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

Captain Obvious

RIGOLO wrote: »

forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and encouraging European political integration.

Isn't that ironic. Trump has encouraged the total opposite now. Working to break up Europe and encouraging nationalist militarism in the US.

RIGOLO wrote: »

Obviously the press release would have gotten US Trump Administration sign off. It would be hard to spin how its a Putin friendly communique.

Awful shame he can't manage to criticise Putin too much on his own.

everlast75

RIGOLO wrote: »

Thats a common mis-conception, its only partially true, there were a number of reasons.
With one of the main ones stemming from lessons learned after WWI and The Treaty of Versailles, where many felt German reparations had been too harsh and excluded Germany too much which directly led to events in the 30s.
It was only post Korean war , Russia nuclear advancments and Warsaw Pact that the military mission came to be the primary raison d'etre. Up to then it was also seen as an alliance to promote political integration.

https://www.nato.int/cps/ie/natohq/declassified_139339.htm

It is often said that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was founded in response to the threat posed by the Soviet Union. This is only partially true. In fact, the Alliance’s creation was part of a broader effort to serve three purposes: deterring Soviet expansionism, forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and encouraging European political integration.

NATO summit continues and this mornings press release is specifically directed to the UKRAINE and Georgoia.
No doubt left as to the NATO condemnation of Russian intervention and also actions being taken to secure Ukraine. Obviously the press release would have gotten US Trump Administration sign off. It would be hard to spin how its a Putin friendly communique. And factor in the 40% increase in US European military investment in Europe since Trump took office, again hard to spin how thats a Putin friendly act. The Trump Administration has given NATO a badly needed kick in the arse.
Chairman’s statement on NATO-Ukraine following the meeting of the North Atlantic Council with Georgia and Ukraine at the Brussels Summit

Can someone else deal with this? I'm frankly not bothered

RIGOLO

everlast75 wrote: »

The idea that Trump calls members of NATO delinquents for not paying their bill is utter hypocrisy on a number of fronts;

1) It is not a Bill, it is a contribution
2) The only time NATO sprang to help another nation was after 9/11, i.e. US was the only country to benefit in that way
3) The US has failed to live up to its commitments in terms of the Paris Accord and the Iran Treaty
4) Trump doesn't even pay HIS own Bills.. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-09/trump-s-personal-driver-for-25-years-sues-for-unpaid-overtime
5) Germany are in Afghanistan, assisting and second only in commitment to the US, in a war the US started
6) The US spends more on defence as they are at war on a number of fronts

Others have asked on here why Trump would want increased spending in NATO as it was formed primarily to help defend against the USSR. In my view, he is causing ructions so he will have a pretence to then leave, which would be to Putin's pleasure. He would be free to annex the next Country on his list.

Thats a common mis-conception, its only partially true, there were a number of reasons.
With one of the main ones stemming from lessons learned after WWI and The Treaty of Versailles, where many felt German reparations had been too harsh and excluded Germany too much which directly led to events in the 30s.
It was only post Korean war , Russia nuclear advancments and Warsaw Pact that the military mission came to be the primary raison d'etre. Up to then it was also seen as an alliance to promote political integration.

https://www.nato.int/cps/ie/natohq/declassified_139339.htm

It is often said that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was founded in response to the threat posed by the Soviet Union. This is only partially true. In fact, the Alliance’s creation was part of a broader effort to serve three purposes: deterring Soviet expansionism, forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and encouraging European political integration.

NATO summit continues and this mornings press release is specifically directed to the UKRAINE and Georgoia.
No doubt left as to the NATO condemnation of Russian intervention and also actions being taken to secure Ukraine. Obviously the press release would have gotten US Trump Administration sign off. It would be hard to spin how its a Putin friendly communique. And factor in the 40% increase in US European military investment in Europe since Trump took office, again hard to spin how thats a Putin friendly act. The Trump Administration has given NATO a badly needed kick in the arse.
Chairman’s statement on NATO-Ukraine following the meeting of the North Atlantic Council with Georgia and Ukraine at the Brussels Summit

weisses

everlast75 wrote: »

The idea that Trump calls members of NATO delinquents for not paying their bill is utter hypocrisy on a number of fronts;

1) It is not a Bill, it is a contribution
2) The only time NATO sprang to help another nation was after 9/11, i.e. US was the only country to benefit in that way
3) The US has failed to live up to its commitments in terms of the Paris Accord and the Iran Treaty
4) Trump doesn't even pay HIS own Bills.. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-09/trump-s-personal-driver-for-25-years-sues-for-unpaid-overtime
5) Germany are in Afghanistan, assisting and second only in commitment to the US, in a war the US started
6) The US spends more on defence as they are at war on a number of fronts

Others have asked on here why Trump would want increased spending in NATO as it was formed primarily to help defend against the USSR. In my view, he is causing ructions so he will have a pretence to then leave, which would be to Putin's pleasure. He would be free to annex the next Country on his list.

Spot on .... Plus in 2014 all NATO partners agreed the 2% spending ....... by 2024

Another example of Trump not willing to honor prior agreements

everlast75

Danzy wrote: »

I know of a couple where the kids were taken off them, as they were both going to jail for being involved in a drug ring.

I think they went to stay with her sister.

Breaking the law is a risky business.

Don't even try to defend what's going on at the border.

If you aren't disgusted, you aren't researching it enough.

Midlife

Danzy wrote: »

I know of a couple where the kids were taken off them, as they were both going to jail for being involved in a drug ring.

I think they went to stay with her sister.

Breaking the law is a risky business.

Always.

Luckily though when you go to jail you pretty much know where you're going to be. Additionally you'd tend to know where your kids are going to be.

I don't think anyone's denying America's right to temporarily incarcerate or deport illegal aliens. Borders are borders.

Similarly, I imagine you can't deny that someone at some point should have ensured there was some form of records kept to ensure they deported families together and to the same place. A simple wristband with a number would have worked.

It's not about being technically legal or correct. It's about literally thousands of children who no longer have access to their parents.

I doubt anyone thought of this outcome but it's what happens when you have an entire administration that don't deal with details too well.

everlast75

The idea that Trump calls members of NATO delinquents for not paying their bill is utter hypocrisy on a number of fronts;

1) It is not a Bill, it is a contribution
2) The only time NATO sprang to help another nation was after 9/11, i.e. US was the only country to benefit in that way
3) The US has failed to live up to its commitments in terms of the Paris Accord and the Iran Treaty
4) Trump doesn't even pay HIS own Bills.. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-09/trump-s-personal-driver-for-25-years-sues-for-unpaid-overtime
5) Germany are in Afghanistan, assisting and second only in commitment to the US, in a war the US started
6) The US spends more on defence as they are at war on a number of fronts

Others have asked on here why Trump would want increased spending in NATO as it was formed primarily to help defend against the USSR. In my view, he is causing ructions so he will have a pretence to then leave, which would be to Putin's pleasure. He would be free to annex the next Country on his list.

Danzy

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

And sometimes I would prefer live under Putin than Trump. Simply because Trump is such a colossal wanker.

You a bit far, far right?

RIGOLO

Igotadose wrote: »

RIGOLO wrote: »

So I think commentators missed a nugget in the NATO communique.
We agreed a major update of the NATO Command Structure.
With more than 1,200 new personnel.
And new commands for the Atlantic – in Norfolk, Virginia;.

Original reference please. The published communique doesn't say this at all in https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_156624.htm

Your not looking at the right communique. The transcript of the press conference also carried the full test read out
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_156733.htm?selectedLocale=en

Jens Stoltenberg the NATO Secretary General had lots of interesting things to see, the Press Conference Q&A had lots of takeaways, very much praising President Trump and his NATO initiatives.

On top of that, on the initiative of President Trump last May, last year, we agreed to develop the national plans as a very powerful tool, to make sure that Allies deliver on the promise to increase defence spending.
When it comes to US presence in Europe, what we have seen is that the United States has increased their military presence in Europe. After the end of the Cold War, the United States reduced its military presence. The last US battle tank left Europe in 2013. And now, the United States is back with a full armoured brigade. And just since President Trump became President, or took Office, US funding for a US military presence in Europe has been increased by 40%. So, actions speak louder than words. I am absolutely confident about the US commitment to European security and also their military presence.
more tanks.. someone will be happy.

Harika

What was was made clear from the Nato meeting by many participants :P "The dogs bark and the caravan moves on". What is the actual reality? US strengthens their presence in Europe with the new office in Belgium and the strengthening of their army bases in the EU. EU moves on to the 2% until 2024 and the 30/30/30 plan is basically the "Very High Readiness Joint Task Force of 2014". So not much happened, that's why Trump throws in the next grenade today.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1017290478839050240

Ah now 4% :pac:

Danzy

Panrich wrote: »

So the Trump circus is moving on today and will be visiting Buckinham Palace to meet the Queen among other engagements.

The vision of the mannerless chav beaming like a Cheshire Cat for the photo opportunity with the impeccably mannered Queen grates already even before he tweets it.

This president has reduced international diplomacy to the level of a cheap game show.

He is visiting a family, famous for its gin hounds, adultery and being friends with Jimmy Saville since the 50s and that is just for starters.

He'll hardly shock them.

Danzy

circadian wrote: »

So seperating children and moving them to another group or elsewhere is genocide according to the UN interpretation.

http://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.html

"(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

The stories coming out are horrific. As a parent of two young children it turns my stomach to think of this happening to us as a family. Those poor people.

I know of a couple where the kids were taken off them, as they were both going to jail for being involved in a drug ring.

I think they went to stay with her sister.

Breaking the law is a risky business.

Igotadose

RIGOLO wrote: »

So I think commentators missed a nugget in the NATO communique.
We agreed a major update of the NATO Command Structure.
With more than 1,200 new personnel.
And new commands for the Atlantic – in Norfolk, Virginia;.

Original reference please. The published communique doesn't say this at all in https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_156624.htm

Leroy42

Trump may well succeed in bullying the other countries, the US is the biggest after all and just like all bullies can throw its weight around.

But that is very short term thinking. Alliances such as NATO, are built on a mutual trust between countries, trust that the USA have thrown back in their faces. Not just in terms of this summit, but the recent G7, the tearing up of the Iran deal, puling out of the Paris accord.

Trump is cashing in a lot of goodwill on the basis of some short-term wins. So he gets 1200 additional personal in Viginia. IN terms of the military spend of the US that is nothing. At to get that he has had to directly attack one of the leading countries n Europe. Not sure that is a good dealmaker.

It comes across to me as the bully approach, getting stuff done but leaving little goodwill behind. The US has massive goodwill across the West, and Trump is very actively trying to get rid of it.

There is a reason why diplomacy is carried out the way it is, both sides need to be seen to be winning. Trump takes that view that once he is seen to be winning then that all that matters, even if that means he has to attack the other side.

For all his talk about needing to raise military spending to defend against Russia, and yesterday dinner he refused to discuss what he was going to talk to Putin about. So after a day chastising Germany for being in hock to Russia and NATO needed to stand as one against them, he then is getting ready to hold secret talks with Putin?

Igotadose

Trump's campaign manager moving from 'VIP facility' to another prison. After bragging about how well he had it in the VIP facility.

Yet another example of the clown car losing a wheel. Why, if you're in a comfortable *prison*, would you brag on the phone to your buddies about it? Do you *want* to be a martyr in another, less safe prison? But, doing shockingly dumb things (Woop woop from another campaign manager about a disabled kid separated from his/her parents, grabbing a reporter forcibly, etc.) is the hallmark of Trump and his inner circle

From: https://nypost.com/2018/07/11/judge-orders-manafort-be-moved-from-jail-giving-him-vip-treatment/

"During one prison call, prosecutors said Manafort — who is accused of bank and tax fraud — bragged about having access to “all my files like I would at home.”"

NY post is a Murdoch rag and mostly pro-Trump, but theypublish some useful news once in awhile.

RIGOLO

So I think commentators missed a nugget in the NATO communique.
We agreed a major update of the NATO Command Structure.
With more than 1,200 new personnel.
And new commands for the Atlantic – in Norfolk, Virginia;
[font=Open Sans, sans-serif]Virginia is a state that Trump lost by 5% in 2016, it has a Democrat incumbent but Corey Stewart (yes a controversial figure) is about 10% behind in the Senate race.
The GOP and Trump Administration had previously stated they think they may be able to flip this state in November. [/font]
[font=Open Sans, sans-serif]NATO expansion in Norfolk will Im sure be a message that the GOP will carry on the campaign trail there. Perhaps they may indeed , Id expect the Trump train to go there and campaign closer to November polling day, plus the GOP digital targetting machine will Im sure spread that message on all social platforms in the run up. [/font]
Anti-Trumpers will obviously state Trump went blindly into the NATO negotiations and never even considered the ACT NATO base in Virginia, others might say that perhaps it was great deal making and it was a particular point the Trump administration had on its lists of wants, alternatively it could just be filed under the law of fortuitous unintended consequences.
Id expect the DNC party in Virginia woke up this morning wondering how they counter the spin coming their way.

I expect Englands loss last night in the World Cup has taking some of the steam out of the anti-Trump protests in England and London, after a night of partying followed by a national deflation it may be hard for them to rouse the same enthusiastic protest today. If England were in hte Final the party and protest mood would have worked well in tandem.
I wish them well on their protests, hope no one gets hurt, its a free world, they are free to protest.

Panrich

So the Trump circus is moving on today and will be visiting Buckinham Palace to meet the Queen among other engagements.

The vision of the mannerless chav beaming like a Cheshire Cat for the photo opportunity with the impeccably mannered Queen grates already even before he tweets it.

This president has reduced international diplomacy to the level of a cheap game show.

dr.fuzzenstein

There is a reason that the military in a lot of European countries is not well funded.
After the Eastern Block crumbled into dust and the USSR disintegrated, there was no more need for cold war levels of armaments.
There was no reason to have a vast army of missiles, tanks, fighter jets and artillery pointing East. And Europe isn't an aggressor on the world stage like the US. We don't have to occupy and intimidate a lot of countries around the world.
And then the special case of Germany.
A heavily armed German military going on any missions abroad was very much frowned upon, either abroad or within Germany.
So since there was no more Soviet threat and no missions outside of Germany, there was no need for a heavily armed team of glorified boy scouts.
Conscription was abandoned and spending curtailed. I saw the German army from within in 1993. It was a great camping holiday.
The problem now is that Putin is fast developing into a slightly more benign Stalin and he has aspirations to reunite the USSR. The illegal landgrab at the Crimea region in the Ukraine could only be the start.
He may well fancy other states that broke away like the Baltics.
If there is any military aggression in Europe, it will come from Russia.
Of course he knows how to do it in such a way that it looks like Russia didn't do anything, like have his army march in without insignia.
It's a clumsy trick, but if people are stupid enough to fall for people like Putin and Trump, they'll fall for anything.
That is at least my pet theory. Since I live in Germany I hope I'm very wrong and Uncle Vlad really is just a nice guy who wants what's best for everyone.

And sometimes I would prefer live under Putin than Trump. Simply because Trump is such a colossal wanker.

rossie1977

smurgen wrote: »

As if the U.S would be happy with an independent Europe.just imagine a future integrated European army with shared nuclear deterant.Imagine the E.U request all U.S military bases to leave Europe.All funding and defense paid for by Europe.Areyou telling us that this would make the likes of Trump happy?they'd preceive it as a threat.

The bases in Turkey, Greece, Germany, Italy and UK give the US first strike capabilities so zero chance they want to lose that ability.

Trump is playing a dangerous game here and it would be interesting if the EU did call Trumps bluff and asked the US to move their bases out and stopped US subs/carriers etc from entering the North Sea and the Mediterranean.

smurgen

Manic Moran wrote: »

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.

As if the U.S would be happy with an independent Europe.just imagine a future integrated European army with shared nuclear deterant.Imagine the E.U request all U.S military bases to leave Europe.All funding and defense paid for by Europe.Areyou telling us that this would make the likes of Trump happy?they'd preceive it as a threat.

jm08

aloyisious wrote: »

Will he allow for a deal deal which will exempt products from tariffs in return for an aircraft deal?

Germany is looking at putting ''Germany First'' which means that if they did stick with an American fighter plane, they are dependent on the US for ever. Trump could be playing to the audience back home because he knows the Germans are going to put 'Germany/Europe First'.

Germany plans to spend a lot of money in the next few years on defence hardware. I don't think Trump is doing the US any favours by his latest ranting and disrespect of both Merkel and Germany.

[Deleted User]

So seperating children and moving them to another group or elsewhere is genocide according to the UN interpretation.

http://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.html

"(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

The stories coming out are horrific. As a parent of two young children it turns my stomach to think of this happening to us as a family. Those poor people.

aloyisious

jm08 wrote: »

Germany is about to replace its fleet of 90 Tornado planes with either the US Lockhead plane or the Airbus plane. Trump sales pitch is that Germany owes the US something so should buy its planes.

As for these requirements of spending more money on arms being advocated by all these defence experts, how can one know its not a case of 'the more toys for the boys the better.'

Will he allow for a deal deal which will exempt products from tariffs in return for an aircraft deal?

aloyisious

Telling your NATO allies that they are hostage to Russia because of reliance on cheap fuel from Russia a day or so before going to Helsinki for a meeting with Vlad? Is Don offering Texas oil to Europe at a cheaper rate or just making up his policy on the spot as usual without technical know-how? How is this an acceptable MAGA policy?

jm08

Germany is about to replace its fleet of 90 Tornado planes with either the US Lockhead plane or the Airbus plane. Trump sales pitch is that Germany owes the US something so should buy its planes.

As for these requirements of spending more money on arms being advocated by all these defence experts, how can one know its not a case of 'the more toys for the boys the better.'

Manic Moran

Christy42 wrote: »

The entire NATO says it so it must be right is an appeal to authority.

It is, but it doesn't make it inherently wrong. Presumably the people in charge did not arbitrarily pick 2% out of thin air. Those decision-makers are in a far better position to know what is suitable than you or I are. Unless you have any more credible source for estimation, I think we're going to have to go with those who are in a position to make those decisions.

It absolutely matters why Trump said it. This is not a conversation designed to be about German defense spending. It is about Trump. I really don't think France care as much about Germany spending less than 2% on defense spending as bigger issues like the US withdrawing from Paris or the Iran agreement. Tty a German military spending thread and see how much people really care that much.

Oh, they probably don't. They're so fixated on the fact that Trump's saying it (and the rather aggressive way in which he is doing so, being Trump) that the fact that his predecessors have similarly castigated NATO countries for not spending sufficient percentages seems to be irrelevant to the outrage. That they don't care, however, is exactly the root problem that the US has been attempting to draw attention to for years: That they don't care! Yet the fundamental nature of NATO is supposed to be that all countries care.

The 2% is nice but it does not serve actually help France that much. Saying Nato agreed does not make it so. Germans might have to pay more bit so do plenty of other countries close to them like the UK or France.

Agreed. But he seems to be getting more pushback from Germany, whose military is in a fairly horrible shape and so isn't in a position to be making any great moral arguments itself, than any other nation, so Germany and its situation has become a focus.

The US is not the grand protector of the world you seem to think it is. To begin with it is underwriting nothing right now. Is there any agreement you would trust Trump to hold the US side of the bargain of? I see the need for NATO but also feel like it is overspending as is given the legion of far more pressing issues in the world.

The treaties it has with other nations may not make it a grand protector of the world, but it does make it a substantial protector of 69 countries, 75% of the world's GDP and a quarter of the globe's population. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/05/30/map-the-u-s-is-bound-by-treaties-to-defend-a-quarter-of-humanity/?utm_term=.9f12774420bd

As it happens, I do believe that the Trump administration will uphold its treaties (Hey, he likes the military). But those treaties I presume will last far longer than the Trump presidency. When Trump is replaced by XXX, NATO defense expenditure commitments per country will remain.

Defense budgets are always the first to be drawn down on, when people look at all the other things a government has to fund. The problem is that when it is actually needed, it's too late, and security is the foremost obligation a government has to its people.

Greece spends 2% but they have their eyes peeled towards Turkey ... there are countries who spend less then the 2% but are more involved in NATO then Greece for instance

Also agreed. But weapons currently pointed at Turkey don't take very long to be pointed elsewhere if NATO calls upon them, so for NATO's purposes, Greece is meeting commitments.

Water John

Trump is basically pi****g on Nato to be chummy with his pal Putin, when he goes to meet him. That comment comes from a GOP member.
He doesn't like clubs or groups only wants bilaterals. That's the second reason.

Has any of his supporters here, a good reason as to why Trump wants a one to one meeting with Putin?

weisses

Christy42 wrote: »

The entire NATO says it so it must be right is an appeal to authority.

It absolutely matters why Trump said it. This is not a conversation designed to be about German defense spending. It is about Trump. I really don't think France care as much about Germany spending less than 2% on defense spending as bigger issues like the US withdrawing from Paris or the Iran agreement. Tty a German military spending thread and see how much people really care that much.

The 2% is nice but it does not serve actually help France that much. Saying Nato agreed does not make it so. Germans might have to pay more bit so do plenty of other countries close to them like the UK or France.

The US is not the grand protector of the world you seem to think it is. To begin with it is underwriting nothing right now. Is there any agreement you would trust Trump to hold the US side of the bargain of? I see the need for NATO but also feel like it is overspending as is given the legion of far more pressing issues in the world.

That whole 2% is a bit misleading as well

Greece spends 2% but they have their eyes peeled towards Turkey ... there are countries who spend less then the 2% but are more involved in NATO then Greece for instance

Midlife

Captain Obvious wrote: »

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.

You're thinking like a rational man about people who have embraced the irrational and deliberately avoid logic. Start with the obviously racist birther lie and take it from there. Anyone who embraces that is clearly partisan, not rational. They pick the set of facts to suit their world view.

So you get posts like....

'Another great win and week for the trump administration....'

**goes and googles whatever the hell he did today and gets the spin on it**

'it was great because what he did does the following

1: blah blah
2: blah
3:...'

What's funniest to me is that people are working so hard to apply some kind of plan, outcomes and long term logic to Trump's actions - painstakingly focussing on the details of each and every thing he does and why he does them. Like he's some kind of deep-thinking genius with a grandmaster chess strategy.

Whether you're pro- or anti-trump, you can't really argue that he deals in anything but broad brush strokes alone(who knew healthcare was so hard). I've no doubt that his overall plan going to NATO was to stir some sh*t up. That was his ONLY intention. Whether it's because he doesn't like internationalism, he's beholden to Putin, he thinks America is getting a raw deal, he feels that there may be opportunity in a little chaos, or he just wants to the the centre of attention, I'm not sure.

But he is NOT going into this with any details or outcomes worked out. He is simply trying to bend people to his will and then others will take care of the details. I don't think this is really up for debate as he's said similar before.

It's not chess, it's just lots of aggressive haggling. And that's his plan.

But yeah, as I said, it's comical to see people try and infer so much from his basic plans.

a: piss off germany
b: be sound to macron, he was nice that time in Paris
c: come down hard on NATO

Christy42

The entire NATO says it so it must be right is an appeal to authority.

It absolutely matters why Trump said it. This is not a conversation designed to be about German defense spending. It is about Trump. I really don't think France care as much about Germany spending less than 2% on defense spending as bigger issues like the US withdrawing from Paris or the Iran agreement. Tty a German military spending thread and see how much people really care that much.

The 2% is nice but it does not serve actually help France that much. Saying Nato agreed does not make it so. Germans might have to pay more bit so do plenty of other countries close to them like the UK or France.

The US is not the grand protector of the world you seem to think it is. To begin with it is underwriting nothing right now. Is there any agreement you would trust Trump to hold the US side of the bargain of? I see the need for NATO but also feel like it is overspending as is given the legion of far more pressing issues in the world.