TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

Nov 2023 Mod notice:


There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.

If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.

Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.

If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.


In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.

Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM

Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#190776: May 27th 2017 at 8:22:43 AM

Currently I am mostly raising my eyebrows about the coverage about the NATO...in, there barely is any, the coverage which is there goes more along the line of "yeah, it was embarrassing, but Trump has kind of a point", instead of really examining what just happened and showing some understanding for the long term consequences. So....here are my two cents about some aspect which really need to be discussed.

Let's start with the 2% Trump keeps talking about. To make this clear: This is NOT money which the member states are suppose to pay to the NATO itself. But the NATO actually do has it's own budget. Said budget is 2 billion EUR every year. It is paid by the member nations. Biggest contributors based on the raw sum are the US (21,96%), Germany (15,3%), the UK (11,9%), France (11,72%) and Italy (8,72%). Those numbers are from 2011 btw, and the percentages changes with each budget, I used them so that we get an idea about the differences of contribution. So, when it comes to the US actually has a pretty sweet deal, if you consider that it contributes less than the next two members together despite being quite a big country.

But this budget is only covering the basics. It is certainly not enough to finance military operations around the globe. And here it becomes complicated. In a way it is correct that the US contributes more equipment, soldiers aso to NATO than anyone else. Thing is the reason why the US spends to much on its military has nothing to do with NATO, but with the US meddling around the world to protect its own business interest. Yes, the US saying that it will help out should a NATO member get attacked is a great deterrent. Thing is: So far the US NEVER had to do anything of that kind. Article 5 has been invoked exactly once since the NATO was founded, and that was after 9/11 when the NATO members rallied around the US for its war against terror.

Keep this in mind when we are talking about the military budget or the NATO countries. It is correct that military spending has been cut in most European countries...first because it didn't seem that necessary anymore to have a huge army with the wall falling down and the relationship to Russia seemingly getting better (remember, Russia was the main reason the NATO was founded) and then because after the economic crisis (which started in the US btw) made budget cuts more or less everywhere necessary, and most countries preferred to cut military spending instead of social security. One also has to consider that it is somehow dangerous if an European country starts to suddenly spend a lot on its military, because each European country has neighbours and NATO or not, they might react in kind, thus starting some sort of competition (it's the same kind of foolishness which lead at least partly to WWI). Nevertheless the NATO members did agree to raise the spending again to 2% of the GDP in 2014 (you have to thank Obama for that one). But this target has to be met by 2024!!!! and most NATO countries are well on their way to meet it. (Germany did raise its spending, but I somehow doubt that it will actually meet the 2%, but that is a separate issue since Germany is a very special case).

This is the context of how Trump got the idea that somehow the NATO states owe the US 2% of the GDP, preferably to be paid for the last years, too. And yet, it is nonsense. Does Trump have a point that the NATO states should hurry up and/or do more? Maybe....but one has to consider that the money which is currently spend within the NATO is mostly spend on wars/conflicts which the US created in the first place. And that includes the Iraq war, which involved the US trying to pull the NATO into an unjust war by presenting false evidence - and actually succeeding in the case of a few NATO countries, most notable the UK and Denmark (yes, Denmark). And still the NATO leapt to the defence of the US after 9/11 even though the NATO states could have easily said that this wasn't really an unprovoked attack considering that the attack was at least partly the result of the Iraq war the US started. NATO soldiers died in this war, and Trump has the gall to stand in front of a memorial which is supposed to serve as a reminder of the NATO pulling together on behalf of the US and claim that the NATO members don't pull their weight? They paid in blood for the US foolishness. They still do, or who do you think is in Afghanistan trying to keep the region at least somewhat peaceful.

But the actual problem of the speech was not what Trump said, but what he didn't say. The most important part of NATO is a simple pledge: You attack one of us, you attack all of us. If the US is not honouring said pledge, it is not only picking apart the foundation of the NATO, it is telling possible aggressors (especially Putin): Don't worry, we won't interfere. And it is telling the NATO members that at least in the eyes of the US, this alliance is a one way street. Now tell me: If the NATO members can't trust the US to honour its pledge, why should they back the US in anything? And I wouldn't underestimate the contribution those members do to the various wars of the US (which btw, really perverted the concept of a defence alliance), by allowing them to use their bases and to have access to their intel.

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#190777: May 27th 2017 at 8:29:08 AM

Yeah, Trump does have a point on the spending, but just upping the budget isn't an effective response. And he could have done it without effectively spitting on the graves of every NATO service member who died in Afghanistan.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
3of4 Just a harmless giant from a foreign land. from Five Seconds in the Future. Since: Jan, 2010 Relationship Status: GAR for Archer
Just a harmless giant from a foreign land.
#190778: May 27th 2017 at 8:34:17 AM

I still say Germany ought to up its budget.

And then use all the % over what we spent now to build either Infrastructure for a EU Army and/or a couple Helicopter Carriers (or buy them from France?) modified for finding and helping refugee ships in the Mediterranean in danger.

"You can reply to this Message!"
Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#190779: May 27th 2017 at 8:41:59 AM

Oh, don't get me wrong, I think Canada needs to up its spending to. We need replacement fighters (though with Boeing being dicks, the F-35 being politically toxic, and a potential looming trade war, we might need European bidders after all...) and the navy essentially needs to be rebuilt over night (its happening, but slowly. And I have an ulterior motive on this one because my home town would benefit immensely from a major ship building project.)

But these aren't the kind of things that can be just invested in overnight, they have to be done over the course of years or even decades. But good luck getting Trump to understand that.

edited 27th May '17 9:09:05 AM by Rationalinsanity

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#190780: May 27th 2017 at 8:46:34 AM

Ugh, even when Trump has a semi-valid point, he still misses the complex reality and makes the point in a way that spits on the graves of people who died fighting in conflicts started by the USA.

Disgusted, but not surprised
Ingonyama Since: Jan, 2001
#190781: May 27th 2017 at 8:54:42 AM

o_O

Russian oligarch/Manafort associate Oleg Deripaska seeks immunity to testify before Congress

The article says they aren't willing to grant it because of the problems it would create for the FBI investigators, but the fact this guy would be willing to come forward at all is...rather indicative of just who is truly loyal to whom here. (I.e. Putin is willing to sell out Trump if it will help him more.)

Edit: Or it's just this shady crime boss once again wanting an excuse to be granted a visa so he can do more business here. Plus if he had anything real to give, Putin would have him killed. He certainly wouldn't tell him it was okay to testify right after it looks like things are working out for him (Trump's fiasco with NATO), would he?

edited 27th May '17 9:03:43 AM by Ingonyama

TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#190782: May 27th 2017 at 8:57:15 AM

That's to be expected. It's pretty much how any blackmail-based political relationship works. Putin gives approximately zero shits about Trump as a person. What matters is how he can be used in the most politically expedient manner. The instant Putin thinks he can do more damage to American interests and/or our interference in Russian interests by throwing Trump to the wolves than he can by letting Trump sit in the seat of power, Trump's f*cked.

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
RedSavant Since: Jan, 2001
#190783: May 27th 2017 at 9:24:04 AM

Which, accordingly, means things are going worse for us as well.

It's been fun.
Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#190784: May 27th 2017 at 9:29:10 AM

Germany should up its spending, but it should add the cost for hosting refugees and providing aid for people in war zones into the numbers....and it doesn't necessarily have to be the 2%. Currently the GDP of Germany is incredible high. If Germany ups that spending THAT much, it will have a larger army than any European country....including Russia. That is a recipe for disaster, not because I think that our Government would actually attack, but because other countries might feel intimidated by this or Russia might use it as an excuse.

I also think that the EU countries need a better and closer cooperation between their respective militaries, or any attacker will have easy pickings, alliance or not.

Izeinsummer Since: Jun, 2013
#190785: May 27th 2017 at 10:46:22 AM

Hah, No, if we are talking sensible defense increases, then this is my wishlist:

1: A project to build a full-feature OS to Verified Correctness standards. After that, a network stack to ditto. That almost certainly means giving up on html, because it is a toxic pile of garbage at this point, but, oh well. Release it on a free to use license. (Yes, this is committing Corporate Murder One on microsoft. Dont care, they´ve had enough time and money to build a usable OS. ) These two are the most dire actual security threats we are currently facing, and proven-correct code will make cyber-war very difficult indeed..

2: A project to kill stealth via superior sensor technology. Because stealth is not good for the stability of MAD.

3: I dunno. Probably some research into drones.

LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#190786: May 27th 2017 at 10:48:29 AM

The Russians have been able to see through our stealth for years now. It's why they haven't put any significant research into a "truly" stealthed craft like the F-22 or B2.

Oh really when?
Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#190787: May 27th 2017 at 10:53:52 AM

Do we know for a fact that the Russians can detect B-2s yet?

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#190788: May 27th 2017 at 10:56:42 AM

Unsure but I wouldn't be willing to bet on them still being invisible. Better to be pleasantly surprised than have a multibillion dollar craft get speared by an S-400 because we were feeling smug.

Oh really when?
Medinoc from France (Before Recorded History)
#190789: May 27th 2017 at 10:57:03 AM

And still the NATO leapt to the defence of the US after 9/11 even though the NATO states could have easily said that this wasn't really an unprovoked attack considering that the attack was at least partly the result of the Iraq war the US started.
Are you saying the September 11th, 2001 attack was in response to the Iraq war of 2003?

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."
Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#190790: May 27th 2017 at 10:59:05 AM

I believe that was in reference to the Gulf War.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#190791: May 27th 2017 at 11:03:04 AM

[up][up] Yep, I meant the Golf war...sorry I wasn't clear. It seems like the US had meddled in the Middle East forever, though it is actually a fairly new thing. It used to be the UK doing the meddling.

RAlexa21th Zettai Ryouiki Enjoyer from California (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: I <3 love!
Zettai Ryouiki Enjoyer
#190792: May 27th 2017 at 11:05:46 AM

Darn Golf War, always forgot my clubs.

Continue writing our story of peace.
M84 Oh, bother. from Our little blue planet Since: Jun, 2010 Relationship Status: Chocolate!
Oh, bother.
#190793: May 27th 2017 at 11:12:06 AM

@ R Alexa21th

Darn Golf War, always forgot my clubs.

That conjured up the mental image of Obama and Trump dueling each other with golf clubs.

edited 27th May '17 11:13:13 AM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised
RAlexa21th Zettai Ryouiki Enjoyer from California (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: I <3 love!
Zettai Ryouiki Enjoyer
#190794: May 27th 2017 at 11:13:15 AM

edited 27th May '17 11:13:24 AM by RAlexa21th

Continue writing our story of peace.
TacticalFox88 from USA Since: Nov, 2010 Relationship Status: Dating the Doctor
#190795: May 27th 2017 at 11:14:33 AM

Who has the high ground tho?

[lol]

New Survey coming this weekend!
RAlexa21th Zettai Ryouiki Enjoyer from California (4 Score & 7 Years Ago) Relationship Status: I <3 love!
Zettai Ryouiki Enjoyer
#190796: May 27th 2017 at 11:15:38 AM

If we're talking about moral high ground then the answer's obvious.

Continue writing our story of peace.
TotemicHero No longer a forum herald from the next level Since: Dec, 2009
No longer a forum herald
#190797: May 27th 2017 at 11:30:36 AM

The correct answer is Obama's caddy.

What was his name again? Something like Joe Ridin... tongue

Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)
Swanpride Since: Jun, 2013
#190798: May 27th 2017 at 11:41:20 AM

Sorry, false friend (yeah, the German word really is Golf....for both...but the humour in the word "Golfkrieg" is something I am struggling to find nowadays).

Medinoc from France (Before Recorded History)
#190799: May 27th 2017 at 11:51:20 AM

In French, the difference is a single mute letter. When I first heard of it as a kid, I mentally pictured the war as happening on a golf course.

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."
sgamer82 Since: Jan, 2001
#190800: May 27th 2017 at 11:57:47 AM

Perhaps related

Trump rode golf cart while G7 leaders walked through Siciliy

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/335424-trump-rode-golf-cart-while-g7-leaders-walked-through-siciliy

President Trump chose to ride in a golf cart while his foreign counterparts took a walk through Taormina, Sicilly on Saturday during the Group of 7 (G7) summit.

The Times of London reported the six other world leaders - from Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan - walked 700 yards to take a group photo at a piazza in a hilltop town. The U.S. leader decided to wait until he could get a golf cart.

Trump was late for the photo, but joined the other world leaders during the walk down from the piazza

edited 27th May '17 11:58:59 AM by sgamer82


Total posts: 417,856
Top