Read the article in its entirety. Post your views on Trump´s foreign policy when he was in office.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Delilah6120 ; Trump's foreign policy was "peace through strength"...thus, no wars during his tenure.

Delilah6120

Argument Topic: Trump's foreign policy was "peace through strength"...thus, no wars during his tenure.

@RickeyHoltsclaw

You did not read the article. I know this because I just posted it and you replied within 2 minutes.
I´m not interested in your misinformed opinion.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Delilah6120 ; Not interested in the article...

Delilah6120

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Then why did you join the debate? Your opinion is not credible then.

MayCaesar

It will not let me read past the first few sentences without subscription, so I can only reply to your second inquiry. I think that Trump's foreign policy was very business-like in both the positive and negative sense: in all of his decisions he seemed to be guided by considerations of the immediate benefit to the US, rather than the long-term principle-based approach. He would swing between calling China the most promising US partner, paying a visit to the CCP leadership and praising them - and calling it a thief, shaking fists and threatening to introduce harsh tariffs on imports from it. He would call Kim Jung Un a "rocket man", and then visit North Korea and broker a bizarre peace between the two Koreas that did not make any difference in practice. Overall, it just was not clear what exactly his overarching goal was, or if there even was one.

I did find it interesting, however, that no matter what he did, his opponents always criticized. When he gave a phone call to the prime minister of Taiwan, his opponents accused him of being undiplomatic and disregarding the CCP's opinion. Then, when he turned around and travelled to China literally a few months later, the same people accused him of bowing to the dictators. It is like they did not have any particular stances either and just temporarily assumed positions opposite to those of Trump.

Overall, I think that both his hardcore fans and his hardcore critics are unprincipled bastards. A principled person will judge the same action equally regardless of who takes it. An unprincipled person will judge the same action differently based on whether the one who took it is from his "camp" or not.

Delilah6120

Argument Topic: It will not let me read past the first few sentences without subscription, so I can only reply to your second inquiry.

@MayCaesar

I have copied and pasted here for you to read. Thanks. And the credibility of the site FP is in above link.

Trump’s Final Foreign-Policy Report Card

A look back at four years of big ambitions, a handful of successes—and many more failures.

By Stephen M. Walt, a columnist at Foreign Policy and the Robert and Renee Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University

JANUARY 5, 2021, 2:38 AM

A lifetime ago—January 2017—I sat down to assess outgoing U.S. President Barack Obama’s foreign-policy performance. Obama inherited a global financial panic and two unsuccessful wars, behaved with exemplary poise and dignity throughout his two terms as president, and achieved several clear foreign-policy successes. Yet despite having voted for him twice, I concluded that “in foreign policy Obama’s record was mostly one of failure.”

Now, as President Donald Trump’s single term staggers to a chaotic and undignified close, it’s time to perform a similar evaluation. Having run for office calling U.S. foreign policy “a complete and total disaster,” was Trump able to right the ship of state and chart a better course? Compared to other countries, did America’s power, prestige, and global influence rise on his watch? Or does Trump’s handling of foreign policy call to mind his bankrupt casinos, the Trump Shuttle, Trump University, or other failed business ventures?

It’s worth recalling what he promised to do. Like most of his political platform, Trump’s foreign policy sprang from a sense of grievance. He thought the rest of the world was taking advantage of the United States; he was going to put “America first” instead. Allies would pay full price for U.S. protection, adversaries would be confronted and vanquished, and the United States would pursue its own self-interest with scant regard for diplomatic niceties. He’d stop China from “stealing” American jobs and take the United States out of “bad deals” like the Paris climate accord and the nuclear agreement with Iran. Portraying himself as a master negotiator, he promised to reach “beautiful” new trade deals that would restore U.S. manufacturing and usher in a new era of prosperity. The United States would play the sucker no longer: It would get “out of the nation-building business,” crack down on immigration, rebuild a supposedly weak defense establishment, and get Mexico to pay for a wall on the southern border.

n sum, Trump offered a seductive vision that promised unbroken success with little or no additional effort. Restoring U.S. dominance wouldn’t require personal sacrifice, national unity, or even a well-conceived strategy—putting a “very stable genius” at the helm was all it would take to “make America great again.” Once he became president, Trump promised, Americans would “be so sick and tired of winning.”

So how did this all work out? Although Trump can claim a few foreign-policy successes, his overall record is dismal. America’s adversaries are more dangerous than they were in 2016, the United States is weaker, sicker, and more divided, relations with many U.S. allies are worse, and any aspirations to moral leadership that Americans might have harbored have been badly tarnished.

To be fair, Trump can claim a number of genuine achievements. For one thing, he didn’t start any new wars or create any new failed states. That might sound like a low bar, but none of his three predecessors can make a similar claim. The administration also negotiated a new trade agreement with South Korea and an updated version of NAFTA, although neither deal marked a dramatic improvement over the prior arrangements. By repeatedly hinting that he might take the United States out of NATO, Trump encouraged European efforts to take a bit more responsibility for their own defense and may have convinced some fence-sitters to accede to U.S. requests not to employ the Chinese firm Huawei to construct their digital infrastructure. Some observers would also give his administration credit for midwifing the establishment of diplomatic relations between Israel and several Arab states, although these steps did little to advance the cause of peace or justice in the Middle East.

Unfortunately, this modest list of successes must be matched against a long list of more consequential failures.

For starters, consider how he handled relations with China. He tried to get Chinese President Xi Jinping to put more pressure on North Korea; Xi refused. He tried to get China to make major structural reforms and end its predatory trade and investment practices, and he eventually launched a costly trade war in an attempt to force Beijing to comply. That didn’t work either, because China retaliated and adapted; U.S. businesses, consumers, and farmers bore most of the costs of Trump’s tariffs; and Trump chose to pressure China unilaterally instead of lining up other countries alongside the United States. The administration’s escalating campaign against Huawei, ZTE, TikTok, and other Chinese technology firms has hurt these firms in the short term, but it has also spurred Chinese efforts to reduce its dependence on U.S. technology and may eventually cost U.S. firms a lot of future earnings.

Not surprisingly, relations with China have spiraled steadily downward over the past four years.

That decline is not entirely Trump’s fault; it is in many ways hard-wired into the emerging structure of the international system. What is Trump’s fault is America’s deteriorating position within that structure and its failure to take advantage of Beijing’s own missteps. China has cracked down in Hong Kong and on its Uighur minority (reportedly with Trump’s approval), clashed with India along the Himalayan border, continued its territorial encroachments in the South China Sea, and gone to considerable lengths to bully Australia, a longtime U.S. ally. It has taken advantage of Trump’s abandonment of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) to negotiate and sign a new Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership with 14 other Asian nations, and it just completed a new investment agreement with the European Union. After mishandling the coronavirus outbreak at the start, China now appears to have the pandemic under control within its borders and has reopened its economy. The United States, meanwhile, continues to add tens of thousands of new cases each day and remains in partial lockdown.

Trump’s handling of the other Asian great power—Russia—was no better. He told supporters back in 2016 that “we are going to have a great relationship with Putin and Russia,” and Trump’s steadfast deference toward Russian President Vladimir Putin remains something of a mystery. Yet Trump never made a serious effort to improve relations or drive a wedge between Moscow and Beijing, even though doing so would have made good geopolitical sense. Apart from sanctioning a few more Russian officials, however, Trump didn’t do very much to challenge Russia either. Instead, Trump got himself impeached for trying to bolster his reelection prospects by withholding U.S. aid to Ukraine until Kyiv dug up some dirt on the Biden family.

The result? Russia is still interfering in Ukraine today, still supporting the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria and warlord Khalifa Haftar in Libya, and still conducting murderous attacks on perceived threats at home and abroad. Moscow is also the likely perpetrator of the massive cyber-breach that compromised U.S. government computer networks, including the Defense Department, State Department, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and the National Security Agency. Can you imagine what Trump might have said had this happened on Obama’s watch?

Trump’s amateurish handling of North Korea offers another example of foreign-policy ineptitude. After exchanging some childish taunts on Twitter with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, Trump had the good sense to turn to diplomacy instead. Instead of orchestrating a systematic negotiation to limit North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs, however, Trump opted for a pair of “reality show” summits with Kim that were long on spectacle and short on substance. Convinced that his personal charm and deal-making skills could convince Kim to give up the nuclear deterrent on which the survival of his regime depends, Trump ended up getting nothing. Although the summits produced the sort of media attention that Trump craved, they succeeded only in enhancing Kim’s stature and underscoring Trump’s gullibility. The president lost interest in the issue as soon as his PR stunt failed, and North Korea’s nuclear arsenal and missile capabilities have continued to improve ever since.

And then there are the more obvious blunders. It was a mistake to leave the Paris climate accord, which was at least a useful first step toward addressing the greatest long-term peril humankind is facing. It was a mistake to abandon the TPP while simultaneously trying to balance China, and an even bigger blunder to leave the nuclear deal with Iran. Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and hard-line elements of the Israel lobby keep insisting that Trump’s policy of “maximum pressure” is working, but such claims are blatant nonsense. Yes, a lot of ordinary Iranians have suffered as a result of U.S. sanctions, but the clerical regime is still in power, hard-liners have gained more influence, and Iran has resumed enriching uranium, increased its stockpile eightfold, and cut its breakout time in half.

Finally, one cannot omit Trump’s corrosive impact on the core elements of U.S. power, on which its security and well-being ultimately depend. With respect to COVID-19, Trump has provided a master class in how not to handle a serious emergency. He allowed pandemic preparedness to languish before the coronavirus emerged, then denied that it was a serious problem, openly discouraged mask-wearing and other preventive measures, insisted the virus would disappear “like magic,” and proved incapable of coordinating a testing-and-tracing system that might have contained the pandemic months ago. Not only has his failure cost more American lives than World War I, the Vietnam War, and the Korean War combined, but it has also done enormous damage to the U.S. economy and badly damaged America’s image of competence.

Furthermore, despite his early pledge to rebuild the sinews of American power, Trump did little to improve U.S. infrastructure, and his immigration policies made it harder for U.S. firms to recruit the best talent from overseas. Instead of encouraging national unity and a broad sense of patriotic respect for our fellow citizens, he spent his four years in office sowing greater divisions. He has presided over an unprecedented hemorrhaging of senior officials in the Department of State and other national security institutions, leaving key positions either unfilled or staffed with poorly qualified loyalists. In the world brimming with complex challenges, this was nothing short of unilateral diplomatic disarmament.

The end result is both ironic and tragic. Trump had reasonably sound instincts on a number of issues and a refreshing willingness to challenge certain well-established but dubious orthodoxies. He was correct to accuse Europeans of neglecting their defenses, correct to accuse China of reneging on some of its trade commitments, and correct to oppose endless efforts at nation-building in distant lands of little or no strategic importance to the United States. Public support for a less ambitious, more realistic, and more successful foreign policy was widespread. Yet he was unable to translate his instincts into a successful foreign policy. Why?

To be fair, Trump faced a major dilemma from the start. His criticisms of U.S. foreign policy had alienated most of the existing elite—including dozens of veteran Republican officials—and left him with few experienced aides to staff his administration. Hiring inexperienced outsiders would inevitably lead to a lot of rookie mistakes; appointing people who knew how to make the government machinery run would enable them to continue the policies he had promised to end. This problem was especially acute in the area of national security, where Trump’s knowledge was particularly limited, and it helps explain his erratic responses to issues like NATO, Syria, Iran, and Afghanistan.

Second, Trump was a poor judge of talent. He repeatedly picked top officials who either had little or no government experience (e.g., Rex Tillerson, Jared Kushner), checkered personal histories (Michael Flynn, Larry Kudlow), profoundly goofy ideas (Peter Navarro, Steve Bannon), or a long history of prior policy failures (Elliott Abrams, John Bolton). His more conventional appointees (Gary Cohn, James Mattis, H.R. McMaster) eventually fell out of favor, leaving foreign and national security policy in the hands of second-stringers or die-hards like Robert O’Brien or Richard Grenell.

Trump also proved to be a petulant, unpredictable, volcanic, and ungrateful boss, who managed to burn through four chiefs of staff and four national security advisors in less than four years. One staffer called Trump’s White House “the most toxic working environment on the planet,” and turnover rates inside the administration remained at historically unprecedented levels throughout his term in office. Trying to manage a complex world in the midst of such chaos would have taxed a Bismarck, a Lincoln, or a Roosevelt, and Trump was a far cry from those canny and subtle strategists.

Last but by no means least, Trump’s handling of foreign policy succumbed to his own defects of character. His genius for self-promotion and remarkable ability to defy existing norms could not overcome his ignorance of most areas of policy, distrust of genuine expertise, short attention span, incorrigible dishonesty, and inability to place the national interest ahead of his own need for attention and adulation. Qualities that had sometimes worked in his up-and-down business career, in reality TV, and even on the campaign trail proved wholly unsuited to the tasks of governing, especially in the unforgiving world of foreign policy. In the end, even America’s many remaining advantages could not make up for Trump’s innate incompetence.

Fortunately, American voters seem to have figured this out, too. Trump is the only president whose approval ratings never exceeded 50 percent—not once—and he lost his bid for reelection even though the Electoral College currently makes it much easier for Republicans to win. Indeed, Republican candidates for House and Senate seats did better than expected in the November 2020 election, while the man on top of the ticket went down to a decisive defeat. Trump has no one to blame but himself, which may be why he’s refused to accept it.

In many ways, Trump’s presidency was a missed opportunity. His predecessors had mismanaged the unipolar moment, and Trump had the chance to put U.S. foreign policy on a sounder footing. The general public had made it clear that they didn’t want isolationism, but they did want a more restrained and successful foreign policy. Trump could have built on that base of support and worked with U.S. allies to bring the country’s commitments into better balance. He could have built on the Iran nuclear deal to move toward a more even-handed, balance-of-power posture in the Middle East and ended the Afghan War promptly. He could have worked with other advanced economies to confront China together and worked to reform the World Trade Organization instead of trying to gut it. Properly implemented, a shift to a more realistic grand strategy would have kept the United States secure and prosperous, and freed up resources needed to address pressing priorities at home. Had Trump moved in that direction, the country would be much better off today, and he wouldn’t have to find a new place to live in three weeks.

But it was more than a missed opportunity, because Trump’s blunders have left the United States in much worse shape than when he took office. For President-elect Joe Biden and his team, the bad news is that they have an enormous amount of repair work to do. The good news, such as it is, is that it won’t be hard to do better than the people they are succeeding.

My FP: Follow topics and authors to get straight to what you like. Exclusively for FP subscribers. Subscribe Now

Stephen M. Walt is a columnist at Foreign Policy and the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University. Twitter: @stephenwalt

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Delilah6120 ; Not concerned.

MayCaesar

@Delilah6120

This was an interesting read, thanks. Overall the professor's reasoning makes a lot of sense to me - however, I am a bit confused as to how his conclusion was derived. It would help if he summarized his arguments at the end with bullet points. As it is, his arguments generally were along the lines of, "Trump had the opportunity to do this better than his predecessors, and he did not" - yet the conclusion was that "Trump's blunders have left the United States in much worse shape than when he took the office...", and that it would not be hard for Biden to do better than Trump did - contrary to the overall stated trend of all presidents doing equally poorly.

If I were to read everything except for the last paragraph, the author's conclusion to me would come across as, "Trump was as bad as his predecessors on foreign policy". Where the last paragraphs' conclusions came from is unclear to me.

Factfinder

MayCaesar said:

@Delilah6120

This was an interesting read, thanks. Overall the professor's reasoning makes a lot of sense to me - however, I am a bit confused as to how his conclusion was derived. It would help if he summarized his arguments at the end with bullet points. As it is, his arguments generally were along the lines of, "Trump had the opportunity to do this better than his predecessors, and he did not" - yet the conclusion was that "Trump's blunders have left the United States in much worse shape than when he took the office...", and that it would not be hard for Biden to do better than Trump did - contrary to the overall stated trend of all presidents doing equally poorly.

If I were to read everything except for the last paragraph, the author's conclusion to me would come across as, "Trump was as bad as his predecessors on foreign policy". Where the last paragraphs' conclusions came from is unclear to me.

You make a solid point. If things were so bad when trump left it should have been easier then usual for Biden to improve on his predecessors presidency. This article was written in 2021 and I got the feeling the author was making excuses just incase Biden fails. In any event things haven't improved across the board. Some things improved for some people at the expense of other people of whom things got worse.

I think trump would be slightly better than Biden again for one simple thing. It appeared trump was unpredictable enough to keep tyrants at bay around the world where as Biden announced what he wouldn't do empowering Putin to do what he did.

Delilah6120

@MayCaesar

This was an interesting read, thanks. Overall the professor's reasoning makes a lot of sense to me - however, I am a bit confused as to how his conclusion was derived. It would help if he summarized his arguments at the end with bullet points. As it is, his arguments generally were along the lines of, "Trump had the opportunity to do this better than his predecessors, and he did not" - yet the conclusion was that "Trump's blunders have left the United States in much worse shape than when he took the office...", and that it would not be hard for Biden to do better than Trump did - contrary to the overall stated trend of all presidents doing equally poorly.

If I were to read everything except for the last paragraph, the author's conclusion to me would come across as, "Trump was as bad as his predecessors on foreign policy". Where the last paragraphs' conclusions came from is unclear to me.

Thank you for taking the time to read the article. I thought it one of the best analyses of Trump´s foreign policy and other matters that I´ve read.

As for how he arrived at his conclusion, likely much research and analysis. I agree that bullet points to highlight and summarize his conclusions would have clarified his position better. His remark ¨Trump had the opportunity to do better ....¨ could have meant that Trump campaigned strongly on not allowing countries to take advantage of the US. He was going to be tough on them and make them pay their share....calling US foreign policy a ¨complete and total disaster¨. But in the end, he did not deliver on this. In fact you spoke quite clearly on this even before you read the article. ¨ ..... his decisions seemed to be guided by considerations of the immediate benefit to the US, rather than the long-term principle-based approach. He would swing between calling China the most promising US partner, paying a visit to the CCP leadership and praising them - and calling it a thief, shaking fists and threatening to introduce harsh tariffs on imports from it. He would call Kim Jung Un a "rocket man", and then visit North Korea and broker a bizarre peace between the two Koreas that did not make any difference in practice. Overall, it just was not clear what exactly his overarching goal was, or if there even was one.¨ Very well articulated and observant. Perhaps Trump´s many unfulfilled promises to do better in holding countries accountable and to Make America Great Again is where the professor reached his conclusion. Trump´s apparent strong convictions to protect America was the opportunity to do better but he did not follow through with it. To me the professor was as clear as glass on why he failed in foreign policy. Amateurish handling, childish taunts, and ¨reality show¨ summits with Kim that were long on spectacle and short on substance. While it´s true that no other president had promised to tackle the dilemma of countries paying their fair share (a promise that made Trump very popular), perhaps his predecessors were more experienced, insightful, prudent and less isolationist, understanding the huge undertaking.

This paragraph wrapped it up for me ... again, character matters when you´re leader of the free world:   ¨Last but by no means least, Trump’s handling of foreign policy succumbed to his own defects of character. His genius for self-promotion and remarkable ability to defy existing norms could not overcome his ignorance of most areas of policy, distrust of genuine expertise, short attention span, incorrigible dishonesty, and inability to place the national interest ahead of his own need for attention and adulation. Qualities that had sometimes worked in his up-and-down business career, in reality TV, and even on the campaign trail proved wholly unsuited to the tasks of governing, especially in the unforgiving world of foreign policy. In the end, even America’s many remaining advantages could not make up for Trump’s innate incompetence.¨ As trump´s supporters will claim .... he did some good things ... yes, but blind men can hit their target occasionally. He is a malignant narcissist and acts from a place of self interest only .... primal self protection to ensure his fraudulence can never be exposed.

As for your uncertainty on the last paragraph´s conclusion ¨But it was more than a missed opportunity, because Trump’s blunders have left the United States in much worse shape than when he took office. For President-elect Joe Biden and his team, the bad news is that they have an enormous amount of repair work to do. The good news, such as it is, is that it won’t be hard to do better than the people they are succeeding.¨  While Biden has actually continued some of Trump´s foreign policy (not unusual for incoming presidents), I believe he has left America more vulnerable to our enemies´ wrath than ever. The attached article explains.

https://theconversation.com/the-foreign-policy-legacy-that-donald-trump-leaves-joe-biden-148573

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-conversation/

Delilah6120

Argument Topic: If things were so bad when trump left it should have been easier then usual for Biden to improve on his predecessors presidency.

@Factfinder

If things were so bad when trump left it should have been easier then usual for Biden to improve on his predecessors presidency. This article was written in 2021 and I got the feeling the author was making excuses just incase Biden fails. In any event things haven't improved across the board. Some things improved for some people at the expense of other people of whom things got worse.

I think trump would be slightly better than Biden again for one simple thing. It appeared trump was unpredictable enough to keep tyrants at bay around the world where as Biden announced what he wouldn't do empowering Putin to do what he did.

Did you read the article? It is a fair and insightful analysis of Trump.

Things are not easier for Biden as Biden has done, and continues to do much cleanup after Trump. I don´t believe the professor was making excuses just in case. Agree, our relationships globally have gotten worse which I believe Trump responsible for. I don´t believe Trump´s unpredictability kept the tyrants at bay. I believe he shook things up, yes. But his mercurial nature, imprudence and instability has left America more exposed. Trump still remains curiously submissive and smitten with Putin.

MayCaesar

@Factfinder

I am not sure, honestly... The performance of the past 4 presidents has been so poor that it is hard to differentiate between their badness. One positive thing I can say about Trump is that, unlike Biden, he does not seem to be mentally gone. He does show signs of significant intellectual decay, but he is generally quite aware of his surroundings. Biden has fallen apart mentally and most of the time does not seem to know where he is and what is happening around him. On that account alone Trump is a far superior choice to him with respect to foreign policy. 

Imagine Biden meeting with Jinping or Putin and having one of his confusion episodes... Few things can empower foreign dictators as much as having the president of the strongest country in the world fall apart mentally in front of their eyes.

Factfinder

@MayCaesar

Yeah. One of the things the article accurately discusses was trumps petulance and inexperience where running a government is concerned. Though one of his campaign promises was to 'drain the swamp' but I guess he went about it wrong. Of course what was noticeably absent from article was any mention of the unheard of level of obstructionism that was taking place too. But in the end that doesn't matter. I'd hate to imagine a Trump victory where we find out he was acting restrained in his first presidency. And less consciences about everything like you allude to.

The irony is as you point out the un-impressiveness of our last four presidents, we're stuck with one of the last two for four more years it seems.

 

Factfinder

Delilah6120 said:

@Factfinder

If things were so bad when trump left it should have been easier then usual for Biden to improve on his predecessors presidency. This article was written in 2021 and I got the feeling the author was making excuses just incase Biden fails. In any event things haven't improved across the board. Some things improved for some people at the expense of other people of whom things got worse.

I think trump would be slightly better than Biden again for one simple thing. It appeared trump was unpredictable enough to keep tyrants at bay around the world where as Biden announced what he wouldn't do empowering Putin to do what he did.

Did you read the article? It is a fair and insightful analysis of Trump.

Things are not easier for Biden as Biden has done, and continues to do much cleanup after Trump. I don´t believe the professor was making excuses just in case. Agree, our relationships globally have gotten worse which I believe Trump responsible for. I don´t believe Trump´s unpredictability kept the tyrants at bay. I believe he shook things up, yes. But his mercurial nature, imprudence and instability has left America more exposed. Trump still remains curiously submissive and smitten with Putin.

Yes I did. It was an interesting perspective but I found nothing in it so alarming it would make me feel any better about voting for Biden. I already don't feel great about Trump either for some of the reasons your article brings up. Under Biden many Americans lives were severely, economically disrupted cause of both his domestic and foreign policies. He offers very little in the way of noble reasons for his decisions and much indifference to any suffering he causes. I truly think it is in part because of his declining mental abilities. And he has long sought his own legacy. 

Delilah6120

Argument Topic: Yes I did. It was an interesting perspective but I found nothing in it so alarming

@Factfinder

Thanks for reading the article. I actually thought it was an excellent article and he nailed it on Trump´s incompetence.

 ¨Last but by no means least, Trump’s handling of foreign policy succumbed to his own defects of character. His genius for self-promotion and remarkable ability to defy existing norms could not overcome his ignorance of most areas of policy, distrust of genuine expertise, short attention span, incorrigible dishonesty, and inability to place the national interest ahead of his own need for attention and adulation. Qualities that had sometimes worked in his up-and-down business career, in reality TV, and even on the campaign trail proved wholly unsuited to the tasks of governing, especially in the unforgiving world of foreign policy. In the end, even America’s many remaining advantages could not make up for Trump’s innate incompetence.¨ 

Thank Goodness Biden doesn´t hold any of these qualities!

I do admit that Trump does have one quality that Biden does not. He is an outstanding comedian! I wish we could promote him in that area.

Delilah6120

Argument Topic: The performance of the past 4 presidents has been so poor that it is hard to differentiate between their badness

@MayCaesar

Thanks for reading.

I must have missed something along the way with the past four presidents because none of the past 4 had the character weakness and gross incompetence as 45.

 ¨Last but by no means least, Trump’s handling of foreign policy succumbed to his own defects of character. His genius for self-promotion and remarkable ability to defy existing norms could not overcome his ignorance of most areas of policy, distrust of genuine expertise, short attention span, incorrigible dishonesty, and inability to place the national interest ahead of his own need for attention and adulation. Qualities that had sometimes worked in his up-and-down business career, in reality TV, and even on the campaign trail proved wholly unsuited to the tasks of governing, especially in the unforgiving world of foreign policy. In the end, even America’s many remaining advantages could not make up for Trump’s innate incompetence.

MichaelElpers

@Delilah6120

"You did not read the article. I know this because I just posted it and you replied within 2 minutes.

I´m not interested in your misinformed opinion."

Well in this case what rickey stated was actually agreed upon within the article.  Trump started no new wars.

Additionally basically the entire article was opinion.  It very much liked to state things as fact "Trump did x and it hurt us" but in the end it didnt provide the evidence needed to back up the conclusion.

"Not surprisingly, relations with China have spiraled steadily downward over the past four years."
Isnt that where they were already headed.  How do you think are relationship is currently?  Invasion of Taiwan seems more likely than ever does it not?

He dogs on how Trump handled North Korea however if you remember nuclear war was a serious issue leading into 2016. That pretty much fizzled out.  Then he said the nuclear/missile program continued.  Well when does technology not do that with time? Which president has been able to prevent this?

I am also grateful he pulled out of Paris climate accords which was mostly a show anyway.

Trump is a poor judge of talent...based on this guys opinion.  I could say the same about others.

Show me part of the article where after a negative claim is made its substantiated with actual data. If not, youre believing it just because it agrees with you and you want it to be true.  From what I can see the state of world hasnt gotten after this so called terrible handling of foreign policy.

MayCaesar

Delilah6120 said:

@MayCaesar

Thanks for reading.

I must have missed something along the way with the past four presidents because none of the past 4 had the character weakness and gross incompetence as 45.

 ¨Last but by no means least, Trump’s handling of foreign policy succumbed to his own defects of character. His genius for self-promotion and remarkable ability to defy existing norms could not overcome his ignorance of most areas of policy, distrust of genuine expertise, short attention span, incorrigible dishonesty, and inability to place the national interest ahead of his own need for attention and adulation. Qualities that had sometimes worked in his up-and-down business career, in reality TV, and even on the campaign trail proved wholly unsuited to the tasks of governing, especially in the unforgiving world of foreign policy. In the end, even America’s many remaining advantages could not make up for Trump’s innate incompetence.

When deciding whether the performance of a given president is better or worse than the performance of a few other presidents, a proper across-the-board analysis of their actions and achievements should be performed. This is what the author attempted to do, and I have not understood how his analysis warranted his conclusion.

Stating that Trump had a few particular flaws does not lead to the statement that Trump was worse than any of the past 4 presidents. That is a lazy analysis, one in which you start with the conclusion and then derive the reasoning leading up to it.

It is also worth pointing out that certain character traits that conventionally are seen as malicious can have a positive effect in particular situations. For example, lack of empathy can be very useful in the situation where a leader must make a tough choice between two options affecting large numbers of people negatively: an overly empathic leader might be overwhelmed by the implications of the choice and end up choosing based on his guilty consciousness (which is a terrible place to act from), while a less empathic one might be able to make a pragmatic choice that works best at achieving the specified goal.

Delilah6120

Argument Topic: Additionally basically the entire article was opinion. It very much liked to state things as fact "Trump did x and it hurt us" but in the end it didnt provide the evidence needed to back up the conclusion.

@MichaelElpers ;

Nah. I´ve done my work and posted a VERY CREDIBLE opinion from a HIGHLY CREDIBLE site which actually leans right. I read a lot, newspaper daily, multiple news sites; I do my research.
Tell ya what, if you´re interested in Trump´s foreign policy, how ´bout you post some credible and positive information on how good Trump´s foreign policy is? 

Delilah6120

@MichaelElpers

´how good trump´s foreign policy 
WAS

MichaelElpers

@Delilah6120

The author was clearly not right wing he voted for Obama twice. Thats not my problem with it though and saying its a credible source doesnt disprove what I said either.
There are plenty of credible sources that can provide opinion pieces or that can get things wrong.  Im dealing with the specific article and how you believe the arguments presented are fact and not just opinion.

So what do I believe were Trumps successes in foreign policy.

1. No new wars. As far as Im concerned that is huge and is one of the biggest indicators of successful foreign policy
2. He quickly quashed ISIS and made them mostly irrelevant after they grew under Obama.
3. He pulled troops out of the middle east and it wasnt a huge blunder like bidens pull from afghanistan.
4. He pulled us from the Paris climate accords.
5. He got our allies to increase there defense spending.
6. Recognized Jerusalem as part of Israel.
7. High tensions with North Korea died down.
8. He helped increase security at the border. Another big one for me.
9. I believe we had a better diplomatic relationship with Russia.

Some things I think he did wrong.

1. Tariffs
2. He over corrected on Covid.  Too much lockdown.  However liberals would probably argue he didnt lockdown the economy long enough.

Where do you think Biden has succeeded on foreign policy?
Theres 2 major global conflicts.
Tensions with China are escalating
Historic illegal border crossings
Disaster pull from afghanistan.

You think this is better?

Delilah6120

Argument Topic: Is the site that you quoted reputable, unbiased, and balanced? Yes or no please.

@MichaelElpers

All great things in your opinion. You are actually questioning my opinion, my credible source, and I ask you to provide the same making a case for Trump´s Foreign Policy. 
Please provide some evidence to back up your opinion. Surely you can do this.

MichaelElpers

@Delilah6120

Yes, I question sources, especially opinion pieces because I try to think critically and reason for myself otherwise just like a sheep or a dog.  I do not just look up a supposed credible source from Google and take its info a gospel

Many of the things listed actually arent my opinion, they are things that actually happened.  Ill deliniate which are fact and which are opinion.

1. Fact no new wars
2. Hardly disputable
3. First part fact.  Second part is opinion, but not sure many people dispute the pull from afghanistan was not well coordinated.
4. This is a fact as your article pointed out.  Its my opinion this is good
5. Another fact your article agreed with.
6. Another fact. My opinion is this was good.
7. This is partly opinion but if you remember 2016 I dont think its highly disputable.
8. Fact he increased security at the border. 
9. Opinion.  But considering where we are now, I think its hard to dispute.

Feel free to dispute whether something happened I declared was a fact never happened. If you agree it happened but consider it bad feel free to do that too.  Maybe youll change my mind on that topic.
Otherwise your just allowing someone else to do your thinking for you.

Delilah6120

@MichaelElpers

The author was clearly not right wing he voted for Obama twice. Thats not my problem with it though and saying its a credible source doesnt disprove what I said either.

I stated that the site leaned right. I will site more here but I warn you, they will not be sources from FOX, Newsmax or OAN.

There are plenty of credible sources that can provide opinion pieces or that can get things wrong.  Im dealing with the specific article and how you believe the arguments presented are fact and not just opinion.

So what do I believe were Trumps successes in foreign policy.

1. No new wars. As far as Im concerned that is huge and is one of the biggest indicators of successful foreign policy

Trump lied and said he was the only prez in 72 years that didn´t start wars. To start off, let´s establish that he lies more than he tells the truth. It is true, that no wars were started under Trump, but there were terrorist attacks and yet to be known is how vulnerable he has left America. The article explains the intricacies of the explanations of war which I thought interesting.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-no-wars/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/13/trump-falsely-claims-no-terrorist-attacks-no-wars-during-his-presidency/

2. He quickly quashed ISIS and made them mostly irrelevant after they grew under Obama.

Another lie told by Trump was that HE killed the caliphate. He says it over and over again. Simply not true.  Much of this work can be attributed to Obama. Please read the article and note also the credibility of the site.

https://theconversation.com/who-really-defeated-the-islamic-state-obama-or-trump-148066

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-conversation/

¨Trump’s claims of conquering “almost 100% [of the Islamic State] … since our election” are false. Objective history records that Obama launched and oversaw much of the victorious war that the current president claims for himself.¨

3. He pulled troops out of the middle east and it wasnt a huge blunder like bidens pull from afghanistan.

Biden made mistakes, but Trump made mistakes also. This debacle and its failure was in the works before Biden took office. Here´s a tidbit for ya...did you know that Trump invited the TALIBAN to camp david? Trump also left a gift for America before leaving office - he  had freed 5,000 imprisoned Taliban soldiers. He also reduced our troops from 13K to 2,500 - leaving us very vulnerable - and right before he left office. Note below that Trump made a withdrawal agreement with the Taliban and EXCLUDED the Afghan government. Smooth. But great for optics Trump.

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/08/timeline-of-u-s-withdrawal-from-afghanistan/

¨The fact is, President Joe Biden and his predecessor, Donald Trump, were both eager to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan and end what Biden referred to in his Aug. 16 speech as “America’s longest war.”

The Trump administration in February 2020 negotiated a withdrawal agreement with the Taliban that excluded the Afghan government, freed 5,000 imprisoned Taliban soldiers and set a date certain of May 1, 2021, for the final withdrawal.

And the Trump administration kept to the pact, reducing U.S. troop levels from about 13,000 to 2,500, even though the Taliban continued to attack Afghan government forces and welcomed al-Qaeda terrorists into the Taliban leadership.¨

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/08/world/asia/afghanistan-trump-camp-david-taliban.html

¨In the days that followed, Mr. Trump came up with an even more remarkable idea — he would not only bring the Taliban to Washington, but to Camp David, the crown jewel of the American presidency. The leaders of a rugged militant organization deemed terrorists by the United States would be hosted in the mountain getaway used for presidents, prime ministers and kings just three days before the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that led to the Afghan war.¨

4. He pulled us from the Paris climate accords.

The fact that you believe this to be an accomplishment leads me to believe you deny we´re in a climate crisis. The young folks won´t appreciate that from you. This was nothing but a stunt to save money and make him look good. Here is more information on this and what his withdrawal left. The only other countries not to sign on were Syria and Nicaragua. Welcome to the 3rd world America!

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/consequences-leaving-paris-agreement

¨By withdrawing from the Paris accord, the United States—the second-largest global emitter—could undercut collective efforts to reduce emissions, transition to renewable energy sources, and lock in future climate measures.¨

5. He got our allies to increase there defense spending.

Yes he did - and well done. While even a blind man can hit a target, this is his business savvy gone right. This, to me, is his single most success being the ruthless businessman he is. The question is, why is he threatening to leave NATO if reelected?

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-nato-countries-increased-spending-1384655

6. Recognized Jerusalem as part of Israel.

Yes Trump recognized Jerusalem as part of Israel, and officially made it capital. Several presidents before him also recognized this but Trump made it official.

https://www.liberty.edu/journal/article/examining-the-significance-of-jerusalem-as-israels-capital/

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/06/world/middleeast/trump-jerusalem-israel-capital.html

Apparently meant to be a peace agreement between palestinians and Israel .... what´s going on here now? A very transactional move made with imprudence.

¨Mr. Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem isolates the United States on one of the world’s most sensitive diplomatic issues. It has drawn a storm of criticism from Arab and European leaders, which swelled on Tuesday night after the White House confirmed Mr. Trump’s plans.

Pope Francis and the Chinese foreign ministry joined the chorus of voices warning that the move could unleash a wave of violence across the region. At a meeting in Brussels, Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson was sternly reproached by European allies.¨

7. High tensions with North Korea died down.

Not necessarily. Trump does have balls, I´ll give him that. But balls only bounce so high and eventually come down. His braggadocio has - and will always be dangerous.

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/donald-trumps-north-korea-gambit-what-worked-what-didnt-and-whats-next

¨But from the outset the implementation was flawed. Trump treated the summit as a victory in itself, reveling in the media attention and acting as though he had pulled off something truly remarkable by persuading Kim to meet, when in fact North Korean leaders had long sought the prestige such an event would bring. Kim wasn’t conceding anything by sitting down with Trump – just the opposite – he was proving that his strategy had worked, that by developing nuclear weapons he had forced the hostile imperialist enemy (as the United States is depicted in North Korea) to take him seriously and to treat the country with the dignity and respect it deserved. The photographs of Trump listening attentively to Kim, the cheering crowds, and the North Korean flag flying alongside the Stars and Stripes only underlined his point.¨

8. He helped increase security at the border. Another big one for me.

This is also a big one for me. This was his true evil. And again Trump´s need for favorable optics is what motivates him. While immigration is - and has always been a complex conundrum for all American presidents, Trump did one thing that may have deterred migrants. Under his Zero Tolerance law (and what prompted his HHS secretary to quit under his leadership due to the cruelty) infants, babies and young children were automatically taken from their migrant parents as parents were deemed ¨criminals¨ automatically. He snatched babies from their parents. This is Trump´s style. Authoritarian. These children will be damaged for life. And I ask what leader couldn´t accomplish something so complex if he does evil things to accomplish it? The man is a sick narcissist.

The Biden administration is STILL trying to locate these children and reunite them with their parents.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2021/1/27/22252294/biden-zero-tolerance-family-separation-trump

9. I believe we had a better diplomatic relationship with Russia.

I´ll just leave this here. Putin wants another Trump win. He helped ensure his 2016 win, and he´s doing it again. Why? Because Putin recognizes that Trump is simply smitten with Authoritarian leaders. That being so, trump is easily manipulated leaving America exposed.

https://www.newsweek.com/trumps-2024-victory-boost-russias-putin-looking-opinion-1876076

Some things I think he did wrong.

1. Tariffs
2. He over corrected on Covid.  Too much lockdown.  However liberals would probably argue he didnt lockdown the economy long enough.

We are debating Trump´s foreign policy here. If you´re interested, please present the below as a new OP.

Where do you think Biden has succeeded on foreign policy? 

Theres 2 major global conflicts.

Tensions with China are escalating
Historic illegal border crossings
Disaster pull from afghanistan.

You think this is better?

I am going to ask you once again for your credible sources supporting Trump´s successful foreign policy. You provided your opinions only with nothing to support it. I´ve done much work to try and present a case against Trumpś foreign policy and cited several credible sources. Please do the same to present a case FOR Trump´s foreign policy.

Delilah6120

@MichaelElpers

Your opinion is just that. You still have failed in citing reputable sources to back up your claims that Trump´s foreign policy was successful.

I use not only my opinions based on much research and reading - I always try to cite credible sources. If you say they are things that actually happened, then back them up with more than your opinions. Be fair.

Delilah6120

Argument Topic: When deciding whether the performance of a given president is better or worse than the performance of a few other presidents

@MayCaesar

When deciding whether the performance of a given president is better or worse than the performance of a few other presidents, a proper across-the-board analysis of their actions and achievements should be performed. This is what the author attempted to do, and I have not understood how his analysis warranted his conclusion.

The OP title was about Trump´s foreign policy. It somehow evolved into something more. What you request is a week-long research project. How about this? Since it is about Trump´s foreign policy, please cite credible source as to why you believe his FP was a success. That was the original OP.

Stating that Trump had a few particular flaws does not lead to the statement that Trump was worse than any of the past 4 presidents. That is a lazy analysis, one in which you start with the conclusion and then derive the reasoning leading up to it.

I would say he had more than ¨a few¨ flaws. Stop deflecting and avoiding the original point.

It is also worth pointing out that certain character traits that conventionally are seen as malicious can have a positive effect in particular situations. For example, lack of empathy can be very useful in the situation where a leader must make a tough choice between two options affecting large numbers of people negatively: an overly empathic leader might be overwhelmed by the implications of the choice and end up choosing based on his guilty consciousness (which is a terrible place to act from), while a less empathic one might be able to make a pragmatic choice that works best at achieving the specified goal.

Well sure, acting irrationally and dangerously can have positive effects for some. Let´s take Hitler for example. He successfully did away with 6M Jews. I´d say Hitler and his groomed anti-semites love that. I´d say lack of empathy (and narcissism) was a driving factor wouldn´t you? To juxtapose, let´s compare Trump´s lack of empathy with Hitler´s.  He successfully deterred (?) migrants from (immediate only) invasion by snatching babes from their parents. Success! And you are correct, immigration has been America´s thorn in the side for decades largely because American presidents have empathy - nah, not guilty conscience, just the morality of humanism. VERY poor analysis MayCaesar.

MayCaesar

@Delilah6120

I do not claim that Trump's foreign policy was a "success". I merely look at the arguments presented for the conclusions the author makes, and I do not see how the latter follows from the former. I do not expect a week-long research project (although the author writing this article better had spent far more than a week working on his arguments), but a clear logical structure of the argument leading up to the conclusion would be nice.

Your last paragraph does not challenge my argument. I did not say that Trump illustrated it, I just proposed the general idea that conventionally seen as malicious character traits can have positive effects in some situations.

Delilah6120

@MayCaesar

I´ve attached several cites to read to support the professor´s claims. Yes, it would have been nice to see a side-by-side argument to confirm his conclusions.

You stated that acting irrationally and dangerously can produce positive effects. I supported that with comparisons only.

Delilah6120

@MayCaesar

I do appreciate you´ve taken the time to actually read the article.
While it has been said that Trump ¨did some good things¨. Yes he did. But his negatives heavily tipped the scales against his positives. He is transactional (his short term gains were far more important than long term gains), irrational and I believe motivated by his own personal needs. Do all politicians act selfishly at times? Of course. But Trump is in a league of his own. In my view, a prerequisite to leading a country should be stability, morality and decency. It seems that these qualities are not as heavily important to you. So be it. Thanks for engaging!

Factfinder

Delilah6120 said:

@MayCaesar

I do appreciate you´ve taken the time to actually read the article.
While it has been said that Trump ¨did some good things¨. Yes he did. But his negatives heavily tipped the scales against his positives. He is transactional (his short term gains were far more important than long term gains), irrational and I believe motivated by his own personal needs. Do all politicians act selfishly at times? Of course. But Trump is in a league of his own. In my view, a prerequisite to leading a country should be stability, morality and decency. It seems that these qualities are not as heavily important to you. So be it. Thanks for engaging!

How do you define "good things" in terms of a sitting presidents presidency? Keep in mind I'm not asking what one shouldn't do but rather what they would do specifically. In your mind what would these 'good things' be?

MayCaesar

Delilah6120 said:

@MayCaesar

I do appreciate you´ve taken the time to actually read the article.
While it has been said that Trump ¨did some good things¨. Yes he did. But his negatives heavily tipped the scales against his positives. He is transactional (his short term gains were far more important than long term gains), irrational and I believe motivated by his own personal needs. Do all politicians act selfishly at times? Of course. But Trump is in a league of his own. In my view, a prerequisite to leading a country should be stability, morality and decency. It seems that these qualities are not as heavily important to you. So be it. Thanks for engaging!

How heavily important these qualities are for me you cannot determine based on my words so far, since I have never addressed them. I think you should learn to be more patient and focus and actually understand the arguments you are responding to before responding to them. One good reply is worth far more than a hundred lazy replies.

MichaelElpers

@Delilah6120

Ill hone in on a couple of these.

1. No new wars. This one is quite humorous because your position is based on your so called credible sources.  However your credible sources dont even agree. The initial OP agreed Trump started no new wars.  Your fact checkers claimed he lied, albiet based mostly on a 72 years old claim.  See this is the frustrating piece.  You clearly are just typing things into google and when the fact check comes up with some sly way to disagree with my statement you failed to go through its reasoning. You cant just read the headlines.

2. Much of the destroying ISIS can be attributed to Obama. Well sure Obama certainly did take back some of the land ISIS took over.  Of course during his presidency is where they rose to prominency and took the land to begin with, so not sure how much credit you should be giving there.

3. I can agree Trumps actions in afghanistan were not perfect but I will not understand these opinions that meeting with the oppoaition provide them legitimacy.  How else are you supposed to have diplomacy? Same for stuff on North Korea.

4. The thing about the Paris Climate accords is there is absolutely zero punishment for failing to meet the proposed actions.  So China and otjer polluters can sign in but ignore it completely.  Its a dog and pony show.
Let me know how mant degrees of heating this is supposed to prevent.  Competition drives innovation and making cleaner and more efficient fuels helps significantly as the majority of countries cant afford expensive green energy.  Lastly we could just use nuclear power but for some reason climate alarmist politicians often dont support it.  Sustained fission will take of energy issues.

8. Trump reversed his zero tolerance policy so clearly he saw it had negative effects.
Bidens border policy is bringing in record numbers of illegal immigrants. This is overwhelming us and causing huge tax burden. Not to mention the amount of criminal activity this allows especially human trafficking ans opiod epidemic.  What about those children?
https://homeland.house.gov/2023/09/14/the-border-is-open-border-patrol-wife-child-trafficking-expert-fentanyl-mom-testify-on-human-cost-of-border-crisis/#:~:text=Ballard on ways to combat,at risk of sexual exploitation.

"You have to pay with your body," one victim told the New York Times. Almost one in three migrant women report being sexually assaulted. Other coyotes prefer younger prey, offering to help mothers cross in exchange for sex with their daughters. Some take money up front only to abandon their "clients" in the desert. Hundreds die every year making the harrowing journey. 

Cartels routinely kidnap migrants, even after they have paid, to squeeze more money out of them. One study estimated that 60% of unaccompanied migrating children are caught by cartels and exploited through child pornography and drug trafficking."

9.  Even if you can somehow confirm Putin does want Trump to win why is that automatically a bad thing? Improving a relationship with Russia and coming to understandings doesnt equal bad.

Delilah6120

Argument Topic: Ill hone in on a couple of these.

@MichaelElpers

I have opinions but they are just that - my opinions, my perspective only. I know there are numerous other opinions/perspectives to consider; I try not to believe everything I think. So I try to research to get as close to the truth as reasonable to stay unbiased. It´s not easy but I try.

Without going too far, I posted a quick comment to yours but didn´t want to waste time; you must provide credible source(s) to support your opinions that Trump´s foreign policy was sound or beneficial?

1. No new wars. Michael, you simply title it with no information to back it up with supporting information. A fact background information.

2. Distroying Isis. Okay, so let´s not give credit to Obama..., but can you please provide supporting information on Trump´s success for destroying ISIS - and if in fact, he did destroy ISIS. 

3. Okay, you agree Trump´s actions regarding Afghanistan weren´t' perfect. Where is your information supporting what he did do right with Afghanistan. How did his policies help?

4. So your opinion is you agree with Trump´s retreat from The Paris Climate Accord. CA. Again, Michael, where is the supporting information that Trump´s retreat from TPCA benefited America? What implications did withdrawal from TPCA have? Backing it up with credible analysis please.

8. Trump did not voluntarily reverse Zero Tolerance; he faced international and national criticism for his cruel ZT.  Trumpś administration had no policy in place to reunite families. Again, nothing to support your opinion. You state that lax immigration is causing huge tax burden. How does it cause a huge tax burden? Then back that statement up with credible sources. You posted a Trump Homeland Security link. Not credible and obviously biased. There are hundreds of ¨unbiased¨ and credible new articles on this. Can you provide sources to back up your claims?: I have read that immigrants pay more in taxes than they consume in benefits they receive. I´d be happy to provide mine.

9. Well, if you think that it is actually a good thing that Putin wants Trump, post credible information - not just your opinion. Why is it a good thing backed up with credible sources.

Please, all I am asking for are credible sources to support your argument either for or against Trump´s foreign policy. Surely somewhere on the internet, newpapers, etc. there are supporting articles that can support your opinion.

MichaelElpers

@Delilah6120

I dont want just want to be posting sources back and forth.  I dont just turn to google to let them do thinking for me.
I want a discussion that where we use our intellect to have a dialogue.  If there is a disputed fact than dispute it, if an opinion is illogical than explain how so. 

1.  No new wars. Your asking me to prove a negative which is not possoble.  You can disprove the statement by providing a war.  But your original source already agreed with me.  Why are you still arguing this?

2. The issue is here with the word "destroy"  because yes im sure there are some stragglers around.  What I know is ISIS and North Korea were the most discussed global threats when Trump took office. Disagree?
Now how relevant were they when he left?

More later

Delilah6120

Argument Topic: More later

@MichaelElpers

Michael, you have opinions, I have opinions. What are your opinions based on? My opinions and views are largely fed by many sources - personal experiences, my beliefs and values, education,etc. We can argue indefinitely if we´re going head-to-head based on opinions only. I don´t have that time and you likely don´t. Back your statements up with facts. Where do you get facts? From information outside one´s opinions - from media, books and other information sources. Now it´s possible that you may not trust anything perhaps believing it´s ¨fake news¨; if so, let me know. I simply won´t waste more time. Thanks.

I will wait for your ¨later¨.

Delilah6120

Argument Topic: Many of the things listed actually arent my opinion, they are things that actually happened. Ill deliniate which are fact and which are opinion.

@MichaelElpers

Then if they actually happened, and it is truth, then post some evidence to support it.

MichaelElpers

@Delilah6120

Lets focus on them one by one. Whats wrong with my argument here.

1. No new wars. Your asking me to prove a negative which is not possible. All you would have to do to disprove the statement by providing a single war started under Trump. Again your original source already agreed with me.

Delilah6120

Argument Topic: 1. No new wars.

@MichaelElpers

I simply will not engage with someone who for whatever reason, cannot or will not cite supporting evidence of anything. 

MichaelElpers

@Delilah6120

How can I cite a war im claiming doesnt exist?

Delilah6120

Argument Topic: How can I cite a war im claiming doesnt exist?

@MichaelElpers

Michael, I believe we´ve already established that there were no wars under Trump. To which I replied.

1. No new wars. As far as Im concerned that is huge and is one of the biggest indicators of successful foreign policy

Trump lied and said he was the only prez in 72 years that didn´t start wars. To start off, let´s establish that he lies more than he tells the truth. It is true, that no wars were started under Trump, but there were terrorist attacks and yet to be known is how vulnerable he has left America. The article explains the intricacies of the explanations of war which I thought interesting.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-no-wars/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/13/trump-falsely-claims-no-terrorist-attacks-no-wars-during-his-presidency/

But you also listed 8 other reasons you thought Trump had a successful foreign policy which I replied to with both my opinion and sites that supports my opinion. (see remarks in previous post).
Please cite support for the remaining 8 reasons you thought Trump´s FP was successful

1. No new wars. As far as Im concerned that is huge and is one of the biggest indicators of successful foreign policy
2. He quickly quashed ISIS and made them mostly irrelevant after they grew under Obama.
3. He pulled troops out of the middle east and it wasnt a huge blunder like bidens pull from afghanistan.
4. He pulled us from the Paris climate accords.
5. He got our allies to increase there defense spending.
6. Recognized Jerusalem as part of Israel.
7. High tensions with North Korea died down.
8. He helped increase security at the border. Another big one for me.
9. I believe we had a better diplomatic relationship with Russia.

Delilah6120

Argument Topic: How can I cite a war im claiming doesnt exist?

@MichaelElpers

I´m not sure why you haven´t post links to back up your statements. But I have a sneaking suspicion that 1) there are none and 2) You get your news from your own opinions and Trump´s lies. Prove me wrong.

MichaelElpers

@Delilah6120

If you agreed Trump started no new wars why did you follow with posts claiming he lied?

I will back up specific statements that you have questions about but Im not willing to find a source for every single claim unless you show an expression of disagreement in your own words disputing the claim or why it is wrong. Lets start with your main 2 disagreements.
Otherwise it just feels like Im responding to a child that just responds Why to everything.  I dont have time for that.

Delilah6120

Argument Topic: If you agreed Trump

He lied and he said he was the only prez in 72 years that hadn´t started a war. Come on. I was adding that to make a case that HE LIES CONSTANTLY.

Be fair Michael. You came up with 9 things you believed boosted his Foreign Policy. THAT´s what I want you to back up. Each item. 

I actually believe you can´t find any sources to back up your 9 claims. I am actually getting scared that you may believe your opinions and Trump´s words. That is scary.

Back up what you claim.

Delilah6120

Argument Topic: Overall, I think that both his hardcore fans and his hardcore critics are unprincipled bastards. A principled person will judge the same action equally regardless of who takes it. An unprincipled person will judge the same action differently based on whether the one who took it is from his "camp" or not.

@MayCaesar

Overall, I think that both his hardcore fans and his hardcore critics are unprincipled bastards. A principled person will judge the same action equally regardless of who takes it. An unprincipled person will judge the same action differently based on whether the one who took it is from his "camp" or not.

How does one judge the insurrection that happened on January 6? How does a principled person judge that?

Delilah6120

Argument Topic: I will back up specific statements that you have questions about but Im not willing to find a source for every single claim unless you show an expression of disagreement in your own words disputing the claim or why it is wrong. Lets start with your main 2 disagreements.

@MichaelElpers

And I still await Michael Elpers analysis of Trump´s Foreign Policy where he listed nine wonderful things Trump did that made a case for his foreign policy, but as of yet, aside from his own opinion and lies that Trump spewed, has not cited any evidence to support his great foreign policy. Why does this bother me? Because I´m beginning to think that the average trump supporters believes what he wants because trump tells them to. Surely you can understand how scary that is to Americans.

MichaelElpers

@Delilah6120

And I said Id take them a couple at a time because i want to know your greatest disputes.

For example when I say: The thing about the Paris Climate accords is there is absolutely zero punishment for failing to meet the proposed actions.  So China and other polluters can sign in but ignore it completely.  Its a dog and pony show.
Let me know how mant degrees of heating this is supposed to prevent.  Competition drives innovation and making cleaner and more efficient fuels helps significantly as the majority of countries cant afford expensive green energy. 

I made about 3 points here I dont know which ones you disagree with. If you dispute them I want to know why.

On no new wars you said you agreed he had no new wars.  Then you wanted to show he lied about something although that had nothing to do with my claim.  I never stated anything about 72 years and never said trump has never lied.

MayCaesar

Delilah6120 said:

@MayCaesar

Overall, I think that both his hardcore fans and his hardcore critics are unprincipled bastards. A principled person will judge the same action equally regardless of who takes it. An unprincipled person will judge the same action differently based on whether the one who took it is from his "camp" or not.

How does one judge the insurrection that happened on January 6? How does a principled person judge that?

Depends on the principles in question.

Overall in this discussion I see you desperately clinging to individual points and purposefully avoiding a more comprehensive analysis of the issue discussed. @MichaelElpers actually offers a fairly impartial view from what I can see, while you see every refusal from him to accept a particular point as being indication of him "wanting because Trump tells him to". As a side observer, you appear much less objective here than him - and I say that as someone who more often disagrees than agrees with him.

Delilah6120

Argument Topic: Depends on the principles in quesiton

@MayCaesar

There is no discussion. He refused to cite anything supporting his opinions. Give me a break. He couldn´t because there was nothing to support his opinions which leads me to believe that he had no supporting evidence except his opinion and trump´s word. That is scary.

MayCaesar

@Delilah6120

I also refuse to cite anything in these discussions in 99% cases, because I prefer to speak for myself, not repeat some journalist's words. That does not mean that I do not read anything and just hold an opinion in a vacuum or listen to one person and take his words for granted.

You have put words in my mouth, and in MichaelElpers' mouth, on numerous occasions. You would attribute to use beliefs the opposite of which we have expressed. Yet we do not complain. Why not apply this hard standard to yourself?

In your opening statement, you said this: "I would love to discuss this further with those who are able to put aside their biases for the good of the country." I am sorry, but I do not see that you abide by your own expressed standard.

Delilah6120

Argument Topic: I also refuse to cite anything in these discussions in 99% cases

@MayCaesar

Speaking for oneself is great, but just that, opinion. Supporting your opinions with information puts things in a more realistic and enlightening perspective. Come on, be realistic and fair. He cited nine entries, and simply refused any information to support his opinions. I never put words in anyone´s mouth: I simply ask for support of one´s words.Yes, I would have loved to continue this further for those able to put aside their biases for the good of the country. Michael did not want to continue. 

Are you the Debate site monitor? Well okay then, monitor others´ debate styles also then. I´ve read lots of crazy on here. There are plenty of infractions I see on this site that you could be monitoring. I did much research on my post and cited many credible sites to back up my information. All for naught. Perhaps I´m in the wrong place on this site.