JUST the Stolen Documents/Mar-A-Lago/"Judge" Cannon Trial

[Typical Lax Dad]

Don't care. Our troops have been there for 50+ freaking years. I feel like that's long enough.

Pay up, or send them home. For me? I'd rather have our troops home. That solves the payment problem on the spot.

Your view of the world is terribly outdated ... circa 1939 I would say.

We are going to have a substantial number of U.S. forces forward-deployed overseas for the foreseeable future. Not completely by choice, but out of necessity.

Sorry buddy, we ALWAYS have a choice.

Delusions of a new era of military retrenchment and isolationism are as delusional today as they were in 1939. Put down that beer you’re enjoying and join us in a sober discussion of 21st century reality.

Never pegged you as a warmonger. Or as a guy who can't add.

So S. Korea and the rest of the world enjoy our protection, while our own people can't put food on the table, or visit a doctor?

Hard pass. Police aren't free. Pay up, or we leave. Simple.

I don't know what the right answers are for this business -- pull out our military missions in overseas bases; make them pay us more $$ and give more value for having our "police" presence there; or wind down in increments, etc. But I think Doc's depiction of a fan's thinking doesn't do justice to the debate, and maybe vice versa.

There are benefits to having US forces in locations outside of the United States: quicker and more facile responsiveness to contingencies overseas; easier cooperation with other countries on security and intelligence matters; deterrence of adversaries or enemies nearby allies; better training opportunities for US forces to train-up foreign military services as allies; and probably others. The question, it seems to me anyway, is where are these forward bases best maintained and best let go/withdrawn. The clarion call for "payment," which is the President's transactional worldview, doesn't answer this question. And this shouldn't be a GOP v. Democrat discussion.

There is something called protocol and good faith negotiations. I would think the USA would treat allies with more dignity and respect than a transient tenant in a non rent controlled building. Trump’s pay up or we are moving out is not how you deal with partners. I would hate to see a critical supplier tell a client to pay up by 5,000% or find a new source of supply. Particularly with situations in which lead teams are long and supply chains can’t turn on a dime. So much for “partnerships”. In the real world, with Trump’s tariffs, some suppliers have held the line on passing along price increases and have made efficiency gains in other areas. Would have been easy to add a vig to the price and blame it on Trump. Ethical business people don’t operate that way because people have long memories.

[DocBarrister]

Don't care. Our troops have been there for 50+ freaking years. I feel like that's long enough.

Pay up, or send them home. For me? I'd rather have our troops home. That solves the payment problem on the spot.

Your view of the world is terribly outdated ... circa 1939 I would say.

We are going to have a substantial number of U.S. forces forward-deployed overseas for the foreseeable future. Not completely by choice, but out of necessity.

Sorry buddy, we ALWAYS have a choice.

Delusions of a new era of military retrenchment and isolationism are as delusional today as they were in 1939. Put down that beer you’re enjoying and join us in a sober discussion of 21st century reality.

Never pegged you as a warmonger. Or as a guy who can't add.

So S. Korea and the rest of the world enjoy our protection, while our own people can't put food on the table, or visit a doctor?

Hard pass. Police aren't free. Pay up, or we leave. Simple.

I don't know what the right answers are for this business -- pull out our military missions in overseas bases; make them pay us more $$ and give more value for having our "police" presence there; or wind down in increments, etc. But I think Doc's depiction of a fan's thinking doesn't do justice to the debate, and maybe vice versa.

There are benefits to having US forces in locations outside of the United States: quicker and more facile responsiveness to contingencies overseas; easier cooperation with other countries on security and intelligence matters; deterrence of adversaries or enemies nearby allies; better training opportunities for US forces to train-up foreign military services as allies; and probably others. The question, it seems to me anyway, is where are these forward bases best maintained and best let go/withdrawn. The clarion call for "payment," which is the President's transactional worldview, doesn't answer this question. And this shouldn't be a GOP v. Democrat discussion.

There is something called protocol and good faith negotiations. I would think the USA would treat allies with more dignity and respect than a transient tenant in a non rent controlled building. Trump’s pay up or we are moving out is not how you deal with partners. I would hate to see a critical supplier tell a client to put up by 5,000% or find a new source of supply. Particularly with situations in which lead teams are long and supply chains can’t turn on a dime. So much for “partnerships”.

And these are far more than partnerships. South Korea, the Kurds in Syria, and NATO allies of the United States shed the blood of their sons and daughters in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, and many other regions around the world.

These are bonds and alliances forged through blood, lives, and sacrifice. And now we have Trump and neo-isolationists treating these allies like annoying tenants who balk at a sudden massive increase in their rent.

Trump’s treatment of our allies is beyond imprudent and damaging ... it is disgusting, unethical, and immoral. Shame on those who support his mistreatment of our blood allies.

DocBarrister

[ABV 8.3%]

Don't care. Our troops have been there for 50+ freaking years. I feel like that's long enough.

Pay up, or send them home. For me? I'd rather have our troops home. That solves the payment problem on the spot.

Your view of the world is terribly outdated ... circa 1939 I would say.

We are going to have a substantial number of U.S. forces forward-deployed overseas for the foreseeable future. Not completely by choice, but out of necessity.

Sorry buddy, we ALWAYS have a choice.

Delusions of a new era of military retrenchment and isolationism are as delusional today as they were in 1939. Put down that beer you’re enjoying and join us in a sober discussion of 21st century reality.

Never pegged you as a warmonger. Or as a guy who can't add.

So S. Korea and the rest of the world enjoy our protection, while our own people can't put food on the table, or visit a doctor?

Hard pass. Police aren't free. Pay up, or we leave. Simple.

I don't know what the right answers are for this business -- pull out our military missions in overseas bases; make them pay us more $$ and give more value for having our "police" presence there; or wind down in increments, etc. But I think Doc's depiction of a fan's thinking doesn't do justice to the debate, and maybe vice versa.

There are benefits to having US forces in locations outside of the United States: quicker and more facile responsiveness to contingencies overseas; easier cooperation with other countries on security and intelligence matters; deterrence of adversaries or enemies nearby allies; better training opportunities for US forces to train-up foreign military services as allies; and probably others. The question, it seems to me anyway, is where are these forward bases best maintained and best let go/withdrawn. The clarion call for "payment," which is the President's transactional worldview, doesn't answer this question. And this shouldn't be a GOP v. Democrat discussion.

There is something called protocol and good faith negotiations. I would think the USA would treat allies with more dignity and respect than a transient tenant in a non rent controlled building. Trump’s pay up or we are moving out is not how you deal with partners. I would hate to see a critical supplier tell a client to pay up by 5,000% or find a new source of supply. Particularly with situations in which lead teams are long and supply chains can’t turn on a dime. So much for “partnerships”. In the real world, with Trump’s tariffs, some suppliers have held the line on passing along price increases and have made efficiency gains in other areas. Would have been easy to add a vig to the price and blame it on Trump. Ethical business people don’t operate that way because people have long memories.

you guys are debating/discussing something that possibly isn't even factually true.

are you SURE tRump said pay up or we be gone?

are you SURE it went up 5,000% ?

and, if so, what WAS the old S.Korean payment to the USA?

it's called trolling because it catches all the lil fish, write?

[Typical Lax Dad]

Don't care. Our troops have been there for 50+ freaking years. I feel like that's long enough.

Pay up, or send them home. For me? I'd rather have our troops home. That solves the payment problem on the spot.

Your view of the world is terribly outdated ... circa 1939 I would say.

We are going to have a substantial number of U.S. forces forward-deployed overseas for the foreseeable future. Not completely by choice, but out of necessity.

Sorry buddy, we ALWAYS have a choice.

Delusions of a new era of military retrenchment and isolationism are as delusional today as they were in 1939. Put down that beer you’re enjoying and join us in a sober discussion of 21st century reality.

Never pegged you as a warmonger. Or as a guy who can't add.

So S. Korea and the rest of the world enjoy our protection, while our own people can't put food on the table, or visit a doctor?

Hard pass. Police aren't free. Pay up, or we leave. Simple.

I don't know what the right answers are for this business -- pull out our military missions in overseas bases; make them pay us more $$ and give more value for having our "police" presence there; or wind down in increments, etc. But I think Doc's depiction of a fan's thinking doesn't do justice to the debate, and maybe vice versa.

There are benefits to having US forces in locations outside of the United States: quicker and more facile responsiveness to contingencies overseas; easier cooperation with other countries on security and intelligence matters; deterrence of adversaries or enemies nearby allies; better training opportunities for US forces to train-up foreign military services as allies; and probably others. The question, it seems to me anyway, is where are these forward bases best maintained and best let go/withdrawn. The clarion call for "payment," which is the President's transactional worldview, doesn't answer this question. And this shouldn't be a GOP v. Democrat discussion.

There is something called protocol and good faith negotiations. I would think the USA would treat allies with more dignity and respect than a transient tenant in a non rent controlled building. Trump’s pay up or we are moving out is not how you deal with partners. I would hate to see a critical supplier tell a client to pay up by 5,000% or find a new source of supply. Particularly with situations in which lead teams are long and supply chains can’t turn on a dime. So much for “partnerships”. In the real world, with Trump’s tariffs, some suppliers have held the line on passing along price increases and have made efficiency gains in other areas. Would have been easy to add a vig to the price and blame it on Trump. Ethical business people don’t operate that way because people have long memories.

you guys are debating/discussing something that possibly isn't even factually true.

are you SURE tRump said pay up or we be gone?

are you SURE it went up 5,000% ?

and, if so, what WAS the old S.Korean payment to the USA?

it's called trolling because it catches all the lil fish, write?

IF TRUE, his administration giving the thumbs up to make that call is enough for me.

[ABV 8.3%]

IF True !

[Typical Lax Dad]

IF True !

Yep. IF True. You know that it isn’t?

[old salt]

It’s not amusing that Americans seemingly abandon their stalwart allies so readily. I’m sure South Korean leaders had some explaining to do regarding their troops in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. But that’s what allies do, right?

We needed plenty of allies to help us in responding to al Qaeda and Isis. The ready abandonment of these allies is a form of collective narcissism that reflects Trump’s. And deployments like those in South Korea are primarily peacekeeping missions, not “warmongering” as you claim. It’s disturbing you don’t understand the difference.

The United States has significant security, trade, and diplomatic interests in East Asia and all around the world. I’m no big fan of expanding our military budget and deploying troops overseas, but 25,000 peacekeepers in South Korea are a more efficient deployment of forces than deploying more than 500,000 to fight another war on the peninsula against a rogue nuclear power.

Our 28,000 troops in S Korea are anything but peacekeepers. Their motto of "ready to fight tonight" is accurate.
They are cutting edge, heavy, conventional warfare forces -- the very best we have.
As are the forces we rotate through Poland & other E NATO members & still maintain in Germany.
They're a legacy from when they were there to repel an invasion by the Red Army or N Koreans.
They were necessary to hold the line in allied countries still devastated by WW II. That is no longer the case.

S Korea has double the population of N Korea & is orders of magnitude more wealthy.
They simply choose to provide for less of their own defense because they've become accustomed to US troops defending them.

S Korea, Japan & our EU NATO allies are wealthy enough that large numbers of US conventional forces on their soil should no longer be necessary to defend their borders. It makes sense for us to be there, in limited numbers, on bases which can be used to maintain a global ability to project power or to fall in on with reinforcements, but we need not contribute to their basic defense anymore. That does not we mean we should no longer be allies who co-operate & train together, so we can effectively come to each others aid or confront common threats together, effectively, as allies.

We still need a global presence, but with fewer, more agile forces deployed, in support of allies who are willing to shoulder their share of the burden in our mutual defense.

[MDlaxfan76]

IF True !

Yep. IF True. You know that it isn’t?

Well, we know Salty says 'pay up'.

[DocBarrister]

It’s not amusing that Americans seemingly abandon their stalwart allies so readily. I’m sure South Korean leaders had some explaining to do regarding their troops in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. But that’s what allies do, right?

We needed plenty of allies to help us in responding to al Qaeda and Isis. The ready abandonment of these allies is a form of collective narcissism that reflects Trump’s. And deployments like those in South Korea are primarily peacekeeping missions, not “warmongering” as you claim. It’s disturbing you don’t understand the difference.

The United States has significant security, trade, and diplomatic interests in East Asia and all around the world. I’m no big fan of expanding our military budget and deploying troops overseas, but 25,000 peacekeepers in South Korea are a more efficient deployment of forces than deploying more than 500,000 to fight another war on the peninsula against a rogue nuclear power.

Our 28,000 troops in S Korea are anything but peacekeepers. Their motto of "ready to fight tonight" is accurate.
They are cutting edge, heavy, conventional warfare forces -- the very best we have.
As are the forces we rotate through Poland & other E NATO members & still maintain in Germany.
They're a legacy from when they were there to repel an invasion by the Red Army or N Koreans.
They were necessary to hold the line in allied countries still devastated by WW II. That is no longer the case.

S Korea has double the population of N Korea & is orders of magnitude more wealthy.
They simply choose to provide for less of their own defense because they've become accustomed to US troops defending them.

S Korea, Japan & our EU NATO allies are wealthy enough that large numbers of US conventional forces on their soil should no longer be necessary to defend their borders. It makes sense for us to be there, in limited numbers, on bases which can be used to maintain a global ability to project power or to fall in on with reinforcements, but we need not contribute to their basic defense anymore. That does not we mean we should no longer be allies who co-operate & train together, so we can effectively come to each others aid or confront common threats together, effectively, as allies.

We still need a global presence, but with fewer, more agile forces deployed, in support of allies who are willing to shoulder their share of the burden in our mutual defense.

Trump has basically been calling our major allies in Europe, Japan, and South Korea a bunch of deadbeats.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/15/tr ... ops-japan/

Any extra cash we get isn’t worth promoting anti-American sentiments in those nations.

This is more garbage foreign policy from a garbage president enabled by a garbage party. While Trump is constantly berating our allies, he is consistently praising Putin, Russia, Kim Jong Un, North Korea, Syria, Turkey, and Recep Erdogan.

What is the common thread here? All of that promotes Putin and Russia’s interests. Putin has been working hard to make inroads with both Turkey and North Korea.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/10/22/middle ... gle.com%2F

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/24/71670395 ... with-putin

Even Trump’s trade war with China (for which Americans are paying the price) has served to weaken China’s trade relations with the U.S., while strengthening Russia’s influence in China. Just ask a pro-Russia news service:

https://www.rt.com/business/445058-puti ... trade-war/

You’re supporting a Russian agent in the Oval Office, Old Salt, and you have never adequately explained that.

DocBarrister

[old salt]

Yawn.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/ ... are-231405
Obama urges NATO members to pull their weight
11/15/2016
President Barack Obama echoed President-elect Donald Trump on Tuesday, signaling to America’s NATO allies that if Greece can pay its fair share even during an economic crisis, so can the other members of the alliance.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/11/obama-a ... fense.html
Trump is pushing NATO allies to spend more on defense. But so did Obama and Bush
JUL 11 2018
Both former presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama regularly expressed frustration with NATO member countries for not spending more of their budgets on defense.

In 2006, then-president Bush used a NATO summit in Latvia to pressure allies to increase their defense spending at the height of the U.S.-led NATO military campaign in Afghanistan.

Two years later, he used his final NATO summit to do the same thing. “At this summit, I will encourage our European partners to increase their defense investments to support both NATO and EU operations,” Bush said at the opening of the 2008 summit in Bucharest, Romania. “America believes if Europeans invest in their own defense, they will also be stronger and more capable when we deploy together,” he said.

And despite the many differences between Bush’s foreign policy and that of Obama, his successor, one thing the two leaders agreed upon was the need for more defense spending from NATO allies.

For Obama, the issue of NATO defense spending became especially important during his second term, when Russia’s arming of separatists in Ukraine and subsequent annexation of Crimea in 2014 stunned the West.

“If we’ve got collective defense, it means that everybody’s got to chip in, and I have had some concerns about a diminished level of defense spending among some of our partners in NATO. Not all, but many,” Obama said at a press conference in Brussels in March 2014, less than a week after Russia declared that Crimea was now a Russian state.

“The situation in Ukraine reminds us that our freedom isn’t free, and we’ve got to be willing to pay for the assets, the personnel, the training that’s required to make sure that we have a credible NATO force and an effective deterrent force,” Obama said. “So one of the things that I think, medium and long term, we’ll have to examine, is whether everybody is chipping in.”

Additional examples abound of both Bush and Obama talking about NATO spending.

Still, Trump got at least one thing right. “This has gone on for many presidents,” he said. “But no other president brought it up like I bring it up.”

Our allies (& their supporters) need to wake up & come to grips with the reality that a significant & growing % of the US public shares afan's perspective on this. That reality won't go away when Trump passes from the scene.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Yawn.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/ ... are-231405
Obama urges NATO members to pull their weight
11/15/2016
President Barack Obama echoed President-elect Donald Trump on Tuesday, signaling to America’s NATO allies that if Greece can pay its fair share even during an economic crisis, so can the other members of the alliance.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/11/obama-a ... fense.html
Trump is pushing NATO allies to spend more on defense. But so did Obama and Bush
JUL 11 2018
Both former presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama regularly expressed frustration with NATO member countries for not spending more of their budgets on defense.

In 2006, then-president Bush used a NATO summit in Latvia to pressure allies to increase their defense spending at the height of the U.S.-led NATO military campaign in Afghanistan.

Two years later, he used his final NATO summit to do the same thing. “At this summit, I will encourage our European partners to increase their defense investments to support both NATO and EU operations,” Bush said at the opening of the 2008 summit in Bucharest, Romania. “America believes if Europeans invest in their own defense, they will also be stronger and more capable when we deploy together,” he said.

And despite the many differences between Bush’s foreign policy and that of Obama, his successor, one thing the two leaders agreed upon was the need for more defense spending from NATO allies.

For Obama, the issue of NATO defense spending became especially important during his second term, when Russia’s arming of separatists in Ukraine and subsequent annexation of Crimea in 2014 stunned the West.

“If we’ve got collective defense, it means that everybody’s got to chip in, and I have had some concerns about a diminished level of defense spending among some of our partners in NATO. Not all, but many,” Obama said at a press conference in Brussels in March 2014, less than a week after Russia declared that Crimea was now a Russian state.

“The situation in Ukraine reminds us that our freedom isn’t free, and we’ve got to be willing to pay for the assets, the personnel, the training that’s required to make sure that we have a credible NATO force and an effective deterrent force,” Obama said. “So one of the things that I think, medium and long term, we’ll have to examine, is whether everybody is chipping in.”

Additional examples abound of both Bush and Obama talking about NATO spending.

Still, Trump got at least one thing right. “This has gone on for many presidents,” he said. “But no other president brought it up like I bring it up.”

Our allies (& their supporters) need to wake up & come to grips with the reality that a significant & growing % of the US public shares afan's perspective on this. That reality won't go away when Trump passes from the scene.

Could you quantify a “a significant and growing %” and the source of the data?

[old salt]

You can start with the 63 million Trump voters & throw in supporters of Bernie, Tulsi & Rand Paul.

[Typical Lax Dad]

You can start with the 63 million Trump voters & throw in supporters of Bernie, Tulsi & Rand Paul.

So you don't have any facts. You are entitled to an opinion. Your opinion is just as right as the next guy's.

[old salt]

You can start with the 63 million Trump voters & throw in supporters of Bernie, Tulsi & Rand Paul.

So you don't have any facts. You are entitled to an opinion. Your opinion is just as right as the next guy's.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wor ... t-matters/

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na- ... story.html

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation ... 34622.html

https://www.wsj.com/articles/allies-wor ... 1551741006
^^^ if Walter Russell Mead sees it, that's good enough for me.

[Typical Lax Dad]

You can start with the 63 million Trump voters & throw in supporters of Bernie, Tulsi & Rand Paul.

So you don't have any facts. You are entitled to an opinion. Your opinion is just as right as the next guy's.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wor ... t-matters/

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na- ... story.html

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation ... 34622.html

https://www.wsj.com/articles/allies-wor ... 1551741006

Thanks for some of those opinion pieces. Again: Could you quantify “a significant and growing %” and the source of the data? You are the guy that said a "significant & growing %"..Just asking for the reference point.

[MDlaxfan76]

You can start with the 63 million Trump voters & throw in supporters of Bernie, Tulsi & Rand Paul.

So you don't have any facts. You are entitled to an opinion. Your opinion is just as right as the next guy's.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wor ... t-matters/

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na- ... story.html

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation ... 34622.html

https://www.wsj.com/articles/allies-wor ... 1551741006

Thanks for some of those opinion pieces. Again: Could you quantify “a significant and growing %” and the source of the data? You are the guy that said a "significant & growing %"..Just asking for the reference point.

10% growing to 12% would be "significant and growing %" or 20% growing to 22%.
I'd buy either, but nope, those "63 million Trump voters" have not been polled as actually believing this nonsense pre-Trump.

However, where Salty may be correct could be that there's a big chunk of that group which will absolutely believe anything, follow anything, Der Leader says. Straight out of RT.

Pretty amazing ain't it?

[Typical Lax Dad]

You can start with the 63 million Trump voters & throw in supporters of Bernie, Tulsi & Rand Paul.

So you don't have any facts. You are entitled to an opinion. Your opinion is just as right as the next guy's.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wor ... t-matters/

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na- ... story.html

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation ... 34622.html

https://www.wsj.com/articles/allies-wor ... 1551741006

Thanks for some of those opinion pieces. Again: Could you quantify “a significant and growing %” and the source of the data? You are the guy that said a "significant & growing %"..Just asking for the reference point.

10% growing to 12% would be "significant and growing %" or 20% growing to 22%.
I'd buy either, but nope, those "63 million Trump voters" have not been polled as actually believing this nonsense pre-Trump.

However, where Salty may be correct could be that there's a big chunk of that group which will absolutely believe anything, follow anything, Der Leader says. Straight out of RT.

Pretty amazing ain't it?

63 million people may have had 63 million different reasons for voting for Trump. Old Salt’s shilling is meaningless. Could easily say “in (his) Opinion” but he seems to prefer conflating his opinions with facts. A characteristic which made me notice him a three years ago.

[old salt]

You can start with the 63 million Trump voters & throw in supporters of Bernie, Tulsi & Rand Paul.

So you don't have any facts. You are entitled to an opinion. Your opinion is just as right as the next guy's.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wor ... t-matters/

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na- ... story.html

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation ... 34622.html

https://www.wsj.com/articles/allies-wor ... 1551741006

Thanks for some of those opinion pieces. Again: Could you quantify “a significant and growing %” and the source of the data? You are the guy that said a "significant & growing %"..Just asking for the reference point.

10% growing to 12% would be "significant and growing %" or 20% growing to 22%.
I'd buy either, but nope, those "63 million Trump voters" have not been polled as actually believing this nonsense pre-Trump.

However, where Salty may be correct could be that there's a big chunk of that group which will absolutely believe anything, follow anything, Der Leader says. Straight out of RT.

Pretty amazing ain't it?

OK. You don't wish to acknowledge the isolationist drift that comes with growing populism in the US & Europe.
Keep your head in the sand. You were so far sighted in seeing Trump's election.
Did you even bother to consider the polling data in this WP opinion piece ?
That was from 2013. It pointed out how it limited Obama.
Trump was smart enough to recognize it. You're still not.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wor ... t-matters/

Americans appear to be less interested in U.S. foreign engagement that at any other time over the last half-century, judging by a Pew poll that has been measuring U.S. public opinion since 1964. The poll found an all-time low in public support for an active U.S. foreign policy, as well as a growing desire to focus away from the world stage.

The most striking poll result is the share of Americans who believe that "the U.S. should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own." For the first time since Pew began asking in 1964, more than half of respondents say they agree with that statement, a staggeringly high 52 percent. That number has historically ranged between about 20 and 40 percent. The share who said they disagreed with that statement is now only 38 percent.

Another metric found similar record highs in isolationist attitudes. When asked if they agreed that the United States should "not think so much in international terms but concentrate more on our own national problems," 80 percent surveyed said they agreed, an all-time high. Only 16 percent disagreed.

That rising American desire to disengage with the rest of the world isn't just an interesting piece of information – it could have a real impact on the world. U.S. presidents often turn to foreign policy in the second halves of their second terms, especially when the opposition party holds one or both houses of Congress. And there's been much speculation in Washington that President Obama would do the same. But he may find himself challenged by an American public that wants exactly the opposite. These poll numbers reflect American public attitudes that are widely and strongly enough held that they could indirectly steer the White House, thus affecting U.S. foreign policy and perhaps the world itself.

Mead in the WSJ piece is a serious schloar & foreign policy expert.
But you know better than them.

[Typical Lax Dad]

You can start with the 63 million Trump voters & throw in supporters of Bernie, Tulsi & Rand Paul.

So you don't have any facts. You are entitled to an opinion. Your opinion is just as right as the next guy's.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wor ... t-matters/

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na- ... story.html

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation ... 34622.html

https://www.wsj.com/articles/allies-wor ... 1551741006

Thanks for some of those opinion pieces. Again: Could you quantify “a significant and growing %” and the source of the data? You are the guy that said a "significant & growing %"..Just asking for the reference point.

10% growing to 12% would be "significant and growing %" or 20% growing to 22%.
I'd buy either, but nope, those "63 million Trump voters" have not been polled as actually believing this nonsense pre-Trump.

However, where Salty may be correct could be that there's a big chunk of that group which will absolutely believe anything, follow anything, Der Leader says. Straight out of RT.

Pretty amazing ain't it?

OK. You don't wish to acknowledge the isolationist drift that comes with growing populism in the US & Europe.
Keep your head in the sand. You were so far sighted in seeing Trump's election.
Did you even bother to consider the polling data in this opinion piece. ?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wor ... t-matters/

Americans appear to be less interested in U.S. foreign engagement that at any other time over the last half-century, judging by a Pew poll that has been measuring U.S. public opinion since 1964. The poll found an all-time low in public support for an active U.S. foreign policy, as well as a growing desire to focus away from the world stage.

The most striking poll result is the share of Americans who believe that "the U.S. should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own." For the first time since Pew began asking in 1964, more than half of respondents say they agree with that statement, a staggeringly high 52 percent. That number has historically ranged between about 20 and 40 percent. The share who said they disagreed with that statement is now only 38 percent.

Another metric found similar record highs in isolationist attitudes. When asked if they agreed that the United States should "not think so much in international terms but concentrate more on our own national problems," 80 percent surveyed said they agreed, an all-time high. Only 16 percent disagreed.

That rising American desire to disengage with the rest of the world isn't just an interesting piece of information – it could have a real impact on the world. U.S. presidents often turn to foreign policy in the second halves of their second terms, especially when the opposition party holds one or both houses of Congress. And there's been much speculation in Washington that President Obama would do the same. But he may find himself challenged by an American public that wants exactly the opposite. These poll numbers reflect American public attitudes that are widely and strongly enough held that they could indirectly steer the White House, thus affecting U.S. foreign policy and perhaps the world itself.

Mead in the WSJ piece is a serious schloar & foreign policy expert.
But you know better than them.

Sometimes being an expert only means you know more and more about less and less....

[old salt]

You can start with the 63 million Trump voters & throw in supporters of Bernie, Tulsi & Rand Paul.

So you don't have any facts. You are entitled to an opinion. Your opinion is just as right as the next guy's.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wor ... t-matters/

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na- ... story.html

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation ... 34622.html

https://www.wsj.com/articles/allies-wor ... 1551741006

Thanks for some of those opinion pieces. Again: Could you quantify “a significant and growing %” and the source of the data? You are the guy that said a "significant & growing %"..Just asking for the reference point.

10% growing to 12% would be "significant and growing %" or 20% growing to 22%.
I'd buy either, but nope, those "63 million Trump voters" have not been polled as actually believing this nonsense pre-Trump.

However, where Salty may be correct could be that there's a big chunk of that group which will absolutely believe anything, follow anything, Der Leader says. Straight out of RT.

Pretty amazing ain't it?

OK. You don't wish to acknowledge the isolationist drift that comes with growing populism in the US & Europe.
Keep your head in the sand. You were so far sighted in seeing Trump's election.
Did you even bother to consider the polling data in this opinion piece ?
That was from 2013. It pointed out how it limited Obama.
Trump was smart enough to recognize it. You're still not.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wor ... t-matters/

Americans appear to be less interested in U.S. foreign engagement that at any other time over the last half-century, judging by a Pew poll that has been measuring U.S. public opinion since 1964. The poll found an all-time low in public support for an active U.S. foreign policy, as well as a growing desire to focus away from the world stage.

The most striking poll result is the share of Americans who believe that "the U.S. should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own." For the first time since Pew began asking in 1964, more than half of respondents say they agree with that statement, a staggeringly high 52 percent. That number has historically ranged between about 20 and 40 percent. The share who said they disagreed with that statement is now only 38 percent.

Another metric found similar record highs in isolationist attitudes. When asked if they agreed that the United States should "not think so much in international terms but concentrate more on our own national problems," 80 percent surveyed said they agreed, an all-time high. Only 16 percent disagreed.

That rising American desire to disengage with the rest of the world isn't just an interesting piece of information – it could have a real impact on the world. U.S. presidents often turn to foreign policy in the second halves of their second terms, especially when the opposition party holds one or both houses of Congress. And there's been much speculation in Washington that President Obama would do the same. But he may find himself challenged by an American public that wants exactly the opposite. These poll numbers reflect American public attitudes that are widely and strongly enough held that they could indirectly steer the White House, thus affecting U.S. foreign policy and perhaps the world itself.

Mead in the WSJ piece is a serious schloar & foreign policy expert.
But you know better than them.

Sometimes being an expert only means you know more and more about less and less....

What gap do you suppose Mead is referring to ?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/allies-wor ... 1551741006
Allies Worry Over U.S. Public Opinion
The gap between voters and foreign-policy elites shows little sign of closing.
By Walter Russell Mead
March 4, 2019
There is no more important question in world politics than this: Will U.S. public opinion continue to support an active and strategically focused foreign policy? During the Cold War and for 25 years after, there was rarely any doubt. While Americans argued—sometimes bitterly—over the country’s overseas priorities, there was a broad consensus in both parties that sustained engagement was necessary to protect U.S. interests.

Maybe a WSJ subscriber will help out & post an excerpt from that article showing us the basis for Mead's assertion.

Or this :

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na- ... story.html

JAN. 22, 2019
A national intelligence strategy released Tuesday warns that growing isolationism and efforts to weaken Western alliances pose long-term threats to U.S. security and are exacerbating challenges for American intelligence agencies.

The National Intelligence Strategy, which is intended to guide officials for the next four years... warns that U.S. adversaries are seeking to take advantage of ..."increasingly isolationist tendencies in the West"...