Trump Tweets (no more)

[Eisdrache]

I know neither the numbers nor the details for each respective state but ~doubling the spending on defense seems ... unrealistic? Blame that on NATO for putting the mark on 2% or on Trump not knowing the reasoning behind it.

edit: reading up on it, the 2% GDP number is arbitrary at best. First it doesn't necessarily mean that America's security is improved even if all states would spend 2% on defense, nor do they all calculate the same spending. The US for example factors about ~10% of the defense budget for medical spending while other states have that in other places. Depending on the accounting approach, the numbers may vary. Aside of that the 2%, however you want to measure it, is a goal, set until 2024, not a demand to be met as soon as possible and certainly not withing the first quarter of Trump's presidency. Whether or not they will meet the criteria by then without some 'motivation' is arguable. All in all it's way to easy to just look at a GDP number and measure everything against it. There is some truth in the statement that many members will have to ramp up their military spending one way or another but that's about all he got right. The whole situation is highly complex and unique for every state and you bet Trump doesn't even begin to understand any of them.

[Serovectra]

I guess it depends if 2% would be a struggle for them or they're just taking advantage of the ones willing to pay out 2%. The US alone pays out more than all the other countries combined.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAsQoyXWAAIKLAQ.jpg

Regardless, he only spoke the truth. They missed their quota, simple as that. You could argue that he could have said it in a less demeaning way, but mincing words isn't something Trump seems capable of doing.

@Edit: Not exactly, the goal is 2024 after they failed to meet their quota during a summit meeting in 2014. (A number all members of NATO agreed upon back in 2006). At the time six members reached the threshold; last year five did. While there is a long time to go until 2024 the majority of the countries have shown no signs of progress; from 2014 to current.

Also from research, this isn't a Trump thing. There have been multiple presidents who complained about a lack of military spending from many of the European allies.

[Dauerlutscher]

Originally Posted by Serovectra

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DArytEZXoAAJ9HQ.jpg:large

https://admin.govexec.com/media/gbc/...atopercgdp.png

They wanted to do that till 2024...we have 2017...and no one in th NATO is obligatet to reach those 2% in the first place.


No one is forcing the US to spend so much on military...The money is needed elswhere for more important things like healthcare and education. Not every country can or is willing to throw so much money out of the window.

[Serovectra]

Originally Posted by Dauerlutscher

They wanted to do that till 2024...we have 2017...and no one in th NATO is obligatet to reach those 2% in the first place.


No one is forcing the US to spend so much on military...The money is needed elswhere for more important things like healthcare and education. Not every country can or is willing to throw so much money out of the window.

It's a number all members of NATO agreed to. Of course, no one is holding a gun to their head, but the fact still remains. And 2024 is a number they came up with during the 2014 summit meeting after failing to meet the quota since 2006.

[Dauerlutscher]

Originally Posted by Serovectra

It's a number all members of NATO agreed to. Of course, no one is holding a gun to their head, but the fact still remains. And 2024 is a number they came up with after failing to do so since 2006.

They agreed to do that till 2024, but they never made any real contract to do that. The point is, like Eisdrache said, far more complicated and Trump is too much of a moron to understand this.

[Serovectra]

And several of the past presidents as well, since they also had a problem with it.

[Eisdrache]

The US does not spend as much as all other countries combined. The chart you linked is misleading since it only shows military spending. NATO has three different budgets, civil budget, military budget and NATO Security Investment Programme (NSIP). If you take all of them into account, the US contribution sums up to about ~22%, with Germany at ~15% and France at ~11%.

Trump begins to have a point that the US have an over-proportional share of defense expenditures which indeed results in an over-reliance in that aspect. This partially comes from the fact that America has several military projects around the globe whereas for example Luxembourg obviously does not. Iceland doesn't even have an army. However it is very difficult to put the US spending into numbers due to their global responsibilities, redeployment of troops, etc.

Summed up Trump's statement about direct funding is flat out wrong. His point has some merit when you take indirect funding into account but even then his argument is imprecise at best.

And this is just my personal opinion but I doubt he knows the difference between direct and indirect funding.

[ganbaru]

I may be wrong but, the insistence on the ''2% spending'' thing might be a for Trump to not go to help if another NATO member need help or a way to increase order for (US or not) weapon spending.

[Dauerlutscher]

Originally Posted by Serovectra

And several of the past presidents as well, since they also had a problem with it.

Who cares if they had a problem with it? The problem only exists because one member wants to unreasonably throw money out of the window while the other members don't see any reason to do that for now or just simply can't. And unlike past president who knew how to behave and knew that it is far more complicated, Trump behaved like an idiot who has no clue about what he is talking about.

[Serovectra]

Originally Posted by Dauerlutscher

Who cares if they had a problem with it? The problem only exists because one member wants to unreasonably throw money out of the window while the other members don't see any reason to do that for now or just simply can't. And unlike past president who knew how to behave and knew that it is far more complicated, Trump behaved like an idiot who has no clue about what he is talking about.

Do commitments mean nothing? Why make one if you don't plan on holding up your end.

[sayde]

So we recently got word of the fact that Trump's son-in-law was "under scrutiny" by the FBI and has become a target for questioning--which in and of itself isn't much to talk about since all it means is that there's questions they want to ask him.

But apparently the newest bombshell of info tonight is this past December, Jared actually tried to secretly negotiate with Russian diplomat Sergey Kislyak to set up a secret communications channel between the Trump house and the Kremlin. Needless to say, this puts Trump's son-in-law in a very bad spot both legally and politically if this turns out to be true. That's because he was legally obligated to disclose any contacts he's had with any foreign officials upon entering office. Failure to do so could result in 5 years in prison. In normal times, news of such a thing would lead to this person getting his security clearance revoked and getting kicked out of the house by tomorrow morning. But alas, these are not normal times.

So while he could try to claim forgetfulness, stupidity, or ignorance about not knowing any better, the fact that he met with Sergey Kislyak in secret on top of the fact that he was clearly trying to set up a means of communication that would remain secret from the very government he now works for clearly shows he didn't want this to be known to the US in the first place. So it sort of destroys any credibility to any excuse he could come up with.

And since this thread is about Trump, I guess it's worth mentioning the obvious. Unlike Flynn, Jared is the son-in-law. He's also the closest person and advisor to Trump in the house and the man tasked with an unusually large number of duties. So are we supposed to believe that Jared set up this secret negotiation on his own with Trump's approval or without him knowing absolutely nothing about it?

It should be interesting to see the reasons the house will come up with to try to explain their way out of this one.

[Eisdrache]

Originally Posted by Dauerlutscher

Who cares if they had a problem with it? The problem only exists because one member wants to unreasonably throw money out of the window while the other members don't see any reason to do that for now or just simply can't. And unlike past president who knew how to behave and knew that it is far more complicated, Trump behaved like an idiot who has no clue about what he is talking about.

The 2% GDP spending for NATO states and America's military spending are two different matters. While it may be true that the US spends too much it is also true that the NATO members depend too much on the US in certain aspects. That doesn't change that Trump's numbers are wildly inaccurate but a more balanced budget when it comes to defense does have some merit.

[Valky]

So it's his son-in-law turns now. Oh no .. he maybe a crook and corrupt, but according to Trump he's the only one who could make peace in the middle east happen. It'll be a huge blow to middle east peace progress if he is found guilty. . Not to mention a lot of other crap Trump dumped to him to take care of.

Then again, I'm sure he will look good wearing orange.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by MCAL

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonal...34190078906370

Trump tweets biased poll that doesn't even make him look good in the first place.

Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight has a piece on how that site adjusts scores on presidential approval. Rasmussen consistently reports more positive figures for Trump than the overall average rating, by as much as five points.

Rasmussen's polling has always had a pro-Republican tilt which pleases his largely Republican client base. In 2012 I estimated their polls gave Romney a two or three point boost over Obama. In 2016 their polls put Trump's lead over Clinton some four points greater than the average.

TL;DR…

 

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

In contrast, the Republican bias seen on-air at FoxNews does not extend to their polling. Its most recent poll put Trump at 40 percent approval, right in line with most other polls. That didn't stop fervid Trump supporters from lashing out at Fox and its pollster because, of course, all those media polls are just "fake news."

On the subject of NATO, the US has paid far more than a proportional share of the alliance's costs since its inception. A famous 1966 paper by economists Mancur Olsen and Richard Zeckhauser provided a game-theoretic explanation for why most smaller countries should be expected to get a free ride and the principal members pay disproportionately more. Since this paper is over half-a-century old you can see that the issue of burden-sharing in NATO has a long history. For instance, in 1970, the US accounted for 75 percent of NATO spending.

[monir]

Trump is tweeting again....

"I will make my final decision on the Paris Accord next week!"

YAYYYYYY! Welcome back, Donald. I missed you.

[Dauerlutscher]

Originally Posted by monir

Trump is tweeting again....

"I will make my final decision on the Paris Accord next week!"

YAYYYYYY! Welcome back, Donald. I missed you.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by monir

Trump is tweeting again....

"I will make my final decision on the Paris Accord next week!"

YAYYYYYY! Welcome back, Donald. I missed you.

It's rather sad seeing some of these.

"Just returned from Europe. Trip was a great success for America. Hard work but big results!"

What success, what results?

"Big win in Montana for Republicans!"

Not really big when it was like a 97% chance it stayed red.

"Bringing hundreds of billions of dollars back to the U.S.A. from the Middle East - which will mean JOBS, JOBS, JOBS!"

Curious how they'll spin this one.

"Just arrived in Italy for the G7. Trip has been very successful. We made and saved the USA many billions of dollars and millions of jobs."

If just stepping foot in Italy achieved this, maybe he should move there.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by GDB

"Bringing hundreds of billions of dollars back to the U.S.A. from the Middle East - which will mean JOBS, JOBS, JOBS!"

Most economists believe the "multiplier effect" of military spending, leaving aside investments in R&D, is smaller than it is for civilian spending. The top-five military contractors employ about a half-million people. At best the employment effects of giving the Saudis more arms to kill Yemeni civilians might employ a few additional tens of thousands of people. Compare that to three million people who quit their jobs in August alone, or the quarter-million new jobs added on average each month.

"Just arrived in Italy for the G7. Trip has been very successful. We made and saved the USA many billions of dollars and millions of jobs."

I don't see any evidence that any monies were saved during this trip, though perhaps we didn't have to defend Mar-A-Lago for the time Trump was away. No new trade agreements were signed; as far as I know the only identifiable "success" of this trip was the Saudi arms deal.

If just stepping foot in Italy achieved this, maybe he should move there.

I suggest a nice quiet room in the Vatican right down the hall from Pope Francis.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

Most economists believe the "multiplier effect" of military spending, leaving aside investments in R&D, is smaller than it is for civilian spending. The top-five military contractors employ about a half-million people. At best the employment effects of giving the Saudis more arms to kill Yemeni civilians might employ a few additional tens of thousands of people. Compare that to three million people who quit their jobs in August alone, or the quarter-million new jobs added on average each month.

It's not even that good of a argument this time; a good deal of the weapons are supposed to be made in Saudi Arabia. The money may go to US corporation ( via saudi-based branchs) but the US workers won't get that much.

[Dauerlutscher]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...85285207629825