Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon

[tsubaki]

"I would encourage them (Russia) to do whatever they want".

Apart from that going against 70 years of American foreign policy - its unhinged.

It is, at least in terms of US foreign policy (a weak and dependent EU is much better for them than a strong and independent one).

We can however make sure that Europe (with the UK) have a military that can deter threats, independently of the US.

To put it simply, we have a good chance of Trump winning in 2024 and being much worse than 2016, Russia nearly two years in to the invasion of another country and near the end of a period of ramping up its defence production and being increasingly aggressive, China increasing its military and flexing on its neighbours, the Israelis spooking most of the Middle East into rearming and on top of all that looming climate disaster and associated migration threats.

How on earth then, given the above, are most of the EU still not at 2% of GDP on military spending? How are debates still being had, calls still being made for us to start increasing defence industrial production? We should have come out of Biden winning in 2020 with a four year plan to make sure we would never be reliant on whatever idiot the US elected again. After February 2022, we should have recognized the happy times were over and immediately started to boost things then.

As I said I don't agree with the wider thrust of Trump's point, but a NATO where more than half the members are freeloading even now is beyond contempt.

 

[Martin Alvito]

Abrogating NATO in that manner might be one of the few ways he could generate 67 Senate votes to convict, if he were facing a Denocratic House that would impeach. The charge would be dereliction of duty under his oath of office and the supremacy clause.

Figure the three remaining senators who voted to convict on the January 6 impeachment (Cassidy, Murkowski and Collins - Romney is not standing for re-election) and McConnell would vote to remove. There are nine former military Republicans in the Senate, who all probably know what a bad idea this is.

The members whose states are in deep with the auto industry would have to consider the implications. A shift in focus by Japanese manufacturers to domestic weapons production would be disastrous for those members. The bottom would drop out of world financial markets in the event of the conflict Trump describes, which would be a problem for members whose states have large retiree populations.

All this over a suggestion, not a hard commitment ratified by the Senate like Article V of the NATO charter. Over the recommended 2% GDP budget allocation to defense spending, which is a guideline separate from the charter. If you didn't already believe Trump was on Team Putin, this ought to seal it.

 

[Martin Alvito]

It is, at least in terms of US foreign policy (a weak and dependent EU is much better for them than a strong and independent one).

We can however make sure that Europe (with the UK) have a military that can deter threats, independently of the US.

To put it simply, we have a good chance of Trump winning in 2024 and being much worse than 2016, Russia nearly two years in to the invasion of another country and near the end of a period of ramping up its defence production and being increasingly aggressive, China increasing its military and flexing on its neighbours, the Israelis spooking most of the Middle East into rearming and on top of all that looming climate disaster and associated migration threats.

How on earth then, given the above, are most of the EU still not at 2% of GDP on military spending? How are debates still being had, calls still being made for us to start increasing defence industrial production? We should have come out of Biden winning in 2020 with a four year plan to make sure we would never be reliant on whatever idiot the US elected again. After February 2022, we should have recognized the happy times were over and immediately started to boost things then.

As I said I don't agree with the wider thrust of Trump's point, but a NATO where more than half the members are freeloading even now is beyond contempt.

Exactly. The last thing the US wants is the EU setting aside national differences to confront a clear and present existential threat. If the EU becomes a functional governing body, the dollar's days as the global reserve currency are numbered. The interest savings on our debt resulting from stable demand for Treasury issues far outweigh any military expenditures shortfall we cover.

 

[dublinbluenose]

It is, at least in terms of US foreign policy (a weak and dependent EU is much better for them than a strong and independent one).

We can however make sure that Europe (with the UK) have a military that can deter threats, independently of the US.

To put it simply, we have a good chance of Trump winning in 2024 and being much worse than 2016, Russia nearly two years in to the invasion of another country and near the end of a period of ramping up its defence production and being increasingly aggressive, China increasing its military and flexing on its neighbours, the Israelis spooking most of the Middle East into rearming and on top of all that looming climate disaster and associated migration threats.

How on earth then, given the above, are most of the EU still not at 2% of GDP on military spending? How are debates still being had, calls still being made for us to start increasing defence industrial production? We should have come out of Biden winning in 2020 with a four year plan to make sure we would never be reliant on whatever idiot the US elected again. After February 2022, we should have recognized the happy times were over and immediately started to boost things then.

As I said I don't agree with the wider thrust of Trump's point, but a NATO where more than half the members are freeloading even now is beyond contempt.

I think we'll see a concerted effort from the Eastern and Baltic EU states to drag the rest of the EU into a more robust militarily capable. entity.

 

[jaspercabbage]

If he thought standing back and allowing Putin to plunder another countries resources would line his wallet, then you can guarentee he'd be all for it.

Putin has been lining Trumps pockets for many years. When US banks stopped lending his companys money the
Russians stepped in. He has been indebted for many years to Putin. and gangsters do not lend money without strings attached.
That is why when Putin invaded The Ukraine, Trump called it a very smart move, and also why he is dancing to the piper's tune now.

 

[BlueTX]

Putin has been lining Trumps pockets for many years. When US banks stopped lending his companys money the
Russians stepped in. He has been indebted for many years to Putin. and gangsters do not lend money without strings attached.
That is why when Putin invaded The Ukraine, Trump called it a very smart move, and also why he is dancing to the piper's tune now.

Yes. This indebtedness to Russian dirty money has been abundantly clear since before he was elected. His hardcore voters simply do not care, even when presented with incontrovertible evidence, as he feeds their rage directed at the nameless, faceless "librulz" they are told to hate on talk radio, FOX News, and Sunday pulpits. Nothing is going to change that.

 

[BlueTX]

Virtually indistinguishable from a Bob Jones University graduation ceremony.

 

[tsubaki]

I think we'll see a concerted effort from the Eastern and Baltic EU states to drag the rest of the EU into a more robust militarily capable. entity.

The Baltics are too small and without influence, and the two states in Eastern Europe that actually have done what they should have done in this respect are Poland and Hungary, both of whom have had issues with the rest of the EU in the recent past.

It shouldn’t be down to them to organise it anyway, it’s blatantly required.

 

[dublinbluenose]

Meanwhile in fantasy land

 

[Blue 1]

Virtually indistinguishable from a Bob Jones University graduation ceremony.

South Carolina?

I wonder how many of them can read.

 

[Ruairi77]

Far be it from me to agree with him, but in the situation we are all in now if any NATO member is not already at 2% then serious question should be asked.

It almost certainly needs to be a minimum of 2% on conventional forces as it is (given that the costs of the deterrent and stuff like defence housing take up a big chunk of our contribution). We really need to be at 4-5% with realistic plans in place to scale it up as necessary reasonably quickly.

this is completely missing the point of how crass, cringy, incorrect, and downright dangerous the idiot is.
also likely his anecdote is complete horseshit.

Too many people go 'he's crass but he has a point' when he doesnt at all.

 

[Rita_Poon]

this is completely missing the point of how crass, cringy, incorrect, and downright dangerous the idiot is.
also likely his anecdote is complete horseshit.

Too many people go 'he's crass but he has a point' when he doesnt at all.

 

[Ruairi77]

It is, at least in terms of US foreign policy (a weak and dependent EU is much better for them than a strong and independent one).

We can however make sure that Europe (with the UK) have a military that can deter threats, independently of the US.

To put it simply, we have a good chance of Trump winning in 2024 and being much worse than 2016, Russia nearly two years in to the invasion of another country and near the end of a period of ramping up its defence production and being increasingly aggressive, China increasing its military and flexing on its neighbours, the Israelis spooking most of the Middle East into rearming and on top of all that looming climate disaster and associated migration threats.

How on earth then, given the above, are most of the EU still not at 2% of GDP on military spending? How are debates still being had, calls still being made for us to start increasing defence industrial production? We should have come out of Biden winning in 2020 with a four year plan to make sure we would never be reliant on whatever idiot the US elected again. After February 2022, we should have recognized the happy times were over and immediately started to boost things then.

As I said I don't agree with the wider thrust of Trump's point, but a NATO where more than half the members are freeloading even now is beyond contempt.

this is how it happens.
Trump openly invited Russia to invade NATO members and you want to have a debate about military spending.
It's a trap. It's what he's good at, it's wrecking America.

 

[tsubaki]

this is how it happens.
Trump openly invited Russia to invade NATO members and you want to have a debate about military spending.
It's a trap. It's what he's good at, it's wrecking America.

No, what is wrecking America is people putting themselves on the wrong side of a debate just because Trump says something about the other side of it.

That man's grift works because there are huge problems in domestic and foreign affairs that ruling classes refuse to fix. He doesn't offer a fix of course, and will make things worse but denying that there are problems does nothing to deal with them or him.

 

[TN Toffee]

Seems he’s enjoying his Super Bowl Sunday.