"'Americanism, Not Globalism"

Quoted from Donald Trump's speech during the RNC convention. *I'd like to know from TSR. *Do you think it is appropriate for American citizens to put American interests above global interests when they differ? *I believe this explains much of the American indignation towards the international community. *The average citizens feel that we as a country, have capitulated and appeased the international community with little appreciation in return. *Is it reasonable for U.S. citizens to expect their government to use the full brunt of its power to support the interests of its populace, even when doing so is contrary to a global agenda? *

You're either involved and have a say, or you're not and you don't.

I don't think Americans will accept the latter part that well, they've got too used to having the pre-eminent voice in the world.

Do you really want to give up that "Leader of The Free World" title?

Quoted from Donald Trump's speech during the RNC convention. *I'd like to know from TSR. *Do you think it is appropriate for American citizens to put American interests above global interests when they differ? *I believe this explains much of the American indignation towards the international community. *The average citizens feel that we as a country, have capitulated and appeased the international community with little appreciation in return. *Is it reasonable for U.S. citizens to expect their government to use the full brunt of its power to support the interests of its populace, even when doing so is contrary to a global agenda? *

The US has always put American interests all other interests, every US president in history has done what he thought would benefit his country most of all. That speech reflects Trump's lack of experience and lack of knowledge in diplomacy. Or maybe he is just duping his audience because he knows that they are not the brightest bunch.

The US has always put American interests all other interests, every US president in history has done what he thought would benefit his country most of all. That speech reflects Trump's lack of experience and lack of knowledge in diplomacy. Or maybe he is just duping his audience because he knows that they are not the brightest bunch.

Well, since the end of World War II, we Americans have largely been responsible for keeping the peace and looking out for Western interests. Europeans no longer have the stomach for war and have largely allowed themselves to become (I tried and failed to think of a nicer way to say this) weak-hearted and weak-minded socialists in the name of peace and anti-nationalism. The UK is somewhat less like this (they seem to have a little pride left at least), but continental Europe is undeniably this way.

There is no pride in war. If America had bore the brunt of WW1 and WW2 in the same way that Europe did, which may I point out is still within the life time of our elderly, I don't think you'd be saying the same thing. Also, at least for to a certain degree, you have to let go of nationalism in order for a project like the EU to work. It is, after all, blind nationalism that started these wars. Patriotism is fine, but unwavering nationalism is dangerous.

A lot of Americans have been frustrated at being called neo-Imperialists and criticized for policing the world by countries that essentially live under US protection and probably don't even have the means or willingness to defend themselves. We spend a disproportionate amount of our budget protecting other countries and attempting to maintain a global balance of power.

To be fair you do spend an awful lot on defending other nations, even if that does often result in working in America's interests.

However, Obama's reign is a good example of what happens when the US doesn't lead the world or maintain a balance of power. We gave up on the Middle East, pulled our troops out, and let everything destabilize. ISIS formed... and now Europe is on the verge of being conquered. One can argue we never should have been in Iraq in the first place, but it's undeniable that pulling out after destroying the government and leaving a power vacuum was beyond stupid.

I think the term for conquered now is 'culturally enriched' I wouldn't say conquered per say, but the migrant crisis has the potential to dangerously shake up our demographics, and I dare say it might be too late to reverse due to the sheer scale of the problem. I don't think other countries should really have the right to intervene in foreign affairs unless asked to by that country or if they pose an imminent threat to your own nation. Iraq, I maintain, was justified provided the leaders genuinely believe that the WMD Intel was genuine. Obviously it should have been scrutinised further, but if it was believed to be true then I think we had little choice but to intervene in this instance.

I think that a nation like the US has to worry about the whole globe simply because ambitious states like China, Russia, and now ISIS exist. Someone has to fight these (proxy) wars and do the dirty work to curb their influence and expansion. If we don't strive to maintain a balance of power, and keep super states from getting ever more territory and influence, then we will eventually fall as well.

As I stated above, I don't think any state should really have the right to intervene excluding particular circumstances, but in this instance I do agree that other states such as Russia would take advantage of that lack of intervention by intervening themselves, and I'd much rather had America intervene than them. I don't think it would ever get to the point where America would 'fall', but it could of course damage your country.

The problem is that, ultimately, what happens in the world can affect the United States and our allies, so we end up having to intervene in world affairs to protect our own interests. Focusing entirely on domestic affairs and cutting military strength proves to be short-sighted, as the Obama years have shown us. Therefore, the US must intervene to protect its own interests and those of its Western allies that share common enemies in order to keep those enemies from gaining too much power.

Valid points, and realistic ones even if I disagree with intervention philosophically. I think in today's world the West in general has little choice but to help stabilise the world.

A lot of Americans would probably love to go back to the Monroe Doctrine, but isolationism isn't an option anymore.

The US has always put American interests all other interests, every US president in history has done what he thought would benefit his country most of all. That speech reflects Trump's lack of experience and lack of knowledge in diplomacy. Or maybe he is just duping his audience because he knows that they are not the brightest bunch.

His audience is actually richer and more intelligent than the avergae American:
http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/donald-trump-supporters-are-better-educated-than-the-average-american--ZylKHlODwGW

Americans are very stupid, how else would a country like Russia that was barely industrialised in 1900 and blasted to bits during WWII beat them into space?

Well, since the end of World War II, we Americans have largely been responsible for keeping the peace and looking out for Western interests. Europeans no longer have the stomach for war and have largely allowed themselves to become (I tried and failed to think of a nicer way to say this) weak-hearted and weak-minded socialists in the name of peace and anti-nationalism. The UK is somewhat less like this (they seem to have a little pride left at least), but continental Europe is undeniably this way.