Trump opens up on his foreign policy positions

[webfact]

Trump opens up on his foreign policy positions
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump on Monday confronted doubts about the depth of his knowledge of world affairs, delivering a sober speech to a pro-Israel crowd and outlining for the first time his team of foreign policy advisers.

In a lengthy interview with the editorial board of The Washington Post, Trump outlined a distinctly non-interventionist approach for the United States in the world.

"I do think it's a different world today, and I don't think we should be nation-building anymore," Trump told the newspaper. He stressed instead the need to invest in infrastructure at home.

"At what point do you say, 'Hey, we have to take care of ourselves'?" he said. "So, I know the outer world exists and I'll be very cognizant of that. But at the same time, our country is disintegrating, large sections of it, especially the inner cities."

Trump has largely avoided policy details during his campaign, focusing instead on boldly stated goals and saying last week in an interview with MSNBC that his "primary consultant is myself."

During the interview, Trump stumbled when questioning the U.S. role in assisting Ukraine in its conflict with Russia.

"They're not doing anything. And I say: 'Why is it that Germany's not dealing with NATO on Ukraine? Why is it that other countries that are in the vicinity of Ukraine, why aren't they dealing?" he said.

In fact, since the Ukraine crisis erupted more than two years ago, the Obama administration has refused to provide the new, pro-Western government in Kiev offensive military equipment to use against Russian-backed separatists.

And while a February 2015 ceasefire helped reduce the worst of the violence, Germany and France led that mediation effort. The United States wasn't directly involved.

Trump has also drawn concerns from Jewish leaders for saying he would attempt to be "neutral" in the decades-long Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He worked to soothe those worries Monday in a major speech before the annual gathering of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

In a speech delivered from prepared remarks and a teleprompter, a rarity for Trump, he stressed that he is "a lifelong supporter and true friend of Israel."

Trump's remarks largely focused on Iran, calling the deal reached last year with several world powers aimed at keeping it from acquiring nuclear weapons "catastrophic for America, for Israel and to the whole Middle East."

He also said he would reject any attempt by the United Nations to impose conditions on either side during future peace talks in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, saying that "it will only further delegitimize Israel."

He ended his speech by announcing that his daughter, who married a Jewish man and converted to Judaism, was about to give birth. "My daughter Ivanka is about to have a beautiful Jewish baby," he said.

Anti-Trump protesters gathered outside the venue, but there was no mass walk-out of AIPAC attendees as some had planned.

Trump was followed on stage by rival Ted Cruz, who opened his speech by pointedly noting Trump's use of the term "Palestine." Although the U.N. General Assembly overwhelmingly voted in 2012 to recognize Palestine as a "non-member observer state," the U.S. does not currently recognize the Palestinian territories as an independent state.

"Perhaps to the surprise of the previous speaker, Palestine has not existed since 1948," the Texas senator said.

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton also addressed the conference, questioning Trump's readiness to guide the nation through international entanglements.

"We need steady hands," Clinton said. "Not a president who says he's neutral on Monday, pro-Israel on Tuesday and who-knows-what on Wednesday because everything's negotiable."

Israel's security, she proclaimed, "is non-negotiable."
__

Associated Press writers Jill Colvin and Bradley Klapper contributed to this report.


-- (c) Associated Press 2016-03-22

[keemapoot]

Astounding. Like watching a child invited to eat at the grown up table. Really embarrassing to be an American now, which I am.

[lannarebirth]

Astounding. Like watching a child invited to eat at the grown up table. Really embarrassing to be an American now, which I am.

I'm not embarrassed. We deserve this. Hopefully some good will come out of it. If not, we'll deserve that too.

[anto]

Great man .I.M.O....May he live to become President.

>>Really embarrassing to be an American now,<<

em ,now ok ,but more so when Bush was President.

Edited March 22, 2016 by anto

[lust]

https://www.facebook.com/conservativeminuteman/videos/1662342040657287/

[up-country_sinclair]

Trump opens up on his foreign policy positions

I will be the best at foreign policy. OK, folks?

No one would make better deals than me. Believe me.

I watch all the shows.

I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things.

I'm really rich.

[anto]

>>I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things.<<

High 5 s for the Donald .

[Neurath]

Bush Junior ran on a policy of non-intervention and non-nation building. Didn't last long though. Circumstances pushed him down a dark alley on his lonesome where he was mugged by Richard Pearle Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and the rest of the gang. Poor fellow.

Now that Trump is championing the cause of non-intervention, will those braying for more intervention cease to support him? By the sounds of it, Clinton is far more hawkish.

[Chicog]

The title should really be "Trump opens up on this weeks foreign policy positions".

"My daughter Ivanka is about to have a beautiful Jewish baby," he said.

Edited March 22, 2016 by Chicog

[up-country_sinclair]

Now that Trump is championing the cause of non-intervention, will those braying for more intervention cease to support him? By the sounds of it, Clinton is far more hawkish.

This is an under-reported issue. I can almost guarantee you that the foreign policy hawks known as the "neoconservatives" will never support Trump. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if they issue a like warm endorsement of Secretary Clinton should a third party candidate not emerge.

[Neurath]

Now that Trump is championing the cause of non-intervention, will those braying for more intervention cease to support him? By the sounds of it, Clinton is far more hawkish.

This is an under-reported issue. I can almost guarantee you that the foreign policy hawks known as the "neoconservatives" will never support Trump. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if they issue a like warm endorsement of Secretary Clinton should a third party candidate not emerge.

It would be very hard for them to support him. Donald Trump seems to be having some sort of bromance with Putin and those you call the neo-conservatives seem not be able to live without a new Cold War and so run around trying to convince everyone to join in and demonize the St Petersburg Putz.

I wonder if Putin would take Trump hunting and offer us a shot showing both of them with their shirts off? I imagine a carrot topped but otherwise saggy white skinned orangutan.

[boomerangutang]

Astounding. Like watching a child invited to eat at the grown up table. Really embarrassing to be an American now, which I am.

I'm not embarrassed. We deserve this. Hopefully some good will come out of it. If not, we'll deserve that too.

The key word is 'hopefully.' We don't really know, with Trump. For starters, everything and everyone for him is either wonderful or horrible. ...and it can flip or flop hours or days later. He either loves you or hates you. To him, America is either in the dumps or the greatest country, depending on his mood. At least the other candidates, even Cruz, are rather consistent in their opinions and views. Trump is like a 14 yr old FB girl who categorizes everyone in her life as someone she either loves or hates, and that can change with a glance.

Bush Junior ran on a policy of non-intervention and non-nation building. Didn't last long though. Circumstances pushed him down a dark alley on his lonesome where he was mugged by Richard Pearle Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and the rest of the gang. Poor fellow.

Now that Trump is championing the cause of non-intervention, will those braying for more intervention cease to support him? By the sounds of it, Clinton is far more hawkish.

Clinton is not more Hawkish. Who spoke about carpet bombing M.East towns and killing terrorists' families and committing torture a lot worse than waterboarding? In contrast, Clinton knows about foreign affairs, knows foreign leaders, and knows about laws (she's a lawyer and knows that torture is illegal as is killing families of terrorists). Clinton is also cool-headed, as opposed to the quick-to-anger hot-head.

If you were a soldier in a ground war. Would you rather have an easily-offended, telling-people-he-has-the-biggest... dick - in charge, or would you rather have a cool-headed pragmatic knowledgeable-about-issues & tactics person in charge? I would much rather have someone like HRC or Sanders (who served 2 years as chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee) deciding whether to send young men into battle.

[mamypoko]

Great man .I.M.O....May he live to become President.

>>Really embarrassing to be an American now,<<

em ,now ok ,but more so when Bush was President.

Bush - dread

Trump - embarrassment

https://media.giphy.com/media/l0NwrDS4yuTHh1lCg/giphy.gif

Edited March 22, 2016 by mamypoko

[Rancid]

Peace with Russia, stop the foreign military adventurism that is bankrupting the country? What next?

This is madness and unAmerican, I am long Raytheon. Vote for Hilary and more war.

"In the fields the bodies burning, as the war machine keeps turning..." War Pigs, Black Sabbath.

[dunroaming]

Oh my god! Clearly he is having to try and sound like he knows what he is talking about but failing miserably. His daughter is having a Jewish baby? God help America!

[anto]

>>If you were a soldier in a ground war. Would you rather have an easily-offended, telling-people-he-has-the-biggest... dick - in charge, or would you rather have a cool-headed pragmatic knowledgeable-about-issues & tactics person in charge? <<

Recent opinion polls suggest the military would prefer Trump.

[Lorn]

Astounding. Like watching a child invited to eat at the grown up table. Really embarrassing to be an American now, which I am.

I'm not embarrassed. We deserve this. Hopefully some good will come out of it. If not, we'll deserve that too.

The key word is 'hopefully.' We don't really know, with Trump. For starters, everything and everyone for him is either wonderful or horrible. ...and it can flip or flop hours or days later. He either loves you or hates you. To him, America is either in the dumps or the greatest country, depending on his mood. At least the other candidates, even Cruz, are rather consistent in their opinions and views. Trump is like a 14 yr old FB girl who categorizes everyone in her life as someone she either loves or hates, and that can change with a glance.

Bush Junior ran on a policy of non-intervention and non-nation building. Didn't last long though. Circumstances pushed him down a dark alley on his lonesome where he was mugged by Richard Pearle Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and the rest of the gang. Poor fellow.

Now that Trump is championing the cause of non-intervention, will those braying for more intervention cease to support him? By the sounds of it, Clinton is far more hawkish.

Clinton is not more Hawkish. Who spoke about carpet bombing M.East towns and killing terrorists' families and committing torture a lot worse than waterboarding? In contrast, Clinton knows about foreign affairs, knows foreign leaders, and knows about laws (she's a lawyer and knows that torture is illegal as is killing families of terrorists). Clinton is also cool-headed, as opposed to the quick-to-anger hot-head.

If you were a soldier in a ground war. Would you rather have an easily-offended, telling-people-he-has-the-biggest... dick - in charge, or would you rather have a cool-headed pragmatic knowledgeable-about-issues & tactics person in charge? I would much rather have someone like HRC or Sanders (who served 2 years as chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee) deciding whether to send young men into battle.

If you're a soldier in a ground war, it's already too late. If I was in the army and there were no wars going on, I'd much rather have Trump. With Trump you have no idea what you're going to get. He might actually decide that there's no need to make more money for the military-industrial complex. With Clinton, for sure things are going to continue the way they are if not get significantly worse. She's far less liberal and less anti-war than Obama is or at least claimed to be, so why would anyone have any hope of things getting better.

[English 1]

Give Trump a chance at least he's different to all the Clones of the past and present.

I am rather unsure that a Wall could really be erected between Mexico and the USA?

What would they call the Border Post...............Checkpoint Chilli .

[zydeco]

Trump is certainly right about Islam, foreign and domestic. Belgium proved that again today.

[dexterm]

Trump, you're hired!

Good to see that all the candidates passed their job interview with the Tale That Wags The Dog committee.

Amazing isn't it that a country 6,000 miles away can make or break a US Presidential candidate.

My vote of approval goes to Bernie Sanders who skipped the fiasco.

[uptheos]

With silly Hilary as the only other choice, it has to be Trump.

[Hammock]

Trump said that he wants to restore good relations with Russia and other foreign countries. How awful!

[Chicog]

So how long before Trump would suggest he'd sleep with her if she wasn't his granddaughter?

[dexterm]

>>If you were a soldier in a ground war. Would you rather have an easily-offended, telling-people-he-has-the-biggest... dick - in charge, or would you rather have a cool-headed pragmatic knowledgeable-about-issues & tactics person in charge? <<

Recent opinion polls suggest the military would prefer Trump.

But only if you didn't get shot down, imprisoned and tortured like John McCain, while Trump was busy draft dodging.

Edited March 22, 2016 by dexterm

[Linzz]

Now that Trump is championing the cause of non-intervention, will those braying for more intervention cease to support him? By the sounds of it, Clinton is far more hawkish.

This is an under-reported issue. I can almost guarantee you that the foreign policy hawks known as the "neoconservatives" will never support Trump. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if they issue a like warm endorsement of Secretary Clinton should a third party candidate not emerge.

It's already up and running and not because they are embarrassed about Trump. He's an unknown entity and an anti politician and he just might trim their cushy and lucrative positions of power. They would rather have Hillary than Trump or Sanders because neither are bought by special interest groups and banks so are not controlled and could shake up Washington and it's oligarchs and plutocrats. It's all about power and the money. If Trump gets too close to the levers of power, they'll probably have him shot and then blame some Mexican or Muslim whom they've hired, then shoot him to shut him up. It's even happened before in 1963

[Pinot]

There is a recurrent statement heard from the low info Trump minions, "we don't know what he's going to do so let's give him a chance."

Fortunately, enough Americans have receive at least a high school education and realize how absolutely insane that thinking is.

"Recent opinion polls suggest the military would prefer Trump." Really? And where did you hear that tidbit of misinformation? Wait, don't tell me I know.

Edited March 22, 2016 by Pinot

[Pinot]

Now that Trump is championing the cause of non-intervention, will those braying for more intervention cease to support him? By the sounds of it, Clinton is far more hawkish.

This is an under-reported issue. I can almost guarantee you that the foreign policy hawks known as the "neoconservatives" will never support Trump. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if they issue a like warm endorsement of Secretary Clinton should a third party candidate not emerge.

It's already up and running and not because they are embarrassed about Trump. He's an unknown entity and an anti politician and he just might trim their cushy and lucrative positions of power. They would rather have Hillary than Trump or Sanders because neither are bought by special interest groups and banks so are not controlled and could shake up Washington and it's oligarchs and plutocrats. It's all about power and the money. If Trump gets too close to the levers of power, they'll probably have him shot and then blame some Mexican or Muslim whom they've hired, then shoot him to shut him up. It's even happened before in 1963

Another favorite tactic of wingnuts, conspiracy theories or in this case a potential conspiracy theory for an event that hasn't happened.

[Linzz]

Astounding. Like watching a child invited to eat at the grown up table. Really embarrassing to be an American now, which I am.

I'm not embarrassed. We deserve this. Hopefully some good will come out of it. If not, we'll deserve that too.

The key word is 'hopefully.' We don't really know, with Trump. For starters, everything and everyone for him is either wonderful or horrible. ...and it can flip or flop hours or days later. He either loves you or hates you. To him, America is either in the dumps or the greatest country, depending on his mood. At least the other candidates, even Cruz, are rather consistent in their opinions and views. Trump is like a 14 yr old FB girl who categorizes everyone in her life as someone she either loves or hates, and that can change with a glance.

Bush Junior ran on a policy of non-intervention and non-nation building. Didn't last long though. Circumstances pushed him down a dark alley on his lonesome where he was mugged by Richard Pearle Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and the rest of the gang. Poor fellow.

Now that Trump is championing the cause of non-intervention, will those braying for more intervention cease to support him? By the sounds of it, Clinton is far more hawkish.

Clinton is not more Hawkish. Who spoke about carpet bombing M.East towns and killing terrorists' families and committing torture a lot worse than waterboarding? In contrast, Clinton knows about foreign affairs, knows foreign leaders, and knows about laws (she's a lawyer and knows that torture is illegal as is killing families of terrorists). Clinton is also cool-headed, as opposed to the quick-to-anger hot-head.

If you were a soldier in a ground war. Would you rather have an easily-offended, telling-people-he-has-the-biggest... dick - in charge, or would you rather have a cool-headed pragmatic knowledgeable-about-issues & tactics person in charge? I would much rather have someone like HRC or Sanders (who served 2 years as chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee) deciding whether to send young men into battle.

Mmmm... you like Hillary, I can tell.

Clinton, hawkish? Trump was against Bush and the Iraq war and said Saddam was bad but killed terrorists, so you probably both agreed with each other at the time, correct?

However....Hillary voted to support GWB's war

Hillary voted to overthrow Gaddafi and just like Iraq, hasn't Libya gone well? She wants to overthrow Assad so Syria will follow suit and be worse than it presently is.

"Cool headed" you say? Cool alright

"Ms. Clinton has supported every war initiated by the United States not in self-defense for more than twenty three years since she first occupied the

White House as First Lady: Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, ISIS, Al- Qaeda, Yemen, Somalia" *

If she is President she has promised to obliterate Iran if it attacks Israel

You speak about what Trump said he will do. At this point in time it's just pre election talk, whereas with Hillary so far it is REAL

* You can read more on the Goddess of War http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-fein/-hillary-clintons-appalli_b_9157892.html

[anto]

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/election/2016/03/14/military-times-election-survey-donald-trump-bernie-sanders/81767560/

Somebody asked for a reliable link ,about the US Military favoring Trump .Here it is .

[boomerangutang]

The key word is 'hopefully.' We don't really know, with Trump. For starters, everything and everyone for him is either wonderful or horrible. ...and it can flip or flop hours or days later. He either loves you or hates you. To him, America is either in the dumps or the greatest country, depending on his mood. At least the other candidates, even Cruz, are rather consistent in their opinions and views. Trump is like a 14 yr old FB girl who categorizes everyone in her life as someone she either loves or hates, and that can change with a glance.

Clinton is not more Hawkish. Who spoke about carpet bombing M.East towns and killing terrorists' families and committing torture a lot worse than waterboarding? In contrast, Clinton knows about foreign affairs, knows foreign leaders, and knows about laws (she's a lawyer and knows that torture is illegal as is killing families of terrorists). Clinton is also cool-headed, as opposed to the quick-to-anger hot-head.

If you were a soldier in a ground war. Would you rather have an easily-offended, telling-people-he-has-the-biggest... dick - in charge, or would you rather have a cool-headed pragmatic knowledgeable-about-issues & tactics person in charge? I would much rather have someone like HRC or Sanders (who served 2 years as chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee) deciding whether to send young men into battle.

Mmmm... you like Hillary, I can tell.

Clinton, hawkish? Trump was against Bush and the Iraq war and said Saddam was bad but killed terrorists, so you probably both agreed with each other at the time, correct?

However....Hillary voted to support GWB's war

Hillary voted to overthrow Gaddafi and just like Iraq, hasn't Libya gone well? She wants to overthrow Assad so Syria will follow suit and be worse than it presently is.

"Cool headed" you say? Cool alright

"Ms. Clinton has supported every war initiated by the United States not in self-defense for more than twenty three years since she first occupied the

White House as First Lady: Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, ISIS, Al- Qaeda, Yemen, Somalia" *

If she is President she has promised to obliterate Iran if it attacks Israel

You speak about what Trump said he will do. At this point in time it's just pre election talk, whereas with Hillary so far it is REAL

* You can read more on the Goddess of War http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-fein/-hillary-clintons-appalli_b_9157892.html

Trump is on record as being unsure whether he would support Bush Jr's and Cheney's Iraq II war. He wasn't in a position of power to vote on it (as Hillary was), and he only decided he was against it belatedly (Monday morning QB), when it was clear there was no WMD to be found. Hillary based her decision on Bush/Cheney/Powell insisting there were heaps of WMD, chemical weapons and N weapons there. Actually, the Iraq war turned out to be not all bad. Saddam was a tyrant and his 2 sons were worse. All 3 were mass murderers and at least one of them raped little girls habitually (one of the sons had an arrangement with Baghdad school principles to provide him with pre-menstral girls whenever he wanted, which was roughly every day). That may not be enough reason, in itself, to attack a country, but it comes pretty close.

Linzz writes; "You speak about what Trump said he will do. At this point in time it's just pre election talk, whereas with Hillary so far it is REAL"

You made a good point. Trump tells lies and says what rednecks want to hear. He's the premier salesman. In contrast, Hillary is more honest; what you see is what you get. With Trump you get a jack-in-the-box - every time he pops out of the box, he's got a different message.