Trump and his cabinet/buffoonery- Get your bunkers ready!

[bcl05]

 

[zoony]

John Kerry weighing in.  His thoughts on Crimea?

[Cooked Crack]

 

[gbear]

While I see a lot made of the Germany/Russia pipeline, I think it misses a huge point.  I think a lot of the people worrying about this are the same ones who believe the U.S. can be energy independent if we just take out more oil than we use.  Oil is a commodity.  Unless you are willing to cut off exports and or restrict imports, your best way to reduce dependence on a commodity that somebody else can influence your ability to access is to reduce your reliance upon it.  We act like Russia stopping the sale of their oil to Germany wouldn't impact our prices here.  Of course, it would.  It is like squeezing a water balloon.  The water goes to the other part of the balloon.  However, Germany has gone further to insolate itself from oil demands than we have.  They have done a far better job going green and recycling than we have.  Much of their power is from renewable resources (wind and solar), and the percentage is increasing quickly.  Contrast that with our economy and easing regulations on fossil fuels.

 

It is also easy to look at the chart of percentage of GDP spent on military to think we pay so much more than anybody else.  We do.  However, we are largely paying our own military industrial complex.  We benefit economically from our military spending, and I don't just mean the money our troops get paid and then spend.  We buy American...at least for now...until America is no longer investing in the science to make the biggest baddest military hardware available.

[Destino]

3 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

I think people can pretty clearly see the benefit of the US remaining at the top of a stable global economic order and a lack of a significant war that devastates global economic activity.  If you just look at the superficial costs, sure, you can say we are getting "fleeced" if by fleeced you mean paying more in direct costs relative to other countries.  I think Trump and others who stop there without looking at the second and third order consequences should be viewed as laypersons that should stick to complaining on Twitter.

 

That makes sense.  The question I have though is why adjusting trade and defense spending between our greatest allies and trade partners would result in significant war or destroy the US economy?  All of that is negotiable by it's very nature.  The way this is all being framed, by both Trump and the media, is that this is somehow a radical change.  Where is the radical change? 

 

[Destino]

21 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Not a stretch at all. Trump’s attacks are engineered to be divisive, sap morale, and separate the US from the other NATO countries. 

 

There’s nothing wrong with demanding debts paid, but you can’t look at actions in isolation. There is a pattern here. A whole. 

You don't think that starting to take the "War for Oil" conspiratorial tone we saw during the Bush administration?  Seems to happen in US politics a lot.  Obama was plotting with the globalists when he did anything at all.  Now we're saying that Trump specifically demanding that NATO increase their defense spending, a move that at face value would strengthen NATO, is really a sort of genius scheme hatched by the Kremlin to destroy NATO?  That strikes you as the most likely explanation? 

 

22 minutes ago, Springfield said:

It feels to me like the gist is that they (other NATO nations) WON’T increase their spending on defense.  So the next logical step would be for the US to lower it’s spending to match everyone else.  All to the detriment of NATO and the benefit of Russia.

Are we against the US lowering it's defense spending?  I'm not sure that I am, though I don't see the US reducing any defense spending anytime soon. 

 

[Burgold]

4 minutes ago, Destino said:

You don't think that starting to take the "War for Oil" conspiratorial tone we saw during the Bush administration?  Seems to happen in US politics a lot.  Obama was plotting with the globalists when he did anything at all.  Now we're saying that Trump specifically demanding that NATO increase their defense spending, a move that at face value would strengthen NATO, is really a sort of genius scheme hatched by the Kremlin to destroy NATO?  That strikes you as the most likely explanation? 

 

Are we against the US lowering it's defense spending?  I'm not sure that I am, though I don't see the US reducing any defense spending anytime soon. 

 

Not when you couple it with Trump's rhetoric, his trade war policies, his abandoning treaties at whim, etc.

[PleaseBlitz]

1 minute ago, Destino said:

 

That makes sense.  The question I have though is why adjusting trade and defense spending between our greatest allies and trade partners would result in significant war or destroy the US economy?  All of that is negotiable by it's very nature.  The way this is all being framed, by both Trump and the media, is that this is somehow a radical change.  Where is the radical change? 

 

 

Short term adjustments on the margins, probably not, although Russia has actually invaded and annexed part of anther country recently.  Over the long term, alliances and multinational trade pacts are extremely important tools (probably the most important) for fostering stability, both economic and political and Trump is very publicly ****ing with it.

 

The radical change is in the process of how our alliances work.  NATO's previously stated goal is for all countries to increase spending to 2% by 2024.  Okay, that's fine, that's an adjustment on the margins that is unlikely to develop into a existential fissure.  Now Trump, evidently without prior warning to anyone, publicly and unilaterally calls for increasing to 4% (a level the US is not even at right now)?  Constantly publicly and bitterly complaining about it?  That's not how this works, for anyone and never has been.  It is a radical change for the ostensive leader of that alliance to be publicly undermining it, particularly during a time that Russia has annexed the Crimea recently and is also conducting an ongoing operation to undermine the democratic processes of multiple NATO counties (US elections and Brexit to name 2) and then particularly in the context that Trump has some mysterious affinity for Russia and Mr. Putin in particular.  

[AsburySkinsFan]

 

[zoony]

27 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

 

 

 

Germany does in fact import between 50 and 75 percent of it gas from russia, however the overall mix of gas in the enrgy pie is just under 20 percent

 

So Trump is not correct, but, this does nothing to diminish the overall point.  Imagine if 20 percent of germanys energy needs were shut off.  It would be mad max within 3 weeks.

 

And, that percentage will do nothing but get bigger with the construction of the new pipeline.

 

 

[Destino]

1 hour ago, PleaseBlitz said:

The radical change is in the process of how our alliances work.  NATO's previously stated goal is for all countries to increase spending to 2% by 2024.  Okay, that's fine, that's an adjustment on the margins that is unlikely to develop into a existential fissure.  Now Trump, evidently without prior warning to anyone, publicly and unilaterally calls for increasing to 4% (a level the US is not even at right now)?  Constantly publicly and bitterly complaining about it?  That's not how this works, for anyone and never has been.  It is a radical change for the ostensive leader of that alliance to be publicly undermining it, particularly during a time that Russia has annexed the Crimea recently and is also conducting an ongoing operation to undermine the democratic processes of multiple NATO counties (US elections and Brexit to name 2) and then particularly in the context that Trump has some mysterious affinity for Russia and Mr. Putin in particular.  

This looks like a culture clash between eccentric businessman behavior (read: rich asshole) clashing with statesmen and diplomats.  He’s manufacturing pressure, asking for more than he expects to get, and will later negotiate down.  I bet he even says things like “because I like you” or “geez are you going to take the shirt off my back too” while negotiating too, just to complete the cliche picture.  We elected an outsider with all the subtlety of a used car salesman with a quota to meet, so none of this should really surprise anyone.  Feeling some shame though while watching this unfold is probably healthy.  

 

I doubt that our allies leaders arent seeing this for what it is.  They’re intelligent and capable people and their nations are tied to ours by history, prosperity, and security.  They aren’t going to react to high pressure sales 101  from a political novice by self destructing.  At least, that’s my prediction.  

 

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Destino]

1 hour ago, Burgold said:

Not when you couple it with Trump's rhetoric, his trade war policies, his abandoning treaties at whim, etc.

You’re seeing careful intent and sinister machinations where I’m seeing inexperience, arrogance, and a lack of impulse control.  

 

 

[PeterMP]

31 minutes ago, zoony said:

 

 

Germany does in fact import between 50 and 75 percent of it gas from russia, however the overall mix of gas in the enrgy pie is just under 20 percent

 

So Trump is not correct, but, this does nothing to diminish the overall point.  Imagine if 20 percent of germanys energy needs were shut off.  It would be mad max within 3 weeks.

 

And, that percentage will do nothing but get bigger with the construction of the new pipeline.

 

 

 

You are acting like the fact that it goes directly to Germany matters very much.  You are acting like Germany gets all 20% of its natural gas from Russia and has no choice to get it from anywhere else other than Russia.  Things like natural gas are sold a global market.  If Russia shut off the natural gas to Germany, Germany would acquire it else where (and global prices would correspondingly increase).

 

Unless Trump is calling for a sanction of Russian natural gas, the fact that it goes to Germany and not Poland, India, China, or the US does not matter much.

 

And in many ways, Germany is much better suited to deal with a drastic shock to the global fossil fuel market then we are because energy production is much more diverse (and they could relatively quickly further diversity it by not retiring some of the nuclear plants they are currently working on retiring).

 

The US buys natural gas from Russia:

https://www.dw.com/en/why-would-russia-be-selling-natural-gas-to-the-us/a-42102199

[Burgold]

2 hours ago, Destino said:

You’re seeing careful intent and sinister machinations where I’m seeing inexperience, arrogance, and a lack of impulse control.  

 

 

I have said this many times and I have yet to be proven incorrect.

It's unwise to give this President or his Cabinet any benefit of the doubt. What we are seeing may be inexperience, but even then, it is inexperience laced with malice and intent. They know what they are doing. They want to do it. They either don't care about the long term ramifications (see the GOP tax reform effort) or think the personal profit too great to resist.

[Destino]

2 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

I love this woman.  Haven’t always, but she’s had me shouting encouragement in Spanish at my tv lately.  

 

[zoony]

So, out come the tribalist tweets, with the goal of shock value and divisiveness, for the partisan hacks to devour and digest.  The goal is more clicks and morre money.  Dont talk about the issues, just assign the worst possible motives, deal in platitudes, and try to be the most shocking.  Youll get the mlst clicks and most money that way.

 

`i know a guy in russia who told me that the people he knows like trump`

 

()

 

Ooohhhh!  Click click click, retweet retweet retweet!

$$$$$$

 

Wash, rinse, repeat.  And get in a few jabs about how everyone else is an ignorant gullible sap, but not you   (my favorite part)

[zoony]

26 minutes ago, Destino said:

bet he even says things like “because I like you” or “geez are you going to take the shirt off my back too” while negotiating too, just to complete the cliche picture

 

 

Too true.

 

I think trump acting like the bull in the china shop ironically allows a lot of the foreign leaders to save face in these discussions.

[visionary]

4 minutes ago, zoony said:

 

 

Too true.

 

I think trump acting like the bull in the china shop ironically allows a lot of the foreign leaders to save face in these discussions.

Yep. If anything it makes it easier to ignore us and perhaps pushes the Europeans closer to less troublesome relationships like with Russia and China.  While at the same time it leaves Trump feeling in need of someone to talk to who he feels more comfortable with like Putin and Xi.   

 

(Though I think there is something to look into about why Trump constantly criticizes China, but loves Xi so much.  Trump has also been friendly with Macron and Trudeau as well, but in different ways and he seems less so recently)

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

So, bottom line...

 

1. Our role in NATO is not a black and white issue. There is room for improvement and it would be totally possible for two intelligent people who knew their **** and legitimately wanted to help people to disagree and debate the best way to address it.

 

2. Donald Trump is an asshat who doesn't know how to act and has absolutely no shame when he acts like a complete idiot or lies out of his ass on a daily basis

 

3. The way he ****s all over every other country in the world with one notable exception is bizarre and, coupled with many other things, legitimately suspicious.

 

4. Don't talk about tribalism when you will eagerly defend racist assholes accosting young women at picnics because of their heritage as long as they are on "your side".

[visionary]

 

[visionary]

[Corcaigh]

7 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

Did she raise her middle finger to the press when she made this statement? She might as well have.

[The Evil Genius]

 

[88Comrade2000]