-
@gollum said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
Yep, it's the blatant hypocrisy that shits me.
Me too. Its the worst.
Well that was relevant to the topic at hand...
-
More ball, less man @gollum lets not get locked down again
It is a fair call to highlight the fact that some of this info has been out for a while.
If there is new and genuine info, or some findings have come to light, then I'll be watching with interest. But if it's more of the vitriol from either end of the spectrum then meh.
-
This post is deleted!
-
This post is deleted!
-
@Frank said in US Politics:
Why were my videos invisible? I could restore them myself. But why were they invisible?
Presumably a mod deleted them. Don't restore them
-
@Crucial
I appreciate your respectful, non-condescending tone however.Didn't Merkel criticize him first for not signing the Paris Accord? There was no need for that. She could have been "diplomatic" . Trump, of course, hits back.
I concede his style will make it tough for some govt. workers. I hope he learns a little more from mistakes but retains the good aspects of being an "outsider". But that is not an excuse to leak. That is basically treasonous.
As for the video, (4 minutes too long for you bro' ??] it posits two reasons.
- The Clinton arm of the DNC tight relationship with MSM figures working in concert to stoke outrage/fear/leaks.
- But the 2nd is not one I have heard before. He said a part of the intelligence agency simply will not allow close relations with Russia, and he used Obama's previous effort as an example. That there is an active effort to undermine this relationship by the "4th" branch of govt.
Speculation: (so take it with a big grain of salt)
My personal opinion is the Russia collusion stuff is going to backfire horribly on those pushing it. I think Trump was under [possibly illegal] surveillance throughout the campaign. If there were any dirt, it would have been leaked to the MSM through anyone of the compliant govt. agencies by now. But it wasn't. In a perverse way, this proves he is clean. I also believe Comey, Brennan etc are corrupt, and that it will come out.Anyway, I appreciate the discussion.
-
This post is deleted!
-
@Frank said in US Politics:
@Crucial
I appreciate your respectful, non-condescending tone however.Didn't Merkel criticize him first for not signing the Paris Accord? There was no need for that. She could have been "diplomatic" . Trump, of course, hits back.
I concede his style will make it tough for some govt. workers. I hope he learns a little more from mistakes but retains the good aspects of being an "outsider". But that is not an excuse to leak. That is basically treasonous.
As for the video, (4 minutes too long for you bro' ??] it posits two reasons.
- The Clinton arm of the DNC tight relationship with MSM figures working in concert to stoke outrage/fear/leaks.
- But the 2nd is not one I have heard before. He said a part of the intelligence agency simply will not allow close relations with Russia, and he used Obama's previous effort as an example. That there is an active effort to undermine this relationship by the "4th" branch of govt.
Speculation: (so take it with a big grain of salt)
My personal opinion is the Russia collusion stuff is going to backfire horribly on those pushing it. I think Trump was under [possibly illegal] surveillance throughout the campaign. If there were any dirt, it would have been leaked to the MSM through anyone of the compliant govt. agencies by now. But it wasn't. In a perverse way, this proves he is clean. I also believe Comey, Brennan etc are corrupt, and that it will come out.Anyway, I appreciate the discussion.
For the video - your 'big grain of salt' is probably a whole container for me and I couldn't be bothered getting my headphones out at work to listen to a conspiracy theorist. Thanks for summing it up though.
I seriously doubt Comey is corrupt. Hugely respected among his contemporaries unlike Flynn who was a complete maverick that made random decisions and was universally thought of poorly within the DIA.
I also doubt there was illegal surveillance on Trump. There would have been, however, surveillance on other parties that his campaign may have been in contact with, maybe without his knowledge. He certainly didn't seem to know what Flynn had been talking to the Russians about and that came out.
Can we quit the talk of compliant agencies? It is nutjob stuff. Whole govt agencies are not conspiring to undermine Trump. Individuals within some agencies may be accelerating stories or taking a rather liberal personal view on what constitutes whistleblowing to have a crack at him but not whole agencies. For example there are plenty of people within these agencies that know a lot more about what is going on than you, I or the media but they are taking their security clearances seriously unlike Jared Kushner who didn't disclose his meetings with Russian officials during his vetting.
It isn't 'what they did' that is probably even an issue. It is how they did it, possibly why they did it, and how they have tried to hide it/lied about it that is the problem. 'They' being people within Trumps circle possibly without his knowledge.
Trump can't be impeached for something someone else did but he has gone out of his way to continue on a track that whatever they did it wasn't wrong. -
@gollum said in US Politics:
Mattis looks impressed. In other good news -
With its former chairman Steve Bannon as White House chief strategist and plans for an ambitious international expansion, Breitbart was supposed to be on its way to becoming a media behemoth in the Trump era, one with unparalleled access and a passionate audience. “While several publishers have enjoyed an uptick in traffic due to election coverage, we are proud to have built a massive and deeply-rooted community that will remain long after the election cycle fades,” Larry Solov, Breitbart’s C.E.O., predicted back in November.
Early on, Solov’s prediction seemed to be coming true. “Breitbart News is the #45th most trafficked website in the United States, according to rankings from Amazon’s analytics company, Alexa.com,” they wrote on January 9, 2017. “With over two billion pageviews generated in 2016 and 45 million unique monthly visitors, Breitbart News has now surpassed Fox News (#47), Huffington Post (#50), Washington Post (#53), and Buzzfeed (#64) in traffic.” A month later, the site had even greater cause to celebrate. “Breitbart News is now the 29th most trafficked site in the United States, surpassing PornHub and ESPN,” they crowed. In the article, its staffers bragged that their bonkers traffic reflected the site’s cementing a permanent place in American politics. “The numbers speak for themselves,” said Solov. (Many outlets, including The Hive, experienced traffic peaks around Trump’s inauguration.)
Just a few months later, the numbers have a different story to tell. As of May 26, 2017, according to Alexa.com—the same web-ranking analytics company that Breitbart drew its numbers from in January—Fox News is the 64th most-trafficked site in the country. Huffington Post is at 60. Buzzfeed is at 50. The Washington Post, on the strength of a series of eye-popping scoops, is at 41.
Breitbart is in 281st place.
Turns out this was fake news. You have to laugh.
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Frank I don't have time to watch the video you posted but if it is all about the media and others 'having it in for Trump' or the silly notion of 'derangement syndrome' I get that view.
What that ignores though is the very real concerns held within the public service on the damage Trump and his way of operating will do on years of relationship building, networking and progress especially in the international arena.
In foreign affairs things move slowly. It may sometimes appear that an elected leader has suddenly created a great change but the reality is that public servants working through periods of various elected officials and govt appointed heads have quietly forged the basis on which policy changes can be made.
Yeah I just dont accept this part. The USA has been an apologetic little biatch for the last 8 years. Presidents going on apology tours etc etc.
Germany has not lived up to its agreements on regards to NATO, that is just a fact. In this topsy turvy world.. that is suddenly ok, or cannot be mentioned. People want to talk about foreign relations, look at how the German govt has publicly talked about the US and the possibility of the US pulling out of the PAris agreement. The decision hasn't already been made yet.. and Merkel and her ministers are already slamming Trump. Far worse than anything Trump said. What about Merkel inviting hundreds of thousands of refugees into Europe? Did she discuss that with the leaders of Hungary? Greece? Poland? Like hell she did.. where was her foreign diplomacy then?
Her version of diplomacy is other leaders doing what she wants and shutting up, but those rules dont apply to her. Well now she has a US leader who is a not a spineless little toad, and actually called the other NATO members out on the bullshit, if you are part of a pact and you ignore your responsibilities, dont act surprised when others also also indicate they might ignore theirs.
Where is ALL the trash talk coming from at the moment? Europe.. yet it is supposedly Trump that is wrecking things?Particularly funny was the hubris the Krauts showed saying that Trump was just pandering to his domestic supporters... well duh.. that is what they are doing as well.
-
No one in NATO is ignoring their responsibilities. Not a single country is in arrears on distributed costs.
Trump keeps accusing countries of "owing money" when they don't.
If he is referring to increasing spending to agreed targets then firstly they are targets and not agreed contribution levels, secondly the aim was to meet those targets by 2024, not immediately. -
@Crucial said in US Politics:
No one in NATO is ignoring their responsibilities. Not a single country is in arrears on distributed costs.
Trump keeps accusing countries of "owing money" when they don't.
If he is referring to increasing spending to agreed targets then firstly they are targets and not agreed contribution levels, secondly the aim was to meet those targets by 2024, not immediately.No, he is saying they are not living up to their commitments. And they are not. 2% of GDP in defense every year.
Is there some guarantee that NATO wont be needed until 2024? So how exactly is that supposed to work? Is it now ok for Trump to say that he wont defend NATO until 2024? -
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
No one in NATO is ignoring their responsibilities. Not a single country is in arrears on distributed costs.
Trump keeps accusing countries of "owing money" when they don't.
If he is referring to increasing spending to agreed targets then firstly they are targets and not agreed contribution levels, secondly the aim was to meet those targets by 2024, not immediately.No, he is saying they are not living up to thier commitments. And they are not. 2% of GDP in defence every year
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
No one in NATO is ignoring their responsibilities. Not a single country is in arrears on distributed costs.
Trump keeps accusing countries of "owing money" when they don't.
If he is referring to increasing spending to agreed targets then firstly they are targets and not agreed contribution levels, secondly the aim was to meet those targets by 2024, not immediately.No, he is saying they are not living up to thier commitments. And they are not. 2% of GDP in defence every year
They have no commitment to spend 2%. They have a target to reach 2% by 2024.
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
No one in NATO is ignoring their responsibilities. Not a single country is in arrears on distributed costs.
Trump keeps accusing countries of "owing money" when they don't.
If he is referring to increasing spending to agreed targets then firstly they are targets and not agreed contribution levels, secondly the aim was to meet those targets by 2024, not immediately.No, he is saying they are not living up to thier commitments. And they are not. 2% of GDP in defence every year
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
No one in NATO is ignoring their responsibilities. Not a single country is in arrears on distributed costs.
Trump keeps accusing countries of "owing money" when they don't.
If he is referring to increasing spending to agreed targets then firstly they are targets and not agreed contribution levels, secondly the aim was to meet those targets by 2024, not immediately.No, he is saying they are not living up to thier commitments. And they are not. 2% of GDP in defence every year
They have no commitment to spend 2%. They have a target to reach 2% by 2024.
And they are publicly resisting it and making no progress towards it.
And slagging off Trump to the media... and they are supposed to be the foreign relations experts???
And let's assume that Trump stay in the Paris agreement.... But then does nothing to reach the 2025 target... Absolutely nothing. Reckon he wouldn't be criticised
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
No one in NATO is ignoring their responsibilities. Not a single country is in arrears on distributed costs.
Trump keeps accusing countries of "owing money" when they don't.
If he is referring to increasing spending to agreed targets then firstly they are targets and not agreed contribution levels, secondly the aim was to meet those targets by 2024, not immediately.No, he is saying they are not living up to thier commitments. And they are not. 2% of GDP in defence every year
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
No one in NATO is ignoring their responsibilities. Not a single country is in arrears on distributed costs.
Trump keeps accusing countries of "owing money" when they don't.
If he is referring to increasing spending to agreed targets then firstly they are targets and not agreed contribution levels, secondly the aim was to meet those targets by 2024, not immediately.No, he is saying they are not living up to thier commitments. And they are not. 2% of GDP in defence every year
They have no commitment to spend 2%. They have a target to reach 2% by 2024.
And they are publicly resisting it and making no progress towards it.
Can you back that up with facts?
First you are stating there is a commitment that doesn't exist. Then without admitting that was wrong are making up something new.
My understanding (happy to be proved wrong) is that since the target was set in 2014 nearly all countries, including Germany, have increased their spend as a proportion of GDP.
US Politics