Trump is planning to increase expenditures on the military but threatens to walk from existing commitments under Nato and other alliances. He doesn’t understand the concept of alliances, where people have to agree on an arrangement that benefits all. He believes that he can dictate conditions to people. He realizes that sounding like he’s going to be tough and dictate conditions to Mexico, China and Japan appeals to his voter base in the US. He whines the Japan is not obligated to defend the US while the US is obligated to defend Japan. He doesn’t seem to realize that the condition which prevents Japan from getting involved in an overseas conflict was dictated by the US at the end of the war.
If the US wants to reduce the number of their bases overseas, that is entirely within the prerogative of the Americans to decide. None of this requires his aggressive scapegoating of American allies and friends. I am sorry, I have listened to his speeches. To me he is a narcissistic fool. A con man who has survived only as long as he was able to find suckers who believed in him. I don’t think the US’s foreign partners or even adversaries will fall for Trump’s self aggrandizement and blowhard tactics. quite frankly I’m amazed that so many people in the US do.
Yes, Trump says he is planning to increase expenditures on the military. His plan is to build more weapons/infrastructure etc. This will increase costs. On the other hand he is vocal against getting into wars like Iraq which over time costs trillions of dollars. So for this it really depends on the magnitudes of each side.
As for the alliances, in theory there should be arrangements that benefit all, that doesn’t mean it currently exists. Currently Trump is not happy with the current terms, whether they were were dictated by the US or not. He is looking at this from more of a financial perspective. I have not read them so I really can’t voice an opinion on it. Yes, this will effect relations however I am not aware of aggressive scapegoating in regards to alliances. Aggressive scapegoating might by more applicable to his immigration policies.
As far as his trade deals are concerned, it is absolutely horrible and it is one of the worst plans I have ever heard.
For the support from Americans I see two reasons(most don’t actually about the policies).
- He is the only one saying there is a problem with accepting refugees/terrorism. His solution is wrong, but no one else will admit a potential issue. And we can see what has happened in Europe.(agree or disagree, this is a fear of some)
- Free speech. There are quite a few people that are tired of political correctness. This authoritarian side coming from the left telling people what you can and cannot say is overstaying its welcome. You can disagree with Trump(many do), but he does represent free speech.
Bullying others and speaking bullshit have nothing to do with freedom of speech.
However expensive Trump’s suites are, Trump apparently lacks the decency that not only a politician but also an ordinary, mature citizen should have. This is not even a matter of what you call “political correctness”, which some people passionately hate to abide by.
Saying controversial things is the core of free speech. I disagree with him on many things and there are many things he SHOULD NOT say. But he has the RIGHT to say them. It is not free speech only if you agree with something.
Well, ya know, if you go up to the forest and get starkers you might run into some storks…or some big bears! 
You can say one thing for Donald Trump: he isn’t (yet) responsible for thousands of civilian deaths and ongoing daily mayhem in almost the entire Arab World…
Trump also said that The Times is "run by incompetent people" and has "an agenda that you wouldn't believe." He criticized the newspaper earlier this week after it ran a special report that concluded that the real-estate mogul didn't have as much influence in New York City as he led people to believe.Donald Trump vows to rewrite libel laws to make it easier to sue the media Donald Trump Vows to Open up Libel Laws via @bi_politics
He should be the first person to be sued by his proposed law. I think The Times’ report is not “controversial” enough to be sued. His comments about his rivals in the preliminary election were worse.
And you can disagree with him on his views on libel laws.
You are missing the point, this might be my last post because you are not reading what I am saying. From the political left there is (as some view) an attack on free speech with things like political correctness. Trump is not politically correct, he says what he thinks(sometimes speaking without thinking). This appeals to people who are pro free speech. This is why some people support him.
@Steve
“…He doesn’t understand the concept of alliances, where people have to agree on an arrangement that benefits all..(…)…He whines the Japan is not obligated to defend the US while the US is obligated to defend Japan. He doesn’t seem to realize that the condition which prevents Japan from getting involved in an overseas conflict was dictated by the US at the end of the war…”
It’s probably safe to assume that he doesn’t understand the finer historical points. But equally though, it sometimes seems that older folks are reluctant to see how much the world has moved on since the 1960s - never mind the 1940s. Younger generations of Americans may not see their role as that of some kind of world policeman, whose job it is to impose and defend good ole Western values throughout the entire globe?
NB I’m not expressing either agreement or disagreement with anything Trump says. I just think that, from a brutally selfish US point of view, military isolationism might work for them? So far as I can see, the US homeland itself isn’t strategically threatened by any other nation state, is it? On the other hand, an interventionist foreign policy may be partly (to say the very least) responsible for the increased threat of terrorism.
Trump’s persistent image problem is reflected in a variety of questions. More than three-quarters of registered voters say Trump does not show enough respect for people with whom he disagrees. A majority say he is biased against women and minorities. On the question of whether he goes too far in criticizing people and groups, 57 percent say he does, while 42 percent — equal to the support he receives in the ballot test — say he tells it like it is. Poll finds Clinton has widened lead ahead of Trump to 8 points http://wapo.st/2b4bAGt?tid=ss_tw
Why do you detest “political correctness”?
Saying what you think is important, but not showing enough respect for people with whom you disagree is a disgraceful behavior. Bullying your rivals and speaking bullshit have nothing to do with the concept of freedom of speech. If you really think that what you call “political correctness” is a bad thing, why don’t you instead call it “political incorrectness” and reject it completely all the time? If you do not say what you want to say, you do not need the right of free speech.
The following comment is difficult to understand:
“Trump is not politically correct, he says what he thinks(sometimes speaking without thinking). This appeals to people who are pro free speech[sic. underline mine]. This is why some people support him.”
I don´t think people dislike PC because they don´t believe in respect.^^
It´s mostly because PC tends to be in line with the progressive left and is often used to get people fired, censored or banned. PC people often ignore arguments and just call the other person racist/sexist/xyz-phobic…you name it.
PC often means “offensive”. The problem is, that people seem to get offended more and more easily.What´s offensive and what is not doesn´t depend on the speaker, it depends on the listener…offense is taken, not given. Besides, “offensive” statements are not necessarily wrong.
So an example is that in Taiwan I am taking classes where I cannot call myself a foreigner, although by definition it is correct and is used by government agencies, legal documents, and most people. I need to call myself an international citizen because it has a better feeling to it. My professor imported this from the U.S. and you can see in the news this is becoming more common. This is very authoritarian in telling me what is ok to say and what is not.
Again you are missing the idea. To express ideas in the way you want to is the reason for free speech. Gender/race equality, marriage equality, etc. is brought about by saying controversial ideas. To control what someone wants to say is not ok. You are misguided is thinking it is about being nice or mean. Many ideas that are considered normal today were offensive years ago.
Again, Trump represents free speech, not that what he says is nice or correct. (I am a little worried about mentioning “He who shall not be named” because you tend to go on crazy tangents, but try to read the words I write to understand the big idea.)
Edit: Fighting Political Correctness (Pt. 3) | POLITICS | Rubin Report - YouTube
By the way a great show 
True.
Also, I sometimes wonder whether politically correct language can be a kind of rainbow-smokescreen which masks true attitudes? Today people are forbidden from doing or saying anything which self-appointed guardians of public standards deem to be “offensive” or “inappropriate” towards group X, Y or Z.
Fine. But how do we know whether there aren’t still some people who, behind their false painted smiles, are secretly filled with hate?
It seems to me that it’s better all-round to know what people are really thinking.
“It seems to me that it’s better all-round to know what people are really thinking.”
I try to make this point as often as possible. It is very much not something people want to hear.
Freedom of speech should be and is protected by law. In reality, however, it is not easy to say what you think. For example, if your employment status is not stable, you tend to refrain from speaking against your superiors at work. Trump can say anything to his employees, but they must have courage if they want to criticize him. There is an imbalance of power here. Trump can bully his employees, but they cannot bully him. I think that “political correctness” should be discussed in this context.
“Power harassment is harassment or unwelcome attention of a political nature, often occurring in the environment of a workplace including hospitals, schools and universities. It includes a range of behavior from mild irritation and annoyances to serious abuses which can even involve forced activity beyond the boundaries of the job description.”—Wikipedia
The above excerpt is from an article about “power harassment”. The right of free speech does not include the right of power harassment or “bullying”.
One more time…Some people do not like political correctness. Trump represents speaking freely(Only REPRESENTS, not everything he says is nice, he should not say everything he does, Trump is not an example of how to speak and treat people. He represents the idea, not that his actions are a good standard.) Because of this some people support him because the opposition is controlling speech.
Examples of political correctness:
https://www.girardatlarge.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Bias-Free-Language-Guide-Inclusive-Excellence-073015.pdf
I can’t say “rich”, but I can say “person of material wealth”
I can’t say " overweight people", but I can say “people of size”
I can’t say “handicapped/physically challenged” I can say “wheelchair user, person who is - wheelchair mobile”
I can’t say “American”, but I can say “U.S. citizen or Resident of the U.S.”
I am not a Trump supporter, but this is an appeal of him to some people. The issues of present day political correctness are quite separate for your example of actual bullying and harassment at work.
“In a democracy, recognition matters. Everyone wants to be seen as who they are. If they are not, then it’s impossible for them to enjoy the experience of being full citizens. -Melissa Harris-Perry”
Thank you for showing me the link to the web page about “Bias-Free Language Guide”.
Trying to use “bias-free” language is important, but I must admit that excluding any biased expressions is next to impossible. By the way, is the bias-free, inclusive language the same as the “PC” language? Why do some people tend to use “political correctness” when they want to reject it?
"If you ask Donald Trump fans why they like him, there’s an excellent chance they’ll say, “Because he’s not politically correct.”
But this is true only if you misunderstand the meaning of political correctness, as Trump himself apparently does.
Popularized in the ’90s to mean overcorrection in language and policies to avoid offending any group of people, it has been redefined by Trump to mean saying whatever slips from gray matter to tongue without the inhibitory processing that civilization demands.
Donald Trump isn’t politically incorrect. He’s simply incorrect. http://wpo.st/NDyq1
Bias-free language is a form of political correctness. “overcorrection in language and policies to avoid offending any group of people,” The problem is that now it goes beyond what most might consider rational. Some of the banned words in the past were the “new good words”. PC is viewed as censorship or words and ideas. This extends into other problems. There is a difference between harassing someone else vs. (you) being harassed because you used a slightly more offensive term that was acceptable 10 years ago…because this word today might offend another person. The concern of the people and Trump’s actions are not always the same.
I partially disagree with the author. Trump has not redefined political correctness, he is defying it though. Having a wrong idea and how you say something are different. Sometimes Trump is incorrect, sometimes he is politically incorrect, but he is expressing his ideas how he feels right(whether you agree or disagree with the idea).
Choosing to be nice to people is fine and most people are this way. Forcing people to be nice in a certain way is not, you cannot have “moral police” forcing people to do things.
How extensive is PC in the world, I have no idea, I can only go from the media which is not an adequate sample size. It does appear to be growing though, many people don’t like it and neither do it. I think it takes away from the real problems of bullying and harassment like you described earlier. “PC police” tend to make little tiny issues like using the wrong word into serious bullying/harassment issues.
So because of this issue, some people support Trump.
If a lot of people use discriminative or vulgar words intentionally or unintentionally to protest against overcorrection of language and “political correctness”, I will be too shocked to say a word. On the other hand, the idea of inclusive, bias-free language is understandable to a certain extent.
I think that the rude words Trump supporters use—bitch, bimbo, blonde, whore, and so on—are not only excluded from the list of ‘preferred words’; they are also missing from the list of ‘problematic/outdated words’. They are simply rude, vulgar words. They have nothing to do with the matter of political correctness or overcorrection.
Donald #Trump supporters attack Megyn Kelly over #GOPdebate feud http://voc.tv/1KaQoMU
Trump might be the anti-political correctness candidate, but that doesn’t make him the free speech candidate.