Shiftless2
Well-known member
And if he does end up back in the Oval Office they'll all say that "the US was a nice experiment while it lasted".
Trump Gets Triggered By Looming Criminal Charges & Melts Down
- Thread starter Shiftless2
- Start date
That Trump may be the greatest threat to the United States Constitution in all history may be contradicted, but not refuted.
So are MAGA too stupid to understand that, or
are they such monstrous ingrates they know, but don't care?
btw:
For those not seated quite near enough the edge of their own seat, consider this:
Trump's legal woes are snowballing.
- If no intervention, zero intervention, Trump may go on to win the election, and resume his role as CIC, Commander in Chief. BUT !!
- If a straw breaks the camel's back, and Trump becomes ineligible for the GOP presidential ticket, that may hand off that role to Haley. And whereas Biden might beat Trump (again) in the general, might Haley beat Biden in 2024?
This is some powerful deep yogurt we're sloshing around in here.
Federal Appeals Court Rejects Trump’s Claim of Absolute Immunity
The ruling answered a question that an appeals court had never addressed: Can former presidents escape being held accountable by the criminal justice system for things they did while in office.
Federal Appeals Court Rejects Trump’s Claim of Absolute Immunity
The ruling answered a question that an appeals court had never addressed: Can former presidents escape being held accountable by the criminal justice system for things they did while in office?
Might not be the last word DJ, but it's the latest word.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
So now it's off to the Supremes
Friends of the People
Trump toadies
As Paul Harvey said on air: - No need to worry, absolutely nothing is going to turn out alright. -
Republican SCOTUS leapt at the chance to reverse its 7:2 Roe v. Wade as soon as it had a majority. SCOTUS' 5:4 Dobbs v. Jackson exacted a political price on the GOP at the polls for it.
Whether that consequence has instilled in the activist Roberts court a glimmer of realization that it can NOT impose legislation from the bench with absolute impunity, too soon to know. Actions have consequences C.J.
Whether that consequence has instilled in the activist Roberts court a glimmer of realization that it can NOT impose legislation from the bench with absolute impunity, too soon to know. Actions have consequences C.J.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
But that was a CNN Poll - we want to see a legitimate poll - one run by Qanon or at least the Proud Boys [/end sarcasm]
a) This is serious. I listened to the SCOTUS oral arguments. ugh
b) Alright. You make a sharp counterpoint. BUT !
#347 promotes an appearance of validation of Disraeli's "Lies, damned lies, and statistics".
Trump is undermining bedrock United States standards. In Trump's Machiavellian fog, my skepticism has intensified broadly. So an obvious source of relief would be an objective discipline, like mathematics.
b) Alright. You make a sharp counterpoint. BUT !
#347 promotes an appearance of validation of Disraeli's "Lies, damned lies, and statistics".
Trump is undermining bedrock United States standards. In Trump's Machiavellian fog, my skepticism has intensified broadly. So an obvious source of relief would be an objective discipline, like mathematics.
Where's the refuge from this?
Thanks for rubbing salt in the wound Paul !
Shiftless2
Well-known member
Trump’s lawyer just admitted to the Supreme Court that the events of January 6 were “criminal.”
Can Trump unburn that bridge, if later on he decides he (Trump) doesn't like it?
S2 I tried "Read 57 replies" & got the following:
I've been waging a one man boycott of Amazon for a few years now. Jeff Bezos tried to scam me for $100, and I caught him & smacked him down. I eBay, rather than Amazip.
X Musk has me in stiff-armed posture. I haven't ruled it out, but am debating whether meeting his terms is worth the spam penalty I can expect from joining. BUT
Bassin's "X" provides interesting insight here.
I do get the impression this is as dangerous as enabling a gaggle of rambunctious children to play locked in a small room containing "the" button to launch our MIRV ICBM. It's politics at the highest stakes I can recall in my ~70 years.
The following article seems slightly exaggerated. But even when objectively reported, it's still an alarming position for a POTUS to take. Please note, as published The Atlantic's rhetoric exaggerates.
The Atlantic
Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States and the presumptive Republican nominee, said earlier today that he would side with Russia against NATO and encourage Russian President Vladimir Putin to brutalize our allies. Not so long ago, many Americans—and especially most Republicans—would have considered anyone supporting such a view to be little more than a deranged and hateful anti-American fanatic.
Trump issued this unhinged threat while telling one of his “sir” stories, a rhetorical device in which some unnamed interlocutor shows Trump great deference while humbly seeking his advice. He described a meeting, ostensibly when he was in office, in which he responded to an ally about NATO funding.
Trump’s feelings about NATO are well-known. He is gripped by the stubbornly ignorant belief, even after four years in office, that NATO is some sort of protection racket, in which our European allies come to Washington like quivering shopkeepers and make an offering to the local mob boss from their weekly receipts. NATO funding doesn’t work that way, of course, and while European leaders no doubt had their arguments in private with Trump while he was president, it is highly unlikely that the leader of a major power “stood up”—as if in some sort of audience with Trump—to ask him if he’d stop a Russian invasion of a country “delinquent” in its accounts. ...
www.theatlantic.com
I consider The Atlantic characterization of "protection racket", inaccurate, likely deliberately so.
NATO is a mutual defense treaty, an attack against any NATO member is considered by the treaty members as an attack against all.
Trump is a gifted, skillful pessimist. Perhaps if Trump knew history better Trump would understand the price in blood & treasure the U.S. paid in World Wars One and Two.
The Atlantic / Tom Nichols overlooks the fact that government in general is a "protection racket", whether East or West, democracy or autocracy.
And even if Nichols approximates validity with his "quivering shopkeepers" rhetoric, is the reverse not also true? If (when) the U.S. is attacked, our NATO allies are contractually obligated to assist in our defense, for our benefit, and their own.
Part of the problem with The Atlantic subjective agenda promotion, it may obscure an objective peril.
their withholding of their NATO $contribution results in unfair commercial advantage.
Trump's position on Ukraine's success at preserving its own sovereign borders against Russia helps complete the picture.
Trump seems ignorant, or indifferent to the "domino theory" implications of Ukraine falling to Russia.
In fact, those dominoes have already begun to fall, with Russia's conquest of Crimea during the Obama administration.
If Russia had been punished sufficiently for invading Crimea, would the remainder of Ukraine now be under attack?
The Atlantic
Trump Encourages Putin to Attack NATO Members
February 10, 2024, 10:40 PM ETDonald Trump, the 45th president of the United States and the presumptive Republican nominee, said earlier today that he would side with Russia against NATO and encourage Russian President Vladimir Putin to brutalize our allies. Not so long ago, many Americans—and especially most Republicans—would have considered anyone supporting such a view to be little more than a deranged and hateful anti-American fanatic.
Trump issued this unhinged threat while telling one of his “sir” stories, a rhetorical device in which some unnamed interlocutor shows Trump great deference while humbly seeking his advice. He described a meeting, ostensibly when he was in office, in which he responded to an ally about NATO funding.
Before we consider the sheer recklessness and immorality of this statement, let us first accept that this exchange almost certainly never happened.
Trump’s feelings about NATO are well-known. He is gripped by the stubbornly ignorant belief, even after four years in office, that NATO is some sort of protection racket, in which our European allies come to Washington like quivering shopkeepers and make an offering to the local mob boss from their weekly receipts. NATO funding doesn’t work that way, of course, and while European leaders no doubt had their arguments in private with Trump while he was president, it is highly unlikely that the leader of a major power “stood up”—as if in some sort of audience with Trump—to ask him if he’d stop a Russian invasion of a country “delinquent” in its accounts. ...
Trump Encourages Putin to Attack NATO Members
At a rally on Saturday, the former president announced he would tell the Russians “to do whatever the hell they want” to states delinquent in their bills.
www.theatlantic.com
I consider The Atlantic characterization of "protection racket", inaccurate, likely deliberately so.
NATO is a mutual defense treaty, an attack against any NATO member is considered by the treaty members as an attack against all.
Trump is a gifted, skillful pessimist. Perhaps if Trump knew history better Trump would understand the price in blood & treasure the U.S. paid in World Wars One and Two.
The Atlantic / Tom Nichols overlooks the fact that government in general is a "protection racket", whether East or West, democracy or autocracy.
And even if Nichols approximates validity with his "quivering shopkeepers" rhetoric, is the reverse not also true? If (when) the U.S. is attacked, our NATO allies are contractually obligated to assist in our defense, for our benefit, and their own.
Part of the problem with The Atlantic subjective agenda promotion, it may obscure an objective peril.
I support Trump on this assertion. NATO members are obligated to spend / invest a minimum of 2% GDP in defense. More than one NATO member nation has not. And because many of our mutual defense (NATO) partners are also trading partners,
their withholding of their NATO $contribution results in unfair commercial advantage.
Trump's position on Ukraine's success at preserving its own sovereign borders against Russia helps complete the picture.
Trump seems ignorant, or indifferent to the "domino theory" implications of Ukraine falling to Russia.
In fact, those dominoes have already begun to fall, with Russia's conquest of Crimea during the Obama administration.
If Russia had been punished sufficiently for invading Crimea, would the remainder of Ukraine now be under attack?
Shiftless2
Well-known member
Not strictly true.
And nobody has been withholding their contributions
Contradiction is not refutation.
To make a persuasive counterargument you'd have to cite a specific example supporting your contrary position. Gotny?
?
The following graphic corroborates what I've been reading on this issue for many years.
Infographic: Where NATO Defense Expenditure Stands
This chart shows military spending of NATO countries and estimated share of GDP in 2023.
www.statista.com
I hope we're a shade above hair-splitting word-play here.
IF the requirement were $1.79 and they simply did not have it, there'd be room for quibble.
But GDP doesn't work that way. THEY HAVE IT !
It's merely a question of whether they're:
- willing to contribute their fair $share, or instead
- whether they'll freeload (proportional to their shortfall below 2%) on their NATO partners, who then must make up the difference. *
And though 2% GDP is surely an enormous amount to a private individual it's silly to argue any sovereign State has a higher priority than preserving its own national sovereignty, particularly at the $bargain NATO offers / provides.
Word it any way you like. NATO's international defense costs $x.
The equitable compromise is 2% GDP for each NATO member nation, so that the large nations with robust economies pay their own freight, while the weaker, smaller, poorer countries make a comparable sacrifice, the same 2% GDP.
If they don't like it they don't have to join. If they want benefit of membership, they're obliged to meet their membership obligations.
By joining, they imply they'll comply with the requirements of membership. If you don't mind the technical jargon, it's treacherous slip-dickery for them to seek the benefits of membership, but shirk the obligations.
Such treachery is not merely a violation of international law.
It's also a betrayal, and insult to every working tax payer in the NATO 2% compliant member nations that are stuck making up the shortfall. I understand the word "shortfall" here is vaguely defined. But 2% is neither ambiguous nor unreasonable. I think Trump has this detail right, though I do not endorse Russian expansionism.
Do you perceive something intrinsically unreasonable about this / me here?
* I don't know what the U.S. or other official position is here. But if NATO member nation X hits a rough patch, their horses are stolen and their barn burns down, I (sear) would not begrudge them a recovery shortfall for a year or two.
That's NOT what's going on here.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
Ladies and gentleman, the champion of the free world
Shiftless2
Well-known member
Re #353 - you're confusing defense spending and contributions.
Everyone is "paying their dues".
Everyone is "paying their dues".
Tax is the example that occurred to me offline, between #353 & #356.
I don't deny the distinction, never have. But it violates no law I know of to include both in a larger defense spending category.
Even if we pretend (for "argument's sake") the two EXPENDITURES are entirely 100% different (somehow), they're both for the same purpose, national defense [please see note #1]. BUT !!
I don't know of any nation that has an international treaty obligation for a minimum domestic national defense "budget" (meaning regular yearly minimum expenditure).
Any sovereign nation can BECAUSE of its sovereignty spend as much or as little as it likes on national defense. The natural guns / butter balance usually moderates that, except in totalitarian dictatorships like North Korea.
BUT !!
All NATO member nations have PRECISELY a "yearly minimum expenditure", 2% GDP.
- piffle -
Better take a closer look at the graphic in #353 again.
If an medical insurance policy holder is delinquent, is s/he still entitled to the same full insurance coverage as the identical policy holder that's paid in full? If so, then why should ANYone ever pay an insurance premium?
I'm not opposed to a sensible grace period. But I gather some of these delinquent NATO members have been delinquent repeatedly. And are these funding shortfalls not cumulative? Do they not threaten the entire NATO organization, and every member nation?
Paid in full NATO member nations have options.
They can suspend NATO member privilege, particularly the mutual defense portion of the agreement, until nations in arrears are paid in full.
In more severe cases suspending or terminating not merely NATO member benefit, but NATO membership. More options available.
S2,
I'm not extolling the virtues of Trump the messenger. BUT !
I support this particular message.
- Pay your bills.
- If you're not willing to 100% fulfill membership obligations, then don't join.
These non-compliant NATO members are freeloaders. That's not good. BUT !!
In this case that means they're not only therefore requiring the paid in full NATO members to provide for them by the $millions / $billions. That means $money.
They're ALSO potentially imposing on the citizens of those paid-in-full nations, to shed their blood to defend the freeloaders. Not in every case perhaps. But potentially.
Anyone welcome to disagree with my priority. But I've made no error in fact here, that I know of.
spend  (spĕnd)v.tr. 1. To use up or put out; expend: spent an hour exercising. 2. To pay out (money). v.intr. 1. To pay out or expend money. Synonyms: spend, disburse, expend These verbs mean to pay or give out money or an equivalent: spent $30 on gas; disbursed funds from the account; expended all her energy teaching the class. Antonym: save * |
| con·trib·ute (kən-trĭbyt) v.tr. 1. To give or supply in common with others; give to a common fund or for a common purpose. 2. To submit for publication: contributed two stories to the summer issue. v.intr. 1. To make a contribution: contributes to several charities. |
* The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition copyright ©2022 by HarperCollins Publishers. All rights reserved.
I perceive definitional overlap here. They're not synonyms, as the synonyms list demonstrates. Think Venn diagram.
note #1:
My current home town has no U.S. post office. So even though my town has a name, that name does not appear on my mail. The name on my mail is the name of the nearest town that DOES have a U.S. post office. ALL our federal mail goes through that PO.
My current home town has no police. When we call 911 the responding police are not from our town, they're New York State troopers.
In that context, not entirely impossible to imagine that a nation could at least hypothetically cede its national defense to something else, a private operation (akin to Blackwater), or perhaps an international entity akin to NATO.
And in that hypothetical of 100%, less difficult to understand how NATO members have BOTH, their own domestic military resources & capabilities, AND international allied support, or in police parlance, "back-up".
But demanding / expecting benefits without meeting contractual obligation is at very least a violation of contract. I'd be disinclined to incite Russia about it. But otherwise, consistent with the "a broken clock is right twice a day" principle, I at least in part support Trump on this detail. AND
I acknowledge the irony of Trump's hypocrisy in the matter. In this case hypocrisy does not also mean false.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
Thing is they are paying their bills.
Not according to Trump, and statista.com.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
On this one they're both wrong since they clearly don't know how the treaty works.
The treaty says that countries are supposed to spend 2% or more of their GDP on expense - this is not a requirement but a guideline - and it doesn't generate any sort of "bill".
That said, NATO does require money to cover its operating expenses and everyone is contributing their share of those.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
'I can fake being smart': Trump lawyer Alina Habba says she'd rather be pretty
Donald Trump's attorney wants the public to know her good looks are more important than her intelligence, because she can "fake being smart."“I don’t think I’d be on T.V. or sitting here if I didn’t look the way I look,” Alina Habba said Thursday. “It doesn’t hurt to be good looking.”
Habba was asked to discuss her physical appearance on the PBD Podcast by ...
'I can fake being smart': Trump lawyer Alina Habba says she'd rather be pretty
Donald Trump's attorney wants the public to know her good looks are more important than her intelligence, because she can "fake being smart." “I don’t think I’d be on T.V. or sitting here if I didn’t look the way I look,” Alina Habba said Thursday. “It doesn’t hurt to be good looking.” Habba...
www.rawstory.com