Donald Trump
Comments
-
To be fair, your original question was not about the man as a whole.Rolf F wrote:Is there anything that it is possible to agree with Trump on and not be a disgusting person for so doing?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
-
Surrey Commuter wrote:Rolf F wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Rolf F wrote:Is there anything that it is possible to agree with Trump on and not be a disgusting person for so doing?
Both Democrats and Republicans should, if they have any decency, agree that whoever gets into the White House next just repeals everything that Trump has done without argument. Just regard his presidency as lost years.
That members of NATO should pay their share and not expect the USA to do it for them.
Nope. That expectation is only fair if you are equally prepared to do your bit elsewhere. So I'd say that I don't agree with Trump whining about NATO contributions whilst at the same time he reneges on the Paris agreement.
i will just have to be a disgusting person then as I think the Europeans are mugging him off
Again, I am in your little band of brothers.0 -
Ballysmate wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Rolf F wrote:Surrey Commuter wrote:Rolf F wrote:Is there anything that it is possible to agree with Trump on and not be a disgusting person for so doing?
Both Democrats and Republicans should, if they have any decency, agree that whoever gets into the White House next just repeals everything that Trump has done without argument. Just regard his presidency as lost years.
That members of NATO should pay their share and not expect the USA to do it for them.
Nope. That expectation is only fair if you are equally prepared to do your bit elsewhere. So I'd say that I don't agree with Trump whining about NATO contributions whilst at the same time he reneges on the Paris agreement.
i will just have to be a disgusting person then as I think the Europeans are mugging him off
Again, I am in your little band of brothers.
Or my first online stalker0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:It's a fair criticism.
Though there's an argument to say the US arming Europe keeps global spending on the military lower and ergo safer.
Eh? What are you on about now Richard?Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am
De Sisti wrote:
This is one of the silliest threads I've come across.
Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honoursmithy21 wrote:
He's right you know.0 -
PBlakeney wrote:
Changing laws so your kids can play.bianchimoon wrote:The Trump admin have just lifted ban on bringing elephant hunting trophies back into US, the pics of dotards two sons cutting tail of an elephant and holding up a leopard they had just shot is a real use of the word SAD
Classy. :evil:
It's nothing to do with classiness (sic) - the whole family are just cuuunts.Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am
De Sisti wrote:
This is one of the silliest threads I've come across.
Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honoursmithy21 wrote:
He's right you know.0 -
I will obviously have turn up my sarcasm a few notches.Matthewfalle wrote:PBlakeney wrote:
Changing laws so your kids can play.bianchimoon wrote:The Trump admin have just lifted ban on bringing elephant hunting trophies back into US, the pics of dotards two sons cutting tail of an elephant and holding up a leopard they had just shot is a real use of the word SAD
Classy. :evil:
It's nothing to do with classiness (sic) - the whole family are just cuuunts.
I think hunters should do it with a level playing field, no distance weapons. No sarcasm this time.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
All lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....0
-
is the dotard deluded? only he would stir a hornets next with a tweet like
unbelievable.And to think that just last week he was lecturing anyone who would listen about sexual harassment and respect for women. Lesley Stahl tape?All lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:It's a fair criticism.
Though there's an argument to say the US arming Europe keeps global spending on the military lower and ergo safer.
Safer against cyber crime? Russian interference?
Safer against what exactly? Apart from wars conducted by proxy, major wars between super powers is inconceivable, have no potential possibility of positive outcome and is economically detrimental.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Pinno wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:It's a fair criticism.
Though there's an argument to say the US arming Europe keeps global spending on the military lower and ergo safer.
Safer against cyber crime? Russian interference?
Safer against what exactly? Apart from wars conducted by proxy, major wars between super powers is inconceivable, have no potential possibility of positive outcome and is economically detrimental.
I must confess it's not a line of argument I came up with, but heard it from a friend who studied war studies.
The idea is that if there is a big ol' global superpower who has your back, you're less inclined to build your own military.
By not having as big a military, you're therefore less inclined to be offensive & invade different places.
Certainly you can make an argument that post WW2 pre 1989 the big superpower military presence in continental Europe helped keep Europe from fighting yet another war, for example.
I'm sympathetic to the US argument that they needn't subside EU security. But I'm less sympathetic to the idea of Europe re-arming, so i'm quite torn.
Broadly I think peace in Europe is currently taken for granted, and it's something that really need to be worked hard at to maintain. I think Europe not needing to have massive armies is a huge help in that respect.0 -
I think that Richard has no clue what the military does. Not a scooby. Zilch. Rien. Pas de tout.Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am
De Sisti wrote:
This is one of the silliest threads I've come across.
Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honoursmithy21 wrote:
He's right you know.0 -
-
Rick Chasey wrote:Pinno wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:It's a fair criticism.
Though there's an argument to say the US arming Europe keeps global spending on the military lower and ergo safer.
Safer against cyber crime? Russian interference?
Safer against what exactly? Apart from wars conducted by proxy, major wars between super powers is inconceivable, have no potential possibility of positive outcome and is economically detrimental.
I must confess it's not a line of argument I came up with, but heard it from a friend who studied war studies.
The idea is that if there is a big ol' global superpower who has your back, you're less inclined to build your own military.
By not having as big a military, you're therefore less inclined to be offensive & invade different places.
Certainly you can make an argument that post WW2 pre 1989 the big superpower military presence in continental Europe helped keep Europe from fighting yet another war, for example.
I'm sympathetic to the US argument that they needn't subside EU security. But I'm less sympathetic to the idea of Europe re-arming, so i'm quite torn.
Broadly I think peace in Europe is currently taken for granted, and it's something that really need to be worked hard at to maintain. I think Europe not needing to have massive armies is a huge help in that respect.
Aside from the fact that it seems that Richard has ne'er a clue, that whole argument above is rubbish.
Shall we just say Iraq, Afghan, Sierra Leone, Syria, going back a few the Falklands etc etc. that's just stuff off the top of my head.
Methinks the "friend" didn't actually study was studies and even if he/she did obviously didn't get it.Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am
De Sisti wrote:
This is one of the silliest threads I've come across.
Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honoursmithy21 wrote:
He's right you know.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Pinno wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:It's a fair criticism.
Though there's an argument to say the US arming Europe keeps global spending on the military lower and ergo safer.
Safer against cyber crime? Russian interference?
Safer against what exactly? Apart from wars conducted by proxy, major wars between super powers is inconceivable, have no potential possibility of positive outcome and is economically detrimental.
I must confess it's not a line of argument I came up with, but heard it from a friend who studied war studies.
The idea is that if there is a big ol' global superpower who has your back, you're less inclined to build your own military.
By not having as big a military, you're therefore less inclined to be offensive & invade different places.
Certainly you can make an argument that post WW2 pre 1989 the big superpower military presence in continental Europe helped keep Europe from fighting yet another war, for example.
I'm sympathetic to the US argument that they needn't subside EU security. But I'm less sympathetic to the idea of Europe re-arming, so i'm quite torn.
Broadly I think peace in Europe is currently taken for granted, and it's something that really need to be worked hard at to maintain. I think Europe not needing to have massive armies is a huge help in that respect.
Yes well, (and I cannot disagree with the above) most major 1st world countries are arm themselves regardless of potential, perceived or actual threat... and it costs.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Right. Wasn't the UK one of the few European nations that did keep up its military spending?
So, according to the logic above, was more inclined to wage war elsewhere?0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Right. Wasn't the UK one of the few nations that did keep up its military spending?
So, according to the logic above, was more inclined to wage war elsewhere?
Errrrrr - really? Do you want to go down this? Really?Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am
De Sisti wrote:
This is one of the silliest threads I've come across.
Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honoursmithy21 wrote:
He's right you know.0 -
Feel free to dig up the stats and correct me, but I'm fairly sure the UK spends more on the military than most other European countries.
I'd be happy to put a fiver down that says there's a decent correlation between military spending and belligerence.0 -
Well all the data's here: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS
So knock yourself out.0 -
So in Europe there France #1 big spender.
UK is #2.
Rest are quite a way behind.
Edit: oh and greece are above both: presumably for belligerence against Turkey re Cyrpus.0 -
it makes no difference at all if you are spending more or less than anyone else - if you can't afford to maintain your military due to freezing or cutting spending that is what matters. If you're making people redundant, restricting recruiting, cutting equipment, cutting housing, training and food budgets, stopping exercises due to funding, entering into lease agreements for assets, selling assets off and generally crushing morale - that's what counts.
The military have been having pay freezes/minute pay rises for years due to lack of spending. Numbers have been cut massively - the Army is the smallest it's been for decades, the Air Force may be phased out and the Navy can't do anything. They're even discussing get rid of the RM for Lord's sake.
The problem is that you have no idea what the military do - to correct me please explain, without googling, what you, Richard, thinks the military actually do.Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am
De Sisti wrote:
This is one of the silliest threads I've come across.
Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honoursmithy21 wrote:
He's right you know.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Well all the data's here: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS
So knock yourself out.
Clueless man googles graph without realizing what graph is about.Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am
De Sisti wrote:
This is one of the silliest threads I've come across.
Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honoursmithy21 wrote:
He's right you know.0 -
Below the graph is a list, which you can rank in order, of the % of GDP expenditure on the military.
Is that not what you're arguing?0 -
Matthewfalle wrote:it makes no difference at all if you are spending more or less than anyone else - if you can't afford to maintain your military due to freezing or cutting spending that is what matters. If you're making people redundant, restricting recruiting, cutting equipment, cutting housing, training and food budgets, stopping exercises due to funding, entering into lease agreements for assets, selling assets off and generally crushing morale - that's what counts.
The military have been having pay freezes/minute pay rises for years due to lack of spending. Numbers have been cut massively - the Army is the smallest it's been for decades, the Air Force may be phased out and the Navy can't do anything. They're even discussing get rid of the RM for Lord's sake.
The problem is that you have no idea what the military do - to correct me please explain, without googling, what you, Richard, thinks the military actually do.
Soz mate but the point that is being discussed is that because the US is spending on defence and Europe is a part of that and allies to the US, we don't have to spend quite so much as we are under that umbrella.
I don't think anyone will deny what you wrote. It just misses the point a little.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Right, but we’re agreed the UK spends more than most European nations on the military, right? I’m talking relative spending here. I know the armed forces have had heavy cuts made to them, trust me, I hear all the moaning from the ex-army types in the office. But that’s not what I’m really taking about.
I’m saying the bigger the military you have, the likelier you are to use it wage war, right?
So there’s a balance between that and deterrence. Gonna be treated like a mug if you’ve got no army and no-ones’ gonna come to your rescue. The advantage US military spending has is it keeps everyone who receives the spending on the same side. NATO members aren’t gonna attack each other are they? And then, on top of that, nations who, as we’ve seen, can turn populist at a drop of a hat, are less inclinded to have big armies.
Anyway, like I said, I’m not entirely convinced myself, as I think the US has a legitimate claim; ultimate responsibility for your own defence must reside with you. I howver do think that Europe has a propensity to nasty barbarism and so would be uncomfortable if all Euro nations started re-arming.0 -
Answer the question Richard - what do you think the military does. And no googling.Postby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am
De Sisti wrote:
This is one of the silliest threads I've come across.
Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honoursmithy21 wrote:
He's right you know.0 -
:roll:
1) fights 2) puts people off fighting in the first place. Arguably 3) acts as extra police force when things get hairy.
Principle job of the military. Rest is a bonus.
But how is that relevant? Or are you looking for turf to argue over that suits you?0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:1) fights
And that's just a friday night after a few bevvies.0 -
Ja, I don't really know what the beef is.
Was a debate on US spending on Europe and now it's an argument on how I define the military.
Anyway, we done the Trump sibblings involved in some dodgy panama stuff yet?0 -
Nothing really matters this week because of Al Franken equivalence.My blog: http://www.roubaixcycling.cc (kit reviews and other musings)
https://twitter.com/roubaixcc
Facebook? No. Just say no.0
