Trump II

[Alan Klein]

Correct, we are hosting a number of nuclear warheads for the USA on our military airfields (I won't disclose where, but most of us in the Netherlands all know where). You know, closer to the potential target, means quicker response times to protect the USA.

What Alan's joke also suggests, is the total ignorance about what the NATO partners are doing to protect American interests. Hence the brainless remarks about the USA pulling back support if the European partners do not spend enough (or waste equal amounts on defense as the USA does).

We are not allowed to deploy them ourselves, so they offer no deterrent protection to us (besides the Article 5 pledge that an attack on Any NATO member state is an attack on All), but only benefit the USA as a now unreliable partner for us, despite shared objectives.

Since we stock them on our soil, we cannot sign an agreement that prohibits us from stationing nuclear weapons on our soil.

Cheers,
Bart

The nukes are not there to "only benefit the USA" as you say but to protect Europe and your country.  They were installed during the Cold War to protect you against a land invasion by the Soviets and kept communism out of Western Europe after WWII.  They are tactical field nukes used to destroy advancing armies.  That's why they are kept there so close to Russia.  They are not city busters that we can deliver with ICBM's from submarines thousands of miles away.  Their installation in the Netherlands effectively make you a nuclear power without spending a dime.   No one is going to roll over you with tank divisions when they might face a tactical  nuclear response controlled by American forces in your land and defending you.  They afford no protection for America unless those attacking Russian armored divisions figure out a way of sailing 3000 miles across the Atlantic Ocean. 

I have to say your ingratitude and putdown of America in your post while America has protected you and kept the peace in Europe for 70 years is not lost on many Americans who feel we should pull our armies entirely out of Europe including our nukes and let you defend against the Russians on your own.    We'll see how quickly you'll get your defense spending up to 2% and probably 5%. 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The nukes are not there to "only benefit the USA" as you say but to protect Europe and your country.  They were installed during the Cold War to protect you against a land invasion by the Soviets and kept communism out of Western Europe after WWII.  They are tactical field nukes used to destroy advancing armies.  That's why they are kept there so close to Russia.  They are not city busters that we can deliver with ICBM's from submarines thousands of miles away.  Their installation in the Netherlands effectively make you a nuclear power without spending a dime.   No one is going to roll over you with tank divisions when they might face a tactical  nuclear response controlled by American forces in your land and defending you.  They afford no protection for America unless those attacking Russian armored divisions figure out a way of sailing 3000 miles across the Atlantic Ocean.

If that's what you have been spoon-fed, I can only point out that you've been misled by your government (or you are gullible), but then what's new. We can't launch the nuclear heads ourselves, only the USA can (should they see fit to do so, apparently for their own benefit). So it's not a deterrent, especially since the USA has recently been unclear about their commitment to enforcing Article 5 of the NATO treaty. You yourself have suggested a pullback by the USA, so Russia has been emboldened.

I have to say your ingratitude and pulldown of America in your post while America has protected you and kept the peace in Europe for 70 years is not lost on many Americans who feel we should pull our armies entirely out of Europe including our nukes and let you defend against the Russians on your own.    We'll see how quickly you'll get your defense spending up to 2% and probably 5%.

Exactly, the USA has become an unreliable partner in achieving a mutual goal. Our advanced tactical positions for American benefits, apparently don't mean squat. Which is duly noted.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

If that's what you have been spoon-fed, I can only point out that you've been misled by your government (or you are gullible), but then what's new. We can't launch the nuclear heads ourselves, only the USA can (should they see fit to do so, apparently for their own benefit). So it's not a deterrent, especially since the USA has recently been unclear about their commitment to enforcing Article 5 of the NATO treaty. You yourself have suggested a pullback by the USA, so Russia has been emboldened.

Exactly, the USA has become an unreliable partner in achieving a mutual goal. Our advanced tactical positions for American benefits, apparently don't mean squat. Which is duly noted.

Cheers,
Bart

American arms paid for by American blood and treasure have kept Western Europe peaceful and prosperous for 70 years.  They kept the Soviets and Communism and now the Russians out of your lands.  They helped free Eastern Europe and helped break the Communist economy and destroy the USSR freeing up their non-Russian republics as well.  A little gratitude would be appreciated.

[Farmer]

Really, NATO should work out the rent that would be due for using their facilities for US operations that are not NATO related. 

[Alan Klein]

Really, NATO should work out the rent that would be due for using their facilities for US operations that are not NATO related. 

That's a fair observation and important point.  However, I don't believe it's part of the NATO agreement of 2014 where Europe agreed to meet the 2%.  So the "rent" would have been inputted in the 2014 deal.   The 2% is though a very important part of 2014.  If there are hostilities, the individual countries have to be capable of having enough forces so NATO can defend itself and Europe overall.  Hence the 2% requirement to be spent on each country's military.  It's not right that America should have to somehow make up for lack of basic European forces.  The Europeans themselves agree that their armed forces are not ready, unprepared for major hostilities.  Ever since 1990 collapse of the Soviet Union, countries have allowed their armed forces to disintegrate.  (So have we for that matter). 

[Farmer]

I'm not talking about 2014 (which you constantly misinterpret anyway, since it provided a time period over which to achieve 2% - it's not required as of today).  I'm talking about the entire time.

[Schewe]

This report pretty much has all the highlights and lowlights...


Is there any question who won this round?

Trump: Putin ‘vehemently denied’ election meddling after I ‘strongly pressed’ him

President Trump says that he “strongly pressed” Russian President Vladimir Putin on Moscow’s alleged meddling in the U.S. election during their their highly anticipated meeting at the G-20 summit over the weekend — and that Putin “vehemently denied it.”

“I strongly pressed President Putin twice about Russian meddling in our election,” Trump tweeted early Sunday, hours after returning to Washington from the summit in Hamburg, Germany. “He vehemently denied it. I’ve already given my opinion…..”

In Warsaw, Poland, on Thursday, Trump said Russia “could” have interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election — which was the conclusion of the four U.S. intelligence agencies that investigated it — but that “nobody really knows for sure.”

“I think it very well could be Russia, but I think it could very well have been other countries,” Trump said during a news conference with Polish President Andrzej Duda. “I think a lot of people interfere.”

Trump also tweeted Sunday that he and Putin “negotiated a ceasefire in parts of Syria,” and that the two “discussed forming an impenetrable” cybersecurity unit to prevent future election-related hacking.

The president asserted that U.S. sanctions against Russia were not discussed during his sit-down with Putin, adding that “nothing will be done until the Ukrainian & Syrian problems are solved!”

On Friday, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson — the only other senior U.S. official present during Trump’s— talks with Putin, told reporters that the president “pressed” the Russian leaders, , only to be rebuffed.

At a separate briefing, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Trump described the multiple investigations into Moscow’s interference as “strange and bizarre” because thus far, “not a single fact has been presented” to prove the charge. Lavrov added that Trump accepted Putin’s denial that Russia was involved.

Tillerson said that Trump is ready to “move forward” from the seemingly “intractable” dispute.

Back at the White House, Trump revived questionable claim that the Democratic National Committee’s refusal to turn over its email server to federal investigators was a hot topic among G-20 attendees.

I strongly pressed President Putin twice about Russian meddling in our election. He vehemently denied it. I've already given my opinion.....

Wow, strongly pressed Putin, not once but twice? And we're surprised he denied it? Like he had any reason to admit it...he probably had that Putin grin on his face while denying it. And Trump has giving his opinion? Which opinion? The "witch hunt" opinion or the "400 lbs guy on a bed" opinion or the could be Russia or could be others opinion?

"Putin & I discussed forming an impenetrable Cyber Security unit so that election hacking, & many other negative things, will be guarded"

So, after Russia pulled off the greatest hijacking of our election last year, Trump is now interested in working with Russia to somehow keep it from ever happening again?

...and safe. Questions were asked about why the CIA & FBI had to ask the DNC 13 times for their SERVER, and were rejected, still don't....

So, again blame the victim huh...it was the DNC's fault that they got hacked...and it was Obama's fault nothing was done and Putin denied interfering so Trump is ready to move on.

Ok Donny, you move on...in the meantime, at least 3 separate investigations will continue looking under every rock and behind every roadblock you try to put up...oh, and if you think Donny did so good at the G20, there's this guy who thinks otherwise:

Australian reporter tears into Trump’s performance at G-20

President Trump declared his trip to the G-20 summit a “great success.” Chris Uhlmann, the political editor for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, saw it a bit differently.

“We learned that Donald Trump has pressed fast-forward on the decline of the United States as a global leader,” Uhlmann said on air in a segment that has gone viral. “He managed to isolate his nation, to confuse and alienate his allies, and to diminish America.”

Uhlmann described Trump as “an uneasy, lonely, awkward figure” at the gathering of world leaders in Hamburg, Germany.

“And you got the strong sense that some of the leaders are trying to find the best way to work around him,” Uhlmann said.

Link to the Twitter feed of the video

Oh, and if you think this guy is a leftwing wing-nut, he's actually known as a conservative journalist...

[Alan Klein]

I'm not talking about 2014 (which you constantly misinterpret anyway, since it provided a time period over which to achieve 2% - it's not required as of today).  I'm talking about the entire time.

You're right that there was a time period to get to the 2% - 2024.  But not wait and do nothing until 2024 and then miraculously raise it to 2%.  Not only aren't the countries not increasing it year by year, but actually decreasing it.   That wasn't the intent and NATO countries are acknowledging it even if you aren't and said they will increase in regularly.  We'll see.  If they don't than Trump should pull out a division of troops.   

Here's a chart showing how spending is going down, not up as required.

https://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/images/2017/02/blogs/graphic-detail/20170225_woc986_0.png

[pegelli]

Here's a chart showing how spending is going down, not up as required.

First of all the graphs are starting in 1991, not in 2014 when the agreement was made, so the reductions would look a lot more dramatic then when they would start in the year the agreement was made. Secondly there is nothing in the agreement on the rate/pace/direction of the budgets in the years between 2014 and 2024. So when you say "required" it's simply a figment of your imagination (or your desires).

[Schewe]

And, now for something completely different...

Old Man Makes Entire World Watch Vacation Slideshow

President Donald J. Trump astounded the world again on Sunday, revealing that, in addition to mastering trade policy, real estate, and golf, he is also a visionary filmmaker. Eschewing Hollyweird traditions of trailers and trailers for trailers, the auteur in chief released his masterpiece directly to the people, 100 percent free. So crank the volume, because this film should be played LOUD:

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account  @realDonaldTrump

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
(click to see Tweet's video)

President Trump Attends G20 Summit in Hamburg, Germany
5:57 AM - 9 Jul 2017



Wow. While Trump has always worn his influences on his sleeve—D.W. Griffith, Leni Riefenstahl, Veit Harlan, the list pretty much ends there—his latest work exceeds them all from Frame 1. Has any single image captured the modern condition of despair better than Trump’s opening shot?

A still photo of the president of the United States angrily explaining something to his wife, who is not paying attention, badly compressed so that it looks pixelated beyond belief, with audio that has been carefully miscued to allow a full second of sheet-music rustle before the brass comes in: David Lynch couldn’t fit that much unease on screen if you gave him two TV shows and a feature film. Our authority figures are crumbling as digital technology scrambles and distorts our feeble attempts to connect with each other, Trump seems to be saying, and for the rest of his film, he pokes and prods at the disconnect between the country’s traditional conceptions of leadership, heroism, and happiness and the all-consuming black hole occupying the White House.

What can I say other than ick!

[Schewe]

Collusion?

If There Was No Collusion, It Wasn’t for Lack of Trying

Donald Trump Jr. made clear he was willing to receive damaging information about Hillary Clinton from a Russian lawyer in a June 2016 meeting.

Since his presidential campaign was first alleged by critics to have colluded with the Russian government to undermine Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump has been consistent—and unusually so—in steadfastly denying it. Now it seems clear that if his denials are true, it isn’t because Trump’s advisers were unwilling to collude. And that confirmation comes, surprisingly, from Trump’s own son and namesake, Donald Trump Jr.

On Saturday, The New York Times reported that Trump Jr. met with a Kremlin-connected lawyer at Trump Tower in early June 2016. Trump Jr. initially told the paper that the meeting had covered only a dispute over adoption related to the Magnitsky Act, an American law meant to punish the current Russian regime for human-rights abuses. But three unnamed White House aides briefed on the meeting later told the Times that Trump Jr. had taken the meeting after being promised damaging information about Clinton.

Trump Jr. then changed his story, claiming he’d been promised only information relevant to the campaign, by an intermediary he met at the 2013 Miss Universe pageant, owned by his father and hosted in Moscow. (The Washington Post later identified him as Rob Goldstone, a music publicist who said he was working on behalf of an unnamed Russian client.) Trump Jr. brought his brother-in-law Jared Kushner and then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort to the meeting. He said that attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya offered him damaging information about Hillary Clinton, but that when it became clear she did not have the goods, he ended the meeting.

Oooops...

[scyth]

So, after Russia pulled off the greatest hijacking of our election last year, Trump is now interested in working with Russia to somehow keep it from ever happening again?

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-07-10/how-trump-got-putin-wrong-on-cybersecurity

[Alan Klein]

Collusion?

If There Was No Collusion, It Wasn’t for Lack of Trying


Oooops...

It seems Trump was an amateur when it came to getting dirt on his competition.  You're suppose to use intermediaries, not your family.  That way you can claim deniability such as Clinton hiring the British spy who worked with the Russians to prepare a phony dossier on Trump.  Then they released it through their friends in the media. 

That's how you get Russian dirt on someone.  What amateurs!

[Schewe]

  That way you can claim deniability such as Clinton hiring the British spy who worked with the Russians to prepare a phony dossier on Trump.  Then they released it through their friends in the media.

Pretty sure we covered this...the company that hired the MI-6 opperative was first hired by a GOP competitor of Trump, not the democrats. Once the company was let go they shopped the info around. But the MI-6 operative was so worried about what he learned he kept working pro bono and ended up passing the dossier to Senator McCain who passed it off to the FBI.

But don't let the facts get in the way of a good story...(it's the Trump & Minions way)

[Alan Klein]

Pretty sure we covered this...the company that hired the MI-6 opperative was first hired by a GOP competitor of Trump, not the democrats. Once the company was let go they shopped the info around. But the MI-6 operative was so worried about what he learned he kept working pro bono and ended up passing the dossier to Senator McCain who passed it off to the FBI.

But don't let the facts get in the way of a good story...(it's the Trump & Minions way)

Naturally, you failed to mention that after Trump won the primaries, the Democrats took over working with the spy and then dumped the info through CNN to smear Trump.  So it seems that the anti-Trump Republicans conspired with the Democrats to defeat Trump with made-up dirt. 
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/whos-visiting-the-us-from-the-6-countries-on-trumps-travel-ban-we-break-it-down-2017-03-29

[Alan Klein]

What nobody's mentioning regarding the British spy, is that he worked with the Russians and many many years. So maybe the Russians were providing dirt on Trump for Hillary. So it could well be that Hillary was the one who colluded with the Russians, not Trump.

Now wouldn"t that be something?

[Peter McLennan]

You had us at "It seems Trump was an amateur"

[Chris Kern]

So it seems that the anti-Trump Republicans conspired with the Democrats to defeat Trump with made-up dirt. 

It is very important not to conflate political "opposition research" by Trump's Republican primary election opponents or the Democrats — legal in the United States unless the information was collected using methods prohibited by a U.S. criminal statute (which, it's fairly clear, the Christopher Steele dossier, created by a British national based on information provided to him by Russian Federation sources, was not) — and collaboration by a person within the jurisdiction of the United States with attempted foreign espionage or other hostile clandestine activity.

As far as I am aware, there's no publicly-available evidence yet that Trump or any of his campaign staff actually engaged in this kind of criminal activity.  However, several of his close advisors failed to disclose information required by laws relating to representation of foreign governments or in their applications for national security clearances.  We now know that some Trump associates and at least one family member considered an offer by a possible Russian government agent to provide derogatory information about Hillary Clinton.  And we also know that Russian government operatives attempted to intervene in the election using methods that are per se illegal under U.S. law (i.e., computer intrusions) and also a violation of U.S. sovereignty (i.e., hostile activity by a foreign power).

[Alan Klein]

Reminds me of the line in the movie Casablanca when the chief of police was told by a bystander that there was illegal gambling going on in his friend's Bar and Cafe.
"I'm shocked," he retorted. "Simply shocked."

[Schewe]

Naturally, you failed to mention that after Trump won the primaries, the Democrats took over working with the spy and then dumped the info through CNN to smear Trump.  So it seems that the anti-Trump Republicans conspired with the Democrats to defeat Trump with made-up dirt. 

Well, this is the timeline from Donald Trump–Russia dossier:

The dossier was produced as part of opposition research during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The research was initially funded by Republicans who did not want Trump to be the Republican Party nominee for president. After Trump won the primaries, a Democratic client took over the funding; and, following Trump's election, Steele continued working on the report pro bono and passed on the information to British and American intelligence services.

You need to get your facts straight on who did what with what. On January 10, 2017, CNN reported that classified documents presented to Obama and Trump the previous week included allegations that Russian operatives possess "compromising personal and financial information" about Trump. CNN stated that it would not publish specific details on the memos because it had not "independently corroborated the specific allegations."

This was the first meeting between James Comey and the Donald...when Comey decided to start writing down his recollections in memos. This was the meeting on Jan 6th where Comey pulled Trump aside to warn him about the existence of the dossier.

It was BuzzFeed who actually published a 35-page dossier that it said was the basis of the briefing, including unverified claims that Russian operatives had collected "embarrassing material" involving Trump that could be used to blackmail him. As far as I know, BuzzFeed isn't CNN, right? So blaming CNN is wrong. BTW, CNN broke the story but was clearly not the only media outlet reporting the story.

As for who commissioned the original investigation and subsequent continued investigation is anybody's guess. This NYT article sums up when was known and not known then: What We Know and Don’t Know About the Trump-Russia Dossier

We do also know that the FBI got the report and used it for the purpose of helping get a FISA warrant from this April 2017 article: We just got a huge sign that the US intelligence community believes the Trump dossier is legitimate

You also assume the whole dossier is a fabrication, which is not true. There are aspects of the report that have been confirmed...Trump Russia dossier key claim 'verified' and this Comey's cryptic answer about the infamous Trump dossier makes it look likely it could be verified

Shoes keep dropping, shoes will keep dropping...