45th President of the United States, Donald Trump. Vol 2
Discussion
p1stonhead said:
News Alert - Trump has not gone on holiday this weekend 
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/325863-social-me...
And it's not even true because he went golfing in Virginia rather than in Florida!
http://time.com/4713433/president-trump-golf-cours...
Sad that him doing some work is newsworthy though isn't it.
13th golfing holiday since becoming president. Spicer confirmed he was at Virginia but suggested he may be having meetings.http://thehill.com/homenews/media/325863-social-me...
And it's not even true because he went golfing in Virginia rather than in Florida!
http://time.com/4713433/president-trump-golf-cours...
Sad that him doing some work is newsworthy though isn't it.
Edited by p1stonhead on Monday 27th March 11:05
Escapegoat said:
Byker28i said:
13th golfing holiday since becoming president. Spicer confirmed he was at Virginia but suggested he may be having meetings.
Of course, Spicer doesn't use the word "meetings" literally. Trump may be "meeting" with other golfers.roachcoach said:
arfursleep said:
jmorgan said:
It was enough for many to convict a certain Mrs Clinton without trial.
I understand that the office of the President has to keep all communications.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Records...
Of course it is a wiki link so I assume there is some proof in there however one of the links is to Cornell law school but that is all legal speak to me. Eh?
I seen some comment that part of the reason he's holding meetings at his properties, not WH or Camp David etc, is in order to try to circumvent some of the Presidential Records rules. Not sure of the validity of the claims but assuming that places he uses don't have implanted recorded devices etc.I understand that the office of the President has to keep all communications.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Records...
Of course it is a wiki link so I assume there is some proof in there however one of the links is to Cornell law school but that is all legal speak to me. Eh?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpoli...
p1stonhead said:
pissing in the wind really. Until there is an absolute line to be crossed of undeterminable consequences the GOP will protect their chosen one.
Nato spokesman June'08 said:
Finally, I should add that Allies through the comprehensive political guidance have committed to endeavour, to meet the 2% target of GDP devoted to defence spending. Let me be clear, this is not a hard commitment that they will do it. But it is a commitment to work towards it. And that will be a first within the Alliance. So there was, I think, quite substantial developments in the first two meetings.
2014 is actuall, 'hard' commitment that members will do it by 2024 (IIRC).Back to golfer and 'meetings'.
I think someone is after the speakers position. On the one hand Trump is all for him (nice man etc.) but Brietbart and Fox indicated they are out for him and that was after a Trump tweet to follow the Fox story but conversely say he is behind him. I think.
Et tu, Brute?
Et tu, Brute?
Edited by jmorgan on Monday 27th March 15:09
jjlynn27 said:
...
2014 is actual 'hard' commitment that members will do it by 2024 (IIRC).
...
(Corrected the typo which I think makes it easier to read) 2014 is actual 'hard' commitment that members will do it by 2024 (IIRC).
...
As bets seem to be de rigeur around here these days, care to have one?
This is merely the EU doing what it does best - can kicking. This is why the language being used has firmed up since 2006 and will continue to do so until something gives (well in advance of 2024 IMO). The Donald's "invoice" being the latest subtle message.
It's ironic that the Greeks are one of very few actually meeting their NATO commitments bearing in mind they've been doing the same thing to the rest of the EU on everything else ("yeah sure we'll pay back our debts, just give us another few years"). Though I wonder how much them buying expensive German military hardware contributes to them making their NATO commitments. Maybe Germany ought to insist Greek expenditure is actually theirs
Like a circle in a spiral....Murph7355 said:
(Corrected the typo which I think makes it easier to read)
As bets seem to be de rigeur around here these days, care to have one?
This is merely the EU doing what it does best - can kicking. This is why the language being used has firmed up since 2006 and will continue to do so until something gives (well in advance of 2024 IMO). The Donald's "invoice" being the latest subtle message.
It's ironic that the Greeks are one of very few actually meeting their NATO commitments bearing in mind they've been doing the same thing to the rest of the EU on everything else ("yeah sure we'll pay back our debts, just give us another few years"). Though I wonder how much them buying expensive German military hardware contributes to them making their NATO commitments. Maybe Germany ought to insist Greek expenditure is actually theirs Like a circle in a spiral....
Indeed, Greece may as well, actually pay for something As bets seem to be de rigeur around here these days, care to have one?
This is merely the EU doing what it does best - can kicking. This is why the language being used has firmed up since 2006 and will continue to do so until something gives (well in advance of 2024 IMO). The Donald's "invoice" being the latest subtle message.
It's ironic that the Greeks are one of very few actually meeting their NATO commitments bearing in mind they've been doing the same thing to the rest of the EU on everything else ("yeah sure we'll pay back our debts, just give us another few years"). Though I wonder how much them buying expensive German military hardware contributes to them making their NATO commitments. Maybe Germany ought to insist Greek expenditure is actually theirs
Like a circle in a spiral....jmorgan said:
I think someone is after the speakers position. On the one hand Trump is all for him (nice man etc.) but Brietbart and Fox indicated they are out for him and that was after a Trump tweet to follow the Fox story but conversely say he is behind him. I think.
Et tu, Brute?
I thought it might be the other way round - with Ryan leading the Senators with the daggers.Et tu, Brute?
Edited by jmorgan on Monday 27th March 15:09
Murph7355 said:
(Corrected the typo which I think makes it easier to read)
As bets seem to be de rigeur around here these days, care to have one?
This is merely the EU doing what it does best - can kicking. This is why the language being used has firmed up since 2006 and will continue to do so until something gives (well in advance of 2024 IMO). The Donald's "invoice" being the latest subtle message.
It's ironic that the Greeks are one of very few actually meeting their NATO commitments bearing in mind they've been doing the same thing to the rest of the EU on everything else ("yeah sure we'll pay back our debts, just give us another few years"). Though I wonder how much them buying expensive German military hardware contributes to them making their NATO commitments. Maybe Germany ought to insist Greek expenditure is actually theirs Like a circle in a spiral....
Thanks for the correction.As bets seem to be de rigeur around here these days, care to have one?
This is merely the EU doing what it does best - can kicking. This is why the language being used has firmed up since 2006 and will continue to do so until something gives (well in advance of 2024 IMO). The Donald's "invoice" being the latest subtle message.
It's ironic that the Greeks are one of very few actually meeting their NATO commitments bearing in mind they've been doing the same thing to the rest of the EU on everything else ("yeah sure we'll pay back our debts, just give us another few years"). Though I wonder how much them buying expensive German military hardware contributes to them making their NATO commitments. Maybe Germany ought to insist Greek expenditure is actually theirs
Like a circle in a spiral....As for the spending, it is what it is, 2006 as quoted in my previous post from Nato is very telling. Americans were happy, at the time with the wording.
I know what I would do if someone gave me an invoice like that one for 300bn. As for spending the money on the military; we are spending the money that we don't have, that sounds to me like a lot of cans being kicked down the lots of roads. IMO, Germans are doing the right thing, after all, if you look at the trend of spending in the UK, it's been declining percentage wise for some time, and the only way to get it to 2% was to include categories which were previously not included. This again, IMO, is the right thing to do, include everything that you possibly can to minimise actual spend.
This is all from the position of someone who thinks that spending on defence, and I do say defence, not necessarily military, should be constrained to what you can actually afford.
jjlynn27 said:
...
As for the spending, it is what it is, 2006 as quoted in my previous post from Nato is very telling. Americans were happy, at the time with the wording.
...
I suspect the Americans were fine with it on the assumption everyone would walk the walk. It's like going to the pub with a bunch of "friends" only to realise over time that 75% of them are never buying a round. How long you keep allowing this before saying something and eventually not inviting them depends on how much you like them.As for the spending, it is what it is, 2006 as quoted in my previous post from Nato is very telling. Americans were happy, at the time with the wording.
...
The "on topic" bit is that I can see Trump turning up the heat on this one, especially if more of his other pledges fall on rough times. If I were him I would be choosing ones that have cross party support next - he needs some proper wins. And I'm not sure there are many of those!
jjlynn27 said:
....As for spending the money on the military; we are spending the money that we don't have, that sounds to me like a lot of cans being kicked down the lots of roads. IMO, Germans are doing the right thing, after all, if you look at the trend of spending in the UK, it's been declining percentage wise for some time, and the only way to get it to 2% was to include new things.
This is all from the position of someone who thinks that spending on defence, and I do say defence, not necessarily military, should be constrained to what you can actually afford.
Not necessarily disagreeing with you in terms of spending what we cannot afford. Though which bits are the "we can't afford" bits are debatable. With all the self interest I'd just lop 30% off everything This is all from the position of someone who thinks that spending on defence, and I do say defence, not necessarily military, should be constrained to what you can actually afford.
(And then recover the bit extra needed for our defence commitments ).Not sure if you missed a word out of your closing sentence. It feels like you meant actual defence spending should NOT be unduly constrained? If so, I agree. Though the expenditure needs to be productive. Doing this as a part of a wider alliance like NATO makes sense to me. I'm less sure that insisting on our own "nuclear deterrent" does as I'm not convinced nukes are where money is best spent these days. But that lot is definitely O/T
I probably missed quite a few words , as aws is not playing ball today.
In short, the military would be one of the last things that I'd spend money on. We have one of the worst cancer survival rates in the developed world, purely down to spending on early detection (equipment and oncologists, both at the bottom in terms of numbers p/c). That's where I would spend the money.
Anyhow this is def now of topic, and AWS is not going to learn to play nicely all by itself.
, as aws is not playing ball today. In short, the military would be one of the last things that I'd spend money on. We have one of the worst cancer survival rates in the developed world, purely down to spending on early detection (equipment and oncologists, both at the bottom in terms of numbers p/c). That's where I would spend the money.
Anyhow this is def now of topic, and AWS is not going to learn to play nicely all by itself.
Eric Mc said:
I thought it might be the other way round - with Ryan leading the Senators with the daggers.
Not sure he has just found that creek and is trying to avoid it. Reading the few news sites, including the so far right they fell off the cliff.Stranger things have happened at sea.
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.
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.
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.
a quick clue none of it was new money.
citizensm1th said:
ok mighty murph prey tell just how the Uk brought its defence spending up to 2% of gdp
a quick clue none of it was new money.
By including items in the expenditure that everyone else was of course a quick clue none of it was new money.
Prey tell, mighty citizensmith, what were the relative contributions of the EU member states even before that?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff