What a got damn shitshow. [warning politics]

[deepmud]

area 10,
would actually be nice if you were up on the thread...
i have answered more than once the things i am happy the President Trump has done.
i could copy/paste or you could actually follow along with some attentiveness.

jk don't get hurt

I wasn't asking about what he's done. I was asking why you aren't looking to the future and the present instead of banging on about past events. If you had read my posts correctly then you'd have seen that. But I guess that you are permanently stuck in some kind of backwards-looking attentional mode. Are you the kind of guy who when out with friends is always just reminiscing about the glory days rather than making new plans for the future with them?

But it seems likely that we are not going to manage to have a profitable discussion on this topic. So why don't we just agree to ignore each other, and save everyone the trouble of wading through pages of pointless bickering?

i would not have expected you to try be a bully... but leftists generally try to be
a. i will reply when i feel it's appropriate
2. u do not get to make rules on the internet
c. wading through your voluminous tripe would take days
4. this whole topic is nothing but pointless bickering
#murica

Bully  - please



"the rules" are if you expect him to know your old shit posts you should know his old shit posts. Obviously you are happy as shit. No shit.

[deepmud]

I was talking last week to a co-worker (he's in his late 20's) - Bernie supporter, Clinton hater, also doesn't like Trump much, he's usually pretty interesting to talk to  - but last week he said it was nice to hear Trump say something he could get behind - that the other NATO nations aren't paying their share, and they need to step up. He felt that was pretty clear, the U.S. shouldn't have to foot the whole bill.

I told him I don't think NATO is a something the NATO nations put cash into, and by some nations "not paying their share", then we have to pay more (which I do think is more how the U.N. works? Need to look that up ....) - I believe, if they fail to put up their "2% of GDP" or whatever, we still have the largest military budget in the world many times over and it won't save us a dime.

Do I have it wrong? Because I have to admit - the way Trump is ranting, it seems like if Italy doesn't put in their share, the U.S. is left with a larger bill - so - I'm asking here before I go to Reddit and get blasted for my ignorance - I'd rather get blasted for ignorance here I guess

[mjb1959]

area 10,
would actually be nice if you were up on the thread...
i have answered more than once the things i am happy the President Trump has done.
i could copy/paste or you could actually follow along with some attentiveness.

jk don't get hurt

I wasn't asking about what he's done. I was asking why you aren't looking to the future and the present instead of banging on about past events. If you had read my posts correctly then you'd have seen that. But I guess that you are permanently stuck in some kind of backwards-looking attentional mode. Are you the kind of guy who when out with friends is always just reminiscing about the glory days rather than making new plans for the future with them?

But it seems likely that we are not going to manage to have a profitable discussion on this topic. So why don't we just agree to ignore each other, and save everyone the trouble of wading through pages of pointless bickering?

i would not have expected you to try be a bully... but leftists generally try to be
a. i will reply when i feel it's appropriate
2. u do not get to make rules on the internet
c. wading through your voluminous tripe would take days
4. this whole topic is nothing but pointless bickering
#murica

Bully  - please



"the rules" are if you expect him to know your old shit posts you should know his old shit posts. Obviously you are happy as shit. No shit.

my point is - i do know what he has said, he apparently can't be responsible enough to keep up with the conversation
btw thanks for a very adult response, give yourself a pat on the back...

[mjb1959]

I was talking last week to a co-worker (he's in his late 20's) - Bernie supporter, Clinton hater, also doesn't like Trump much, he's usually pretty interesting to talk to  - but last week he said it was nice to hear Trump say something he could get behind - that the other NATO nations aren't paying their share, and they need to step up. He felt that was pretty clear, the U.S. shouldn't have to foot the whole bill.

I told him I don't think NATO is a something the NATO nations put cash into, and by some nations "not paying their share", then we have to pay more (which I do think is more how the U.N. works? Need to look that up ....) - I believe, if they fail to put up their "2% of GDP" or whatever, we still have the largest military budget in the world many times over and it won't save us a dime.

Do I have it wrong? Because I have to admit - the way Trump is ranting, it seems like if Italy doesn't put in their share, the U.S. is left with a larger bill - so - I'm asking here before I go to Reddit and get blasted for my ignorance - I'd rather get blasted for ignorance here I guess

https://scontent.fphx1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/18700086_1981824228706999_2994572222879563175_n.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoiYiJ9&oh=d17beb69519f1de845644e6a1a32e817&oe=59AECE25

[tautologies]

I was talking last week to a co-worker (he's in his late 20's) - Bernie supporter, Clinton hater, also doesn't like Trump much, he's usually pretty interesting to talk to  - but last week he said it was nice to hear Trump say something he could get behind - that the other NATO nations aren't paying their share, and they need to step up. He felt that was pretty clear, the U.S. shouldn't have to foot the whole bill.

I told him I don't think NATO is a something the NATO nations put cash into, and by some nations "not paying their share", then we have to pay more (which I do think is more how the U.N. works? Need to look that up ....) - I believe, if they fail to put up their "2% of GDP" or whatever, we still have the largest military budget in the world many times over and it won't save us a dime.

Do I have it wrong? Because I have to admit - the way Trump is ranting, it seems like if Italy doesn't put in their share, the U.S. is left with a larger bill - so - I'm asking here before I go to Reddit and get blasted for my ignorance - I'd rather get blasted for ignorance here I guess

https://scontent.fphx1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/fr/cp0/e15/q65/18700086_1981824228706999_2994572222879563175_n.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoiYiJ9&oh=d17beb69519f1de845644e6a1a32e817&oe=59AECE25

Well Trump did.

Deepmud, you are right. I am not sure how those people can be educated. Did you try to tell your co-worker this? It is also extremely irritating to discuss with people who do not seem to care about how shit works...and then do not have the humility to admit it. I am certainly not an expert on NATO, but I think I know more than Trump, and that is a frightening proposition.

[Area 10]

I think Trump is asking other countries to spend more money on their military machine so that he can justify spending more on his. If Europe starts to develop an independent war machine the US isn't going to feel more safe, is it? At the moment for instance if the British want to fire their missiles they need the permission of the US, because you own the satellites needed for targeting. But if the UK had their own satellites we could target anyone, including the US. I think this is a transparent bid to increase the US military industrial complex, not decrease it, as it's being presented. A never-ending spiral of increase.

Most other democracies cannot spend huge amounts of money on their military because their population wants to spend their taxes on other things like health and welfare and education. That's the limiting factor outside the US. So it would take their governments to indulge in some US-style fearmongering to get them to vote for military increases. It's not the politicians in other countries that Trump has to convince, it's their populaces.

[mjb1959]

At the moment for instance if the British want to fire their missiles they need the permission of the US, because you own the satellites needed for targeting. But if the UK had their own satellites we could target anyone, including the US. I think this is a transparent bid to increase the US military industrial complex, not decrease it, as it's being presented. A never-ending spiral of increase.

your information seems lacking in truth...
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/space/2016/06/02/britain-mulls-replacement-space-program-airbus-skynet-5/85284890/

[PonoBill]

Trump talks about NATO in a childish fashion, but the underlying premise is true. There are both direct expenses and the cost of defense spending (not just marketing-speak in this case). Many European countries have failed to meet either agreement, most fail to meet the primary treaty requirement, spending 2% of GDP. The USA spends 3.3 percent, Europe as a whole spends 1.5 percent with many countries spending substantially less, the Russian Federation spends 4.9 percent.

I don't think the USA is concerned about Spain (1.2 percent) threatening regional stability, but it would be nice to see the EU meet its treaty obligations and prepare to defend itself.

The Chancellor of Germany (1.5) calling the US an unreliable partner, regardless of the dingbat currently holding power, is just a bunch of wind, unless they act on the notion and meet their obligations.

[Area 10]

Yes, but see it from the POV of the other countries of the world. The US spends about 600 billion on defense. The next biggest budget is China at around 150. So the US is an outlier. Therefore in discussions the natural response to an outlier is to say "yeah, but you are an outlier - why should we all do what you do?". The US makes the assumption that the reason for the low spending by other countries is because they reason that the US will save them if something bad happens. But maybe the other countries just don't perceive the threat as greatly, or have other priorities. There is an ongoing debate in Europe about whether Western intervention in eg. Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya etc has led to any net gain for the populations of those countries or for us. I just think there is less faith in there being a "military solution" to most problems worldwide. What did we achieve in Libya? I'm sure the relatives of the people who died and were maimed in Manchester, UK must be wondering that right now.

[PonoBill]

So NATO is obsolete, then what's the problem? Sounds like you buy Trump's argument for reasons of your own.

You might explain that to Poland (2.2%) and the Ukraine (4.8%) so they can relax. No threat here, nothing to see. Or perhaps you misunderstand NATOs mission. I understand that Bosnia, Serbia and Kosovo are fading memories. So be it. If it's obsolete, scrap it. I don't see that making Europe or even post-Brexit UK a safer place. But you won't know for sure until the tanks roll.

[PonoBill]

Incidentally, I consider claiming your thoughts are in the heads of the families of murdered children, and using that to make a cheap point to be totally despicable.

[mrbig]

The 2% is an agreement. No retroactive penalty. Recently, everyone agreed to try harder and the percentages of everyone has increased over the last three years.

PM of Germany is accurate in her observation - IMO - that the US President is focusing on the costs of the deal, rather than the nature of the alliance.

I loved the link which led to a link  - this is a paraphrase NOT a literal statement OBTW - stating that when bad things happen in the world nobody calls the Russians..

[Area 10]

Incidentally, I consider claiming your thoughts are in the heads of the families of murdered children, and using that to make a cheap point to be totally despicable.

I wasn't doing that at all, although I agree that what I wrote was clumsily phrased. A friend of mine, tragically, died in the Lockerbie bombing, and there has been an ongoing and very public debate about Libya amongst the families and friends of the victims ever since. They had a tough time of it. The Libyan motivation of the Manchester bombing is the latest chapter in a very sorry history. Moreover, the brother of a friend of mine died in the 7/7 London bombing, and his thoughts were very thought-provoking and wide ranging. It has made me keenly aware of their incalculable losses, and wonder how best to avoid them in the future. You are right however that I shouldn't try to guess what they are thinking - I don't know anyone who was directly involved in the Manchester event, so I do apologise to them if I have caused offence.

Jeremy Corbyn in a debate in the UK a short time ago made the point in reference to Libya that military intervention that brings about an ungoverned state that can become a breeding ground for terrorists needs to be considered carefully. That was the point I was trying to make, and I'm obviously not the only one who is thinking it.

[PonoBill]

I agree with the position--first world countries have always been much better at winning the war than winning the peace, and we seem to have become much worse at it. Intervening and then leaving a power vacuum simply makes it easy for the most prepared and most vicious to take charge.

Big--yeah. that would be like calling the police when you have a problem in Mexico--which would mean you now have TWO problems. Though it does seem that Assad called them. And if there is anything left after the assistance...

[tautologies]

Trump clearly doesn't understand what NATO is, its historical significance and therefore future impact, nor what it means to have an ally....well the ally part he probably knows, but his anti-democratic tendencies are just too blatant.


So as the WH communication director quist..who will be the next to go? Of the more famous ones, I think Kushner will be pushed aside. I'll not be a quiet transition. Maybe...just maybe we are lucky enough that he'll pull Trump down with him? With what is going on now, it is possible that Kushner jr follwos his dads footsteps.