I do not get Trump's foreign policy and I would like Trump supporters to explain it to me

[Buck Broken Chimp]

So the title says it all. I find Trump's foreign policy to be incoherent. Trump markets himself as an isolationist, and he does some things to imply that, but he also does things that contradict this, mainly his undying support for Israel and his militant opposition to China.

So he wants to fight China. However, many of his foreign policy moves make this harder. The biggest issue is that he alienates allies by doing things like cutting off foreign aid, threatening to invade Canada, and proposing to annex Greenland. The last two are not likely to happen, but why even suggest them? This gives China room to expand its influence, especially in the developing world. His reluctance to support Ukraine is another example—alienating America's closest allies in Europe.

If Trump were to cut off Ukraine, giving Putin a huge win, this would indirectly benefit China since Russia and China are now closer than ever after the war and subsequent sanctions. Previous foreign policy strategists hoped to give Russia some leeway to prevent it from fully aligning with China, but at this point, that ship has sailed.

Then there's his undying support for Israel. We all know about the now infamous executive order cutting off all foreign aid except for Israel and Egypt (with aid to Egypt essentially serving as a bribe to maintain peace with Israel). This also alienates allies—especially Muslim ones in the Middle East. Trump had to give major concessions to these Muslim allies just to get them to support Israel. He did things like Recognizing Morocco's territorial claim over the Western Sahara angered other parts of Africa, particularly Black Christian nations that the U.S. could have persuaded more easily. Promising a full NATO-style defense treaty with Saudi Arabia (which ultimately didn’t go through due to October 7th). MAGA supporters complain about America sending old shells to Ukraine, but if this treaty had passed, the U.S. would have been required to send troops to defend Saudi Arabia. This would have made war with Iran even more likely—a war that could cross a red line for China and BRICS while costing America billions and risking thousands of lives. And all of this just to get Saudi Arabia to open an embassy in Israel. This is also alienating European allies who are more and more moving to recognize Palestinian statehood. Trump is threatening sanctions against the Netherlands for the arrest warrant issued on Netanyahu. I know America has always played it fast and loose with international courts but this would take away any plausible deniability America has.

 

[The Last Stand]

Pay your fair share, give the US better trade options, or we'll tax YOU.

 

[The Punished Mitch]

It seems that you're missing a very vital piece of the puzzle, which is the fact that the United States of America exists as a fully owned and subverted client state of Israel.

 

[ShahOfIran1979]

The point isn't to have a coherent foreign policy. It's to pander to a populist base who believe that 3rd world nations leach off of the US like welfare queens. In reality, foreign aid routinely makes up about less than 10% of discretionary spending and discretionary spending accounts for about one quarter of total aid, meaning only about 1-2% of our budget goes to foreign aid. However, if you can convince anyone that they are having their hard-earned wagie bucks wasted on Mongolian feminist literature, you can mislead them into not understanding how the US budget works. Foreign aid has always been used to project American power abroad, not as some goodwill gesture.
You're right, the Canada and Greenland things are complete nothingburgers. It would be completely nonsensical to invade either place for little real reason other than to trigger the libs. Buying Greenland also would be a huge hassle, as it would further increase our debt and lead to a battle between the US and native Greenlanders who would play the Injun card over "meh land."
In addition, tariffs have pretty much backfired every time they've been implemented in American history. Look no further than the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930. We live in such an interconnected world at this point that it would be difficult to set up barriers to trade without sabotaging it altogether. It also likely won't lead to more domestic production, unless you want more Pedros working in our country.
Also, thank Trump for preserving Israeli foreign aid. They're our greatest ally after all, and the US Liberty had it coming.

 

[Buck Broken Chimp]

The point isn't to have a coherent foreign policy. It's to pander to a populist base who believe that 3rd world nations leach off of the US like welfare queens. In reality, foreign aid routinely makes up about less than 10% of discretionary spending and discretionary spending accounts for about one quarter of total aid, meaning only about 1-2% of our budget goes to foreign aid. However, if you can convince anyone that they are having their hard-earned wagie bucks wasted on Mongolian feminist literature, you can mislead them into not understanding how the US budget works. Foreign aid has always been used to project American power abroad, not as some goodwill gesture.
You're right, the Canada and Greenland things are complete nothingburgers. It would be completely nonsensical to invade either place for little real reason other than to trigger the libs. Buying Greenland also would be a huge hassle, as it would further increase our debt and lead to a battle between the US and native Greenlanders who would play the Injun card over "meh land."
Also, thank Trump for preserving Israeli foreign aid. They're our greatest ally after all, and the US Liberty had it coming.

true, the biggest thing America spends on is social security but you are going to have to pry that from the boomers old hands.

 

[#FreeRoss]

I do not get Trump's foreign policy and I would like Trump supporters to explain it to me​

 

[Althalus]

With regard to NATO, many of the countries are not meeting the minimum payment (2% of GDP) and have not for years. America has been paying a disproportionate amount of NATO funding, both in absolute numbers, and as a percentage of GDP (iirc America pays around 5%). It gets more ridiculous when you consider that NATO's military protection almost entirely benefits Europe since America already pays for its own military. Trump made an issue of this in his last term with limited success, which is why he is bringing it up again.

With regard to Israel, Trump is a thorough Zionist, as is (unfortunately) typical in American politics.

Foreign aid has always been used to project American power abroad, not as some goodwill gesture.

This is half-true. Effective projection of "soft" power requires at least token shows of goodwill, and effective alliances between presumed equals, requires at least token shows of goodwill from both sides.

You're right, the Canada and Greenland things are complete nothingburgers. It would be completely nonsensical to invade either place for little real reason other than to trigger the libs. Buying Greenland also would be a huge hassle, as it would further increase our debt and lead to a battle between the US and native Greenlanders who would play the Injun card over "meh land."

With all due respect, you clearly understand nothing of foreign policy. Trump wanting to annex/increase influence in, Greenland and Canada, has nothing to do with "owning teh libs".

The first reason is both Canada and Greenland are rich in natural resources, especially oil, natural gas, and rare metals.

The second reason is location. Look at this image, it is a perspective of the world from the North Pole:

Assuming you know enough about geography to identify countries without their labels, you can see why Greenland and Canada are strategically important. They are between Russia and the U.S., and Greenland is especially important, being between Canada, Russia, and Europe. Location matters when you need to stage troops, set up missile defenses, or control nearby shipping/air routes. Trump wanting to retake the Panama Canal is for similar reasons too.

 

[Omori Boy]

Back in the first half of Trump's first stint in office he was uncovered to be bought out by the Russian government. Almost all of the stuff he has done so far this time around has been in favor of Russia and China.

 

[The Internet Dick]

Trump is intent on pursuing and achieving objectives that advance American national interests. It is in our strategic military interest to gain control of or outright annex Greenland. His remarks regarding Canada were likely made to shake up the Canadians, who have been living in a Woke globalist dreamland for years now when what the US needs is a reliable ally on our northern border. Canada under Trudeau pretended to be a country, spending next to nothing on its own national defense and reducing its military to near-nonexistence. The time for pretense is over. For the sake of American national security (and its own), Canada needs to be a real country.

The French president recently made noises about sending troops to Greenland to oppose Americans should we move to forcibly annex Greenland. So much for NATO, I guess. The Mexican government, which is in thrall to the cartels, has also made hostile noises. They probably think Trump is bluffing--and maybe he is to a degree, thinking opposition to his foreign policies will cave without much trouble. What they don't believe (and I do) is that Trump will follow through with his threats. He'll invade the shit out of Greenland and Panama. He'll bomb the daylights out of the Mexican cartels and send in Delta to shoot the survivors as they climb from the rubble. He is not fucking around.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Pay your fair share, give the US better trade options, or we'll tax YOU.

Based.

Back in the first half of Trump's first stint in office he was uncovered to be bought out by the Russian government.

What was actually uncovered is he wasn't, the investigations turned up nothing. Your CNN lies are outdated.

 

[Molag Bal]

This will take a while to dissect because there's a lot of misconceptions there. I don't blame them on you, the sources you're going off clearly were opposed to his policies otherwise they would have communicated to you where the pieces fit together. Also some of the rhetoric sounds like it's straight from the usual suspects.

Trump markets himself as an isolationist, and he does some things to imply that, but he also does things that contradict this

When Trump first ran, his platform had a very simple and concise premise and everything around it was tailored towards that premise: "We as the US should do things that benefit the US and stop doing things that are detrimental to the US." And it technically hasn't changed for 2024, he simply realized he needs some more drastic approaches to pursuing it. Every single policy of Trump revolves around improving the economic situation of the US household and the US citizenry in some way.
>Why does he cut off foreign aid for third world countries?
Every dollar sent to those countries is one dollar that's missing at home. Not only that, but it also doesn't improve the situation in those countries. They've been sending that money for many years and has it fixed those countries? No, their situation is worse than ever and now they're marching into the US to plunder it. So not only is the US sending money to those countries unconditionally, but then those countries send armies to invade and occupy the US.

• driving up the prices of goods, driving down the value of labor,
• sapping money and resources out of the US by 5 different angles
• receiving additional money from the US household either directly via welfare entitlements or indirectly through humanitarian NGOs passing money onto them via social workers.

Remember, Trump's primary success metric is money, and every thing listed here is money that the US household or citizenry is losing at no benefit to themselves. The fact that the migrants are killing and raping citizens and getting a slap on the wrist is just rubbing salt in an already open wound.
One dollar is one too much.

>Why does he still send foreign aid to Israel?
Because all his children are married Jewish and part of how he survived his past bankruptcies involved getting bailed out by rich jews. That has nothing to do with his platform, that's just him having to obey Israel like every other politician in western countries. If this is meant as like a "He's controlled by jews! Stop supporting him!", I got news for you: All politicians in western countries are. You think Kamala is some die hard nazi who wants to close the federal reserve and expel AIPAC? You think Bernie Sanders is going to arrest all of Wall Street and send them to Tel Aviv? If you actually believe either of those, I got some Floridian real estate to sell you.
As for why they want war with Iran so badly, it has religious reasons. The short version is that there is an ancient prophecy spelled out by King David, according to which the descendants of a kingdom called Amalek will wipe out the jews. And Amalek supposedly was located right where Iran is today. A lot of rabbis interpret that very literally, so as to mean that Iran will single-handedly eradicate all jews on the planet. That's the whole reason why they're so obsessed with Iran. If destroying Iran means an all-out war with China AND Russia, that's an acceptable price to pay for them. Yes, this is pretty silly, but it isn't even close to the most silly things going on in world politics.

>Why does he threaten to invade Canada
Done half in jest, Canada is already stuck in a warpath with Trump. He knows that their government is in perma TDS mode and will never warm up to him no matter how much he tries to appease them, so he doesn't bother trying in the first place.

That's another thing with him: If he thinks there is no point to doing something, he refuses to do it. A good example is etiquette and decorum. He is friendly and polite to people IF they are friendly and polite to him. But if you're rude to him, if you step on your podium and condescend to him and/or insult him, that's when he stops being polite to you. That's when the mean nicknames and the funny one-liners come out. I'm sure you've seen a lot of the news stories either in 2024 or 2016 that were something like
>Trump INSULTED celebrity XYZ! How could he do that? HOW DARE HE? That's not presidential! That is not nice! It's so rude! So impolite! He can't insult his way to the presidency!
The part the usual suspects failed to mention when you read them, is that each of those people, whether it's Eminem or Rosy O'Donnell or the pope or Kim Jong Un or John McCain, every last one insulted him before that and they did so publicly. Not in private to his face, in public with the entire world watching. And the reason the newspapers are offended is because Trump didn't just take it sitting down but insulted them back. He includes politicians in this as well. If someone like, say, Justin Trudeau steps on his podium and calls Trump an idiot in front of cameras broadcasting to the entire world or calls all his supporters fascists, Trump takes this and infers
>Okay there's no point in being nice to this guy going forward.
Can you blame him? I really want to understand where this mindset is coming from where he is supposed to be friendly to people who shit on him at every turn. Why do people think he has this obligation and why is that expectation there?

>Why does he want to buy Greenland?
I forgot what exactly the context was, but he needed something specific from Greenland for infrastructure reasons, joked about buying the country like you would real estate and the guys from Greenland even made him an offer. Both the musings themselves and the pearl-clutching are posturing and nothing more. The Americans would sooner invade Mexico.
>This gives China room to expand its influence
How does making jokes about buying Greenland expand China's influence?

>Why doesn't he support Ukraine more?
The Ukraine war has always been retarded and avoidable and Trump's platform in 2016 was 'no more pointless wars'.
The kind of mouthpieces that omit everything in this post to you probably also omitted the fact that the US caused the war. They invited Zelenskiy, asked him to break the Minsk agreements (peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia) and promised him that they would send the US military to wage war on Russia if the Russians invaded. And then when the Russians did invade, the Americans pussied out.
The Russians didn't just invade spontaneously and for no reason, the peace between Ukraine and Russia hinged on an agreement and Ukraine broke it.

>His reluctance to support Ukraine is another example—alienating America's closest allies in Europe.
Which allies? The EU? They're the same deal as the Canadians. No amount of playing ball and being nice will ever appease them. They are already alienated as much as they ever could be by default, by the mere virtue of Trump existing. How many times does a guy need to punch you in the face until you realize that making friends is not an option? He tried being the better person, he tried the approach you're asking for and all he got was more tantrums and arrogant sermons. I guess I have to explain what the whole 'hostile-no-matter-what' situation looks like from their perspective. Let's say for instance the EU politicians decided that imposing a trade blockade against the US on their member states was a thing they could do without it backfiring spectacularly. Now let's do a side by side of the two scenarios, Trump appeasing the EU vs Trump alienating the EU.
>Scenario 1: Trump doesn't give in to the EU's demands, he sticks to policies that benefit the US even if it means alienating the EU
>Result: The economic situation of the US continues to improve by multiple metrics, the lives of many people otherwise killed by migrants are saved, but the EU imposes a trade blockade against the US
>Scenario 2: Trump grants concessions to the EU and does everything they ask of him
>Result: The economic situation in the US returns to its downturn, unemployment rises, wages drop, prices go up, crime explodes, lots of citizens killed by migrants, lots of children castrated and molested by gay teachers, and to top it off, the EU STILL imposes a trade blockade against the US
It takes two to tango and if the other side doesn't want to build bridges, there's nothing he can do.

>He did things like Recognizing Morocco's territorial claim over the Western Sahara angered other parts of Africa, particularly Black Christian nations that the U.S. could have persuaded more easily.
Persuaded to do what, exactly? Remember the objective: Things that benefit the economic situation of the US. What can those Black Christian nations bring to the table that helps the US? In Morocco's case I can see something they can do that's beneficial, but what can those christian countries further inland do that's beneficial?

Also
>old shells
Floridian real estate and all that. All those drones the Ukrainians got, you think those are 'old shells' as well? And those fancy bombs that cover entire fields in shrapnel, are those 'old shells' as well? The US sent a lot of expensive equipment to Ukraine, I don't know who you're trying to fool here.

 

[ShahOfIran1979]

Back in the first half of Trump's first stint in office he was uncovered to be bought out by the Russian government. Almost all of the stuff he has done so far this time around has been in favor of Russia and China.

No, but Russia still likely favors him due to his more isolationist actions. It's more likely that they threw support behind him and he kept quiet on it.

Trump is intent on pursuing and achieving objectives that advance American national interests. It is in our strategic military interest to gain control of or outright annex Greenland. His remarks regarding Canada were likely made to shake up the Canadians, who have been living in a Woke globalist dreamland for years now when what the US needs is a reliable ally on our northern border. Canada under Trudeau pretended to be a country, spending next to nothing on its own national defense and reducing its military to near-nonexistence. The time for pretense is over. For the sake of American national security (and its own), Canada needs to be a real country.

The French president recently made noises about sending troops to Greenland to oppose Americans should we move to forcibly annex Greenland. So much for NATO, I guess. The Mexican government, which is in thrall to the cartels, has also made hostile noises. They probably think Trump is bluffing--and maybe he is to a degree, thinking opposition to his foreign policies will cave without much trouble. What they don't believe (and I do) is that Trump will follow through with his threats. He'll invade the shit out of Greenland and Panama. He'll bomb the daylights out of the Mexican cartels and send in Delta to shoot the survivors as they climb from the rubble. He is not fucking around.

Ironically, I would label Canada more nationalist than the US is, especially on the left-wing. Globalism is inherently right-wing, so historically it was left-wing groups that opposed free trade and such. Since Canada has always been culturally and politically dominated by the US, its always harbored large nationalist sentiments in the form of anti-Americanism. There is a reason why leftists in Canada don't want to be annexed by the US.

Also, if Trump invaded Greenland and Panama, he would be a bigger warmongerer than Bush and Obama combined.

 

[Private Tag Reporter]

why are your letters retarded

 

[The Internet Dick]

Globalism is inherently right-wing...

That is a flatly false assertion you don't even bother to support. Globalists are transnational socialists, 'citizens of the world'. Right-leaning Americans are nearly exclusively nationalistic.

There is a reason why leftists in Canada don't want to be annexed by the US.

The US doesn't want to annex Canada although I would guess a significant number of Canadians might be interested in US statehood given the right incentives.

f Trump invaded Greenland and Panama, he would be a bigger warmongerer than Bush and Obama combined.

Greenland is strategically vital to US interests for a number of reasons. Communist China is currently in de facto control of the Panama Canal, allowing it to immediately cripple American force projection should China instigate hostilities and make its move on Taiwan, a state of affairs which simply cannot stand. Both Greenland and Panama can be annexed or made American territories or protectorates without bloodshed.

It's spelled warmonger. And I'm cool with it.

 

[ShahOfIran1979]

That is a flatly false assertion you don't even bother to support. Globalists are transnational socialists, 'citizens of the world'. Right-leaning Americans are nearly exclusively nationalistic.

The US doesn't want to annex Canada although I would guess a significant number of Canadians might be interested in US statehood given the right incentives.


Greenland is strategically vital to US interests for a number of reasons. Communist China is currently in de facto control of the Panama Canal, allowing it to immediately cripple American force projection should China instigate hostilities and make its move on Taiwan, a state of affairs which simply cannot stand. Both Greenland and Panama can be annexed or made American territories or protectorates without bloodshed.

It's spelled warmonger. And I'm cool with it.

Even only a couple decades ago, the political left were the primary anti-globalists in the US, besides a few paleoconservative such as Pat Buchanan. Bill Clinton was considered to be more conservative on the trade issue, mainly due to this support of NAFTA. Other leading Democrats such as Dick Gephardt (House Minority Leader) were opposed to it on the grounds that it would hurt American workers. In 1999, there was a large anti-globalization protest in Seattle (super conservative city) against the WTO.



The idea of Conservatives being the primary "anti-globalists" wasn't really true until relatively recently. Of course, there were figures such as Buchanan and Alex Jones, but they were always fringe figures who did not represent mainstream Conservatism. Even since then, the left has produced anti-globalists such as Bernie Sanders. And no, globalism isn't a Socialist ideology. It is the natural progression of a rapidly developing and integrating world. Globalists don't tend to believe they are forcing their will on the world, but rather they're aiding the inevitable trend.

Thank you for reading, I love this shit.

 

[Soyjak Enjoyer]

"I do not get quantum physics and I would like redditors to explain it to me"

 

[Omori Boy]

No, but Russia still likely favors him due to his more isolationist actions. It's more likely that they threw support behind him and he kept quiet on it.

The problem is that he isn't isolationist. Of course there is his wanting to wipe the Palestinians from their homeland, and his saber-rattling with our allies.

 

[ShahOfIran1979]

The problem is that he isn't isolationist. Of course there is his wanting to wipe the Palestinians from their homeland, and his saber-rattling with our allies.

Well, America (second)

 

[MadStan]

The USA can have a trade deficit because we print DOLLARS for the globe - that's the trade off. If we start punishing the world with tariffs because we have shit local spending policy and hurt our allies who can not print like we do and don't give them their "fair share" of the benefit, they will have to cease using the Dollar as a reserve so much and drive us to economic ruin.

Trump doesn't understand this. Or worse, he does.

 

[Town Drunk]

America is the strongest power in the world. If you want access to what we have, you have to play by our rules. Simple as.

Like it or not. That is his gameplan. Don't want to pay, then you get shut off from buying/selling. But you can't afford not to broker deals with America.

You can try to deal with the contender for power (china) but if you fail you lose everything. Money is money, and money beats geting thrown out as CEO from investors who have no patrotism, and we all know it's not the governments in charge, it's the companies who have bought our government.