Trump II

[Manoli]

Who cares?

Obviously he does! [/rotflmao]

[Alan Klein]

Well, let's see, the Donald Trump and Billy Bush recording was released about 4:30 pm on Oct 7, 2016 (just about a month before the election) and that should have had a chilling effect on Trump's chances but guess what? WikiLeaks dumped Podesta emails about an hour after the Trump video surfaced.

An hour after Trump's recording hit the media WikiLeaks starts dumping emails? What are the odds? Seriously, what are the odds that WikiLeaks just sat on the Podesta emails and happened to time their release to coincide to an hour after the Trump recordings?

Pretty lucky that the Podesta emails surfaced to help take the attention off of the Trump recordings...

Don't believe me?

It's True: WikiLeaks dumped Podesta emails hour after Trump video surfaced

Nobody cared at that point.  Everyone knew who Trump and Hillary were about and already made their decision.  Both were flawed candidates and people had to decide if they wanted more of the same politics or try something new. 

[Alan Klein]

Obviously he does! [/rotflmao]

You're probably right.  But the average American could care less.  Just something different to watch on afternoon TV. Of course the British are always very good at putting on a royal showing and parade. All that armor, horse-drawn carriages and feathered helmets and all. And it certainly beats listening to all those talking heads on CNN, MSNBC and Fox.   Maybe its time for America to get a real Queen.  Hillary didn't seem to work out. 

[pegelli]

Mattis is a government bureaucrat all his life so cares little about money and costs.  Tillerson who ran Exxon, a commercial company,  should know better. NATO countries agreed to the 2% ten years ago.  Some of the richest European countries like Germany and France have actually been paying less and less as the years roll by.  Waiting until 2024 to meet the 2%, 17 years after the agreement was signed, is not meeting the spirit of it.  If they're not increasing it slowly now, how could anyone expect such a big jump in one year anyway?  It's just being passed on to the American taxpayer.   Trump is letting Europe slide again like his predecessors.  Very disappointing.  Maybe he'll re-visit it next year if they don't increase their percentages as they said they would.  But I'm not holding my breath.

Why are you always presenting "fake facts"? The agreement is from 2014 so only 3 years old. Many NATO countries are supporting US troups with multiple missions despite not meeting this "sacred" 2% that Trump and you seem so hung up about, but for which there is no obligation to meet today. So Trump should stop whining and pissing off his allies since it's counterproductive and won't achieve anything usefull.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...That some number of individuals didn't view HRC's competencies differently because of her sex?...

Absolutely, correct!

The Witch (a.k.a. Madeleine Albright) "“There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!” (at a Clinton rally)

[Alan Klein]

Why are you always presenting "fake facts"? The agreement is from 2014 so only 3 years old. Many NATO countries are supporting US troups with multiple missions despite not meeting this "sacred" 2% that Trump and you seem so hung up about, but for which there is no obligation to meet today. So Trump should stop whining and pissing off his allies since it's counterproductive and won't achieve anything usefull.

You're right that the agreement was signed in 2014.  But the problem predates the agreement by 10 years. Even Obama and Bush before him complained about European spending on defense.  The main issue that even Europeans should be concerned about is military readiness.  That's the purpose of the 2%.  Many Europeans who know about these things agree that Europe has let it's military readiness slide to the point many countries are just not prepared should a conflict break out.  You won't be able to defend yourself.  Maybe a conflict won't break out.  But you seem to be very concerned about the Russians expansion into Crimea and the Ukraine.  Are the Baltic next?   Or maybe everyone will depend on Uncle Sam, as usual.  But it looks like Europe got a reprieve from Trump.  That will last until a conflict happens or there's another recession.  Then, American taxpayers will insist we reduce our forces and let Europe make up the difference on their own.

[Alan Klein]

Absolutely, correct!

The Witch (a.k.a. Madeleine Albright) "“There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!” (at a Clinton rally)

All part of identity politics the Democrats are very good at playing to get votes.  Rich vs. poor.  Male vs. female.  Black vs. white.  Unfortunately, it divides America into too many groups at odds with each other.  The Republicans do it too somewhat.  But their amateurs at it.   It's a Democrat specialty. 

[pegelli]

You're right that the agreement was signed in 2014.  But the problem predates the agreement by 10 years. Even Obama and Bush before him complained about European spending on defense.  The main issue that even Europeans should be concerned about is military readiness.  That's the purpose of the 2%.  Many Europeans who know about these things agree that Europe has let it's military readiness slide to the point many countries are just not prepared should a conflict break out.  You won't be able to defend yourself.  Maybe a conflict won't break out.  But you seem to be very concerned about the Russians expansion into Crimea and the Ukraine.  Are the Baltic next?   Or maybe everyone will depend on Uncle Sam, as usual.  But it looks like Europe got a reprieve from Trump.  That will last until a conflict happens or there's another recession.  Then, American taxpayers will insist we reduce our forces and let Europe make up the difference on their own.

Alan, you have a very convoluted way of agreeing with me that you're using fake facts to support your arguments. Whining and complaining about non-existing agreements won't get the US any further, to the contrary. Don't assume the NATO countries won't live up to their commitments, every time I hear you complaining about that my thought is "people suffer most from the suffering they fear, and not the actual suffering". The best way for Trump to ensure the NATO countries live up to the 2% is indeed reducing US presence here and reduce overall US military spending. But he's doing the opposite, probably encouraged by the defense industry lobby.

[Alan Klein]

Alan, you have a very convoluted way of agreeing with me that you're using fake facts to support your arguments. Whining and complaining about non-existing agreements won't get the US any further, to the contrary. Don't assume the NATO countries won't live up to their commitments, every time I hear you complaining about that my thought is "people suffer most from the suffering they fear, and not the actual suffering". The best way for Trump to ensure the NATO countries live up to the 2% is indeed reducing US presence here and reduce overall US military spending. But he's doing the opposite, probably encouraged by the defense industry lobby.

Reducing US troops, which is not prohibited by the Agreement,  would induce Europe to spend more on their own defense.  That would be a good thing for Europe.  They should take pride in their own nations and want to defend them.  Laying it off on America is frankly embarrassing.  Maybe it's the EU.  It's taken away citizens' pride in their own nations.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

13:43
Donald Trump has told Theresa May in a phone call he does not want to go ahead with a state visit to Britain until the British public supports him coming.

Note to Donald: It's gonna be a long wait ...

On the other hand, it may be better for his ego not having to endure protests instead of a hearty welcome.

Britain denies that Trump state visit delayed
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-usa-idUSKBN1920OC

"Prime Minister Theresa May's office said on Sunday there had been no change to plans for U.S. President Donald Trump's to come to Britain on a state visit, after the Guardian newspaper reported the trip had been postponed.

The paper, citing an unnamed adviser at May's Downing Street office who was in the room at the time, reported Trump had told May by telephone in recent weeks that he did not want to come if there were likely to be large-scale protests"

Oh my. No protests, please ...

Cheers,
Bart

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...fake facts...

No "fake facts" here. Just you and others taking things too literally.
 
The very fact that the agreement (to reach 2% at some point) was necessary indicates that NATO countries' contribution was not enough.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Why would Russia invade Europe!? They have plenty of their own Muslims

[Alan Klein]

So who's lying, Comey or Trump?

The whole thing about what Trump said is silly. Why would Trump care about Flynn, the guy he fired, enough to obstruct justice? For Flynn not filing a form? It's more serious to fix a parking ticket in NYC than that. Flynn will pay a small fine for not filing, maybe prohibited from acting as a foreign lobbyist in the future.  Big deal.  No jail time.  He broke an administrative requirement, that's all. 

Also, Trump asked that Hillary be left alone too. This was him just acting like a normal guy. And 6'8" (203cm) Comey acting as a blushing virgin like he just came to Washington from the sticks.  "Lordy", give me a break.

Notice, Democrats are talking less about collusion, less about Russian interference.  Now the subject is obstruction and impeachment.  It's all about 2018 and 2020 American politics.  Democrats don't give a hoot about Putin.

[Alan Klein]

On the other hand, it may be better for his ego not having to endure protests instead of a hearty welcome.

Britain denies that Trump state visit delayed
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-usa-idUSKBN1920OC

"Prime Minister Theresa May's office said on Sunday there had been no change to plans for U.S. President Donald Trump's to come to Britain on a state visit, after the Guardian newspaper reported the trip had been postponed.

The paper, citing an unnamed adviser at May's Downing Street office who was in the room at the time, reported Trump had told May by telephone in recent weeks that he did not want to come if there were likely to be large-scale protests"

Oh my. No protests, please ...

Cheers,
Bart

The more interesting question is whether May will be there to greet him.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The more interesting question is whether May will be there to greet him.

Nobody knows, but the Queen will probably there.

PMs and Presidents are just temps.

Cheers,
Bart

[mecrox]

The more interesting question is whether May will be there to greet him.

Lol, probably not. She could easily be gone in days. The impression is of someone in denial and total shock at the election results, and she is surrounded by "trusted colleagues" and "senior ministers" all of whom have now equipped themselves with large carving knives. And in fact it's probably pointless for any foreign leader to visit while the turmoil here continues. There will have to be another election quite soon and I doubt the Conservatives want a Trump visit hanging round their neck. It would be a gift to the other side. Chances are the visit is off.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

[pegelli]

No "fake facts" here. Just you and others taking things too literally.
 
The very fact that the agreement (to reach 2% at some point) was necessary indicates that NATO countries' contribution was not enough.

I disagree, the fake fact is that Donald (and several here) are demanding it here and now as well as that the agreement to get there wasn't made 10 years ago but 3.
This has nothing to do with taking things too literally or this agreement being necessary or not.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

This sums it up for the past week.

Trump opens 'infrastructure week' without a plan, and calls for privatizing air traffic control
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-20170605-story.html

"resident Trump employed all the trappings traditionally reserved for signing major bills into law as he kicked off “infrastructure week” on Monday: the stately East Room full of dignitaries, a four-piece military band to serenade, celebratory handshakes and souvenir presidential pens for lawmakers, promises of “a great new era” and a “revolution” in technology.

Yet the documents Trump signed amid all the pomp were not new laws or even an executive order. They were routine letters to Congress, relaying support for a minimally detailed plan in Trump’s budget to transfer control of the nation’s air traffic control system to a private nonprofit group.

This was the ceremonial opening to Trump’s full week of infrastructure promotion, which is scheduled to include a speech along the Ohio River on Wednesday and a White House meeting with mayors and governors on Thursday.

But it was also the latest example of a pattern of the administration claiming to have sent Congress fully constructed policies when it has provided only facades — creating the appearance of substantive heft and legislative action even in cases where there is next to none."

So much ado about nothing and it didn't even deflect attention away from the Comey hearings.

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

And I doubt that next week will be any better.

U.S. attorney general to face questions on Comey firing, Russia
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-sessions-idUSKBN1920QO

"Attorney General Jeff Sessions will face questions about the firing of FBI Director James Comey and any undeclared meetings with Russian officials when he goes before a U.S. Senate hearing on Tuesday, becoming the highest-ranking member of President Donald Trump's Cabinet to testify in the affair.

Democratic Senate Leader Chuck Schumer and Senator Jack Reed questioned on Sunday why Sessions was involved in Trump's May 9 dismissal of Comey after he had recused himself from investigations of whether Russia tried to meddle in the 2016 presidential election with possible help from Trump associates."



"Sessions' testimony comes amid a reported riff with Trump. Media reports last week said Sessions offered to resign because of tensions with the president over his decision to recuse himself from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Russia probe.

Comey accused the Republican president of trying to get him to drop the investigation of former national security adviser Michael Flynn and fired him to undermine the Russia probe.

Trump himself attributed his dismissal of Comey to the Russia investigation.

Comey's testimony on Thursday also raised new questions about the attorney general's relationship with Russian officials with ties to President Vladimir Putin. One is whether Sessions had any undisclosed meetings with Ambassador Sergei Kislyak or other Russians during the campaign or after Trump took office."


Cheers,
Bart