The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Voters: American Foreign Policy Never Too Tough
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Per a request from our Uralic correspondent, a distribution of sentiment towards Trump’s approach to Russia, to China, and to North Korea from the perspective of his voters:

Unsurprisingly, the Goldilocks assessment is most common in all three cases.

Even with the relentless lying about Trump’s alleged cozy relationship with Russia, his voters are 7x as likely to say he is too soft on the country as they are to say he is too tough on it.

For comparative purposes, again how Biden voters view things:

The political opposition thinks the party in power is too soft on X foreign country. The party in power thinks its approach on X foreign country is just right. Too tough, though? Ha!

One might think that is what the Libertarians are for, though only small minorities of Jorgensen’s voters said Trump’s approach was too tough. Hawkins’ voters, in contrast, registered exclusively among the too tough numbers for all three countries. Green voters made up 1% of those who see Trump’s approach to each of the three countries as too tough. They made up 0% of those who viewed the approaches as not tough enough and as about right.

 
Hide 13 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Bellicosity towards nuclear-armed countries is not likely to end well.

  2. At your discretion, if you and your readers wish to say how you (and they) would have responded, and why, had Fox News asked us the Russia/China/Korea question, I’d be interested.

  3. anonymous[381] • Disclaimer says:

    Bearing in mind, as we must, that polling is propaganda, look what happens when we drop the neuro-linguistic programming of “tough” (What’s the opposite of that, tender? Soft? Flaccid?)

    When competent pollsters do it instead of statist apparatchiks, they get some interesting results. To this proposition:

    “If countries were to feel that they could attack each other whenever they thought it was best, the world would soon fall into chaos and conflict. It is very important for the US to set a good example to other countries by getting UN approval for taking military action.”

    71 per cent assented, at the peak of the Iraq war drive in 03. When you ask people to respond to the supreme law of the land instead of individual loaded words, the US population aren’t such cave men after all.

    Don’t know offhand if that flaccid tendency’s been ameliorated by state propaganda.

    • Replies: @Lars Porsena
  4. Passer by says:

    Again, the name of Trump is distorting the poll. Compare generic polls and you will find that Dems are more hostile on Russia and North Korea, while Reps are more hostile on China and Iran.

    Dems will reflectively say that Trump is not tough enough about anything. Remove the name to avoid distrotions.

  5. El Dato says:

    The Reboot of the Revival of the Reimagination of Pearl Harbor soon.

    Ralph Raico on Pearl Harbor I:

    https://youtu.be/FTupV8o3mW4?t=8511 2:21:51

  6. The American public is perhaps even more delusional about American power than the American elite. And the latter is already pretty delusional. Consider the article below. It sounds totally realistic for the US to create the ability to sink the entire Chinese navy in a matter of days. I guess all they need is more strong black women and more trans people in the military.

    https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3109852/harder-us-line-potential-pentagon-chief-floated-idea-sink-china

  7. anon[391] • Disclaimer says:

    Most US voters are deeply ignorant of anything military. Partly because of the two Gulf wars. This poll is pretty much worthless.

    Always entertaining to see the peace loving left clamoring for more wars.

  8. dfordoom says: • Website
    @V. K. Ovelund

    At your discretion, if you and your readers wish to say how you (and they) would have responded, and why, had Fox News asked us the Russia/China/Korea question, I’d be interested.

    Ideally US foreign policy should be based on minding its own bloody business. The US should not have a policy one way or the other towards North Korea for example. It is quite simply none of America’s business.

    • Replies: @Bragadocious
  9. @dfordoom

    Why shouldn’t the U.S. have a policy towards NK? Isn’t it the right of every sovereign country to craft foreign policy?

    Hey I know, maybe we should check with Aussie blowhards before we even contact foreign nations. Why don’t you give Pompeo your cell #.

    But you are right about minding one’s own business which is why we should exit Nato and Anzus immediately. I wouldn’t piss on Oz if it was on fire, never mind sending military aid when China invades you.

    • Replies: @V. K. Ovelund
  10. @Bragadocious

    But you are right about minding one’s own business which is why we should exit Nato and Anzus immediately. I wouldn’t piss on Oz if it was on fire, never mind sending military aid when China invades you.

    Do you care whether the Anglo-Saxon race shall maintain any global position of influence and power? Or is it all one to you whether we fade out of history?

    Does it matter to you that the Australians (for whatever inscrutable reason) have committed significant force and spilled their own blood on our behalf nearly every time the U.S. has embarked on yet another mad military crusade?

    [MORE]

    Other than Canada and the U.S. itself, there is no country for which Americans would be more willing to fight and die than Australia. An invasion of Australia by China should and probably would trigger an all-out American response, including if necessary nuclear.

    I notice that Australians have never asked Americans to fight any of their battles. They do their own fighting, and then they come to fight for us. (Maybe they like to fight?)

    I do not know why the Australians have been quite so friendly to the United States for so long, since Australians seem to gotten little in return; but they have consistently been the most loyal cousins we have.

    NATO becomes more farcical with each passing decade, but this has little to do with Australia.

    Americans would probably fight for Britain, too, but the British have drawn us into two world wars we should not have had to fight. The British drew the Australians into the same two world wars. The Australians never drew us.

    The Australians don’t ask us for much. They don’t even ask for attention. Insulting them is not wise.

    • Replies: @Bragadocious
  11. @V. K. Ovelund

    Do you care whether the Anglo-Saxon race shall maintain any global position of influence and power?

    No.

    Other than Canada and the U.S. itself, there is no country for which Americans would be more willing to fight and die than Australia.

    Speak for yourself.

    Does it matter to you that the Australians (for whatever inscrutable reason) have committed significant force and spilled their own blood on our behalf nearly every time the U.S. has embarked on yet another mad military crusade?

    It’s called being in a military alliance. We never went to Oz and asked them for help. They joined Anzus and stood to benefit from a less communist SE Asia. They fought in Nam for selfish reasons, not because they were super nice Bogans. But boy, we never hear the end of Aussies saying, “we helped you Seppos in your hour of need!” gtfo

    I do not know why the Australians have been quite so friendly to the United States for so long, since Australians seem to gotten little in return;

    American military protection allows them to spend less on defense than they normally would, which allows them to have single-payer national healthcare while we get HMOs and $10,000 deductibles. They hate Trump because they saw him as unfriendly to Anzus.

  12. @anonymous

    Remember how many polls had Biden +10 2 weeks before the election but in the last half a week they all “tightened”?

    I’m entirely capable of believing these poll results, they are hardly surprising. But there will not be any actual plebiscite to check this opinion polling against, there never is, so pollsters can find whatever they want. Or whatever they get paid under the table by special interests to help convince politicians of.

  13. @V. K. Ovelund

    Too tough on all three. In the demographic age, these three aging and shrinking countries on the other side of the world are not threats unless we make them so.

    • Thanks: V. K. Ovelund

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS