Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

Quin_Dub

RIGOLO wrote: »

Macron is already on board with Trumps plan, he has increased French military spending and sped up meeting its target commitments, see the news from Feb. I suspect while the media was analysing body language during the Macron Trump meetings in the last 12 months and everyone was following that plot line, there was real work on geo-political issues like NATO spending goiong on, just under-reported.
Macron has even recently proposed bringing back National Service .This is from Feb. 
France on Wednesday announced plans to boost defence spending by more than 40 percent, bringing it into line with NATO targets after complaints from US President Donald Trump that Europe is not pulling its weight.



France on Wednesday announced plans to boost defence spending by more than 40 percent, bringing it into line with NATO targets after complaints from US President Donald Trump that Europe is not pulling its weight.
Now the question is why isnt Europes biggest economy dragging its heels and joining the D-FENCE party . 
Stoltenberg put it best 
We all agree that we do not have fair burden-sharing in our Alliance today. 
We all agree that we need more cash in national defence budgets;
More modern capabilities;
And more contributions to missions and operations.
The good news is that we are making progress.
For a quarter of a century, many of our countries have been cutting billions from their defence budgets.
Now, they are adding billions.
I for one think Trump administration has been driving this progress, and judging by Stoltenbergs comments he has the same assesment.

Fundamentally though , they have not changed the plans or timelines that were already committed to. The increase in French spending is in line with the requirements to meet the already agreed goal.

So - Did Trump make any material difference to the plans agreed by previous administrations?

There's 2 viewpoints I guess , on the surface it really doesn't look like he has , but the argument could be made that his actions (may)have pushed the other NATO members in to sticking to the agreement and not missing the 2024 target ,but that really remains to be seen.

In the here and now though it just seems like he's annoyed a lot of people for no truly concrete material benefit

James Brown

everlast75 wrote: »

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


As for the locker room talk, we'll see whether he was bragging or not early next year.

Avenatti tweet:

She was arrested for allegedly allowing a customer to touch her while on stage in a non sexual manner! Are you kidding me? They are devoting law enforcement resources to sting operations for this? There has to be higher priorities!!! #SetUp #Basta

It stinks of a show boat/set up, who ever may have organised it.

Captain Obvious

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Avenatti tweet: She was arrested for allegedly allowing a customer to touch her while on stage in a non sexual manner! Are you kidding me? They are devoting law enforcement resources to sting operations for this? There has to be higher priorities!!! #SetUp #Basta

It's about sending a message

RIGOLO

irishash wrote: »

RIGOLO wrote: »

I for one think Trump administration has been driving this progress, and judging by Stoltenbergs comments he has the same assesment.

Ok, this clears it up - YOU think, not Stoltenberg, that Trump is making a difference. YOU are interpreting Stoltenberg's comments as confirmation that Trump is getting new deals done.

If I am wrong with the above assessment, please point me to quotes from Stoltenberg that back up what you say (specifically that Trump has gotten the other NATO countries to spend more money beyond what Bush's and Obama's administrations had already agreed with them).

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.

irishash

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.

listermint

RIGOLO wrote: »

Perhpas your new to the issue and have only begun following the story this week given Trump is in the news for being at the NATO summit.
Trump has been talking about this issue for 3 years, it was a campaign promise and issue. He will hardly forget about it next week given he has been talking about the issue for 3 years, and actually remedying it since he came into office. 
I do expect the media will forget about it next week in their search for an impeachable offence or something to save the DNC in November.

Perhaps your issue is that no one is moving to trumps 4% percent despite you attempting to say otherwise.

Shame that.

I guess they are following Obama's legacy work.



As usual.


This must really upset the 'Big Man'.

mcmoustache

everlast75 wrote: »

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


As for the locker room talk, we'll see whether he was bragging or not early next year.

According the the WaPo link I posted earlier, there was some of the usual strip club fare going on.

During her 11:30 p.m. performance, the report says, people in the audience began throwing dollar bills at Daniels. While topless and wearing a G-string, she allegedly began “forcing the faces of the patrons into her chest and using her bare breasts to smack the patrons.” She is also accused of fondling the breasts of women in the audience, according to the report.

Two police detectives and an officer in the club noticed what Daniels was doing and approached the stage. As she performed in front of one detective, the report states, Daniels leaned over, grabbed the detective’s head and “began smacking her face with her bare breasts and holding her face between her breasts against her chest.”

She then allegedly performed the same acts on a male detective and a third officer, according to the report, and began “fondling” that officer’s buttock and breasts.

I had to snicker as I read but I can see how it might make monocles fall out and have pearls clutched.

Professor Moriarty

Stormy is set up by some policemen who attend her strip show and entrap her. Significance regarding her lawsuit against The Donald:

His people are misusing law enforcement agencies which is more proof that he has plenty to hide. Further proof of his fascist leanings. Brings Stormy and her lawsuit back into the limelight.


Stormy is not set up by some policemen who attend her strip show and entrap her. Significance regarding her lawsuit against The Donald:

Brings Stormy and her lawsuit back into the limelight.


Effect on Stormy's credibility as a working porn star when she slept with The Donald:

Zero.


Conclusion:

Own goal by The Donald.

mcmoustache

RIGOLO wrote: »

Perhpas your new to the issue and have only begun following the story this week given Trump is in the news for being at the NATO summit.
Trump has been talking about this issue for 3 years, it was a campaign promise and issue. He will hardly forget about it next week given he has been talking about the issue for 3 years, and actually remedying it since he came into office. 
I do expect the media will forget about it next week in their search for an impeachable offence or something to save the DNC in November.

Did NATO countries not already agree in 2014 to increase spending to 2% of gdp by 2024 or did I imagine it? Because if they did, what has Donald acheived, exactly?

WinnyThePoo

Captain Obvious wrote: »

It's pretty clearly a set up. Doesn't really matter though. Her story is very much out there already. It may result in Avanetti releasing something new in response though

I think Avanetti will be releasing something new now.

everlast75

Anyone else sick of all this winning?


https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1017421762383044608

listermint

Trump was asked what his thoughts were on Brexit.
and in classic Trump style, he hasnt got a clue and goes off on several tangents all more tangent than the previous.

BBC link

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1017396690326884352

Captain Obvious

Does he think Ireland is in the UK or that Scotland isn't?

mcmoustache

everlast75 wrote: »

Anyone else sick of all this winning?


https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1017421762383044608

But I thought that Trump calling him liddle Rocket Man was so alpha that it made Kim respect him now?

pixelburp

listermint wrote: »

Trump was asked what his thoughts were on Brexit.
and in classic Trump style, he hasnt got a clue and goes off on several tangents all more tangent than the previous.

BBC link
[...]

You know, I think, now bare with me folks, but I do think perhaps Trump is not the international diplomat and statesman some might insist he is. That mayyyybe he's out of his depth and his only perspective is basically what golf courses he owns - and neither knows, nor cares to know, the bare minimum a world leader could be expected to be aware of.

*starts video*

"I own a lot of property there...." Ok, and off he goes on an immediate tangent about his f*cking golf courses. Then talks about the bloody electoral college result. I get this forum doesn't allow memes or funny-GIF posting, but sometimes I find it very hard to express my exasperation in plain English.

Ok.

Look. I don't expect any US President to have in-depth knowledge of EVERY international issue. That's clearly unreasonable. But I expect SOME degree of knowledge about the immediate future of a close - if not THEY closest ally - the United States has, and that could easily mean either Britain or the EU. Yet he has nothing. ZERO. That's clearly and demonstrable waffle of the highest order.

That's real "I didn't do my homework before a book report, so I'm going to blather for a bit". Even folks who don't normally tune in to current affairs know what Brexit is about. The President of the United States however, doesn't know a goddamn thing. "They voted to break it up". Uh, what?

Danzy

Leroy42 wrote: »

So US is accepting that it now longer has the sole controlling role in the world? That is quite a stepchange and not something that I have seen discussed by either party?

The US has for years tried to portray it power through the influence of others. Be that NATO or whatever. What you are suggesting is that the US has given up on that idea and will retreat back into itself.

Again, that may or may not be the right thing to do, but I saw nowehere where the US has voted on that.

Electing a President that promised to focus at home, vs a candidate that was quite military enthusiastic.

America periodically turns away from the World and looks at its own issues.

The past relationships are being swept aside, they'll not return, the States are focusing in on its own requirements first.

It certainly is a ground breaking change.

The States is probably going to focus where the real problems for it lie, its main security concerns, that is the Middle East and Asia.

It certainly is not Europe and it was never going to be long term sustainable to keep 65,000 troops in Europe and 18 military bases in Germany alone. That is a cold war legacy, many of the soldiers there were probably born post USSR. Nice business for a lot of towns in Germany, significant savings for the Financial dept in Berlin but that is about it.

While the German army is so strapped of resources that they had to use broomsticks in a NATO exercise a few years back.

NATO is a nice plum jobs factory for some but it is a maginot line.

He doesn't care about hegemonic control and it is obvious that even if he did, that the days of that are long gone and that is on both sides of the Atlantic.




Ye overplayed the hand in the Blair/Bush years and this is part of the fallout.

irishash

Danzy wrote: »

The past relationships are being swept aside, they'll not return, the States are focusing in on its own requirements first.

It certainly is a ground breaking change.

Not really ground breaking. The presidencies of Harding, Coolidge and Hoover all employed a kind of "America First" policy dictate. 3 republican presidents in power between 1921 to 1933. They were famous for their shunning of outside influence and disparaging towards allies. The infamous league of nations, supported by Wilson, failed to succeed under their tenure.

Do you know what else their "America first" policies brought about though.....The Great Depression.

Danzy

irishash wrote: »

Not really ground breaking. The presidencies of Harding, Coolidge and Hoover all employed a kind of "America First" policy dictate. 3 republican presidents in power between 1921 to 1933. They were famous for their shunning of outside influence and disparaging towards allies. The infamous league of nations, supported by Wilson, failed to succeed under their tenure.

Do you know what else their "America first" policies brought about though.....The Great Depression.

I know, lol. 2 lines up I referenced the same and then put in ground breaking.

That is a very reductive definition of the causes of the great depression.

Christy42

Danzy wrote: »

Leroy42 wrote: »

So US is accepting that it now longer has the sole controlling role in the world? That is quite a stepchange and not something that I have seen discussed by either party?

The US has for years tried to portray it power through the influence of others. Be that NATO or whatever. What you are suggesting is that the US has given up on that idea and will retreat back into itself.

Again, that may or may not be the right thing to do, but I saw nowehere where the US has voted on that.

Electing a President that promised to focus at home, vs a candidate that was quite military enthusiastic.

America periodically turns away from the World and looks at its own issues.

The past relationships are being swept aside, they'll not return, the States are focusing in on its own requirements first.

It certainly is a ground breaking change.

The States is probably going to focus where the real problems for it lie, its main security concerns, that is the Middle East and Asia.

It certainly is not Europe and it was never going to be long term sustainable to keep 65,000 troops in Europe and 18 military bases in Germany alone. That is a cold war legacy, many of the soldiers there were probably born post USSR. Nice business for a lot of towns in Germany, significant savings for the Financial dept in Berlin but that is about it.

While the German army is so strapped of resources that they had to use broomsticks in a NATO exercise a few years back.

NATO is a nice plum jobs factory for some but it is a maginot line.

He doesn't care about hegemonic control and it is obvious that even if he did, that the days of that are long gone and that is on both sides of the Atlantic.




Ye overplayed the hand in the Blair/Bush years and this is part of the fallout.

Err so do you disagree with Trump that NATO funding should be increased across the board and recent increases in the us military budget? What do you feel those militaries will do in this isolationist world.

On the other hand do you disagree with Trump that the US should simply pull out of NATO altogether?

Calling him the opposite to Bush is hilarious by the way. He bullied other countries votes in terms of healthcare with threats (see baby formula debacle). He gets annoyed when they don't do as he wants with lopsided trade deals. He is imposing sanctions on companies who trade in Iran (why would an isolationist president care?). Why would he threaten even greater intervention abroad (and indeed has increased a lot of actions in Syria etc. and has become far more drone happy than Obama)

As I said Trump's lack of coherence just leads to people taking what they want to hear. He is not isolationist. His actions don't fit that. He is also not imperialist. He does not have a driving philosophy and just does as he feels like in a given moment which changes regularly.

irishash

Danzy wrote: »

I know, lol. 2 lines up I referenced the same and then put in ground breaking.

That is a very reductive definition of the causes of the great depression.

I would consider the economic policies of 3 different and consecutive US presidents to have played somewhat of a part towards the causes of the Great Depression.

I did not say they were the total cause. But it is an undeniable fact that the formation of the Great Depression happened during this period of american isolation.

Danzy

Christy42 wrote: »

Err so do you disagree with Trump that NATO funding should be increased across the board and recent increases in the us military budget? What do you feel those militaries will do in this isolationist world.

On the other hand do you disagree with Trump that the US should simply pull out of NATO altogether?

Calling him the opposite to Bush is hilarious by the way. He bullied other countries votes in terms of healthcare with threats (see baby formula debacle). He gets annoyed when they don't do as he wants with lopsided trade deals. He is imposing sanctions on companies who trade in Iran (why would an isolationist president care?). Why would he threaten even greater intervention abroad (and indeed has increased a lot of actions in Syria etc. and has become far more drone happy than Obama)

As I said Trump's lack of coherence just leads to people taking what they want to hear. He is not isolationist. His actions don't fit that. He is also not imperialist. He does not have a driving philosophy and just does as he feels like in a given moment which changes regularly.

I think NATO is no longer relevant to the world we live in. Turkey and the States have no business in it. Turkey, a near totalitarian dictatorship in an unstable region and a country that is probably going to be long term hostile to Europe.

The States is 3000 miles away.

If the militaries and politicians of Europe want NATO to surivive or be reconditioned then they are going to have to take it serious and act like they want it to survive and be a use, that means a major culture shift in countries like Germany towards it and its own military.

The Yanks can't force Europeans to want a credible Nato or security response in Europe, nor will they try.

Trump in his blunt and chaotic manner is pushing that line but if a Democrat is elected after him, that will not change.

weisses

RIGOLO wrote: »

the man has earned a few days playing golf.

I actually agree with you there

Let him play golf and in the mean let grown ups deal with real politics

brickster69

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 ?

irishash

Danzy wrote: »

I think NATO is no longer relevant to the world we live in. Turkey and the States have no business in it. Turkey, a near totalitarian dictatorship in an unstable region and a country that is probably going to be long term hostile to Europe.

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.

Igotadose

weisses wrote: »

I actually agree with you there

Let him play golf and in the mean let grown ups deal with real politics

119 days golfing since taking office. He's had plenty of time to golf.

https://trumpgolfcount.com/

Danzy

irishash wrote: »

I would consider the economic policies of 3 different and consecutive US presidents to have played somewhat of a part towards the causes of the Great Depression.

I did not say they were the total cause. But it is an undeniable fact that the formation of the Great Depression happened during this period of american isolation.

It did happen in conjunction but it was not the cause of it though.

Their policies ultimately created the conditions for it, Hoover can take the large part of the blame for his terms as Commerce Secretary in the 20s and his Presidency's response to it.

Ultimately I think it was a single core belief that created it, the idea that the individual and the free market would right it again, self correcting and self policing.


We are under going the political backlash to that mindset hitting a peak again from the 80s to 08. Trump, Brexit, Kurz etc are all part of the reaction to that, who else was there, the Left's analysis was jaded and out of touch with modernity, 30 years ago, it also suffers from a class divide between itself and its target voters, that fuels a different outlook. They had become just another part of the old political landscape, even the more radical wings of it.

Like in the Great depression in America, the staid thinking was swept away.

It is a political change that is only starting in Europe.

Christy42

Danzy wrote: »

Christy42 wrote: »

Err so do you disagree with Trump that NATO funding should be increased across the board and recent increases in the us military budget? What do you feel those militaries will do in this isolationist world.

On the other hand do you disagree with Trump that the US should simply pull out of NATO altogether?

Calling him the opposite to Bush is hilarious by the way. He bullied other countries votes in terms of healthcare with threats (see baby formula debacle). He gets annoyed when they don't do as he wants with lopsided trade deals. He is imposing sanctions on companies who trade in Iran (why would an isolationist president care?). Why would he threaten even greater intervention abroad (and indeed has increased a lot of actions in Syria etc. and has become far more drone happy than Obama)

As I said Trump's lack of coherence just leads to people taking what they want to hear. He is not isolationist. His actions don't fit that. He is also not imperialist. He does not have a driving philosophy and just does as he feels like in a given moment which changes regularly.

I think NATO is no longer relevant to the world we live in. Turkey and the States have no business in it. Turkey, a near totalitarian dictatorship in an unstable region and a country that is probably going to be long term hostile to Europe.

The States is 3000 miles away.

If the militaries and politicians of Europe want NATO to surivive or be reconditioned then they are going to have to take it serious and act like they want it to survive and be a use, that means a major culture shift in countries like Germany towards it and its own military.

The Yanks can't force Europeans to want a credible Nato or security response in Europe, nor will they try.

Trump in his blunt and chaotic manner is pushing that line but if a Democrat is elected after him, that will not change.

Trump is pushing for a massive expansion of the NATO project with the US involved in it. 4%. That is the official line from Trump. He also has previous statements saying he wanted yo go back to an arms race.

Trump is setting up an us vs them view point with the US against the world. It has been used many times before (see any number of cults or Putin/Kim for a country scale version).

relax carry on

For the Trumpists out there why does he need to talk like this? How can you have faith in a guy like this who constantly needs to reassure us how same and smart he is?

“No, that’s other people that do that,” the billionaire joked. He added, with a smile: “I don’t, I’m very consistent. I’m a very stable genius.”

Mr Trump has frequently used his Twitter account to advance views that contradicted the statements of his cabinet and even his own.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-nato-congratulate-croatia-world-cup-win-very-stable-genius-press-conference-a8443856.html

Danzy

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.

everlast75

Igotadose wrote: »

119 days golfing since taking office. He's had plenty of time to golf.

https://trumpgolfcount.com/

Can't wait for the laughter that will erupt when he says he's too busy to talk to Mueller...