Trump II

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Campaign statements by Donald Trump, who originally called for a ban on Muslim immigration, "provide direct, specific evidence" of what motivated his executive orders — "President Trump's desire to exclude Muslims from the United States," the appeals court said.

This is a tragic development for American justice system and democracy. It turns judges into mind readers, instead of reading the law.

[Farmer]

CNN is fake news I guess. 

NATO Spending

Anyway, I may have misspoken, however my merit was not wrong, far from it. 

Total military spending under NATO nations (by treaty) should be at least 2% of GDP; NATO spending and others.  We spend 2.61 times more then all other NATO countries combined and several NATO countries are not spending the 2% they agreed upon. 

Countries are not living up to the agreement, which is the point I am making. 

I am tired of seeing European countries criticize us on healthcare while at the same time not paying their fair share in NATO, which they agreed upon. 

In my perfect world, the USA would go back to the 1930s isolationism.  Let other nations, separated from us, by two massive oceans, figure it out.  We are just spending too much on this.

It's misleading news.  On NATO, the US contributes 22.1446% of the total direct expenditure. Total defence expenditure by the US is more than NATO, but not the portion the US spends on NATO.

The 2% is a guideline (and 20% of that is to be spent on equipment), not a treaty requirement.  Still, I agree that all members should be hitting that target (with a tolerance of 0.1% for actuals versus planned).  But if you (and others) keep trying to make the point by repeating misleading data, all you do it weaken your argument.  It's being done to make the gap more dramatic, but it's quite simply wrong.

As to isolationism - well, those oceans are pretty small these days.

[Schewe]

CNN is fake news I guess. 

NATO Spending

So, how are you reading the story?

According to IHS Jane’s Annual Defence Budgets Report the USA spent $633bn...the next 10 countries don't spend what the USA spends.

China                    $191.8bn
United Kingdom     $53.8bn
India                     $50.7bn
Saudi Arabia          $48.7bn
Russian Federation $48.5bn
France                   $44.4bn
Japan                    $41.7bn
Germany               $35.8bn
South Korea          $33.5bn
Australia               $26.8bn
                            $575.8bn

Why?
Are we really the world's policemen? Do we want to be?
Is our military industrial capability so incompetent that we have to spend 3X what China spends?

We spend what we spend on defense because "we" want to...imagine what the world could do if we spend the $1.57 trillion the world spends on defense on something that actually helps people...

Yeah, I know, there are lot's of "Evil Losers" and wing nut countries like North Korea and Iran...

[scyth]

According to IHS Jane’s Annual Defence Budgets Report the USA spent $633bn...

do they divide that figure into salaries, pensions, benefits, medical care and the rest ? just curious...

[Schewe]

do they divide that figure into salaries, pensions, benefits, medical care and the rest ? just curious...

Not that I'm aware of...here's as much info that they "give" away...

2016’s $1.57 Trillion Global Defence Spend to Kick off Decade of Growth, IHS Markit Says

About IHS Markit (www.ihsmarkit.com)

IHS Markit (Nasdaq: INFO) is a world leader in critical information, analytics and solutions for the major industries and markets that drive economies worldwide. The company delivers next-generation information, analytics and solutions to customers in business, finance and government, improving their operational efficiency and providing deep insights that lead to well-informed, confident decisions. IHS Markit has more than 50,000 key business and government customers, including 85 percent of the Fortune Global 500 and the world’s leading financial institutions.  Headquartered in London, IHS Markit is committed to sustainable, profitable growth.

I'm sure if one were to pay, one could drill down on the spending by breakdown. But even then I'm sure the true costs such as long term impact of toll war takes on people would be hard to quantify...

[Schewe]

OMG!!!!


Oh god, he's talking again.
By Jasper Juinen/Bloomberg/Getty Images.

TRUMP DROPS THE MIC ON TRAINWRECK NATO MEETING BY CALLING GERMANS “VERY EVIL”

....The world’s classiest man closed by thanking Germany for contributing a portion of the Berlin Wall, and the 9/11 Museum for a remnant from the North Tower, both of which now adorn NATO headquarters’ new grounds, before adding, graciously, “I never asked once what the new NATO headquarters cost. I refuse to do that.”

Lest you thought that was the moment of peak awkwardness, you underestimated President Donald Trump! Because later, this happened:

Trump . . . apparently decided to air his grievances over Germany's trade surplus with the U.S. “The Germans are evil, very evil,” Trump reportedly complained in the meeting, attendees told German newspaper Der Spiegel. “Look at the millions of cars they sell in the U.S. We’ll stop that.” Der Spiegel reported that E.U. Commission leader Jean-Claude Juncker disagreed with Trump, defending the merits of free trade for the global economy. New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman notes that depending on the translation, Trump may have been calling the Germans merely “very bad” and not “very evil.”

In fairness to Trump, it’s possible that he was simply in a poor mood after Macron said bonjour to German Chancellor Angela Merkel before saying hi to him a slight the 45th president presumably wants to bomb Paris over.

Of course, Trump apparently forgot  the U.S. can't negotiate a deal with Germany alone. It has to deal with the entire EU, since Germany is a member state. Merkel reminded Trump of this when they met in March, noting that trade agreements with the U.S. have "not always been all that popular in Germany either."

#MASA

(wanna know what the "S" stands for? Fill in the blank)

[Littlefield]

Press is playing Trump haters like fiddles.  Even Daily Kos have now changed it from evil to correct bad.  
 
Mathieu von Rohr @mathieuvonrohr
·
7h
 
Replying to @maggieNYT
The true English quote: "The Germans are bad, very bad. See the millions of cars they are selling in the US. Terrible. We will stop this.

https://mobile.twitter.com/mathieuvonrohr/status/867864433032298497

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

"White House blows cover of CIA chief in Afghanistan"

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/05/26/white-house-exposes-cia-chief/9586633/

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

"White House blows cover of CIA chief in Afghanistan"

Not sure what you are suggesting. Because shit happened in 2014, it's okay for shit to happen today?

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

 Trump in Brussels 'The Germans Are Bad, Very Bad' :
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/trump-in-brussels-the-germans-are-bad-very-bad-a-1149330.html

"U.S. President Donald Trump voiced significant displeasure over Germany's trade surplus on Thursday during a meeting with European Union leaders in Brussels. "The Germans are bad, very bad," Trump said, according to meeting participants."

Okay. Everybody who does better is bad.

"According to a report in the German daily Süddeutsche Zeitung, many EU officials were appalled by how little the Americans appeared to know about trade policy. The guests from Washington seemed not to be aware that EU member states only negotiate trade treaties as a bloc. According to the paper, Trump's chief economic advisor, Gary Cohn, claimed during meetings, for example, that different customs tariffs are in place between the U.S. and Germany than between the U.S. and Belgium."

They simply do not get it. Angela Merkel already explained it 12 times (!) to Trump when visiting Washington, on the 13th attempt he seemed to grasp the concept though. Apparently not.

"The new U.S. president finds Germany's surpluses unfair because they necessarily mean that its trading partners have a trade deficit, the U.S. in this case. But the German government has also been criticized within the EU for its trade surplus. In a recent interview with SPIEGEL, German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble also said that the surplus was too large.

Still, after numerous meetings between European leaders and Trump along with several attempts to explain international trade policy, the EU thought that progress had been made. As Trump made clear on Thursday, however, that hope was in vain."

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Trump directly scolds NATO allies, says they owe 'massive' sums:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-europe-idUSKBN18K34D

"U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday intensified his accusations that NATO allies were not spending enough on defense and warned of more attacks like this week's Manchester bombing unless the alliance did more to stop militants.

In unexpectedly abrupt remarks as NATO leaders stood alongside him, Trump said certain member countries owed "massive amounts of money" to the United States and NATO -- even though allied contributions are voluntary, with multiple budgets."

That's not how the system works, though.

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Trump and other leaders clash on trade, climate at G7:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-g7-summit-idUSKBN18L2ZU

"Leaders from the world's major industrialized nations began talks on Friday at a G7 summit in Sicily which is expected to expose deep divisions with U.S. President Donald Trump over trade and climate change.

The two-day summit, at a cliff-top hotel overlooking the Mediterranean, began a day after Trump blasted NATO allies for spending too little on defense and described Germany's trade surplus as "very bad" in a meeting with EU officials in Brussels.

After receiving warm receptions in Saudi Arabia and Israel, Trump's confrontational stance with long-standing partners in Europe cast a cloud over the meeting in Taormina, where leaders are due to discuss terrorism, Syria, North Korea and the global economy."

Cheers,
Bart

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Not sure what you are suggesting. Because shit happened in 2014, it's okay for shit to happen today?

Just to show the hypocrisy of the president-loving press vs. president-hating press. And nobody called for impeachment back than, although the cover was actually blown, vs. speculating that it might be blown if someone does a multi-step reverse engineering.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Just to show the hypocrisy of the president-loving press vs. president-hating press. And nobody called for impeachment back than, although the cover was actually blown, vs. speculating that it might be blown if someone does a multi-step reverse engineering.

Thanks for explaining, much clearer now. No matter who does it, it's bad, very bad.

U.S. takes 'full responsibility' for Manchester intelligence leaks: Tillerson:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-security-manchester-tillerson-idUSKBN18M1DS

"The United States government takes full responsibility for leaks of the British police investigation into Monday's deadly bomb attack in Manchester which killed 22 people, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said on Friday.

Appearing alongside British foreign secretary Boris Johnson in London, Tillerson said that "all across America, hearts are broken" at news of the attack on people attending a concert by U.S. pop singer Ariana Grande."

The question that remains now is; Why was it leaked? Was it a reaction to Trump saying too much off-script to the Russian Foreign Minister?

Cheers,
Bart

[Peter McLennan]

America First!
(well maybe this is what Trump was thinking of)

Trump appears to push NATO's newest leader as he makes his way to the front of the pack at a summit





#TheUglyAmerican

I actually gasped out loud when I saw this video.

[James Clark]

Just to show the hypocrisy of the president-loving press vs. president-hating press. And nobody called for impeachment back than, although the cover was actually blown, vs. speculating that it might be blown if someone does a multi-step reverse engineering.

That's not really accurate though.  The press was no fan of the Bush administration, but didn't call for impeachment over the Valerie Plame incident.  The difference is that while every president is going to make mistakes, bad calls, and take blatantly political positions, Trump seems to be unique in the scope of his ineptitude and ignorance so far..

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

That's not really accurate though.  The press was no fan of the Bush administration, but didn't call for impeachment over the Valerie Plame incident.  The difference is that while every president is going to make mistakes, bad calls, and take blatantly political positions, Trump seems to be unique in the scope of his ineptitude and ignorance so far..

Because he's 'better' at it...

Cheers,
Bart

[Robert Roaldi]

He criticized Germany for having a positive trade balance? He threatened taxes (assume he meant import duties) on BMW because they build a lot of cars. But BMW has an american plant from which they export to the world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_US_Manufacturing_Company.

Was he drunk?

[kers]

...
Was he drunk?
...

no FANTASTIC
VERY BAD
he is TRUMP

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Too funny.

Emmanuel Macron swerves past Donald Trump to embrace Angela Merkel
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/26/emmanuel-macron-swerves-past-donald-trump-embrace-angela-merkel/

"Emmanuel Macron swerves to avoid Donald Trump and embrace German chancellor Angela Merkel instead, in a video that has emerged of the apparent snub in Brussels.

The newly elected French President tweeted the video of himself walking up the red carpet towards the group of Nato leaders, seemingly headed straight towards the US President.

But at the last second Mr Macron ducks to the right and shares a warm embrace with Mrs Merkel, leaving Mr Trump to lower his hands awkwardly back down to his sides.

Mr Macron then proceeds to greet other leaders including Mr Trump, who grabs his French counterpart's hand with a characteristic pumping action."

Cheers,
Bart