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

Christy42

Danzy wrote: »

irishash wrote: »

Turkey has been trying to gain membership to the EU for the past 10 years. The Brexit campaign even said (as a bare faced lie) that membership would be given to them within a couple of years.

That does not tally with your hostility theory.

There was a lot of noise about Turkey and its talks, the EU give the impression it would like them in but most of the States in it would fight that and for good reasons.

Turkey is moving towards being a Sunni Iran, a religious State, a little democracy but largely autocratic, appaling human rights record and hostile to many of its neighbours.

A reformed NATO would have to look to Turkey as a threat to Europe as much as an expansionist Russia.

As much as the result of it slipping in to civil war in years to come as fighting its neighbours.

The EU was always conditional on Turkey becoming more Democratic and back towards its agnostic ideals. There was no wavering on that. Hence why they are not in the EU now.

Danzy

brickster69 wrote: »

If the US left, NATO would be finished as would Europe's security. Can you see the UK not letting the US pass Gibraltar or use its air base in Cyprus ?

Isn't that the problem though, Europe has the resources and manpower to secure and defend itself, it does not have the will.

Germany, one of the richest nations in the world, sending troops on Nato excercises with sticks in their hands because they did not have enough guns is pathetic and shameful, it doesn't matter who is President in Washington, that was in 2014.

It was easier and cheaper not to bother and let the Yanks do it.

Ultimately they knew that this day would come, it has been inevitable since the end of the USSR.

Modern Russia is not a threat to the scale of the USSR was.

Part of this is down to the need of Germany to stop living in the past and deal with the here and now, a problem because of the enormity of the past, distant though it is, the guilt became part of the zeitgeist and it means reaching in to its pocket. The last one being the biggest reason.

Why would the UK close off an international shipping route next to Gibraltar?

rossie1977

The argument that Trump is looking after issues at home when 10,000 people are still without power in Puerto Rico nine months after a hurricane devastated part of US territory or that he is only interested in security concerns in the Middle East and Asia when he tried to invade Venezuela, clearly shows that's not the case.

Also if you view the Middle East as a major issue going forward then Turkey is a vital strategic partner.

Leroy42

But Danzy, you seem to be totally missing a key point.

The US is not in German bases simply to defend Germany against Russia because it wants to help Germany. It is there because it wants to defend against Russia encroaching into Europe, and thus making it a bigger threat to the US.

It is in Germany because it wants to have influence within Europe, both politically and militarily should the need arise.

Now is the model of NATO, ie tanks on the border and troops on the ground, outdated. Well I would have said yes until Russia invaded Crimea. But even so, America is able to tap into a huge amount of secret service assets and intelligence by being in these countries.

The US outspends the rest of the top countries combined in terms of military spend, so its not about money. Trump is totally focused on the money because its easy to understand. US spends more therefore everyone else is wrong.

Danzy

Christy42 wrote: »

The EU was always conditional on Turkey becoming more Democratic and back towards its agnostic ideals. There was no wavering on that. Hence why they are not in the EU now.

That it was even considered a candidate at all was strange, even if it was fully democratic and secular as a State and a Citizenry.

5 neighbours that have all been in wars in the last few decades, most of them with varying degrees of instability, authoritarian Govts, extremist problems in the State and citizenry.

Never mind the economic problems in Turkey or how it would shift the dynamic of the EU so far from its Western European heartland.

It would have finished the EU.

everlast75

So the male FBI agent attended today (the female attending tomorrow I believe) and he gave a stellar performance

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1017438349584289792?s=19

Danzy

rossie1977 wrote: »

The argument that Trump is looking after issues at home when 10,000 people are still without power in Puerto Rico nine months after a hurricane devastated part of US territory or that he is only interested in security concerns in the Middle East and Asia when he tried to invade Venezuela, clearly shows that's not the case.

Also if you view the Middle East as a major issue going forward then Turkey is a vital strategic partner.

Turkey could be a strategic partner but for the fact that it is becoming an autocratic religious State, under a man who seems to believe he is a Caliph returned. It is more likely to try to control much of Syria, Northern Iraq and wage a war of genocide against the Kurds.

Danzy

Leroy42 wrote: »

But Danzy, you seem to be totally missing a key point.

The US is not in German bases simply to defend Germany against Russia because it wants to help Germany. It is there because it wants to defend against Russia encroaching into Europe, and thus making it a bigger threat to the US.

It is in Germany because it wants to have influence within Europe, both politically and militarily should the need arise.

Now is the model of NATO, ie tanks on the border and troops on the ground, outdated. Well I would have said yes until Russia invaded Crimea. But even so, America is able to tap into a huge amount of secret service assets and intelligence by being in these countries.

The US outspends the rest of the top countries combined in terms of military spend, so its not about money. Trump is totally focused on the money because its easy to understand. US spends more therefore everyone else is wrong.

Others do not have to match US % and he should be told f off if he wants that but it should pay for its own security, if the Yanks want to keep 65k troops in Europe for other reasons, let them, it is a big economic boom to many towns.

The strategic focus of the world moved away from Europe in the 90s, that will not return in our lifetimes, probably not over centuries.

I get you points regarding security assets and power projection but its focus has changed, the 3.5bn dollars given to European forces this year on fitting out a battalion for the EDI would buy a lot of intelligence as well, nevermind the cost of keeping 65k troops there.

Europe is a low threat and low-security concern now, if it took its own security seriously it would not be dealing with this. Some parts do, other key States do not.

Leroy42

And yet, Trump is demanding not only that they bring forward their commitment to increase to 2%, but he wants it at 4%.

based on your thinking, the it is a low threat, low security concern, what is the basis for any of that? Surely America should be reducing its spend back to lower levels.

The two positions do not make sense.

RIGOLO

irishash wrote: »

RIGOLO wrote: »

Read my posts on the issue, read the quotes from Stoltenberg I posted, read the NATO communiques I linked, watch Stoltenbergs press conference and Stoltenbergs CNN interview with Christina Amanapour. Let me know what you think after that.
Im not interpreting , I simply listened to what he said.

yep, seen all that. None of it contains any statement that Donald Trump has gotten any other NATO state to increase defence spending towards NATO beyond what was already agreed years ago.

To state otherwise is quite simply a lie.

I doubt you did, because if you had you would know its not a lie.
For those who are interested .. here is the CNN interview
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/07/watch-cnns-christiane-amanpour-corners-nato-secretary-trump-military-pledge-want-clear-answer/
STOLTENBERG
"There is a new sense of urgency "
(ref. Donal Trump) "his strong message on spending is having a real impact "
" his leadership , his strong message is having a clear impact , Allies are increasing their defence spending"
Thats the NATO Secretary General speaking ., and given he was also served two terms as Prime Minister of Norway which knows all too well the value of NATO Im happy with that.

Trumps NATO summit has been a huge success.
Hes exposed Germany.
He has lit a fire under the lagging member nations.
And he has the backing of the NATO Secretary General.
Plus he is bringing back more jobs for NATO ACT in Virginia, a potential Senate flip for the GOP..
continuing the golf parlance thats 3 birdies and an eagle on the front 9, with the back 9 to come in the next 4 days in the UK and Finland.

Leroy42

So Rigolo, Macron is lying then. He came out and stated that countries are increasing spending in line with the previous commitments. There is no new spending increases, no new deal, no bringing forward.

You have been asked for evidence, apart from Trump bleating on, to back up this assertion.

It should be easy enough. Where in the NATO press release does it show that different countries have agreed to increase spending, bu how much, and by when.

And supporter of Trump should know that someone saying that Trump is great means about as much as his words do. Only today Trump released a letter he received from Kim saying Trump was brilliant. But says nothing about anything they actually agreed.

Trump is not the only one who can speak from both sides of his mouth at the same time.

Outlaw Pete

everlast75 wrote: »

So she didn't touch them? And yet Pete says the punters were sexually assaulted? That's even worse.

lol. What do you mean "Pete says punters were sexually assaulted"? You'd swear I'd said I was in attendance and witnessed what happened or something.

Nope, I merely referenced what was reported:

Charging documents say Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, was arrested for touching a patron at a "sexually oriented" business in violation of the law commonly known as the Community Defense Act.

And as for:

everlast75 wrote: »

the idea that a Trump supporter places any credence whatsoever in evidence is laughable. Their whole ethos is grounded in fiction and optics

Some people who support Trump absolutely ignore some of the things he has done but hardly all, and what has that got to do with what I said anyway? Nothing. Unless that is, you believe two wrongs make a right and they don't. If people think that truth is important, and they should, then why stoop to the level of those you denigrate by engaging in the very thing you are criticizing.

Anyway, the charges have been dropped and so looks like there was no corruption and collusion from Trump behind the arrest, as was suggested with the ' Jesus, its not difficult to join the dots' remark.

irishash

RIGOLO wrote: »

I doubt you did, because if you had you would know its not a lie.
For those who are interested .. here is the CNN interview
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/07/watch-cnns-christiane-amanpour-corners-nato-secretary-trump-military-pledge-want-clear-answer/
STOLTENBERG
"There is a new sense of urgency "
(ref. Donal Trump) "his strong message on spending is having a real impact "
" his leadership , his strong message is having a clear impact , Allies are increasing their defence spending"

Please dont attempt to disparage my research. I watched the interview with CNN and I also read the article you linked.

He was asked multiple times for a figure of increased spending. He did not answer. He simply said NATO were spending more. Nobody is saying that is not happening. We knew this before the summit.

You have failed to provide ANY proof that new spending agreements have been made, you have been contridicted by the President of France (and since you hold people who hold/have held high office as beyond reproach, he is truthful in what he says) and myself and other people on this forum have provided countless links and evidence to show agreements on spending increases were agreed years ago.

So again I will say this - any assertion that NATO nations will spend more of defence as a result of Trumps actions at the summit is a bold faced lie.

EltonJohn69

the Trey gowdy vs the fbi is really like something out of a movie...he is like a cliche of an asshole sarcastic republican chairman.... a very entertaining watch... the whole process is such theatre and partisan

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

Captain Obvious

Charges dropped against Stormy.

https://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/entertainment/porn-star-stormy-daniels-arrested-ohio-attorney-says/qB69d882Z44YvX2ysH4XTL/

Seems like the entrapment squad didn't do their homework and the law didn't apply to her as she was only a guest dancer and not a regular. Another law suit for her anyway. She was apparently there as part of her tour so they cannot claim to think she not a regular.

Danzy

Leroy42 wrote: »

And yet, Trump is demanding not only that they bring forward their commitment to increase to 2%, but he wants it at 4%.

based on your thinking, the it is a low threat, low security concern, what is the basis for any of that? Surely America should be reducing its spend back to lower levels.

The two positions do not make sense.

Out of all the regions in the World, bar North America, Europe is the safest and most stable and most likely to remain so.

That is why it is low threat. As far as America is concerned Europe should be able to have enough deterrence in its own forces, if it could be bothered to pay up and not rely on the yanks. 4% is not needed.

America spends too much on it military, no doubt. I think it should cut back, its dominance militarily would still be overwhelming.

It won't cut back though because the world is more uncertain now than it was 20 years ago, it would be a hard sell and neither party in America would back it.

UsedToWait

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

the Trey gowdy vs the fbi is really like something out of a movie...he is like a cliche of an asshole sarcastic republican chairman.... a very entertaining watch... the whole process is such theatre and partisan

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

It's very entertaining.

The chairman is a shoo in to be played by Owen Wilson in your mooted movie.

It's incredible though, the extent that political affiliation skews one's vision, particularly in a bipartisan 'democracy' - as we've seen in both the USA and it's mother country in recent times.

2 Scoops

Lou Gohmert got a little hostile in the Strzok hearing

2 Scoops

everlast75 wrote: »

So the male FBI agent attended today (the female attending tomorrow I believe) and he gave a stellar performance

High praise indeed for a man who said he could smell Trump supporters at Walmart.

everlast75

2 Scoops wrote: »

High praise indeed for a man who said he could smell Trump supporters at Walmart.

Says the man that called stephanie clifford a skank.

Anyhoo.. now that both of the FBI Agents have/will attend, can we get Bannon (who refused) to muster the courage to do the same?

BabyCheeses

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Doubt what Stormy has to say will be having much impact from this point on.....

https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1017371733152681984

https://twitter.com/stevenportnoy/status/1017342910088478720

....course Trump's be blamed for this already with many a cry of 'set up'.

I'm assuming you'll be following her with great interest and seriously listening to what she has to say now that the even that shook your faith in her has passed.

2 Scoops

everlast75 wrote: »

Says the man that called stephanie clifford a skank.

Anyhoo.. now that both of the FBI Agents have/will attend, can we get Bannon (who refused) to muster the courage to do the same?

What did Bannon refuse to do exactly?

listermint

2 Scoops wrote: »

What did Bannon refuse to do exactly?

Im sure your well aware he refused to answer questions on Russia investigation from the house committee refused point blank.

But sure you knew that but whatever..

VonZan

everlast75 wrote: »

Says the man that called stephanie clifford a skank.

Anyhoo.. now that both of the FBI Agents have/will attend, can we get Bannon (who refused) to muster the courage to do the same?

She had an affair with Donald Trump and swindled him out of hush money because Trump is too embarrassed to admit to having had an affair with her.

She's hardly the hero the media make her out to be.

2 Scoops

listermint wrote: »

Im sure your well aware he refused to answer questions on Russia investigation from the house committee refused point blank.

But sure you knew that but whatever..

I know he refused to answer questions during those hearings on his lawyers advice, how is that different from Strzok consulting his lawyers during today's hearing and doing the same?

I don't care about Bannon but I don't see the difference at all.

everlast75

VonZan wrote: »

She had an affair with Donald Trump and swindled him out of hush money because Trump is too embarrassed to admit to having had an affair with her.

She's hardly the hero the media make her out to be.

He's had two affairs with playboy bunnies/adult stars, cheated with his 2nd wife on his first, his 3rd on his second... and he's the victim?

Hats off on that mental gymnastics lol

2 Scoops

everlast75 wrote: »

He's had two affairs with playboy bunnies/adult stars, cheated with his 2nd wife on his first, his 3rd on his second... and he's the victim?

Hats off on that mental gymnastics lol

He's not a victim of anything, his supporters know who he is. The point is viewing Stormy Daniels as some sort of shining beacon of truth and Trump kryptonite falls flat when you realize what she does for a living with her sleazy lawyer hanging off the back of her like a mosquito soaking in all the fame.

To me it looks like utter desperation on the media and anti Trumper's part, but hey maybe others interpret it differently.

everlast75

2 Scoops wrote: »

I know he refused to answer questions during those hearings on his lawyers advice, how is that different from Strzok consulting his lawyers during today's hearing and doing the same?

I don't care about Bannon but I don't see the difference at all.

You can't tell the difference between not turning up and therefore answering no questions...

and turning up and answering some questions?

Okay.

2 Scoops

everlast75 wrote: »

You can't tell the difference between not turning up and therefore answering no questions...

and turning up and answering some questions?

Okay.

When did he not turn up?

StringerBell

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

the Trey gowdy vs the fbi is really like something out of a movie...he is like a cliche of an asshole sarcastic republican chairman.... a very entertaining watch... the whole process is such theatre and partisan

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

He is an urchin. After all the stuff he has pulled in his time to sit there with a straight face and spout the crap he does is almost impressive.