Disgusted with Trump administration - Part I
-
like_that
You mean people/organizations/countries/etc stop contributing when they are getting little to no ROI? Shocker!CenterBHSFan;1856341 wrote:On my local morning news this morning it was said that Trump stated that he was willing to renegotiate a deal that was more beneficial to the US. I would be open to that, but that has got to happen first, obviously. I don't know if Trump would be willing or even able to sit down at the table and comprise a bargain.
It really does seem to be the curve, though, where alliances and coalitions are starting to disintegrate. Just take a good look at the EU, and that had nothing to do with Trump. It also doesn't lessen the UK's "status". And the UK has also stated that they would be willing to still work with the EU on issues of their own choosing. Naturally, the EU doesn't like that one bit. But ultimately, it's the decision that the people of Britain made and not the non-elected representatives of the EU. -
majorspark
You have a foreign leader (Jean-Claude Juncker) publicly warning the POTUS before he decided to pull out of the "agreement" that he will not be able to do so until the end of or after his first term.ptown_trojans_1;1856303 wrote:Look, the Paris Agreement was a framework for the whole international community to at least try and limit carbon emissions at their own pace. It would not limit the U.S. really, as we could have changed our own limits, well within the rights of the agreement. It was not a treaty for that reason, it was just the first step in the long process of limiting greenhouse gases, which is said to contribute to climate change. Yes, that is what the science says.
I am a trans-Atlanticist, but if the American president said in the next hours or days that he wants to get out of the Paris climate deal, then it is the duty of Europe to say, ‘No, that’s not how it works,'” Juncker said
As you can see Mr. Juncker disagrees with you and refers to it as a treaty. He even refers to it as the law, as if it trumps our own laws. If this is not the type of foreign commitment the founders intended to require the consent of 2/3 of the Senate I don't know what is.Juncker was adamant that it’s not as easy to leave the treaty as Trump might think: “The climate deal says: It takes three, four years after the treaty took effect last November to exit the agreement. That means the idea that you can simply disappear into thin air — that won’t happen.
“The law is the law, and everyone has to stick to it,” Juncker continued. “Not everything which is law, and not everything which is written in international treaties, is fake news. You got to stick to that.
This Juncker guy (who is president of the EU commission) is no small player in this and seems to believe this agreement has primacy over US law. Seriously how should our law making body not have a say in this?
Perhaps if Obama had brought in the part of the other coequal branch of government that the Constitution requires an agreement or alliance would be laid on a solid political foundation. Kind of like a President taking us to war without the explicit approval of Congress.ptown_trojans_1;1856303 wrote:Alliances and other agreements do not matter any more. That is the message the rest of the world sees.
NATO has a solid political foundation. This Paris (fill in your favorite synonym) did not.
http://www.politico.eu/article/juncker-warns-trump-to-stick-to-paris-climate-deal/ -
SpockGlad trump is a solid leader and is following the constitution
-
superman
When we don't pay into their scam, who is going to collect? Lol.majorspark;1856362 wrote:You have a foreign leader (Jean-Claude Juncker) publicly warning the POTUS before he decided to pull out of the "agreement" that he will not be able to do so until the end of or after his first term.
As you can see Mr. Juncker disagrees with you and refers to it as a treaty. He even refers to it as the law, as if it trumps our own laws. If this is not the type of foreign commitment the founders intended to require the consent of 2/3 of the Senate I don't know what is.
This Juncker guy (who is president of the EU commission) is no small player in this and seems to believe this agreement has primacy over US law. Seriously how should our law making body not have a say in this?
Perhaps if Obama had brought in the part of the other coequal branch of government that the Constitution requires an agreement or alliance would be laid on a solid political foundation. Kind of like a President taking us to war without the explicit approval of Congress.
NATO has a solid political foundation. This Paris (fill in your favorite synonym) did not.
http://www.politico.eu/article/juncker-warns-trump-to-stick-to-paris-climate-deal/ -
majorspark
This is why the EU is beside themselves. Germany and France have been lusting over control of continental Europe for centuries. What the Germans failed to accomplish in the last century with costly wars they have succeeded in accomplishing with economic carrots via the EU. Enticing European nations to join the fold if they surrender just a little sovereignty for EU money.superman;1856369 wrote:When we don't pay into their scam, who is going to collect? Lol.
We already subsidize their military defense. Now they want us to subsidize their ability to dangle economic carrots around the world via climate change. You have to understand Mr. Juncker and his ilk are drunk with power. It's no longer enough to steamroll the underdeveloped nations of Europe.
Then you have guys like Ptown who lament that Trump did not mention article 5. Yet our young people today sit on the front lines of Eastern Europe thousands of miles from their homes. Actions speak louder than words. Mr. Joncker fails to respect that many American young people would die protecting his seat of power.
The world is governed by the aggressive use of force. I realize our need to use force and be involved. I have great disrespect for nations who use that reality and don't respect our commitment of blood and treasure. -
salto
Sarcasm? If not, congrats! It's your dumbest post ever.Spock;1856368 wrote:Glad trump is a solid leader and is following the constitution -
GOONx19
I lol'd. Reps for humor.Spock;1856368 wrote:Glad trump is a solid leader and is following the constitution -
isadore
gosh a ruddies what a great idea. Lets push the German to build up their military, what could possibly go wrong with pushing them toward militarism.majorspark;1856390 wrote:This is why the EU is beside themselves. Germany and France have been lusting over control of continental Europe for centuries. What the Germans failed to accomplish in the last century with costly wars they have succeeded in accomplishing with economic carrots via the EU. Enticing European nations to join the fold if they surrender just a little sovereignty for EU money.
We already subsidize their military defense. Now they want us to subsidize their ability to dangle economic carrots around the world via climate change. You have to understand Mr. Juncker and his ilk are drunk with power. It's no longer enough to steamroll the underdeveloped nations of Europe.
Then you have guys like Ptown who lament that Trump did not mention article 5. Yet our young people today sit on the front lines of Eastern Europe thousands of miles from their homes. Actions speak louder than words. Mr. Joncker fails to respect that many American young people would die protecting his seat of power.
The world is governed by the aggressive use of force. I realize our need to use force and be involved. I have great disrespect for nations who use that reality and don't respect our commitment of blood and treasure. -
O-Trap
Big if true.Spock;1856368 wrote:Glad trump is a solid leader and is following the constitution
Today? Not that much.isadore;1856411 wrote:gosh a ruddies what a great idea. Lets push the German to build up their military, what could possibly go wrong with pushing them toward militarism. -
isadore
The repeated comment over last century about the threat of German militarism. Get ready to stack the bodies.O-Trap wrote:Today? Not that much. -
majorspark
Are you saying the German people are inherently evil?isadore;1856411 wrote:gosh a ruddies what a great idea. Lets push the German to build up their military, what could possibly go wrong with pushing them toward militarism. -
O-Trap
Germany today != Germany in the 1920s and 1930s.isadore;1856417 wrote:The repeated comment over last century about the threat of German militarism. Get ready to stack the bodies.
Want to place a bet on the body stacking? -
CenterBHSFanffs Germany is not going to become a military threat over a climate deal. How can you even jump to saying that?
-
majorspark
Bigotry sprinkled with a little racism.CenterBHSFan;1856434 wrote:How can you even jump to saying that? -
superman
Don't forget dumbasserymajorspark;1856447 wrote:Bigotry sprinkled with a little racism. -
isadore
social history+economic history + political history = results.majorspark;1856426 wrote:Are you saying the German people are inherently evil?
For example Russia returning again and again to authoritarian state
under the Czars, under the Communists and under Putin. -
isadore
gosh a ruddies has little to do with that, has more to do with what happened with NATO and our allies, especially Germany. It has them preparing to go it on their own.CenterBHSFan;1856434 wrote:ffs Germany is not going to become a military threat over a climate deal. How can you even jump to saying that? -
isadore
gosh a ruddies, Germany 1900s and 1910s expanding economic and military power unrestricted by anyone, it dominated the triple alliance. Germany 1933 expanding economic and military power unrestricted by anyone, dominating the axis,O-Trap;1856431 wrote:Germany today != Germany in the 1920s and 1930s.
Want to place a bet on the body stacking?
And now Germany is economically dominant in Europe and could easily become militarily dominant.
and thanks to Donald Trump
"The times in which [Germany] could fully rely on others are partly over. I have experienced this in the last few days," Merkel said during the event. "We Europeans really have to take our destiny into our own hands."
so after 70 plus years of European peace with Germany our client state.
Germany unleashed. -
CenterBHSFanI would argue that the EU was doomed to fail anyway. People that were not elected ran the show there, it shouldn't be surprising in the least.
-
isadore
Gosh a ruddies, I would argue that Trump's attempt to undermine NATO could have catastrophic effects. And that he is an idiot as can be seen by his comments today about the London attack.CenterBHSFan;1856468 wrote:I would argue that the EU was doomed to fail anyway. People that were not elected ran the show there, it shouldn't be surprising in the least. -
CenterBHSFan
Bringing Trump into a discussion of the EU has no foothold. He has nothing to do with the EU and its failings.isadore;1856471 wrote:Gosh a ruddies, I would argue that Trump's attempt to undermine NATO could have catastrophic effects. And that he is an idiot as can be seen by his comments today about the London attack.
But if you want to talk about NATO, it has its own failings too. It will have to work on resolving those failings if it wants to survive. Trump will have little to no true power to its existence. -
isadore
Gosh a ruddiesCenterBHSFan;1856479 wrote:Bringing Trump into a discussion of the EU has no foothold. He has nothing to do with the EU and its failings.
But if you want to talk about NATO, it has its own failings too. It will have to work on resolving those failings if it wants to survive. Trump will have little to no true power to its existence.
1. You introduced the EU into the conversation.
2. Trump does have power to effect trade agreements and tariffs
http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/23/news/economy/trump-tariff-power/
3. The President has threatened the Germans with a trade war.
4. The Germans are bad, very bad," Trump said, according to participants in the room who spoke to Der Spiegel.
"See the millions of cars they sell in the U.S., terrible. We will stop this."
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/26/trump-calls-germans-very-bad-threatens-to-end-german-car-sales-reports.html
5. As America’s Chief Diplomat and Commander in Chief of our military President Trump has great power and influence over our system of alliances.
6. NATO has since its creation nearly 70 years ago, US dominated and lead. It was provided 70 years of peace for Europe, after two of the bloodiest wars in human history. Donald Trump has threatened the alliance even at one time saying it was obsolete and leaving grave questions about supporting it.
7. More importantly he has threatened the NATO alliance causing Angela Merkel to say
"The times in which [Germany] could fully rely on others are partly over. I have experienced this in the last few days," Merkel said during the event. "We Europeans really have to take our destiny into our own hands."
http://www.businessinsider.com/r-after-summits-with-trump-merkel-says-europe-must-take-fate-into-own-hands-2017-5
gosh what could go wrong with a German dominated Europe on its own. Start stacking the bodies.
-
O-Trap
One country always has the economic advantage. Why does it matter that it's Germany?isadore;1856454 wrote:gosh a ruddies, Germany 1900s and 1910s expanding economic and military power unrestricted by anyone, it dominated the triple alliance. Germany 1933 expanding economic and military power unrestricted by anyone, dominating the axis,
And now Germany is economically dominant in Europe and could easily become militarily dominant.
and thanks to Donald Trump
"The times in which [Germany] could fully rely on others are partly over. I have experienced this in the last few days," Merkel said during the event. "We Europeans really have to take our destiny into our own hands."
so after 70 plus years of European peace with Germany our client state.
Germany unleashed.
Also, why do you assume self-reliance require military aggression or an absence of peace? -
isadore
gosh a ruddies, countries have histories.O-Trap;1856536 wrote:One country always has the economic advantage. Why does it matter that it's Germany?
Also, why do you assume self-reliance require military aggression or an absence of peace? -
O-Trap
Certainly, but they aren't necessarily defined by them.isadore;1856548 wrote:gosh a ruddies, countries have histories.
Do you hold the current nation of France as being prone to delusions of grandeur regarding world domination because of Napoleon Bonaparte? Should we be afraid that the French are going to try to rule the world?
Stop judging current Germans by the actions of their ancestors. That's racist, and it has no place in this discussion.
Finally, again, what is the defense for believing that self-reliance naturally begets military aggression?
Seriously, give me a time frame and a body count. I'll take the bet.