The Trump Presidency - how I stopped worrying and learned to love the Hair

[narf]

They will spend it same way US *used* to spend military money prior to 1970s - on fundamental scientific research. Which will have no benefit to NATO but will greatly benefit innovation industries in their nations.

DARPA

 

[PelicanHazard]

I'm not an isolationist, if that's what you're hinting at.

No, actually, I'm not. Funny enough, in my experience libertarians have relatively fewer isolationists than one would think for an ideology built on 'fuck off if you're not involved or harmed'. What I was getting at was more that a common thread on that is a misunderstanding of why and how the US foreign policy came to be, which is crucially important to understand when one wants to change it. NATO did not begin as the US' club against the Soviets, but it very quickly became that anyways, so much so that one of the founding members of NATO's predecessor withdrew from the unified command less than a decade after it was established.

More germanely, it's not as if the 2% target was a founding requirement of NATO; the nations only first agreed to that in 2006, with an understanding that it would be a gradual ramp-up to achieve that by 2025. To then have the US not only turn around in the space of a decade and demand that target right now, but present a 'bill' for it that both implies the US is owed a direct payment and starts the tab a full 4 years before the agreement was even reached, is ludicrous and highly indicative the speaker has no clue what on earth is even happening.

What Trump is doing isn't asking Europe "to take more responsibility"; it's him taking a seat at the NATO college apartment table and, instead of affirming the commitment the roommates agreed to to slowly change the rent owed distribution put in place under Bush and affirmed by Obama, demanding that the roommates change to the new distribution right now and "where's the back rent 'owed'?"

Realistically how likely are all the western countries to be attacked in a conventional war? Considering all of em have nukes.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union? Very slight. The world is still rearranging from that.

DARPA

The shit they want to make...it's like nobody told them Tony Stark is a fictional character.

 

[awdrifter]

Just like in business sometimes you make deals that are loss leaders. Taking a loss on NATO to maintain the world's power balance is definitely worth it. As for the Paris Agreement, as a car enthusiast I'm happy about it. Maybe it'll take some pressure off the automakers to downsize the engines for USDM cars and allow power to be generated cheaply using oil and natural gas that we have rather than more expensive renewable sources. But I can also see it's probably not worth the backlash from the EU greenies, since the targets aren't really that aggressive.

Sent from my ZTE A2017U using Tapatalk

 

[SirEdward]

I see it the other way around. Europeans seem to not realize that if the US takes a back seat role overseas, you will all be speaking (in order of likelihood) Chinese, Arabic, or Russian.

You don't seem to realize that part of the power and influence of the US is because they spent money so that Europe spoke english.

The same they did in many other parts of the world, influence through money and commerce.

And yet you have the balls to talk shit about POTUS and blatantly expect him to toe the line and sign onto deals that cost the US dearly.

The US can't go on like this, like the rest of the world can't. Unless you achieve a technological breakthrough or you wage wars. It's sad, but the idea of an ever-expanding over-consuming world is terribly short-sighted.

Quite frankly, a lot of Trump's base is sick and tired of their tax dollars flowing overseas

That's not spending, that's investing.

while Europeans look down from their high horses on dumb fat Americans.

What can you say to friends who fell in love with someone like Trump, apart understanding that they must have had a very bad day?

So go ahead, keep complaining about how terrible Trump is

He is, I've seen the like of him. It's a sad reality, but it's still a reality.

- just keep in mind that a) I don't see a very long thread about European politics (in English, mind you) so suggesting that the US is losing influence is laughable

Short sightedness is shortsighted. Bill Clinton, G.W., Obama, let alone Bush Sr. They all had far more influence than the Slanderer.

 

[LeVeL]

.

 

[prizrak]

Just like in business sometimes you make deals that are loss leaders. Taking a loss on NATO to maintain the world's power balance is definitely worth it. As for the Paris Agreement, as a car enthusiast I'm happy about it. Maybe it'll take some pressure off the automakers to downsize the engines for USDM cars and allow power to be generated cheaply using oil and natural gas that we have rather than more expensive renewable sources. But I can also see it's probably not worth the backlash from the EU greenies, since the targets aren't really that aggressive.

Sent from my ZTE A2017U using Tapatalk

f
CAFE standards are a much bigger threat to us as car guys than Paris agreement was and those were in place before Paris. As far as pulling out of the agreement goes, it made pretty much no sense, it's a non-binding agreement with literally no enforcement in place and countries setting their own goals. He could have quietly stalled it domestically and not gotten any backlash.

 

[M3lover]

Anyways, how about that Comey? Trump was not under investigation and didn't obstruct justice. Comey leaked info to the press.

I guess we took note of different things from the hearing. Can we agree though, that McCain was talking gibberish, and that the point he was actually trying to make, didn't make much sense either?

 

[prizrak]

The US spends by far the highest percentage of any NATO country. Considering that the US also has a GDP similar to that of the entire European continent, it's pretty clear that we carry the entirety of NATO. And then European leaders talk down to POTUS and debate banning him. Europe is like a 16yo girl throwing a tantrum because daddy didn't buy her the right color Mercedes.

No one in Europe is making us spend all that money on defense, given the geography US could easily half it's military spending and be no worse for the wear. Also there is a ridiculous amount of waste in US military spending, just look at the number of aircraft carriers in US fleet, carriers that are basically useless militarily because anti-ship missiles have longer range than any ship based aviation and cost a fraction of what a carrier costs.

And because of that whole 400k dead while making sure you don't all speak German thing. You should look up how many military bases we still maintain all over Europe, including in your country.

Those bases are mostly relics of the cold war where a threat of military conflict on European continent was a heck of a lot more realistic than it is now. US and USSR essentially had technological parity, Middle East and Africa do NOT.

Well, we've been at the forefront of technological innovation for a century so I'm not worried about that.

Look up T-14 Armata if you still believe that...

This is very dangerous thinking, look at all the Chinese who come here for education then go back to China and come up with innovation. Look at Baidu the Chinese Google that uses basically same algorithms, founder worked with Brinn and Page before moving back and starting it. There are many smart people in the world and it's very easy for us to lose our edge if we become less attractive for foreign workers. H1-B is one of the biggest trump cards (no pun intended) we have.

As for wars, we don't get anything positive out of them.

Haliburton, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, etc... all benefit IMMENSELY from our wars.

 

[SirEdward]

And because of that whole 400k dead while making sure you don't all speak German thing. You should look up how many military bases we still maintain all over Europe, including in your country.

We should all speak Russian then, they got almost two orders of magnitude more dead than the US, to ensure the same result.
And the US profited from their "money for influence" program at least as much as Europe did. In the long term, that is.

But, really, are you still enchanted by these patriotic fairy tales, instead of looking at reality and see what the US did good (and bad) during the last decades?

The US have been a great force for peace in the last 70 years, but they have surely profited from the "pax americana" far more than they spent to achieve the result.

You want the US to be the "leader of the free world"? Ok, but then, a leader is not a king, a leader doesn't rule for divine intervention, a leader shows the way. Trump behaves like a king, not like a leader.

 

[_HighVoltage_]

No one in Europe is making us spend all that money on defense, given the geography US could easily half it's military spending and be no worse for the wear. Also there is a ridiculous amount of waste in US military spending, just look at the number of aircraft carriers in US fleet, carriers that are basically useless militarily because anti-ship missiles have longer range than any ship based aviation and cost a fraction of what a carrier costs.

This is very dangerous thinking, look at all the Chinese who come here for education then go back to China and come up with innovation. Look at Baidu the Chinese Google that uses basically same algorithms, founder worked with Brinn and Page before moving back and starting it. There are many smart people in the world and it's very easy for us to lose our edge if we become less attractive for foreign workers. H1-B is one of the biggest trump cards (no pun intended) we have.

Haliburton, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, etc... all benefit IMMENSELY from our wars.

I agree with the majority of your post. Just wanted to add a little detail. A lot of jobs that concentrate on military/tech development require security clearance only reserved for U.S. citizens. So H1B applicants for these positions get an automatic denial from the government. It's not that these students really want to go back to China (in this particular example), the current visa/immigration system puts them at a dead end once they get their MA/PhD.

 

[prizrak]

We should all speak Russian then, t

It's quite an expressive language you should

- - - Updated - - -

I agree with the majority of your post. Just wanted to add a little detail. A lot of jobs that concentrate on military/tech development require security clearance only reserved for U.S. citizens. So H1B applicants for these positions get an automatic denial from the government. It's not that these students really want to go back to China (in this particular example), the current visa/immigration system puts them at a dead end once they get their MA/PhD.

True but I was thinking innovation in general, not specific to military technology. After all anything can be used as a weapon.

 

[SirEdward]

It's quite an expressive language you should

I was born on the english-speaking side of the iron curtain... so In only know good-morning, good-evening, and the most uttered word in the entire history of youtube's dashcam videos...

And that's more than what I know about Flemish, which is basically a god-related swearing word.

 

[LeVeL]

.

 

[SirEdward]

About eight miles. That's how high over your head my post went, apparently.

You mean the bases thing? The bases in Europe are there for the same reasons the bases in South Korea are there, for example.

The US are smart, not philantropic.

Completely different topic. You previously made the assertion that one of the main ways that the US can stay on top is through wars.

I haven't. I used the word "wars" just to show how powerful and influential the US could be, to start a war based on blatant lies with the allies mostly staying silent.

This is false, as the US doesn't fight wars to conquer land or resources.

Position is a resource, influence is a resource, money is a resource, dominance is a resource.

 

[mpicco]

Completely different topic. You previously made the assertion that one of the main ways that the US can stay on top is through wars. This is false, as the US doesn't fight wars to conquer land or resources.

Ya focking kidding me now mate? What was the intervention in Iraq for, the wellness of the Iraqi people, and not ulterior motives about oil? Are you really this childishly naive?

 

[LeVeL]

.

 

[prizrak]

Have we taken over any wells or refineries? Or did we leave Iraq for Iraqis to govern and went home?

Google Haliburton

 

[PelicanHazard]

The US spends by far the highest percentage of any NATO country. Considering that the US also has a GDP similar to that of the entire European continent, it's pretty clear that we carry the entirety of NATO. And then European leaders talk down to POTUS and debate banning him. Europe is like a 16yo girl throwing a tantrum because daddy didn't buy her the right color Mercedes.

Because we choose to, because it benefits us greatly. And again, it's not the Europeans throwing a tantrum here.

 

[Interrobang]

@LeVeL - sometimes one can have a decent discussion with you - even when one does not agree with you. Other times, it's like talking to the 'conservative talking-points bot 2000'. And that's well below your usual Level of intelligence ...

anyway, carry on.

 

[GRtak]

D.C. and Maryland sue President Trump, alleging breach of constitutional oath

Attorneys general for the District of Columbia and the state of Maryland sued President Trump on Monday, alleging that he has violated anti-corruption clauses in the Constitution by accepting millions in payments and benefits from foreign governments since moving into the White House.

The lawsuit, the first of its kind brought by government entities, centers on the fact that Trump chose to retain ownership of his company when he became president. Trump said in January that he was shifting his business assets into a trust managed by his sons to eliminate potential conflicts of interests.

But D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine (D) and Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh (D) say Trump has broken many promises to keep separate his public duties and private business interests. For one, his son Eric Trump has said the president would continue to receive regular updates about his company?s financial health.

The lawsuit, a signed copy of which Racine and Frosh provided to The Washington Post on Sunday night, alleges ?unprecedented constitutional violations? by Trump. The suit says Trump?s continued ownership of a global business empire has rendered the president ?deeply enmeshed with a legion of foreign and domestic government actors? and has undermined the integrity of the U.S. political system.

?Fundamental to a President?s fidelity to [faithfully execute his oath of office] is the Constitution?s demand that the President ... disentangle his private finances from those of domestic and foreign powers. Never before has a President acted with such disregard for this constitutional prescription.?

The suit could open a new front for Trump as he navigates investigations by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III and congressional committees of possible collusion between his associates and the Russian government during the 2016 presidential campaign.

If a federal judge allows the case to proceed, Racine and Frosh say, one of the first steps will be to demand through the discovery process copies of Trump?s personal tax returns to gauge the extent of his foreign business dealings. That fight would most likely end up before the Supreme Court, the two said, with Trump?s attorneys having to defend why the returns should remain private.

?This case is, at its core, about the right of Marylanders, residents of the District of Columbia and all Americans to have honest government,? Frosh said. To fully know the extent of Trump?s constitutional violations ?we?ll need to see his financial records, his taxes that he has refused to release.?

Racine said he felt obligated to sue Trump in part because the Republican-controlled Congress has not taken the president?s apparent conflicts seriously.

?We?re getting in here to be the check and balance that it appears Congress is unwilling to be,? he said.

There is more at the link, but I am on a tablet, and it is a pain to copy and paste from the Washington Post site.