President Trump

bluethrunthru said:
Just watching Hegseth live on TV at a presser -

"NATO countries MUST get their defence spending up to 5% GDP asap"

German correspondent - "when you say NATO countries and 5% does that include the USA who spend 3.4% of GDP on defence"

PH - "No, no, we already spend loads so we are not obligated to go to 5%"
Click to expand...

I can understand the US being frustrated with countries spending a much lower proportion of GDP. It's hard to read Trump and his acolytes but it may be more about encouraging those spending less than 2% to significantly increase funding for defence. Maybe 5% is the ideal, rather than the target.

I guess governments across the world have to just get through Trump's presidency. With the US being in the grip of a cult that provides a 'home' to those with small 'organs', it's time we looked more towards Europe. To be honest, I would rather we had a close relationship with China than the US, as the Chinese government are measured and pragmatic. :)
 
bluethrunthru said:
Just watching Hegseth live on TV at a presser -

"NATO countries MUST get their defence spending up to 5% GDP asap"

German correspondent - "when you say NATO countries and 5% does that include the USA who spend 3.4% of GDP on defence"

PH - "No, no, we already spend loads so we are not obligated to go to 5%"
Click to expand...

Hegseth was picked because he is dumb and easily manipulated. He will do exactly what he is told, and I hope it never comes to it, but I have no doubt he will authorise the use of military force against the American people if asked to by the President.
 
Thinking the Article 5 point through all ways round, tbh I would rather not have the backing of the US against an enfeebled Russia’s truculence in Europe if it meant we weren’t inveigled into a US conflict against China.

And in relation to Article 5, given we won’t be able to rely upon the former, isn’t it better that we’re not obligated under the latter?
 
At least Hegseth said 'Make NATO great again'. Yeah, why not.

All about 'investment' instead of defence spending. Didn't say how much return on investment $$ they expect though.

And 'you can't shoot values'.

True, but having some would be helpful to understand if we are still on the same side.
 
Last edited:
flook said:
Thats fine, you don't want to do what you're asking others to do, it's ok, really. I don't understand why you can't just say that though
Click to expand...
On the contrary, im asking people to be clear about what they've predicted. Myself included. So go ahead, tell me what i have predicted that i need to be clear about?
 
St.Pauli support said:
At least Hegseth said 'Make NATO great again'. Yeah, why not.

All about 'investment' instead of defence spending. Didn't say how much return on investment $$ they expect though.

And 'you can't shoot vales'.

True, but having some would be helpful to understand if we are still on the same side.
Click to expand...
Of course he wants NATO to up their spending, who do they buy off, you guessed it America! They’ve got to pay all their mates off for backing them, no doubt we will be told to buy cyber trucks or else.
 
I thought Trump could stop conflicts with a phone call.

Surely an across the board reduction in military spending is appropriate now we don't have the threat of war.
 
Dax777 said:
On the contrary, im asking people to be clear about what they've predicted. Myself included. So go ahead, tell me what i have predicted that i need to be clear about?
Click to expand...
On the contrary your original post below :

Dax777 said:
But can you see how brief or unclear answers can be misconstrued as hedging?

I always want people to state clearly where they think its going. That way we can compare what they believed to what the eventual outcomes are.

But the general tendency is for folks to say "this is going to be terrible" "this is clearly a grift" etc.

But im expecting more specifics. I get it that no one can predict the future specifically. But what should we expect at the snd of 4 years?


A President who has failed to attempt or deliver the issues he campaigned on? A President that tricked the country only to stuff his pockets and apparently those of his friends.? The establishment of a Dictatorship? A Kleptocratic Monarchy? A lazy **** who golfs all day?

What exactly are you expecting. Because it is east to retrofit ones pre-existing beliefs into whatever the outcomes are.

So its always good to know what people think before hand. While this doesn't specifically apply to you, there are way too many after-the-fact prognostications going on here these days.
Click to expand...

Are you hedging? yes you are

Do you state clearly where you think its going? No you don't

Do you offer specifics? Not that I can recall

So why don't you tell us wha you think beforehand?

You're a hypocrite, just like you war mongering mango shit gibbon puppet president
 
ChicagoBlue said:
Putin gives that post a LIKE and TWO thumbs up!

Do they have libraries where you live? Internet maybe?
Click to expand...
Were you drunk when you posted this? I said Europe should take the lead on European affairs rather than subjecting itself to the whims of the US political system. European leadership in Europe might take a certain amount of military investment but it's also likely to lead to greater stability in the long run. For example, Europe wouldn't have to beg for a seat at the table if it were the prime mover behind Ukraine's defense. If it was Europe supplying 75% of Ukraine's aid this would be a very different conversation.
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
Hegseth was picked because he is dumb and easily manipulated. He will do exactly what he is told, and I hope it never comes to it, but I have no doubt he will authorise the use of military force against the American people if asked to by the President.
Click to expand...

Yeah, not just him but the entire executive is now made up of people who would never get near such a job with anyone else, so are indebted to Trump.

So incompetent lackeys seeking quick bungs is what you get, delivering terrible governance.

Exactly like Putin.
 
Manc in London said:
To be honest, I would rather we had a close relationship with China than the US, as the Chinese government are measured and pragmatic. :)
Click to expand...
I said this a week or two back, of the 3 superpowers, did you ever think China would be the one you could deal with with the least chance of being screwed
 
KS55 said:
It’s quite simple. Musk himself said it the other day: The courts cannot control the legitimate action of the Executive.
The important word is ‘legitimate’. The courts, however, have a duty to control the ILLEGITIMATE actions of the executive. There are three co-equal parts of the constitution. If one part becomes dominant, the checks and balances cease to exist.
Now (Leaving aside for the minute the issue of a temporary injunction) the question in your example is: what law or constitutional provision makes lawful a decision of a judge to estopp the appointment of Vance as VP? In giving such a ruling the judge is required to apply a law to the facts and give his reasoning in a written judgement. If he is wrong, the correct response is to appeal. The judge may not apply a fictional law, simply because he does not approve personally of events.
While waiting for the appeal, the judgement must be obeyed.
A temporary stay makes no difference other than the judge is signalling that there arguments on both sides which which need airing at a full hearing. So, if there is a law or constitutional provision which MAY enable the appointment to be estopped, the judge will raise that question while issuing the temporary stay.
You forget an important point in your eg. A judge will not unilaterally decide something, there has to be a party raising the question through an application to the court. If an organisation were to make an application, it must give the legal grounds upon which the application is based. The judge would rule out the case immediately if there were no legal grounds.
Click to expand...
Damn! Ok, this was my fault. I apologize for being unclear. I didn't mean for you to go on a wild goose chase.The point i was trying to get at was that such a judge would be overstepping his jurisdiction.

In the hypo, it'sd be hard to find anyone who had standing for such a case, which means any federal judge wanting to decide on such a case would be overstepping his jurisdiction.

Anyway, I was trying to use this clear example of lack of jurisdiction to highlight the potential problems with a less clear real life example... But it seems we are not seeing the same thing or more likely I have done a poor job of setting up the obvious baseline...


I'll do better next time.
 
Manc in London said:
I can understand the US being frustrated with countries spending a much lower proportion of GDP. It's hard to read Trump and his acolytes but it may be more about encouraging those spending less than 2% to significantly increase funding for defence. Maybe 5% is the ideal, rather than the target.

I guess governments across the world have to just get through Trump's presidency. With the US being in the grip of a cult that provides a 'home' to those with small 'organs', it's time we looked more towards Europe. To be honest, I would rather we had a close relationship with China than the US, as the Chinese government are measured and pragmatic. :)
Click to expand...
US spending 3.4% UK 2.3% and Poland never gets a mention at 3.8% with Russia and Belarus on their border.
Of course trump pushing defence spend because that would mean buying more US arms. He's ignoring that European arms are generally better and cheaper.
 
Dax777 said:
Damn! Ok, this was my fault. I apologize for being unclear. I didn't mean for you to go on a wild goose chase.The point i was trying to get at was that such a judge would be overstepping his jurisdiction.

In the hypo, it'sd be hard to find anyone who had standing for such a case, which means any federal judge wanting to decide on such a case would be overstepping his jurisdiction.

Anyway, I was trying to use this clear example of lack of jurisdiction to highlight the potential problems with a less clear real life example... But it seems we are not seeing the same thing or more likely I have done a poor job of setting up the obvious baseline...


I'll do better next time.
Click to expand...
At the trial level you will go a long way before you find a judge overstepping the mark. Circuit level or SCOTUS is more likely, but still rare until the current lot. I didn’t mind the wild goose chase; I’m sure you will have noticed that in theory at least the system works but if Trumps lot ignores court orders there will be chaos.
 
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