But in all actual reality in the real world for real; if Russian landing craft rolled up on the beaches of Greece or Turkey, the US would provide more military assets in terms of hardware, technology, and manpower than the rest of Europe combined.On the other hand, the european countries combined spend more money on their military than the U.S. which would be another excellent argument for a better collaboration, because that would probably lead to more effective military structures by costing less money simultaneously.. Still, you're right as far as the 2% are concerned, and I totally agree that the european countries should feel obligated to meet the requirements of the NATO treaties. Especially the rich ones. like Germany.
But here's the thing: IF Russia would do something like this, we actually can't rely on the U.S. to do anything about it. So we (the europeans) need to be able to protect ourselves and if Donald Trump helps that our leaders finally realize that we can't hide any longer behind the american back, then I'd have finally found something positive about Trump to say.
Strong Agree with you that a combined European military service would be a great boon for the Continent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In all fairness to Trump (I literally just spit up in my mouth a little, but intellectual honesty is important if we [US] are going to get through this) NATO member states have been violating the treaty terms with blatant disregard for their obligation for decades. 2% of GDP is required military spending for each member. If NATO members wish to feel secure in it's promised protections, they should feel obligated to meet it's requirements. That is a completely reasonable position for the POTUS to take.Stripped of Trump's actual rhetoric and approach, sure. It's in fact the position taken by Obama and most of the NATO states have been moving towards meeting those commitments over the last years, even without the bluster and threats.
Sometimes it isn't the basic stance that's the problem, but the tactics used to reach it.
Yeah, he is a flagrant bombastic a!@*%$+. But that isn't new. That's what got him elected. Let's reserve the criticism for when his substance is the root problem, not the style. The fact that Merkel is talking about taking some of their own responsibility is an indication that his approach actually worked in this case. Europeans all-of-a-sudden feel like their safety is their own responsibility, are assessing the reality of what that means, and have found themselves lacking. They have been relying on the US too heavily, and Trump has given them the little shock they needed to get their collective acts together.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lots of things here:
It wasn't about taking their own responsibility. It was knowing they couldn't trust Trump and America to do what Europe has done for the US time and time again, even when the US had no good reason to go to war.
Trump's substance IS the problem. The POTUS-to-be saying the US will not honour their obligations is a breach of trust. Style has its place. Denying obligations is not it.
If the EU gets its act together, this may well provoke Russia into attacking.
If the EU gets its act together, the US is going out of Europe. Remember all those bases? Yeah, no.
If the US is attacked, don't imagine Trump will get automatic support. If he does want help, there is going to be deals made first.
At least that is my reading.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, the nationalist Right is on the rise in Europe as well. Don't be too smug. This is a problem facing all of us.
You're right of course, but that was not what I was talking about. I was talking about the good old GOP under Bush 1 (even Bush 2), under Reagan and their predecessors. And about the fact that a lot of things called "communist" in the U.S. wouldn't even be considered very "socialist" in our countries. Your Bernie Sanders would probably make for a very good member of the more liberal wing of our german conservatives so to see him labeled as radical leftist even by Democrats lets us all scratch our heads in union.
And what I tried to say is that from this point of view, a lot of things that have been very normal in the U.S. have been met with a lot of mistrust by the average german public like forever. Trump adds a new quality to that, but he certainly didn't create this stance.
They have been relying on the US too heavily, and Trump has given them the little shock they needed to get their collective acts together.
Well, we'll see if that happens, I'm only cautiously optimistic about that. Apart from that, I'd really argue your claim that this is only a matter of style, not of substance. Because there have come up substantial disagreements during the G7 meeting, and that's what is actually worrisome about that. Trump did block any substantial agreement about basically anything and it has become clear that he doesn't care one bit about what his "partners" think or that he even listens to what they have to say.
We are constantly living in zeno's fanbound cowpie
This seems like a far more reasonable position. The idea that Europe should work towards its own goals and the idea that US/UK military alliances with Europe aren't trustworthy is a rather large chasm for even a US news headline to stretch.The President of the United States has repeatedly suggested that he might not honor Article 5 of the NATO alliance. When directly pressed on the issue he refused to say that he would. Merkel then said that Europe can't rely on 'others' and must stand on its own.
Where exactly is the 'stretch' in interpreting that as Europe not being able to rely on the US to honor military alliances? Trump had just gone out of his way to make it clear that they can't.
Merkel didn't overreact. The media didn't stretch.
Because for as idiotic as The Dumpster Fire in Chief is, he still will succumb to US political pressure. Particularly from his base who are ever itching to send America's young brown population to die in a foreign country for "our" freedom. The idea that the US would not meet our NATO article 5 obligation is frankly laughable. Getting worked up about it is allowing yourself to be manipulated by a (bad) salesperson. He is appeasing his supporters because he told them he would make NATO members "pay their fair share." So he is using a very old sales technique called "the takeaway." On a salesroom floor you put a product in a person's hand and build an image of their life with the object. Then you take it out of their hands and put it behind the counter. In this version he is putting the "idea," of article 5 behind the counter because he wants Europe to spend more for their own defense.
Lo and behold, Merkel advocates for exactly that position.
Except Trump's record is that he's much more likely to deny you access to a thing (even if you want it) than make it available. He doesn't employ the trick of putting the thing away to make you want it. He covers it in gold leaf if he's really trying to sell it, tell you it's the greatest thing ever.
He's doing this for an American audience. He hasn't even considered what he really wants from Europeans. Remember him handing Merkel a "receipt" for her "NATO dues"? He and his staff clearly don't understand how NATO works, nor are they actually trying to get something from Europe. They're just appealing to American voters.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Presented without comment: A picture from the Nordic prime minsters' meeting
In all fairness to Trump (I literally just spit up in my mouth a little, but intellectual honesty is important if we [US] are going to get through this) NATO member states have been violating the treaty terms with blatant disregard for their obligation for decades. 2% of GDP is required military spending for each member. If NATO members wish to feel secure in it's promised protections, they should feel obligated to meet it's requirements. That is a completely reasonable position for the POTUS to take.
But in all actual reality in the real world for real; if Russian landing craft rolled up on the beaches of Greece or Turkey or rolled tanks into Latvia or Croatia, the US would provide more military assets in terms of hardware, technology, and manpower than the rest of Europe combined.
I mean, I assume that Trump doesn't actually understand that GDP obligation and actually thinks it is some sort of extra fee.
The US currently spends 3.5% of their GDP on the military, and the Republicans including Trump are CONSTANTLY pushing for more military spending, even if it means sharp cuts for other branches of the government. I could understand being annoyed at the NATO if Trump wanted to CUT military spending, but it seems likely even if we withdrew from NATO that wouldn't happen. Presumably even if every country in NATO paid 2% of their GDP we would STILL be paying more than 2%, so all Trump's rhetoric is doing is hurting diplomatic relationships with other countries for no real benefit.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
all Trump's rhetoric is doing is hurting diplomatic relationships with other countries for no real benefit.
Are you sure that hurting diplomatic relationships wasn't the desired 'benefit'?
Trump has been going out of his way to damage NATO, the Paris climate agreement, and various other international accords.
That Russia also seems to be opposed to all the agreements Trump is threatening to shred is surely just a coincidence.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Correlation does not equal causation.
*Pauses in the midst of having his drink*
Of course, enough correlation usually means a connection is worth looking into, just to be sure.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
without all the other evidence of links to Russia, then I doubt we'd even be speculating about it.
What, you mean like his son-in-law trying to set up back channel contact with Putin using only secure Russian communications so that US intelligence would not know what was being said?
Perfectly innocent. All the best conservatives say so.
I mean... WTF!?!? Jared was supposed to be the 'smart' one. The, 'who could have guessed that letting Russia have 100% control over the secret communication channel could be a bad idea', defense isn't going to fly.
Of course, right now the White House is claiming both that Jared doing this was completely normal... AND that he didn't do this. So, the usual clarity and forthrightness from them.
What would happen if serious, undeniable evidence was to surface that Trump was actively working for Russia against American interests?
|
|
What would happen if serious, undeniable evidence was to surface that Trump was actively working for Russia against American interests?
Undeniable by regular standards, or by Republicans?
Actually, I'm not sure there is anything they can't deny any more.
If we assume that there IS still such a thing as undeniable proof... impeachment would be the probable next step.
What would happen if serious, undeniable evidence was to surface that Trump was actively working for Russia against American interests?
Falls under "high crimes and misdemeanors", presuming Pence didn't round up 8 cabinet members to invoke article IV of the 25th Amendment to summarily remove him from office.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What would happen if serious, undeniable evidence was to surface that Trump was actively working for Russia against American interests?
It depends who's "American interests" are being worked against. Politicians of both parties have been working against the interests of the vast majority of Americans for decades, and it hardly raises a peep.
So far, I have yet to see anything Trump has done that raises to the level of Reagan working with Iran on the hostages, Bush/Clinton selling out American workers to overseas competition, Obama killing US kids with drone strikes, and the nauseating "Special Relationships" with the Saudis, Israelis, etc.
Until something more then questions and innuendo comes up, this all seems like the dying gasp of Cold War bulls**t propaganda to me.
What would happen if serious, undeniable evidence was to surface that Trump was actively working for Russia against American interests?Falls under "high crimes and misdemeanors", presuming Pence didn't round up 8 cabinet members to invoke article IV of the 25th Amendment to summarily remove him from office.The trouble with that approach is that Pence is likely dirty as hell too. He knew about Flynn, at the very least.
And Trump would just fire any Cabinet members. :)
He can't do that if they fire him first.
Pence is a nightmare in his social policy stances, making him a calmer, scarier President...
What would happen if serious, undeniable evidence was to surface that Trump was actively working for Russia against American interests?Falls under "high crimes and misdemeanors", presuming Pence didn't round up 8 cabinet members to invoke article IV of the 25th Amendment to summarily remove him from office.
Which of these do you think might vote against him?
Tom Price
Alex Acosta
James Mattis
Ben Carson
David Shulkin
Wilbur Ross
John F. Kelly
Sonny Perdue
Steve Mnuchin
Elaine Chao
Rick Perry
Betsy DeVos
Ryan Zinke
Rex Tillerson
Jeff Sessions
I'd put Price, Acosta, Carson, Chao, DeVos, Tillerson and Sessions in the definite no column, unless it's already in the bag and they're trying to save their skin.
Kelly, Mnuchin, Perdue, Shulkin, Ross and Zinke I don't know enough to form an opinion on this topic.
Perry is the second most likely to flip, but I think things are going to have to really hit the fan for that. He's at least shown some measure of ability to absorb information and realize he was wrong, but he's not going to lead the charge on this or be one of the first.
Mattis I'd put as the most likely if he thinks Trump represents an actual threat to national security.
Remember, the president can fire any of these people at any time. If this were to happen, it have to be swift and have zero leaks. The only person that Trump can't fire is the VP. Everyone else can be dismissed at any time.
So no politician should be punished because they're all bad? That's a productive attitude.
Who said they should not be punished? I'm all for public corporeal punishment of anyone giving or receiving a substantial amount of money with the intent of influencing policy.
Bribery was once a crime, possibly punishable by death if perpetrated during wartime. Now you can be bribed by foreign powers as long as you file the right paperwork? That is a sham!
According to wikipedia, "..., since 1966 there have been no successful criminal prosecutions under the FARA act." Although there seems to be a small list of people who were prosecuted, so I'm not sure what to make of that. [Shakes fist at Wikipedia]
The main issue is whether the law is being enforced fairly, or simply used as a political tool.
Allegations of selective enforcement
Although the act was designed to apply to any foreign agent, it has been accused of being used to target countries out of favor with an administration.[31] This was stated by the Irish Northern Aid Committee in legal filings[32] and in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs in the case of associates of the Kashmiri American Council as compared to earlier treatment of the American Zionist Council.[33] The 1980s Federal Bureau of Investigations operations against the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador also allegedly was based on selective enforcement of FARA.[34] It has been noted that during the same period it investigated CISPES, the FBI ignored possible FARA violations like Soldier of Fortune Magazine running back cover advertisement to help the Rhodesian national army recruit fighters.[35]
I don't see Flynn doing anything that Haim Saban or numerous others have not done as well. I see the laws being applied subjectively for political reasons. In other words, this isn't news because it's a real issue, it's just some partisan bulls**t.
Foreign Agents Registration Act
Type in 'Podesta' for a good example.
Well, one simple thing is that Flynn, unlike Saban, took a high level position in the administration without disclosing his activities. (Without officially disclosing - it's clear that the White House knew and didn't care.)
Saban just donated money.
" However, a civil injunctive remedy also was added to allow the Department of Justice to warn individuals and entities of possible violations of the Act, ensuring more voluntary compliance but also making it clear when the law has been violated. This has resulted in a number of successful civil cases and administrative resolutions since that time."
I don't think either was convicted of violating any laws, so I don't really see why one case is a big scandal, and the other is business as usual. If you want to stand by going after Flynn for taking money on behalf of a foreign power, with the intent of influencing policy, why not go after the DNC for taking Saban's money. And the RNC for taking Adleson's money?
To me it is all bribery, and I don't really care what paperwork gets filed. It is not legit. This is just a case of pointing fingers with one hand while the other is jammed in the cookie jar.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a veteran, if I donate to a candidate who takes a pro-funding veterans programs stance, is it bribery? If they're successful, I directly benefit.
As a veteran, if I donate to a candidate who takes a pro-funding veterans programs stance, is it bribery? If they're successful, I directly benefit.
Basically, it depends how much you give. I don't think any amount up to a few hundred dollars really matters (maybe for a small town campaign it might). On the other hand, let's say the issue ends up before a judge, and you pay that judge (or his campaign, or foundation) $10 million. I think that would create a clear conflict of interest. Politicians should not have conflicts of interest affecting their decisions.
As a veteran, if I donate to a candidate who takes a pro-funding veterans programs stance, is it bribery? If they're successful, I directly benefit.Well, no offense, but I really doubt you're giving the kind of money that would cause a politician to take note of your contribution and then personally phone you up looking for further donations later. I mean I could be wrong, maybe you own a pac or host fundraisers in addition to the two thousand seven hundred dollar checks that you're giving in personal contributions, however I suspect that you're throwing in fifty bucks and doing what you can. People with more money tend to get a bit more attention, and for some reason their opinions are taken far more seriously.
So, you're saying if I'm a veteran, I can't be part of a PAC that donates to campaigns if we talk to the candidate about veterans issues?
I'm not in favor of money ruling politics, I'm just pointing out that your line in the sand (and Fergie's) is too vague, undefined and excludes Americans from participating in the political process.
I agree, money corrupts politics.
I'm saying: draw a better line.
Of course people are going to give money to politicians who favor their own political views. If I own a business, it's completely within my right to support politicians who favor policies that benefit my business. That's normal. Everyone does it. Everyone should support politicians who advance their needs and ideals.
Until we get publicly funded campaigns, where all money comes from a non partisan, disinterested, neutral public body this is going to be a problem. To what level we allow legalized bribery is the real question. What I'd say right now is the people have no chance to compete with big money interests and thus there is no semblance of fairness in the system.As a veteran, if I donate to a candidate who takes a pro-funding veterans programs stance, is it bribery? If they're successful, I directly benefit.Well, no offense, but I really doubt you're giving the kind of money that would cause a politician to take note of your contribution and then personally phone you up looking for further donations later. I mean I could be wrong, maybe you own a pac or host fundraisers in addition to the two thousand seven hundred dollar checks that you're giving in personal contributions, however I suspect that you're throwing in fifty bucks and doing what you can. People with more money tend to get a bit more attention, and for some reason their opinions are taken far more seriously.So, you're saying if I'm a veteran, I can't be part of a PAC that donates to campaigns if we talk to the candidate about veterans issues?
I'm not in favor of money ruling politics, I'm just pointing out that your line in the sand (and Fergie's) is too vague, undefined and excludes Americans from participating in the political process.
I agree, money corrupts politics.
I'm saying: draw a better line.
Your vague concept of a better world sounds neat. It's now how the US system works right now, and it's not going to change any time soon.
One of the assumed freedoms in this country is that how you spend your money is up to you, unless it's involved in a crime of some sort. Bribery has to include an exclusive quid pro quo. I give you this, and in exchange you give me that, but the exchange has to be illegal. Ie: a government contract that should require a bid is rigged to not require a bid. Politicians changing laws is just part of how the system works. Giving them money to do their job isn't a crime, just because YOU don't like how they did their job.
I agree the system is broken and needs to be changed, but talking about it from a 30,000 ft view in vague generalities is pointless. Yes, we'd like the system to favor the voters more than how much money those voters have. Pretty much everyone except the ultra rich think this, but it's also one of those things that people don't care that much about, otherwise they'd do something about it.
How about this, if you want to talk about money in politics, instead of vague ideals, why don't you go, find a piece of legislation that's been proposed (federal or state) that you like or dislike, and we talk about that?
For example, check these guys out. Do you agree or disagree with proposed legislation?
without all the other evidence of links to Russia, then I doubt we'd even be speculating about it.What, you mean like his son-in-law trying to set up back channel contact with Putin using only secure Russian communications so that US intelligence would not know what was being said?
Perfectly innocent. All the best conservatives say so.
I mean... WTF!?!? Jared was supposed to be the 'smart' one. The, 'who could have guessed that letting Russia have 100% control over the secret communication channel could be a bad idea', defense isn't going to fly.
Of course, right now the White House is claiming both that Jared doing this was completely normal... AND that he didn't do this. So, the usual clarity and forthrightness from them.
He absolutely didn't do this... but if he did he was completely in his right to do so... and if he wasn't Its not that big of a deal... and if it was EMAILS! and OBAMA!
I believe it was Senator Franken (among others) who recently noted that the White House "isn't acting like people who have nothing to hide". Which, y'know, proves nothing... but certainly isn't discouraging investigations.
Yes, it's been my position this entire debate that you should never vote Democrat, as criticizing a faction of the party means I'm completely against them.
I agree the system is broken and needs to be changed, but talking about it from a 30,000 ft view in vague generalities is pointless. Yes, we'd like the system to favor the voters more than how much money those voters have. Pretty much everyone except the ultra rich think this, but it's also one of those things that people don't care that much about, otherwise they'd do something about it.So, for a time, there were hard caps on how much a person could donate, companies couldn't give vast sums of money in secret, and if someone owned stock in companies that they were making laws or rules on they'd have to recuse themselves from voting on the matter. That's hardly a perfect system but I'd be happy if you could return to that.Hmmm, looks back at party platforms and policies. Seems like one major party was actually running on that.
Shame they're not good enough for you.
You're not a citizen of the US; all your opinions on voting in our elections are entirely hypothetical.
You know I recall reading an essay recently (can't remember the source otherwise I would quote it), that very much argued that Trumps entire approach to foreign relationships is such that we are more likely to see an increases in aggressive conflicts around the globe.. Trump doesn't come off as a strong leader, he comes off as a bully, who is mostly talk and not willing to back any of that up. Dictators (or those who aspire to be such) can crack down on there own countries without worrying about any US sanctions (see Erdogan), or more directly intervene in the affairs of other countries (See Putin and worries from the Baltic states, or NK weekly missile tests).
His whole diplomatic approach seems to be the opposite of Teddy Roosevelt's "Speak softly and carry a big stick".