US Politics Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
BlueMoonAcrossThePond said:
Russia is currently bogged down yes.

My honest prediction is that Russia is going to deploy tactical nuclear weapons against Ukraine if it gets much worse for them. Now that Trump is in office, they'll be emboldened to do so. The USA won't do anything about this. Will Europe? I hope so, but Putin is probably going to find out.
Click to expand...
Wholly agree
 
The MAGA's have had it drummed into them that the Libs/Dems are absolutely Evil. Trump is literally taking away all sorts from his base in the new Executive orders and they don't give a fuck, They'd prefer to be worse off to bizarrely try and get one over on the Dems, His Cult/Base are to far gone to be brought back. Trump & his oligarch buddies are going to loot the treasury as much as they can.
 
The blue phantom said:
The MAGA's have had it drummed into them that the Libs/Dems are absolutely Evil. Trump is literally taking away all sorts from his base in the new Executive orders and they don't give a fuck, They'd prefer to be worse off to bizarrely try and get one over on the Dems, His Cult/Base are to far gone to be brought back. Trump & his oligarch buddies are going to loot the treasury as much as they can.
Click to expand...
I think the libs/Dems have also had it drummed into them that maga are absolutely evil. That sort of polarisation stifles critical thinking and debate by either and suits certain political operators very well indeed.
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
I think you are wrong. Territorial gains by Russia (eastern Ukraine and crimea) will likely remain as is while we find a way for all sides to dress this up as victory.
We will then keep our arms industry and economies healthy by building up a cold war type military presence along Ukraines western borders with a more discreet presence in Ukraine.
I think trump is serious about Americans not underwriting European defence anymore and NATO members shouldering their share according to GDP. The US will not withdraw though - too much money to be made from cold war 2.
Click to expand...
There isn't a huge pot of NATO money. The USA does not 'put money into NATO'. They aren't underwriting European defence. Certainly a lot of countries rely on American defence contractors for hardware and technology, and the export of that hardware and technology is ultimately controlled by the US government through ITAR, but they aren't directly underwriting defence. The USA also have a reliance on other countries for aspects of their national defence; it works both ways.

The figures trump is using to mislead people is that countries who are signed up to NATO are committed to spend a percentage of GDP on their own defence. The USA do spend a massive chunk of GDP on defence, but they are wildly inefficient in the way they spend money. The figures are practically meaningless.
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
There isn't a huge pot of NATO money. The USA does not 'put money into NATO'. They aren't underwriting European defence. Certainly a lot of countries rely on American defence contractors for hardware and technology, and the export of that hardware and technology is ultimately controlled by the US government through ITAR, but they aren't directly underwriting defence. The USA also have a reliance on other countries for aspects of their national defence; it works both ways.

The figures trump is using to mislead people is that countries who are signed up to NATO are committed to spend a percentage of GDP on their own defence. The USA do spend a massive chunk of GDP on defence, but they are wildly inefficient in the way they spend money. The figures are practically meaningless.
Click to expand...
Happy days then, no need for us to worry
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
I will take years to divest from the USA in terms of where the UK procures some of its military hardware from, but It can be achieved.
Click to expand...
I don't think there is any reason or motivation to do so. Our military and defence (and commercial) relationships were around long before trump and they will be around long after he's gone.
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
There isn't a huge pot of NATO money. The USA does not 'put money into NATO'. They aren't underwriting European defence. Certainly a lot of countries rely on American defence contractors for hardware and technology, and the export of that hardware and technology is ultimately controlled by the US government through ITAR, but they aren't directly underwriting defence. The USA also have a reliance on other countries for aspects of their national defence; it works both ways.

The figures trump is using to mislead people is that countries who are signed up to NATO are committed to spend a percentage of GDP on their own defence. The USA do spend a massive chunk of GDP on defence, but they are wildly inefficient in the way they spend money. The figures are practically meaningless.
Click to expand...
If he doesn’t think NATO matters best tell Senator Kennedy who thinks us giving up Chagos islands shouldn’t be allowed because they have a base there for their submarines to restock etc. tel him to fuck off if we want to get rid of it slimy twat.
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
Absolutely mate, they will all go to hell for believing in their god and the democrats will all go to heaven for believing in theirs.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it really is as simple as that.

The democrats are basically liberal Conservatives floating above normal people in the clouds, not giving a shit about people who are poor unless they happen to be a black lesbian in a wheelchair.

The Maga death cult however are a rabble of conspiracy theorists and white supremacists and the most stupid and gullible people in society. It's the equivalent of UKIP, Reform and the EDL all in one party.

Hopefully MAGA fight between themselves and bring their Big Top tumbling down.

Or maybe Electric boogaloo and the former United States can eat itself for once and leave the rest of the world alone.
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
I wouldn't blame the US for withdrawing from NATO. It has been an anachronism since 1989 that has allowed European nations to shirk their individual and collective responsibility to defence at the expense of the US taxpayer.
Click to expand...
The only time that Article 5 has ever been invoked was after 9/11 which ultimately led to the deaths of many non-US soldiers in Afghanistan, especially British ones. I wouldn’t characterise that as ‘shirking responsibility’, individually or collectively.

Hopefully the US taxpayer appreciates that sacrifice.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
The only time that Article 5 has ever been invoked was after 9/11 which ultimately led to the deaths of many non-US soldiers in Afghanistan, especially British ones. I wouldn’t characterise that as ‘shirking responsibility’, individually or collectively.

Hopefully the US taxpayer appreciates that sacrifice.
Click to expand...
No,the great Iraq adventure too - what's not to love. It is the actual funding of the European defence capability where the shirking occurs. The UK do ok, but we do count our military wage and pensions as part of it. I think this was the thrust behind the European army - not actually EU megalomania, but rather the EU proposing a much lower proportion of GDP spent on defence than the US want from NATO members.
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
No,the great Iraq adventure too - what's not to love. It is the actual funding of the European defence capability where the shirking occurs. The UK do ok, but we do count our military wage and pensions as part of it. I think this was the thrust behind the European army - not actually EU megalomania, but rather the EU proposing a much lower proportion of GDP spent on defence than the US want from NATO members.
Click to expand...
In 2006, the alliance’s defence ministers agreed to commit a minimum of 2 percent of their gross domestic products (GDP) to defence spending to ensure the military readiness of the alliance. Roughly 2/3 of member nations meet this goal:
www.bbc.com

How much do Nato members spend on defence?

Nato expects 23 of its 32 members to have met the target of spending 2% of GDP on defence in 2024.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
www.aljazeera.com

How much is each NATO country spending on its military in 2024?

The 32 members of the world’s most powerful military alliance will spend $1.47 trillion this year.
www.aljazeera.com www.aljazeera.com

>> It has been an anachronism since 1989
To the contrary. It's been mostly successful in preventing aggressor European nations from invading other lands to expand their territory, with Russia the exception - and so far, only attacking non NATO nations. It's been entirely successful in preventing World War III.

And, now, that Russia has invaded Ukraine, it's needed more than ever.
 
BlueMoonAcrossThePond said:
In 2006, the alliance’s defence ministers agreed to commit a minimum of 2 percent of their gross domestic products (GDP) to defence spending to ensure the military readiness of the alliance. Roughly 2/3 of member nations meet this goal:
www.bbc.com

How much do Nato members spend on defence?

Nato expects 23 of its 32 members to have met the target of spending 2% of GDP on defence in 2024.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
www.aljazeera.com

How much is each NATO country spending on its military in 2024?

The 32 members of the world’s most powerful military alliance will spend $1.47 trillion this year.
www.aljazeera.com www.aljazeera.com

>> It has been an anachronism since 1989
To the contrary. It's been mostly successful in preventing aggressor European nations from invading other lands to expand their territory, with Russia the exception - and so far, only attacking non NATO nations. It's been entirely successful in preventing World War III.

And, now, that Russia has invaded Ukraine, it's needed more than ever.
Click to expand...
I don't agree.
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
I don't agree.
Click to expand...
Clearly - but you're steeped in MAGA Fox News Kool aide-think, so your opinion, is influenced by tribal, emotional, reasoning - and not based on a sober look at facts.

You like Trump - by your own admission.

A narcissist. A liar. A womanizer. A felon convicted of sexual assault. A con-man. A grifter. A demagogue.

Were a Democrat running for President with these same traits you'd be enraged and rightly so. But you give Trump a pass for this.

The worst aspect of Trump and his movement for me is not his policies per-se. It's his denial of fact. Crowd size at his events, or climate change, or vaccines, just to name a few. This is unacceptable from any politician, for me - and so it should be for you, but it's not - which means you're not thinking clearly. Trump is going to lead America into very dangerous actions during the next 4 years.

Lest you think that I'm some sort of left-wing nut hating on Trump just because he's a Republican - let me disabuse you of that misperception. I'd gladly have considered voting for Romney should he have run and would have weighed up each candidate's policy choices carefully before making a decision on whom to vote for.

Into the mix, there's the fact that Trump is a power-loving egomaniac with a stranglehold on US Republican politics. There's every chance that he'll rig voting to remain in power, two-term constitutional limit be damned. He'll find a way, by force if necessary - and time will tell if American institutions can stop him. And yeah I get that he's nearly 80 - but look at his parents and how long they both lived - there's a good chance that Trump is alive and kicking at 95 years old.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top