President Donald Trump

[Sour Masher]

What you talk. Nuclear is greenhouse clean. If anyone actually believes in human driven climate change, converting to combustion power is self contradictory.

Why sshouldn't Trump have reasonable motivations? He only plays the crazy guy on TV.

J

Yes, that was my point--Chance was saying Trump's attacks on Germany had thoughts behind them like, "they foolishly switched from greenhouse clean nuclear power to Russian provided fossil fuels." I doubt that Trump really cares about which energy source produces less greenhouse gases because he doesn't believe they impact the environment. It is attributing motivations to him that don't matter to him.

And I'd love to hear the case for why you think Trump is really not the character we have seen in the public spear for the last few decades.

[cardboardbox]

Either you think that Trump is being strong and putting America first and that his "strength" is forcing our NATO allies to actually commit to paying more of their fair share for the mutual benefits of the alliance?

I'll go with this opinion.

[chancellor]

I don't have time to research all of these points (though I thank you for providing supporting links). One question from what I've bolded. Isn't there already an agreement in place to raise to commitments of all countries to 2% GDP by 2024? Why are you saying that these countries aren't meeting the standards which don't go into place for 6 more years? Thanks.

There is. There was also similar agreements done in the '90s and a informal, yet public commitment to do so by 2016 very early in the Obama administration. The only countries that have met those agreements are the UK and Greece (Estonia and Poland have met their 2% requirement since joining NATO). While I realize past performance does not necessarily indicate future performance, given Mutti Merkle's political pressures, I have serious doubts Germany makes the necessary adjustments to meet their requirement, nor any of the Med countries.

Historically, NATO country lack of spending has been an issue harkening back to the Kennedy administration.

[B-Fly]

I'll go with this opinion.

Shocking.

[cardboardbox]

Which part? The part where Trump is castigating the Europeans for not living up to their agreed treaty obligations relative to defense spending? And for the record, the last year I can find data for, only four countries lived up to their 2% of GDP defense spending commitment - the Greeks, Polish, and Estonians. That's three of the poorer countries out of the 18. The only "rich" European country that met their commitment was the UK, at 2.2%. Perhaps you can enlighten me how Trump's position varies from Robert Gates position in 2011, found here: http://archive.defense.gov/Transcrip...nscriptID=4839

The part where he castigates the Europeans for their lack of military readiness? Der Spiegel - hardly a pro-US production - admitted that the Luftwaffe only has ten of their 128 fighter jets combat worthy and less than half are even flight worthy. And that's an improvement from the 2011 situation Gates spoke on, where the Luftwaffe had only FOUR combat-ready jets.

The part where he slams EU trade imbalances and EU tariffs? Well, you might just have something there. Tell me how CETA has benefitted the Canadian economy. Or how the Harper and Trudeau administrations chose to negotiate rather than fight. Or how Canadian farmers had more EU markets opened to them via TIEA or CETA?



LOL, dude, put the bong down and step away from the keyboard. Trump isn't the first US president to warn Germany about energy dependence on Russia, nor is the US hardly the only opponent to Nord Stream 2. The Obama administration opposed Nord Stream 2, and the Bush administration opposed Nord Stream 1. Their concern is well founded, as Putin's Russia has hardly been reticent about threatening Europe's natural gas supply - see: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/w...07gazprom.html, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-supplies.html to mention merely two of any number of references.

Moreover, Germany has shuttered numerous nuclear and coal fired power facilities and further increased their reliance on Russian natural gas in the last ten years. While I can understand the risk/reward tradeoff of domestic coal versus Russian natural gas, the abject stupidity of shuttering zero greenhouse gas emitting nuclear power facilities with spotless safety records and replacing it with greenhouse gas emitting Russian natural gas astounds me. And that doesn't even include the astounding increase in electrical costs the German citizenry has had to absorb - over a ten year period from 2006 - 2016, German electrical costs have gone from about 0.195 Euro/kWh to about 0.288 Euro/kWh.

So, Germany increases reliance on Russian natural gas while also increasing their electrical costs by something approaching 50% over ten years.

Hmmm...now who were you saying was the Putin stooge again?

Everyone, thanks for playing but this is the post of the day!

[cardboardbox]

Shocking.

heh, well I had to pick one, its not like you included a wishy washy middle option.

[senorsheep]

Either you think that Trump is being strong and putting America first and that his "strength" is forcing our NATO allies to actually commit to paying more of their fair share for the mutual benefits of the alliance, or you think that Trump is a puppet of Russia, alienating our friends while embracing dictators, and embarrassing America internationally and thereby diminishing our standing in the world.

"Either you are with us..."

That's so Dubya.

[chancellor]

My main take away from this quote is that you believe that greenhouse gases are a thing and that they negatively impact our environment, which makes me feel warm and fuzzy .

I don't, but recognize that others do and will concede this must be considered in national political thinking. And just to really crush that warm and fuzzy feeling, I find the facile focus on greenhouse gases to be a significant detraction from the real dangers of coal. Domestically, at least, the fracking boom and decreased natural gas costs have provided market impetus for eliminating coal, which is a great thing for all.

I doubt very much that his rebukes of Germany were actually motivated by his concern for Germany

Perhaps true. They've been the most notable bad actor vis a vis contributing to defense, and attacking them carries more cache than attacking Italy or Spain or Belgium. That said, had Trump wanted to go after the easy, probably more politically popular target, he could have gone after the French. However, I do believe that he listened to his military advisers on this - the US gets a lot of intel and special ops help from the French, especially in Africa - and has left the French off his primary belligerence target.

I am continually impressed and amazed by your ability to attribute reasonable motivations to Trump's words and actions, as if they are well-thought out, nuanced, and reasoned.

Thank you, but again I'll have to defer. NATO defense underspending has been an issue longer than I've been alive. Numerous presidents and their administrations have tried to address the situation, ranging from Kennedy to Nixon to Carter to GWH Bush to Obama. The first four tried to do so through quiet diplomacy and closed meetings. To the Obama administration's credit, Gates speech in 2011 was a pretty public slap in the face, while still maintaining some level of diplomacy. Since none of that worked, it pretty much played into Trump's style of bluster and bravado and public humiliation.

Moreover, it isn't too tough to discern that greater reliance on Russian natural gas isn't going to turn out well for Europe. That level of nuance is pretty much "Are you stupid, or WHAT?!?"

You would make an excellent literary critic, as you are able to attribute thoughtful commentary on what amounts, to me, to the stream of conscious ramblings of a buffoon.

Too much reading of existential writers, I suspect, as I'd consider just about every existential text the "conscious ramblings of a buffoon".

It is possible, in part, by said smart people continuing to assign meaning to Trump's words and actions that create an image of him as a savvy leader with the stones to do what must be done to advance American interests, not a misogynistic, racist narcissist with little forethought or care for the long term ramifications of his words and deeds. Or perhaps you see both images of Trump, but think the first description of him makes up for the second one?

Clearly, I believe the successes and benefits outweigh the negatives.

[B-Fly]

"Either you are with us..."

That's so Dubya.

You're missing the context in which I said that and thus the point I was making in response to Teenwolf about why I (and presumably others) elected not to post about Trump's comments/behavior in the NATO meetings, but okay, I'll clarify for the record that I don't think those are the only two possible perspectives one can have. I just suspected that a Sports Bar debate about Trump's comments/behavior in the NATO meetings wouldn't be all that enlightening, lol.

[Teenwolf]

There is. There was also similar agreements done in the '90s and a informal, yet public commitment to do so by 2016 very early in the Obama administration. The only countries that have met those agreements are the UK and Greece (Estonia and Poland have met their 2% requirement since joining NATO). While I realize past performance does not necessarily indicate future performance, given Mutti Merkle's political pressures, I have serious doubts Germany makes the necessary adjustments to meet their requirement, nor any of the Med countries.

Historically, NATO country lack of spending has been an issue harkening back to the Kennedy administration.

It's a shame you have so many people and so much land mass to protect... I know NATO payments are complicated, but I don't believe Trump's idiotic blustering will help negotiations. But I respect that you buy it, that's fine.

Look at how Trump got bent over in the NK negotiations... if you want him negotiating on your behalf and terrorizing the rest of the world, I hope your moral bankruptcy carries over to the financial sector. The rest of the world won't take threats from your POS leader without retaliation.

[senorsheep]

You're missing the context in which I said that and thus the point I was making in response to Teenwolf about why I (and presumably others) elected not to post about Trump's comments/behavior in the NATO meetings, but okay, I'll clarify for the record that I don't think those are the only two possible perspectives one can have. I just suspected that a Sports Bar debate about Trump's comments/behavior in the NATO meetings wouldn't be all that enlightening, lol.

I get you, I was just funnin'. I do think there are more shades of gray in the relationship between Trump and the universe of Republican voters than many lefties care to consider.

[Fresno Bob]

I get you, I was just funnin'. I do think there are more shades of gray in the relationship between Trump and the universe of Republican voters than many lefties care to consider.

unfortunately, its mostly Confederate gray.....

[Judge Jude]

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/396818-dems-say-theyll-vote-no-on-their-abolish-ice-legislation

I don't know what the hill.com is, but does this make sense?

"A group of Democrats who introduced legislation to abolish U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) said they will vote against the measure if GOP leadership follows through with their vow to bring it to the House floor.

Reps. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.) released a statement Thursday accusing GOP leaders of exploiting the legislation for political gain after leadership confirmed it planned to hold a vote.

While the Democratic lawmakers said they plan to vote against their own measure – which would create a commission to examine ICE’s responsibilities and then recommend transferring them to other agencies – they said they welcome the opportunity for debate."

..........

isn't this like the Rs constantly claiming they would overturn D bills if only they got the chance?

who are the good guys?

[nullnor]

you've never heard of the hill.com?

[nullnor]

i like this quote about the recent hearing with the FBI guy. "What is actually on display here is House GOP members demonstrating that they cannot even conceive of the possibility someone could place duty and institutional integrity over base political and personal interests." https://twitter.com/Susan_Hennessey/...83600953004034

dam she's pretty. i've been to that blog before. forget why.

i don't understand..has any politician gone up against the FBI before and won?