Aesma wrote:

NATO should be dialed back, be a simple alliance like used to exist before WW2, a treaty promising to defend each other.

What sort of history did they teach you in school? What brought us WW2 were failed bilateral and accessory alliances that have proven to be just that, empty promises on paper. Daladier in particular have made a great effort to prove unreliability as an ally. NATO as a collective defense aliance was a direct response to failures of the pre-WW2 order.
Anyway, your problem with NATO could be easily solved, de Gaulle-style.

Kiwirob wrote:

How do you force Europeans to buy inferior US made junkers?

He is trolling this forum, you still haven't noticed?

L410Turbolet wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

The guys who´s biography you didn´t even get remotely right, correct?

Not right?

Ok, you just lied You said he is a school dropout with no qualification (wrong), that he never had a job in his life (wrong) .....

tommy1808 wrote:

but thinking they would take a hike into NATO territory is flat out ridiculous.

What is ridiculous is the idea that this time you can dance with the Russian bear.

Bla bla.... the bear had no interests in dancing.

Of course, I keep forgetting I am talking to a guy who thinks flooding Europe with migrants was the best thing since sliced bread.

It broke ISIS back. Seems a lot like you want ISIS to be around for a long time

tommy1808 wrote:

as the bogyman they where painted to be

Bogeyman? Only a fool or a pacifist would believe that.

aha... the Red Army could jump into fully fueled and armed tanks, that are perfectly maintained and run by expert soldiers wasn´t a bogyman tale? Riiiiight...

tommy1808 wrote:

Not the number of tanks. They where aggressiv, not suicidal.

a) They had the WarPac armies to literally commit suicide. Russians only came when the scorched earth was "liberated".
b) Superiority (in numbers) in conventional weapons was a key element of the WarPac doctrine.

bla bla bla... throughout the cold war the Red Army and WarPac countries where vastly superior in numbers. Somehow they didn´t attack, not even when we gave them perfect excuses on a silver platter (Able Archer anyone).

best regards
Thomas

aviationaware wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

And now I have lost every respect for your opinions. You are an extremist.

I am actually pretty much dead center, but I don't blame you for thinking I am an extremist. After all, the corporate media's brainwashing IS effective, that's no news.

haha, that's easy, point to yourself as dead center and say to everyone whom doesn't share your opinions they are brainwashed. Quite a narcissistic world view and that's why there is no point debating you.

tommy1808 wrote:

those poor southern European people, that are so squashed by those evil, evil German workers had a 30% wage increase between 1999 and 2008. But lets just pretend that never happened, for the sake of the argument, right?

For the sake of argument, without knowing the cost of living increase during the same period, throwing around % of alleged wage increase is a pointless exercise.
Why would anyone in 2017 claim that Euro's one-size-fits-all approach is a way to go after all that happened post-2008?

Redd wrote:

Aside from the decision not to accept refugees, Kaczynski (which is the actual power in Poland) has over the past 1.5 years in power taken the country back more than 10 years of progress economically, socially, from the point of safety and security and environmentally. Next time you praise any 'leaders' please have an actual clue about what you speak.

Please do not presume to know to what extent I have knowledge about Poland, or any country for that matter.

L410Turbolet wrote:

Why would anyone in 2017 claim that Euro's one-size-fits-all approach is a way to go after all that happened post-2008?

There is exactly zero difference between lowering wages and lowering the exchange rate of your currency. Unless wages are, by law, the same in the whole EU, sharing one currency is irrelevant, as you can adjust your prices to your productivity by adjusting wages. Of course that is vastly unpopular, while being able to devaluate ones own currency is somehow seen as a good thing. Good PR strategy. The big difference being: currency fluctuations are completely out of the control of you and largely out of control of your government, while you get a say in your wages. And people with money don´t want you to have a say in your wages or to be able to go where the wages are higher....

Raising wages a lot above productivity increases isn´t a sustainable strategy.




best regards
Thomas

L410Turbolet wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

How do you force Europeans to buy inferior US made junkers?

He is trolling this forum, you still haven't noticed?

Actually no, as those are all quotes the German press reports from what Trump said during his meeting with Tusk and Juncker, or in the context of the topics discussed. I personally enjoyed the last days, especially the large public discussion between Merkel and Obama right before she went to meet Trump. That was a very elegant slap in the face.

L410Turbolet wrote:

Trumputin​ "classy" as always:

Ivanka: Daaaad, don't do that, you are embarrassing me.
Melania: Donald, what did I tell you, wait for your turn.

tommy1808 wrote:

Raising wages a lot above productivity increases isn´t a sustainable strategy.

But increasing the money supply and handing out the difference to the 1% is? Because whether you like it or not, that is what's happening.

aviationaware wrote:

But increasing the money supply and handing out the difference to the 1% is? Because whether you like it or not, that is what's happening.

Nope, it ain´t either. That is why the EU central bank was hesitant to do that, when the FED and the Bank of England where already in full swing they had to, otherwise that would have disrupted markets drastically, shooting the EUR through the roof.

Best was would have been:

- Let the banks in trouble die
- use the funds to prevent negative effects on the banks customers outside of speculative investment
- use the full power of law enforcement to separate banker form bankster and lock the later group up as long as the law allows.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Nope, it ain´t either. That is why the EU central bank was hesitant to do that, when the FED and the Bank of England where already in full swing they had to, otherwise that would have disrupted markets drastically, shooting the EUR through the roof.

You are kidding, right? The ECB is almost as bad as the FED. Mario Draghi is increasing the money supply to finance failing governments, which is explicitly forbidden by the ECB statutes. That's not self defense, that's the problem. The Euro should have been dissolved when we were at that crossroad, instead they doubled down and expropriated the German middle class through the back door. Saintlike, I have to say.

tommy1808 wrote:

- Let the banks in trouble die
- use the funds to prevent negative effects on the banks customers outside of speculative investment
- use the full power of law enforcement to separate banker form bankster and lock the later group up as long as the law allows.

Let failing banks die - absolutely.

Use the funds to prevent negative effects on their customers - absolutely not. That is why banks are legally obliged to created inter-bank savings guarantees. If you have more than is covered by that, either spread your money or solve the problem otherwise, but don't ask for tax handouts.

Law enforcement on bankers? Again, the bankers did nothing wrong in 2007 and before. You know, there are actual cases of bankers REALLY being criminal gangsters, look at the cum-ex deals for example. That's real stuff. Blaming them for 2007 does not help cracking down on them for the real stuff. They are laughing their asses off instead.

aviationaware wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Nope, it ain´t either. That is why the EU central bank was hesitant to do that, when the FED and the Bank of England where already in full swing they had to, otherwise that would have disrupted markets drastically, shooting the EUR through the roof.

You are kidding, right?

Before "you are kidding" questions, one may find the time to look it up, as i did before i posted it. The EU central bank just followed suit, and they followed in small steps. That they may be holding on to it for too long is a different topic entirely.

Use the funds to prevent negative effects on their customers - absolutely not. That is why banks are legally obliged to created inter-bank savings guarantees. If you have more than is covered by that, either spread your money or solve the problem otherwise, but don't ask for tax handouts.

Tax handouts may be a hell lot cheaper than recovering an economy that is crashed for fair, which is usually what happens when companies can´t pay employees or suppliers

Law enforcement on bankers? Again, the bankers did nothing wrong in 2007 and before. You know, there are actual cases of bankers REALLY being criminal gangsters, look at the cum-ex deals for example. That's real stuff. Blaming them for 2007 does not help cracking down on them for the real stuff. They are laughing their asses off instead.

We don´t know that, since there wasn´t much in the ways of trials We do know that plenty of banks sold trash papers as rock solid investments.

best regards
Thomas.

The ECB started quantitative easing years after the US, UK, Japan, etc., were doing it, so there is no way to blame the euro there. Or rather, I would blame the euro for exactly that, not being able to counter the US etc. right away, creating misery across the continent instead.

tommy1808 wrote:

Tax handouts may be a hell lot cheaper than recovering an economy that is crashed for fair, which is usually what happens when companies can´t pay employees or suppliers

See, that is why hard money wins every time. With hard money, you wouldn't have had such a crisis to begin with - such massive economic swings are impossible with hard money. Then you wouldn't have to let the government have enough money to do those handouts in the first place, and all would be happier. Win win.

Finally a link in english for my recent favourtie quotes of President Trump: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tru ... mg00000003

He is such a visionary.

seahawk wrote:

Finally a link in english for my recent favourtie quotes of President Trump: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tru ... mg00000003

He is such a visionary.

"When German Chancellor Angela Merkel visited the White House in March, she had to explain how E.U. trade deals were negotiated almost a dozen times, a senior German official told the Times of London."

So Trump was told 10 times when Angela Merkel visited the White House and the point still hasn't come across. So it is quite pointless to discuss anything with Trump. And he is the president of a quite important country.................

So we are heading to a trade war, because this man and his administration is to dumb to understand quite easy things. Thanks America for choosing this fool, it will hurt everyone on earth.

aviationaware wrote:

The United States are by far the biggest contributor to NATO. It's really not asking too much for the President to be standing in the front row at a photo opportunity. This rather shows how poorly organized NATO is, every second rate organization would have positioning pre-arranged for a photo-op.

I love how Trump is ruffling feathers in Europe, the Eurocrats have grown far too complacent, and Trump's victory has show that there is the possibility for leadership from outside their pre-arranged and corrupt circles. So naturally they are distraught. No reason to make them feel comfortable.

BobPatterson wrote:

This display of character (or lack of it) needs to be showcased for all Americans to see.

All I can see is a President representing his tax payers demanding the rightful place for their contributions. That's what I'd want my leader to do.

Well said.

Considering the amount of money the US contributes to NATO, and the fact that the majority of members don't live up to their obligations, I couldn't care less about Trump playing at a bit of alpha dog nonsense during a photo op.

seahawk wrote:

Now it is time we sent the lazy liberal countries a bill for the money they own the USA.

No member of NATO owes the US anything. That's not how it works.

This thread is so amusing it could go - should go - to the hall of fame of suicidal trumpisms;

1/- First of all Trump's speech reminds me a lot of Maggie Thatcher's " My money ! My money ! " claims at the EU in the seventies!
I've got news for you trumpists : no European country owes the US a single cent... what the US *could* get is more weapon sales to the NATO countries. Full stop. That's why that imbecillic comment on how much the headquarters cost was uncalled for and totally wrongly uninformed.( and BTW,; the sum was under 250 million $, paid by the NATO budget to which all contribute )

2/- Trump could, as a matter of fact, have scored a lot of points and get a lot of goodwill, had he reinforced Article 5 of the Alliance which states that the US would go to the aid of any member being threatened or attacked... ( That goes for all states )...Not a word... The question was on the mind of every head of state in Brussels : "Can we still count on the USA ?... Apparently not ...Thank you, Donald, you just single-handedly advanced the ratification of a European Defence Pact by five years ! Hooo! Whee !

3/- Most Trumpists on this forum - and a few others - seem to have forgotten what the meeting was about : the inauguration of the new NATO building, along with the dedication of :

A/- the 9/11 memorial and its sequels, i.e the hundreds of thousand men from every country who went to Afghanistan...

B/- the Berlin wall memorial, one of the main achievements of the Alliance, IMO.

C/- The Article 5 memorial, which says we stand for our shared values, together.

The symbolic meaning of these three monuments couldn't have been more explicit.
That the US president chose to ignore them is, as a matter of fact, the sure sign that the Alliance has outlived its usefulness. We are at the threshold of a Trump - Putin association, probably against China and Europe. So be it .

Time to think of our shared interests, Europeans !

aviationaware wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Tax handouts may be a hell lot cheaper than recovering an economy that is crashed for fair, which is usually what happens when companies can´t pay employees or suppliers

See, that is why hard money wins every time. With hard money, you wouldn't have had such a crisis to begin with - such massive economic swings are impossible with hard money. Then you wouldn't have to let the government have enough money to do those handouts in the first place, and all would be happier. Win win.

Nonsense, if the amount of money can not be changed, the value of money would just changes accordingly. Inflation and deflation would happen at hyper speeds, and when there is no food to be hat, gold becomes just as worthless as paper money. We need to agree that gold coin has value to make it work just as much as for fiat money.
Gold would also have limitations, there is just a finite amount of it, with us generating more and more value, the value of gold could only go up. And we all know how awesome deflation for economies is. At some point it is valuable enough to turn lead into gild and nd you and dresses back at fiat moeny, only with very expensive paper.
And btw, if we had gild money, a kilogram of gold would cost about 1.3 million US $.

Bitcoin is for all practical purposes hard money, even harder than Gold since no large deposits can suddenly be found, and look how stable that is in purchasing power.

Best regards
Thomas

I said it in the past, and I am going to say it again. The US needs us MUCH more than we need them. We should be the ones blackmailing the Americans here, not the other way round. We should be threatening them under the table with letting Russia base its submarines out of Norway, giving them free access through Danish waters and giving China major naval and airbases in the Mediterranean. The Americans would cough up 150% of our current military budgets immediately, no questions asked. We could be the ones lowering our taxes if we did things the right way.

aviationaware wrote:

The United States are by far the biggest contributor to NATO.

They are voluntary contributors, nobody asked them to spend such a significant portion of their wealth on military stuff.

tommy1808 wrote:

Nonsense, if the amount of money can not be changed, the value of money would just changes accordingly. Inflation and deflation would happen at hyper speeds

You are talking about things you obviously understand very little (if that) of. If the amount of money can't be changed, then the only thing that can affect its value is productivity gains or losses. This alone would make quick changes to the money's value absolutely impossible. So your hyper inflation horror story does not hold up. It just shows that you are way out of your league when discussing this topic.

tommy1808 wrote:

We need to agree that gold coin has value to make it work just as much as for fiat money.

Fiat money only has value because the institutions backing it have the necessary trust in the society. Gold, on the other hand, has inherent value; and the added benefit that it has a naturally limited supply and the fact that it can't be artificially created. Every currency requires society to agree on its value. Gold is no exception. But gold has, of all commodities, by far the best properties to allow us to do that. We have done so in the past.

tommy1808 wrote:

Gold would also have limitations, there is just a finite amount of it, with us generating more and more value, the value of gold could only go up.

That is a good thing, not a bad thing. I see you once again railed against deflation, but moderate deflation is good for average people and bad only for the wealthy. So are you pro social justice or anti deflation? You can't be both.

tommy1808 wrote:

Bitcoin is for all practical purposes hard money, even harder than Gold since no large deposits can suddenly be found, and look how stable that is in purchasing power.

Bitcoin is an experiment and not widely accepted. It is intellectually entertaining to watch it, and I myself have made quite a bit of money with it. But it does not allow for conclusions about hard money for two reasons:
1) It is not backed by any underlying asset, so in that regard it is no better than fiat money. It's limited only by an algorithm that might be possible to manipulate.
2) Its user base is far too homogenous and narrow to get to any conclusions.

But it will be interesting to keep watching it. It might be the closest thing to hard money we will ever get.

When the public debt bubble explodes, which is only a matter of time, we will see if the public will still keep trusting the central banks and their money. If they don't and we see a massive influx into currencies like Bitcoin, that would be a wonderful thing second only to the abolition of the FED and ECB.

VSMUT wrote:

They are voluntary contributors, nobody asked them to spend such a significant portion of their wealth on military stuff.

But you gladly take it and are content with countries like Germany dodging responsibility by only paying for reconaissance, are you not? Quite the hypocrite. I am sure you would sing another song if Russia or China were the world's preeminent military power all of a sudden.

aviationaware wrote:

If the amount of money can't be changed, then the only thing that can affect its value is productivity gains or losses.

Not true, bubbles can be created, see the very first bubble: tulipmania.

Obama got space automatically and nobody felt passed, smiles were real.

Hillary didn't give me good vibes, but this guy IMO shouldn't be POTUS, and he apparently feels it.

KLDC10 wrote:

Redd wrote:

Aside from the decision not to accept refugees, Kaczynski (which is the actual power in Poland) has over the past 1.5 years in power taken the country back more than 10 years of progress economically, socially, from the point of safety and security and environmentally. Next time you praise any 'leaders' please have an actual clue about what you speak.

Please do not presume to know to what extent I have knowledge about Poland, or any country for that matter.

You clearly know very little as you mentioned Beata Szydło to thank for policies that she has literally no say in, all those decisions belong to Kaczynski. Kind of like Putin and Medvedev when Putin was waiting to get the throne back. No one in this country, or anyone who knows how politics work here would make that mistake. Not even the foreign media make that mistake.

aviationaware wrote:

You are talking about things you obviously understand very little (if that) of.

You are the one promulgating the discredited fringe theory, not Tommy, so your personal attack falls on its face.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/ar ... ts/261552/

aviationaware wrote:

If the amount of money can't be changed, then the only thing that can affect its value is productivity gains or losses.

That is childishly naive. Gold's value merely reflects the value of the goods, properties or services it can trade for. Its relative value can change just as much as paper money.

aviationaware wrote:

Gold, has inherent value

Yea, but that's closer to $20.00 an ounce than the thousand dollars per ounce its monetary value gives it. You can only plate so many circuit boards. (In fact de-monetrizing gold would give us more trouble free electronic devices, as gold plated connections would become standard practice everywhere.) But this subject is just hypothetical mumbo jumbo anyway.

tommy1808 wrote:

You may want to check out of little forces Russia has left, and how relatively much the European NATO Partners have left. Russias military couldn´t even confidently take on Turkey.

best regards
Thomas

...so then why the big angst when Trump starts being critical of NATO?

Redd wrote:

You clearly know very little as you mentioned Beata Szydło to thank for policies that she has literally no say in, all those decisions belong to Kaczynski. Kind of like Putin and Medvedev when Putin was waiting to get the throne back. No one in this country, or anyone who knows how politics work here would make that mistake. Not even the foreign media make that mistake.

Kaczynski has influence, I concur. Poland is unusual in terms of parliamentary democracy insofar that the leader of the governing party (that is, Kaczynski) is not, in fact, Prime Minister.

Beata Szydlo as Prime Minister and Andrzej Duda as President represent the more moderate faces of the Law and Justice Party (and yes, I know that the latter resigned his party membership upon his election victory in 2015, but he clearly can still be associated with the party), while Kaczynski retains influence and could be considered the 'intellectual godfather', so to speak of his party's policies. Kaczynski is an influential figure, but the "nuts and bolts" work of running the country from day to day does not fall to him. He's clearly a "big picture" individual concerned with formulating broad policy ideas.

But that doesn't change the fact that Szydlo is the face of Poland. It is she, and not Kaczynski, who represents Poland on the world stage - regardless of the internal politics of the Law and Justice Party, she holds the office of Prime Minister, and it would be foolish to reduce her role simply to that of a puppet. So I will refer to her as a European Leader because that is her official position, and her position is clearer to the rest of us in the world than whatever dealings may be going on behind the scenes (rumors which often have a tendency to be exaggerated). Let's not allow emotions to cloud judgement here.

Dutchy wrote:

aviationaware wrote:

If the amount of money can't be changed, then the only thing that can affect its value is productivity gains or losses.

Not true, bubbles can be created, see the very first bubble: tulipmania.

I suggest you read this about this topic:

https://mises.org/library/truth-about-tulipmania

salttee wrote:

You are the one promulgating the discredited fringe theory, not Tommy, so your personal attack falls on its face.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/ar ... ts/261552/

An article from the Atlantic, you could at least have chosen a less partisan outlet. The chart data is selective to say the least. Comparing data from when Bretton Woods was first enacted (which of course created short term side effects) to data from a time when the current system had been around for decades is beyond ludicrous and dishonest.

salttee wrote:

Yea, but that's closer to $20.00 an ounce than the thousand dollars per ounce its monetary value gives it. You can only plate so many circuit boards. (In fact de-monetrizing gold would give us more trouble free electronic devices, as gold plated connections would become standard practice everywhere.) But this subject is just hypothetical mumbo jumbo anyway.

A good has the value that the market prescribes to it, econ 1.01, it's not rocket science. Go back to square one.

tommy1808 wrote:

And those poor southern European people, that are so squashed by those evil, evil German workers had a 30% wage increase between 1999 and 2008. But lets just pretend that never happened, for the sake of the argument, right?

The Euro area inflation rate during that period seems to have been close to 2.5% annually. I presume it might have been higher in Southern Europe.

Wouldn't that wipe out growth in real income (inflation adjusted)?

You probably have available to you better data than I have found through simple Google search.

Trump silence on article 5 is the real news. Many us politicians have tried every type of reminder that European members need to meet their commitments. We haven't been persuasive enough so Trump is simply saying if Europe won't be serious why should we.



German companies make great cars but the vat rebate for exports helps sell cars in the USA.

Renegotiations are difficult but are long overdue.

aviationaware wrote:

But you gladly take it and are content with countries like Germany dodging responsibility by only paying for reconaissance, are you not? Quite the hypocrite. I am sure you would sing another song if Russia or China were the world's preeminent military power all of a sudden.

This only shows that many Trump supporters (and Trump himself) are very shortsighted. Yes, all members should meet their target payments to the alliance BUT someone who is flexible would look at how those members are aiding the US as well.

Many European members have supported US military companies through various means (the F-35, hosting military bases, the P-8A, missiles, etc.). A flexible president would say "OK...let's make a deal, if you can't commit to 2% budget, at the very least, consider buying our equipment". We know these countries are not gonna buy Russian or Chinese equipment, but don't be surprised if these actions by Trump spell the reduction/termination of many agreements with the US regarding the purchase of equipment. Airbus doesn't have stealth technology, but it doesn't mean it can't try. Europe also has two nuclear power states so deterrent still works.

Britain's on the way out of the EU.... I wonder who will be next ???
The Status Quo will not always be the Status Quo.

Planeflyer wrote:

Trump silence on article 5 is the real news.

Mr. Trump was not silent about Article 5. However, his mention of it was brief compared to the two memorials (Berlin Wall and 9/11).

http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2017/05 ... speech.cnn

His main purpose was to childishly berate the other heads of state over money (old news).

As for real news, I still have not learned how much the new headquarters cost. Probably far too much.

par13del wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

You may want to check out of little forces Russia has left, and how relatively much the European NATO Partners have left. Russias military couldn´t even confidently take on Turkey.

best regards
Thomas

...so then why the big angst when Trump starts being critical of NATO?

No angst in Europe. More a bewilderment about Trump, because what he does, does not achieve what he wants. Questioning the US commitment is hurting the countries who already spent the 2% on defence and who put a high value on the partnership with the US and it confirms those doubting the future of NATO and makes a European defence solution more interesting for them. He negotiates as if he is looking for a supplier for hotel towels. "If you give me what I want, I give you that and the other guy is fucked...." and he tells it to all partners he is talking with. Does not work that well, if you talk to countries, which share a good relationship.

This is all much ado about nothing. Trump can throw a hissy fit if he wants to but he will change nothing. Europeans are loath to finance American militarism.

DfwRevolution wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

So the NATO summit was today. And President Trump felt it necessary to lecture the rest of the alliance, in his known manner.

Some of that lecturing has been well-earned. There are far too many free-loaders in NATO who enjoy the benefits of common defense without paying their fair share.

BobPatterson wrote:

LOL. The video shows our leader "palming" his way to the front. He didn't elbow his way forward. Do we need a new term for this?

I generally find Trump's mannerisms awful, but that's just funny. It's always got to be about him.

A serial tax avoider who boasts about it, which of course also funds the US defence budget, is not the best person to lecture anyone else. That and him being a 6 times bankrupt too.
Plus of course he is clueless on anything to do with NATO, foreign policy except for one thing, trying to keep his Russian enablers and paymasters happy.
Hence his lack of commitment to NATO's prime founding articles, Putin wants NATO broken up and it's not difficult to see why. If you think that somehow makes the US more secure as well as saving a few bucks, you are as deluded as Trump.

Wow this thread has brought all the Trump trolls out of the woodwork.

BobPatterson wrote:

As for real news, I still have not learned how much the new headquarters cost. Probably far too much.

Tell us, how much is too much?

"It cost just over €1.1 billion and will house some 4,500 employees" Or ca. 4.766/m2, which indeed is quite a lot, but given it is NATO, I would say not too extravagance. Of course, Trump could have done it for 250m, according to Trump.......

http://www.xpats.com/new-nato-headquart ... u1-billion

A lot will have gone into security and other measures. You don't want to have bugs build into it.

I don't think I have ever before tried to parse what someone else has written in this manner, but this is such utter nonsense that I must try to respond. I am no friend of and offer no excuses for Mr. Trump. But what follows is just a pile of garbage:

GDB wrote:

A serial tax avoider who boasts about it,....

Please list a series of such avoidances that you know about. Not something speculated, but something you actually know and can document. Taxes that he was obligated to pay but failed to do so.

GDB wrote:

.....which of course also funds the US defence budget......

What doe this phrase refer to?

GDB wrote:

That and him being a 6 times bankrupt too.

Mr. Trump has not been bankrupt. He has put several companies that he owned, at least in part, through bankruptcy. There is a difference, Try to understand the difference and then speak truthfully.

GDB wrote:

....trying to keep his Russian enablers and paymasters happy.

Enablers of what? Please explain the specific payments received from his "paymasters" and identify those paymasters.

GDB wrote:

Hence his lack of commitment to NATO's prime founding articles.......

NATO is a Treaty to which the USA is signatory and has been adopted by the Senate. It is the law of the land in the United States.

Mr. Trump's opinions regarding NATO are meaningless except as political hysteria fodder.. Only the Senate can abrogate a Treaty. The Senate is not about to annul the NATO Treaty.

As long as that Treaty remains the law of our land, the President is required to see that it is faithfully executed.

His failure to do so will be cause for impeachment.

Fuggedaboutit.

BobPatterson wrote:

GDB wrote:

A serial tax avoider who boasts about it,....

Please list a series of such avoidances that you know about. Not something speculated, but something you actually know and can document. Taxes that he was obligated to pay but failed to do so.

No one knows...tax returns are not released and from the little information we know, it can be inferred that he avoided paying taxes for a long time (as in, writing off loses against his returns).

BobPatterson wrote:

GDB wrote:

That and him being a 6 times bankrupt too.

Mr. Trump has not been bankrupt. He has put several companies that he owned, at least in part, through bankruptcy. There is a difference, Try to understand the difference and then speak truthfully.

Which should make everyone nervous: if he's a good businessman as he claims he is, those companies would not have gone through bankruptcy. Having someone like that at the helm of a country is concerning

BobPatterson wrote:

GDB wrote:

Hence his lack of commitment to NATO's prime founding articles.......

NATO is a Treaty to which the USA is signatory and has been adopted by the Senate. It is the law of the land in the United States.

Mr. Trump's opinions regarding NATO are meaningless except as political hysteria fodder.. Only the Senate can abrogate a Treaty. The Senate is not about to annul the NATO Treaty.

As long as that Treaty remains the law of our land, the President is required to see that it is faithfully executed.

His failure to do so will be cause for impeachment.

1. NATO IS a treaty, but as military matters are under the purview of the executive branch (except declaration of war), Trump and Co don't have any obligation to come to NATO's aid. They can pull a DeGaulle and merely support from an intelligence standpoint, but the scope of Article 5 does not say how each country should respond. Therefore, Trump and happily say he'll support by sending a couple of generals and leave it at that.
2. Ignoring NATO's Article 5 would not be the only treaty the US would choose to ignore. The US is a signatory of the ICJ, yet when the ICJ ruled against the US, it ignored the ruling.
3. The Senate would naturally have some common sense and the filibuster (while it exists) would prevent any legislation from moving forward to annul the US's obligation to NATO. However, given enough Democrat defeats and enough Republicans willing to go along with Trump lest he finds primary challengers against defectors, I could see a GOP led Senate taking steps to repeal/renegotiate the US's role in NATO. It's a good thing none of the Senators is a true Trump lackey, but that could change.
4. His failure to enforce NATO will only be a cause for impeachment if his inaction results in an attack on US soil from the adversary attacking other NATO members. As long as there's a GOP-led Congress, there's absolutely no chance of impeachment for him to refuse to support Article 5 when invoked (remember, he's CiC *shudder* so it's his call, not Congress's and not NATO). And by the rhetoric exhibited in the campaign trail, most of his supporters would be happy if he singlehandedly undermined NATO by remaining idle while other members converse about what to do...in the same manner they want the US to withdraw from the UN (or kick the UN out of NYC).

einsteinboricua wrote:

No one knows...tax returns are not released and from the little information we know, it can be inferred that he avoided paying taxes for a long time (as in, writing off loses against his returns).

Everybody does it, including you I presume. Trump just does it at a larger scale because corrupt laws allow him to do it. Even if he wanted to pay more more (which I am sure he doesn't), he couldn't because the IRS would be obliged to pay him back any amount he overpaid. So stop beating that drum, it's old, it was never true and it doesn't get any better by constant repetition.

einsteinboricua wrote:

Which should make everyone nervous: if he's a good businessman as he claims he is, those companies would not have gone through bankruptcy. Having someone like that at the helm of a country is concerning

You know, the interesting thing is that this kind of comment only ever comes from people who have never run a business and hence don't know how difficult it is. Trump owns hundreds of companies. Some of them have been in trouble at a point in their lives. Nothing to be ashamed of, and nothing that makes him a bad businessman.

BobPatterson : « His main purpose was to childishly berate the other heads of state over money (old news).
As for real news, I still have not learned how much the new headquarters cost. Probably far too much. »

1/-That’s still the most ridiculous of Trump’s arguments : he’s deliberately leading on a fallacy : that *others* don’t pay trheir fair share… Tha’s probably true but things have to be put into perspective : As for treaties, agreements… etc…, everybody is participating to the level agreed by all to the financing of the organisation : for instance, the US pay 22% of the budget, Germany some 15% and France 11%... Repeat : France is paying just about half of the US participation in spite of the huge difference in GDP.
… and it also means that far from being the "lion share" contributor, the US pays 22% of the budget, compared to 57% - yes, fifty-seven percent – for the EU27.
If Uncle Sam wants to spend a lot more on his weaponry, that’s fine, but it has bu§§er all to do with NATO.

See NATO’s funding, as for 2016 :
Trump’s claims rebuked on Washington Post

2/- As for the cost of the building :
See the Huffington Post
Or, even better, la Libre Belgique…. They should know.

So the cost is around 1 bn €;;;
That compares with Donald’s campaign costs ( just 960 million $ !!!)

So I let you decide which one is the least obscene.
...and before anybody forgets, the old headquarters were delivered in 1967, for half as many countries.

Pihero wrote:

1/-That’s still the most ridiculous of Trump’s arguments : he’s deliberately leading on a fallacy : that *others* don’t pay trheir fair share… Tha’s probably true but things have to be put into perspective : As for treaties, agreements… etc…, everybody is participating to the level agreed by all to the financing of the organisation : for instance, the US pay 22% of the budget, Germany some 15% and France 11%... Repeat : France is paying just about half of the US participation in spite of the huge difference in GDP.

This is another beauty. Of course Trump is not talking about who pays the tiny NATO budget, but about who shoulders the majority of the actual defense spending. The 2% rule is a good thing here because it takes into account economic power and size of the country - so none of this is good excuse for not reaching that goal.

No, the real problem is another one. The real problem is that the corporate media, and you guys as their submissive vicarious agents, want to take everything Trump says literally. This is reminiscent of the campaign. You see, President Obama and candidate Clinton were allowed some leeway here. They could speak in broader terms because everybody knew they were politicians, so everybody expected them to say lots of bull. With Trump, not so much. Everybody expects him to say lots of BS as well, of course, but if he says something he must mean it literally because after all, he is not such a shining intellectual beacon as Obama and Hillary were; so he can't possible speak in a figurative sense, can he?

What the left doesn't get is that this is exactly the kind of elitist jerkery that lost them the election in the first place. And even though they are doing their best to torpedo Trump's legislative agenda with this ridiculous and meritless Russia collusion story, I will bet my ass that they will lose again in 2020. Because they can drag out the Russia story without presenting evidence, but some day evidence will be presented that there was no collusion, and then they are toast.

I think it is obvious that Trump talks about defence spending, but then every country has different strategic goals. The US wants to be able to fight 2 wars, one in the Atlantic, one in the Pacific, no country in Europe wants or needs to be able to fight 2 wars. So, if you take the US defence spending of 3,7% and divide it by 2, you end up at 1,85% which is not that much more than the European average.
The same points have been made by Obama btw. and a consensus was reached to the defence spending should be raised to at least 2% by 2024. The stupid part is Trump saying that the other partners owe the US money. The logical conclusion for the US is to terminate NATO and let Europe deal with Russia. NATO will be replaced by bilateral and binding defence treaties with countries who are willing to pay their share. So Poland, Hungary and Greece could be US allies, Germany, France or Spain not.

BobPatterson wrote:

I don't think I have ever before tried to parse what someone else has written in this manner, but this is such utter nonsense that I must try to respond. I am no friend of and offer no excuses for Mr. Trump. But what follows is just a pile of garbage:

GDB wrote:

A serial tax avoider who boasts about it,....

Please list a series of such avoidances that you know about. Not something speculated, but something you actually know and can document. Taxes that he was obligated to pay but failed to do so.

GDB wrote:

.....which of course also funds the US defence budget......

What doe this phrase refer to?

GDB wrote:

That and him being a 6 times bankrupt too.

Mr. Trump has not been bankrupt. He has put several companies that he owned, at least in part, through bankruptcy. There is a difference, Try to understand the difference and then speak truthfully.

GDB wrote:

....trying to keep his Russian enablers and paymasters happy.

Enablers of what? Please explain the specific payments received from his "paymasters" and identify those paymasters.

GDB wrote:

Hence his lack of commitment to NATO's prime founding articles.......

NATO is a Treaty to which the USA is signatory and has been adopted by the Senate. It is the law of the land in the United States.

Mr. Trump's opinions regarding NATO are meaningless except as political hysteria fodder.. Only the Senate can abrogate a Treaty. The Senate is not about to annul the NATO Treaty.

As long as that Treaty remains the law of our land, the President is required to see that it is faithfully executed.

His failure to do so will be cause for impeachment.

Fuggedaboutit.

It's quite simple, why should anyone take advice from a crook and con man? It's what he is, what he has boasted about.
He's also another one from your side of the pond who combines being militarily aggressive and being a draft dodger in his youth, all rather pathetic really. When he attacked for some reason Estonia, their PM pointed out they had sent troops to Afghanistan, left unsaid was where were Trump's adult sons then? Oh right, killing wildlife in Africa pretending to be hunters. About right given who they are, where they come from family wise.

The NATO nations that are meeting the 2% or around that, (creative accounting included, another thing Trump does knows about), tend to be the ones with external commitments beyond the NATO area. UK, France being the main ones.
How's Trump's promise to destroy ISIS 'in 30 days' going?

But it's not all about money, take as an example Greece, pretty large armed forces, their AF in particular has more front-line fast jets than the RAF. But when was the last time they took part in ANY joint deployment?
Whereas the smaller nations, such as the Nordic ones so hated by the GOP for running their nations in a way deemed impossible by them, committed forces to Afghanistan and other deployments, take their turn in Air Policing missions, anti piracy and counter narcotics, alongside larger NATO nations.

to aviationaware :
I don't want to comment on the US internal politics : That's your problem and that's what you have to deal with.

For me, the problem is about :

- how much we can trust this guy ( hint : not a lot...)

- what we could achieve with him ( hint : bu§§er all...let's do our own things on our side...)

- how do we deal with the return of the ugly American ( hint : ignore him, just play the accords / treaties / agreements ... already signed between us and his country ).

In the mean time, let's talk about a new EU : two speed or not ? defence ? new treaty ?... plenty to talk about, away from the distractions of Brexit and Trumpism...

Quite interesting inside in Trump: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxF_CDDJ0YI

aviationaware wrote:

No, the real problem is another one. The real problem is that the corporate media, and you guys as their submissive vicarious agents, want to take everything Trump says literally.

One doesn't need "corporate media" to notice Trump has absolutely no clue what he is talking about.
When he repeatedly claims NATO countries or Germany in particular "owe" the US money, are we taking him "too literally" or does he think NATO is some sort of US-run racketeering scheme he probably knows from his business dealings in NY and elswhere?

https://goo.gl/images/q6zTyz

aviationaware wrote:

he is not such a shining intellectual beacon as Obama and Hillary were; so he can't possible speak in a figurative sense, can he?

Speaking in a "figurative sense" with a vocabulary of 300 words and being allergic to reading is a recipe for disaster. Trump's DIY spin doctors really should try harder.

OUCH !