BluHorseShu said:
policywonk98 said:
BluHorseShu said:
4 said:
You clearly have no idea who and what Reagan was
He was for America but absolutely was not an isolationist. I'd say most here aren't old enough to have lived through the Reagan era. He was the greatest president still to date. To quote Reagan on his D-Day speech "We've learned that isolationism never was and never will be an acceptable response to tyrannical governments with an expansionist intent.".
Sounds like he'd be supporting both Ukraine and Israel without hesitation.
A false narrative of the NeverTrump crowd. Trump doctrine is peace through strength and a default of offering American goods and services to Americans first and the rest of the world second for the benefit of Americans. Leveraging our great products and services to get the best deals of goods and services we can use from other countries for our benefit.
Reagan would not disagree with this. Neocons standing on Reagan's legacy disagree with this because a balanced approach to projecting military power is not as enriching to them as projecting power nonstop.
This is coming from a person that cut his teeth in the Washington policy shop created by Jeane Kirkpatrick. One of the primary architects of the Reagan Doctrine. This policy shop also included Jack Kemp and Bill Bennett. The only person still alive from the three is Bill Bennett, who is not a NeverTrumper and has moral clarity to see that Trump is not evil just because he wants policies that always place Americans interests first.
Trump doctrine is not isolationism. This is a boogeyman charge that has no merit when you examine what Trump says and what he did or tried to do for four years.
There is no way for America to grow bigger economically by isolationism. We grow by being major producers of goods and services. Trump did not get rich from developing properties just in NYC. He expanded to other states and countries, well beyond anything his father ever did. In what universe does anyone think that a man that became a billionaire taking his brand worldwide would want to stop the American economy at the shores of America. How has this argument been given any serious consideration? It makes zero sense. He surrounds himself and has always surrounding himself with people that believe America is the best and the rest of the world can benefit from what we can produce. Again, how is this isolationist?
Well bully then. However, I think you should let his most ardent supporters know this because that's absolutely not the message being perceived. Then again, I think if you went into this level of detail about the nuance of his foreign policy, they would likely either be confused or glaze over quickly. Do you know how many posts here have stated precisely that we should not involve ourselves in places like Ukraine? Are you telling me Reagan would not be supporting Ukraine, because 'teeth cutting' or not, that's not the Reagan I remember. Funny you mention Bill Bennett, the one who whole heartedly supported the Iraq War, and then lost millions due to a gambling addiction after preaching the importance of family values and personal responsibility. He did, however, chide never Trumpers for just acting morally superior for thinking Trump was not a good person. Sounds like he was just projecting.
Progressive talking points, fun.
I can assure you, you will lose this one. I would tap out and perhaps go find books to read about political hatchet jobs and how they aren't actually based in facts.
Legal gambling is…..legal. If someone that makes 100k a year loses 10k gambling and another person that makes 20 million a year loses 1 million gambling. Who lost more of their money?
In his career Bennett never advocated to make gambling illegal nor did he ever make a claim that gambling was immoral. He does not believe it is. He does not think dancing, drinking or smoking is immoral either. He's Catholic not Baptist. He is a very very rich man. Why should anyone care what he does legally with his extra wealth?
Okay now that taking point is out of the way.
In terms of foreign policy. Where in Trump Doctrine do you find isolationism and not peace through strength? Projecting power in the world comes in many forms. It certainly doesn't have to include billions of dollars in American money and military hardware with no discernible exit strategy or…you know….strategy to win. Funding quagmires was not a Reagan doctrine. He ramped up military spending and projected might at a moment when Communism was trying to expand rapidly around the world. Reagan, Thatcher, and JPII all knew that if the west coild exert so much strength and power so quickly with the U.S. at the forefront, they could collapse communism and that's exactly what happened. But they didn't do it with the desire to keep fleecing the American taxpayer by playing world police forever and in all circumstances, that was not the Reagan Doctrine. That is not the Trump Doctrine. It became the doctrine of some Neoconservatives that figured out they could make alot of money with endless wars.
Here is Kirkpatrick after the Soviet Union fell and communism fell in Eastern Europe and East Germany.
Keep in mind. This is one of the chief intellectual architects of neoconservatism and the American Cold War to defeat the Soviets.
Quote:
Most of the international military obligations that we assumed were once important are now outdated. Our alliances should be alliances of equals, with equal risks, burdens and responsibilities
Does this sounds familiar at all to you? He's not as eloquent as Kirkpatrick, but to his credit few people ever were. This is Trumps argument about Europe and the funding of NATO!
Yes, we build a military that nobody else can defeat and nobody else would want to go against. But you don't fund everyone military forever. That's not the doctrine. That has never been the doctrine.
