President Trump is leading on the world stage at the NATO meetings.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
]
Why then did he run home?

I don't know. Maybe the toilet bowl was overflowing.

I've noticed you only pay attention to things that favor your position

Sometimes I do the same as you do.

Although, I must say, I pay a lot of attention to some of your posts and others that I don't agree with. I think you're off on your assumption here.


If you’re concerned about China’s growing economic influence in Latin America, imposing tariffs is at best counterproductive.

No, at best it helps to nudge Latin America into a more equitable trade relationship. And China's growing worldwide influence is fueled by the wealth it has transferred from our self-destructive trade and economic relationship we have had with it before Trump.

The minute Floridaman comes close to fulfilling the threat that he will close US bases in SK, they will withdraw from the joint intelligence treaty and further ally with China. They have already threatened that.

If the SK leadership thinks it will actually cost them less to ally with China than with us, they may be too stupid to deal with. I'm sure they see what's going on in Hong Kong--and the fruit of NK's relationship with China. I don't think they're that dumb. They have a great deal with us, even if they have to chip in on the cost of military protection.

You know exactly what he said, just like Trumplicans are deplorable, but some are good people.

Yes I do. And I know what he did not say. He did not say that all of our Southern Neighbors are murderers and rapists. Not even close to that. He was referring to some that were crossing here illegally. Maybe he should have given the names and exact numbers just to be clear.

Trying to bully someone is picking a fight.

No--first, he wasn't "bullying" (more dramatic verbiage). and second, bullies don't pick fights. They are not looking for a fight. A fight is the last thing they want. Bullies don't pick on the strong ones. Bullying is an attempt to frighten someone weaker with threats just to satisfy their own ego, they are not looking for a fight.

And, anyway, I don't think Trump was trying to pick a fight. His style is more some form of negotiation which can involve some heated exchange--from both sides.

The President of the United States is supposed to be a natural born citizen and should not require a translator to be understood.

Trump doesn't require a translator (more dramatic hyperbole). Everyone has a style of speaking. I understand Biden perfectly well even though what he says often sounds creepy. So I don't make fun of him for that. The context in which something is said and the style in which it is delivered are "translating" devices. Trump supporters have no trouble understanding him. They know sarcasm and irony when they here it and know he employs those a lot. And the context and tone are clear.

What is clear is the attempt to literalize and so negatively taint his use of humor, or sarcasm, or irony. Of course, sometimes what he says is just plain wrong. But that is also evident and understood.

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Denmark is a very special country with incredible people, but based on Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen’s comments, that she would have no interest in discussing the purchase of Greenland, I will be postponing our meeting scheduled in two weeks for another time....
7:51 PM · Aug 20, 2019

That was more strange than insulting. If, as you claim, it was intended as an insult, it was not very successful. and if Mette took it as in insult, she might be a trifle touchy. As it is written, it is goofy, more of an insult to Trump himself. And if he was so angry or was insulted himself, why did he reschedule?

Nobody in this country knows what Floridaman is doing next, good luck with that.

Well, you certainly don't. You don't even know what he has been doing. You just inevitably put a negative slant on everything he does.

He is moving us further away by reducing alliances,

I don't know what you mean by "reducing" alliances. Have we lost some? Or do you mean they have become weaker? I see no actual evidence of that.

Nothing lasts forever and willy nilly is not a plan

I don't think I have argued against that.


No armed conflict, crime yes driven largely by US drug markets

Lots of armed conflict. Not between countries but within. And its a serious problem for them and us. Could be more serious than between countries--those usually are resolved one way or another. What's going on down there has been a colloquial forever. With no end in sight. Except, maybe, if we actually sent military there to do foreign armed conflict. Or maybe we can legalize all drugs and put them out of business.


How's that fence working out?

OK, considering all the obstacles being put up by politicians against funding it. Hey, it's a political battle. Can't win them all.

We have never been a bully,

Jackson and "The Trail of Tears." Roosevelt and Japanese American internment camps. Roosevelt and Yalta Conference handing over all of Eastern Europe to Stalin, against the will and well-being of those country's people. Roosevelt bullying Japan into war by giving it the ultimatum of total surrender when it sued for a non-aggression treaty. Wilson Taking sides in WWI against Germany and forcing its hand with blockades that had to be retaliated to. Slavery. Forcing Bakers and Florists to act against religious beliefs that did not cause actual harm to anyone else. Federal regulatory agencies that force farmers to not use large sections of their property for crops. Federal regulatory agencies, in general, which violate the Constitution and individual rights. The claim that we rape the resources and destroy the cultures of other countries. The claim that we separate families and put the children in cages.

We bully foreigners. We bully our own citizens. We have done so throughout history. You said we were the judge, jury, and executioner. We are not perfect. Maybe the best (in our eyes), but not the perfect purveyors of only the good.

And you think the old divisions and hates have disappeared?

Does it sound like I think that. I said that Europe does not know how to have a true union.


Dealing with a combined force is the biggest military threat to the US and thinking that we could just sit out a world war is juvenile thinking at best.

I didn't say we should sit out a war. But neither, necessarily, jump in. Should we have chosen sides in WWI? Serious "adult" scholars think it was a mistake. That it directly led to WWII. And that directly led to the massive empowerment of the Soviet Union and the creation of Communist China.


Floridaman is not an authoritarian? He wants to control world trade and choose who in the US succeeds by allocating tariff exclusions and that sort of baloney goes on and on.


Trump is not a country, not a government. He is a cog in a system that he cannot control. If we were an authoritarian state, an authoritarian government, he could. That is why we must resist the continual slide into that Progressive ideal of all-powerful central government.

And your going over the top, AGAIN. His tariffs cannot "control" world trade. And they are not dictatorial, they are reciprocal. World trade as it has been going was an increasingly negative benefit to us. He is attempting a corrective to that. But I get it. I understand. You cannot conceive of or admit that anything he does is good or even intended to be good for us.


The reason we have succeeded over time is a consistent developed policy, not the willy nilly, my gut approach of Floridaman.

You adhere to the Progressive view that it is government policy that makes us successful. I suppose that it depends on what you mean by successful. And what you mean by "over time." Or what you mean by "developed policy."

Over time, since our inception, we have not had a consistent government policy toward much of anything--social, economic, legislative, judicial, or executive. There has been continuous change and inevitable ups and downs.

The only constant is that we, for the most part, maintained our individual freedoms better than others.

As government policy centralizes and lessens personal freedoms, governments and corporations grow larger and more powerful. The people get weaker and small business numbers shrink. And when government tax burdens and regulations shrink the economic sector expands. The only consistency I see is the more of the founding freedoms we keep or regain, the more overall successful we are.

We do not need the world to be exactly like us to secure our place in it, just like people are all different yet a good leader can get them to work as a team for the benefit of all. Floridaman does not know how to lead and thinks bullying is teamwork.


Securing our place in the world is not the same as securing the world. Nor as securing our allies. Again, you go overboard with the drama. I never spoke of being "exactly" the same. Nor was I speaking of being the same. But to having a common foundation. As we supposedly do in this country. We are all different here. But in so far as we all agree to abide by the founding principles, or to some principle that binds us, our security will have a solid ground to stand on. Otherwise it is a constant fight to keep our heads above the quicksand of differing who, what, and how we are and are supposed to cooperate. From which we are doomed to sink.

And if we depend on a leader to make that happen, that is another form of quicksand. Leaders come and go. And they also need the same, constant, foundation to stand on as those who follow. In a free society we should all be leaders. Especially of our own lives. But we need, playing on the overworked cliché, to march to the same drumbeat. And that drumbeat has to be impervious to the superficial whims of time, place, and government officials.

To be successful all nations take the longest view possible, a shaky ally is kept at arms length or kept till no longer needed. That is what Macron is doing because he see Floridaman as an unstable ally because of his speech and actions.

If France depends on Macron, and we depend on Floridaman, or any other person, to make us all successful, our success will have a very short lifespan.

Ask the Danes and Kurds about that

Our alliance with the Danes via NATO is intact. You just got done saying "a shaky ally is kept at arms length or kept till no longer needed." But is Denmark a solid ally if it quits us because of perceived insults? Are the Kurds solid allies if they are at war with other nations that we are bound by treaty to protect? The Kurdish situation is very tricky, somewhat a damned if you do damned if you don't. And one that could lead to a much larger scale of war. The Kurds helped with ISIS. But ISIS was more a danger to them than to us. Maybe it was us who helped them. That situation may resolve itself better by not starting a major conflict. Or, if not, if it was a total blunder, chalk one up against Trump.


Until Floridaman the US supported the EU, Britain will not be able to stand on it's own and the Irish troubles could easily start over again. England also will likely be all that is left of the British Empire, Scotland will declare independence and Ireland might solve the troubles by departing also. That's another issue.

If the British wish to stand on their own, that is up to them. I suspect that they can. If Ireland and Scotland declare independence, that might be a good thing. Those people don't depend on your analysis. For all the discontents, there is still a close relationship they can have with each other, and one that might be more fruitful and friendly if each could be the master of its own borders.

The EU has more problems than England. And those problems are not nor have been caused by Trump. I know that in your mind he is responsible for the world going mad or bad. But it has already been there well before him. And I don't think he either supports nor doesn't support the EU. It's there. He would rather have separate trade relations with some of the individual countries. But he has no power over what they do.


How has the China trade situation changed, other than Floridaman's tariff wars, there is no deal as he would say. Every one of his deals is not nearly what he claims it to be.

Yeah, right.

[scottw]

complete lunacy


"During a CNN town hall Thursday night, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told an audience “let’s not even contemplate” the possibility of Donald Trump being elected for a second term hours after Pelosi announced that she was requesting House Judiciary Committee chairman Jerry Nadler to move forward with drafting articles of impeachment against Trump.

“The damage that this administration has done to America — America is a great country, we can sustain — two terms, I don’t know,” Pelosi responded to a question from the audience. “Civilization as we know it today is at stake in this election.”

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The NATO members are payong more now, than they did then. I gess it's all thanks to Obama's momentum.

Everything good that's happening, is because Obama started the momentum. everything bad, Trump owns 100%.

Is that about right? Are there any exceptions to that rule in your mind? Any?

Fact check.org has a nice graph and explanation on this. The trend of contributing more as a %of GDP beginning in 2014 and continuing through present. So, Trump get credit for continuing this, yes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

I know this is hard for the left to accept....



https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...mp/2695799002/


"President Donald Trump "is committed to NATO" and deserves credit in obtaining $100 billion more in defense spending for the alliance, Jens Stoltenberg, the secretary general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, said Sunday.

Trump has also been criticized for his aggressive approach in insisting America's "delinquent" allies pay a greater share toward the collective defense agreement. At the summit in July, he demanded the other members "immediately" increase their contributions.

Stoltenberg said the tough approach paid off.

"We agreed to do more to step up – and now we see the results. By the end of next year, NATO allies will add $100 billion extra toward defense," he said. "So we see some real money and some real results. And we see that the clear message from President Donald Trump is having an impact."

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Yeah, right.

Some say the same might be as good for USA as you suggest it would be for the EU.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

I know this is hard for the left to accept....



https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...mp/2695799002/


"President Donald Trump "is committed to NATO" and deserves credit in obtaining $100 billion more in defense spending for the alliance, Jens Stoltenberg, the secretary general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, said Sunday.

Trump has also been criticized for his aggressive approach in insisting America's "delinquent" allies pay a greater share toward the collective defense agreement. At the summit in July, he demanded the other members "immediately" increase their contributions.

Stoltenberg said the tough approach paid off.

"We agreed to do more to step up – and now we see the results. By the end of next year, NATO allies will add $100 billion extra toward defense," he said. "So we see some real money and some real results. And we see that the clear message from President Donald Trump is having an impact."

Just like impeach just a phone call or NATO he got them to pay more. ..you guys love focusing on 1 thing . Your inability or just blind negligence to see any topic in its entirety is amazing
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

complete lunacy


"During a CNN town hall Thursday night, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told an audience “let’s not even contemplate” the possibility of Donald Trump being elected for a second term hours after Pelosi announced that she was requesting House Judiciary Committee chairman Jerry Nadler to move forward with drafting articles of impeachment against Trump.

“The damage that this administration has done to America — America is a great country, we can sustain — two terms, I don’t know,” Pelosi responded to a question from the audience. “Civilization as we know it today is at stake in this election.”

Funny Detbuch and other have been making this suggestion about progressive's . You mustn't read his detailed posts. Or you agree so you dont see any lunacy
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Fact check.org has a nice graph and explanation on this. The trend of contributing more as a %of GDP beginning in 2014 and continuing through present. So, Trump get credit for continuing this, yes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As world economic growth increases it only makes sense that their contributions would increase .. our defense budget is more about jobs and money for defense contractors. Then actual defense
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Funny Detbuch and other have been making this suggestion about progressive's . You mustn't read his detailed posts. Or you agree so you dont see any lunacy
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I am more than suggesting, I'm absolutely saying, that Progressives want to do exactly what they have originally and explicitly said they wanted to do, and what they have gradually been accomplishing since then. If you don't see what has actually been happening, but rather just gloss over it as its all just change that must suit the times (that might be convincing if you would explicitly point out how the change is suiting the times), then you don't see your own lunacy.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Some say the same might be as good for USA as you suggest it would be for the EU.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Some say a lot of stuff. I have made comments on what I think is good for USA. You sort of hint at it.