Jump to content

US Politics: Speak Into the Microwave


Fragile Bird

Recommended Posts

For funsies I took a glimpse at Trump's twitter to look what his take was on his meeting with Merkel. Well, he's again harping at the all-caps 'FAKE NEWS' and that his meeting was actually very successful. Oh wait, this word is too complicated for him to spell. Of course it was 'GREAT'. And he proves that by declaring that Germany owes money to NATO and the US.

Just to be clear: Does Trump know that these 2% BIP Merkel has promised to spend are for our own military budget and won't go to the US? The way he worded that makes it sound like he expects Merkel to make amends for Germany being an export nation and the US importing stuff under the pretext of repaying the US military for their dominance in NATO. I get dizzy trying to get his train of thought...

Well, it's not like Merkel has been giving him a large boon with her promise in exchange for Trump's own hollow promises to respect treaties. The defense budget was supposed to be increased anyway, especially since the Bundeswehr complained quite a lot about their desolate equipment situation. And we may need them in the near future, if only to look flashy, with such an unreliable 'ally' as Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Toth said:

For funsies I took a glimpse at Trump's twitter to look what his take was on his meeting with Merkel. Well, he's again harping at the all-caps 'FAKE NEWS' and that his meeting was actually very successful. Oh wait, this word is too complicated for him to spell. Of course it was 'GREAT'. And he proves that by declaring that Germany owes money to NATO and the US.

Just to be clear: Does Trump know that these 2% BIP Merkel has promised to spend are for our own military budget and won't go to the US? The way he worded that makes it sound like he expects Merkel to make amends for Germany being an export nation and the US importing stuff under the pretext of repaying the US military for their dominance in NATO. I get dizzy trying to get his train of thought...

Well, it's not like Merkel has been giving him a large boon with her promise in exchange for Trump's own hollow promises to respect treaties. The defense budget was supposed to be increased anyway, especially since the Bundeswehr complained quite a lot about their desolate equipment situation. And we may need them in the near future, if only to look flashy, with such an unreliable 'ally' as Trump.

None of his narratives add up. He contradicts himself constantly. As you point out, he calls out NATO members for not pulling their weight militarily. Ok, probably a fair point. So you'd assume that he wants our NATO allies to pull their weight so that we could reduce expense on defense. Then he goes and proposes significant increases in Defense Spending. All against a backdrop of America First. Spending money at home as opposed to getting involved overseas. It's absolutely mind-boggling. He is a blank slate of chaos. There's no rhyme or reason to be found in this administration. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

None of his narratives add up. He contradicts himself constantly. As you point out, he calls out NATO members for not pulling their weight militarily. Ok, probably a fair point. So you'd assume that he wants our NATO allies to pull their weight so that we could reduce expense on defense. Then he goes and proposes significant increases in Defense Spending. All against a backdrop of America First. Spending money at home as opposed to getting involved overseas. It's absolutely mind-boggling. He is a blank slate of chaos. There's no rhyme or reason to be found in this administration. 

Exactly, this is what makes my head spin as well. I believe he wants to further increase the already bloated military budget as his own little vanity project to make himself look like as 'strong' as his big idol Putin in spite of it not aligning at all with his stated goals to dial back on US commitments to long-standing allies. Which is, I think, why the word 'isolationist was used in reference to his stated goals - not because he wants to cut trade (for once I believe him when he says he is a friend to free trade [at least as long as the numbers look fancy and he gets away with circumventing regulations of his victims), but because there is no telling in whether he would intervene if an ally gets attacked or just stand at the sidelines and watch. His promises to Merkel ring hollow to me, especially when I look at people like Bannon whispering into his ear. Selling out the EU to Putin would be this guy's wet dream come true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Toth said:

And we may need them in the near future, if only to look flashy, with such an unreliable 'ally' as Trump.

It's extremely unfortunate we've elected a moron. It's extremely unfortunate, this moron doesn't realize the US benefits from Nato. And it's extremely unfortunate that he is putting the whole thing into question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

So, Trump's most recent approval ratings are ~ 42%.

Serious question: without knowing anything else, how much do you think his approval rating will jump if/when he invades another country?

Aren't we at least allowed to know if it's North Korea, Mexico or Canada?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

So, Trump's most recent approval ratings are ~ 42%.

Serious question: without knowing anything else, how much do you think his approval rating will jump if/when he invades another country?

Depends a WHOLE lot on the situation.

Everyone was fairly pro-Afghanistan, for example. Clear enemy, clear rationale, massively horrible culture, universal allied support, etc. 

Iraq was significantly less clear at the time, and less well-supported. Bush took a hit for that one. 

If we're doing something like attacking NK because they attacked SK, I think you'll see a lot of support. I think if we're bombing the shit out of NK without any actual provocation and we don't have consistent support from allies that's going to be a problem in general. The US is very tired of constant war at this point, and one of the oft-mentioned points about Trump was that he was supposedly less hawkish than Clinton (citation needed, but whatever). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Depends a WHOLE lot on the situation.

Everyone was fairly pro-Afghanistan, for example. Clear enemy, clear rationale, massively horrible culture, universal allied support, etc. 

Iraq was significantly less clear at the time, and less well-supported. Bush took a hit for that one. 

If we're doing something like attacking NK because they attacked SK, I think you'll see a lot of support. I think if we're bombing the shit out of NK without any actual provocation and we don't have consistent support from allies that's going to be a problem in general. The US is very tired of constant war at this point, and one of the oft-mentioned points about Trump was that he was supposedly less hawkish than Clinton (citation needed, but whatever). 

Bus's approval jumped almost 20% to 82% with the attack on Iraq, actually. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, James Arryn said:

Bus's approval jumped almost 20% to 82% with the attack on Iraq, actually. 

True, although that bump immediately started abating, and lasted for 3-4 months in total before being down to pre-war levels.

I believe - or maybe choose to believe - that there's a base of voters so opposed to Trump that they'll never support him. At the very least they'd have to be gradually appeased over a long time by seeing a saner, cooperative version of Trump, and certainly not with a war.

How big that base is, I don't know, but if you take a pollster like Rasmussen, which is generally more favorable towards Trump compared to others, the number of people 'strongly disapproving' of Trump has always been at 35% at the absolute minimum (except for a couple of days right after the inauguration). I'd like to believe that these are the people Trump can never really win back after all of last year's douchebaggery. And that's Rasmussen's number, which is probably the low bar.

On top of that, I think at this point a lot of people would be more fearful of Trump leading the nation to war than Bush, both because of his general ineptitude, disregard for human beings and autocratic tendencies. I'm generally having a hard time seeing a whole lot a Democrats going patriotic over a Trump-led war, and a lot of Republicans would probably be wary of it as well unless it could be properly framed as dealing with an urgent threat, or in direct retaliation, like Kalbear said.

Finally, given the administration's penchant for almost daily fuck-ups, you could also easily imagine a war scenario turning into a publicity nightmare for the administration if things didn't seem to be running on point. All Trump's golf trips and general fuckery would look a lot worse against the backdrop of people dying.

But maybe I'm being overly naive about how easy it is to rally a people during wartime. We certainly know that Bannon wants a war, and it would be awful to see it translate into more political capital for Trump

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Toth said:

Exactly, this is what makes my head spin as well. I believe he wants to further increase the already bloated military budget as his own little vanity project to make himself look like as 'strong' as his big idol Putin in spite of it not aligning at all with his stated goals to dial back on US commitments to long-standing allies. Which is, I think, why the word 'isolationist was used in reference to his stated goals - not because he wants to cut trade (for once I believe him when he says he is a friend to free trade [at least as long as the numbers look fancy and he gets away with circumventing regulations of his victims), but because there is no telling in whether he would intervene if an ally gets attacked or just stand at the sidelines and watch. His promises to Merkel ring hollow to me, especially when I look at people like Bannon whispering into his ear. Selling out the EU to Putin would be this guy's wet dream come true.

Part of it also is that he has almost no concrete policy ideas of his own, and he listens to different advisors at different times on different issues; advisors who are balkanized into a hundred different power fiefdoms that constantly squabble with each other for dominance. So there's no consistent message or goal at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...