Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

Danzy wrote: »

Is it of benefit now, is the question.

Hard not to see it as a relic of a bygone era.

Exaclty the question I was asking. So you don't see any value in NATO?

OK, that's fine, but why then is Trump jumping about with his bashing of Germany and his demand for extra spending. There is no threat, Russia is of little consequence, why does he care?

Why not simply state you are leaving because A,B and C, we of course remain close friends and allies but in a different relationship in terms of military cooperation blah blah.

The only conclusion that one can take from Trump is that he does see the value, he does see the importance, but he wants others to help out more. But then this makes his threat to leave as either totally pointless or dangerous for US.

StringerBell

everlast75 wrote: »

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

Best way to deal with it is for nobody to be bothered at this point.

Danzy wrote: »

That doesn't affect my point.

It kinda does .... 600 billion for defense of the US alone ???

Danzy wrote: »

It boils down to Europe's security being Europe's problem.

It is a large and rich continent.

Yes and ?? ... Article 5 was only invoked once .... And it wasn't Europe who did it .... doesn't that boils down to USA security being the USA's problem ?

Danzy wrote: »

It is a valid perspective for an American President to take and it was inevitable.

It is a selfish, shortsighted, idiotic, childish, perspective ...... fits the current POTUS

Danzy wrote: »

Global focus is moving South and to the East.

Specifically ?

Leroy42 wrote: »

So the US are going to retreat from the EU, giving a free hand to the likes of Russia and China?

Really? So in two short years, with no discussion or debate, Trump has decided to tear with the backbone of US global power over the last number of decades, without any giving any idea of why he thinks its a bad idea or what he is going to replace it with.

He has recently agreed to pull out of the Korean Peninsula. He is threatening to pull out of Europe. Do Americans really feel that NATO has been of no benefit to them, such that they should leave it?

The Russian economy is little bigger than that of the Netherlands and Belgium, it is dwarfed in terms of wealth and population by those to its West.

The big boy across the Pond is not going to give a free hand anymore, this was going to happen eventually whoever was President, the cheques were going to stop eventually. No one is stopping Germany from improving its army, which is not fit for purpose.

Global security Issues are in the future largely going to be ranging from North Africa to the China Sea.

Is it of benefit now, is the question.

Hard not to see it as a relic of a bygone era.

But what actually did NATO force the US to do? They are always going to spend vast amounts on money on the military, and by being in NATO they were able to deploy in places like Germany without much actual cost.

It also meant that the US were protected from far from their shores, able to respond quickly to foreign threats. The mere existence of NATO provided a wall against Russia.

So I fail to see how this improves anything for America. Trump is supposed to be MAGA, I fail to see how this achieves it.

everlast75

Danzy wrote: »

It boils down to Europe's security being Europe's problem

Lucky for the US Europe didn't think the same way when they needed help after 9/11, eh?

pixelburp

To be a broken record, any threats to pull out of NATO are on a par with the "let's take their guns, sort the law out later" level of thinking - insofar as one can assign 'thinking' to obvious, ignorant brainfarts.

Trump does not know what NATO is, does, or operates. Let's not beat around the bush here. He thinks it's another International Club for politicians to be chummy with each other (and sure, maybe it sorta is!), and if there's one sphere Trump thinks he understands, it's exclusive clubs. So yeah, he threatens to leave it unless all the other countries pay their membership fees.

To Trump, everything is through a prism of either the golf club, corporation, or protection racket.

weisses wrote: »

The 94 billion extra budget for defense disagrees with you.

https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0053_defense-comparison

Maybe its to defend against a Canadian invasion

That doesn't affect my point.

It boils down to Europe's security being Europe's problem.

It is a large and rich continent.

It is a valid perspective for an American President to take and it was inevitable.

Global focus is moving South and to the East.

Danzy wrote: »

Doubt if he has a problem with that, it is the whole point.
The European Deterrence Initiative is funded by the Americans to 3.4bn this year, never mind all the spending on bases etc which is to a much larger scale.

So the US are going to retreat from the EU, giving a free hand to the likes of Russia and China?

Really? So in two short years, with no discussion or debate, Trump has decided to tear with the backbone of US global power over the last number of decades, without any giving any idea of why he thinks its a bad idea or what he is going to replace it with.

He has recently agreed to pull out of the Korean Peninsula. He is threatening to pull out of Europe. Do Americans really feel that NATO has been of no benefit to them, such that they should leave it?

And if that is what US citizens want then so be it. But I'm not convinced that they actually did want it before Trump them this week that they did. But if Trump really sees no value then why all the posturing about the 4%. If he thinks the problem with NATO is not enough funds then how is the US going it alone going to help achieve that?

Captain Obvious

Leroy42 wrote: »

"Do there own thing". What like invade Iraq without any international backing?

So Trump pulls out of NATO, then what. They lose access to all the European basis straight away. They lose access to European waters for their naval fleet. They lose access to Europe military assets.

What exactly is Trump trying to achieve with this? He hasn't given any details of what he thinks are the benefits currently, or the benefits from getting increases from the rest. Just, spend more money. That is the policy it would seem.

He just doesn't understand thing's like NATO in any kind of complexity.

robinph

Leroy42 wrote: »

"Do there own thing". What like invade Iraq without any international backing?

So Trump pulls out of NATO, then what. They lose access to all the European basis straight away. They lose access to European waters for their naval fleet. They lose access to Europe military assets.

What exactly is Trump trying to achieve with this? He hasn't given any details of what he thinks are the benefits currently, or the benefits from getting increases from the rest. Just, spend more money. That is the policy it would seem.

Do they lose access to the Mediterranean as well? They would have no reason to be going there, at least for Russia they can claim its a way of accessing their ports. Can't see their carriers making it through the Suez canal to get in or out.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Except of course for his belief in trickle down economics!

and the way the tax breaks were structured etc but his take on trade and migration are far from Reaganite Republicans.

They represent the first break from the neoliberal order in decades.

Fundamentally they will change how the economy operates and society is run. It kills Reaganism in the long term, even if he does not want that to happen.

trellheim

Folks threatening to pull USA from NATO is not minor. Not in the slightest. Even the threat of it to get to a higher GDP spend.

Danzy wrote: »

2008 marked the failing of Neoliberalism, the status quo of the Reagan/Thatcher era up to then, was over.

His scrapping of TPP was straight from the Bernie Sanders playbook, his clamping down on illegal migration is economically more on the Left, than any Free market Republican.

He is no Jeremy Corbyn but he is tearing up Status quo and given the changes of the last 40 years, someone was going to come along and do that.

Trump doesn't believe in Pax Americana, the States as global policeman, this is just another sign of that.

As I said, he is no Corbyn but he marks the move away from Reaganism.

The 94 billion extra budget for defense disagrees with you.

https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0053_defense-comparison

Maybe its to defend against a Canadian invasion

Leroy42 wrote: »

"

So Trump pulls out of NATO, then what. They lose access to all the European basis straight away. They lose access to European waters for their naval fleet. They lose access to Europe military assets.

.

Doubt if he has a problem with that, it is the whole point.
The European Deterrence Initiative is funded by the Americans to 3.4bn this year, never mind all the spending on bases etc which is to a much larger scale.

trellheim wrote: »

did he just threaten to pull USA from NATO ? oh fk

https://www.politico.eu/article/trump-threatens-to-pull-out-of-nato/

Bully tactics

As I said earlier .. The 2% spending was agreed upon by ALL NATO partners in 2014 .... To be implemented by 2024 ... Trump is ahead of himself again ... This time by 6 years

Danzy wrote: »

As I said, he is no Corbyn but he marks the move away from Reaganism.

Except of course for his belief in trickle down economics!

trellheim wrote: »

did he just threaten to pull USA from NATO ? oh fk

https://www.politico.eu/article/trump-threatens-to-pull-out-of-nato/

2008 marked the failing of Neoliberalism, the status quo of the Reagan/Thatcher era up to then, was over.

His scrapping of TPP was straight from the Bernie Sanders playbook, his clamping down on illegal migration is economically more on the Left, than any Free market Republican.

He is no Jeremy Corbyn but he is tearing up Status quo and given the changes of the last 40 years, someone was going to come along and do that.

Trump doesn't believe in Pax Americana, the States as global policeman, this is just another sign of that.

As I said, he is no Corbyn but he marks the move away from Reaganism.

"Do there own thing". What like invade Iraq without any international backing?

So Trump pulls out of NATO, then what. They lose access to all the European basis straight away. They lose access to European waters for their naval fleet. They lose access to Europe military assets.

What exactly is Trump trying to achieve with this? He hasn't given any details of what he thinks are the benefits currently, or the benefits from getting increases from the rest. Just, spend more money. That is the policy it would seem.

trellheim

did he just threaten to pull USA from NATO ? oh fk

https://www.politico.eu/article/trump-threatens-to-pull-out-of-nato/

Trump threatens to pull out of NATO
President says US can go it alone if allies don’t meet spending target.

By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN AND LILI BAYER 7/12/18, 11:43 AM CET Updated 7/12/18, 12:41 PM CET
U.S. President Donald Trump threatened to break with NATO and conduct American security unilaterally — if allies do not immediately meet higher military spending targets, NATO officials and diplomats said.

Trump warned of “grave consequences” if allies do not immediately meet higher spending targets, derailing a morning meeting of NATO leaders with the leaders of Georgia and Ukraine on the second day of a NATO leaders’ summit on Thursday. One NATO official said Trump wants a plan from alliance members by January on how to reach the spending target.

everlast75 wrote: »

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

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

It could have been handled better but it is largely the correct course of action.

The free market is not the be all and end all of life.

everlast75

80% of evangelicals support him according to a recent survey.
These are fanatical people.
America is comprised of between 30-40% evangelicals.
Therefore, that is his base and as per DJT at the rallies, he could shoot someone of 5th avenue and they would support him.
Now, add to that those republicans who view him as a derailed idiot, but their idiot, now you are up to 40% + and that is the problem.

Stephen Miller's two key policy ideas, 1) travel ban and 2) zero tolerance on borders were pitched to Trump on the reactions they would get at the polls. This is not about the American good, it is about populism.

America has substantial fractures/isues under the surface. Paranoia, racism, an obsession with guns, right wing religion practices along with a belief that Country is better than any other. What Trump and his backers* have done is take a jackhammer to those fractures, cause huge and ugly partitions and simply profited from it.

The idea that they are "making America great again" or anything like it, is frankly laughable.

*read who you will here

robinph

RIGOLO wrote: »

No Trump didnt write it .
NATO WROTE it, perhaps they dont know why they were formed and you know better
You can read it for yourself .. on the NATO website, its quite educational.

A SHORT HISTORY OF NATO
In fact, the Alliance’s creation was part of a broader effort to serve three purposes: deterring Soviet expansionism

I wasn't suggesting that Trump actually wrote it, was merely comparing the contradictions of the NATO statement about their history to Trumps style.

Can you not see that them saying:

It is often said that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was founded in response to the threat posed by the Soviet Union.

And then following it up directly with this line:

This is only partially true. In fact, the Alliance’s creation was part of a broader effort to serve three purposes: deterring Soviet expansionism

And that they are contradicting themselves?

I'm not doubting that NATO knows why they were created. Just that their claim of not being setup due to the threat of Soviet Union is a lie when their next statement is about being setup due to the threat from the Soviet Union.

Harika

Just in the press conference: Trump advertises US equipment and offers help to poorer countries to help them buying it. Who would have guessed?

dr.fuzzenstein

Trump has been rich and privileged all his life. That means it doesn't matter what he does, he has handlers who sort it out for him.
So he sits behind the wheel and is massively jerking it around, but there is an army of very capable people who steer for him.
With his staff and handlers, you could put a chimpanzee in his place and, well, actually the outcome would be better, since a chimp is not as insane as Trump.
So what Trump does is the equivalent of:

And I wonder if the US voters will root through their wallet to deposit another coin for him to have another spin.
Maybe we're looking at this wrong, maybe to Trump supporters this is some kind of secret in-joke that us normal people don't get.
I always suspected that Trumps election was nothing but a giant troll fest by secret invitation only and there is millions of people laughing their arse off behind the keyboard.
Because that is the only explanation I have for his presidency. The other alternative is that he was actually elected by people who thought he would be a competent and able POTUS and that he is the best possible choice for the most powerful leader of the free world.
But that would be silly.

Harika

https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1017353174741671936

haha my god, if the other countries commit to 4% in 2020 I would become a Trump fan

Seems he threatened to leave Nato as confirmed by a single, good source: @realDonaldTrump told @Nato allies this morning that unless wealthiest economies (read Germany, France, Spain, Italy) hit 2% GDP target by January “we are going to do our own thing”
If this is confirmed then it is extraordinary threat

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbKlm2OQwxw

It is one thing to embarrass the people you meet, Quite a different thing when it involves your own team

According to the WH Kelly was displeased because he didn't got a full breakfast ... Nothing to do with Trumps Childish behaviour :rolleyes:

He doesn't want to fire Kelly ... Maybe he is hoping the poor fella will resign

RIGOLO

robinph wrote: »

RIGOLO wrote: »

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.

Did Trump write that?

"Nato wasn't setup due to the threat from the Soviet Union, it was setup to deter Soviet expansion". Riiiiight

They manage to split their contradictions into two sentences, which is better than Trump often manages, but surprised that got through the proof reading before being put up on their website.

No Trump didnt write it .
NATO WROTE it, perhaps they dont know why they were formed and you know better
You can read it for yourself .. on the NATO website, its quite educational.

A SHORT HISTORY OF NATO
In fact, the Alliance’s creation was part of a broader effort to serve three purposes: deterring Soviet expansionism