However, when The Donald sat down with David E. Sanger and Maggie Haberman to talk foreign policy, they did a straight reportorial job of letting him have his say, without put-downs. If you're considering voting for Trump, their column isn't a bad primer on Trump's view of foreign affairs.
Straight reporting is what we expected (and mostly received) from the old NYT, it's darned rare today. I suspect David and Maggie believed Trump's views so far out of the mainstream as to require no spin. They may be shocked at how many find his views plain (if uncommon) sense.
----------o--0--o----------
It was wise to subsidize European countries' defense in the lean years following World War II. That is over two-thirds of a century ago and we're still doing it ... why?
Western Europe is no longer impoverished and shell-shocked, hasn't been for decades. They're taking 6 week vacations when many Americans don't take the 2 weeks they've earned. Today, fat and sassy, Europeans are still letting us defend them because we have been willing patsies.
A reappraisal of who pays is long overdue. Perhaps Europe has more defense than it is willing to fund, in which case it should have less.
I disagree with Trump's disparagement of so-called "tripwire" forces like those in South Korea and those planned for the former Eastern Bloc countries. Such forces raise the cost to an attacker at relatively little cost to the defender, or host nation. They do (or should) presuppose a major defense effort on the part of the frontier nation so protected.
