oh my god I made a joke earlier but I've been thinking about it and the last US presidential election was basically the Lois vs Peter election from family guy where she'd make a salient point and he'd make a dick joke
I legitimately have been wondering if Trump genuinely could not hear. He already appears to have poor eyesight that he's not even mitigating with contacts and even healthy 70 year olds (which Trump is not) have a 2/3 chance of hearing loss. If this is the case, that's one more thing to add to the worries about Trump having/developing dementia because hearing loss is strongly linked to dementia: generally the more loss the more and faster the brain goes. It's hard to say what the linkage is, if it's direct because the brain isn't getting enough stimulation from sound, or indirect because loss of hearing interferes with communication and socialization (something that Trump doesn't seem good at anyway) and that loss of stimulation leads to the brain rotting, or if it's possibly even backwards where the brain is already declining in function and so is getting worse at processing sound and manifests as hearing loss, or maybe some combo of all.
So, if he can't hear, it might be just as bad if not worse long term for the US/world than if he's simply being a petulant man child. Though, could always be both.
I thought so at first too - even posted my doubts here - but having seen photos and pictures from a few angles now there's little doubt he heard her, and no doubt whatsoever he heard the reporters calling for a handshake.
Guinness is gross, but I at least appreciate the artistry in pouring a good pint of the stuff. Even as a non-drinker, getting that shit wrong is sacrilege.
My favourite local reaction so far has been the person who tweeted the photo of Ryan holding up the pathetic pint and wrote "The absolute state of the head on both those yolks!"
The tribute model is also not how NATO works at all. The spending is domestic
And if I read right, the spending targets were only instituted in 2006, so it's not like this is something that is integral and part of NATO from the beginning. The 2% spending target is only there because America spent so much money on Iraq and Afghanistan that they didn't have money for European defense, hence trying to force Europe to pay more.
This entire spending target problem is a non-problem entirely created by the republicans.
How is demanding tribute not just going to lead to Trump torpedoing any amount of German cooperation in Europe for it's Middle East adventures? Like, the US president making it "policy" to demand money for it's military bases is going to lead to unimaginable hostility. If I was German I'd be campaigning for "yeah, let's build a shitload of ICBMs and tell the US to fuck right off".
Meanwhile, Trump's economic policies are starting to ripple across the G20. Finance Ministers from the G20 nations met this week and did not renew their usual commitment to free trade.
oh my god I made a joke earlier but I've been thinking about it and the last US presidential election was basically the Lois vs Peter election from family guy where she'd make a salient point and he'd make a dick joke
This is not the 2016 election thread dude.
+1
GatorAn alligator in ScotlandRegistered Userregular
She's used to dealing with Putin and Trump is like... well he's not even Mussolini to Putin's Hitler
he's fuckin Right Wing Peter Griffin
Merkel was politically interested during GDR times (which was never easy) and basically outplayed some of the most cunning people in German politics to get into power.
There's a pretty good 2000ish portrait of her in German that explains her motivations pretty well. Mostly, she wanted to get into power to try and do things better than current politicians, not just actions, but also form.. I think she likes it when things are in order.
Hopefully she sees Trump as a challenge to overcome, because deeply motivated Angie can be a pretty damn strong force.
She stabbed helmut kohl on the back and not only survived but thrived
Anyone who underestimates merkel does so at his (it's always a he) own stupid peril
I'm honestly kind of amazed that trump has double backed (triple? quadruple? hard to tell at this point) his position on NATO and his support for it, because I gotta tell you that nothing will kill it faster then expecting the other constituent members to pay a roman style tribute.
Beyond that though, the fact of the matter is that NATO gives a shit ton of soft power to the US throughout europe, and pissing it away on a half baked protection scheme is like bending over a 5 to pick up a wooden penny.
He sure put China in its place
as the undisputed trademaster in the region.
She's used to dealing with Putin and Trump is like... well he's not even Mussolini to Putin's Hitler
he's fuckin Right Wing Peter Griffin
Merkel was politically interested during GDR times (which was never easy) and basically outplayed some of the most cunning people in German politics to get into power.
There's a pretty good 2000ish portrait of her in German that explains her motivations pretty well. Mostly, she wanted to get into power to try and do things better than current politicians, not just actions, but also form.. I think she likes it when things are in order.
Hopefully she sees Trump as a challenge to overcome, because deeply motivated Angie can be a pretty damn strong force.
She stabbed helmut kohl on the back and not only survived but thrived
Anyone who underestimates merkel does so at his (it's always a he) own stupid peril
I wish I could find this in English, it really is a good read:
How is demanding tribute not just going to lead to Trump torpedoing any amount of German cooperation in Europe for it's Middle East adventures? Like, the US president making it "policy" to demand money for it's military bases is going to lead to unimaginable hostility. If I was German I'd be campaigning for "yeah, let's build a shitload of ICBMs and tell the US to fuck right off".
I don't want U.S. bases at my doorstep. That's not secure.
How is demanding tribute not just going to lead to Trump torpedoing any amount of German cooperation in Europe for it's Middle East adventures? Like, the US president making it "policy" to demand money for it's military bases is going to lead to unimaginable hostility. If I was German I'd be campaigning for "yeah, let's build a shitload of ICBMs and tell the US to fuck right off".
I also suspect that in Europe actually competent Merkel could totally out-manuever Trump in the European sphere if he's really determined to be antagonistic towards the European old guard. (Not that Merkel wants that since that's exactly what Putin wants.)
does he seriously think that other countries have to pay america for the privilege of being in NATO?
that's amazing. this whole thing makes more sense now
Trump believes that NATO is a club, and clubs are all like Mar-a-Lago, which is to say businesses that give privileges for people rich enough to pay ("not getting beaten up by Russia" being a privilege comparable to access to a golf course). The most generous interpretation is that he literally does not know better, does not know that not all clubs work like his scams or, you know, that NATO is not a fucking club.
It makes me think of things I had read years before, about the benefits of republics/democracies over monarchies. One of them is that having a rich ruling class in the latter ends up with useless idiots completely detached from reality. Though apocryphal, the quote "Let them eat cake" was used as a demonstration - Marie Antoinette presumably was so far removed from the concerns of the majority of the populace that she genuinely could not comprehend completely lacking food. If bread is gone, why, go to a better substitute, and problem solved, right?
The writer(s) apparently did not realize, or did not want to realize, that the American republic had created its own kings. CEOs of giant corporations are basically business dictators, and dictators are basically like absolute monarchs of old, and so in turn they have become completely detached from reality, even now rejecting reality when it goes against their beloved personal liesworld views. The executive branch (Trump and cabinet) are full of these CEOs/dictator/insane idiot kings who've always had lackeys and minions to fulfill their bidding and whims. The type of people who, historically, refuse to learn the errors of their ways even as they drive their nations into the ground and destroy them.
More a cabinet related tangent but I'm willing to bet that the R supporters who chant "Businessman, businessman!", if asked if they thought their own boss would do a good job as President/Secretary of X, would then regale you with stories about how stupid their supervisors are and how much smarter they (the asked) are than them (the businessmen bosses).
How is demanding tribute not just going to lead to Trump torpedoing any amount of German cooperation in Europe for it's Middle East adventures? Like, the US president making it "policy" to demand money for it's military bases is going to lead to unimaginable hostility. If I was German I'd be campaigning for "yeah, let's build a shitload of ICBMs and tell the US to fuck right off".
I also suspect that in Europe actually competent Merkel could totally out-manuever Trump in the European sphere if he's really determined to be antagonistic towards the European old guard. (Not that Merkel wants that since that's exactly what Putin wants.)
My broad bet here would be that there might be some activity on establishing a joint EU nuclear command structure, which would be the best hedge against an unreliable US alliance against Russian aggression. It's the option which is the most "european" in the sense that it would give Germany a credible nuclear deterrent without requiring the political capital of actually building their own missiles and systems, probably in exchange for some under the table payment to France to support maintenance and expansion of their capabilities (in practice I'd wager bringing up more missiles to ready-to-launch status, so technically not encouraging proliferation).
I think Germany is pretty happy with just the French nukes at this time. But if Trump forces Germany into a role of military leadership in Europe, I don't think Merkel would be too unhappy.
I mean, you'd think France would be the natural military leader by virtue of having an actual military, but nobody likes them. I'm not even joking.
I think Germany is pretty happy with just the French nukes at this time. But if Trump forces Germany into a role of military leadership in Europe, I don't think Merkel would be too unhappy.
I mean, you'd think France would be the natural military leader by virtue of having an actual military, but nobody likes them. I'm not even joking.
As far as I know for the 2% GDP NATO thing, it's a goal that doesn't have to be hit until 2024, so countries not hitting it right now isn't all that big a deal as long as they're making steps towards it. Also in Germany's case, all the money they're spending on refugees doesn't count, so if you added that in they'd already be at the goal.
The tribute model is also not how NATO works at all. The spending is domestic
Can we safely say Trump's simply trying to undermine NATO and gives nary a shit about its continued existence at this point?
It's what Putin would want, certainly, but I think it might be he's just an ignorant person and venerates the Reagan model of blindly throwing money at defense and calling anyone who doesn't do so a pussy. So much is at stake on the whims of a dumbass.
The tribute model is also not how NATO works at all. The spending is domestic
Can we safely say Trump's simply trying to undermine NATO and gives nary a shit about its continued existence at this point?
It's what Putin would want, certainly, but I think it might be he's just an ignorant person and venerates the Reagan model of blindly throwing money at defense and calling anyone who doesn't do so a pussy. So much is at stake on the whims of a dumbass.
I do think there is enough institutional resilience to survive at least his first term. The Pentagon is getting a good deal on their bases, all things considered, and they want to keep them.
Anyone here see NATO dissolving or losing a key member before 2020?
Personally, I feel that money on global stability, such as refugees, absolutely counts as NATO spending.
Perhaps not in the same way as military spending, since it's not military capability, but I think it should definetyl be considered.
This would be a really good way of throwing it back in Trumps face; He's not supporting NATO allies facing a serious crisis (influx of refugees reaching maximum capacity while he looks to shut borders) so why should they feel obligated to meet his insipid spending goals?
Realistacally Germany won't tell the US to get out of Europe. Besides the geopolitcal consequences that would have. It's probably also not that feasible to sell at home because the US bases and installations are often a major economical influence in otherwise economically weak regions.
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
The tribute model is also not how NATO works at all. The spending is domestic
Can we safely say Trump's simply trying to undermine NATO and gives nary a shit about its continued existence at this point?
It's what Putin would want, certainly, but I think it might be he's just an ignorant person and venerates the Reagan model of blindly throwing money at defense and calling anyone who doesn't do so a pussy. So much is at stake on the whims of a dumbass.
I do think there is enough institutional resilience to survive at least his first term. The Pentagon is getting a good deal on their bases, all things considered, and they want to keep them.
Anyone here see NATO dissolving or losing a key member before 2020?
Most polling I've see shows Le Pen being a close first in the 1st round, but eventually losing to whomever is #2, whether it's the current #2 in the polls (can't remember his name, the out-of-nowhere guy?) or the mainstream conservative candidate who has a non-zero chance of going to jail for corruption.
Obviously we've been a little leery of polling recently, but I don't think France has anything like the electoral college where it is possible for someone to win the popular vote by a significant margin and still lose the election.
Most polling I've see shows Le Pen being a close first in the 1st round, but eventually losing to whomever is #2, whether it's the current #2 in the polls (can't remember his name, the out-of-nowhere guy?) or the mainstream conservative candidate who has a non-zero chance of going to jail for corruption.
Obviously we've been a little leery of polling recently, but I don't think France has anything like the electoral college where it is possible for someone to win the popular vote by a significant margin and still lose the election.
Emmanuel Macron, formerly tied to the current President, but he jumped ship (wisely, because Hollande and the Socialists are sadly historically unpopular due to the terrorist attacks and flip-flopping on austerity). Socially left, economically center, pro-Europe. The ideal candidate to defeat Le Pen, being socially hard-right but economically populist.
So back in 2001 Trump was for going into Iraq. Last year, he was against and was ALWAYS against the war, citing Clinton's support of it at the time (you know, like he did) as a negative against her. Now?
Contrary to a series of past statements on the issue, President Donald Trump said Monday that the U.S. military “should never ever have left” Iraq in 2011.
“Certainly we shouldn’t have left. We should never ever have left,” Trump told Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi at the White House. “And a vacuum was created, and we discussed what happened.”
That anyone in the world can believe a single word that comes out of his mouth is baffling.
So back in 2001 Trump was for going into Iraq. Last year, he was against and was ALWAYS against the war, citing Clinton's support of it at the time (you know, like he did) as a negative against her. Now?
Contrary to a series of past statements on the issue, President Donald Trump said Monday that the U.S. military “should never ever have left” Iraq in 2011.
“Certainly we shouldn’t have left. We should never ever have left,” Trump told Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi at the White House. “And a vacuum was created, and we discussed what happened.”
That anyone in the world can believe a single word that comes out of his mouth is baffling.
So he totally lied before, yes. And he's probably lying in the conversation there, too, because that's just what he does. But "we shouldn't have gone" and "one there, we shouldn't have left as we did" are not necessarily contradictory.
So back in 2001 Trump was for going into Iraq. Last year, he was against and was ALWAYS against the war, citing Clinton's support of it at the time (you know, like he did) as a negative against her. Now?
Contrary to a series of past statements on the issue, President Donald Trump said Monday that the U.S. military “should never ever have left” Iraq in 2011.
“Certainly we shouldn’t have left. We should never ever have left,” Trump told Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi at the White House. “And a vacuum was created, and we discussed what happened.”
That anyone in the world can believe a single word that comes out of his mouth is baffling.
Read Nixonland. It's illuminating.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
So back in 2001 Trump was for going into Iraq. Last year, he was against and was ALWAYS against the war, citing Clinton's support of it at the time (you know, like he did) as a negative against her. Now?
Contrary to a series of past statements on the issue, President Donald Trump said Monday that the U.S. military “should never ever have left” Iraq in 2011.
“Certainly we shouldn’t have left. We should never ever have left,” Trump told Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi at the White House. “And a vacuum was created, and we discussed what happened.”
That anyone in the world can believe a single word that comes out of his mouth is baffling.
So he totally lied before, yes. And he's probably lying in the conversation there, too, because that's just what he does. But "we shouldn't have gone" and "one there, we shouldn't have left as we did" are not necessarily contradictory.
Well yeah. But since it's Trump, 5 seconds on google turn up this from '06:
I would like to see our president get us out of the war [in Iraq] because the war is a total catastrophe. I would like to see President Bush get us out of Iraq, which is a total mess, a total catastrophe, and it's not going to get any better. It's only going to get worse. It's a mess.
Posts
I thought so at first too - even posted my doubts here - but having seen photos and pictures from a few angles now there's little doubt he heard her, and no doubt whatsoever he heard the reporters calling for a handshake.
My favourite local reaction so far has been the person who tweeted the photo of Ryan holding up the pathetic pint and wrote "The absolute state of the head on both those yolks!"
And if I read right, the spending targets were only instituted in 2006, so it's not like this is something that is integral and part of NATO from the beginning. The 2% spending target is only there because America spent so much money on Iraq and Afghanistan that they didn't have money for European defense, hence trying to force Europe to pay more.
This entire spending target problem is a non-problem entirely created by the republicans.
This is not the 2016 election thread dude.
She stabbed helmut kohl on the back and not only survived but thrived
Anyone who underestimates merkel does so at his (it's always a he) own stupid peril
He sure put China in its place
as the undisputed trademaster in the region.
I wish I could find this in English, it really is a good read:
http://m.spiegel.de/einestages/a-1131489.html
I don't want U.S. bases at my doorstep. That's not secure.
I also suspect that in Europe actually competent Merkel could totally out-manuever Trump in the European sphere if he's really determined to be antagonistic towards the European old guard. (Not that Merkel wants that since that's exactly what Putin wants.)
1:
List concludes.
that's amazing. this whole thing makes more sense now
Shame if anything were to happen to it.
Trump believes that NATO is a club, and clubs are all like Mar-a-Lago, which is to say businesses that give privileges for people rich enough to pay ("not getting beaten up by Russia" being a privilege comparable to access to a golf course). The most generous interpretation is that he literally does not know better, does not know that not all clubs work like his scams or, you know, that NATO is not a fucking club.
It makes me think of things I had read years before, about the benefits of republics/democracies over monarchies. One of them is that having a rich ruling class in the latter ends up with useless idiots completely detached from reality. Though apocryphal, the quote "Let them eat cake" was used as a demonstration - Marie Antoinette presumably was so far removed from the concerns of the majority of the populace that she genuinely could not comprehend completely lacking food. If bread is gone, why, go to a better substitute, and problem solved, right?
The writer(s) apparently did not realize, or did not want to realize, that the American republic had created its own kings. CEOs of giant corporations are basically business dictators, and dictators are basically like absolute monarchs of old, and so in turn they have become completely detached from reality, even now rejecting reality when it goes against their beloved personal liesworld views. The executive branch (Trump and cabinet) are full of these CEOs/dictator/insane idiot kings who've always had lackeys and minions to fulfill their bidding and whims. The type of people who, historically, refuse to learn the errors of their ways even as they drive their nations into the ground and destroy them.
Yes, it was a shame, summer child.
My broad bet here would be that there might be some activity on establishing a joint EU nuclear command structure, which would be the best hedge against an unreliable US alliance against Russian aggression. It's the option which is the most "european" in the sense that it would give Germany a credible nuclear deterrent without requiring the political capital of actually building their own missiles and systems, probably in exchange for some under the table payment to France to support maintenance and expansion of their capabilities (in practice I'd wager bringing up more missiles to ready-to-launch status, so technically not encouraging proliferation).
I mean, you'd think France would be the natural military leader by virtue of having an actual military, but nobody likes them. I'm not even joking.
Also le Pen.
Can we safely say Trump's simply trying to undermine NATO and gives nary a shit about its continued existence at this point?
It's what Putin would want, certainly, but I think it might be he's just an ignorant person and venerates the Reagan model of blindly throwing money at defense and calling anyone who doesn't do so a pussy. So much is at stake on the whims of a dumbass.
Perhaps not in the same way as military spending, since it's not military capability, but I think it should definetly be considered.
submitted as evidence:
I do think there is enough institutional resilience to survive at least his first term. The Pentagon is getting a good deal on their bases, all things considered, and they want to keep them.
Anyone here see NATO dissolving or losing a key member before 2020?
This would be a really good way of throwing it back in Trumps face; He's not supporting NATO allies facing a serious crisis (influx of refugees reaching maximum capacity while he looks to shut borders) so why should they feel obligated to meet his insipid spending goals?
Depends if Le Pen gets elected.
Most polling I've see shows Le Pen being a close first in the 1st round, but eventually losing to whomever is #2, whether it's the current #2 in the polls (can't remember his name, the out-of-nowhere guy?) or the mainstream conservative candidate who has a non-zero chance of going to jail for corruption.
Obviously we've been a little leery of polling recently, but I don't think France has anything like the electoral college where it is possible for someone to win the popular vote by a significant margin and still lose the election.
Emmanuel Macron, formerly tied to the current President, but he jumped ship (wisely, because Hollande and the Socialists are sadly historically unpopular due to the terrorist attacks and flip-flopping on austerity). Socially left, economically center, pro-Europe. The ideal candidate to defeat Le Pen, being socially hard-right but economically populist.
Trump Now Says U.S. Military 'Should Never Ever Have Left' Iraq
That anyone in the world can believe a single word that comes out of his mouth is baffling.
So he totally lied before, yes. And he's probably lying in the conversation there, too, because that's just what he does. But "we shouldn't have gone" and "one there, we shouldn't have left as we did" are not necessarily contradictory.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Read Nixonland. It's illuminating.
Well yeah. But since it's Trump, 5 seconds on google turn up this from '06: