45th President of the United States, Donald Trump. Vol 2

[Oakey]

So apparently he made up an invoice for Germany's NATO underspend and presented it to Merkel

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/u...

[Countdown]

http://www.mediaite.com/online/bill-maher-mocks-tr...

Stuff that a lot of people thought was bullst turns out to be bullst.....

[jjlynn27]

Keep up at the back. When Trump said that he'll get 'better and cheaper' health insurance for the Americans, 'instantly, very very quickly', he, according to mind readers on PH, didn't mean that. He wanted to lose the vote on that bill. It's like religion for some, 'he moves in mysterious ways'. 'It's all part of the grand masterplan'.

[citizensm1th]

Oakey said:

So apparently he made up an invoice for Germany's NATO underspend and presented it to Merkel

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/u...

yes that's just what we need Germany spending 300bn re-arming has he no interest in history

[RobDickinson]

citizensm1th said:

yes that's just what we need Germany spending 300bn re-arming has he no interest in history

I think you have missed the point.

[Mr Tracy]

RobDickinson said:

citizensm1th said:

yes that's just what we need Germany spending 300bn re-arming has he no interest in history

I think you have missed the point.

It was an invoice, not an order form

[scherzkeks]

rscott said:

scherzkeks said:

Carl_Manchester said:

From a technical standpoint it was an impossible job to replace Obamacare, anyone who understands the U.S medical system will know that its just too complicated to un-wind the Obamacare act in short order regardless of political will.

On this particular issue, from a political standpoint Trump has played himself into a win-win situation on this because he has kept grass roots working class voters happy whilst giving the hard-liner republicans (backed by big pharma) clear backing by trying to get the changes through.

Now he can open his hands to both sides of the party and say to them - I tried but we lost the vote. Privately it will be a relief because he can park this come re-election and actually win more votes because he won't campaign on this issue again.

Precisely what I said a few posts back. As soon as he set the ultimatum, the agenda was clear.

Your predictions then - which of Trump's other campaign promises does he also never have any intention of actually following through on?

Which ones? So far he has been quite good on following through. I have yet to make one false prediction -- so I am game.

[citizensm1th]

Mr Tracy said:

RobDickinson said:

citizensm1th said:

yes that's just what we need Germany spending 300bn re-arming has he no interest in history

I think you have missed the point.

It was an invoice, not an order form

yeah like germany is going to give the septics 300bn is this the new plan to pay for the wall

[rscott]

scherzkeks said:

rscott said:

scherzkeks said:

Carl_Manchester said:

From a technical standpoint it was an impossible job to replace Obamacare, anyone who understands the U.S medical system will know that its just too complicated to un-wind the Obamacare act in short order regardless of political will.

On this particular issue, from a political standpoint Trump has played himself into a win-win situation on this because he has kept grass roots working class voters happy whilst giving the hard-liner republicans (backed by big pharma) clear backing by trying to get the changes through.

Now he can open his hands to both sides of the party and say to them - I tried but we lost the vote. Privately it will be a relief because he can park this come re-election and actually win more votes because he won't campaign on this issue again.

Precisely what I said a few posts back. As soon as he set the ultimatum, the agenda was clear.

Your predictions then - which of Trump's other campaign promises does he also never have any intention of actually following through on?

Which ones? So far he has been quite good on following through. I have yet to make one false prediction -- so I am game.

He promised to replace Obamacare immediately and have a plan for dealing with ISIS within 30 days. Neither of those happened.

What do you think will be the next campaign promise to fall by the wayside?

[Mr Tracy]

citizensm1th said:

Mr Tracy said:

RobDickinson said:

citizensm1th said:

yes that's just what we need Germany spending 300bn re-arming has he no interest in history

I think you have missed the point.

It was an invoice, not an order form

yeah like germany is going to give the septics 300bn is this the new plan to pay for the wall

He's gonna need it to pay for his tax reform, still 700bn short tho

[scherzkeks]

rscott said:

scherzkeks said:

rscott said:

scherzkeks said:

Carl_Manchester said:

From a technical standpoint it was an impossible job to replace Obamacare, anyone who understands the U.S medical system will know that its just too complicated to un-wind the Obamacare act in short order regardless of political will.

On this particular issue, from a political standpoint Trump has played himself into a win-win situation on this because he has kept grass roots working class voters happy whilst giving the hard-liner republicans (backed by big pharma) clear backing by trying to get the changes through.

Now he can open his hands to both sides of the party and say to them - I tried but we lost the vote. Privately it will be a relief because he can park this come re-election and actually win more votes because he won't campaign on this issue again.

Precisely what I said a few posts back. As soon as he set the ultimatum, the agenda was clear.

Your predictions then - which of Trump's other campaign promises does he also never have any intention of actually following through on?

Which ones? So far he has been quite good on following through. I have yet to make one false prediction -- so I am game.

He promised to replace Obamacare immediately and have a plan for dealing with ISIS within 30 days. Neither of those happened.

What do you think will be the next campaign promise to fall by the wayside?

1. He says he is going to put another option on the table. I think he probably won't get anything through, however. His current move was a win-win; regardless of what happens. He will have put in an effort and any negative result will be rightfully blamed on the establishment, who don't want a plan that doesn't enrich insurance companies. Single payer will never happen, regardless of who is president.

2. The admin. has been coordinating on intelligence and positioning with Russian and Turkish troops in Syria, and Trump has indicated he is open to joint strikes. The cynical neocon war machine in Syria has ground to a halt. Its own Jihadi militants have largely been routed, and I suspect greater coordination will follow with the Russians and Syrians once the HRC campaign-sourced Russian conspiracy theories are laid to rest domestically.

[Murph7355]

citizensm1th said:

Mr Tracy said:

RobDickinson said:

citizensm1th said:

yes that's just what we need Germany spending 300bn re-arming has he no interest in history

I think you have missed the point.

It was an invoice, not an order form

yeah like germany is going to give the septics 300bn is this the new plan to pay for the wall

This is the "plan" for keeping NATO on track. Members agreed to contribute 2% of GDP in 2006.

We, plus the Poles and Greeks etc, should be equally pissed off. Nations have been receiving the benefits of NATO without coughing up to the same degree. And when you see it spelt out in that sort of order of magnitude it should make everyone sit up and listen. If we were playing the same game as Germany we'd be a good bit closer to deficit free.

I guess we could all get together and decide on new target expenditure. But you don't buy a fully comp policy and then only cough up the third party premium.

Was giving Merkel an invoice the best way to approach it? Who knows. Obama was pussy footing around with it. And our spineless politicos don't seem to have addressed it at all. So why not.

When people moan about other German (and other nation) services being much better than ours, look at what they're not spending money on for some of the answers.

[jjlynn27]

I hear she's gonna take that invoice very seriously and cough up 300bn any day now.

[rscott]

Murph7355 said:

citizensm1th said:

Mr Tracy said:

RobDickinson said:

citizensm1th said:

yes that's just what we need Germany spending 300bn re-arming has he no interest in history

I think you have missed the point.

It was an invoice, not an order form

yeah like germany is going to give the septics 300bn is this the new plan to pay for the wall

This is the "plan" for keeping NATO on track. Members agreed to contribute 2% of GDP in 2006.

We, plus the Poles and Greeks etc, should be equally pissed off. Nations have been receiving the benefits of NATO without coughing up to the same degree. And when you see it spelt out in that sort of order of magnitude it should make everyone sit up and listen. If we were playing the same game as Germany we'd be a good bit closer to deficit free.

I guess we could all get together and decide on new target expenditure. But you don't buy a fully comp policy and then only cough up the third party premium.

Was giving Merkel an invoice the best way to approach it? Who knows. Obama was pussy footing around with it. And our spineless politicos don't seem to have addressed it at all. So why not.

When people moan about other German (and other nation) services being much better than ours, look at what they're not spending money on for some of the answers.

Isn't Trump going against previous NATO agreements? I thought they agreed in 2014 that all members would work toward the 2% target and Germany are on schedule to hit that by the agreed date of 2024.

[davepoth]

rscott said:

Isn't Trump going against previous NATO agreements? I thought they agreed in 2014 that all members would work toward the 2% target and Germany are on schedule to hit that by the agreed date of 2024.

Schedule my arse, frankly.

Germany's budget surplus is 1.2% of GDP, and they already spend 1.2% of their GDP on defence. So if they decided to spend 2% of GDP on defence they'd still have a budget surplus. The only thing stopping them is that they don't really want to.

Sending an invoice was definitely not the right way to fix it, but Germany really should just get on with it and buy some bloody guns.

[pim]

Yes Dave buy some bloody guns. We are leaving the E.U.Maybe now is the time for the rest of Europe to give two fingers to the Yanks.(More bloody guns)?

Like the Mexian president said to Trump you pay for that effing wall not us.

[jmorgan]

House freedom caucus lost a member then. They were the ones that caused the issue. An interesting read, I think. What Trump wanted to do did not go far enough? However that group stuck together sort of like the three musketeers, all for one and one for all etc. Trump sees enough of a threat that he has threatened them. What can a President do to members of congress that he disagrees with?

[hidetheelephants]

davepoth said:

rscott said:

Isn't Trump going against previous NATO agreements? I thought they agreed in 2014 that all members would work toward the 2% target and Germany are on schedule to hit that by the agreed date of 2024.

Schedule my arse, frankly.

Germany's budget surplus is 1.2% of GDP, and they already spend 1.2% of their GDP on defence. So if they decided to spend 2% of GDP on defence they'd still have a budget surplus. The only thing stopping them is that they don't really want to.

Sending an invoice was definitely not the right way to fix it, but Germany really should just get on with it and buy some bloody guns.

You can't increase a defence budget by 66% instantly without causing massive problems, not least given the german defence industry's record for corruption and graft; if they've made a plan which has been approved by NATO and are sticking to it then let them get on with it.

[FN2TypeR]

davepoth said:

rscott said:

Isn't Trump going against previous NATO agreements? I thought they agreed in 2014 that all members would work toward the 2% target and Germany are on schedule to hit that by the agreed date of 2024.

Schedule my arse, frankly.

Germany's budget surplus is 1.2% of GDP, and they already spend 1.2% of their GDP on defence. So if they decided to spend 2% of GDP on defence they'd still have a budget surplus. The only thing stopping them is that they don't really want to.

Sending an invoice was definitely not the right way to fix it, but Germany really should just get on with it and buy some bloody guns.

It's hardly something that can be done overnight though is it?

If their ministry of defence (or equivalent) is as crap as the UKs then it'll take years - our aholes at the MoD can't even acquire a couple of aircraft carriers without making a total mess of it.

[anonymous-user]

jmorgan said:

House freedom caucus lost a member then. They were the ones that caused the issue. An interesting read, I think. What Trump wanted to do did not go far enough? However that group stuck together sort of like the three musketeers, all for one and one for all etc. Trump sees enough of a threat that he has threatened them. What can a President do to members of congress that he disagrees with?

From what I remember of the West Wing (therefore quite possibly fictional) as leader of the party Trump can restrict some funding to particular congressmen at re-election time.