Trump II

[mecrox]

I know we are here on a photography forum, but Nikon and Brezhnev somehow don't mesh together.

Lol, that's brilliantly silly!! I am so sorry, I wrote it without my reading glasses on. But I think I'll let it stand ...

[LesPalenik]

These days you just never know. Hasselblad teams up with a drone maker, so Nikon's expansion to make high precision fighter jets is not so farfetched. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Bingo, straight out -  The mantra of an alt-right, racist, ultra nationalist xenophobe. Is that your belief ?

So, pointing out a simple, glaringly obvious, single common thread to all Islamist terrorist acts somehow makes one an alt-right etc.?

Than again, maybe i got it wrong, maybe the simple, glaringly obvious, single common thread is that they all watched YouTube?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... of Wahhabism, the strain of Islam behind its current extreme manifestations?...

I think you and Cassius Clay have a lot to talk about 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Exactly what is different? They are all Muslim.

I don't see the logic behind that statement, because if the perpetrators might call themselves Muslims (QED), are all Muslims therefore terrorists? As an analogy, just because all birds lay eggs doesn't make the Platypus a bird. Yet that's your strain of 'logic' or rather a mantra.

It's the same mistake to not distinguish between Islamism and a fundamentalist (Islamist) ideology.

Deliberately not making the distinction is purposely hurtful and discriminating. Despicable and counterproductive.

Cheers,
Bart

[Manoli]

Bloomberg - Ray Dalio Is Changing His Mind About Donald Trump

Billionaire hedge fund manager Ray Dalio, who was initially bullish on Donald Trump’s ability to stimulate the economy, is growing increasingly concerned about the potential consequences of his presidency.

“When faced with the choices between what’s good for the whole and what’s good for the part, and between harmony and conflict, he has a strong tendency to choose the part and conflict,” Dalio said in a LinkedIn post Monday. “The more I see Donald Trump moving toward conflict rather than cooperation, the more I worry about him harming his presidency and its effects on most of us.”

Dalio appears to be gaining more clarity on Trump. In March, he said that he had more questions than answers about the president’s brand of populism -- and that the most important thing to watch was how conflict is handled. The founder of the $160 billion Bridgewater Associates said Trump’s decision last week to exit the Paris climate accord, a landmark pact reached by almost 200 countries to curb fossil-fuel production, is the latest example of the president’s approach to conflict.

[Peter McLennan]

David Brooks says it clearly:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/02/opinion/donald-trump-poisons-the-world.html?src=me

This week, two of Donald Trump’s top advisers, H. R. McMaster and Gary Cohn, wrote the following passage in The Wall Street Journal: “The president embarked on his first foreign trip with a cleareyed outlook that the world is not a ‘global community’ but an arena where nations, nongovernmental actors and businesses engage and compete for advantage.”

That sentence is the epitome of the Trump project. It asserts that selfishness is the sole driver of human affairs. It grows out of a worldview that life is a competitive struggle for gain. It implies that cooperative communities are hypocritical...

In the essay, McMaster and Cohn make explicit the great act of moral decoupling woven through this presidency. In this worldview, morality has nothing to do with anything. Altruism, trust, cooperation and virtue are unaffordable luxuries in the struggle of all against all. Everything is about self-interest...

... By behaving with naked selfishness toward others, they poison the common realm and they force others to behave with naked selfishness toward them.

By treating the world simply as an arena for competitive advantage, Trump, McMaster and Cohn sever relationships, destroy reciprocity, erode trust and eviscerate the sense of sympathy, friendship and loyalty that all nations need when times get tough.

[LesPalenik]

Very worrying. It makes you think how he would react in a case of real emergency such as a natural catastrophe or a war.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Another day, another insult by Trump.

Trump accuses London Mayor Khan of 'pathetic excuse' over attack statement
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-security-trump-tweet-idUSKBN18W1U2

"U.S. President Donald Trump accused London Mayor Sadiq Khan on Monday of making a "pathetic excuse" over one of his comments following the attack that killed seven people in London on Saturday night.

Khan had said on Sunday morning that people would see an increased police presence on the streets of the capital and should not be alarmed by that.

"Pathetic excuse by London Mayor Sadiq Khan who had to think fast on his 'no reason to be alarmed' statement. MSM is working hard to sell it!", Trump said in a Tweet. MSM referred to mainstream media.

Trump had faced a barrage of criticism on Sunday over an earlier Tweet that said: "At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack and Mayor of London says there is 'no reason to be alarmed!'"."

"There was no immediate response from Khan to Trump's latest Tweet.

On Sunday, a spokesman for the London mayor said he was working with the police, emergency services and government to coordinate the response to the attack, and had "more important things to do" than to respond to Trump."

Indeed. To put it mildly, Trump is a waste of time, let's hope it doesn't last 4 years. The longer the GOP keeps covering his ass, the more they are responsible for the devastation that follows.

Cheers,
Bart

[Manoli]

To Be Great, America Must Be Good (Susan Rice in the NYT)

WASHINGTON — Four and a half months is not long, but President Trump has accomplished an extraordinary amount in a short time. With shocking speed, he has wreaked havoc: hobbling our core alliances, jettisoning American values and abdicating United States leadership of the world. That’s a whole lot of winning — for Russia and China.

[..]

At NATO, the president’s reckless refusal to reaffirm our commitment to the defense of our allies under Article 5, while hectoring them publicly about their military spending, made our allies conclude they must go it alone. Nothing could have thrilled President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia more, or done more damage to the strength and unity of the Western world. And now the president has pulled the United States out of the Paris climate agreement, putting us at odds with virtually the entire world. Europe and China stand together on the Paris accord, while the United States is isolated.

This last, disastrous decision is the coup de grâce for America’s postwar global leadership for the foreseeable future. It was not taken from us by any adversary, nor lost as a result of economic crisis or collapse of empire. America voluntarily gave up that leadership — because we quit the field.

How consequential is this choice? The network of alliances that distinguishes America from other powers and has kept our nation safe and strong for decades is now in jeopardy. We will see the cost when next we need the world to rally to our side.

When the United States called after the Sept. 11 attacks, NATO answered, and for nearly 16 years the alliance has fought alongside us to defeat Al Qaeda and strengthen the Afghan government. Over 65 countries joined the fight against the Islamic State, and we rely on their enduring commitment to roll back terrorist havens. And when Russia illegally annexed Crimea and invaded Ukraine, the United States led the effort to impose sanctions on Russia.

[Manoli]

... and now going it alone ?

When President Donald Trump addressed NATO leaders during his debut overseas trip little more than a week ago, he surprised and disappointed European allies who hoped—and expected—he would use his speech to explicitly reaffirm America’s commitment to mutual defense of the alliance’s members, a one-for-all, all-for-one provision. That part of the Trump visit is known.

What’s not is that the president also disappointed—and surprised—his own top national security officials by failing to include the language reaffirming the so-called Article 5 provision in his speech. National security adviser H.R. McMaster, Defense Secretary James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson all supported Trump doing so and had worked in the weeks leading up to the trip to make sure it was included in the speech, according to five sources familiar with the episode. They thought it was, and a White House aide even told The New York Times the day before the line was definitely included.

It was not until the next day, Thursday, May 25, when Trump started talking at an opening ceremony for NATO’s new Brussels headquarters, that the president’s national security team realized their boss had made a decision with major consequences—without consulting or even informing them in advance of the change.

“They had the right speech and it was cleared through McMaster,” said a source briefed by National Security Council officials in the immediate aftermath of the NATO meeting. “As late as that same morning, it was the right one.” Added a senior White House official, “There was a fully coordinated other speech everybody else had worked on”—and it wasn’t the one Trump gave. “They didn’t know it had been removed,” said a third source of the Trump national security officials on hand for the ceremony. “It was only upon delivery.”

The president appears to have deleted it himself, according to one version making the rounds inside the government, reflecting his personal skepticism about NATO and insistence on lecturing NATO allies about spending more on defense rather than offering reassurances of any sort; another version relayed to others by several White House aides is that Trump’s nationalist chief strategist Steve Bannon and policy aide Stephen Miller played a role in the deletion.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Trump’s latest tweets will likely hurt effort to restore travel ban
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trumps-latest-tweets-could-hurt-effort-to-restore-travel-ban/2017/06/05/c8eb5940-49e8-11e7-bc1b-fddbd8359dee_story.html?utm_term=.e3fae1fe9d77

"President Trump on Monday derided the revised travel ban as a “watered down” version of the first and criticized his own Justice Department’s handling of the case — potentially hurting the administration’s defense of the ban as the legal battle over it reaches a critical new stage.

Trump in a tweet called the new ban “politically correct,” ignoring that he himself signed the executive order replacing the first ban with a revised version that targeted only six, rather than seven, Muslim-majority countries and blocked the issuance of new visas, rather than revoking current ones.

Trump said the Justice Department should seek a “much tougher version” and made clear — despite his own press secretary’s past remarks to the contrary — that the executive order is a “ban,” not a pause on some sources of immigration or an enhanced vetting system.

“People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN!” Trump wrote. "

And his insults he hurled at the Mayor of London will certainly not help either.

Cheers,
Bart

P.S. And from a different source:
In tweets, Trump appears to undercut his own travel ban case
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-security-usa-trump-idUSKBN18W1BR

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Trump urges tougher U.S. travel ban, expedited court review
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-security-usa-trump-idUSKBN18W1BR

"U.S. President Donald Trump urged his administration to seek a tougher version of his controversial travel ban proposal on Monday following a weekend attack in London, and pressed for an expedited judicial review by the nation's top court.

Trump's comments, made in early tweets on Monday, could weigh on his administration's emergency request last week asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reinstate his travel ban on people entering the United States from six predominantly Muslim countries.

"The Justice Dept. should have stayed with the original travel ban, not the watered down, politically correct version they submitted to S.C.," tweeted Trump, referring to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"The Justice Dept. should ask for an expedited hearing of the watered down travel ban before the Supreme Court - & seek much tougher version!" Trump, who as president oversees the department, said in another tweet.

Late Thursday, Trump's legal team asked the court to allow his controversial March 6 executive order for the travel ban to take effect immediately, despite being blocked by lower courts. The Supreme Court rarely grants emergency requests."

Does Trump think that the London terrorists came from the countries he wants to ban travel from? How does the link between the events in London and his travel ban even come to his mind? Is it discrimination based on religion? Is that why he targeted the Mayor of London, or is it that he made a foolish remark, and his ego doesn't allow to admit a mistake?

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

Trump should start reducing American forces until Europe increases they're monetary payments to NATO.
(Changed commitments to payments.  Their commitments aren't worth anything.)

[pegelli]

Trump should start reducing American forces until Europe increases they're monetary payments to NATO.
(Changed commitments to payments.  Their commitments aren't worth anything.)

Nobody is making payments to NATO, not even the US 

Or to be fully correct, the very small direct payments for NATO (administration etc.) that are paid by the member states is by an agreed formula that all memberstates meet. Currently (as far as I know) nobody is behind on these payments.

[Alan Klein]

Nobody is making payments to NATO, not even the US 

Or to be fully correct, the very small direct payments for NATO (administration etc.) that are paid by the member states is by an agreed formula that all memberstates meet. Currently (as far as I know) nobody is behind on these payments.

You did a "gotcha" to me as everyone does to Trump.   It's like people pointing out spelling errors when they post things here so they don't have to address the real point of the post.  It gets tiring.  It's like when Trump accused Obama of tapping when he meant of course that the Obama administration was surveilling the Trump campaign using his intelligence agencies.

You know what I'm talking about.  It's the 2% for military expenses.  We should start pulling out American troops until the deadbeat countries start paying more for their militaries. 

[scyth]

Trump should start reducing American forces until Europe increases they're monetary payments to NATO.
(Changed commitments to payments.  Their commitments aren't worth anything.)

you mean till they actually start paying USA for the services provided... aggression in Libya was the prime example how NATO sans USA can't even do anything against a decrepit military force w/o USA spending money to do the job ...

[Schewe]

Trump should start reducing American forces until Europe increases they're monetary payments to NATO.
(Changed commitments to payments.  Their commitments aren't worth anything.)

Ya really should know what you are talking about regarding funding...read this and get back to us.

Funding NATO

Study questions to to answer;

What is the difference between indirect and direct funding of NATO?

What is the principle of common funding?

What is the civil budget?

What is the military budget?

What is the NATO Security Investment Programme?

Who is responsible for the financial management of the civil and military budgets?

Who is responsible for financial management of the NATO Security Investment Programme?

--------

Once you understand the principles of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and how it's funded maybe then we can all have an informed discussion about why what you said above is, uh, based on faulty assumptions and understandings of how NATA operates...

[Alan Klein]

Ya really should know what you are talking about regarding funding...read this and get back to us.

Funding NATO

Study questions to to answer;

What is the difference between indirect and direct funding of NATO?

What is the principle of common funding?

What is the civil budget?

What is the military budget?

What is the NATO Security Investment Programme?

Who is responsible for the financial management of the civil and military budgets?

Who is responsible for financial management of the NATO Security Investment Programme?

--------

Once you understand the principles of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and how it's funded maybe then we can all have an informed discussion about why what you said above is, uh, based on faulty assumptions and understandings of how NATA operates...

Same response.
-------------------------------
You did a "gotcha" to me as everyone does to Trump.   It's like people pointing out spelling errors when they post things here so they don't have to address the real point of the post.  It gets tiring.  It's like when Trump accused Obama of tapping when he meant of course that the Obama administration was surveilling the Trump campaign using his intelligence agencies.

You know what I'm talking about.  It's the 2% for military expenses.  We should start pulling out American troops until the deadbeat countries start paying more for their militaries. 
-------------------------------

Since you're an American, I'll add another point.  You should be angry that we are subsidizing European nations, rich nations, who could afford to pay more that centers on mainly defending them.

[Alan Klein]

you mean till they actually start paying USA for the services provided... aggression in Libya was the prime example how NATO sans USA can't even do anything against a decrepit military force w/o USA spending money to do the job ...

Exactly the purpose of meeting the 2%.  Because Europe is not meeting these commitments, their military is weak.  The Russians would roll over them in three days without America.  You think they'd have more pride. Maybe it's the EU.  They each have lost their sense of patriotism although the Brits seem to have come to their senses. This is what happens when you depend on others for decades.  You get weak and dependent, insignificant, girlie, frankly, a joke.