|
|
 Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
OK, I'll bite.
Please list his core beliefs, as you understand them.
Otherwise, you're free to revise as you go, and say, "This is in line with his core beliefs." no matter what he does.
Leaving that pivotal part of your statement ambiguous and open to interpretation is what makes the statement theological in nature.
Pin that down to a specific definition, not open to interpretation and you've moved solidly away from the ambiguity of your original statement.
Thanks for asking.
Regarding politics, his core beliefs are a mix of conservative/libertarian/classic liberal, and they're pretty much all America First. This includes stuff like he wants to in general reduce government regulation of business, reduce taxes, and reduce crime. On social stuff, he generally wants increase individual freedom. On foreign policy, he respects domains (like he isn't into toppling regimes) and carries a big stick and follows through. On immigration and trade, he's about reducing crime and special treatment.
If we go into detail into any of these, I think we can find that even as what he telegraphs can be contradictory, the final landing spot is coherent. Taking Syria related foreign policy for example, he has said things like we shouldn't bomb yet also said things like we should bomb. Maybe it's poor articulation on his part for why he says inconsistent things or maybe it's negotiation tactic, but at least we have context to work with. The contexts show things like this: he thinks setting a red line and backing down is retarded, he thinks toppling regimes that haven't broken international relations enough and are not a threat to other countries to warrant toppling is retarded, he thinks telegraphing your actual moves in war is retarded.
|
Reply With Quote