Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
On the heels of a visibly awkward visit from the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, Donald Trump said on Saturday that Germany owed “vast sums of money” to Nato and the US, even though the alliance does not stipulate payments to America.
Merkel and Trump can't hide fundamental differences in first visit
Read more
His remarks prompted a former US permanent representative to Nato to reply “that’s not how Nato works”, and to add that increased European spending on defense was not a “favor (or payment) to the US”.
Trump, who was at his Mar-a-Lago estate for the weekend and spending the morning at Trump International Golf Course, sent two tweets early in the day. The first denounced “the FAKE NEWS” for what he said was mistaken coverage of a “GREAT” meeting with Merkel.
Follow
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Despite what you have heard from the FAKE NEWS, I had a GREAT meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Nevertheless, Germany owes.....
1:15 PM - 18 Mar 2017
16,752 16,752 Retweets 73,301 73,301 likes
Follow
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
...vast sums of money to NATO & the United States must be paid more for the powerful, and very expensive, defense it provides to Germany!
1:23 PM - 18 Mar 2017
15,146 15,146 Retweets 65,561 65,561 likes
Trump’s public appearances with Merkel betrayed an awkwardness between the two leaders, including during two widely remarked upon appearances in the White House. In one, the leaders failed to stage a handshake for cameras in the Oval Office, and in another Merkel looked baffled by comments made by Trump during a joint press conference. Before the visit Trump had repeatedly called Merkel’s policies “insane” and a “disaster” for Germany.
mi
Read more
Trump’s second tweet accused Germany directly of not paying enough to the security alliance.
In a joint press conference on Friday, Trump expressed “strong support” for Nato but reiterated his belief that member nations do not contribute a “fair share”.
“Many nations owe vast sums of money from past years and it is very unfair to the United States,” he said. “These nations must pay what they owe.”
He added: “During our meeting, I thanked Chancellor Merkel for the German government’s commitment to increase defense spending and work toward contributing at least 2% of GDP.”
Trump’s tweets on Saturday suggested a misunderstanding of the way Nato is funded. According to Nato’s official guidelines, member nations are expected to spend at least 2% of their country’s gross domestic product (GDP) on defense. However, only a handful of the 28 members actually meet that target.
At a 2014 summit in Wales, members pledged to increase their military spending to 2% of GDP by 2024, a goal some have said is unachievable and unrealistic for several member states.
Ultimately, members’ contributions are based on each nation’s capability. Therefore, Nato member nations do not “owe” or have to compensate any other country.
On Saturday Ivo Daalder, who was permanent representative to Nato from 2009 to 2013, respond to Trump in a series of tweets.
“Sorry, Mr President, that’s not how Nato works,” he wrote. “The US decides for itself how much it contributes to defending Nato. This is not a financial transaction, where Nato countries pay the US to defend them. It is part of our treaty commitment.
“All Nato countries, including Germany, have committed to spend 2% of GDP on defense by 2024. So far five of 28 Nato countries do. Those who currently don’t spend 2% of their GDP on defense are now increasing their defense budgets. That’s a good thing.
Daalder added that the “large military commitment” of the US to Nato was “not a favor to Europe” but was “vital for our own security”.
“We fought two world wars in Europe, and one cold war,” he wrote. “Keeping Europe whole, free, and at peace, is vital US interest.”
Trump has long criticized Nato. In a joint interview days before taking office in January, with the Times of London and the German publication Bild, Trump declared the alliance “obsolete”.
“I said a long time ago that Nato had problems,” he said. “No1 it was obsolete, because it was designed many, many years ago. No2 the countries weren’t paying what they’re supposed to be paying.”
In an interview with the New York Times editorial board, Trump implied that US defense of a Nato ally would depend on whether the country was contributing proportionally to the alliance’s defense spending.
Asked whether the US would provide military defense to Baltic countries if Russia were to attack, Trump said: “If they fulfill their obligations to us, the answer is yes.”
Pressed on what course of action he would take if the answer were no, Trump said: “Well, I’m not saying if not,” he said. “I’m saying, right now there are many countries that have not fulfilled their obligations to us.”
Trump is fascinating, he says just enough to provoke outrage but never enough that he can ever really be pinned down whilst his staffers bare the brunt of delivering the message often having to come back and backtrack themselves. The scary thing is that Trump and his 'isms will be studied and used by those coming after him.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/19 09:32:51
Yeah, some day, someone will have to write the story of the Trump Presidency.
I wish them all the luck in the world...
I also look forward to the day when we have the Trump Presidential library - a vast repository of documents and files relating to Trump.
God knows what will be in it. Will probably have a golf course. hotel rooms, and a $10,000 entry fee included
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
On the heels of a visibly awkward visit from the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, Donald Trump said on Saturday that Germany owed “vast sums of money” to Nato and the US, even though the alliance does not stipulate payments to America.
Merkel and Trump can't hide fundamental differences in first visit
Read more
His remarks prompted a former US permanent representative to Nato to reply “that’s not how Nato works”, and to add that increased European spending on defense was not a “favor (or payment) to the US”.
Trump, who was at his Mar-a-Lago estate for the weekend and spending the morning at Trump International Golf Course, sent two tweets early in the day. The first denounced “the FAKE NEWS” for what he said was mistaken coverage of a “GREAT” meeting with Merkel.
Follow
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Despite what you have heard from the FAKE NEWS, I had a GREAT meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Nevertheless, Germany owes.....
1:15 PM - 18 Mar 2017
16,752 16,752 Retweets 73,301 73,301 likes
Follow
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
...vast sums of money to NATO & the United States must be paid more for the powerful, and very expensive, defense it provides to Germany!
1:23 PM - 18 Mar 2017
15,146 15,146 Retweets 65,561 65,561 likes
Trump’s public appearances with Merkel betrayed an awkwardness between the two leaders, including during two widely remarked upon appearances in the White House. In one, the leaders failed to stage a handshake for cameras in the Oval Office, and in another Merkel looked baffled by comments made by Trump during a joint press conference. Before the visit Trump had repeatedly called Merkel’s policies “insane” and a “disaster” for Germany.
mi
Read more
Trump’s second tweet accused Germany directly of not paying enough to the security alliance.
In a joint press conference on Friday, Trump expressed “strong support” for Nato but reiterated his belief that member nations do not contribute a “fair share”.
“Many nations owe vast sums of money from past years and it is very unfair to the United States,” he said. “These nations must pay what they owe.”
He added: “During our meeting, I thanked Chancellor Merkel for the German government’s commitment to increase defense spending and work toward contributing at least 2% of GDP.”
Trump’s tweets on Saturday suggested a misunderstanding of the way Nato is funded. According to Nato’s official guidelines, member nations are expected to spend at least 2% of their country’s gross domestic product (GDP) on defense. However, only a handful of the 28 members actually meet that target.
At a 2014 summit in Wales, members pledged to increase their military spending to 2% of GDP by 2024, a goal some have said is unachievable and unrealistic for several member states.
Ultimately, members’ contributions are based on each nation’s capability. Therefore, Nato member nations do not “owe” or have to compensate any other country.
On Saturday Ivo Daalder, who was permanent representative to Nato from 2009 to 2013, respond to Trump in a series of tweets.
“Sorry, Mr President, that’s not how Nato works,” he wrote. “The US decides for itself how much it contributes to defending Nato. This is not a financial transaction, where Nato countries pay the US to defend them. It is part of our treaty commitment.
“All Nato countries, including Germany, have committed to spend 2% of GDP on defense by 2024. So far five of 28 Nato countries do. Those who currently don’t spend 2% of their GDP on defense are now increasing their defense budgets. That’s a good thing.
Daalder added that the “large military commitment” of the US to Nato was “not a favor to Europe” but was “vital for our own security”.
“We fought two world wars in Europe, and one cold war,” he wrote. “Keeping Europe whole, free, and at peace, is vital US interest.”
Trump has long criticized Nato. In a joint interview days before taking office in January, with the Times of London and the German publication Bild, Trump declared the alliance “obsolete”.
“I said a long time ago that Nato had problems,” he said. “No1 it was obsolete, because it was designed many, many years ago. No2 the countries weren’t paying what they’re supposed to be paying.”
In an interview with the New York Times editorial board, Trump implied that US defense of a Nato ally would depend on whether the country was contributing proportionally to the alliance’s defense spending.
Asked whether the US would provide military defense to Baltic countries if Russia were to attack, Trump said: “If they fulfill their obligations to us, the answer is yes.”
Pressed on what course of action he would take if the answer were no, Trump said: “Well, I’m not saying if not,” he said. “I’m saying, right now there are many countries that have not fulfilled their obligations to us.”
Trump is fascinating, he says just enough to provoke outrage but never enough that he can ever really be pinned down whilst his staffers bare the brunt of delivering the message often having to come back and backtrack themselves. The scary thing is that Trump and his 'isms will be studied and used by those coming after him.
He's certainly lowered the bar considerably on lying, in fact I think he tossed the bar overboard somewhere after setting fire to it.
It's certainly likely that many politicians will capitalise on the "I can say anything, at all, as long as people like it and get away with pretty much anything ", but tbh I think all that Trump has done is do what's already been done by politicians for decades already, it's just that his lies and bs are so eye bleeingly obvious that anyone can see them for what they are. Only the self deluded, or those with an agenda, try and argue in his defense.
Plus, for the first time, this grade A moron is actually putting in black and white, to the whole world, his stream of consciousness so he can't even back track without lying more and making himself look even more ridiculous.
The only thing I can think of is that this is done on purpose, anyone talking about Russian involvement anymore? or are we more interested in something else this complete arsehole has made up.
On a slightly different, but more ranty note, how this buffoon has been allowed to ruin the reputation of the USA is staggering. In 2 months America has turned from being a respected, mature and reliable state, to a laughing stock. And this is coming from someone who's nation has decided to chuck sanity in the bin for a while to see how that works out.
However, no one is laughing very much, because tbh, most of us are worried about what this clown shod imbecile is going to do next.
People around the world see this petulant toddler in a suit, and they see America, and Americans. How does that make American Dakka members feel? I'd be mortified, personally. Its bad enough that we have Boris Johnson as foreign secretary, and representative of the UK abroad, but at least people don't think Boris is completely mentally defective.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
I'm just re-watching the Trump/Merkel press conference
and the look on Merkel's face is priceless
She's wondering what the is going on
Germany and Britain have had a strained relationship these past 2 years because of EU tension and how to handle the refugee crisis, but it was always handled in a mature, grown up, diplomatic manner.
Compare that to Trump's actions.
What the hell is going on at the White House?
Don't answer that
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
The point is that Trump simply doesn't understand how politics, diplomacy and governance work.
Trump's background is based on using his silver spoon to serve up shonky business deals that he welches on when they go tits up, "reality" TV media flim-flam, the bullying and exploitation of people who don't have his wealth and power, and loudmouth populist punditry around fake facts.
These are not things that really work when trying to pilot the ship of state of a modern liberal democracy.
Kilkrazy wrote: The point is that Trump simply doesn't understand how politics, diplomacy and governance work.
Trump's background is based on using his silver spoon to serve up shonky business deals that he welches on when they go tits up, "reality" TV media flim-flam, the bullying and exploitation of people who don't have his wealth and power, and loudmouth populist punditry around fake facts.
These are not things that really work when trying to pilot the ship of state of a modern liberal democracy.
Bingo, have a cookie!
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Germany and Britain have had a strained relationship these past 2 years because of EU tension and how to handle the refugee crisis, but it was always handled in a mature, grown up, diplomatic manner.
Compare that to Trump's actions.
What the hell is going on at the White House?
Don't answer that
I cannot answer this.
But what would you expect from a staff that believes in fake news?
Former moderator 40kOnline
Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!
Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a "" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."
Why is everyone so "shocked" by the dumpster fire we have occupying the oval office?
Even a rudimentary familiarity with Trump over the years would allow one to be aware that he's a petty, thin-skinned, vindictive bully and narcissist who is used to getting...and expects to get...his way because he's surrounded himself by his livelihood-dependent family. His view of the world eminates from one point of origin, and that is "What is in this for me?"
Everyone heard him speak on the campaign trail, yes? He has the vocabulary of a 6th grader that doesn't exactly get the best grades. Lies pour from his mouth as if they were sitting on the edge of his lips just waiting for gravity to do it's thing and frankly, some of his claims/comments should call in to question the man's mental health.
I've always found that 95% of the time in life, what you see is what you get. That certainly is the case for Donkey Cave-in-Chief. A lot of partisan muppets tried explaining away his "antics" during the campaign as bluster and campaign rhetoric to stir up the base. Well, so much for that theory. This individual is that clueless and to make matters worse, has tied himself to another fething loon that is so broken and twisted that I can't believe anyone at that level of the world stage could possibly even want to be associated with that sort of scum, much less appoint him a top advisor.
This is real. It's a daily dose of "Just what the feth!?" and I can't imagine a scenario where it's going to get better with age. Let's hope intelligent, adult elements within the GOP sees that this needs fixin' and fast, and does something about it.
Kilkrazy wrote: The point is that Trump simply doesn't understand how politics, diplomacy and governance work.
Trump's background is based on using his silver spoon to serve up shonky business deals that he welches on when they go tits up, "reality" TV media flim-flam, the bullying and exploitation of people who don't have his wealth and power, and loudmouth populist punditry around fake facts.
These are not things that really work when trying to pilot the ship of state of a modern liberal democracy.
I only have two issues with your post. First, the US is a republic, not a democracy, though in spirit the function should roughly equal out. Second, I'm not entirely sure everybody living in this republic want it to be a liberal republic.
Kilkrazy wrote: The point is that Trump simply doesn't understand how politics, diplomacy and governance work.
Trump's background is based on using his silver spoon to serve up shonky business deals that he welches on when they go tits up, "reality" TV media flim-flam, the bullying and exploitation of people who don't have his wealth and power, and loudmouth populist punditry around fake facts.
These are not things that really work when trying to pilot the ship of state of a modern liberal democracy.
I only have two issues with your post. First, the US is a republic, not a democracy, though in spirit the function should roughly equal out.
I love when people try this argument. It's almost always to justify things that they like but nobody else does.
Second, I'm not entirely sure everybody living in this republic want it to be a liberal republic.
Yes, god forbid we be inclusive rather than exclusive.
Yeah, that's just making an point of argument without addressing the actual point.
On topic though, I'm still very much seeing a situation where Trump manages to 'get away' with it all. At least until those midterm elections. Even then though, he'll probably just continue to executive order enough random stuff that will screw over more peoples lives.
The "we are not a democracy, we are a Republic" argument always serves as a good indicator of someone who doesn't understand what a republic and a democracy actually is.
Why do we have to explain a 6th grade topic every 3 months in this stupid thread?
d-usa wrote: The "we are not a democracy, we are a Republic" argument always serves as a good indicator of someone who doesn't understand what a republic and a democracy actually is.
Why do we have to explain a 6th grade topic every 3 months in this stupid thread?
I mean, we could say why...but Rule #1 is in effect.
Kilkrazy wrote: The point is that Trump simply doesn't understand how politics, diplomacy and governance work.
Trump's background is based on using his silver spoon to serve up shonky business deals that he welches on when they go tits up, "reality" TV media flim-flam, the bullying and exploitation of people who don't have his wealth and power, and loudmouth populist punditry around fake facts.
These are not things that really work when trying to pilot the ship of state of a modern liberal democracy.
I only have two issues with your post. First, the US is a republic, not a democracy, though in spirit the function should roughly equal out. Second, I'm not entirely sure everybody living in this republic want it to be a liberal republic.
Repulic and Democracy are not mutually exclusive. There are more types of democracy than direct.
Second, you might want to look up what a liberal democracy is. Instead doing a knee jerk "liberals = bad!"
I mean unless you are against equal protections, free speech, fair elections, ect.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
I had this mistaken belief that being POTUS would temper Trump somewhat, and at the very least, he'd try and be dignified, try and act like a president, and at least show some respect to the highest office in the USA.
Again, I was wrong...
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
I had this mistaken belief that being POTUS would temper Trump somewhat, and at the very least, he'd try and be dignified, try and act like a president, and at least show some respect to the highest office in the USA.
Again, I was wrong...
Why in the world would you ever have that belief? What about Trump would ever have made you optimistic about him?
When people refer to him as a dumpster fire, I can't help but feel they're underselling it.
I had this mistaken belief that being POTUS would temper Trump somewhat, and at the very least, he'd try and be dignified, try and act like a president, and at least show some respect to the highest office in the USA.
Again, I was wrong...
Why in the world would you ever have that belief? What about Trump would ever have made you optimistic about him?
When people refer to him as a dumpster fire, I can't help but feel they're underselling it.
As a student of American history, I based that belief on the actions of past presidents. Andrew Jackson was a pretty wild guy, but he had the sense to respect the office, even if he did want to hang his vice-president!
I thought Trump would do the same and draw the line between campaign talk and POTUS talk.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
I think the worst part about this is people are only just waking up to the gak show.
The realization their healthcare is going to be screwed up. The cutting of programs that provide care. The same people who are just now realizing how screwed they are, are mostly the people who put this monster into office.
It would be funny, and is a little, if this wasn't going to destroy a lot of lives who didn't want a rascist bigot in charge.
Fingers crossed the GOP gets their head out of their ass amd rejects this budget, or we survive two years and folks get off their ass and toss the clowns out of office.
I won't hold my breath though, we got a lot of stupid in this country.
I had this mistaken belief that being POTUS would temper Trump somewhat, and at the very least, he'd try and be dignified, try and act like a president, and at least show some respect to the highest office in the USA.
Again, I was wrong...
Why in the world would you ever have that belief? What about Trump would ever have made you optimistic about him?
When people refer to him as a dumpster fire, I can't help but feel they're underselling it.
As a student of American history, I based that belief on the actions of past presidents. Andrew Jackson was a pretty wild guy, but he had the sense to respect the office, even if he did want to hang his vice-president!
I thought Trump would do the same and draw the line between campaign talk and POTUS talk.
The election validated his world view; why would he do anything that wasn't doubling down on his past form?
History shows that the office tends to amplify traits, rather than restraining them for the same reason
I think part of the problem, at least for the people realizing that they voted against their own interests, is that they frequently have a different perspective about their own station in life.
They might have a perception about people on welfare as lazy, as choosing to be on welfare rather than work, and since they are to lazy to work they are also to lazy to get good health insurance that comes with a job while expecting some other sucker to pay for their needs. You still hear coded language thrown around at times about the people living off welfare and cranking out kids to get bigger government checks being an urban problem, and we all know what "urban" really means.
Meanwhile a lot of the people who frequently vote for the GOP against their own interests don't realize that they are part of that same group who utilizes those benefits. And I think that part of that problem is that they have an almost religious devotion to the American Dream. They are not poor, they are not destitute, they are just a single opportunity away from being successful and becoming a self-made man. Welfare is being used by lazy people who are not motivated to do anything about their station in life, but they don't need welfare because they are not lazy and they have the ambition to find a job and don't need a handout unlike the lazy people.
These are also frequently the same people who don't have a clue about how much of their life is impacted positively by federal, and state and local, spending. Their insurance is $500 a year cheaper because they spend $200 a year more in property taxes, and there is a fire station only two miles from their house. They are less likely to be robbed because they spend $100 in property taxes more to better fund a police department. Their kids are more likely to have a better future because their school is funded better than another school. They are less likely to die of lead poisoning because of bureaucrats, less likely to die of cancer, less likely to die of heart disease. They sit around on their throne of government benefits bitching about the government never did anything to help them so we need a Republican in office to cut all that spending. Red states routinely get more money back from DC than they send there, while at the same time bitching about all the blue states being welfare states who are bleeding the federal government dry. My mother, my brother, and I came to the US as tourist with a simple 90-day stamp in our passports and we simply never left (incidentally the most common form of undocumented alien, rather than the border crosser we are so worried about). I was an illegal until a judge finally decided that my documentation was good enough and they issued me my US passport. My brother and my mother remained illegal until Immigration finally caught up with them, and then a Republican in the House went to bat for them and assisted us with getting all their documentation in order and now they are both legal permanent residents. That was in the 90s, imagine a Republican Representative fighting for amnesty for an undocumented immigrant today. Although my step-dad is a veteran, and my mother and brother are of a more sympathetic complexion than the type of immigrants that cross borders, so who knows. Me and my brother ate for free at school, before either of us got documentation legalizing our status, thanks to the school food program. My mother is trying to get on Social Security due to disability. My brother has two adoptive kids who are on Medicaid, and his son is also on Social Security for disability. When the oilfield went bust, both of them collected unemployment benefits. My step-dad voted for Trump and my brother supported Trump and would have voted for him if he was a citizen.
Honestly, the single best thing that Trump may have done already is to slap those people in the face with a hard dose of reality, pull out that rug of deluded self-sufficiency out from beneath them, and force them to come face-to-face with the reality that the Government that they hate with such a passion is also the same Government that helps them without them even realizing it.
Honestly, the single best thing that Trump may have done already is to slap those people in the face with a hard dose of reality, pull out that rug of deluded self-sufficiency out from beneath them, and force them to come face-to-face with the reality that the Government that they hate with such a passion is also the same Government that helps them without them even realizing it.
Is that happening at all?
We're all getting very good at staying in our own political echo chambers, so are there Trump supporters who are now going "oh wait...gak"?
I'm still seeing tabloid headlines of "How Trump is cleaning up Obama's Mess!" so that narrative still seems to be going strong. If you've decided that's what's happening what is Trump going to do to change your mind? Steal your car? Punch your baby?
Honestly, the single best thing that Trump may have done already is to slap those people in the face with a hard dose of reality, pull out that rug of deluded self-sufficiency out from beneath them, and force them to come face-to-face with the reality that the Government that they hate with such a passion is also the same Government that helps them without them even realizing it.
Is that happening at all?
We're all getting very good at staying in our own political echo chambers, so are there Trump supporters who are now going "oh wait...gak"?
I'm still seeing tabloid headlines of "How Trump is cleaning up Obama's Mess!" so that narrative still seems to be going strong. If you've decided that's what's happening what is Trump going to do to change your mind? Steal your car? Punch your baby?
Co'tor Shas wrote: All they need to do is not go golfing for one week, and it's payed for. But I guess it's "feth the poor".
So it's seven consecutive weekends at Trump properties. That's meals bought at Trump restaurants, rooms rented from Trump, etc., etc. Conflict of interest? Nahhhhhh. This donkey-cave is going to put Berlusconi to shame.
I think it is fascinating that Obama's expenditures on vacations was such a grievous insult to taxpayers but Trump profiting off his vacations gets crickets.
Just in case anyone was starting to think the dysfunction and bs was just a Trump thing, no it's the whole party. I mean, just get a load of this from Alabama House Republican Robert Alderholt;
So the argument now is that oh sure, the new Republican healthcare bill will be plainly terrible for many in the state and country, but Trump said he'll do some unstated thing to make that not happen, and that's good enough. That's the plan Republicans have to sell this dog.
Anyway, when she finally revealed what was in the taxes, it was not a huge deal. Trump earned about $150 million in income in 2005, and paid $38 million in taxes, thanks to the alternative minimum tax, which he wants to kill.
Yeah, this was the media conclusion from the Trump tax thing, and to be perfectly blunt it's a completely fething bonkers piece of idiotic nonsense. Sure, the tax return did little immediate harm to Trump's reputation because paying about a quarter of your income in tax more than what most people, including his supporters, expected he would have paid. But it has absolutely killed any chance of Trump repealing the alternative minimum tax, which to the extent we can find any policy that Trump probably actually cares about, it's repealing that tax. Now the opposition to any Trump repeal has been gifted an all powerful attack - if it wasn't for this tax Trump would be able to pay nothing, and that's why he wants it.
The idea of repealing the tax is now completely dead in the water.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: I think the schools bear the majority of the responsibility for fixing the imbalance because they are the ones that create the disparity between what they charge for obtaining a degree and the amount of economic hardship imposed on the graduate from getting a loan to pay for it.
While this might be true in a moral sense, it doesn't really have any practical application as long as the schools are unwilling or unable to fix the issue. Reality is that assigning responsibility doesn't actually solve a problem. What is needed is a better system that encourages each party to being part of the solution. And that system redesign has to come from government.
The problem we had/have is that the cost of going to a university is growing to the extent that it makes attending college unaffordable for a majority of the students who want to attend. Earning a college degree is a good and worthwhile thing but it loses a lot of value if it saddles graduates with crippling debt. Yes, society is better off with an educated populace but society is also harmed by pushing students into a loop of needing more education that requires more loans that creates larger amounts of debt for graduates. Having the Federal govt step in to fund loans that enable students to attend college glosses over the problem of rising costs that is the real crux of the issue. I think having a Federal program to help low income families be able to send children to college is a good idea but it should be more targeted and be grants not loans, an improved version of Pell Grants. Using Federal money to help people break out of a cycle of poverty through higher education is money well spent.
I definitely agree that an expansion of the Pell Grant system designed to break the cycle of poverty would be great. However, that is quite unrelated to the cost of college, and in of itself it would only promote rising costs (there isn't even the weak effect of future debt to discourage attendance, because the cost is worn by government).
But I note that you keep ignoring my suggestion that government loans are capped, so they are only available for schools at a certain tuition cost. There's your price control right there.
It’s 2017 and Americans are more burdened by student loan debt than ever.
You’ve probably heard the statistics: Americans owe over $1.3 trillion in student loan debt, spread out among about 44 million borrowers.
Most of this report falls for the same error I mentioned earlier, it shows total debt and uses that imply an individual explosion in debt, but actually the increase in total debt is driven mostly by the increased number of students. The price of college in the US is an issue, but it isn't the massive double digit explosion often implied by these kinds of reports.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: In that case... Obama promised I can keep my plan... I can keep my doctor... lower my premium pmt by $2500... that it's not a tax... none of that happened. So, the argument is that a judge could overturn any law based on politician's campaign statement?
What about the first Bush's "Read my lips... no new taxes"? Could a judge overturn the Bush I era of tax laws???
What about every Gun Control Law that says "X will reduce X", which has been proven incorrect... a judge can overturn those laws that works contrary to previous politician's intent??
I don't think they want this barn door to open...
How about the judges read the damn text?
You've gotten yourself confused, likely because once again you're taking your talking points from some very gak conservative punditry that pretends to be actual media.
Anyhow, to explain this ruling, we should start by recognising that not every law calls for any kind of understanding of the intent of the legislator's behind the law, but some do. So none of your examples make any sense at all, because the laws you listed aren't being challenged under any constitutional law that requires a view of the legislator's mind, and even if they were the fact that Obama and GHW Bush lied it does lying has no relevance - it isn't a test of honesty but a test of intent.
So, to move on to this actual case, what is being used is a test established in precedent to consider the Establishment Clause. The test has three parts, but the relevant one here is that the order must not have a primary secular purpose. That is, the test recognises that laws might impact one religion more than another and that's okay, but it isn't okay if the impact on religion is not the primary purpose of the law. This immediately brings in to question the state of mind of the legislator, at which point it become relevant to ask what public pronouncements they made before attempting to pass the order.
Oh, and this isn't a barn door opening. The precedent applied was established in 1971.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: A) Over 90% of Muslims are unaffected... ergo, not a muslim ban.
You provide the link, but you don't read it.
"The illogic of the Government’s contentions is palpable. The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed. The Court declines to relegate its Establishment Case 1:17-cv-00050-DKW-KSC Document 219 Filed 03/15/17 Page 30 of 43 PageID #: 4385 31 Clause analysis to a purely mathematical exercise. See Aziz, 2017 WL 580855, at *9 (rejecting the argument that “the Court cannot infer an anti-Muslim animus because [Executive Order No. 13,769] does not affect all, or even most, Muslims,” because “the Supreme Court has never reduced its Establishment Clause jurisprudence to a mathematical exercise. It is a discriminatory purpose that matters, no matter how inefficient the execution”"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: And, yet you never failed to defend HRC and your democrats whenever you complain Republicans do the same thing.
The worst supporters in both the Democrats and the Republicans will get outraged at any criticism when their president is in office, and then suddenly turn around and not be bothered about it when the other side is in office.
Thing is, normally the president will stay above all of that nonsense. Obama didn't address the crazies attacking him, in fact he stayed silent on crazy attacks like birtherism for years. The same can be true for any president, Republican or Democrat, stretching back as far as I can remember. But not Trump, he got straight on twitter to complain about Snoop Dogg's video.
That's the difference. Trump is now getting outraged at any criticism about him, while he previously felt free to attack Obama, Clinton or any of the Republican candidates with whatever he could think of. Trump is actually is one of the worst Trump supporters. That's the difference.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: There is a fundamental problem with the Republican party and its current ideology that inherently prevents them from being capable of governance.
They have been touting the evils of government for so long that government has fundamentally become "the enemy", and now that they have the reins of state they have no clue what to do. Actual governance is anathema to the Republican ideology.
In the first couple of years of the Obama administration I remember reading a line - "It is often the case that parties dumped in to opposition will spend some time looking incapable of returning to governance, but the Republicans look more like they're actively opposed to the idea of governance." Things have only gotten worse since then.
The last Federal budget that was passed was in 2007 for fiscal year '08.
POTUS' budget since then are basically meaningless. Can't see the House to simply pick up Trump's Budget and use it as a framework.
Wait till (or if) Congress starts passing budgets to get your blood pressure up... otherwise, it's MOAR continuing resolutions...
In terms of actual, legislative meaning President's budgets were meaningless even back when congress used to pass budgets. But presidential budgets have always had a lot of power in terms of the power of the pulpit, getting their budget ideas in front of the media to sway public opinion and thereby bring congress along. That's why presidents release their own budgets, afterall.
The issue with this Trump budget is two fold. First up, it isn't even a budget. Its like Trump found out he had to do it at 9pm the night before it was due. A full three quarters of budget expenditure lines aren't even mentioned, we are left to assume they'll be the same, maybe. There were no totals for spending or revenue. He hasn't mentioned any economic assumptions that are driving the analysis. There's no mention of any impact from changing laws (on entitlements and the like - this is the real meaning behind many presidential budgets). People kept calling it a bad budget, but the truth is it isn't actually a budget at all, it's a budget adjustment, possibly, if we're being generous.
The second problem is this is really terrible effort at selling Trump's vision for US spending priorities. Trump just lists a bunch of stuff to cut large chunks from, and takes some huge chunks out of each. It sticks to well known, high profile areas. If there had been any effort or intelligence put in to this then they could have spread the cuts across a lot more of the budget, and made the cut to each area look to be fairly easy to absord. Instead, it does about as good a job as you could imagine of making the increase in defense look unaffordable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrotherGecko wrote: Really we could just end the war with North Korea. We don't have to be technically at war with them anymore. Its doing significant damage to the US and it needs to stop. At the rate we are going North Korea will eventually win because the US will finally crap the bed.
Being technically still at war with North Korea is more of a novelty of international law than a real part of the issue. The real issue is that NK has a despotic, erratic regime and now they're chasing nuclear weapons. Making peace with them isn't really an option.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrotherGecko wrote: North Korea wins at the rate we are going because the US has to maintain a military it can not afford. Eventually what we are doing will become completely unsustainable. Military Keynesianism has been the cause of the reduced maunfacturing and degradation of infrastructure in this country (as far as I have learned). This won't last forever.
What? The US spends 3.5 to 4% of GDP on military. North Korea spends upwards of 20%.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gordon Shumway wrote: IMO all spending should be discretionary. Each and every congress should be responsible for each and every dollar spent or not spent. Mandatory spending is just one of the numerous ways that congress has set up to make their seats more safe.
No, it's because some spending is written in to legislation and can't be changed by budget appropriation. You can't just decide to make less money available for medicare, because congress has written in to law funding commitment mechanisms. You actually have to change the law around medicare to make that change happen.
The USA is some kind of crime syndicate offering protection for cash.
Yeah, "they must pay what they owe". Is that loose wording or does Trump actually not understand how the most basic part of NATO works? Anyone else, including any other poster here on dakka, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt because it's just so simple, and the alternative that countries send the US monthly payments is just so silly. But with Trump maybe that is how he thinks it works...
This message was edited 12 times. Last update was at 2017/03/20 09:08:34
Making peace with North Korea certainly is an option; we're never going to invade again and they are only sabre rattling out of paranoid fear. I guess we can largely just ignore them though
Just Tony wrote: First, the US is a republic, not a democracy, though in spirit the function should roughly equal out.
And here it is again. I think we should get a sticky thread at the top of this forum explaining what democracy and republic mean.
But for your sake, Just Tony, 'republic' just means you don't have a hereditary monarch. 'Democracy' means power is determined by some voting or electoral system. Arguing that you are one of those two things and therefore can't be the other is absolute gibberish.
Second, I'm not entirely sure everybody living in this republic want it to be a liberal republic.
You also don't know what 'liberal' means in that context. In this context it has nothing to do with liberalism, which in the US is used almost as a synonym for progressive or Democrat. Rather, a liberal republic is a society in which individual rights and freedoms are formally established and strongly protected.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Herzlos wrote: Making peace with North Korea certainly is an option; we're never going to invade again and they are only sabre rattling out of paranoid fear. I guess we can largely just ignore them though
The problem is containment. North Korea is an unpredictable state with a huge military and the intention of invading the south. Their reaction to disarmament by the US would most likely be to invade south Korea, sparking a war right on China's front doorstep.
As a private citizen in the UK or US we could certainly ignore NK, but the countries in the region cannot. NK is like the bad neighbour who keeps having loud parties and lobs dog gak from the dozen barking staffies he keeps chained up out the back, into your garden.
The only reason it's not worse is because he's gak scared of your mate, who pops over every now and then for a coffee.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
is going on 
