Whatever tiny shred of credibility this jackass might have had is well and truly gone at this point. I don't know what Putin has on him, but it's obviously more than enough. The entire planet is laughing at America.
#MAGA
The most disturbing aspect of Trump's words and behavior during that summit and press conference was his apparent desire to put himself and his concerns above the interests of the country. Even his appointees agree with the intelligence assessment and the indictment of the 12 Russians. Yet Trump threw his intelligence community under the bus and relied solely on his gut reaction to Putin's denial of involvement.
AND THEN he comes up with the lamest, most pathetically transparent walkback—oh gosh, I misspoke. Not even a child would believe that crap.
Trump doesn't care about the chaos he creates. He's just out to save his own skin right now. This man is a coward and a weasel.
Whatever tiny shred of credibility this jackass might have had is well and truly gone at this point. I don't know what Putin has on him, but it's obviously more than enough. The entire planet is laughing at America.
Yes, Germany gets most of its petro energy from Russia and has for years, to the best of my knowledge, especially natural gas.
What is the purpose of NATO ? It was put together to counter the threat of the USSR to Europe post WW II. The USSR is now long gone. NATO should have been ended at the same time as well. Europe has been primarily defended since WW II on the backs of the US taxpayer. That has allowed Europe to expand into socialism because they did not have to pay for their own defense and they got quite used to it and took it for granted, all the while condemning the US for its huge outlays for its defense budget. Europe would be a much different place if it had to pay its own way since WW II.
The whole flippin free world has taken the US for granted and milked it for all it could. Of course we had strings attached. Our military presence in Germany isn't because we couldn't trust Russia after WW II. It is because we couldn't trust Germany.
Getting back to NATO. It's a globalist / military complex thing. It requires that military equipment be standardized throughout the network so that it can function as one. Who is the primary beneficiary of that ? The neocons and their military industrial complex.
Sorry for the incomplete thoughts. Wish I had more time but I must go on the road now. More later.
Whoa, hold on there cowboy. Not sure what I find more distasteful, the cynical but knowledgeable manipulation of someone like Putin playing foreign leaders like puppets, or the hydrocephalic Yankee swagger of the US forcing others to be "rescued" from their imaginary demons, and then claiming we are freeloading.
First: no, Europe has not been freeloading its defense to the US. Both France and the UK (now in doubt) have their own viable nuclear defense which they pay for out of their own budgets. Germany (like Japan) doesn't have a nuclear program, obviously. The "huge" outlays for the US military are not disputed. But, nobody outside the US asked for them. This is solely an internal US decision and has much more to with lobbying by your industry.
Second: "allowed Europe to expand into socialism" there is so much wrong in this one clause. Small reminder: many European economies are very stable, very wealthy and have fantastic social programs and this has nothing to do with not having to pay for defense. Europe has paid its own way since WWII. The one exception would be the Marshall plan which was brilliant but also had behind it the ulterior motive of shoring up a front line of defense against communist Europe.
Third: "the whole flipping' free world has taken the US for granted and milked it for all it could." Seriously, Archie Bunker, you need to travel a bit more. If you have been milked by anybody, it is by US corporate interests, which have been fully backed by the US military. The fact that they might have kept their profits hidden, avoided tax using offshore havens, and had their own interests more at heart than the US heartland is not something you can blame on the countries you "protected" by force.. Chile, Iraq, etc. the list goes on. Seriously, I'd love to see you confront an orphaned Iraqi family with that accusation.. what do you want them to do? Pay for the missile that some dumb-arse drone operator fired at their innocent Dad? Really? C'mon you freeloaders, that missile was really expensive! Hork up some cash!!
Fourth: "Our military presence in Germany isn't because we couldn't trust Russia after WW II. It is because we couldn't trust Germany."
This is simply Orwellian. Whatever happened to the Cold War in your brain? did that just somehow get erased from your memory?
My memory is better than your's evidently ...
The US has been in Germany continuously since the end of WW II, well before NATO came into being.
Let's go down memory lane shall we ? There were a number of treaty organizations created in the late 40's and early 50's as a direct result of WW II. Three of the biggest that matter for this discussion are : ANZUS , SEATO and NATO. SEATO is long gone, the other two are still in force. SEATO did have a similar function to NATO but was disbanded when it was no longer needed, which may apply to NATO, eh ?
Let's look at NATO. It was founded in 1949.
In 1948, European leaders met with US defence, military and diplomatic officials at the Pentagon, under US Secretary of State George C. Marshall's orders, exploring a framework for a new and unprecedented association.<13> Talks for a new military alliance resulted in the North Atlantic Treaty, which was signed by US President Harry S. Truman in Washington on 4 April 1949. It included the five Treaty of Brussels states ( Belgium, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom) plus the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland.<14>
The first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay, stated in 1949 that the organization's goal was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down".<15>
Doubts over the strength of the relationship between the European states and the United States ebbed and flowed, along with doubts over the credibility of the NATO defense against a prospective Soviet invasion – doubts that led to the development of the independent French nuclear deterrent and the withdrawal of France from NATO's military structure in 1966 for 30 years.
NATO has been a shaky organization throughout its entire existence. France was in then they were out and now they are back. France looks out for France and that is that. Hitler said "Boo" and France fell. They did teach you that in school ? Right ?
From the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, France pursued a military strategy of independence from NATO under a policy dubbed "Gaullo-Mitterrandism". Nicolas Sarkozy negotiated the return of France to the integrated military command and the Defence Planning Committee in 2009, the latter being disbanded the following year. France remains the only NATO member outside the Nuclear Planning Group and unlike the United States and the United Kingdom, will not commit its nuclear-armed submarines to the alliance.<41> <60> Few members spend more than two percent of their gross domestic product on defence,<138> with the United States accounting for three quarters of NATO defense spending.<139>
... At the subsequent 2014 Wales summit, the leaders of NATO's member states formally committed for the first time spend the equivalent of at least 2% of their gross domestic products on defence by 2024, which had previously been only an informal guideline.<76> In 2015, five of its 28 members met that goal.<77> <78> <79> At the beginning of 2018, eight of the 29 members either were meeting the target or were close to it; six others had laid out plans to reach the target by 2024 as promised
That means that only half of the current members intend to spend their fair share by 2024.
Libya was my WTF moment as far as NATO is concerned. Under the guise of 'genocide' France initiated an intervention into a so called civil war. Actually Qadaffy was about to cut France off from its Sweet Libyan Crude which it is so dependent upon due to their oil refining limitations. The US does not use nor need Libyan crude. We primarily refine heavy crude such as from Venezuela and Canada and West Texas Intermediate grades. But since NATO members other than the US had not been investing their 2% GDP into their defense, they were unable to do any of the heavy lifting and that is how the US got dragged into that mess, albeit with Hillary's urging. So militarily speaking, NATO is nothing without the US. Sure members do contribute forces, but they are limited in scope and severely limited in capabilities. This is the reason that the US refuses to put US forces under direct NATO command.
So until NATO members pony up and the other members build up their own national defenses with a 2% GDP commitment, it is toothless without the US. But what kind of domestic spending cuts are going to be required to make that commitment ? Raising retirement ages ? Stuff like that ? That'll go over well, right ?
And $1.25 billion just for the headquarters building in Brussels ? WTF ? NATO is more of a bureaucracy than anything else.
Back to you ... tell me where I've got things wrong, again ...
Their crime is that their bankers, like those in the US, recognized Trump as a bad loan risk, forcing him to turn to Russian banks such as VTB affiliated with Putin to borrow money. Which obviously led him to stumble clumsily into a honey trap during the 2013 Miss America pageant.
In a subsequent phone interview, Flynt told The Post that he expected to get information “within a few days” and said he would release any legitimate information right away. He also defended offering a cash reward for information.
“Just because you pay for it does not mean it’s not any good,” Flynt said. “I don’t think you can live as recklessly as Trump has for 30 years and not leave some baggage along the way . . .
That was in Oct 2017. The money is still waiting ... you could be an even wealthier man !!!
...“My people came to me, Dan Coats came to me and some others, they said they think it’s Russia,” Mr. Trump said, referring to the director of national intelligence, Dan Coats. “I have President Putin; he just said it’s not Russia. I will say this: I don’t see any reason why it would be.”
On Tuesday, Mr. Trump said, “In a key sentence in my remarks, I said the word ‘would’ instead of ‘wouldn’t.’”...
...Mr. Trump said the misunderstanding arose from his use of a “double negative.”
“The sentence should have been ‘I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t be Russia,’ sort of a double negative,” he said. “So you can put that in and I think that probably clarifies things pretty good by itself. I have on numerous occasions noted our intelligence findings that Russians attempted to interfere in our elections.”...
“So you can put that in and I think that probably clarifies things pretty good by itself."
...“My people came to me, Dan Coats came to me and some others, they said they think it’s Russia,” Mr. Trump said (on Monday), referring to the director of national intelligence, Dan Coats. “I have President Putin; he just said it’s not Russia. I will say this: I don’t see any reason why it would be.”
On Tuesday, Mr. Trump said, “In a key sentence in my remarks, I said the word ‘would’ instead of ‘wouldn’t.’”...
...Mr. Trump said the misunderstanding arose from his use of a “double negative.”
“The sentence should have been ‘I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t be Russia,’ sort of a double negative,” he said. “So you can put that in and I think that probably clarifies things pretty good by itself. I have on numerous occasions noted our intelligence findings that Russians attempted to interfere in our elections.”...
...“My people came to me, Dan Coats came to me and some others, they said they think it’s Russia,” Mr. Trump said (on Monday), referring to the director of national intelligence, Dan Coats. “I have President Putin; he just said it’s not Russia. I will say this: I don’t see any reason why it would be.”
On Tuesday, Mr. Trump said, “In a key sentence in my remarks, I said the word ‘would’ instead of ‘wouldn’t.’”...
...Mr. Trump said the misunderstanding arose from his use of a “double negative.”
“The sentence should have been ‘I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t be Russia,’ sort of a double negative,” he said. “So you can put that in and I think that probably clarifies things pretty good by itself. I have on numerous occasions noted our intelligence findings that Russians attempted to interfere in our elections.”...
.. and what I find particularly distasteful is this sudden casting of western Europeans as "foes".. who on Earth did you pick that up from?
In what way Kurtster, pray tell, has any country in the entire western alliance ever been your enemy? Have we threatened your borders? Your institutions? Have we reneged on respecting the rights of your citizens? Have we waterboarded any of them? Have we enforced regime change on you? Held you to ransom? Have we not supported you against our better judgement in all sorts of military escapades? Please go ahead.. give us your sob story, I'm genuinely curious.
Their crime is that their bankers, like those in the US, recognized Trump as a bad loan risk, forcing him to turn to Russian banks such as VTB affiliated with Putin to borrow money. Which obviously led him to stumble clumsily into a honey trap during the 2013 Miss America pageant.
Nutshell observations of yesterday's press conference following Trump's meeting with Putin, and the points being made about it: 1. There is nothing wrong with Trump having met with Putin, or Trump expressing his willingness to improve relations between the U.S. and Russia. 2. Trump could have parried inquiries about Russian interference by stating that he and Putin had a frank discussion about it during their one-on-one meeting and that he, Trump, sided with our intelligence community. Period. Instead, he indicates that he sides with Putin because of Putin's "strong and powerful" denial and because there was "no reason" for the Russians to have interfered, thereby calling into question the definitive findings of Trump's own intelligence agencies and raising suspicions about Trump's motives . 3. The old adage applies: Don't air your dirty laundry in public. There was absolutely no reason for Trump to go into his usual rant about "no collusion" and wondering aloud about the DNC server at a press conference following his meeting with Putin. There is a time and place for everything, and this was neither the time nor the place.
The "incredibly strong and powerful denial" phrase struck me as well. For one thing, the two adjectives essentially mean the same thing (neither of which really means "honest"), but I can understand anyone being redundant while being questioned during a press conference - most politicians are and always have been, especially if they feel cornered. Perhaps he meant those words as in "a strong argument", but a denial is a different thing from an argument. So what did he mean by the denial being "strong and powerful" - that Putin yelled it at him? You can often tell a lot from someone's choice of words, and to me it's telling that he used those two words to describe Putin and his denial. He never really said that Putin's denial was "convincing", "believable", or "credible", etc. Still, it was a press conference, which he clearly doesn't like having to do (who does?), and he just may not always "have the best words".
Nutshell observations of yesterday's press conference following Trump's meeting with Putin, and the points being made about it: 1. There is nothing wrong with Trump having met with Putin, or Trump expressing his willingness to improve relations between the U.S. and Russia. 2. Trump could have parried inquiries about Russian interference by stating that he and Putin had a frank discussion about it during their one-on-one meeting and that he, Trump, sided with our intelligence community. Period. Instead, he indicates that he sides with Putin because of Putin's "strong and powerful" denial and because there was "no reason" for the Russians to have interfered, thereby calling into question the definitive findings of Trump's own intelligence agencies and raising suspicions about Trump's motives . 3. The old adage applies: Don't air your dirty laundry in public. There was absolutely no reason for Trump to go into his usual rant about "no collusion" and wondering aloud about the DNC server at a press conference following his meeting with Putin. There is a time and place for everything, and this was neither the time nor the place.
"I appreciate that Putin gave me his word that there was no interference. The world values his honesty and integrity. I'll continue to work with our extraordinary intelligence departments to better understand the concerns about our elections. There is no greater nation than the one that allows its citizens to speak freely and express their wishes through an honest and democratic voting process. We must do all that we can to ensure that process."
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jul 17, 2018 - 12:38pm
Nutshell observations of yesterday's press conference following Trump's meeting with Putin, and the points being made about it: 1. There is nothing wrong with Trump having met with Putin, or Trump expressing his willingness to improve relations between the U.S. and Russia. 2. Trump could have parried inquiries about Russian interference by stating that he and Putin had a frank discussion about it during their one-on-one meeting and that he, Trump, sided with our intelligence community. Period. Instead, he indicates that he sides with Putin because of Putin's "strong and powerful" denial and because there was "no reason" for the Russians to have interfered, thereby calling into question the definitive findings of Trump's own intelligence agencies and raising suspicions about Trump's motives . 3. The old adage applies: Don't air your dirty laundry in public. There was absolutely no reason for Trump to go into his usual rant about "no collusion" and wondering aloud about the DNC server at a press conference following his meeting with Putin. There is a time and place for everything, and this was neither the time nor the place.
VV wrote: What VV said, thank you! We are in a mess!
This post is in response to no-one in particular but just something for me to vent my thoughts.
The latest Trump debacle should probably come as no surprise to anyone who has been following him thus far. Perhaps it is "shocking" in that it puts on stark display the misplaced loyalty that Trump has for Putin over NATO and his own Intelligence Agencies. At this point none of us should be surprised that Trump sh*t the bed... again. What's shocking this time is the volume and overwhelming stench left in the aftermath of his latest "accident".
Trump is clearly a man of very limited intelligence who somehow believes (without any proof to back it up) that he is the smartest person in any room. This dangerous misconception means that he is convinced that he never has to prepare for any important event, listen to the guidance of any advisers, read any intelligence briefings or solicit the feedback of any experts. When you are the smartest person in the room... all of that is totally unnecessary and doing so might actually send an unintentional message to others that you may not be. Gotta keep up appearances. I have to believe that his advisers gave him clear directives as to how he should approach Putin with the indictments, Crimea... etc. during this recent meeting but he likely didn't listen to any of them and went off-script. Going off script of course meant that he couldn't satisfactorily answer the pointed question of who he believed more... Russia's denials of meddling or his Intelligence agencies' case for meddling. Thus adding to the poo-pile.
In Trump's mind, the Muller investigation and any indictment of Russians coming from that inquiry is tainted. It's tough to accept that the indictments or anything Muller is involved in is valid when you have been spending a great deal of your time and energy bashing it and calling it a "witch hunt". I also believe that (all evidence to the contrary) his ego won't allow him to accept that he was in any way helped in his general election win. No other president has been helped in this way and Trump isn't about to admit to being the first.
Lastly, the ironic thing about Trump is that even though he is though of as a great "builder/developer" he has been the exact opposite as president. He has distinguished himself as being a destroyer. Attempting to roll back every Obama executive decision that he can find, cripple Obamacare, pull out of the Paris Climate Accord and Iran Nuclear deal. He has very little to show in the way of constructive accomplishments while in office as accomplishing that would require diplomacy, compromise and unity of purpose. Skills in which he is sorely lacking.
So I guess we will be relegated to many more repeat performances of this ignorant, unintelligent, unprepared, egotistical, squat wreaking-ball of a President taking chunks of goodwill out of our alliances and rescinding agreements while inexplicably cozying up to dictatorial despots. The result is that the rest of his administration and the GOP will be left bewildered and scrambling to clean up the current mess while mentally preparing for the next. Pass the baby-wipes.
This post is in response to no-one in particular but just something for me to vent my thoughts.
The latest Trump debacle should probably come as no surprise to anyone who has been following him thus far. Perhaps it is "shocking" in that it puts on stark display the misplaced loyalty that Trump has for Putin over NATO and his own Intelligence Agencies. At this point none of us should be surprised that Trump sh*t the bed... again. What's shocking this time is the volume and overwhelming stench left in the aftermath of his latest "accident".
Trump is clearly a man of very limited intelligence who somehow believes (without any proof to back it up) that he is the smartest person in any room. This dangerous misconception means that he is convinced that he never has to prepare for any important event, listen to the guidance of any advisers, read any intelligence briefings or solicit the feedback of any experts. When you are the smartest person in the room... all of that is totally unnecessary and doing so might actually send an unintentional message to others that you may not be. Gotta keep up appearances. I have to believe that his advisers gave him clear directives as to how he should approach Putin with the indictments, Crimea... etc. during this recent meeting but he likely didn't listen to any of them and went off-script. Going off script of course meant that he couldn't satisfactorily answer the pointed question of who he believed more... Russia's denials of meddling or his Intelligence agencies' case for meddling. Thus adding to the poo-pile.
In Trump's mind, the Muller investigation and any indictment of Russians coming from that inquiry is tainted. It's tough to accept that the indictments or anything Muller is involved in is valid when you have been spending a great deal of your time and energy bashing it and calling it a "witch hunt". I also believe that (all evidence to the contrary) his ego won't allow him to accept that he was in any way helped in his general election win. No other president has been helped in this way and Trump isn't about to admit to being the first.
Lastly, the ironic thing about Trump is that even though he is though of as a great "builder/developer" he has been the exact opposite as president. He has distinguished himself as being a destroyer. Attempting to roll back every Obama executive decision that he can find, cripple Obamacare, pull out of the Paris Climate Accord and Iran Nuclear deal. He has very little to show in the way of constructive accomplishments while in office as accomplishing that would require diplomacy, compromise and unity of purpose. Skills in which he is sorely lacking.
So I guess we will be relegated to many more repeat performances of this ignorant, unintelligent, unprepared, egotistical, squat wreaking-ball of a President taking chunks of goodwill out of our alliances and rescinding agreements while inexplicably cozying up to dictatorial despots. The result is that the rest of his administration and the GOP will be left bewildered and scrambling to clean up the current mess while mentally preparing for the next. Pass the baby-wipes.
