Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-congress/former-trump-aide-bannon-refuses-to-comply-with-house-subpoena-idUSKBN1F5168

2 Scoops wrote: »

Lisa Page not complying with congressional subpoena, rules for thee but not for me.

Just going to leave this here;

Former Trump aide Bannon refuses to comply with House subpoena

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon declined on Tuesday to comply with a subpoena ordering him to answer questions from a U.S. House intelligence panel about his time at the White House as part of its investigation into allegations of Russian interference in the U.S. election.

everlast75 wrote: »

The idea that
1) having established that Russia did intefere in the 2016 election,
2) with a failure by Trump to criticize or substantively sanction Russia,
3) with elections in 4 month's time,
4) The US about turn in how it treats G7 members, which is in Russia's interests
5) that the US agreed to cease military exercises with South Korea as suggested by Russia

Trump has now agreed to meet Putin in private with no records taken of what will be said, and some people are still saying "nothing to see here folks", the next generation will look back and wonder how blind they were.

You have been very selective on your selection, I hope people can see past your bias and have better judgment and can recognise how you have just posted a select few that fit your agenda.
Your forgetting many other big ones that represent the other side of that coin some of which are more relevant to Russian theatre of operations than your one sided representation.

Donal Trump and the Trump Whitehouse administration has called for increased NATO spending. increased spending on defence by the European and Canadian partners... one could hardly spin that this is something Putin would be asking for.
The RUBLE has been under immense pressure since the Trump administration imposed sanctions both on individuals and large Russian companies (and yes Im well aware some sanctions were held back, whilst some were imposed its a fluid situation).
The Russian Finance ministry canceleld a debt auction (for the first time since 2015) due to this financial pressure.
If you dont think a drop of 10% in the RUBLE/USD is not hurting Putins pockets then you dont understand finance.

Your also ignoring the very friendly relationship Germany and Russia have. Its somethign astute commentators have reflected upon for years.

If you want to go looking for who is in Putins pocket, you should do some digging into Merkel, German and Russian ties.
Ask yourself why is Germany failing to meet its NATO defence spending commitments whilst at the same time allowing Russia to build a 3rd pipeline thru its lands and waters.
Merkel " We have a strategic interest in having good relations with Russia "

POTUS has launched a broadside on the very cosy relationship this morning. That cat is now out of the bag for the world to see. And if people werent so blindsided with their anti-Trump bias they would have been playing closer attention to it.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/11/trump-slams-germany-at-nato-summit-says-its-a-captive-of-russia.html

The Trump Administration have been pretty consistent in how they have treated all nations, its been both fractious and beneficial.
Just listing a bunch of items to fit your spin is not presenting the full story, sure Trump has extended a hand to Russia on occasion but Trump administration has also hit Russia and Putin plenty hard , and the markets, FX and defence spending calls tell you that.

RIGOLO wrote: »

You have been very selective on your selection

says the guy that has been asked 3 simple questions 3 times and not answered them.

So, just in case ya missed it, and now that I have your attention, can you do so now. They are very simple.

1) Do you think Russia interfered in the US Election
2) Do you think Trump aided them
3) Do you think Trump is compromised by Russia.

Thanks

Heres the Russia - German Merkel - Putin relationship laid out for all to see.

GERMAN actions are undermining Ukraine and proving an economic boom for Putin and his allies who run the gas and pipeline companies. And they only world leader calling out German implicit and explicit support for Putins regime is Trump.

So anyone who says Trump Administration is acting solely in Putins favour can just be ignored,

Trump is putting IMMENSE pressure on Germany to get tougher with Russia, both on the economic and defence spending
Trump launches tirade at NATO summit: 'Germany is totally controlled by Russia'
Ukraine 'desperately concerned' Russia could soon attack its gas pipeline, foreign policy expert says

1st off Rigolo, nice to see the post in a better format, thanks for that.

I note that you failed to actually address any of the points that Everlast actually brought up, instead moving swiftly onto NATO and Germany, which apparently is the one looking to increase Russian influence.

Need to correct some misstatements. Trump is not looking for increased NATO spending. He is looking to save the US money by getting the other countries to spend more.

Why has the Ruble gone down. Sanctions are having their impact, sanctions pressed hard by the EU btw. Trump has been very slow to roll out sanctions, so if you think the sanctions are such a great idea then why is Trump so against imposing them, even against the wishes of the house and senate.

Clearly Germany is too dependent on Russia for its energy. TBF to them, they did see that coming and tried to take over the energy parts of Russia in the past, that didn't go to well for them. But Russia has gas, and Germany doesn't. Are we to infer from Trumps line of thinking that the US is in hock to Saudi Arabia?

Also, it is odd that you, and Trump, and criticising Germany for having a friendly relationship with Russia. Isn't that the whole point that Trump has been making, that he simply wants to get along with Putin. Now Germany has not had any direct attack against it like the US in the recent elections, so I would have thought that if any country should be looking to worried about Russia it should be the US. Seems, yet again, that Trump expects different actions for his own.

Germany is currently failing to meet the 2% target. But Germany have moved away for military spending and it needs to be noted that they are increasing spending on foreign aid and the likes.

Trump has launched a broadside, as is his want, but that doesn't make it true. Trump is looking to create divisions, and with Germany being one of the leading countries the best form of defence is attack. Unsettle the table. The conversation will now be about Germany and Russian rather than the Trump and Putin and whether the US is actually going to demand Crimea is given back. I admire him, in a way, the way he can so easily manipulate people like yourself to ignore everything else but the latest thing he said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/16/us/politics/trump-rejects-sanctions-russia-syria.html

RIGOLO wrote: »

You have been very selective on your selection, I hope people can see past your bias and have better judgment and can recognise how you have just posted a select few that fit your agenda.
Your forgetting many other big ones that represent the other side of that coin some of which are more relevant to Russian theatre of operations than your one sided representation.

Let me see;

1) having established that Russia did intefere in the 2016 election,
2) with a failure by Trump to criticize or substantively sanction Russia,
3) with elections in 4 month's time,
4) The US about turn in how it treats G7 members, which is in Russia's interests
5) that the US agreed to cease military exercises with South Korea as suggested by Russia

Call me selective if you want, but you aren't arguing that any of the above are not true

RIGOLO wrote: »

Donal Trump and the Trump Whitehouse administration has called for increased NATO spending. increased spending on defence by the European and Canadian partners... one could hardly spin that this is something Putin would be asking for.

Did he not call for increased contributions from the other members, as in they should "pay their own fair share"... which is different?

RIGOLO wrote: »

The RUBLE has been under immense pressure since the Trump administration imposed sanctions both on individuals and large Russian companies (and yes Im well aware some sanctions were held back, whilst some were imposed its a fluid situation).
The Russian Finance ministry canceleld a debt auction (for the first time since 2015) due to this financial pressure.
If you dont think a drop of 10% in the RUBLE/USD is not hurting Putins pockets then you dont understand finance.

If I remember correctly, the US Government imposed those sanctions. Trump didn't. Also, if I remember correctly, Trump flipped at his staff when he found out that more Russian diplomats that he thought were expelled due to a miscommunication.

RIGOLO wrote: »

Your also ignoring the very friendly relationship Germany and Russia have. Its somethign astute commentators have reflected upon for years.

If you want to go looking for who is in Putins pocket, you should do some digging into Merkel, German and Russian ties.
Ask yourself why is Germany failing to meet its NATO defence spending commitments whilst at the same time allowing Russia to build a 3rd pipeline thru its lands and waters.
Merkel " We have a strategic interest in having good relations with Russia "

Ah, the ould "whataboutery" argument from you.....

RIGOLO wrote: »

POTUS has launched a broadside on the very cosy relationship this morning. That cat is now out of the bag for the world to see. And if people werent so blindsided with their anti-Trump bias they would have been playing closer attention to it.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/11/trump-slams-germany-at-nato-summit-says-its-a-captive-of-russia.html

The Trump Administration have been pretty consistent in how they have treated all nations, its been both fractious and beneficial.
Just listing a bunch of items to fit your spin is not presenting the full story, sure Trump has extended a hand to Russia on occasion but Trump administration has also hit Russia and Putin plenty hard , and the markets, FX and defence spending calls tell you that.

And the ould "whataboutery" argument from your Commander in Chief.

Textbook

weisses

RIGOLO wrote: »

Heres the Russia - German Merkel - Putin relationship laid out for all to see.

GERMAN actions are undermining Ukraine and proving an economic boom for Putin and his allies who run the gas and pipeline companies. And they only world leader calling out German implicit and explicit support for Putins regime is Trump.

So anyone who says Trump Administration is acting solely in Putins favour can just be ignored,

Trump is putting IMMENSE pressure on Germany to get tougher with Russia, both on the economic and defence spending
Trump launches tirade at NATO summit: 'Germany is totally controlled by Russia'
Ukraine 'desperately concerned' Russia could soon attack its gas pipeline, foreign policy expert says

Maybe you should read up on the history and look for the nuances

Interesting article here

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/germany-divided-about-approach-to-russia-a-1206338.html

And this one

Although EU sanctions against Russia would not exist if weren't for Merkel, public perception has been the same for years: Moscow provokes, Berlin shows uneasy patience.

https://www.dw.com/en/is-it-time-for-germany-to-revisit-its-russia-relationship/a-43013787

Meanwhile people around Trump paint a different picture

“Trump seems to think that if he accepts what his advisers recommend on even days of the month and rejects their recommendations on odd days, the result will be a strategy,” said Stephen Sestanovich, a scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations and Columbia University who served as ambassador to former Soviet states in the 1990s.

By and large, other governments don’t know whether to laugh or cry at all this,” Mr. Sestanovich said. “But in Russia, laughter is getting the upper hand.”

And while DJT is sh1tmouthing NATO, the missing kids aren't being returned to their parents, Jim Jordan is under increasing pressure as more men come out and accuse him of lying... and this is also happening

https://twitter.com/AndrewFeinberg/status/1016762025563836416?s=19

Fair play to Trump for pointing out the two elephants in the room .... prior to the summit.
Im looking forward to the communique that will come out post the summit. Some reports coming out of the NATO summit are that many Europeans have welcomed Trumps comments as they say he has simply vocalised what they have been saying for years.

Why dont other countries meet their NATO defence spending targets ?
And the fact Germany is very much beholding to Russia and Putin.
Helmut Schroder is an interesting character, the ex Chancellor of Germany from 98-2005 , and ex leader of the SPD party which props up Merkels CPD grand coalition and now sitting on the board of Rosneft/Gazprom the Russian oligarchs gas behemoth. Interesting also that the EU and Germany have failed to put Schroder on the travel sanctions list.
NPR saw fit to even question this.
Why Putin's Pal, Germany's Ex-Chancellor Schroeder, Isn't On A Sanctions List
Theres a whole raft of German business who support Merkels CPD party that are deeply reliant on Russia.

If people remove their anti-Trump bias they could see the many positive outcomes of what POTUS is calling for, all of which would not be to Putins benefit.
a) Increased NATO defence spending (especially on cyber as the threats change) which would be a bulwark to Russian military and cyber threat.
b) Reduce Russian influence on Germany
c) Increase the security of eastern bloc nations, Poland etc who fear their gas pipelines may be cut if Germany gets a further unilaterally pipeline that does not feed them also. Not to mention the impact of increased NATO defence spending.

RIGOLO wrote: »

If people remove their anti-Trump bias they could see the many positive outcomes of what POTUS is calling for, all of which would not be to Putins benefit.
a) Increased NATO defence spending (especially on cyber as the threats change) which would be a bulwark to Russian military and cyber threat.

While it seems a good idea to increase defence spending, blindly spending more on something that is not needed makes no sense. CyberSecurity in Germans Budget is not in the defence budget, so as the NATO countries agreed for 2022 to get it to 2% we might see a lot of reshuffling here.

RIGOLO wrote: »

b) Reduce Russian influence on Germany

Trump wants to secure takers of the american crude oil, as when Russia supplies Germany, and Germany supplies the Russian economy with much needed cash, both sides win, except the US whose very expensive crude oil won't get sold anymore and jobs jobs jobs are gone.

RIGOLO wrote: »

c) Increase the security of eastern bloc nations, Poland etc who fear their gas pipelines may be cut if Germany gets a further unilaterally pipeline that does not feed them also. Not to mention the impact of increased NATO defence spending.

I think the last time the issue happened was then Ukraine was meddling with the pipelines as Russia was not selling them gas anymore and you might believe here whoever you want. Also the gas that is send to Germany via Nordstream can be distributed to eastern europe from there in case Russia cuts the gas.

Christy42

RIGOLO wrote: »

Fair play to Trump for pointing out the two elephants in the room .... prior to the summit.
Im looking forward to the communique that will come out post the summit. Some reports coming out of the NATO summit are that many Europeans have welcomed Trumps comments as they say he has simply vocalised what they have been saying for years.

Why dont other countries meet their NATO defence spending targets ?
And the fact Germany is very much beholding to Russia and Putin.
Helmut Schroder is an interesting character, the ex Chancellor of Germany from 98-2005 , and ex leader of the SPD party which props up Merkels CPD grand coalition and now sitting on the board of Rosneft/Gazprom the Russian oligarchs gas behemoth. Interesting also that the EU and Germany have failed to put Schroder on the travel sanctions list.
NPR saw fit to even question this.
Why Putin's Pal, Germany's Ex-Chancellor Schroeder, Isn't On A Sanctions List
Theres a whole raft of German business who support Merkels CPD party that are deeply reliant on Russia.

If people remove their anti-Trump bias they could see the many positive outcomes of what POTUS is calling for, all of which would not be to Putins benefit.
a) Increased NATO defence spending (especially on cyber as the threats change) which would be a bulwark to Russian military and cyber threat.
b) Reduce Russian influence on Germany
c) Increase the security of eastern bloc nations, Poland etc who fear their gas pipelines may be cut if Germany gets a further unilaterally pipeline that does not feed them also. Not to mention the impact of increased NATO defence spending.

It is kind of weird how people converge on Trump's statements. Like nothing about Germany before now and Trump mentions it - with little actual back up and hoards of people go and justify it. You see it as well when he mentions people that the character assassinations come out then. Not just you to be sure but no one could talk about Germany for a while and then Trump mentions them and suddenly all these articles and statements come out of the woodwork.

Weird how Trump uses being linked with Russia as an insult but Putin is one of the people he is actively scared to insult.

He accuses the Dems of colluding with the Russians as well, guessing he is going with the tried and trusted approach of "I know you are but what am I".

You jump around like a pinball machine Rigolo. You demand that people answer your questions but never deal with those asked of you.

But, in the spirit of trying to engage with you in a actual debate rather than you simply posting a load of talking points I am going to once again deal with you list. I trust that you will start to engage with others as well rather than running away each time.

a) Increased NATO spending. THis has already been pointed out to you as a fallacy. Trump has not said he will increase the total NATO budget. Recall that it was only around 18 months ago that Trump stated that NATO was obsolete (although in fairness to him he quickly changed his mind, one suspects when it was explained what NATO was) so it would be hard to see why Trump would want to increase spending
It is odd that you bring up the cyber threat. Trump has steadfastly refused to do anything about this apparent threat, ignoring all calls from his security services and even the recent report for the house committee. Is Trump really saying that he is willing to leave this aspect of US security completely in the hands of NATO?
b) Reduce Russian influence on Germany. What influence are we talking about. HE has merely said that Germany buys gas from Russia, but the US buys Oil from Saudi and buys billions from China. I don't see the connection. One presumes that he is inferring that having a business relationship where one relies on the service of others puts one in a compromised position. Now, where did Trump get all those loans from in recent years?
C) Well, luckily there is a thing called the EU, so Germany would find it very hard to simply cut off Poland from anything. They are not enemies. I think you are confusing the way EU works with how Trump sees his allies. When you mention eastern bloc, what exactly has Trump done to stand by the Ukraine and deal with Crimea?

I think, however, that we should all be able to agree based on the last few years, that nothing Trump says should ever be taken as true until such time as they are able to backup the claim. Surely his supporters are tired of rushing out to praise his latest outburst only to find the man himself either backs down on the claim or never brings it up again.

Finally, don't you find it odd that rather than working with Germany to find a way to reduce their dependence on Russia, Trump has decided to simply lambast them for it. He offers no alternatives, nothing to incentivise them.

A last point, I assume that you totally expect Trump to now bring the same level of umbridge to the summit with Putin. He is clearly worried about Russian influence and the summit gives him the perfect opportunity, on behalf of both the US and NATO, to send a strong message to Putin that this will no longer be tolerated.

I wonder when those tweets are coming?

Hurrache

RIGOLO wrote: »

Some reports coming out of the NATO summit are that many Europeans have welcomed Trumps comments as they say he has simply vocalised what they have been saying for years.

LOL, straight from the Trump playbook. "some", "many" and so on, and yet has a melt down on Twitter because journalist won't name their sources.

By the way, what country has an excess of cheap gas that they'd like to sell?

Hurrache wrote: »

RIGOLO wrote: »

Some reports coming out of the NATO summit are that many Europeans have welcomed Trumps comments as they say he has simply vocalised what they have been saying for years.

LOL, straight from the Trump playbook. "some", "many" and so on, and yet has a melt down on Twitter because journalist won't name their sources.

By the way, what country has an excess of cheap gas that they'd like to sell?

No meltdown neccessary.
It was on CNN 50 mins ago ... you can watch it back if you like .
CNN Talk with Max Foster , about 20 mins into the show , the CNN reporter on site in Brussels at NATO headquarters made the remark after speaking to various delegations .

RIGOLO wrote: »

No meltdown neccessary.
It was on CNN 50 mins ago ... you can watch it back if you like .
CNN Talk with Max Foster , about 20 mins into the show , the CNN reporter on site in Brussels at NATO headquarters made the remark after speaking to various delegations .

Many would be three and the rest can shut up as they are not themselves fulfilling it: https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/07/10/defense-expenditure-of-nato-members-visualized-infographic/#497507cd14cf

relax carry on

Any predictions on the outcomes of Trumps European jaunt? How much damage can he do in person compared to his Twitter ramblings?

Panrich

relax carry on wrote: »

Any predictions on the outcomes of Trumps European jaunt? How much damage can he do in person compared to his Twitter ramblings?

If the pictures of him at the summit are anything to go by, I'd say that we're in for a tantrum or two.

580.png?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&

Harika wrote: »

RIGOLO wrote: »

No meltdown neccessary.
It was on CNN 50 mins ago ... you can watch it back if you like .
CNN Talk with Max Foster , about 20 mins into the show , the CNN reporter on site in Brussels at NATO headquarters made the remark after speaking to various delegations .

Many would be three and the rest can shut up as they are not themselves fulfilling it: https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/07/10/defense-expenditure-of-nato-members-visualized-infographic/#497507cd14cf

I see you recognise many NATO members arent carrying their weight, as per the chart you linked.

But perhaps you dont understand how a nations Defence Minister goes about getting funding for their Dept from the Cabinet budget discussions.
The NATO summit delegates are also made up of each nations military establishments , what a surprise, military types at the NATO summit.
Those are the delegates that are welcoming his comments.
The Defence ministers and each nations military leaders who have to ask for defence spending increases in their own countries budgets.

Trumps comments are making the national leaders uncomfortable and exposing their failure to prepare for threats.
Whilst the national delegates who fight the war and fight the cyber threat are welcoming Trumps comments, he has vocalised what they (Defence ministers and military leaders in NATO members) have been saying for many years, meet our NATO targets and increase defence spending.

everlast75 wrote: »

says the guy that has been asked 3 simple questions 3 times and not answered them.

So, just in case ya missed it, and now that I have your attention, can you do so now. They are very simple.

1) Do you think Russia interfered in the US Election
2) Do you think Trump aided them
3) Do you think Trump is compromised by Russia.

Thanks

RIGOLO wrote: »

Fair play to Trump for pointing out the two elephants in the room .... prior to the summit.
Im looking forward to the communique that will come out post the summit. Some reports coming out of the NATO summit are that many Europeans have welcomed Trumps comments as they say he has simply vocalised what they have been saying for years.

Why dont other countries meet their NATO defence spending targets ?
And the fact Germany is very much beholding to Russia and Putin.
Helmut Schroder is an interesting character, the ex Chancellor of Germany from 98-2005 , and ex leader of the SPD party which props up Merkels CPD grand coalition and now sitting on the board of Rosneft/Gazprom the Russian oligarchs gas behemoth. Interesting also that the EU and Germany have failed to put Schroder on the travel sanctions list.
NPR saw fit to even question this.
Why Putin's Pal, Germany's Ex-Chancellor Schroeder, Isn't On A Sanctions List
Theres a whole raft of German business who support Merkels CPD party that are deeply reliant on Russia.

If people remove their anti-Trump bias they could see the many positive outcomes of what POTUS is calling for, all of which would not be to Putins benefit.
a) Increased NATO defence spending (especially on cyber as the threats change) which would be a bulwark to Russian military and cyber threat.
b) Reduce Russian influence on Germany
c) Increase the security of eastern bloc nations, Poland etc who fear their gas pipelines may be cut if Germany gets a further unilaterally pipeline that does not feed them also. Not to mention the impact of increased NATO defence spending.

So that's a no then?

Panrich wrote: »

If the pictures of him at the summit are anything to go by, I'd say that we're in for a tantrum or two.

On that very subject....

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1017008133808578561

RIGOLO wrote: »

I see you recognise many NATO members arent carrying their weight, as per the chart you linked.

I think it is well established that this has been recognised already and a target has been set 2014 so far before Trump was even on the Horizon.

RIGOLO wrote: »

Trumps comments are making the national leaders uncomfortable and exposing their failure to prepare for threats.
Whilst the national delegates who fight the war and fight the cyber threat are welcoming Trumps comments, he has vocalised what they (Defence ministers and military leaders in NATO members) have been saying for many years, meet our NATO targets and increase defence spending.

OFC the military personal wants more money, like everyone wants for himself. The leaders are aware of the threats and prepare properly. US invests so much and with all the NATO power in their back are continuously punched in the face in Afghanistan, got a bloody nose in Iraq and barely made progress in Syria before Russia turned the tide. The lesson out of that is that the solution is not more guns, planes and tanks.

Elmer Blooker

So, the US of A wants Germans to freeze in winter, cook over open fires and take cold showers and baths .......... seems like a reasonable request to me.
I'm sure Germans can put up with a little hardship until US LNG arrives sometime in 2025 ...... at three times the price!

Danzy

everlast75 wrote: »

On that very subject....

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1017008133808578561

It is hyperbole to say totally controlled but is Germany very conscious of its Russian gas and keeping Moscow onside, yes, is there a very influential lobby in German business and Govt. that want a closer alignment with Moscow, yes.

They have their own reasons and cheap gas and a reliable supply is a big enough reason to put Berlin's interests first on this.

It is correct as well that Germany underspends on its military and uses others in Nato to provide the comfy blanket effect. France spends 2.2% of its GDP, as do the Brits. The Germans .8% of GDP behind where they should be, that is a lot of money.

Danzy wrote: »

It is hyperbole to say totally controlled but is Germany very conscious of its Russian gas and keeping Moscow onside, yes, is there a very influential lobby in German business and Govt. that want a closer alignment with Moscow, yes.

They have their own reasons and cheap gas and a reliable supply is a big enough reason to put Berlin's interests first on this.

It is correct as well that Germany underspends on its military and uses others in Nato to provide the comfy blanket effect. France spends 2.2% of its GDP, as do the Brits. The Germans .8% of GDP behind where they should be, that is a lot of money.

I wasn't arguing the merits of the military spending. Frankly, I don't know enough about it and so I will leave that to others. I was merely posting the footage as it seemed to indicate the visual frustration of General Kelly as DJT went on one of his rants.

As a defender of all things Trump in this thread, is there any chance you could answer the 3 questions I've posed multiple times here? I would be interested in your point of view.

pixelburp

So uhm, a New York billionaire, with ties to the building & construction industry, talks about 'protecting' countries (from Russia, I guess?) but figures they're not paying enough for this ... protection. Oh hey I see Wimbledon is on - lot of rackets going on there.

And people maintain a scepticism that Trump might have shady connections with regards his money & loans. I'm not going to overanalyse a single tweet of a press conference, but the language is patently absurd - you can debate about percentage points of spending, which feels lopsided given the US's arguable overspending on defence, but to use language about 'protection' is so needlessly hostile and ... yes, kinda like a mobster might do.

How is the US President constantly picking fights with its closest, strongest, hitherto happiest allies (the odd spyware scandal notwithstanding)? What possible longterm outcome is there here, beyond Trump's fantastical notions of "America (read: Trump) is rich, while the rest of the world pays over the odds for US made products"? I suppose in his defence he has made a career in selling overpriced tat to gullible fools - maybe he's just not used to any other kind of audience.

So it would be fair to say that Trump is simply making things up in terms of stating that Germany is totally controlled by Russia.

The question is, what is behind yet another attack on Germany by Trump. He clearly does not like Merkel. But is he letting his personal dislike control policy?

Does he really think that Germany's reliance on Russian gas is the biggest threat facing NATO, as this was his opening salvo?

And why does he see that as bad? Because Trump has never said anything to indicate that he sees any problems with Russia and has on many occasions wished that the US/Russia relationship could be better. So why the vitriol against an ally that is, according to him, simply doing what he hopes to do?

I'm going to ask this again as nobody answered it:

One presumes that he is inferring that having a business relationship where one relies on the service of others puts one in a compromised position. Now, where did Trump get all those loans from in recent years?

https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/1016994967368024065

So yes Trump is annihilating Americas friends, who are staying to their commitments to improve their defence budget and increased it in the last four years, four times! while on the other side hugging the enemies of the US like Russia.

Danzy

everlast75 wrote: »

I wasn't arguing the merits of the military spending. Frankly, I don't know enough about it and so I will leave that to others. I was merely posting the footage as it seemed to indicate the visual frustration of General Kelly as DJT went on one of his rants.

As a defender of all things Trump in this thread, is there any chance you could answer the 3 questions I've posed multiple times here? I would be interested in your point of view.

I couldn't care if the man was hit by a bus.

I do get why people voted for him though and why many would and will again.

Let me find these 3 questions?

Danzy wrote: »

I couldn't care if the man was hit by a bus.

I do get why people voted for him though and why many would and will again.

Let me find these 3 questions?

1) Do you think Russia interfered in the US Election
2) Do you think Trump aided them
3) Do you think Trump is compromised by Russia