Here is an editorial by
Critics of Donald Trump claim there is no rhyme or reason to his foreign policy. But if there is a consistency, it might be called reciprocity.
President Trump tries to force other countries to treat the U.S. as it treats them. In “don’t tread on me” style, he also warns enemies that any aggressive act will be replied to in kind.
The underlying principle of Trump commercial reciprocity is that the United States is no longer powerful or wealthy enough to alone underwrite the security of the West. It can no longer assume sole enforcement of the rules and protocols of the postwar global order.
This year there have been none of the usual Iranian provocations — frequent during the Obama administration — of harassing American ships in the Persian Gulf. Apparently, the Iranians now realize that anything they do to an American ship will be replied to with overwhelming force. (continued here)
Given what we have seen of President Trump, I think Hanson makes sense. If you are debating a Liberal Democrat about Trump’s foreign policy, the word “reciprocity” provides a good defense.
Citizen Tom 
I’m glad Iran has stopped harassing American ships in the Gulf; also it seems Israel is more agressive in defending itself from Iranian proxies this past year.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you! This is an excellent summation of Trump’s approach and is very useful! Great post, Tom!
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Lynn
Glad you found useful.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is a simpler reason, he gains money from his actions just like all politicians. Keep it simple.
LikeLike
@Lander7
Unsupported accusations are simple.
LikeLiked by 2 people
So is hero worship O.-
LikeLike
@Lander7
Another unsupported accusation. Is it Lander7 or Lazy7?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Like you said once before, arguing about nothing is a waste of time. Besides it looks like you are getting upset and that’s not a good place to debate from.
I maintain that Trump like most politicians is just doing what’s best to make money for himself and those he serves.
I see nothing new under the sun with this president.
LikeLike
You fire off two bits of pure speculation then accuse Tom of “getting upset” when he notices. That’s not a good place to debate from, Lander.
Nothing new under the sun is irrelevant to the point of the article.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Since Trump promised to Make America Great AGAIN, “nothing new under the sun” is actually kind of funny. Given tone of Ecclesiastes, I suppose we need to find some humor in it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I gave my opinion like Tom gave his. If you want to debate the topic I’m fine with that but I don’t think Tom needs defenders and arguing about arguing has no value to me.
Nothing new under the sun has every relevance to today’s world. The Bible is wise and it’s words have meaning in everyday affairs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I gave my opinion like you and Tom. So here we are, three guys spouting our opinions! Nobody is right. Nobody is wrong. And nothing changes from the rising of the sun to the place where it sets. All is vanity.
(But Donald Trump sucks, right?)
LikeLiked by 1 person
@John
Lander7 seems to be proud of the fact he cannot be pinned down. Because “you” believe something, “you” are a sinner. Lander7, however, just quotes Bible verses.
LikeLiked by 2 people
In his opinion, the Bible is worth quoting.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t know what “Donald Trump sucks” means, it’s nonsensical. He’s proven that he has an economic policy that improves job growth, he supported NASA with the largest increase seen in recent years, he hasn’t started any wars.
At the same time he hasn’t remove the “Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003”.
He hasn’t removed the “National Defense Authorization Act of 2013”
He hasn’t shut down the “Pre Crime” and “DHS FAST” application programs
He hasn’t shutdown the “PRISM” program.
He hasn’t put an end to the “Patriot Act”.
He hasn’t put an end to the “Fisa court system”.
So if we reduce someone to “He Sucks” I don’t know what that means but we can watch what he is doing and maybe say at an 8000 foot level he gets a D- in areas centralization of power (to much government) and maybe B- in economics.
I personally think it’s to early to know how he’s doing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Lander7
Well, I can agree with the last sentence, but Trump is doing lots better than I expected and much better than Clinton would have done. Perfect? No.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s another thing we need to stop doing ( this is not ment as a fight just my opinion) we need to stop comparing people in office.
It’s a bad habit of Republicans and Democrats. It proves nothing and only makes excuses for bad behavior.
Each president should stand on their own policies and performance. To many of them get off the hook with comparisons.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Lander7
We compare and contrast our leaders because that is how we choose the ones we put (looks that way to us) in the top positions.
You may wish to explain what you mean by the reference to the “hook”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I often see children excuse bad behavior by saying how much better than another child they are. Depending on the parent or supervisor it sometimes get them off the hook for something they did wrong.
It’s a strange logic but again we can agree to disagree, you have the right to your opinion.
LikeLike
@Lander7
When we choose leaders, some people forget that we are suppose to make choices pleasing to God. Our choices includes holding our leaders accountable to the law.
When people start using the government to redistribute the wealth, they are already using the government to steal. Then the law just becomes something the other guy must obey.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Citizen Tom
I was only referring to the need to stop comparing people in office.
It’s a bad habit of Republicans and Democrats. It proves nothing and only makes excuses for bad behavior.
We can agree to disagree but I don’t want to create a sub topic in this OP so we can end this side topic.
LikeLike
@Lander7
😀
LikeLike
At the same time he hasn’t remove the “Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003”.
There’s nothing to remove. This “Act” was never passed.
“He hasn’t removed the “National Defense Authorization Act of 2013”
There’s a new NDAA every year.
Judging by your list, think it’s a safe assumption you spend some time at conspiracy sites.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Anon
You stated — “There’s nothing to remove. This “Act” was never passed.”
My response — The proposal included several provisions that allow the NSA’s program of monitoring telephone calls and e-mails, which was disclosed as a fact in the Edward Snowden whistleblower disclosures. One provision made it clear that the president could order wiretapping without court supervision and that a third provision created a “statutory defense” for agents who conducted surveillance under “lawful authorization” from the president or attorney general, meaning they could not be prosecuted for violating federal law. This was proven true even though the “Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003” was never passed. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), now protects the provisions which are actively running.
Trump himself stated so within 30 days of being in office. Is he lying about it?
Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 is active, proven and verified by the current president and protected by FISA a secret court within a free and open government. It should be removed.
LikeLike
One provision would have made it clear that the president could order wiretapping without court supervision and that a third provision would have created a “statutory defense” for agents who conducted surveillance under “lawful authorization” from the president or attorney general, meaning they could not be prosecuted for violating federal law.
This was proven true even though the “Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003” was never passed. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), now protects the provisions which are actively running.FIFY
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/27/AR2006012701476.html
Not even going to try to touch the rest. Arguing with conspiracy theory sites is like attempting to fight a hydra. They just grow a few more heads and stroll on.
LikeLiked by 2 people
In this case the conspiracy site would be the president but if you don’t believe him that’s fine. We can drop this topic since it’s not part of the OP anyway.
We can agree to disagree.
LikeLike
“In this case the conspiracy site would be the president but if you don’t believe him that’s fine.”
Since you did not provide a link to your claims, I cannot verify their veracity.
But I accede it is possible that in the first 30 days of office Trump might have been as ignorant of the facts as you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Anon
I stated — “In this case the conspiracy site would be the president but if you don’t believe him that’s fine.”
You stated –“Since you did not provide a link to your claims, I cannot verify their veracity.”
My Response — https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39172635
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/timeline-president-trumps-unsubstantiated-wiretapping-claims/story?id=46198888
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/04/518478158/president-trump-accuses-obama-of-wire-tapping-provides-no-evidence
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/09/does-the-latest-manafort-news-vindicate-trumps-wiretap-claim/540321/
https://www.factcheck.org/2017/09/revisiting-trumps-wiretap-tweets/
I don’t want to call Trump a liar but if you say that he is then we can drop this topic and move on. If you think he is telling the truth then there is proof in what I am saying.
LikeLike
@Lander7
To reduce the spam problem, I only permit a couple of links in a comment.
LikeLike
Seems fair, it’s your channel. If you want you can delete that post, it was only in response to a request for links but I don’t mind if it never makes it there.
LikeLike
“I don’t want to call Trump a liar but if you say that he is then we can drop this topic and move on.
That’s nice of you.
“If you think he is telling the truth then there is proof in what I am saying.”
You didn’t state that Trump claimed he was wiretapped. If you’d stated that you could save time and links…it’s common knowledge.
You claimed that the wiretapping was “lawful”, that the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 was in effect though it was never passed to begin with, that Trump hasn’t removed it, and that Trump claimed this was all true.
Good Lord.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just to add as a side note, if someone says something they believe to be true it isn’t “lying”. I suspect you know this. And we’re back to the type of circular argument we had before (about thieves and doors and the claim I stated doors create thieves).
LikeLiked by 1 person
I disagree, the president made a statement to the press based on information he obtained from his security briefing. He has also repeated the statement to the press and has indicated that the information will be made public in the future.
If you want to call him a lier then please do so or you can accept that the legislation wasn’t killed but in fact went through behind closed doors.
Be hot or cold but please stop being lukewarm.
LikeLike
“I disagree, the president made a statement to the press based on information he obtained from his security briefing.”
We don’t know what information he obtained at the security briefing.
For example, if information was revealed that he could only surmise was available in a private room, during a private exchange, he probably came to the conclusion his room was wiretapped.
This one is easy…it’s not even hard. Notice he likened Obama’s action to Nixon and McCarthy.
Just to overstate the obvious: Nixon and McCarthy weren’t around in 2003.
We now know that some of Trump’s subordinates WERE wiretapped. Just not (as far as we know) Trump himself.
I can see why he would come to that conclusion though
LikeLike
Here’s an interesting article on trade surplus/deficit. As one should expect, it’s not black and white:
https://global.handelsblatt.com/finance/truth-germanys-trade-surplus-941592
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think Trump’s principle target is China, but trade policy us best applied if it applied the same way to everyone.
Since Europe actually is an ally, it should be possible to get rid of most of the tarrifs and other such barriers. Those things are concrete and deliberate government policy.
Would it help if Trump spoke more softly?Suppose so, but he is what he is, and the news media tries to exaggerate what seems like bullying. Also kind of pointless to try send a 70 year old guy to charm school.
LikeLike
I have two concerns about the trade deficit…one security (when we outsource, that’s stuff we won’t be able to make at home quickly, so for example, while outsourcing Hannah Montana lunchpails isn’t likely to hurt us, outsourcing our airplane industry probably will). Second is shoddy quality. German quality is great. Japanese quality is great.
Chinese quality is generally awful. And they’ve subsidized their industry so much there’s virtually no free market aspect whatsoever. And countries with good quality outsource their industry to them, and these brands go south fast. Doc Martins (UK) were once the best shoes….now it’s hit or miss. You never know where they come from. Ditto many, many other “European” brands (and US ones for that matter).
Per the article, I must be dumb, dumb, dumb, on economics….but I’m not really sure how much a booming Google and Facebook industry translates into actual reliable and sustainable US employment.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Agreed.
LikeLike
Appears to me to be fair. Whether fair and equitable applies to trade or national defense issues, why should any American have to defend the fair and reciprocal treatment of our nation ever?
Regards and good will blogging.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Darned if I know.
LikeLiked by 1 person