421

Re: President Twitter

I'm shocked - shocked, I say, to find that there's ZERO evidence of Trump's wiretap claims.

FAKE NEWZ!!!!

"I'm not god, I'm not a doctor.  I'm closer to a veterinarian than a doctor"- Darryl Sutter

Share

Thumbs up Thumbs down

422

Re: President Twitter

Pssst, Donny, stop making it worse on yourself.   Listen to what was said...readhave someone read to you the ACTUAL  words used.

Fix't it.

Share

Thumbs up −1 Thumbs down

423 ( edited by KilkennyDan 03-20-17 04:32)

Re: President Twitter

AxeMurderer wrote:

Germany's defense minister to Trump: No, we don't owe NATO money

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/20/politics/ … index.html


Trump clearly doesn't understand how NATO works. Note to SCROTUS Gropinfuhrer: it's not a protection racket.

He may not understand how NATO works, but please save the condescension until you can demonstrate that you understand how it works.  The linked data provides an overview and some history of NATO; but it is very far from telling anyone how NATO works.

What I can infer from this short overview is that NATO does not work as it should in 2017.  It appears to be stuck in a post-WWII world where Europe was still dependent on the Marshall Plan for economic recovery.

The US pays 3.61% of NATO expenses - NOT in absolute dollars, but relative to GDP.  Considering the fact that the US GDP is dramatically larger than any country on the planet - in absolute dollars the US pays a staggering amount.
I believe the real message is that other countries must start to pay in a more proportionate manner.  Currently, relative to GDP, the US pays 166.359% more than the UK.  The US pays 201.676% more than France, 300.833% more than Germany, and 353.922% more than Canada.

Does the US get proportionally more from NATO than these other member nations?  IDK, but I believe that the reality is that the European nations gain more from NATO relative to what N. Amer. members derive.

Why shouldn't the US insist that Germany pay more than their paltry contribution?

Go Cornell Big Red - County Kilkenny - Go Cats!

Share

Thank you!: Al in Cal

Thumbs up +2 Thumbs down

424

Re: President Twitter

Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump 6h6 hours ago
The real story that Congress, the FBI and all others should be looking into is the leaking of Classified information. Must find leaker now!

No, your campaign and staff is the real story.   
Put the dumpster fire out and then worry about the leakers.
Take a breath on this one, you're just making it more difficult on the Congress you're going to need help from.

Two points on this:

1) Trump flat-out LOVED leaks (and Wikileaks in particular) when they were helping his campaign.

2) If this was 1972-74, Trump would be crying "It doesn't matter that we committed a felony! The REAL criminal is that damned Deep Throat!"

Share

Thumbs up 0 Thumbs down

425

Re: President Twitter

Why shouldn't the US insist that Germany pay more than their paltry contribution?

I think the answer has to be put in context of our foreign interests. 

This argument (NATO spending) has been around for decades.   Some of the problems in this regard are because of agreements we made with foreign allies years ago.   We wanted countries to commit to ASW or patrol operations, or x-amount of rapid deployment forces.   As adversarial threats lessened, especially from Russia, there was no reason for countries to maintain some of their defensive capabilities.      We also cut out their ability to conduct certain operations.    Had we let some countries carry a bigger load in air defense, offensive operations, submarine warfare, etc. we would likely see more proportional spending.      Countries can't just pick up and drop use of certain weapon systems.   The deployment of certain units may take decades and it's incredibly expensive without gauranteed promise of return. 

What's funny in the gripe (to me) is that the US public would be happy if Italy or Portugal increased their defense spending even if it was totally wasted...as a German commitment to a strategic air arm would likely be for example.     Keep in mind, we're not just asking them to spend, we're asking countries to spend according to OUR military planning.   It's kind of a tough request if we're not going to meet them in the middle on other foreign issues. 

We are far more interventionist than any other NATO member.    We are also the largest beneficiary of trade in NATO and invest more than any other country in OFFENSIVE weapon systems.    What rationale is there for us to buy offensive, interventionist, weapon systems and then demand other countries commit more to defense spending. 

I think asking, let alone demanding, more spending from NATO is pointless.    It's always been the US strategy dominating the organization and expansion (over expansion imo) has offset much of the decreased ally spending.     Our ability to deploy to more of the map, while buffering other member nations, automatically removes some of the risk of reduced military spending.

Until we take an less interventionist approach to foreign policy, I think it's pointless and potentially damaging to cry and gripe about defense commitments from our allies. 

This is also in the context of having a president that is supposedly isolationist but wants to bump defense (misnomer) spending by 10s of billions.

Here's some context on NATO country defense spending, according to GDP.
http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/images/2017/02/blogs/graphic-detail/20170225_woc986_0.png

"I'm not god, I'm not a doctor.  I'm closer to a veterinarian than a doctor"- Darryl Sutter

Share

Thumbs up Thumbs down

426

Re: President Twitter

This:

Some of the problems in this regard are because of agreements we made with foreign allies years ago.

Some of the problems in this regard are because of agreements we made with foreign allies years ago.

We are far more interventionist than any other NATO member.

This is de facto the case.  So what?  Should we be in the role of the world's policemen?  (If we have accepted the role as a nation, other nations have been extremely happy to acquiesce.) In the Cold War era it was incumbent upon the USA to accept that role.  In the post-WWII economy, the US was the only country that could fit that role.

I believe that we need to rethink the anachronistic premises and assumptions behind these historical decisions.  I personally think know that Donald Trump is an asshole.  However, there is an opportunity that he could lead the discussion on making appropriate changes.

Leading with the presumption that he does not know what he's talking about is not only false.  It is actually a good example of heads-up-the-ass logic that seems predominant on the anti-Trump side.  Therefore, continuing to debate the legitimacy of his policies, rather than discussing the policies themselves are going to inevitably lead to massive failure.  Failure on both sides; but that failure is likely to be much worse for those that do not control power.

Go Cornell Big Red - County Kilkenny - Go Cats!

Share

Thumbs up Thumbs down

427 ( edited by BFRLA 03-20-17 05:07)

Re: President Twitter

No, your campaign and staff is the real story.   
Put the dumpster fire out and then worry about the leakers.
Take a breath on this one, you're just making it more difficult on the Congress you're going to need help from.

What wingnut site did you grab this from, or did you just make it up yourself?
President Trump isn't the first one to call for an investigation into leaks.  In 17 months in office, President Obama had already outdone every previous president in pursuing leak prosecutions. His administration has taken actions that might have provoked sharp political criticism for his predecessor, George W. Bush, who was often in public fights with the press.  Go ahead dumdum, call the New York Times a wingnut site.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/12/us/po … 2leak.html
========================================

2) If this was 1972-74, Trump would be crying "It doesn't matter that we committed a felony! The REAL criminal is that damned Deep Throat!"

This isn't 1972-74.  The one crying is you.  President Trump won the election fair and square.  YOU can't handle admitting he is your president along with all of us.
Also Obama wasn't the first president to call for an investigation into leaks either.

Nixon’s War on Leaks
No president more aggressively went after leakers than Richard Nixon, who was plagued with leaks from the outset of his presidency. Like Trump, he called his Attorney General and said he wanted the leakers uncovered and prosecuted. Accordingly, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was tasked with uncovering the culprits, and some seventeen wiretaps were installed on newsmen and Nixon’s own staff at the National Security Council and White House. (Ironically, the Washington Field Office of the FBI was located at the Old Post Office Building, which is now the Trump Hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue, only a few blocks from the White House.)
https://verdict.justia.com/2017/02/17/p … te-leakers

I'm not old.  I just need some WD-40

Share

Thumbs up −1 Thumbs down

428

Re: President Twitter

This isn't 1972-74.

Doesn't matter what year it is. Leaks, scandals and cover-ups are the same regardless of year.


The one crying is you.  President Trump won the election fair and square.  YOU can't handle admitting he is your president along with all of us.

I've never denied he's the President. Please show me where I ever said otherwise, otherwise, stop following in SCROTUS GRopinfuhrer's footsteps and making things up.

Thanks.

Share

Thumbs up −1 Thumbs down

429

Re: President Twitter

He may not understand how NATO works, but please save the condescension until you can demonstrate that you understand how it works.  The linked data provides an overview and some history of NATO; but it is very far from telling anyone how NATO works.

[...]

Why shouldn't the US insist that Germany pay more than their paltry contribution?

I NEVER said that NATO was 100% perfect, or that some countries hadn't contributed the 2% that was the established "guideline" (note: not a rule), or that NATO can't be updated.

But the former U.S. ambassador to NATO showed exactly where Trump was wrong:

https://twitter.com/IvoHDaalder/status/ … 9091273728

NATO countries are currently increasing their contributions - but those contributions DON'T go into the US's pocket, as Trump intimated. This isn't giving a friend a quarter to help protect you against the schoolyard bully who steals your lunch.

Share

Thumbs up −1 Thumbs down

430 ( edited by BFRLA 03-20-17 11:10)

Re: President Twitter

Doesn't matter what year it is. Leaks, scandals and cover-ups are the same regardless of year.

You implied President Trump wants to find the leaker as if Nixon didn't.

I've never denied he's the President. Please show me where I ever said otherwise, otherwise, stop following in SCROTUS GRopinfuhrer's footsteps and making things up.
Thanks.

It wouldn't change a thing at all if you did come out and deny it.
You are the biggest offender in this little Trump; Haters Club of a forum section.

You don't ever stop at bashing our president at every chance you get, along with against his wife, his children, his appointees, his cabinet, his chief adviser, his press secretary the media that doesn't trash him as well as public that supports him.

When do you ever give him credit for the promises he's keeping?  The DOW has gone up to 21k, deals have been closed with companies like Lockheed, Boeing, with countries like Japan, over 200,000 jobs additions for each January and February and the national debt gone down over $10 billion since he's been elected.  Only the skeptic libs want to dismiss it as things that were in the works already, but it's no mere coincidence that it all came around after he waqs elected.  If Obama had dropped our national debt in his first month the media would ride it for weeks as how he'll be the greatest ever!  You keep referring our president as "SCROTUS GRopinfuhre".  Wake up! Hitler was into getting people killed, Trump is into getting them jobs.  What if Obama had been hated that much?  It'd be Racism!!!

You continue posting CNN links, several today alone.
They still print fake news.  Look at how they treat Trump's budget plan....as if it's going to eliminate Meals on Wheels and starve the elderly to death.  The government had only been funding a small percent, most have been contributions.  They managed to convince feeble minded Seth Meyers that Trump is a demon.  CNN sucks.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 … small.html
http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/17/news/ec … cuts-poor/
http://libertynews.com/2017/03/meals-on … them-down/
http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/03/me … and-right/
http://www.dailywire.com/news/14515/fak … en-shapiro
http://conservativefiringline.com/fake- … media-lie/
http://constitution.com/fake-news-trump … s-program/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/17/me … facts.html
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2016/1 … /21595857/

I'm not old.  I just need some WD-40

Share

Thank you!: Al in Cal

Thumbs up +2 Thumbs down

431

Re: President Twitter

This is de facto the case.  So what?  Should we be in the role of the world's policemen?  (If we have accepted the role as a nation, other nations have been extremely happy to acquiesce.) In the Cold War era it was incumbent upon the USA to accept that role.  In the post-WWII economy, the US was the only country that could fit that role.

If we choose to fight to be the leading country in the world, then absolutely we should assume the role as policeman.   If we choose to "reel it in" and accept that we can't control large portions of the developed world, then we should NOT be the policeman.

I'm not debating the merits of an interventionist vs non interventionist foreign policy, my opinion is based on our long standing and current foreign policy (commitment to SKOR, commitment to Isreal, commitment to NATO, backing off protectionist talk etc.).    If we insist on large expensive foward deployments of offensive weapon systems for the purpose of a interventionist security/economic agenda we have to assume the bill as we have for decades.

In other words, when foreign policy shifts, so will my expectations of current NATO members and Pacific military coop members.   

Right now, I think it's pointless and it's an insular perspective to expect increased military spending from NATO and increased effectiveness from that spending.    We made the bed.   I'm very critical of it, but it's our mess, not theirs in my opinion.

When we shift policy, then we lean on NATO to shoulder more traditional defense obligations.     Another option would be to kick out NATO countries to force the hand of a country like Germany.   I'm not sure that's a real bright option either though.

Fortunately, I'm confident the Twitterer in Chief will give us terrific bigly solutions in 140 characters or less (my attempt to keep the thread on track).   

I believe that we need to rethink the anachronistic premises and assumptions behind these historical decisions.  I personally think know that Donald Trump is an asshole.  However, there is an opportunity that he could lead the discussion on making appropriate changes.

I completely agree about the opportunity to make changes and it doesn't matter what type of president Trump is or isn't.   The opportunity does exist.

My point is that NATO spending talk is putting the cart ahead of the horse.   I don't think it goes anywhere.     We've had that talk in the US before Reagan put crack and rocket fueled defense spending (spoken "borrowing")  in the budget.

Shift foreign policy, make structural shifts in the NATO agreements...then worry about quantitative and qualitative spending of assets towards the alliance.

Leading with the presumption that he does not know what he's talking about is not only false.   It is actually a good example of heads-up-the-ass logic that seems predominant on the anti-Trump side.

Which topic though?  Just going by pre 2008 material, I think it's fair for people to assume ignorance on his end until he proves otherwise.     

Therefore, continuing to debate the legitimacy of his policies, rather than discussing the policies themselves are going to inevitably lead to massive failure.  Failure on both sides; but that failure is likely to be much worse for those that do not control power.

I think immigration and criminal justice are among glaring exceptions to this.      From Reagan on, I don't think there has been an immigration policy that didn't have fundamental overlap with questions of legitimacy.    Same for post 911 security policies and military operational doctrine without a declaration of war.

"I'm not god, I'm not a doctor.  I'm closer to a veterinarian than a doctor"- Darryl Sutter

Share

Thumbs up −1 Thumbs down

432

Re: President Twitter

Leading with the presumption that he does not know what he's talking about is not only false.   It is actually a good example of heads-up-the-ass logic that seems predominant on the anti-Trump side.

Just going back to this for a minute.

The reason people are saying Trump doesn't understand how NATO works is because he tweeted that the US needs to be paid.   That's a completely ignorant statement. 

Now, I agree that there's a good argument that people shouldn't rush to assume ignorance.   There's a perfectly good explanation such as "he's playing his base" or he's using it as a distraction or "don't take him literally".
Given the quantity and quality of ignorant bullshit that comes out of his mouth and his tweets, I have a tough time telling anybody to slow down on calling him an ignorant fool on many topics.

That's Trump, so when it comes to assessing his intelligence on policy and policy consequences, I think everything is in play.

I just want him to hire some cultured and experienced non fucktards to hedge bets against possible ignorance on foreign policy.

"I'm not god, I'm not a doctor.  I'm closer to a veterinarian than a doctor"- Darryl Sutter

Share

Thumbs up +1 Thumbs down

433

Re: President Twitter

There are completely ignorant statements.

There are rhetorical devices intended to prompt discussion.

We see them both all the time here on L4S. The two should not be confused with each other.

All too often they are.

Go Cornell Big Red - County Kilkenny - Go Cats!

Share

Thank you!: hockeybob

Thumbs up Thumbs down

434

Re: President Twitter

There are completely ignorant statements.

There are rhetorical devices intended to prompt discussion.

Quite right. And many times I'll post something intended to challenge the opposite side to defend what was said/written/tweeted, as I did here.

This particular thread was started because of trump's proclivity to share "news" not through a press conference (where he would actually have to field questions and DEFEND what he said), but via a short burst of characters where he doesn't have to go into any detail about things, and he doesn't have to field questions. A method of communication where he has a certain amount of, for lack of a better word, protection.

Trump has often used this tactic to fire out incidiary information, without the issue of having to answer a disbelieving press. My post had to do with that - that's why I posted it here, rather than on the other Trump threads.

What I posted was not incorrect. Trump said Germany owed the U.S. vast sums of money. That's flat out wrong and, to me, displays ignorance of how NATO works. I don't pretend to know the intricacies of the treaty...but I expect my president to know.

Share

Thumbs up Thumbs down

435

Re: President Twitter

I'm just putting my views out there too. And, yes, I was attempting to spur the conversation in a different direction from what I view as an all too trite and predictable reaction by the anti-Trump side.

The world has changed dramatically through social media and I think there are a lot in politics and in traditional media that are slow to recognize this. More likely, they're in willful denial over events that challenge their comfortable status quo.

The fact that the US spends more that 10 times what German does to fund NATO is not right given Germany's economic and political status in 2017. I do not believe it really matters how Trump conveys information, (and I'm convinced that he doesn't give a shit about how many perceive his message).  He has gotten us to consider a subject that has been neglected. If he succeeds in getting something done about it then I expect he will conclude that the ends justify the means.

I'd agree with him on that. I do not believe there is great merit in hashing the correctness of the "facts". People respond to opinions, not the facts, and social media has greatly exacerbated this reality. It is much more important, therefore, to discuss and consider the policy directives that will influence and determine peoples' opinions.

Go Cornell Big Red - County Kilkenny - Go Cats!

Share

Thumbs up Thumbs down