trump reinforce NATO positions?

There is nothing isolationist about what he's doing.

Pick a better word that fits. Show me this nuance that you think you have, yet I don't.....

How about "pragmatic globalism"?

He also thinks "American Nationalism" is somehow different than all other Nationalism, nothing racial or ethnic or tribal about it...

Since we're arguing semantics, how do you define "America's" race or ethnicity?

If you define American Nationalism by the race and ethnicity it consists of, American nationalism is most certainly different than nationalism in countries that have any one supermajority race or ethnicity.

You define it by the laws put in place against those folks. This country was founded on it. That’s just the truth. 3 female black slaves were brought here in 1619, they where raped on the way over. The rest is history. What were the ships that landed in England and France carrying slaves before those countries were founded and when did the government first put in place laws or policies based on race? You can look it up in US History for the North American date.

[a fan]

Quibble over words, as you like. Trump's critics call him an isolationist.

And Rush called Obama a lefty extremist. That make the word right?

Nope.

If so, what does that make Bernie ?

A guy running for President.

Here's the latest example of (2) :

ULTIMATUM: When Defense Secretary Mark Esper welcomes his South Korean counterpart Kyeong-doo Jeong to the Pentagon this afternoon there will be heartfelt expressions of the unbreakable bonds between the two countries and America's “ironclad” commitment to defending the South against the North.

But underlying the bonhomie is a simmering dispute over the Trump administration’s demands that Korea vastly increase the annual payments to U.S. to reimburse the Pentagon for the cost of maintaining more than 28,000 U.S. troops on South Korea soil — from the current $870 million to roughly $5 billion.

THREAT: In advance of the Jeong's arrival, the Pentagon issued a rare Sunday night statement warning that failure to come to terms by the end of the month on what’s known as the Special Measures Agreement will force the U.S. military to furlough nearly 9,000 South Korean workers currently employed American bases.

TIME IS RUNNING OUT: When Esper visited Seoul late last year, he delivered a blunt message, in line with President Trump’s insistence that U.S. allies pay their fair share of the burden of their own defense, "South Korea,” he said, “is a wealthy country and could and should pay more to offset the cost of defense.”

The current SMA expired Dec. 31, and the Pentagon says it has been using other funds to keep workers on the job, but that will stop April 1. The vast majority of SMA contributions go back into the South Korean economy,” the U.S. argues, “with the money going for salaries of South Korean workers, logistics support, or construction projects.”

“Unless the ROK [Republic of Korea] government agrees to materially increase its support for U.S. forces committed to the defense of the ROK,” the Pentagon warns, “It will be necessary to furlough most [Korean National] employees on April 1, 2020, and suspend many construction and logistics activities.”

CRITICAL SERVICES MAINTAINED: U.S. Forces Korea says it has been conducting “continuous planning to mitigate risk to life, health, safety and minimize impacts to readiness.”

“The Department of Defense will fund critical USFK logistics cost sharing contracts and the salaries of key USFK Korean National employees who provide these services. All other services supported by KN employees will need to be suspended in an orderly and deliberate fashion,” the Sunday night statement said.

Good Monday morning and welcome to Jamie McIntyre’s Daily on Defense, written and compiled by Washington Examiner

And Mexico is still supposed to pay for a wall. Call me when something actually happens. Until then? Our troops are still in S Korea, and Military spending is higher than ever....making any "buy in" S Korea does 100% irrelevant to this taxpayer.

[old salt]

We've had this discussion before. Using your all-or-nothing logic, isolationism must be a complete withdrawal into Fortress America.
Nothing less will satisfy your absolutist definition. You do not acknowledge nuance.
That's why (even before Trump) I used " isolationist tendencies".

I'm not giving you an absolutist definition. Not even close. I'm telling you how words work.

Here's the definition: a policy of remaining apart from the affairs or interests of other groups, especially the political affairs of other countries.

At some point, a word doesn't fit. Nothing about that definition fits what Trump is doing. Or the next President, for that matter, and I don't even have to know who the President is. Yep, even Bernie.

It's the wrong word, and doesn't come close to communicating what you're trying to communicate.

imho -- it's fair to say that Trump is an isolationist compared to W, HRC, & the NeoCons. He has so far been limited in his ability to act upon his isolationist instincts because of the situations he inherited & the advise he has received from his national security establishment upon whom he must still rely. He also followed through on his pledge to repair & strengthen the military

Did he hit Syria when they didn't attack the US? Did Trump reinforce NATO positions?

There is nothing isolationist about what he's doing.

Pick a better word that fits. Show me this nuance that you think you have, yet I don't.....

How about "pragmatic globalism"?

He also thinks "American Nationalism" is somehow different than all other Nationalism, nothing racial or ethnic or tribal about it...

Since we're arguing semantics, how do you define "America's" race or ethnicity?

If you define American Nationalism by the race and ethnicity it consists of, American nationalism is most certainly different than nationalism in countries that have any one supermajority race or ethnicity.

You define it by the laws put in place against those folks. This country was founded on it. That’s just the truth. 3 female black slaves were brought here in 1619, they where raped on the way over. The rest is history. What were the ships that landed in England and France carrying slaves before those countries were founded and when did the government first put in place laws or policies based on race? You can look it up in US History for the North American date.

...& that defines American Nationalism 400 years later ? ..
This nation tore itself apart & endured it's bloodiest war -- ending slavery.
I've served alongside too many descendants of slaves to carry your guilt.

[old salt]

afan :
And Mexico is still supposed to pay for a wall. Call me when something actually happens. Until then? Our troops are still in S Korea, and Military spending is higher than ever....making any "buy in" S Korea does 100% irrelevant to this taxpayer.

Do you consider Bernie an isolationist ?

Will you vote for Bernie -- in your primary & in the general if he secures the nomination ?

[Typical Lax Dad]

We've had this discussion before. Using your all-or-nothing logic, isolationism must be a complete withdrawal into Fortress America.
Nothing less will satisfy your absolutist definition. You do not acknowledge nuance.
That's why (even before Trump) I used " isolationist tendencies".

I'm not giving you an absolutist definition. Not even close. I'm telling you how words work.

Here's the definition: a policy of remaining apart from the affairs or interests of other groups, especially the political affairs of other countries.

At some point, a word doesn't fit. Nothing about that definition fits what Trump is doing. Or the next President, for that matter, and I don't even have to know who the President is. Yep, even Bernie.

It's the wrong word, and doesn't come close to communicating what you're trying to communicate.

imho -- it's fair to say that Trump is an isolationist compared to W, HRC, & the NeoCons. He has so far been limited in his ability to act upon his isolationist instincts because of the situations he inherited & the advise he has received from his national security establishment upon whom he must still rely. He also followed through on his pledge to repair & strengthen the military

Did he hit Syria when they didn't attack the US? Did Trump reinforce NATO positions?

There is nothing isolationist about what he's doing.

Pick a better word that fits. Show me this nuance that you think you have, yet I don't.....

How about "pragmatic globalism"?

He also thinks "American Nationalism" is somehow different than all other Nationalism, nothing racial or ethnic or tribal about it...

Since we're arguing semantics, how do you define "America's" race or ethnicity?

If you define American Nationalism by the race and ethnicity it consists of, American nationalism is most certainly different than nationalism in countries that have any one supermajority race or ethnicity.

You define it by the laws put in place against those folks. This country was founded on it. That’s just the truth. 3 female black slaves were brought here in 1619, they where raped on the way over. The rest is history. What were the ships that landed in England and France carrying slaves before those countries were founded and when did the government first put in place laws or policies based on race? You can look it up in US History for the North American date.

...& that defines American Nationalism 400 years later ? ..
This nation tore itself apart & endured it's bloodiest war -- ending slavery.
I've served alongside too many descendants of slaves to carry your guilt.

It defines it, at the very least until say 1972....... Do your homework old bean.

[a fan]

In the primary? Don't know. Let's see who shows up on the ol' ballot. This is the first time I've been able to vote in a Colorado Primary, as I'm an independent, and they just changed the rules allowing me to participate.

In the election? I'd vote for a houseplant over Trump.

That said? I don't like Bernie. I'm a moderate, as I've told you for years now...but you don't believe me. I also know that Bernie would be irrelevant in terms of legislation, unless McConnell loses power.


Do I consider Bernie an isolationist? We've been hearing about ending our game of playing global cop since the day I was born. I don't believe, not for one second, that Bernie would close overseas bases and bring our people home. They're all the same. They get into the situation room, the Military Brass foretells Armageddon if we bring our people home, and every President, regardless of ideology, believes every word their Generals tells them.

So we stay. This will never change, even with Bernie in charge.

[old salt]

In the primary? Don't know. Let's see who shows up on the ol' ballot. This is the first time I've been able to vote in a Colorado Primary, as I'm an independent, and they just changed the rules allowing me to participate.

In the election? I'd vote for a houseplant over Trump.

That said? I don't like Bernie. I'm a moderate, as I've told you for years now...but you don't believe me. I also know that Bernie would be irrelevant in terms of legislation, unless McConnell loses power.


Do I consider Bernie an isolationist? We've been hearing about ending our game of playing global cop since the day I was born. I don't believe, not for one second, that Bernie would close overseas bases and bring our people home. They're all the same. They get into the situation room, the Military Brass foretells Armageddon if we bring our people home, and every President, regardless of ideology, believes every word their Generals tells them.

So we stay. This will never change, even with Bernie in charge.

Agree. So the best we can do is be pragmatic in getting our allies to share the burden & more judicious about when & where we put our forces at risk. ...as in (1) thru (7).

If Bernie wins, I look forward to you telling us you don't like Bernie but you support some of his policies. ..

[tech37]

In the primary? Don't know. Let's see who shows up on the ol' ballot. This is the first time I've been able to vote in a Colorado Primary, as I'm an independent, and they just changed the rules allowing me to participate.

In the election? I'd vote for a houseplant over Trump.

That said? I don't like Bernie. I'm a moderate, as I've told you for years now...but you don't believe me. I also know that Bernie would be irrelevant in terms of legislation, unless McConnell loses power.


Do I consider Bernie an isolationist? We've been hearing about ending our game of playing global cop since the day I was born. I don't believe, not for one second, that Bernie would close overseas bases and bring our people home. They're all the same. They get into the situation room, the Military Brass foretells Armageddon if we bring our people home, and every President, regardless of ideology, believes every word their Generals tells them.

So we stay. This will never change, even with Bernie in charge.

Agree. So the best we can do is be pragmatic in getting our allies to share the burden & more judicious about when & where we put our forces at risk. ...as in (1) thru (7).

If Bernie wins, I look forward to you telling us you don't like Bernie but you support some of his policies. ..

OS with the hat trick