nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

Quin_Dub

This thread is for the continuing discussion of Donald Trumps's presidency in the US and any related matters.

Please ensure that you are familiar with the charter before posting.

Thanks.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Manic Moran

Christy42 wrote: »

Do you honestly believe Trump knows or cares about any of that?

Don't know. But it doesn't matter. The fundamental nature of NATO is "an attack on one is an attack on all" and every country is expected to pull an equivalent proportion of their weight. Germany's military is stupidly underfunded and plain doesn't work as advertised. Nobody denies this.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/07/09/spare-a-thought-for-the-bundeswehr-germany-generals/

Would an increase in German defense spending result in a decrease in US military spending? Especially given how much Trump has increased it by.

Unlikely, but that's not the point. Europe's military security is being underwritten by primarily American military power. How much the US taxpayer spends on that power, or where exactly that power is spent is the US's problem. What if the US would prefer to spend the defense dollars on a greater ratio in the Pacific instead of Europe? As it is, the US has long abandoned the concept of being able to fight in two major theaters at once in its strategic planning. How much Europe shoulders the burden for its own defense is more of a moral question, and it forces the US to decide which of its allies it is going to support if two fights break out at once.

As has been said before, Europe is spending as much as Russia or China so I fail to see the big deal from Trump's point of view if France is overspending (or whoever) is covering for Germany. If the funds are not being spent appropriately that is a different story.

Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. Certainly they have their own problems, look at their rejection of their latest frigate after it failed trials. However, presumably NATO had a reason for deciding upon 2% as the target, especially given that the vast majority of NATO countries were not at that time at that level. France overspending for Germany isn't any better, the French would have their own, similar objections. Probably why they all agreed on the same percentage figure, not some weird balance of "OK, I'll spend more to cover for you..."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

In fact this calls bull on it being underfunded. Again it might be misused but about 2/3rds of Russia's spend is not a terrible place (unless you feel only the Chinese and US spend enough which seems ridiculous given the issues in both countries).

Apples and oranges. Being a much better economy, the dollar doesn't go as far in Germany as it does in Russia. For example, a German private soldier gets a monthly pay of about Euro 2,000/month. A Russian private soldier gets about Euro 270/month. A T-90 tank costs the Russian government about $1.5mil, a Leopard 2 costs the Germans about $6mil. (Figures very approximate due to contract variance). Unless you're prepared to presume that a German is worth 8 Russians, or a German tank is worth five Russian tanks (If they happen to be one of the ten which works), you can see how merely looking at the dollar spend value is not an indicator of military capability. The 2% does, however, indicate a desired target level of ability, each country will do the best they can with that level of spending. NATO has apparently decided that if every country spends their 2%, then the total level military capability which will result will be adequate for NATO's needs.

Unless Putin goes way more gung ho and suicidal Germany is unlikely to need much to defend itself in any case. OK ISIS would be the exception there but they operate weirdly in comparison to a military force.

That may be true for Germany for now, but other NATO countries like the Baltic States are significantly more nervous. Either their fears are utterly unfounded and a number of NATO nations are uselessly throwing away their dollars on significant military expenditure, or there is a justifiable concern and under the NATO obligations, Germany will need its military capability. This especially so if the US gets distracted by other treaty obligations to places like Korea or Taiwan.

Captain Obvious

Seems to me all Trump is doing is eliminating any reliance Europe has on the US. Just more isolationism. Right into Putins hands. It's amazing that people can see a deep state conspiracy in two FBI agents pillow talk yet be blind to the obvious connections between Trumps administration on Russia.

Danzy

EdgeCase wrote: »

The US arguably also grossly overspends on military stuff, most of which is basically a way of funnelling money into aerospace, weapons makers and even tech companies. You could easily draw a line between many of the technologies that we are using today online to post on this forum and historical US defence spending that ended up spinning out industries.

Effectively, the US uses military spending as a way of creating jobs and stimulating economic activity, much like the way some European countries did in the 19th century. It's the one area where the US Federal Government spends big and the GOP seems to think it's great.

European countries tend to spend big on social programmes, education, health and welfare and have more direct impacts on living standards that way.

So, I'm not really sure that Europe matching the US on defence spending Euro-for-Buck would do much more than give a huge boost to Airbus, Thales, BAE Systems and Dassault and umpteen other European defence companies.

I would suspect Trump actually in his own head sees this as some way of funnelling money back into US contractors, which in reality it probably won't. It might just lead to a whole load of more orders for Eurofighters and so on.

Good point.

Every successful monetary union/Currency has a transfer union, military spending in the U.S. is part of that.

As was/is Nasa, the disaster that was the Challenger model was down to picking the biggest boondoggle job machine for California that Gipper could swing.

EdgeCase

The US arguably also grossly overspends on military stuff, most of which is basically a way of funnelling money into aerospace, weapons makers and even tech companies. You could easily draw a line between many of the technologies that we are using today online to post on this forum and historical US defence spending that ended up spinning out industries.

Effectively, the US uses military spending as a way of creating jobs and stimulating economic activity, much like the way some European countries did in the 19th century. It's the one area where the US Federal Government spends big and the GOP seems to think it's great.

European countries tend to spend big on social programmes, education, health and welfare and have more direct impacts on living standards that way.

So, I'm not really sure that Europe matching the US on defence spending Euro-for-Buck would do much more than give a huge boost to Airbus, Thales, BAE Systems and Dassault and umpteen other European defence companies.

I would suspect Trump actually in his own head sees this as some way of funnelling money back into US contractors, which in reality it probably won't. It might just lead to a whole load of more orders for Eurofighters and so on.

Danzy

everlast75 wrote: »

Firstly, fair play to you for answering the questions. I note Rigolo thanked you for doing so, despite refusing to do it him/herself.

I have only read your reply, and before I got a chance to post a substantive reply, others have pretty much made most points.

I might come back with others later, I just wanted in the interim to acknowledge the fact that you replied.

Your welcome.

I'll answer any others that you have in respect to your courtesy.

Calina

RIGOLO wrote: »

Whilst the Trump Administration is powering thru Europe like somethign we havent seen since Pattons 3rd, the Trump Adminstration continues to have other wins domestically .

Patton is buried about 8km from where I live right now. Trump's trip through Europe bears nothing in comparison to Patton's achievements.

I walk past a memorial to American soldiers who sacrificed far more than Trump ever will every time I go running. Jesus I resent posts full of hyperbole like yours. Trump is a nothingburger and his flight into Belgium on a luxury jet is a walk in the park compared to Patton's match to liberate the region where I live.

Christy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

Christy42 wrote: »

As pixel mentioned this is nothing more than Trump wanting Germany to buy more US bombs and increase the US arms industry.

Germany has an extremely healthy arms industry and is one of the largest exporters of weapons in the world, before the UK. Its tanks, planes, rifles, ships, trucks are not American. Plus given the current environment, Merkel would prefer to have less reliance on American equipment.
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/21679/the-german-air-force-wants-to-know-if-its-eurofighters-can-carry-u-s-nuclear-bombs
“It’s no longer the case that the United States will simply just protect us,” Merkel said in the 2018 speech, which also lauded French President Emmanuel Macron who was on hand to receive an award. “Rather, Europe needs to take its fate into its own hands. That’s the task for the future.”

This could make the idea of buying any type of American aircraft increasingly politically untenable.

In any case, any increase in the German defense budget is inherently going to go on German parts for all the equipment it has that doesn't work.
Here's an example as to how bad it has gotten:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/05/germanys-typhoon-problem-only-four-fighters-can-be-made-combat-ready/

As of two months ago:
4 out of 138 Eurofighters are combat ready.
9 out of 244 Leopard Tanks. (Hopefully the 110 or so new ones under purchase will actually work when delivered)
5 of 13 major warships can sail.
0 out of 6 submarines.
16 of 62 Eurocopter Tigers worked.
3 of 19 A400M transport aircraft are flying.

And as Der Spiegel's Matthias Gebauer was told by a Bundeswehr source, "We can say with a good conscience that large parts of the [German armed forces] are mission ready, because there is currently no mission."

The German military quite simply is non-functional due to lack of funds. Trump is correct on two points: 1) Germany (and others) is not living up to its commitment, and is relying on the efforts of other nations to defend it militarily. He is not the first US president to say so, but he is certainly the most direct/least polite about it. 2) Germany in particular needs to up its defense budget just to make its own military work, and Germany is not doing it. The German minister of defense has said as much.

Do you honestly believe Trump knows or cares about any of that?

Would an increase in German defense spending result in a decrease in US military spending? Especially given how much Trump has increased it by.

As has been said before, Europe is spending as much as Russia or China so I fail to see the big deal from Trump's point of view if France is overspending (or whoever) is covering for Germany. If the funds are not being spent appropriately that is a different story.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

In fact this calls bull on it being underfunded. Again it might be misused but about 2/3rds of Russia's spend is not a terrible place (unless you feel only the Chinese and US spend enough which seems ridiculous given the issues in both countries).

Unless Putin goes way more gung ho and suicidal Germany is unlikely to need much to defend itself in any case. OK ISIS would be the exception there but they operate weirdly in comparison to a military force.

MadYaker

Trump didn’t make any friends there anyway!

But to be honest I think he sort of has a point even if he’s really bad at articulating it.

BoJack Horseman

Leaders summit statement.

79 points long.

The Mattis '30-30-30' plan seems to be the only new development I can see, which is good.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_156624.htm

Manic Moran

Christy42 wrote: »

As pixel mentioned this is nothing more than Trump wanting Germany to buy more US bombs and increase the US arms industry.

Germany has an extremely healthy arms industry and is one of the largest exporters of weapons in the world, before the UK. Its tanks, planes, rifles, ships, trucks are not American. Plus given the current environment, Merkel would prefer to have less reliance on American equipment.
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/21679/the-german-air-force-wants-to-know-if-its-eurofighters-can-carry-u-s-nuclear-bombs
“It’s no longer the case that the United States will simply just protect us,” Merkel said in the 2018 speech, which also lauded French President Emmanuel Macron who was on hand to receive an award. “Rather, Europe needs to take its fate into its own hands. That’s the task for the future.”

This could make the idea of buying any type of American aircraft increasingly politically untenable.

In any case, any increase in the German defense budget is inherently going to go on German (or French) parts for all the equipment it has that doesn't work.
Here's an example as to how bad it has gotten:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/05/germanys-typhoon-problem-only-four-fighters-can-be-made-combat-ready/

As of two months ago:
4 out of 138 Eurofighters are combat ready.
9 out of 244 Leopard Tanks. (Hopefully the 110 or so new ones under purchase will actually work when delivered)
5 of 13 major warships can sail.
0 out of 6 submarines.
16 of 62 Eurocopter Tigers worked.
3 of 19 A400M transport aircraft are flying.

And as Der Spiegel's Matthias Gebauer was told by a Bundeswehr source, "We can say with a good conscience that large parts of the [German armed forces] are mission ready, because there is currently no mission."

The German military quite simply is non-functional due to lack of funds. Trump is correct on two points: 1) Germany (and others) is not living up to its commitment, and is relying on the efforts of other nations to defend it militarily. He is not the first US president to say so, but he is certainly the most direct/least polite about it. 2) Germany in particular needs to up its defense budget just to make its own military work, and Germany is not doing it. The German minister of defense has said as much.

dr.fuzzenstein

Leroy42 wrote: »

Jebus Rigolo, did you learn nothing from the NK debacle.

Hold on until the actual details emerge. What you posted could literally mean anything. Diplomats are trained to use language that both says everything and nothing at the same time.

There is no point. Trump fans are mindless automatons that simply trumpet the latest bullsh*t and lies from the Trump administration.
It's basically the same as North Korean propaganda announcements.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=il-22Q8mECc

To be a Trump supporter switch off brain, plug ears and shout propaganda. Especially the evil slime at Fox news. Someone should pull the flush on that toilet that calls itself "news".

Leroy42

Jebus Rigolo, did you learn nothing from the NK debacle.

Hold on until the actual details emerge. What you posted could literally mean anything. Diplomats are trained to use language that both says everything and nothing at the same time.

RIGOLO

So the NATO communique has just come out.
Some of the elements will have been agreed in the weeks or days before hand and they just get a final sign off at the summit.
It would appear Trump has made some huge inroads on NATO changes and achieved alot of what he had brought attention too in recent months.
Another success for Trump Administration, this message will be carried into the November mid-terms .
The full draft is here, its not very long, among the key statements
And share the burden of our security more fairly.
We all agree that we do not have fair burden-sharing in our Alliance today.
We all agree that we need more cash in national defence budgets;
More modern capabilities;
And more contributions to missions and operations.
We are also stepping up contributions to NATO deployments.
So we have turned the tide. But we need to do more.
This is about fairness. This is about credibility. And above all, this is about our security in a more unpredictable world.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg following the meeting of the North Atlantic Council at the level of Heads of State and Government (NATO Summit Brussels)

Daxve

So it looks like Trump got the 60%- 70% figure correct but it's not of energy from Russia it's Gas and Gas makes up less than 20% of German energy requirements so 12% from Russia that's not exactly reliant on Russia for their energy needs.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44794688

"The commodities brokerage Marex Spectron told Reality Check that about 60% of Germany's gas was imported from Russia, with most of the rest coming from Norway.

But that does not mean that 60% of Germany's energy comes from Russia - Germany's energy mix for power production is about 40% coal, more than 30% renewables, less than 20% gas and 10% nuclear, according to Marex Spectron."

everlast75

The Press thinks Trump is acting unreasonably towards NATO
Trump supporters - Trump knows what he is doing

The News thinks Trump is acting unreasonably towards NATO
Trump supporters - Trump knows what he is doing

Fellow NATO members thinks Trump is acting unreasonably towards NATO
Trump supporters - Trump knows what he is doing

The Senate, by a vote of 97-2 send a message to stand by NATO allies
Trump supporters - Trump knows what he is doing

Everyone is wrong - Trump is smarter than all of them apparently

Harika

Christy42 wrote: »

Is buying US gas and transporting it that far realistic?

As realistic as filling it in Saudi Arabia, Oman, Venezuela and shipping it from there.

Hurrache

Christy42 wrote: »

Is buying US gas and transporting it that far realistic?

Don't know, probably extremely expensive and not worthwhile either by sea or building a pipeline, but there's no logic really in what happened today anyway.

Christy42

Is buying US gas and transporting it that far realistic?

Hurrache

Christy42 wrote: »

As pixel mentioned this is nothing more than Trump wanting Germany to buy more US bombs and increase the US arms industry.

Don't think so, probably a lot to do with Americas surplus of gas and the low prices because of it. Try get Europe to buy it instead of from Russia, increase in demand, therefore increase in prices and reduction in surplus for themselves.

listermint

relax carry on wrote: »

Seriously you must be working for the Trump/Putin administration at this point? Your posts are coming across as unabashed propaganda at this stage. Any chance you can take a coffee break and answer the questions put to you repeatedly on the thread?

Automation doesnt work that way, It analysis key phrases and responds accordingly. When there is no key phrases or the phrases cannot be referenced no response is the decision.

relax carry on

RIGOLO wrote: »

Whilst the Trump Administration is powering thru Europe like somethign we havent seen since Pattons 3rd, the Trump Adminstration continues to have other wins domestically .
Another of Trumps Twitter barrage has delivered the goods...
Pfizer have held back on further drug price increases and also promised to roll back recent price hikes.
Pfizer says it will postpone price increases after discussions with Trump
With one of the drugs mentioned being Viagra, so it represents a personal win also.
This adminstration is kicking ass .

Seriously you must be working for the Trump/Putin administration at this point? Your posts are coming across as unabashed propaganda at this stage. Any chance you can take a coffee break and answer the questions put to you repeatedly on the thread?

weisses

everlast75 wrote: »

With your refusal to answer those 3 simple questions, hiding behind Danzy who did reply, and then the above post which is complete nonsense and hyperbole, I cannot take you seriously.

Who can at this point ?

everlast75

RIGOLO wrote: »

Whilst the Trump Administration is powering thru Europe like somethign we havent seen since Pattons 3rd, the Trump Adminstration continues to have other wins domestically .
Another of Trumps Twitter barrage has delivered the goods...
Pfizer have held back on further drug price increases and also promised to roll back recent price hikes.
Pfizer says it will postpone price increases after discussions with Trump
With one of the drugs mentioned being Viagra, so it represents a personal win also.
This adminstration is kicking ass .

With your refusal to answer those 3 simple questions, hiding behind Danzy who did reply, and then the above post which is complete nonsense and hyperbole, I cannot take you seriously.

Harika

RIGOLO wrote: »

Whilst the Trump Administration is powering thru Europe like somethign we havent seen since Pattons 3rd, the Trump Adminstration continues to have other wins domestically .
Another of Trumps Twitter barrage has delivered the goods...
Pfizer have held back on further drug price increases and also promised to roll back recent price hikes.
Pfizer says it will postpone price increases after discussions with Trump
With one of the drugs mentioned being Viagra, so it represents a personal win also.
This adminstration is kicking ass .

Might end like the stopped layoffs at Carrier, who then got fired anyway. Fox for balance
So expect Pfizer to put in price increases sneakingly later in the year.

RIGOLO

Whilst the Trump Administration is powering thru Europe like somethign we havent seen since Pattons 3rd, the Trump Adminstration continues to have other wins domestically .
Another of Trumps Twitter barrage has delivered the goods...
Pfizer have held back on further drug price increases and also promised to roll back recent price hikes.
Pfizer says it will postpone price increases after discussions with Trump
With one of the drugs mentioned being Viagra, so it represents a personal win also.
This adminstration is kicking ass .

robinph

RIGOLO wrote: »

Your maths is all over the shop... there isnt millions at stake , its billions

German GDP is about 3.5 Trillion,
Current German Defence spend is 37 Billion ..a fraction over 1%
NATO target spend is 2%
GERMANY should be spending about 70 billion ... thats an increase of 43 billion on current spending ....
Since when has 43 billion being zero impact ...
Instead of the US picking up 43 billion in the cost of NATO operations, Germany should be picking up that expense.

The US is not picking up any costs related to any other country not spending their 2% target. None of the 2% target spend is for NATO, it is purely to do with how much money each country spends on their own military for themselves.

The USA gets nothing of that spend (will except they probably sell the planes) and NATO gets nothing of that spend (except that completely unrelatedly those forces from each country will occasionally be called on to participate in NATO missions). The amount that Germany spends on their forces has absolutely nothing to do with the money that the USA spends on their military or what their military puts towards NATO missions.

everlast75

Danzy wrote: »

1) Do you think Russia interfered in the US Election

To a degree yes, but in a Micky Mouse fashion, it certainly did Putin no problems that certain sections of the Media try to make it look like he is deciding elections, see point 3. Mueller reckons they were spending 1.25 million a month on ads. Both Presidential candidates spent 80 million in total, on face book ads alone. Up to Mid October, both sides had spent about 3/4s of a billion. It would not be an internationally significant or business contribution. It doesn't rank.

2) Do you think Trump aided them
No

3) Do you think Trump is compromised by Russia
No, this sort of conspiracy nonsense has been in the public conscious for years, probably always been, Manchurian candidates, a puppet of world Jewry etc etc etc.

It is easier to blame Russia than to look closer to home for the Democrats.

Firstly, fair play to you for answering the questions. I note Rigolo thanked you for doing so, despite refusing to do it him/herself.

I have only read your reply, and before I got a chance to post a substantive reply, others have pretty much made most points.

I might come back with others later, I just wanted in the interim to acknowledge the fact that you replied.

Leroy42

Danzy wrote: »

It is easier to blame Russia than to look closer to home for the Democrats.

It is easier to blame the Russians because all the evidence points to them. The CIA/FBI and and house Committee all agree that Russia interfered in the election. Mueller has indicted 13 people over it.

It is easier for Trump to blame the Democrats as it avoids him having to answer questions. Like why his son met with Russians to obtain illegally gained information about an opponent and why Trump lied about it.

About why he has such massive business relationship with Russia yet claims that Germany having business dealings means they are controlled.

It sure is easy to blame Russia, but it seems far harder for any of Trumps supporters to admit that it happened and their man is potentially on the hook to them.

What other explanation is there for Trumps continued attacks on almost every country except Russia?

Christy42

As pixel mentioned this is nothing more than Trump wanting Germany to buy more US bombs and increase the US arms industry.

Manic Moran

Harika wrote: »

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.

Mm... Given the threat that NATO is most worried about right now seems to be Russia (Note which way the defenses of Poland or the Baltic States are facing), more guns, planes and tanks is precisely what is happening.

The Dutch used to have a massive tank fleet of over 400 tanks. They got rid of every last one of them, the fired their last shots in 2011, selling their last 100 to Finland, a country which has a bit of a history with Russia in 2014. 2016, they announced they are buying enough tanks back to make a battalion.

Plans for the Germans to cut back their tank forces have been reversed, with the Panzerschool at Munster cancelling its reduction and expanding again. They are currently adding about 50% to their tank fleet, but there is some concern as to whether they have the money to actually keep them running.

The US withdrew its last tanks from Germany amidst much fanfare in 2013. 9 months later, they were back.

Poland has been working on its tank and aviation fleet considerably, buying a lot of the ex German vehicles.

The Baltic States are, with Poland, proving well motivated to hit their 2% mark, and they are definitely buying hardware, lots of it in the last two years. Estonia never ended conscription, and Lithuania brought it back. Latvia is talking about it, but has instead decided to increase its arms purchases by an astonishing 46% this year over 2017. (It doesn’t have the money to both rearm and conscript).

So insofar as the folks charged with defense are concerned, with what meager funds they are getting, they are very much of the opinion that new hardware is needed.