In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On May 10 2016 02:39 Biff The Understudy wrote: [quote] You are going to vote for this lunatic?
Wow. Just wow.
Better him than Hillary, who is demonstrably incompetent.
Oh man... I don't even know what to say.
Well, someone (not Churchill) said that the best argument against democracy is a five minutes conversation with the average voter; I guess you are a pretty good illustration. That you can think that someone who didn't bother to utter anything true, that made one burlesque proposal after another, that fuels hatred and bigotry and whose main attributes are to be a vulgar, boastful, and a complete bully is a better choice than one of America's most experienced politician, I am pretty fucking sad for you.
The saddest thing is that you seem like a reasonably well informed person. And that's depressing; to see resentful and completely ignorant people voting for him is bad enough; but that someone able to have more or less a rational discussion is backing up this clown is just beyond me.
Anyway. Germans voted for Hitler, Italians Mussolini, French people are voting for Le Pen and English for Farage. If people decide to go full stupid, there is little to do. I guess that's the price to pay for democracy.
Seriously, voting is a responsibility. Get back to planet earth.
Why I (and many others) support Trump over Hillary really isn't that hard to understand. Those who purport to not understand it are either idiots or liars. Your post is fairly emblematic of the latter possibility. Trump's platform, such as it is, far more closely aligns with my personal views than Hillary's. For that reason alone, I'd rather roll the dice with Trump than vote for Hillary. Second, and to the extent that Trump has personality/character problems, Hillary has a whole freight train's worth of her own, which you are more than happy to overlook. She's a liar. She's crooked. Most importantly, she has a demonstrable record of failure from Hillarycare through her time as Secretary of State (which was particularly bad). It's not like people who support Trump are passing on some prodigy. Hillary is a middling politician at best.
Finally, I want Trump elected as a gigantic "fuck you" to the current political and cultural establishments, which are both rotten. I've railed plenty against the GOP recently, so I'll pass on elaborating there. On the cultural side, I deeply resent the current oppression that the left has imposed on political and societal discourse. We presently can't even have intelligent discussions about things like immigration policy for fear of getting pulled over by the PC police. Trump has already reopened lines of discourse, and his election will cement those gains and accelerate the acceptance of true free speech once again. That, in and of itself, is worth a ride on the Trump train.
Seriously, some of you leftists around here need to spend a good solid five minutes with your heads out of your asses and take the time to actually understand the opposing point of view rather than post drivel such as Biff's above. The level of discourse around here from most of you is fucking sad.
I don't think we have a whole lot to discuss, you and me, so I will politely leave that discussion.
I didn't have you pegged as one of those left wingers who is afflicted with retrograde illiberalism. Looks like I was wrong.
Someone politely tells him that they don’t see a lot to be gained by the discussion, XDaunt calls them stupid. As I expected.
You may want to try reading what I wrote again. I did not call him stupid. My complaint is very different.
I am sure I could perform a full breakdown of the specific wording and use of the world “afflicted” as opposed to “subscriber” or “believer” to prove that you meant to imply he has limited mental capacity due his views.
But I don’t have time for that and sometimes it’s nice to cut through the passive aggressive nerd bullshit and just call a spade and spade.
Then let's cut through it: Do you really think it reasonable to denigrate someone and then "politely" excuse yourself from the discussion when your unsubstantiated claims meets reality? Because that was exactly what Biff did. He even managed to equate voting for Trump/Le Pen/Fahrad with Hitler and Mussolini and yet you still consider him polite?
People voting for Trump is not an argument against democracy - it is an argument against the current politicians and their deafness towards a large segment of the population. If you want people to vote for someone else, listen to their concerns instead of trying to silence them (for the vast majority their concerns aren't founded in neither bigotry nor racism), and then give them a better alternative.
It's almost as if the average politician forgot about the "representative" part in a representative democracy.
I present to the denizens of the TL US Politics Thread a poster who gets it. Bravo.
And for those who are confused, let me state it clearly: the point of this thread shouldn't be circlejerk affirmation or the dishonest belittling of those with opposing points of view. The point is open and honest discourse, allowing for differences of opinion. Far too many posters around here miss this point.
On May 10 2016 09:06 Adreme wrote: I tend to not trust sources that come from twitter especially when they link me a video without the true sources of it so I can not actually tell context especially in a foreign language where words mean multiple things.
The NYT and HuPo were the other 2 sources. Both very liberal. And the question stands.. is Trump wrong on this issue? Was he wrong? All the information I have leads me to believe the answer is no. But the standard talking point is.. "oh that racist Donald Trump".
On May 10 2016 08:10 oneofthem wrote: just a reminder that daunt is critical of Obama on loss of u.s. influence while supporting trump who would ditch global concerns in favor of protectionism at home while calling 'enforce your promises' Hillary incompetent. this is just another example of being wrong on the facts and substituting feels and partisanship for understanding
I don't think that the two positions are inconsistent at all. First, I don't think that Trump's foreign policy necessarily entails diminished US influence. To the contrary, his revised foreign policy and willingness to engage countries like Russia and China with American interests in mind could result in a net expansion of American influence relative to where it is today. Execution matters. Obama's idealistic foreign policy looked good on paper (though not to all), but turned out to be a disaster in practice. Saying that Trump will be a failure on the global stage is a bit presumptuous. Second, you can't look at Trump's foreign policy in a vacuum. It has to be considered in conjunction with the current state of affairs. For example, there are many people who damn Obama's handling of Middle Eastern policy and, specifically, Iraq, but who do not advocate a return to Bush-style intervention because the facts on the ground have so drastically changed over the past 7 years. For these reasons, I'm willing to entertain Trump's shift and strategy -- particularly in light of some of the very valid points that he raises.
this buddy system with authoritarian systems will be a capitulation of the u.s. as a nation built upon respect for individual rights and freedoms. think very carefully about a world in which power rules absolute and influence is traded without mind of principles.
On May 10 2016 08:29 RenSC2 wrote: Do you not understand the difference between a rape victim and a rapist? According to the article, 80% of the women have been raped while trying to get to the United States. That doesn't mean that 80% of them are rapists or anywhere close to it.
Agreed that it doesn't mean 80% of them are rapists. But the statement still holds true. Donald: "Somebody's doing the raping!" And 100% of them are criminals by default of breaking the law to enter the country. Mexico clearly doesn't have its shit in order. And a large wall is a very reasonable solution to slow down the process. Even if it slows it down by 30-60%. The Obama lie on "the most deportations ever" is disproven by himself.
So, is Donald Trump wrong on the border? Yes or no? Was his statement about illegals fair? It seemed pretty fair.
The statement doesn't hold true because the wrong stat is being used. "Somebody's doing it" doesn't tell us anything. It's not a war of statistics vs leftist emotions. It's statistics being used very wrongly... even to tell a lie.
Now. I am not saying Mexicans illegal immigrants are not more likely to rape, nor am I saying they are less likely or just as likely as the average American citizen. We simply do not know based on the statistic being thrown out and it is pure demagoguery to use that stat in that way. When and where were they raped and by whom? In Mexico? While trying to cross the border? In America? By Mexicans in Mexico? By other illegals crossing the border or in America? Or perhaps by the smugglers? (This, to me, is the likeliest scenario- very vulnerable position, very easy to exploit, but smugglers are not the same as the smuggled (illegal immigrants.)) By Americans in America? None of this explained by 4 in 5 are raped and then "well, somebody is doing the raping." The conclusion does not follow, and until new information comes out we are left with a big question mark as to who did it.
On May 10 2016 02:41 xDaunt wrote: [quote] Better him than Hillary, who is demonstrably incompetent.
Oh man... I don't even know what to say.
Well, someone (not Churchill) said that the best argument against democracy is a five minutes conversation with the average voter; I guess you are a pretty good illustration. That you can think that someone who didn't bother to utter anything true, that made one burlesque proposal after another, that fuels hatred and bigotry and whose main attributes are to be a vulgar, boastful, and a complete bully is a better choice than one of America's most experienced politician, I am pretty fucking sad for you.
The saddest thing is that you seem like a reasonably well informed person. And that's depressing; to see resentful and completely ignorant people voting for him is bad enough; but that someone able to have more or less a rational discussion is backing up this clown is just beyond me.
Anyway. Germans voted for Hitler, Italians Mussolini, French people are voting for Le Pen and English for Farage. If people decide to go full stupid, there is little to do. I guess that's the price to pay for democracy.
Seriously, voting is a responsibility. Get back to planet earth.
Why I (and many others) support Trump over Hillary really isn't that hard to understand. Those who purport to not understand it are either idiots or liars. Your post is fairly emblematic of the latter possibility. Trump's platform, such as it is, far more closely aligns with my personal views than Hillary's. For that reason alone, I'd rather roll the dice with Trump than vote for Hillary. Second, and to the extent that Trump has personality/character problems, Hillary has a whole freight train's worth of her own, which you are more than happy to overlook. She's a liar. She's crooked. Most importantly, she has a demonstrable record of failure from Hillarycare through her time as Secretary of State (which was particularly bad). It's not like people who support Trump are passing on some prodigy. Hillary is a middling politician at best.
Finally, I want Trump elected as a gigantic "fuck you" to the current political and cultural establishments, which are both rotten. I've railed plenty against the GOP recently, so I'll pass on elaborating there. On the cultural side, I deeply resent the current oppression that the left has imposed on political and societal discourse. We presently can't even have intelligent discussions about things like immigration policy for fear of getting pulled over by the PC police. Trump has already reopened lines of discourse, and his election will cement those gains and accelerate the acceptance of true free speech once again. That, in and of itself, is worth a ride on the Trump train.
Seriously, some of you leftists around here need to spend a good solid five minutes with your heads out of your asses and take the time to actually understand the opposing point of view rather than post drivel such as Biff's above. The level of discourse around here from most of you is fucking sad.
I don't think we have a whole lot to discuss, you and me, so I will politely leave that discussion.
I didn't have you pegged as one of those left wingers who is afflicted with retrograde illiberalism. Looks like I was wrong.
Someone politely tells him that they don’t see a lot to be gained by the discussion, XDaunt calls them stupid. As I expected.
You may want to try reading what I wrote again. I did not call him stupid. My complaint is very different.
I am sure I could perform a full breakdown of the specific wording and use of the world “afflicted” as opposed to “subscriber” or “believer” to prove that you meant to imply he has limited mental capacity due his views.
But I don’t have time for that and sometimes it’s nice to cut through the passive aggressive nerd bullshit and just call a spade and spade.
Then let's cut through it: Do you really think it reasonable to denigrate someone and then "politely" excuse yourself from the discussion when your unsubstantiated claims meets reality? Because that was exactly what Biff did. He even managed to equate voting for Trump/Le Pen/Fahrad with Hitler and Mussolini and yet you still consider him polite?
People voting for Trump is not an argument against democracy - it is an argument against the current politicians and their deafness towards a large segment of the population. If you want people to vote for someone else, listen to their concerns instead of trying to silence them (for the vast majority their concerns aren't founded in neither bigotry nor racism), and then give them a better alternative.
It's almost as if the average politician forgot about the "representative" part in a representative democracy.
And for those who are confused, let me state it clearly: the point of this thread shouldn't be circlejerk affirmation or the dishonest belittling of those with opposing points of view.
On May 09 2016 10:34 Introvert wrote: Only reason the dumb pledge was necessary was because of Trump's whining about being "treated fairly." And he was still hedging even after he signed it. Trump deserves no loyalty, and I assume most of the other 60% of GOP primary voters would agree. Paul Ryan isn't obliged to go along with every asinine comment Trump makes. Especially considering that his own district went against Trump like 2:1.
I have my own issues with Ryan, but his comments were 100% correct and appropriate. If Trump says he doesn't want certain people, then they are released to go elsewhere.
Majorities of republican voters are supporting Trump and his message. If the GOP isn't going to support Trump, then they will be flaunting the will of their voters. I don't think that such action will end well for the GOP.
He didn't have a majority in a single state until New York, if memory serves. He has like 40% of the popular vote. He's deeply polarizing, and chances are, quite toxic. So imo they are smart to stay away. Remember he only got close because of the various front-runner biased state rules.
He hasn't a majority of the vote in the early states because he has been running against a large field. Once the field shrank down to four candidate, he was reliably scoring majorities in the states that he ran. So yes, I think that it is fair to say that a majority of republicans are supporting him now. They may not find him to be their perfect candidate (myself included), but they are going to back him as the best option nonetheless.
You are going to vote for this lunatic?
Wow. Just wow.
Better him than Hillary, who is demonstrably incompetent.
Oh man... I don't even know what to say.
Well, someone (not Churchill) said that the best argument against democracy is a five minutes conversation with the average voter; I guess you are a pretty good illustration. That you can think that someone who didn't bother to utter anything true, that made one burlesque proposal after another, that fuels hatred and bigotry and whose main attributes are to be a vulgar, boastful, and a complete bully is a better choice than one of America's most experienced politician, I am pretty fucking sad for you.
The saddest thing is that you seem like a reasonably well informed person. And that's depressing; to see resentful and completely ignorant people voting for him is bad enough; but that someone able to have more or less a rational discussion is backing up this clown is just beyond me.
Anyway. Germans voted for Hitler, Italians Mussolini, French people are voting for Le Pen and English for Farage. If people decide to go full stupid, there is little to do. I guess that's the price to pay for democracy.
Seriously, voting is a responsibility. Get back to planet earth.
Seriously, some of you leftists around here need to spend a good solid five minutes with your heads out of your asses
On May 10 2016 03:10 Biff The Understudy wrote: [quote] Oh man... I don't even know what to say.
Well, someone (not Churchill) said that the best argument against democracy is a five minutes conversation with the average voter; I guess you are a pretty good illustration. That you can think that someone who didn't bother to utter anything true, that made one burlesque proposal after another, that fuels hatred and bigotry and whose main attributes are to be a vulgar, boastful, and a complete bully is a better choice than one of America's most experienced politician, I am pretty fucking sad for you.
The saddest thing is that you seem like a reasonably well informed person. And that's depressing; to see resentful and completely ignorant people voting for him is bad enough; but that someone able to have more or less a rational discussion is backing up this clown is just beyond me.
Anyway. Germans voted for Hitler, Italians Mussolini, French people are voting for Le Pen and English for Farage. If people decide to go full stupid, there is little to do. I guess that's the price to pay for democracy.
Seriously, voting is a responsibility. Get back to planet earth.
Why I (and many others) support Trump over Hillary really isn't that hard to understand. Those who purport to not understand it are either idiots or liars. Your post is fairly emblematic of the latter possibility. Trump's platform, such as it is, far more closely aligns with my personal views than Hillary's. For that reason alone, I'd rather roll the dice with Trump than vote for Hillary. Second, and to the extent that Trump has personality/character problems, Hillary has a whole freight train's worth of her own, which you are more than happy to overlook. She's a liar. She's crooked. Most importantly, she has a demonstrable record of failure from Hillarycare through her time as Secretary of State (which was particularly bad). It's not like people who support Trump are passing on some prodigy. Hillary is a middling politician at best.
Finally, I want Trump elected as a gigantic "fuck you" to the current political and cultural establishments, which are both rotten. I've railed plenty against the GOP recently, so I'll pass on elaborating there. On the cultural side, I deeply resent the current oppression that the left has imposed on political and societal discourse. We presently can't even have intelligent discussions about things like immigration policy for fear of getting pulled over by the PC police. Trump has already reopened lines of discourse, and his election will cement those gains and accelerate the acceptance of true free speech once again. That, in and of itself, is worth a ride on the Trump train.
Seriously, some of you leftists around here need to spend a good solid five minutes with your heads out of your asses and take the time to actually understand the opposing point of view rather than post drivel such as Biff's above. The level of discourse around here from most of you is fucking sad.
I don't think we have a whole lot to discuss, you and me, so I will politely leave that discussion.
I didn't have you pegged as one of those left wingers who is afflicted with retrograde illiberalism. Looks like I was wrong.
Someone politely tells him that they don’t see a lot to be gained by the discussion, XDaunt calls them stupid. As I expected.
You may want to try reading what I wrote again. I did not call him stupid. My complaint is very different.
I am sure I could perform a full breakdown of the specific wording and use of the world “afflicted” as opposed to “subscriber” or “believer” to prove that you meant to imply he has limited mental capacity due his views.
But I don’t have time for that and sometimes it’s nice to cut through the passive aggressive nerd bullshit and just call a spade and spade.
Then let's cut through it: Do you really think it reasonable to denigrate someone and then "politely" excuse yourself from the discussion when your unsubstantiated claims meets reality? Because that was exactly what Biff did. He even managed to equate voting for Trump/Le Pen/Fahrad with Hitler and Mussolini and yet you still consider him polite?
People voting for Trump is not an argument against democracy - it is an argument against the current politicians and their deafness towards a large segment of the population. If you want people to vote for someone else, listen to their concerns instead of trying to silence them (for the vast majority their concerns aren't founded in neither bigotry nor racism), and then give them a better alternative.
It's almost as if the average politician forgot about the "representative" part in a representative democracy.
And for those who are confused, let me state it clearly: the point of this thread shouldn't be circlejerk affirmation or the dishonest belittling of those with opposing points of view.
On May 09 2016 10:34 Introvert wrote: Only reason the dumb pledge was necessary was because of Trump's whining about being "treated fairly." And he was still hedging even after he signed it. Trump deserves no loyalty, and I assume most of the other 60% of GOP primary voters would agree. Paul Ryan isn't obliged to go along with every asinine comment Trump makes. Especially considering that his own district went against Trump like 2:1.
I have my own issues with Ryan, but his comments were 100% correct and appropriate. If Trump says he doesn't want certain people, then they are released to go elsewhere.
Majorities of republican voters are supporting Trump and his message. If the GOP isn't going to support Trump, then they will be flaunting the will of their voters. I don't think that such action will end well for the GOP.
He didn't have a majority in a single state until New York, if memory serves. He has like 40% of the popular vote. He's deeply polarizing, and chances are, quite toxic. So imo they are smart to stay away. Remember he only got close because of the various front-runner biased state rules.
He hasn't a majority of the vote in the early states because he has been running against a large field. Once the field shrank down to four candidate, he was reliably scoring majorities in the states that he ran. So yes, I think that it is fair to say that a majority of republicans are supporting him now. They may not find him to be their perfect candidate (myself included), but they are going to back him as the best option nonetheless.
You are going to vote for this lunatic?
Wow. Just wow.
Better him than Hillary, who is demonstrably incompetent.
Oh man... I don't even know what to say.
Well, someone (not Churchill) said that the best argument against democracy is a five minutes conversation with the average voter; I guess you are a pretty good illustration. That you can think that someone who didn't bother to utter anything true, that made one burlesque proposal after another, that fuels hatred and bigotry and whose main attributes are to be a vulgar, boastful, and a complete bully is a better choice than one of America's most experienced politician, I am pretty fucking sad for you.
The saddest thing is that you seem like a reasonably well informed person. And that's depressing; to see resentful and completely ignorant people voting for him is bad enough; but that someone able to have more or less a rational discussion is backing up this clown is just beyond me.
Anyway. Germans voted for Hitler, Italians Mussolini, French people are voting for Le Pen and English for Farage. If people decide to go full stupid, there is little to do. I guess that's the price to pay for democracy.
Seriously, voting is a responsibility. Get back to planet earth.
Seriously, some of you leftists around here need to spend a good solid five minutes with your heads out of your asses
Context matters, but honest discourse has never been your strong suit.
On May 10 2016 08:10 oneofthem wrote: just a reminder that daunt is critical of Obama on loss of u.s. influence while supporting trump who would ditch global concerns in favor of protectionism at home while calling 'enforce your promises' Hillary incompetent. this is just another example of being wrong on the facts and substituting feels and partisanship for understanding
I don't think that the two positions are inconsistent at all. First, I don't think that Trump's foreign policy necessarily entails diminished US influence. To the contrary, his revised foreign policy and willingness to engage countries like Russia and China with American interests in mind could result in a net expansion of American influence relative to where it is today. Execution matters. Obama's idealistic foreign policy looked good on paper (though not to all), but turned out to be a disaster in practice. Saying that Trump will be a failure on the global stage is a bit presumptuous. Second, you can't look at Trump's foreign policy in a vacuum. It has to be considered in conjunction with the current state of affairs. For example, there are many people who damn Obama's handling of Middle Eastern policy and, specifically, Iraq, but who do not advocate a return to Bush-style intervention because the facts on the ground have so drastically changed over the past 7 years. For these reasons, I'm willing to entertain Trump's shift and strategy -- particularly in light of some of the very valid points that he raises.
this buddy system with authoritarian systems will be a capitulation of the u.s. as a nation built upon respect for individual rights and freedoms. think very carefully about a world in which power rules absolute and influence is traded without mind of principles.
And where exactly has the status quo of foreign policy operation gotten us? I don't know about you, but I have seen enough to conclude that the US is incapable of forcing democratic change in other countries without the expenditure of resources that we simply are unwilling to spend. Besides, let's be honest: the US has been retardedly hypocritical in its promotion of democracy anyway. We might as well go whole hog in pursuit of our national interest as opposed to maintaining the current, thinly veiled facade.
On May 10 2016 09:52 Plansix wrote: I am torn between glass houses, pots and kettles.
Let's be clear: I stay nice until provoked. Biff's post crossed numerous lines of decency, and I let him have it. Everyone here should know my MO by now.
On May 10 2016 08:10 oneofthem wrote: just a reminder that daunt is critical of Obama on loss of u.s. influence while supporting trump who would ditch global concerns in favor of protectionism at home while calling 'enforce your promises' Hillary incompetent. this is just another example of being wrong on the facts and substituting feels and partisanship for understanding
I don't think that the two positions are inconsistent at all. First, I don't think that Trump's foreign policy necessarily entails diminished US influence. To the contrary, his revised foreign policy and willingness to engage countries like Russia and China with American interests in mind could result in a net expansion of American influence relative to where it is today. Execution matters. Obama's idealistic foreign policy looked good on paper (though not to all), but turned out to be a disaster in practice. Saying that Trump will be a failure on the global stage is a bit presumptuous. Second, you can't look at Trump's foreign policy in a vacuum. It has to be considered in conjunction with the current state of affairs. For example, there are many people who damn Obama's handling of Middle Eastern policy and, specifically, Iraq, but who do not advocate a return to Bush-style intervention because the facts on the ground have so drastically changed over the past 7 years. For these reasons, I'm willing to entertain Trump's shift and strategy -- particularly in light of some of the very valid points that he raises.
this buddy system with authoritarian systems will be a capitulation of the u.s. as a nation built upon respect for individual rights and freedoms. think very carefully about a world in which power rules absolute and influence is traded without mind of principles.
And where exactly has the status quo of foreign policy operation gotten us? I don't know about you, but I have seen enough to conclude that the US is incapable of forcing democratic change in other countries without the expenditure of resources that we simply are unwilling to spend. Besides, let's be honest: the US has been retardedly hypocritical in its promotion of democracy anyway. We might as well go whole hog in pursuit of our national interest as opposed to maintaining the current, thinly veiled facade.
it's not about democratic change but setting the rules on international law, trade, internet, ip etc. there is the fact of existing treaty obligations to our allies in asia and europe. if you want to bail on the small fries and buddy up with china/russia, that kind of 'influence' necessarily entails a drastic change in values as expressed by u.s. foreign policy. you would be severely damaging the credibility and standing of the u.s.
On May 10 2016 09:52 Plansix wrote: I am torn between glass houses, pots and kettles.
Let's be clear: I stay nice until provoked. Biff's post crossed numerous lines of decency, and I let him have it. Everyone here should know my MO by now.
Hey, stop pontificating on what constitutes racism and who does not does not understand the GOP and I'll cut down on the hyperbole.
On May 10 2016 08:10 oneofthem wrote: just a reminder that daunt is critical of Obama on loss of u.s. influence while supporting trump who would ditch global concerns in favor of protectionism at home while calling 'enforce your promises' Hillary incompetent. this is just another example of being wrong on the facts and substituting feels and partisanship for understanding
I don't think that the two positions are inconsistent at all. First, I don't think that Trump's foreign policy necessarily entails diminished US influence. To the contrary, his revised foreign policy and willingness to engage countries like Russia and China with American interests in mind could result in a net expansion of American influence relative to where it is today. Execution matters. Obama's idealistic foreign policy looked good on paper (though not to all), but turned out to be a disaster in practice. Saying that Trump will be a failure on the global stage is a bit presumptuous. Second, you can't look at Trump's foreign policy in a vacuum. It has to be considered in conjunction with the current state of affairs. For example, there are many people who damn Obama's handling of Middle Eastern policy and, specifically, Iraq, but who do not advocate a return to Bush-style intervention because the facts on the ground have so drastically changed over the past 7 years. For these reasons, I'm willing to entertain Trump's shift and strategy -- particularly in light of some of the very valid points that he raises.
this buddy system with authoritarian systems will be a capitulation of the u.s. as a nation built upon respect for individual rights and freedoms. think very carefully about a world in which power rules absolute and influence is traded without mind of principles.
And where exactly has the status quo of foreign policy operation gotten us? I don't know about you, but I have seen enough to conclude that the US is incapable of forcing democratic change in other countries without the expenditure of resources that we simply are unwilling to spend. Besides, let's be honest: the US has been retardedly hypocritical in its promotion of democracy anyway. We might as well go whole hog in pursuit of our national interest as opposed to maintaining the current, thinly veiled facade.
it's not about democratic change but setting the rules on international law, trade, internet, ip etc. there is the fact of existing treaty obligations to our allies in asia and europe. if you want to bail on the small fries and buddy up with china/russia, that kind of 'influence' necessarily entails a drastic change in values as expressed by u.s. foreign policy. you would be severely damaging the credibility and standing of the u.s.
Engaging China and Russia on points of mutual interest (such as ISIS) is not necessarily mutually exclusive of maintaining ties and treaty obligations with other countries. Trump certainly hasn't suggested that he would abandon Europe for the sake of cozying up with Putin. He has merely stated that he wants to engage countries like Russia to see what common ground is available to work on, which makes perfect sense when pursuing an "America first" strategy. If there's no deal to be struck, then I'm sure that a President Trump would move in a different direction.
On May 10 2016 09:30 Falling wrote: The conclusion does not follow, and until new information comes out we are left with a big question mark as to who did it.
This doesn't counter your post but these are just guesses at whom is doing it in the article. And of course the # itself can be questioned. But it's very common for rape and payments in sex to be made in these cases among migrants. The EU migrant crisis is no different where smugglers are most definitely excising the most value out of the people they are shipping along in boats.
But while many of these girls are fleeing their homes because of fears of being sexually assaulted, according to the UNHCR, they are still meeting that same fate on their journey to freedom.
Rape can be perpetrated by anyone along the way, including guides, fellow migrants, bandits or government officials, according to Fusion. Sometimes sex is used as a form of payment, when women and girls don’t have money to pay bribes.
The assaults are so common that many women and girls take contraceptives beforehand as preventative measures.
What’s particularly disconcerting is that the fact that these figures may not even represent the full grim picture.
We're at a point though where Trump says, "we need to defend our border" and people are telling him.. "you can't do that, that's racist". How's that not insane? Illegal immigration is actually a huge problem. If you go by a conservative estimate of 12 million, you have more people in your country illegally than there are people in Sweden. If you go by Ann Coulters estimate of there may be more than 30 million illegals, you have a population higher than all of Scandinavia. You basically have a Canada's worth of people that broke the law to get into the country.
Will racists attach themselves to Trumps nationalism? Yes. But the KKK? They're not coming back. Unfair / racist hiring practices? Not coming back. Though you're allowed to be racist against whites and Asians in school and the work place but that's another issue. So long as you look professional, neat, well spoken, confident and clean you're probably going to be taken seriously regardless of race. It's like people are forgetting that many Trump supporters voted for Obama and supported him whole heartedly, and that there is an actual black president and these same people are just being lumped in as racists. That's fuel for the fire.
I think most people who've given the wall honest thought and dialogue and read enough about it can begrudgingly agree that Trump was actually right. He can get "Mexico" to pay for it and he can most definitely build it. And it's very likely to save America a lot of money in the long run.
So it's not the stupid idea that the left will mock all day and night. It's just a shame all those people on the left keep threatening to move to Canada instead of Mexico if Trump is elected. So if the left can agree that he's right on that issue and not retarded as they claim, we can move on to the next issue. Or instead of moving on compare it to Hillary's proposals and weigh which ones are better.
On May 10 2016 08:10 oneofthem wrote: just a reminder that daunt is critical of Obama on loss of u.s. influence while supporting trump who would ditch global concerns in favor of protectionism at home while calling 'enforce your promises' Hillary incompetent. this is just another example of being wrong on the facts and substituting feels and partisanship for understanding
I don't think that the two positions are inconsistent at all. First, I don't think that Trump's foreign policy necessarily entails diminished US influence. To the contrary, his revised foreign policy and willingness to engage countries like Russia and China with American interests in mind could result in a net expansion of American influence relative to where it is today. Execution matters. Obama's idealistic foreign policy looked good on paper (though not to all), but turned out to be a disaster in practice. Saying that Trump will be a failure on the global stage is a bit presumptuous. Second, you can't look at Trump's foreign policy in a vacuum. It has to be considered in conjunction with the current state of affairs. For example, there are many people who damn Obama's handling of Middle Eastern policy and, specifically, Iraq, but who do not advocate a return to Bush-style intervention because the facts on the ground have so drastically changed over the past 7 years. For these reasons, I'm willing to entertain Trump's shift and strategy -- particularly in light of some of the very valid points that he raises.
this buddy system with authoritarian systems will be a capitulation of the u.s. as a nation built upon respect for individual rights and freedoms. think very carefully about a world in which power rules absolute and influence is traded without mind of principles.
And where exactly has the status quo of foreign policy operation gotten us? I don't know about you, but I have seen enough to conclude that the US is incapable of forcing democratic change in other countries without the expenditure of resources that we simply are unwilling to spend. Besides, let's be honest: the US has been retardedly hypocritical in its promotion of democracy anyway. We might as well go whole hog in pursuit of our national interest as opposed to maintaining the current, thinly veiled facade.
it's not about democratic change but setting the rules on international law, trade, internet, ip etc. there is the fact of existing treaty obligations to our allies in asia and europe. if you want to bail on the small fries and buddy up with china/russia, that kind of 'influence' necessarily entails a drastic change in values as expressed by u.s. foreign policy. you would be severely damaging the credibility and standing of the u.s.
Engaging China and Russia on points of mutual interest (such as ISIS) is not necessarily mutually exclusive of maintaining ties and treaty obligations with other countries. Trump certainly hasn't suggested that he would abandon Europe for the sake of cozying up with Putin. He has merely stated that he wants to engage countries like Russia to see what common ground is available to work on, which makes perfect sense when pursuing an "America first" strategy. If there's no deal to be struck, then I'm sure that a President Trump would move in a different direction.
ALL the president have been perfectly willing to engage countries like Russia when there's common ground; so that wouldn't be a change in the slightest from what's currently done.
To me, it seems like Trump would cause the same loss of international position that Bush jr did, except even worse.
re: Testie, I have studied the wall seriously; and I haven't seen a sound way to make Mexico pay for it (that doesn't end up costing America more in the long run) nor is it particularly effective, as it doesn't stop the primary source of illegal entry; and the costs to build and maintain such a wall are quite substantial. As to how much money it saves: i'm not sure it would save any, it's somewhat hard to measure of course and depends on some assumptions, but a wall is only as strong as its weakest point, and there's a lot of space for there to be weakpoints.
On May 10 2016 04:44 xDaunt wrote: [quote] Why I (and many others) support Trump over Hillary really isn't that hard to understand. Those who purport to not understand it are either idiots or liars. Your post is fairly emblematic of the latter possibility. Trump's platform, such as it is, far more closely aligns with my personal views than Hillary's. For that reason alone, I'd rather roll the dice with Trump than vote for Hillary. Second, and to the extent that Trump has personality/character problems, Hillary has a whole freight train's worth of her own, which you are more than happy to overlook. She's a liar. She's crooked. Most importantly, she has a demonstrable record of failure from Hillarycare through her time as Secretary of State (which was particularly bad). It's not like people who support Trump are passing on some prodigy. Hillary is a middling politician at best.
Finally, I want Trump elected as a gigantic "fuck you" to the current political and cultural establishments, which are both rotten. I've railed plenty against the GOP recently, so I'll pass on elaborating there. On the cultural side, I deeply resent the current oppression that the left has imposed on political and societal discourse. We presently can't even have intelligent discussions about things like immigration policy for fear of getting pulled over by the PC police. Trump has already reopened lines of discourse, and his election will cement those gains and accelerate the acceptance of true free speech once again. That, in and of itself, is worth a ride on the Trump train.
Seriously, some of you leftists around here need to spend a good solid five minutes with your heads out of your asses and take the time to actually understand the opposing point of view rather than post drivel such as Biff's above. The level of discourse around here from most of you is fucking sad.
I don't think we have a whole lot to discuss, you and me, so I will politely leave that discussion.
I didn't have you pegged as one of those left wingers who is afflicted with retrograde illiberalism. Looks like I was wrong.
Someone politely tells him that they don’t see a lot to be gained by the discussion, XDaunt calls them stupid. As I expected.
You may want to try reading what I wrote again. I did not call him stupid. My complaint is very different.
I am sure I could perform a full breakdown of the specific wording and use of the world “afflicted” as opposed to “subscriber” or “believer” to prove that you meant to imply he has limited mental capacity due his views.
But I don’t have time for that and sometimes it’s nice to cut through the passive aggressive nerd bullshit and just call a spade and spade.
Then let's cut through it: Do you really think it reasonable to denigrate someone and then "politely" excuse yourself from the discussion when your unsubstantiated claims meets reality? Because that was exactly what Biff did. He even managed to equate voting for Trump/Le Pen/Fahrad with Hitler and Mussolini and yet you still consider him polite?
People voting for Trump is not an argument against democracy - it is an argument against the current politicians and their deafness towards a large segment of the population. If you want people to vote for someone else, listen to their concerns instead of trying to silence them (for the vast majority their concerns aren't founded in neither bigotry nor racism), and then give them a better alternative.
It's almost as if the average politician forgot about the "representative" part in a representative democracy.
And for those who are confused, let me state it clearly: the point of this thread shouldn't be circlejerk affirmation or the dishonest belittling of those with opposing points of view.
Five hours earlier:
On May 10 2016 04:44 xDaunt wrote:
On May 10 2016 03:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On May 10 2016 02:41 xDaunt wrote:
On May 10 2016 02:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On May 09 2016 11:03 xDaunt wrote:
On May 09 2016 10:51 Introvert wrote:
On May 09 2016 10:38 xDaunt wrote:
On May 09 2016 10:34 Introvert wrote: Only reason the dumb pledge was necessary was because of Trump's whining about being "treated fairly." And he was still hedging even after he signed it. Trump deserves no loyalty, and I assume most of the other 60% of GOP primary voters would agree. Paul Ryan isn't obliged to go along with every asinine comment Trump makes. Especially considering that his own district went against Trump like 2:1.
I have my own issues with Ryan, but his comments were 100% correct and appropriate. If Trump says he doesn't want certain people, then they are released to go elsewhere.
Majorities of republican voters are supporting Trump and his message. If the GOP isn't going to support Trump, then they will be flaunting the will of their voters. I don't think that such action will end well for the GOP.
He didn't have a majority in a single state until New York, if memory serves. He has like 40% of the popular vote. He's deeply polarizing, and chances are, quite toxic. So imo they are smart to stay away. Remember he only got close because of the various front-runner biased state rules.
He hasn't a majority of the vote in the early states because he has been running against a large field. Once the field shrank down to four candidate, he was reliably scoring majorities in the states that he ran. So yes, I think that it is fair to say that a majority of republicans are supporting him now. They may not find him to be their perfect candidate (myself included), but they are going to back him as the best option nonetheless.
You are going to vote for this lunatic?
Wow. Just wow.
Better him than Hillary, who is demonstrably incompetent.
Oh man... I don't even know what to say.
Well, someone (not Churchill) said that the best argument against democracy is a five minutes conversation with the average voter; I guess you are a pretty good illustration. That you can think that someone who didn't bother to utter anything true, that made one burlesque proposal after another, that fuels hatred and bigotry and whose main attributes are to be a vulgar, boastful, and a complete bully is a better choice than one of America's most experienced politician, I am pretty fucking sad for you.
The saddest thing is that you seem like a reasonably well informed person. And that's depressing; to see resentful and completely ignorant people voting for him is bad enough; but that someone able to have more or less a rational discussion is backing up this clown is just beyond me.
Anyway. Germans voted for Hitler, Italians Mussolini, French people are voting for Le Pen and English for Farage. If people decide to go full stupid, there is little to do. I guess that's the price to pay for democracy.
Seriously, voting is a responsibility. Get back to planet earth.
Seriously, some of you leftists around here need to spend a good solid five minutes with your heads out of your asses
Context matters, but honest discourse has never been your strong suit.
You constantly belittle and insultingly dismiss plenty of people who disagree with you in this thread, regardless of the merits of their positions. I won't bother counting the number of times you've dismissed and derided posters discussing issues of racism and sexism as "the PC crowd", "SJWs", etc.
Pretend I'm dishonest all you want -- I've addressed your "blame Obama for everything" falsehoods many times, and your inability to actually defend your dishonest narratives has led you to regularly resort to unfounded personal attacks and petty one-liners against me, including in discussions you're not even a part of. It's not even a big deal: the topics covered in this thread can often lead to passionate and not-so-nuanced arguments on both sides. But to see you portray yourself as a paragon of honesty as opposed to most of the people who disagree with you is ridiculous.
On May 10 2016 10:20 zlefin wrote: re: Testie, I have studied the wall seriously; and I haven't seen a sound way to make Mexico pay for it (that doesn't end up costing America more in the long run) nor is it particularly effective, as it doesn't stop the primary source of illegal entry; and the costs to build and maintain such a wall are quite substantial. As to how much money it saves: i'm not sure it would save any, it's somewhat hard to measure of course and depends on some assumptions, but a wall is only as strong as its weakest point, and there's a lot of space for there to be weakpoints.
The "Trump cost" of the wall was initially around 10 billion. The more likely figure is about 15-25 billion + upkeep. There's spaces that are weak points where a wall cannot conceivably be built as well. But this narrows things down a great deal. Again, if there was a 30% - 50% decrease in illegal immigration the monetary benefit according to my information would offset the cost. And this is a cost saved on a yearly basis overall. So a net gain decade after decade. It's not stupid like Jon Oliver attempted to make it out to be. And it makes managing a completely wide open border far more manageable. You know where your weak spots are. America has 16,500 border officers and they're pretty much all voting for Trump as he's officially endorsed by them.
The National Border Patrol Council is the official organization representing our nation’s Border Patrol Agents. We represent 16,500 agents who selflessly serve this country in an environment where our own political leaders try to keep us from doing our jobs.
The NBPC has had a longstanding practice of not endorsing presidential candidates in the primaries. We will not, however, shy away from voicing our opinions as it pertains to border security and the men and women of the United States Border Patrol. As such, we are breaking with our past practice and giving our first-ever endorsement in a presidential primary. We think it is that important: if we do not secure our borders, American communities will continue to suffer at the hands of gangs, cartels and violent criminals preying on the innocent. The lives and security of the American people are at stake, and the National Border Patrol Council will not sit on the sidelines.
As an organization we expect our elected officials to aggressively pursue the interests of the country. America has already tried a young, articulate freshman senator who never created a job as an attorney and under whose watch criminal cartels have been given the freest border reign ever known.
Unlike his opponents, Donald Trump is not a career politician, he is an outsider who has created thousands of jobs, pledged to bring about aggressive pro-American change, and who is completely independent of special interests. We don’t need a person who has the perfect Washington-approved tone, and certainly NOT another establishment politician in the W.H. Indeed, the fact that people are more upset about Mr. Trump’s tone than about the destruction wrought by open borders tells us everything we need to know about the corruption in Washington.
We need a person in the White House who doesn’t fear the media, who doesn’t embrace political correctness, who doesn’t need the money, who is familiar with success, who won’t bow to foreign dictators, who is pro-military and values law enforcement, and who is angry for America and NOT subservient to the interests of other nations. Donald Trump is such a man.
Mr. Trump is as bold and outspoken as other world leaders who put their country’s interests ahead of all else. Americans deserve to benefit for once instead of always paying and apologizing. Our current political establishment has bled this country dry, sees their power evaporating, and isn’t listening to voters who do all the heavy lifting. Trump is opposed by the established powers specifically because they know he is the only candidate who actually threatens the established powers that have betrayed this country.
You can judge a man by his opponents: all the people responsible for the problems plaguing America today are opposing Mr. Trump. It is those without political power – the workers, the law enforcement officers, the everyday families and community members – who are supporting Mr. Trump.
Mr. Trump will take on special interests and embrace the ideas of rank-and-file Border Patrol agents rather than listening to the management yes-men who say whatever they are programmed to say. This is a refreshing change that we have not seen before – and may never see again.
Mr. Trump is correct when he says immigration wouldn’t be at the forefront of this presidential campaign if months ago he hadn’t made some bold and necessary statements. And when the withering media storm ensued he did not back down one iota. That tells you the measure of a man. When the so-called experts said he was too brash and outspoken, and that he would fade away, they were proven wrong. We are confident they will be proven wrong again in November when he becomes President of the United States.
There is no greater physical or economic threat to Americans today than our open border. And there is no greater political threat than the control of Washington by special interests. In view of these threats, the National Border Patrol Council endorses Donald J. Trump for President – and asks the American people to support Mr. Trump in his mission to finally secure the border of the United States of America, before it is too late.
Sincerely,
Brandon Judd President National Border Patrol Council
On May 10 2016 08:10 oneofthem wrote: just a reminder that daunt is critical of Obama on loss of u.s. influence while supporting trump who would ditch global concerns in favor of protectionism at home while calling 'enforce your promises' Hillary incompetent. this is just another example of being wrong on the facts and substituting feels and partisanship for understanding
I don't think that the two positions are inconsistent at all. First, I don't think that Trump's foreign policy necessarily entails diminished US influence. To the contrary, his revised foreign policy and willingness to engage countries like Russia and China with American interests in mind could result in a net expansion of American influence relative to where it is today. Execution matters. Obama's idealistic foreign policy looked good on paper (though not to all), but turned out to be a disaster in practice. Saying that Trump will be a failure on the global stage is a bit presumptuous. Second, you can't look at Trump's foreign policy in a vacuum. It has to be considered in conjunction with the current state of affairs. For example, there are many people who damn Obama's handling of Middle Eastern policy and, specifically, Iraq, but who do not advocate a return to Bush-style intervention because the facts on the ground have so drastically changed over the past 7 years. For these reasons, I'm willing to entertain Trump's shift and strategy -- particularly in light of some of the very valid points that he raises.
this buddy system with authoritarian systems will be a capitulation of the u.s. as a nation built upon respect for individual rights and freedoms. think very carefully about a world in which power rules absolute and influence is traded without mind of principles.
And where exactly has the status quo of foreign policy operation gotten us? I don't know about you, but I have seen enough to conclude that the US is incapable of forcing democratic change in other countries without the expenditure of resources that we simply are unwilling to spend. Besides, let's be honest: the US has been retardedly hypocritical in its promotion of democracy anyway. We might as well go whole hog in pursuit of our national interest as opposed to maintaining the current, thinly veiled facade.
it's not about democratic change but setting the rules on international law, trade, internet, ip etc. there is the fact of existing treaty obligations to our allies in asia and europe. if you want to bail on the small fries and buddy up with china/russia, that kind of 'influence' necessarily entails a drastic change in values as expressed by u.s. foreign policy. you would be severely damaging the credibility and standing of the u.s.
Engaging China and Russia on points of mutual interest (such as ISIS) is not necessarily mutually exclusive of maintaining ties and treaty obligations with other countries. Trump certainly hasn't suggested that he would abandon Europe for the sake of cozying up with Putin. He has merely stated that he wants to engage countries like Russia to see what common ground is available to work on, which makes perfect sense when pursuing an "America first" strategy. If there's no deal to be struck, then I'm sure that a President Trump would move in a different direction.
Yeah, but you're basing your argument that Trump has actually taken our relationships with our allies into proper consideration. The man literally blurted out to default on the national debt, then "dialed it back" by saying we could just print money to pay it down. He has no idea what he's talking about. From a certain angle it seems reasonable, but when taken in the full Trumpian context... eh.
Senator Ted Cruz’s supporters are mounting an effort to seize control of the Republican platform and the rules governing the party’s July convention, the first indication that Mr. Cruz will not simply hand his delegates over to Donald J. Trump.
In an email sent Sunday to pro-Cruz convention delegates, a top aide to the Texas senator wrote that it was “still possible to advance a conservative agenda at the convention.”
“To do that, it is imperative that we fill the Rules and Platform Committees with strong conservative voices like yours,” wrote Ken Cuccinelli, who was the campaign’s former delegate wrangler and a former attorney general of Virginia. “That means you need to come to the national convention and support others in coming, too!”
Mr. Cruz is planning a Monday evening conference call where, as Mr. Cuccinelli writes, Mr. Cruz’s former officials plan to “discuss what we can do at the convention to protect against liberal changes to our platform, and how we can right the wrongs in the rules from 2012!”
The “wrongs” Mr. Cuccinelli was referring to are the changes pushed through at the last convention by supporters of Mitt Romney that would have made it harder for a candidate’s name to be placed in nomination.
But Mr. Cruz’s supporters and other conservative activists are also deeply concerned about Mr. Trump’s general election agenda, and want to ensure that he does not alter the party’s platform. Since locking up the nomination last week, Mr. Trump has made clear he intends to run a populist campaign against Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee, indicating he is open to higher taxes and an increase in the minimum wage.
The party’s convention rules and policy platform are determined every four years by temporary committees comprised of a select group of convention delegates. The rules and platform are then ratified or rejected by all the delegates at the convention.
idk I don't think Trump's likely to be a diplomatic disaster. I don't think you should elect him, but I think there are bigger issues.
He's gonna say a bunch of stuff that will get memed and the average foreigner will probably dislike you for it, but on an actual leader-to-leader basis you could do worse than elect a businessman. There's no reason to think he'll go around trashing relationships.
On May 10 2016 08:10 oneofthem wrote: just a reminder that daunt is critical of Obama on loss of u.s. influence while supporting trump who would ditch global concerns in favor of protectionism at home while calling 'enforce your promises' Hillary incompetent. this is just another example of being wrong on the facts and substituting feels and partisanship for understanding
I don't think that the two positions are inconsistent at all. First, I don't think that Trump's foreign policy necessarily entails diminished US influence. To the contrary, his revised foreign policy and willingness to engage countries like Russia and China with American interests in mind could result in a net expansion of American influence relative to where it is today. Execution matters. Obama's idealistic foreign policy looked good on paper (though not to all), but turned out to be a disaster in practice. Saying that Trump will be a failure on the global stage is a bit presumptuous. Second, you can't look at Trump's foreign policy in a vacuum. It has to be considered in conjunction with the current state of affairs. For example, there are many people who damn Obama's handling of Middle Eastern policy and, specifically, Iraq, but who do not advocate a return to Bush-style intervention because the facts on the ground have so drastically changed over the past 7 years. For these reasons, I'm willing to entertain Trump's shift and strategy -- particularly in light of some of the very valid points that he raises.
this buddy system with authoritarian systems will be a capitulation of the u.s. as a nation built upon respect for individual rights and freedoms. think very carefully about a world in which power rules absolute and influence is traded without mind of principles.
And where exactly has the status quo of foreign policy operation gotten us? I don't know about you, but I have seen enough to conclude that the US is incapable of forcing democratic change in other countries without the expenditure of resources that we simply are unwilling to spend. Besides, let's be honest: the US has been retardedly hypocritical in its promotion of democracy anyway. We might as well go whole hog in pursuit of our national interest as opposed to maintaining the current, thinly veiled facade.
it's not about democratic change but setting the rules on international law, trade, internet, ip etc. there is the fact of existing treaty obligations to our allies in asia and europe. if you want to bail on the small fries and buddy up with china/russia, that kind of 'influence' necessarily entails a drastic change in values as expressed by u.s. foreign policy. you would be severely damaging the credibility and standing of the u.s.
Engaging China and Russia on points of mutual interest (such as ISIS) is not necessarily mutually exclusive of maintaining ties and treaty obligations with other countries. Trump certainly hasn't suggested that he would abandon Europe for the sake of cozying up with Putin. He has merely stated that he wants to engage countries like Russia to see what common ground is available to work on, which makes perfect sense when pursuing an "America first" strategy. If there's no deal to be struck, then I'm sure that a President Trump would move in a different direction.
Trump's statements on everything from NATO to South Korea to Japan betray such a fundamental misunderstanding of the treaty-based (and thus constitutionally-based) obligations of the United States that I think you're giving him quite a bit more credit than he's due here. His statements about China alone make pretty much no sense whatsoever once you actually think about them. Do you really think his dumpstering by Rand Paul over the TPP was some elaborate hoax of incompetence?
And even if we say "he can find out from advisers once he's President" do you want a man who will rant for ages convinced he's correct based on completely incorrect information instead of just saying "I don't know" in charge of foreign relations?
EPT
