Huh, Donald thinks that he'll get alone with foreign world leaders better and thus the problems will go away... even while in the same breath accusing them of tearing into and taking advantage of the US.
I... don't think getting along works that way, and I don't think comments like that encourage anyone to get along with us.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
It does if they respect you, which no one respects Obama.
Uh huh. That's why everyone does what Putin wants, right? Because everyone respects what a hard man he is.
Frankly, this whole 'act strong, and that'll get respect and get what you want' approach to diplomacy is just wishful thinking. Bush blustered and threatened Iran in order to get a nuclear deal, it didn't work. Obama coalition-built and talked, and got the same deal Bush wanted.
Talking and dealing works better than puffing one's chest, and what you view as a 'lack of respect,' others view as soft power. Our relations with much of the world have gone up during Obama's term, and 8 years of a more hard-line president who saber-rattled more often certainly wasn't causing things to fall into place.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
No one respects a pussy.No one respects bend over politics
And yet Obama's accomplishing stuff that the policies of those who do the opposite have failed at.
Am I supposed to respect lack of success over success?
Here's a phrase you might have heard: "I speak softly, but I carry a big stick."
It's from a famous US president. It means that if you've got power- like Obama does, like every US president does, the strength of the US doesn't just jump up and down with each election and at our lowest eb we far surpass anyone else a couple times over- you don't need to go around bragging, you can afford to speak soft, because people know you have the stick.
Obama isn't weak for being willing to talk and treat others well, or the occasional flub, you just view him as such because he isn't doing things your way, which is completely separate from his actual success.
He forced Iran to the table and got us what we wanted, not Bush. He did so by talking and strengthening alliances. His way worked when both methods were tried to get the exact same thing from the same hostile power.
Originally posted by Q99
And yet Obama's accomplishing stuff that the policies of those who do the opposite have failed at.Am I supposed to respect lack of success over success?
Here's a phrase you might have heard: "I speak softly, but I carry a big stick."
It's from a famous US president. It means that if you've got power- like Obama does, like every US president does, the strength of the US doesn't just jump up and down with each election and at our lowest eb we far surpass anyone else a couple times over- you don't need to go around bragging, you can afford to speak soft, because people know you have the stick.
Obama isn't weak for being willing to talk and treat others well, or the occasional flub, you just view him as such because he isn't doing things your way, which is completely separate from his actual success.
He forced Iran to the table and got us what we wanted, not Bush. He did so by talking and strengthening alliances. His way worked when both methods were tried to get the exact same thing from the same hostile power.
😂
Obama isn't weak for being willing to talk and treat others well, or the occasional flub, you just view him as such because he isn't doing things your way, which is completely separate from his actual success.He forced Iran to the table and got us what we wanted, not Bush. He did so by talking and strengthening alliances. His way worked when both methods were tried to get the exact same thing from the same hostile power.
Originally posted by Tzeentch
I've got my pizza and my alcohol on stand-by. The rules of tonight's drinking game is as follows:- When Ben Carson brings up neurosurgery in response to a question about the economy, immigration and foreign policy, take a shot.
- When Donald Trump insults someone's intelligence in response to a question about he economy, immigration and foreign policy, take a shot.
- When anyone is asked specifically what their policy on X would be, and they respond by ranting about Obama, take a shot.
- When anyone is asked specifically what their policy on X would be, and they respond by ranting about Hillary, take a shot.
- If Bonny Jindal, John Kasich and/or George Pataki get to say anything, ever, take a shot.
So... are you gassed out of your mind yet?
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You took a shot me me yes? Then deal with it, or stay outa my thread, cry baby.😂
You can share that muzzle with Fiorina, Jerky!
"My thread"
The entireity of KMC belongs to ME the RULER of The House of El.
This debate is really disappointing, they have 36 minutes to turn it around.
Originally posted by psmith81992
I'm not sure why you continue to mix facts. He didn't force Iran to the table and it was Iran that got what it wanted. The "talking" method has rarely worked and will rarely continue to work with certain countries and dictators.
Iran came to the table when they were not with the previous method. We wanted an agreement with inspections- we wanted the exact same thing under Bush and Obama. We got the exact stuff that Bush was aiming for.
Even if you don't like the deal, it both got Iran to the table and got what the US administrations- and, y'know, every other nuclear power involved in the deal, it was a multi-party deal- wanted.
You're substituting your partisan dislike of the deal, for the simple facts.
Heck, do you consider every country in the deal weak? UK, France, China, Russia and Germany.
Are Russia, China, and Germany soft? They signed off on it too and thought it was good, and did not think they could get better.
Obama did literally have Putin on his side on this.
The talking method had an objective, and reached it. The 'show of strength' method.... had the exact same objective, at least according to what Bush was saying.
Was George W. Bush not being ambitious enough when he wanted just this kind of agreement? Or is the specifics of the agreement secondary to how it was made, i.e. the same thing would've been acceptable if it'd been achieved via shows of strength where it isn't via negotiation?
As for the talking method in general, Reagan talked and made deals with the USSR, Nixon went to China. Sure, they also did other stuff, but they still did a lot of talk. This aversion to diplomacy is not historically normal for the right, the Republican party has had it's share of good diplomats who used the same methods to good effect.
Ok, on the debate, fivethirtyeight's tracking it:
And:
"The moderators are ceding much of the debate to the candidates. They aren’t cutting people off when they interrupt or keep talking, and, as a result, only 60 percent of comments in the first hour have been in response to questions. Twenty percent have been interjections, and 20 percent are the replies candidates get to make when mentioned."
That is not good moderating. Fox was better at moderating than this.
Iran came to the table when they were not with the previous method. We wanted an agreement with inspections- we wanted the exact same thing under Bush and Obama. We got the exact stuff that Bush was aiming for.Even if you don't like the deal, it both got Iran to the table and got what the US administrations- and, y'know, every other nuclear power involved in the deal, it was a multi-party deal- wanted.
You're substituting your partisan dislike of the deal, for the simple facts.
You just said the US got what it wanted, now Iran got what it wanted too? Iran got 160 billion dollars regardless of if they keep their word. What did the US get? Just getting to the table? Wow! Iran won, deal with facts.
Are Russia, China, and Germany soft? They signed off on it too and thought it was good, and did not think they could get better.
You are coming off more and more biased by each subsequent post.
As for the talking method in general, Reagan talked and made deals with the USSR, Nixon went to China. Sure, they also did other stuff, but they still did a lot of talk. This aversion to diplomacy is not historically normal for the right, the Republican party has had it's share of good diplomats who used the same methods to good effect.