Are they separate principles, or parts of a whole?
I ask that because negotiations with Iran forced the question....along with the possibility of a Grexit.
Printable View
Are they separate principles, or parts of a whole?
I ask that because negotiations with Iran forced the question....along with the possibility of a Grexit.
Considering that diplomacy is conducted by politicians...
Exactly. So how can we decide if Diplomacy is being used for our national best interests instead of political party interests? After all, the latest nuclear demands on Iran are being called the worst decisions ever, in the history of all international agreements....
How can we tell whether anything politicians do is for our national interest instead of party interests? And who determines what exactly the national interest is?
Me. The national interest is prosperity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Prosperity for whom?
Everyone with enough money to influence the vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I was going to say 'the voters' decide, even though Party politics (and tons of campaign money) limits voters' choices .....and then Donald Trump became 'popular' to many Republicans. :picard:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
http://www.politifact.com/florida/st...mps-2005-wedd/ About a decade after being popular to many Clintons. :noob:
Trump not only donated to Clinton campaigns.....he supported a single-payer health care system!
Has the US political landscape become SO confused that a guy like Trump can be considered Presidential material? :eek: His politics don't please the RNC, and his style is certainly NOT diplomatic.
Maybe the polls are wrong, but are treated as legitimate "news" in the era of social media, and it becomes a vicious cycle? :(
Trump is an attention whore. He is a joke and the faster he gets off the national stage the better.
He's a Republican, and wants to run for the Presidency on the Republican ticket. How is that any worse than Sarah Palin being a hand-picked VP to John McCain's run for office?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
On another note, Obama is the first US President to visit the African continent in an official capacity post-apartheid. All things considered, that's a a bold statement for Diplomacy and Politics......
The first to visit the entire continent since apartheid? That's just plain wrong. Dubya visited Egypt, Senegal, Botswana, South Africa, Uganda, Nigeria, Benin, Tanzania, Rwanda, Ghana, Liberia. Clinton visited Ghana, Uganda, Rwanda, South Africa, Botswana, Senegal, Nigeria, Tanzania, and Egypt. And Bush senior visited Somalia post apartheid.
Apartheid ended in 1994, so I don't think Bush Sr. could have visited Africa post-apartheid in an official capacity. :o
I counted from 1991 because of wikifest saying the apartheid laws were abandoned then, mea culpa. He visited in his last winter as president.
Either way, the other ones show that the claim is.. Actually somewhat bizarre, what would make you think that? Not to mention linking visits to the entire continent to racist laws in one country is a bit weird.
That was when the first elections with universal suffrage were held. The end of apartheid was implemented in '91 however.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Not really. And are you equating South Africa to all of Africa?Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Non-whites still couldn't vote until 1993 and didn't vote until 1994.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Sorry GGT, not Africa, just those particular countries
Correction noted :up: Getting back to diplomacy + politics....any comments about the Trump effect? It's getting pretty nasty as Republican candidates vie for media attention, and a top-ten spot on the poll-driven debate stage. :eek: