Cont: The Trump Presidency VIII

Status
Not open for further replies.
Captain_Swoop said:
And back to NATO

trump Tweets

"What good is NATO if Germany is paying Russia billions of dollars for gas and energy? Why are there only 5 out of 29 countries that have met their commitment? The U.S. is paying for Europe’s protection, then loses billions on Trade. Must pay 2% of GDP IMMEDIATELY, not by 2025."



You can't just suddenly throw billions of pounds at the army and say spend it.

Does he think the money is given to the USA?
Click to expand...

Oh and now apparently Trump's demanding it should be 4%...
 
Could not avoid Fox News in the apartments' gym just now - someone was nattering about Germany getting 70 percent of its "energy" from Russia. It boggles my mind that they don't bother to get this right. Some pundit or other was saying "if I were Germany I wouldn't want to depend on Putin's whims." I don't think Putin actually has whims, it is all strategic to him, but then I suppose there's a sort of strategy in Trump's constant stream of hot air, which is feeding misinformation to his base.

I just don't get how Fox can stand being wrong so much of the time. Yes, they are a conservative propaganda outlet, but it would still bug me to be factually incorrect even if I were selectively marshaling facts to serve an agenda. Why does it have to be 70 percent of Germany's "energy"? What's wrong with saying "up to 70 percent of its natural gas"? It still sounds like a lot; you just ignore the other 80 percent of its energy sector.

I was surprised Germany gets 40 percent of its power from coal and is planning to stop using nuclear altogether.

ETA: Not sure about that 40 percent, I went with the first result on Google, it might be out of date.
 
Last edited:
CapelDodger said:
He's full-on gibbering. One has to wonder if there's a medical issue, hopefully nothing trivial.
Click to expand...
Why stop at 4 percent? Every NATO country should spend at least 150 percent of its gross domestic product on defense!
 
Captain_Swoop said:
trump tweete


"I am in Brussels, but always thinking about our farmers. Soy beans fell 50% from 2012 to my election. Farmers have done poorly for 15 years. Other countries’ trade barriers and tariffs have been destroying their businesses. I will open..."

"...things up, better than ever before, but it can’t go too quickly. I am fighting for a level playing field for our farmers, and will win!"

He says as Soya exports go through the floor because of his trade war.
Click to expand...

I predict to "save the soybean market (and farmers)", Trump will propose loosening sanctions on Russia so the farmers can sell their soybeans there.
 
rdwight said:
I admit I am ignorant of the exact origins of the 2% 'guideline' but I would think it was set up as such more to not punish member nations during economic downturns, as opposed to just some general suggestion. I don't think it was meant to be set up just at the whims of county's leadership and optimistic view of threat levels. The fact those guidelines were set more firm after an escalation of force through Russia's actions in Ukraine and Crimea appear to warrant my view. I don't mind educating myself if I am off the mark, so if you have some documentation in regards to it I wouldn't mind reading.
Click to expand...

http://carnegieeurope.eu/2015/09/02...-nato-and-security-vacuum-in-europe-pub-61139

Here's a great paper about the 2% military spending target.

Conclusions
Despite its conceptual flaws, the 2 percent metric will remain the tool of choice in the debate over military spending in NATO. A smarter yardstick would produce a more sophisticated picture of reality but would not have the same political impact.

The real debate would focus less on spending and more on the widening transatlantic divide over security in Europe. The question of who will guarantee Europe’s security in light of global strategic shifts remains unanswered.

Europe will be forced to step up its defense capabilities in the future if it wants to deal with the myriad threats in its neighborhood. This includes more and smarter defense spending, more defense cooperation, more shared threat assessments, and more leadership by hitherto reluctant nations.
Click to expand...

Note that having more powerful armed forces across Europe would be both good and bad for the US: because these European countries become less dependent on the US it also means that they are more likely to act on their own initiative, including acting against what the US government would consider its national interests. US hegemony over Europe would weaken.
 
Last edited:
CapelDodger said:
He's full-on gibbering. One has to wonder if there's a medical issue, hopefully nothing trivial.
Click to expand...

Chris Matthews just called him an embarrassment to the country.

He also spelled out what we all know, Trump is jealous of Merkel.
 
Last edited:
Minoosh said:
Could not avoid Fox News in the apartments' gym just now - someone was nattering about Germany getting 70 percent of its "energy" from Russia. It boggles my mind that they don't bother to get this right. Some pundit or other was saying "if I were Germany I wouldn't want to depend on Putin's whims." I don't think Putin actually has whims, it is all strategic to him, but then I suppose there's a sort of strategy in Trump's constant stream of hot air, which is feeding misinformation to his base.

I just don't get how Fox can stand being wrong so much of the time. Yes, they are a conservative propaganda outlet, but it would still bug me to be factually incorrect even if I were selectively marshaling facts to serve an agenda. Why does it have to be 70 percent of Germany's "energy"? What's wrong with saying "up to 70 percent of its natural gas"? It still sounds like a lot; you just ignore the other 80 percent of its energy sector.

I was surprised Germany gets 40 percent of its power from coal and is planning to stop using nuclear altogether.

ETA: Not sure about that 40 percent, I went with the first result on Google, it might be out of date.
Click to expand...
Not to mention, if you think about it, Trump won't even enact sanctions against Russia and he wants Germany to boycott their oil?

Apparently US companies want to sell natural gas to Germany.

This is from a year ago: Trump pitches US natural gas to European leaders, suggests Russian gas holds them hostage
 
Molinaro said:
That target has 2024 the goal for when it should be met.

There is no failure taking place now.
Click to expand...

Arter a target was first agreed in 2004, then had to be reiterated in 2014.

If we agree to work on a project Jan 1, and on Jan 10 you have made no progress, and we agree on a Jan 20 deadline, you are not ahead of schedule. You are a failure days behind.
 
I can't help wondering what Trump thinks he is accomplishing? Seriously, does he really think he is influencing the respective electorates and governments in these countries? It's like he is just appealing only to his own base here at home. My guess is that each of the NATO countries will just roll their eyes and go on doing what they have been doing. They are just waiting him out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom