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
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!"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.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
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.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.
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.
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 surprisedIf we're talking about moral high ground then the answer's obvious.
Continue writing our story of peace.Perhaps related
Trump rode golf cart while G7 leaders walked through Siciliy
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

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.