Trump Foreign Policy

[zoogs]

Yeah. Trump is incompetent because specifically he is Trump. This is not true of all inexperienced people. Although I do think that before one claims the highest office in the land they ought to have a public service record. You can break into a new career without experience, but it doesn't make sense to jump right to the top.

[BigRedBuster]

Yeah. Trump is incompetent because specifically he is Trump. This is not true of all inexperienced people. Although I do think that before one claims the highest office in the land they ought to have a public service record. You can break into a new career without experience, but it doesn't make sense to jump right to the top.

Well....we had 8 years of someone who pretty much didn't have public service experience before taking office.

[zoogs]

Obama was (relatively speaking) lightly experienced, it is true.

However, he was a sitting U.S. Senator. Prior to that, a three-term Illinois State Senator. His career after graduating from Columbia with a Bachelor's in Political Science began as a community organizer in Chicago. He then graduated from Harvard Law School, where he was president of the Law Review. After that, he became a civil rights attorney and was a Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Chicago for 12 years.

Another way to look at this is the man spent his entire professional life in politics and public service. At pretty high levels, too.

 

His short record in the U.S. Senate was and remains a valid point of concern in any presidential candidate's resume. His foreign policy credentials were fairly questioned. I would however dispute your characterization of this as "pretty much [no] public service experience" .

[Landlord]

 

Yeah. Trump is incompetent because specifically he is Trump. This is not true of all inexperienced people. Although I do think that before one claims the highest office in the land they ought to have a public service record. You can break into a new career without experience, but it doesn't make sense to jump right to the top.

Well....we had 8 years of someone who pretty much didn't have public service experience before taking office.

 

 

 

Are you talking about Obama?

 

 

You mean besides 3 years as a community organizer, 11 years as a civil rights law associate/counsel, 6 years in the Illinois Senate and 4 years in the United States senate?

[JJ Husker]

Obama was (relatively speaking) lightly experienced, it is true.

 

However, he was a U.S. Senator (albeit first term), and previously a three-term member of the Illinois State Senate. He got his early start as a community organizer, and then graduated from Harvard Law School. He proceeded to become a civil rights attorney and was a professor teaching Constitutional law at the University of Chicago for 12 years.

 

Another way to look at this is the man spent his entire professional life building towards a career in public service. His short record in the Senate was and remains a valid point of concern in any presidential candidate's resume. I would dispute your characterization of this as "pretty much [no] public service experience", though.

 

Based on current and recent past politicians and where this country is at today, my preference would be for those with as little political and public service experience as possible. I'd take a person with experience running a business over a career politician any day of the week. Of course there are exceptions....like Trump.

[zoogs]

 

 

Based on current and recent past politicians and where this country is at today, my preference would be for those with as little political and public service experience as possible

 

Well, your wish certainly came true

 

Would you really take Mark Zuckerberg? Mark Cuban? Bob Kraft? I'd stake my bets on extraordinarily educated constitutional law experts who then served in elected office in some capacities.

 

Unless they're Ted Cruz. So we both have exceptions!

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

Yeah. Trump is incompetent because specifically he is Trump. This is not true of all inexperienced people. Although I do think that before one claims the highest office in the land they ought to have a public service record. You can break into a new career without experience, but it doesn't make sense to jump right to the top.

Well....we had 8 years of someone who pretty much didn't have public service experience before taking office.

 

 

 

Are you talking about Obama?

 

 

You mean besides 3 years as a community organizer, 11 years as a civil rights law associate/counsel, 6 years in the Illinois Senate and 4 years in the United States senate?

 

11 years as a civil rights lawyer is valid. The rest is basically trying to get elected to the next level.

[zoogs]

Um. If we're talking specifically about public service record, why does his being both a State and US Senator over a span of over ten years fall into the "invalid" category?

 

The point is that Obama having this exceptionally policy literacy was no accident. He didn't serve for very long as a Senator, and the usual mold for the Presidency is someone who has been either a Senator or a Governor for longer...but other than that, he has an exemplary, scholarly record in exactly the area you want for public servants. It's not like he was an archaeologist making a field change.

[JJ Husker]

 

Based on current and recent past politicians and where this country is at today, my preference would be for those with as little political and public service experience as possible

 

Well, your wish certainly came true

 

Would you really take Mark Zuckerberg? Mark Cuban? Bob Kraft? I'd stake my bets on extraordinarily educated constitutional law experts who then served in elected office in some capacities.

 

Unless they're Ted Cruz. So we both have exceptions!

 

 

My wish....

I propose that the "quote" function be modified to only accept complete text and full context quoting.

Except in the OOC thread.

 

No, my preference would not be for any well known mega millionaires, TV show hosts or silver spoon types. I'm talking down home, honest to goodness business people that understand the whole gamut of our citizenry and know how to get things done. By and large, I think 99% of our politicians suck at doing things that we really need done or that don't harm large segments of our population. Today's typical politician types are not the answer. Problem is, no honest person with pure intentions wants to go to would be caught dead in DC.

[Landlord]

I would definitely consider voting for a Mark Cuban or Zuckerberg for President (the former before the latter). Obviously not all billionaires are made from the same cloth, but someone who's walked in my shoes for a good portion of their life, has shown a 'public record' with streaks of humility or the ability to surround themselves with diverse voices, and without the baggage or gamesmanship of political expediency at the expense of everyday Americans is someone I think would make a good candidate for President.

[Landlord]

 

 

 

Yeah. Trump is incompetent because specifically he is Trump. This is not true of all inexperienced people. Although I do think that before one claims the highest office in the land they ought to have a public service record. You can break into a new career without experience, but it doesn't make sense to jump right to the top.

Well....we had 8 years of someone who pretty much didn't have public service experience before taking office.

 

 

 

Are you talking about Obama?

 

 

You mean besides 3 years as a community organizer, 11 years as a civil rights law associate/counsel, 6 years in the Illinois Senate and 4 years in the United States senate?

 

11 years as a civil rights lawyer is valid. The rest is basically trying to get elected to the next level.

 

 

 

 

......what? What's the list of jobs that you consider to be valid public service?

[zoogs]

My wish....

I propose that the "quote" function be modified to only accept complete text and full context quoting.

I know, I know -- it's why I mentioned my exception as well.

 

However, a point I am trying to make is that this "nonpolitician" sort of argument is what gets people like Trump elected. I do not think the proposition has nearly as much value as its appeal suggests.

 

I'm talking down home, honest to goodness business people that understand the whole gamut of our citizenry and know how to get things done. By and large, I think 99% of our politicians suck at doing things that we really need done or that don't harm large segments of our population. Today's typical politician types are not the answer. Problem is, no honest person with pure intentions wants to go to would be caught dead in DC.

I challenge parts of this view and agree with other parts. Our politicians don't suck -- politics is a hard game. Once people are put into the role of a politician you'll find that they are not immune to all the challenges and foibles that come with it.

 

An example of a good businessman-turned-politician is Michael Bloomberg. Independent, mayor of NYC, might've mounted a credible presidential campaign in 2016. The key for me isn't merely that he's a businessman, however. It's that he moved into politics and proved to be effective at it as a mayor.

 

Thus, "nonpolitician" presidential candidates to me are people who shifted career paths but then demonstrated their potential as a mayor, a representative, a Senator, etc. As opposed to people who were always on the politician's track -- the decorated political science majors who turn into constitutional law professors and practice as a civil rights attorney, for example. Honestly, I think we'd be better off with a lot more of those cerebral academics as policymakers than the wealthy/legacy/self-promoting or tub-thumping types that fill our state and federal chambers.

 

@Landlord, what is it about Mark Cuban's colorful persona or Zuckerberg's soaring ambitions make them *already* a solid candidate for president? I think they function quite well in their personal roles: entertainment and tech, respectively. Very, very unclear that they'd be effective or even responsible public servants. What has Zuckerberg done lately apart from shirk Facebook's responsibility as a media curator and try to muscle out locals for his Hawaii estate? What stands out on his resume apart from building one of the largest personal data collection infrastructures outside of Google and the NSA?

[Danny Bateman]

I thought about mentioning Obama's lack of foreign policy experience as well, which is a valid point. But I thought better of it because unlike Trump, he did have an extensive background in almost every other aspect of politics. Trump has no experience in either, and I do not believe him to be as policy-literate or well-read as his predecessor.

As someone who may pursue political office someday, I can appreciate the sentiment that professional politicians are not as efficient or capable of neutral guidance of a country toward a better future than say, an experienced businessperson with no political entanglements. That sentiment has been strongly espoused by America with the election of Trump. However, I hope that we aren't so burnt out on politicians that we assume that all things being equal, they're worse or compromised vs. a non-poltiician. There are good ones out there; the bad ones get all the pub. I certainly hope to be one of the good ones someday, if I go down that road.

 

El D, back on the topic of the actual actions and repercussions of the strikes yesterday... perhaps the Trump tweets aren't super relevant. He's allowed to change his mind on things. I don't consider him some genius at foreign policy or military strategy. However, I do think pointing out the stark change of position of all the GOP voters who didn't support action in 2013. It was very much the same situation then -- Assad was using chemical weapons on his own people.

 

To have that many of them support the decision to strike when they forbid Obama do it in 2013 is highly suspect to me. It's disappointing, and their words ring extremely hollow for me. It suggests they're more interested in cheering on their guy (or not, as in 2013) than the implications of the actual action.

 

As to the effect, we'll have to see. Military action is extremely complex. This could be a one-off to warn Assad. It could be a stepping stone to taking further actions in the area. And it may have set off a powder keg none of us can anticipate. Much smarter people than me have no way of knowing what this may trigger next and in the long-term. We'll just have to wait and see how we and other nations play it.

[Danny Bateman]

Cuban vs. Trump in 2020 would be amazing entertainment. As much as I don't want to turn our politics into sport, it's well known they've had a long-standing dislike of each other. They have polar opposite stories to get to where they are.

The debates would be amazing.

 

If Trump's presidency continues down the path it's been on the first 2-3 months, I think the Cubes would wipe the floor with him if he won a nomination.

[zoogs]

Jalopnik: Why firing Tomahawks at Syria was nearly useless http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-firing-tomahawk-missiles-at-syria-was-a-nearly-usel-1794113103

 

That's sobering.

 

As in the past, whether it be a collection of tents in Afghanistan, a pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan or a retaliatory strike for a no-fly zone violation in Iraq, the Tomahawk cruise missile has become the punitive weapon of choice. It’s fired from a safe distance, risking no American lives, and presenting the appearance of someone doing something vital.

 

I don't know how to feel about this new war with Syria. I don't like that better options than this didn't appear to exist.

 

And:

 

 

The strike happened what. Last night? Two nights ago?