Let's talk about Trump

Yes, but I don’t believe the way he goes about it will get it there.

Well, he kinda just did

1 Like

And now Germany is targeting 2%, up every year since Trump put the most pressure any president on him. Some of it is due to the Ukraine situation but Germany became a major topic for NATO and they had a hard time explaining why they weren’t contributing enough and so they made changes to get to 2%.

Yup

Saying other countries should spend more based on what the US spends is probably a bad baseline - we probably spend too much.

The 2% of gdp has always seemed dumb to me. Make more, spend more?! Seems like countries should assess their needs, and spend accordingly. Which is, of course, what actually ends up happening anyway. No country actually spends based on NATO targets (and these are targets, and nobody is actually delinquent, just to be clear). It’s also why you see a whole lot of countries on Russia’s border spending more the past couple years.

The US has sent more military aid. Europe has spent more overall. One of the reasons we’re more willing to send military aid that is because a lot of the money “sent” to Ukraine is actually sent to the US for equipment.

This one is easy - because of Republicans. it’s not even a question.

Germany was targeting 2% before - the 2% target came about in 2014 (as a result of the Crimea invasion iirc), and expenditures have been rising steadily since. Instability tends to get countries to take military spending a little more seriously.

1 Like

It would ease the burden of the US spending too much other members spent more.

An organization needs a target baseline. 2% seems reasonable and doable for these countries. They aren’t poor. Is Germany too poor to spend 2%, not at all.

It’s one thing to target and another to actually make decisions that leads to it. Or else all the presidents before Trump wouldn’t have pushed them to. And Germany is only 1 country, it’s just that they’re actually in good financially to be able to do it but they have hesitated for various reasons.

Maybe. We really like military spending.

The problem is that the targets are based on something not really aligned to need. One sized fits all approaches are fine sometimes, but it feels dumb for something at the magnitude of % of gdp spending.

So half a presidential term they weren’t pushed since the targets came into place? But, of course, the targets were a push…

I agree there.

But clearly there is a bigger threat then those that didn’t think there was like Germany as we see now in their backyard. So maybe everyone should just contribute to an agreed upon policy which may not always be perfect but does seem like it would be a good idea now doesn’t it.

Does it? Let’s say Germany spent 2% of GDP the last 10 years. Do you think they would’ve been more politically ready to engage in Ukraine? Doesn’t seem like there would be much difference to me.

To me, the 2% is as much symbolic to taking the threat seriously as much as it’s for military capabilities. They did not take Russia as a threat seriously and I would say appeased Russia at times. They engaged with Moscow in a way that backfired since the war.

It’s hard to say what direct differences it would have made but they’re rushing to catch up so it must mean it does something to mitigate the threat of Russia or they wouldn’t do it.

But to the point. We may not agree on exactly and how to do it. But I think you agree with me that how much each member contributes into NATO should be reevaluated to something that’s more evenly favorable to all members. Whether that’s too much or too little. I don’t think the current amount is good long term, especially not for the US.

Sure. But “equally favorable” is, like fair taxes, something people hardly ever agree on. Maybe it should be a progressive rate… ;D

This, I’m not sure I agree with, at all.

You think it’s good the US continues the spend that much for NATO? Long term I think it’s going to it’s toll.

Long term, even medium term, member nations should spend the 2% they agreed to, no doubt.

But blood and treasure was spent when the US invoked NATO and went into Afghanistan. Canada and Germany were important partners there. NATO countries also sent a lot of aid money to help the US with reconstruction, which doesn’t fit.

Long term, if you want allies who will stick with you when the bullets fly, you don’t make threats like a mafia protection don. It doesn’t help that the Don is widely seen to have an uncomfortably subservient and close relationship to Putin, that Russian aggression is the reason NATO exists, and that Russia under Putin has invaded Ukrainian unnecessarily.

Also long term, the NATO nuclear umbrella protects currently non nuclear nations. Ukraine had nukes, but sent them back to Russia with assurances they would not be invaded, which they have. If nuclear non proliferation is considered a US interest, withdrawing the nuclear umbrella gives countries like Germany every incentive to go nuclear. Nuclear war and Russian invasion of Europe are not good for US interests. How long before Japan, Taiwan, and Korea decide they need to go nuclear or just go all in with China?

Friends don’t threaten friends. Who is Trump friendly with?

1 Like

We don’t spend all that much on NATO. These 2% GDP targets (and 3.5% spend for US) are not NATO expenditures - they are defense expenditures. Direct funding of NATO, we spend like $580M (the same as Germany btw), which is a drop in the bucket, and totally worth it for the US. If NATO ceased to exist, I’d wager we’d end up spending more (never mind the benefits we get from a friendly, stable(ish) Europe).

If anyone thinks the European nations are difficult to negotiate with now, is that really going to be better if they’re busy fighting Russia and don’t buy any American products?

Nice country you have there, shame if something were to happen to it. Trump understands a mafia protection racket, I don’t think he can comprehend how the US led world order benefits the US more than it costs. WW3 will be expensive for the US, even if they decide to sit it out.

2 Likes

It’s only nepotism when it’s not a Trump.

Fani Willis won’t return to the witness stand as judge weighs disqualification in Trump case (msn.com)

Damn. That’s some video.

Allegations of misconduct have taken center stage in the case, which was supposed to be about efforts to overturn Georgia’s presidential election results but has become embroiled in controversy over the love lives of the prosecutors seeking to hold Trump accountable. The allegations have thrust prosecutors’ private lives into the spotlight and forcing them to answer deeply personal questions in court.

Like why he booked vacations on his business credit card and she paid him back in cash for “her half” and he never claimed any of it on his taxes.

Yikes. I haven’t been following ANY of Trump’s cases, but this shit is golden.

Don’t lie in court ya’ll. Especially if you’re trying to take down Donald Trump. ffs

350 million dollars is an insane amount. I doubt it will make any difference to his followers.

I was just coming to post about this. I don’t think it’ll change a lot of minds. His supporters will see the deep state political witch hunt, his detractors will see an obvious conman punished financially for financial fraud

It’s Trump change to a billionaire. :money_with_wings:

Don’t think so. That’s a lot of cash to come up with in 30 days or so.

I rarely watch TYT these days, but I wanted to get Cenk’s take, just for the entertainment. :laughing:

Would love to see Cenk and Donald on a debate stage. That could get very heated.