I know very little about foreign policy, but I’ve noticed that Trump’s stances are being highlighted more and more as a primary reason not to vote for him. As a reasonable person, I want to know more. It’s hard, however, to find well reasoned pieces that aren’t filled with all kinds of hyperbolic tripe.
Let’s go through one of the articles that I found:
We do not transgress Ronald Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment lightly.
That’s a good start. I’m on the lookout for well-reasoned, thoughtful articles. If you write something that I completely disagree with, but you do it in a manner supported by facts, I’m completely cool with that.
Let’s see how they justified their transgression.
But whether or not he believes his own words, merely uttering them renders him unfit to be commander-in-chief.
They’re not exactly winning me over to their ability to be reasonable from the outset.
Every modern presidential candidate who is realistically attempting to attain the Oval Office shares one trait: They will say whatever they need to say in order to get elected. During the primaries, they preach to their base. During the general election, they move toward the middle, most of the time in ways that directly contradict everything they said in the primary.
Is this an admirable trait in any candidate? Nope. Is it a reasonable trait considering that their doesn’t seem to be any way around the necessity? Yes.
Just by the fact that his words have propelled him into the driver’s seat for the nomination proves that the words were reasonable.
Under a Trump presidency, our allies would detest us and our enemies would have contempt for us, or even pity us.
Great. Now we’re getting to the meat of the issue. Tell me more.
Nope. That’s it. The authors simply made that statement and let it stand.
Literally, the entire article contains not one word that actually supports and explains their position.
Did they not write this:
as signatories to that letter, and as co-editors of Shadow Government, we want to elaborate on that statement in explaining to our readers why our role as the “loyal opposition” may well put us in the uncomfortable yet necessary role of standing in loyal opposition to our own party’s presidential nominee
Where, then, is the explanation that they promised?
Now, being reasonable, I have to say that they linked to other letters that promise some type of actual policy statements, and I’ll have to find time to delve into those. For the moment, though, I’m left with this thought, “What, exactly, was the point of their article?”
EDIT: I followed the link from the original article that was supposed to bring up the actual letter. The link didn’t work for me.