• Trump, Merkel agree NATO members must pay fair share
    94 replies, posted
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;51744308]Tudd Explain this crap![/QUOTE] I'd be interested in seeing his response to this too.
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;51744371]Tudd To respond to your question to me: [Media]https://twitter.com/jdawsey1/status/825552403030241281[/Media][/QUOTE] I am so incredibly tired of these pointless anonymous stories that don't end up fanning out half the time.
lmao enough with demanding tudd explain all his opinions on everything trump has done this last week. use the PM feature if you really want to pick his brain but otherwise this thread is for discussing the Trump + Merkel story in the OP. Keep it to that.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51744379]I am so incredibly tired of these pointless anonymous stories that don't end up fanning out half the time.[/QUOTE] You know, it's kinda funny that it reminds me of the fact our POTUS wants us to get all our info from shit like his Twitter.
[QUOTE=WhichStrider;51744405]You know, it's kinda funny that it reminds me of the fact our POTUS wants us to get all our info from shit like his Twitter.[/QUOTE] I'm fine with serious journalism, but that just doesn't seem to exist anymore. Journalists run with the first mention of anything that they hear. It's created so much noise that you can't really trust anything anymore unless it has a named source or some hard evidence presented alongside.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51744419]See: The tweet about "Trump photoshopped his hand!"[/QUOTE] Trump has said such depraved and petty things that people will believe pretty much any awful thing he might have done. What kind of asshole bitches about the size of his crowd? Sounds believable that he's petty enough to photoshop his handsize even if that wasn't actually the case. On topic: Of course the two richest members in NATO are saying that the other members should pay their fair share. They don't actually need NATO.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51744307]It's crap and I don't like it. I also recognize that it's our political norm. Obama blatantly lied to get Obamacare, the biggest social program in a while, passed (about keeping your doctor) and I don't remember it being made a big deal.[/QUOTE] Probably because Trump's number 1 selling point was not being the political norm. When this and other similar nonsense that made up the vast majority reasons people gave for voting for him turn out as bullshit as anyone who wasn't neck deep in the feelshole could see it would, you can bet people won't let it slide.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;51744570]Probably because Trump's number 1 selling point was not being the political norm. When this and other similar nonsense that made up the vast majority reasons people gave for voting for him turn out as bullshit as anyone who wasn't neck deep in the feelshole could see it would, you can bet people won't let it slide.[/QUOTE] The people making this a big deal aren't those who voted for him. So I'm not sure what your point is. Generally, he's actually held pretty close to his big promises. He's seemingly building the wall, he canceled the TPP, he's attempted to have companies stay and/or come back into the US, etc. (Not that I agree with much of it at all, but he's doing it.)
[QUOTE=sgman91;51744589]The people making this a big deal aren't those who voted for him. So I'm not sure what your point is.[/QUOTE] That[I] is[/I] my point. They were told for a year that things like "he's not a politician" and "he speaks his mind" are neither reasons, nor true.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;51744597]That[I] is[/I] my point. They were told for a year that things like "he's not a politician" and "he speaks his mind" are neither reasons, nor true.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure how that differentiates Obama claiming to be "Hope and Change," a new type of politician in Washington, only to end up being one of the least transparent administrations we've ever had is any different. I just doing get the idea that this is new. I think most people who voted for Trump knew going in that he wasn't totally honest. In fact, many of them consistently said that they thought he was just saying things in order to have a high starting point in future negotiations.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51744603]I'm not sure how that differentiates Obama claiming to be "Hope and Change," a new type of politician in Washington, only to end up being one of the least transparent administrations we've ever had is any different. I just doing get the idea that this is new. I think most people who voted for Trump knew going in that he wasn't totally honest. In fact, many of them consistently said that they thought he was just saying things in order to have a high starting point in future negotiations.[/QUOTE] It's been a long time, but I'm pretty sure the discussion around Obama was pretty much just standard left vs right politics like most elections. As for Trump, most of the people that thought that he was just saying the to "have a high starting point" or whatever were the same people saying he wasn't politician.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;51744685]It's been a long time, but I'm pretty sure the discussion around Obama was pretty much just standard left vs right politics like most elections. As for Trump, most of the people that thought that he was just saying the to "have a high starting point" or whatever were the same people saying he wasn't politician.[/QUOTE] I mean, he isn't a normal politician. That's undeniable.
It's good that Merkel said they were going to do this, it might lead to Germany rediscovering its balls Although to be truly effective, the Germans need to focus their spending more on actual combat power and maintenance and not flatscreen TVs in barracks rooms
[QUOTE=sgman91;51744688]I mean, he isn't a normal politician. That's undeniable.[/QUOTE] He's every bit as greasy and untrustworthy. People just confused his temperamentality and tactlessness for honesty.
The story in the OP is kind of meaningless, the whole "2%" thing is completely non-binding, and ten years ago or so, NATO countries agreed through an actual (again non-binding, but still more than a statement) agreement to spend more money on their military - the opposite happened, though Denmark is now looking into spending more money again after it was dropped a few years ago. That doesn't have much to do with Trump, though. Anyway, military spending is domestic spending. It's fair enough for the American people to call for more spending, but if you think you're not getting enough out of NATO (the strongest alliance in history), you could also simply leave (and still use as much money on your military, because that's what the US is gonna do). Edit: What I'm saying is that Merkel is basically just affirming what Germany agreed to ("trying to spend more") ten (or was it fifteen) years ago, and again it's all non-binding and basically the situation hasn't changed. If Merkel had said she wouldn't try to spend more, something would've actually changed.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51744944]The story in the OP is kind of meaningless, the whole "2%" thing is completely non-binding, and ten years ago or so, NATO countries agreed through an actual (again non-binding, but still more than a statement) agreement to spend more money on their military - the opposite happened, though Denmark is now looking into spending more money again after it was dropped a few years ago. That doesn't have much to do with Trump, though. Anyway, military spending is domestic spending. It's fair enough for the American people to call for more spending, but if you think you're not getting enough out of NATO (the strongest alliance in history), you could also simply leave (and still use as much money on your military, because that's what the US is gonna do). Edit: What I'm saying is that Merkel is basically just affirming what Germany agreed to ("trying to spend more") ten (or was it fifteen) years ago, and again it's all non-binding and basically the situation hasn't changed. If Merkel had said she wouldn't try to spend more, something would've actually changed.[/QUOTE] Hence Trump dubbing the alliance obsolete and this is why Trump, Merkel and May have discussed this.
[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;51745026]Hence Trump dubbing the alliance obsolete and this is why Trump, Merkel and May have discussed this.[/QUOTE] Is NATO obsolete when it's still the most powerful alliance on Earth? Would the US be better off without NATO? Is the US spending more than they otherwise would without NATO? The rest of NATO spending less than the US is still a net positive, after all. The narrative about the US spending more because other countries are spending less than the 2% has really only come up in the last couple of years or so, it's basically an after rationalization of the US' military spending in my book. If the US wants to spend less, it has the freedom to do so. It also has the freedom to leave NATO, if the US thinks it's somehow a net negative.
They've been planning to increase the military spending for a while now, so did Trump really achieve anything?
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51745055]Is NATO obsolete when it's still the most powerful alliance on Earth? Would the US be better off without NATO? Is the US spending more than they otherwise would without NATO? The rest of NATO spending less than the US is still a net positive, after all. The narrative about the US spending more because other countries are spending less than the 2% has really only come up in the last couple of years or so, it's basically an after rationalization of the US' military spending in my book. If the US wants to spend less, it has the freedom to do so. It also has the freedom to leave NATO, if the US thinks it's somehow a net negative.[/QUOTE] Would you rather the US pulled away from NATO? Or would you rather the rest of NATO cough up what they agreed to pay? Surely this is why dialogue is essential, I don't get why this is an issue?
[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;51745080]Would you rather the US pulled away from NATO? Or would you rather the rest of NATO cough up what they agreed to pay? Surely this is why dialogue is essential, I don't get why this is an issue?[/QUOTE] I'd rather Denmark and everyone else spends what it thinks is an appropriate amount on its military - Denmark's military interests aren't at all the same as the US', it's only natural that we spend less. And we only agreed to "try to spend 2%" in a non-binding agreement, and right now we have other more important stuff to spend money on. Dialogue isn't an issue, which I wrote in my first post, so I don't see why you're bringing that up. NATO is still a net gain to the US' power projection, and I really don't see why they would leave. Either the US can stand alone and spend what it does right now, or it can be in NATO which has a collective military budget almost twice the size (wit countries that also buy US military equipment and such). And it's not like NATO is preventing the US from doing whatever it wants with its share. Why would the US purposefully lessen its sphere of influence?
[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;51745080]Would you rather the US pulled away from NATO? Or would you rather the rest of NATO cough up what they agreed to pay? Surely this is why dialogue is essential, I don't get why this is an issue?[/QUOTE] The other NATO countries can't rely on the US anymore
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51745104]I'd rather Denmark and everyone else spends what it thinks is an appropriate amount on its military - Denmark's military interests aren't at all the same as the US', it's only natural that we spend less. And we only agreed to "try to spend 2%" in a non-binding agreement, and right now we have other more important stuff to spend money on. Dialogue isn't an issue, which I wrote in my first post, so I don't see why you're bringing that up. NATO is still a net gain to the US' power projection, and I really don't see why they would leave. Either the US can stand alone and spend what it does right now, or it can be in NATO which has a collective military budget almost twice the size (wit countries that also buy US military equipment and such). And it's not like NATO is preventing the US from doing whatever it wants with its share. Why would the US purposefully lessen its sphere of influence?[/QUOTE] You suggested that the story was meaningless, it's not binding but this is why Trump and Merkel have agreed that other NATO members pay their fair share that they have said in the past they would.
Holy shit people here are too pathetic attacking Tudd from all sides. Like, how about simply leave a person to his opinion? It's not like you're going to have yours changed or his, and first page so far has showed that no good discussion will come out of it.
[QUOTE=CruelAddict;51745137]Holy shit people here are too pathetic attacking Tudd from all sides. Like, how about simply leave a person to his opinion? It's not like you're going to have yours changed or his, and first page so far has showed that no good discussion will come out of it.[/QUOTE]hmm when someone is attacked from all sides they usually have earned it i guess
[QUOTE=TuLiq;51745157]hmm when someone is attacked from all sides they usually have earned it i guess[/QUOTE] if you have an opposing view you should expect that you will be getting hit on from a few angles but having said that some people do tend to go in a bit on the heavy side occasionally, it's usually the same people too.
[QUOTE=Judas;51744243]i'm starting to think you're actually a paid propagandist, no one can have this much tunnel vision on a forum filled with people disproving you at every turn[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Lambeth;51744202]Okay you are okay with Trump lying to the American people then. Just checking.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=CP-26;51744217]You're too far down the Rabbit Hole Alice.[/QUOTE] Jesus christ guys, you really need to learn how to talk to someone who doesn't have the same political views as you, and treat them like they're a human being. It's embarassing to read shit like this sometimes.
[QUOTE=CruelAddict;51745137]Holy shit people here are too pathetic attacking Tudd from all sides. Like, how about simply leave a person to his opinion? It's not like you're going to have yours changed or his, and first page so far has showed that no good discussion will come out of it.[/QUOTE] Nice word there, attacking. That's a very loaded way of saying people debate him. Why shouldn't his opinion be challenged when he himself puts it out? It's like trying to get people to not record a good looking person masturbating in public because "poor them" [editline]29th January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=wewt!;51745199]Jesus christ guys, you really need to learn how to talk to someone who doesn't have the same political views as you, and treat them like they're a human being. It's embarassing to read shit like this sometimes.[/QUOTE] Have you been paying attention at all? It's not that he has a different opinion, it's how he is going on about it.
[QUOTE=gokiyono;51745200]Nice word there, attacking. That's a very loaded way of saying people debate him. Why shouldn't his opinion be challenged when he himself puts it out? It's like trying to get people to not record a good looking person masturbating in public because "poor them" [editline]29th January 2017[/editline] Have you been paying attention at all? It's not that he has a different opinion, it's how he is going on about it.[/QUOTE] the analogy doesn't make any sense.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51744173]The TTP, this, lobbying, the ban/screening, the wall, and Obamacare.[/QUOTE] You're taking health insurance from millions, quite possibly killing thousands. Are you ok with this? [QUOTE=Tudd;51744256]Well yeah, I am pretty fine there is going to be hassle for people who come out of areas with some of the worse crimes/terrorist acts happening in the world.[/QUOTE] Even those who are citizens? It's a fucking feel good measure that only appeals to xenophobes and supremacists how the fuck how are you ok with this?
I think this was a good meeting and statement to make. I have no problem with mandating that people who stay in NATO should pay their fair share and it is certainly an improvement from his campaign rhetoric of advocating extortion. Being established that I'm more than willing to give Trump credit when he actually deserves it; [QUOTE=Tudd;51744142]Quite happy overall. People are extremely stunned by the speed he is going at, but this is what we wanted from Trump and just shows how ineffectual Obama's administration really was.[/QUOTE] Trump hasn't actually accomplished many of the things you are giving him credit for. The EO's for repealing Obamacare and building the wall don't actually have any effect right now. Both will require going through Congress, the former because it was built to require legislation to unmake and the latter because even if the president of Mexico flies to DC and personally hands Trump a check for $25 billion, Congress will still have to decide exact appropriations. His lobbying memo is effectively toothless He seems more effective than Obama because the things he is doing can't even be challenged by anyone except for possibly the recent travel ban. Obama wrote an executive order to close Gitmo in his first week. 8 years later it's still open for business. And if you really want to go down this path of comparing the first week of each president to make the case that Trump has started off on the better foot, consider the fact that while Trump is using Constitutionally-dubious means to limit the travel of people based on shaky at best (immaterial at worst) reasoning, Obama banned torture. I know which legacy I'd rather have.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.