Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

US Politics Hamsterwheel v2.0

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

US Politics Hamsterwheel v2.0

Old 11th Jul 2018, 14:52
  #14801 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Lakeside
Posts: 428
UncleFred. “...Interesting days ahead...perhaps even a watershed moment in the still young 21st century. How naive we were to believe that the world was too interconnected for one man to change history....”

Steady on hoss. We got complacent, inured over time to the swamp’s outrageous narratives.

Trump, warts and all, is an existential threat to a paradigm that was on life support anyway.

Refusing to divulge military plans, becoming irate at being spied upon, Firing incompetents, etc., to the swamp it is life threatening. It shouldn’t be so volatile, it is merely a return to a more populist landscape, for what it’s worth.

So Trump is scary. Not to me. To the drooling trough denizens, the pedophiles, the perfect teeth and hair set? Terrifying.

This is scary: Five of the highest placed officials of the FBI connived (conspired) to alter an election’s results. The list of evidence is in, and cannot be seen another way. The most damning evidence is yet to be seen, held illegally by these five....

in another, saner world, it would be called what it is, an ongoing COUP d’etat. As yet, it is Ill defined, the reporters upon whom we ordinarily rely refuse to report it, we fly blind....

Patience, The Constitution was written by brilliant minds not to frustrate, but to delay. They feared the emotions of the masses, and believed, correctly, that justice delayed is justice, in the political world.
Concours77 is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2018, 15:03
  #14802 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,406
Originally Posted by Uncle Fred View Post
Interesting days ahead...perhaps even a watershed moment in the still young 21st century. How naive we were to believe that the world was too interconnected for one man to change history.

Mr. Trump is seemingly prepared to dynamite the NATO conference and then nip over to snog with Vlad. (Planners though are making sure Trump is not given a speaking role in Bruxelles)

It does beg the question though, I must admit, why any country in Europe should pony up a single quid for national defense and particularly for NATO since Russia is no threat at all to the West and only has the purest wishes for its well being and future. What could there possibly be to worry about? Vlad is a good man. A good friend. One to depend upon when things get bad.

Knock the heads of those free-loading layabouts and then meet up with the object of one's admiration and adulation. This is going to be easy!

I do wonder though if Vlad and his pals wish for a bit more competition. I mean Trump is making it so easy for them by destroying the alliance structure in the East and West that it is rather like a boxer entering the ring and falling down without a punch. "Get up and fight" the other boxer shouts. "Be a man about it." At least go a few rounds.

Divide and conquer. Who thought it would be that easy? A human wrecking ball that even fiction could not have created.
.
What gets me is the amount of complaining from Europe about the lack of funding being raised. How dare the US call out those nations not willing to shoulder their fair share. Obama tried but was rebuffed, you lads had your warning this was coming. I truly hope that Trump starts to withdraw the US from NATO. The size of the threat that required a US led NATO is now relegated to history books. The current threat could be managed by a European joint military force. Of course standing in the way is a lack of will, a lack of funding and a lack of a coherent, unified strategy. The latent liberal in me would love to see money spent on ungrateful “allies” spent on roads, hospitals and similar here in the US.


West Coast is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2018, 15:22
  #14803 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Manchester, England
Age: 53
Posts: 802
Originally Posted by West Coast View Post
The latent liberal in me would love to see money spent on ungrateful “allies” spent on roads, hospitals and similar here in the US.
Remind me again of the lobbying strength of the US military industrial complex!
Curious Pax is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2018, 17:08
  #14804 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 576
Octane, Chuks, Turbine:

Hurrah! -- You picked up on my intentional wording. Who says you can't be led!

Liberals (Progressives, if you will) can hardly ever manage to discuss "the Right" without disparagingly expanding it to "the Religious Right". So I was merely turning the term around. If you can disparage conservatives that way, why are you so offended when someone returns the favor?

We are currently seeing a pattern of the left trying to install a religious test onto court nominees in this country. Look up Feinstein's complaints about Judge Amy Barrett at her last confirmation. And rafts of editorials this week claiming that the Supreme Court is somehow becoming a pawn of the Catholic Church. What's next, "anti-Papist" legislation?

The US has an honorable history of separation of church and state, along with protection for religious freedom, though that latter has been under pressure lately. The same cannot be said elsewhere.
obgraham is online now  
Old 11th Jul 2018, 17:19
  #14805 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 451
Originally Posted by Uncle Fred View Post
It does beg the question though, I must admit, why any country in Europe should pony up a single quid for national defense and particularly for NATO since Russia is no threat at all to the West and only has the purest wishes for its well being and future. What could there possibly be to worry about? Vlad is a good man. A good friend. One to depend upon when things get bad..
And, as Trump pointed out, Germany is already depending on Putin to supply them with gas. Putin doesn't need to invade Germany, he can crash their economy at any time by just cutting off the gas, as he's previously done to Ukraine (or maybe he only threatened it, I don't remember the details).

Germany clearly doesn't consider Putin a threat, or they wouldn't have made their future reliant on him, and given him a trivial means to blackmail them any time he feels like it.

I mean Trump is making it so easy for them by destroying the alliance structure in the East and West that it is rather like a boxer entering the ring and falling down without a punch.
So, in Bizzaro World, Trump is making life easy for Putin by telling Europe that it needs to increase military spending so it can defend itself from... Putin?
MG23 is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2018, 17:33
  #14806 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 576
So where is the flaw in Trump's argument on this NATO-Russia-cash matter?
obgraham is online now  
Old 11th Jul 2018, 17:42
  #14807 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Lakeside
Posts: 428
It is of extreme satisfaction to see a US President aggressively cutting a better deal for the Country. For decades, the Press has been spouting a false narrative that if the United States does not cut fat checks and kiss ass, the World will end in radioactive embers.

It is a myth, and it doesn’t help to have a fatherless narcissist traveling the globe to acquire the self esteem that comes from praise, not truth. The Bowing and broad smiles were to puke for. Worship is the obsession of all narcissism. Obama needn’t have another thought of insecurity, ever.

NATO is become a scam to fleece Americans of billions, and peace of mind. Likewise, the UN. Those scofflaw potentates need to get the boot.



Concours77 is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2018, 17:49
  #14808 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Lakeside
Posts: 428
Originally Posted by obgraham View Post
Octane, Chuks, Turbine:

Hurrah! -- You picked up on my intentional wording. Who says you can't be led!

Liberals (Progressives, if you will) can hardly ever manage to discuss "the Right" without disparagingly expanding it to "the Religious Right". So I was merely turning the term around. If you can disparage conservatives that way, why are you so offended when someone returns the favor?

We are currently seeing a pattern of the left trying to install a religious test onto court nominees in this country. Look up Feinstein's complaints about Judge Amy Barrett at her last confirmation. And rafts of editorials this week claiming that the Supreme Court is somehow becoming a pawn of the Catholic Church. What's next, "anti-Papist" legislation?

The US has an honorable history of separation of church and state, along with protection for religious freedom, though that latter has been under pressure lately. The same cannot be said elsewhere.
howdy. It is instructive that the Left base their hysteria on a myth they have come to believe. SCOTUS has no personal opinion, no party, no partisanship, save the Law and the Constitution. Because they expect it to be different, that Judges should create Law from the Bench, they soil themselves thinking a partisan might take away something they aren’t convinced is proper in the first place. So their take on the Court is dependent on a false belief. Their brand of fear is repulsive; it elevates the lies to the status of what is true, and right, hence the terror when it is “challenged”.

Knee Jerk looney tunes. There is no Wolf. Only an aging deer named Blitzen. Clinton sycophantism rears it’s ugly form.
Concours77 is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2018, 18:04
  #14809 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 451
Originally Posted by Concours77 View Post
SCOTUS has no personal opinion, no party, no partisanship, save the Law and the Constitution.
Well, that's the theory. The reality is that the left have forced through numerous unconstitutional rulings, and are terrified that an unbiased court will overturn them all.

If Trump wins a second term, it's game over for Judicial Activism.

And the hilarious part is that, if they hadn't been so sure that Clinton would win, the left-wing judges could have retired and been replaced by Obama instead.
MG23 is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2018, 19:46
  #14810 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: SF Bay area, CA USA
Posts: 235
Just for the record, the USA contribution to the NATO pot is 22%. not 90% as claimed by Potus.
jack11111 is online now  
Old 11th Jul 2018, 20:04
  #14811 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 576
You are redefining the “pot”.

Even WaPo says Trumps points are valid.
obgraham is online now  
Old 11th Jul 2018, 20:16
  #14812 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,406
Originally Posted by Uncle Fred View Post
Jack - Don't baffle them with facts. Their ediface is built on lies. Constant misrepresentations that are fully untethered from reality.
The US is doing the heavy lifting for the defense of Europe when it should be the Euro members of NATO doing so. You disagree?
West Coast is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2018, 20:29
  #14813 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 576
Just last week Merkel was aghast when Trump talked about removing the thousands of American troops stationed in Europe (mostly Germany).
Seems like she has two mouths. I’ll have to look closer at her photos.
obgraham is online now  
Old 11th Jul 2018, 20:32
  #14814 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Lakeside
Posts: 428
Originally Posted by MG23 View Post
Well, that's the theory. The reality is that the left have forced through numerous unconstitutional rulings, and are terrified that an unbiased court will overturn them all.

If Trump wins a second term, it's game over for Judicial Activism.

And the hilarious part is that, if they hadn't been so sure that Clinton would win, the left-wing judges could have retired and been replaced by Obama instead.
Millions of voters grew up on propaganda, expectations, false pride and hero worship. I did, I was good scout, active D and ready with my effort to push the cart.

Eight years of Obama would seemingly hone the knife to a perfect cutting edge, clearing the way for the promised land of super state, no work, no bad guys, certainly no monsters.

Must be galling to see everything evaporate into real life. The ones who scream the loudest are the ones who feel the most cheated, those who embraced myth after myth,

Must be galling and somewhat scary to see everything go away in a puff of orange smoke.

Gorsuch, Cavanaugh, Tax relief, eliminating the individual mandate, a Canadian premier who looks like he just got run over (also Merkel). Standing up to the global toadies, etc. etc. etc..

”But he’s such a jerk!!” Who gives a crap?

Obama will never quit. He is still running. He needs recovery. Have him call me.
Concours77 is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2018, 20:43
  #14815 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,406
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-ne...15ac13e5451e84

Well, look here, more winning. Euro members to increase funding for NATO. The lesson, let petulant children bloviate, but hold them accountable and they'll come around
Obama in his limp wristed style tried, but it took a few panties getting wadded up by some tough talk to make it happen
Hopefully Trump will now remind Angela how vulnerable she is to Vlad. One spigot turn away from tanking her economy.
West Coast is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2018, 21:12
  #14816 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vendee
Posts: 137
Rather difficult to reply as the nation is now in mourning, but something to keep my mind elsewhere.

Jonah Goldberg, writing in your National Review, stated today: Direct spending on NATO is almost inconsequential. (We spend about $500 million out of $600 billion, or 0.08 percent of our defense budget). The real money is in what NATO members are supposed to dedicate to their own defense budgets. Many members have fallen short of the 2 percent minimum they all agreed to. That’s been turning around, however, since Russia annexed Crimea in 2014.

As for the idea of Germany's energy needs. Here is a fact check. If your German is rusty just run it through Google translate and you will be good to go. Deutschland ein Gefangener Russlands? Donald Trumps Aussagen im Faktencheck - SPIEGEL ONLINE

Two weeks ago a gent by the name of Peter G. responded to a leader in the Speccie by Fraser Nelson about the security implications of a trade war and the diminishment of NATO: https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/06/...curity-crisis/

Now the respondent, Peter G, might be a 25 stone loser on leave from Europe and hiding in a cave in the southern Andes or he might be a history don--I have no way on knowing other than by the cogency and lucidity of his arguments. Either way, a couple of his points are valid. I quote them below for your consideration:

People are becoming obsessed with this 2% figure. There is no formal obligation on NATO members to spend 2% of GDP on defence. It is mentioned in NATO documentation only as a means of comparison and a very rough indication of what defence should cost. Above all it is not a contribution to NATO. It is national defence. The majority of politicians and the public have not the faintest idea how NATO works.

If decisions are to be made about NATO on the basis of public sentiment and general ignorance we can be certain they will be bad decisions.
And let us not forget David Cameron achieved 2% - only just - by adding the cost of service pensions to the sums spent on actual defence. For UK - especially with the incompetent Mrs May as PM - to adopt a holier than thou attitude is sheer hypocrisy.

NATO works like this: each country has specific requirements for its own defence based very largely on geography and its perception of the military threat. Therefore the amount it should spend falls out of meeting that requirement. When overlaying the collective requirement NATO recognises that the best incentive for nations to defend themselves is their own interests, second mutual support in the face of an overwhelming threat. NATO recognises that each member knows its own territory better than any other member so that is their main area of operations; also that some nations have particular expertise or capability that can be employed strategically across the collective, or to fill a gap in another member's defence. So NATO provides a number of things to that end: organisation, infrastructure for command and control, communications, logistics, standardised common procedures and technical standards - even language - to achieve interoperability between the forces of each member; means of sharing knowledge and intelligence; planning; training. Member nations contribute to planning, procurement and to operations as they can. NATO has no power to compel a member nation to commit forces to its operations. Political control of forces remains national, always.

This contrasts with the way the EU operates - top down autocratic and authoritarian, one-size-fits-all, the EU supreme, mandating what nations will or will not commit according to some simplistic formula. The idea that the EU can replace NATO is absurd - unless it fundamentally reforms to become an association of cooperating sovereign nations....

Finally, in Germany's mitigation, since people seem to forget that military defence depends on finding volunteers willing to kill human beings in defence of their fellow citizens, i would point out that during all those years of the cold war, Germany had short range nuclear weapons deployed on its soil and the central battleground and killing field of an east-west war in Europe would for all those years would have been Germany. And we quibble about 2%. Get a grip.

PS. How many people know when the much discussed Article 5 has been invoked? I'll give you a clue: never during the Cold War, never in the 20th century.
And just to dispel the myth that member states are obliged to go to war if one of them is attacked, I quote Article 5 in full. I have even heard politicians claim that if one is attacked all are automatically at war. Utter Bollocks. If it were true it wold give the attacker a legal casus belli to attack all the others as well. How stupid! As you see, Article 5 does no such thing:

“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”
Uncle Fred is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2018, 21:42
  #14817 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vendee
Posts: 137
Another point I would raise is that during an econmic boom GDP and GNP can increase significantly thus raising the true required outlay. In lean times when these fall do the member nations get to spend less in true dollars/Euros/etc?

It seems that clarification is in order as to the threats extant and the structures to parry them. Crisp definitions of goals would be an intelligent step.

Instead, wild lashing out and playing the victim are the order of the day. How that, combined with lies, is a recipe for success is foreign to me.
Uncle Fred is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2018, 21:46
  #14818 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,406
Same old tired article Fred, attitudes like that got Trump elected.

The pay as you want idea is going to earn you one less member, the one who provides the most. The one who is the glue that holds NATO together. Good thing is your masters got the message loud and clear. If they don’t and funding doesn’t increase, I don’t see any way the US remains a member of NATO.

Obviously I don’t make the rules, but I have a hard time supporting article 5 with US blood for any country that clearly is negligent preparing it’s own defense. I also doubt the average Belgium (fill in the blank) citizen is going to support their lads going to war because Guam got nuked by the fat one. The connections post WWII (last time we provided for your defense) just aren’t there.

Time to pay up.
West Coast is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2018, 22:47
  #14819 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vendee
Posts: 137
I certainly hope that Jeremy will not take up residence at Number 10 so don't throw me in with that lot!
Uncle Fred is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2018, 00:03
  #14820 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 576
Looks like another success for Trump.

He went to the meeting planning to get Euroland to pay more towards its own defense.
He spoke to them sharply across the table.
They signed a paper stating they would pay more for their own defense.

Fire up AF1. Time to head over to see Mrs. May and straighten them out. After all, they have a rude balloon.
obgraham is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.