Quote:
Originally Posted by RizzyKing
If you just post the general headlines it looks very similar but if you delve deeper then a puddle huge differences become obvious and the massive change in approach and policy is also obvious. Just one to get you started Trump is still pushing for all NATO members to pay their fair share and that failure to do so will have consequences.
|
What is the massive change in approach? Pushing for NATO to pay their fair share is standard as well, Trump is more vocal on it certainly but that isn't a
massive change.
Trump has continued the US military action in the middle east. He has also intervened in Syria which has a massive point of contention in the election campaign with Clinton's calls for the same being called the start of WW3 - by Trump himself.
He has even continued America's attempts to curry favor with China rather than labeling them a currency manipulator. Remember in the campaign when China was his biggest
foreign policy foe? Turns out that there are reasons why America has previously sought to work with China - i.e their massive size and their political influence in Asia.
I think these are good u-turns but it's mad not to call them as such.
---------- Post added at 08:17 ---------- Previous post was at 07:52 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456
This makes interesting reading.
|
Way too wacky.
Why record yourself on tape giving incriminating offers? Why state explicitly what the quid-pro-quo is when both sides would already know it?
If there was collusion between the two it would be advisors speaking to Russian agents about when e-mails would be leaked and off the record assurances of sanctions being lifted etc. All Russia needed is that Trump isn't Clinton and for a while their objectives would have been the same.