Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

robinph

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.

weisses

Well Trump is on a mission of winning, He will use his highly skilled one on one negotiations tactics on Putin

Lets see how that turns out

The president has come to rely heavily on his personal brand of one-on-one diplomacy, a technique he employed when he met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un earlier this month in Singapore. While the White House applauded the meeting as a historic achievement, foreign-policy veterans noted that outside of bolstering Trump's own self-image, the US gained little from the summit and made significant concessions to North Korea.

Experts say they expect the same outcome, with potentially massive consequences, when Trump meets with Putin in July.

Popcorn ready guys

http://uk.businessinsider.com/trump-putin-summit-nato-russia-sanctions-2018-6?r=US&IR=T

Also he has a very mature an geopolitical view on Crimea

President Donald Trump told leaders at the G7 summit that Crimea is part of Russia because everyone there speaks Russian, according to diplomatic sources

That would make parts of US belong to spain ...

http://uk.businessinsider.com/trump-claims-crimea-is-part-of-russia-since-people-speak-russian-g7-summit-2018-6?r=US&IR=T

I would pay good money for him to undergo an independent IQ test

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

weisses

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:

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

Danzy

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.

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.

Leroy42

"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.

Danzy

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.

Leroy42

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!

weisses

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

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.

weisses

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Leroy42

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?

Danzy

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.

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.