The Trump Presidency – 2016

[bronconick]

Jim Jordan accusing people of not reporting misconduct properly breaks the irony scale.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by bronconick

Jim Jordan accusing people of not reporting misconduct properly breaks the irony scale.

I may hate him more than I hate Trump. We all know what Trump is. At least he owns it and hasn’t tried to convince us otherwise. The Gym Jordan’s of the world are really the horrible ones who defend him and spin doctor things. They are the ones who could truly make a difference but they have sold their souls for party over country.

He reminds me of the warden from Shawshank. He’s the worst.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

It's Ambassador to the Bahamas, for crying out loud. If you're not selling that, I don't even know what to say. I know this is jaded-insider talk, but come on.

If I was rich rich, what better way to end a career in a low stress job.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Hey, you'd be upset too, if you raised my prices by 500%. I am so ungrateful.

Right?

SK military budget is about $43B of the $420B+ budget. Total debt of $577B and debt to GNP is about 40%.

From $1B to $5B. I would like to know what the true cost is for our troops in Korea and assume its much greater than $1B ... not against SK paying more but yeah, how we are "negotiating" leaves a lot to be desired.

[Atocep]

I really don't get how the GOP carries the label of the Pro Military party. Trump, obviously isn't pro military, and Vindman's exchanges today with Nunes and Stewart really show they give no shits about respect for the military.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Edward64

SK military budget is about $43B of the $420B+ budget. Total debt of $577B and debt to GNP is about 40%.

From $1B to $5B. I would like to know what the true cost is for our troops in Korea and assume its much greater than $1B ... not against SK paying more but yeah, how we are "negotiating" leaves a lot to be desired.

South Korea is paying us and we gain a strategic advantage with our military forces. That alone puts us ahead. Asking for more defies common sense.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I really don't get how the GOP carries the label of the Pro Military party. Trump, obviously isn't pro military, and Vindman's exchanges today with Nunes and Stewart really show they give no shits about respect for the military.

Same way they label themselves Christians? Just taking on a fake persona to make themselves feel better about their beliefs.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I really don't get how the GOP carries the label of the Pro Military party. Trump, obviously isn't pro military, and Vindman's exchanges today with Nunes and Stewart really show they give no shits about respect for the military.

They get that label the same way they get the label of being fiscally conservative and the party of family values. They...ummm....

I got nothing.

[kingfc22]

I’ve been able to see a majority of the testimonies and Morrison’s testimony has to be the biggest stretch of them all. The I thought the call required me to notify lawyers for the first time ever BUT there was nothing wrong with the call. Ummm what?

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

SK military budget is about $43B of the $420B+ budget. Total debt of $577B and debt to GNP is about 40%.

From $1B to $5B. I would like to know what the true cost is for our troops in Korea and assume its much greater than $1B ... not against SK paying more but yeah, how we are "negotiating" leaves a lot to be desired.

The value of global and regional influence, coupled with the strategic value over decades transcends the pittance of cash that we're talking about in comparison. If the administration is willing to throw that away because of some kind of concept of fair payment for US protection then he and the administration are even dumber and more short sighted than they've been given credit for.

[Neon_Chaos]

Welp. Looks like the Trump Admin definitely is ceding its sphere of influence in Asia, shedding off decades of traditional alliances. China’s slowly gobbling up the region in the last 3 years.

[JPhillips]

If it isn’t in our national interest, no amount is enough, and if it is in our national interest, we shouldn’t be haggling over small sums. The US military shouldn’t be rental mercenaries.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

Welp. Looks like the Trump Admin definitely is ceding its sphere of influence in Asia, shedding off decades of traditional alliances. China’s slowly gobbling up the region in the last 3 years.

Let's be fair. Obama failed too. The time to stop China's spread to the Spratley islands was early on, its a done deal now. And China's reach into rest of SEA began prior to Trump.

TPP? Let's not forget that Hillary was for it initially and then was against it. Its better than nothing though which is what we have now.

But your ultimate point is correct, China is slowing gobbling up the region in the past 8+ years or so and in other places too via their silk road initiative (smart of them to invest in Africa, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, South America etc.).

The ways to stop China or slow down China is either a war (no thanks), regime change (fat chance), or my preferred option, a massive Chinese stock market crash (similar to the Japanese bubble crash) resulting in a lost decade or two.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

The value of global and regional influence, coupled with the strategic value over decades transcends the pittance of cash that we're talking about in comparison. If the administration is willing to throw that away because of some kind of concept of fair payment for US protection then he and the administration are even dumber and more short sighted than they've been given credit for.

Honest question. What is the true strategic value of SK to the US? Japan is arguably a stronger ally both economically and militarily. I get it, the more real allies the better, but from a strictly regional influence point of view, strong ties with Japan serves that purpose.

edit: And I repeat, this is an honest question. This is not me advocating one policy or another.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Honest question. What is the true strategic value of SK to the US? Japan is arguably a stronger ally both economically and militarily. I get it, the more real allies the better, but from a strictly regional influence point of view, strong ties with Japan serves that purpose.

edit: And I repeat, this is an honest question. This is not me advocating one policy or another.

Historically, Japan may be larger (economically and military), but South Korea has been a closer ally. Our military forces have deeply integrated with SK's - especially in monitoring NK and China. And while South Korea's economy isn't as large as Japan's, it is very large (over $1.5trillion in GDP, over $2trillion in GDP PPP). As noted above, with the US signaling it won't stick with SK, SK may decide to look towards China - so you are strengthening China by walking away from SK.

I would argue its akin to asking what does it matter if we drop France if Germany is our regional partner in Europe.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

The value of global and regional influence, coupled with the strategic value over decades transcends the pittance of cash that we're talking about in comparison. If the administration is willing to throw that away because of some kind of concept of fair payment for US protection then he and the administration are even dumber and more short sighted than they've been given credit for.

Defense dept says it cost $4.8B and they are paying $1B with a pervious agreement to increase 8% to $1.08B.

South Korea isn't going anywhere, Trump isn't "throwing" it all away. But yeah, some feathers will be ruffled etc. but it'll recover ... at the very least with the next admin.

But they have a great deal and they know it. We have 20K+ troops there, let South Korea invest and make up the difference in number, quality, training etc. They are grown up now, lets give them a 5-10 year transition period and reduce our presence, move our troops further south (but keep, I assume, some tactical nukes handy in the country).

• So, why don't you think we should ask a wealthy country that can afford to pay what it cost the US to help protect them? Why give them a free pass?

In current day, I would argue the strategic value they get from us far exceeds the strategic value we get from them. Let's spend the $4B delta on Japan, Philippines (if they'll take it), Cambodia & Vietnam etc.

I'm all for asking for much more money but don't agree with how Trump has approached it

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Atocep

South Korea is paying us and we gain a strategic advantage with our military forces. That alone puts us ahead. Asking for more defies common sense.

South Korea is paying us $1B and costs us $5B so we are losing $4B. That defies common sense especially when South Korea is getting more strategic value than we are and we are running deficits like crazy.

Same question as my above post.

So, why don't you think we should ask a wealthy country that can afford to pay what it cost the US to help protect them? Why give them a free pass?

[Chief Rum]

Edward, this has nothing to do with who pays for what military services. This is about global hegenony.

I have been reading a fascinating book called The Nect 100 Years by George Friedman, and he talks about what American aims to do to keep at the top of the heap. The U.S. in the post-cold war era is about making sure another country doesn't rise up to overtake it in overall global influence and supremacy. The reason why the U.S. has continued to maintain a presence in South Korea (and Japan and the Phillipines) is because by being present it limits China's ability to grow outward. Right now, South Korea is a bulwark against Chinese expansion. South Korea fears China as much if not more than North Korea. It wants the U.S. there. But if the U.S. is not going to be there, it will embrace China instead, because it still needs protection.

Incidentally, Friedman believes China will eventually collapse under the weight of multiple tensions in its society, including that between an authoritarian government and a population that increasingly wants more personal freedom, government control of economy versus the expansion of capitalism already well under way, and the regional tension between a rich and urban east coast and a poorer and more eclectic group in rhe west.

That said, if we allow South Korea to fall more under China's sphere of influence than our own, we give China a pathway to get past these tensions, to extend its power into the Pacific Ocean (currently almost completely dominated by the U.S. Navy, pretty much the most poweful military force in history), and establish a regional foothold which will be a lot more difficult to loosen it from.

Btw, not so coincidentally, why do you think Ukraine is so important. Eerie parallel there...

I think in the long run, the Dumbass in Office will be removed (probably by 2020 election) and the U.S. will revert to its normal.policies of the past 25-30 years, and this will be a blip.

But this is much more important paying $4 B versus an ally's $1 B to protect that ally.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Edward, this has nothing to do with who pays for what military services. This is about global hegenony.

I heard about the book below when it first came up but never did pick it up. I'm all for US global hegemony, I've used the term Pax Americana a couple times here.

I have been reading a fascinating book called The Nect 100 Years by George Friedman, and he talks about what American aims to do to keep at the top of the heap. The U.S. in the post-cold war era is about making sure another country doesn't rise up to overtake it in overall global influence and supremacy. The reason why the U.S. has continued to maintain a presence in South Korea (and Japan and the Phillipines) is because by being present it limits China's ability to grow outward. Right now, South Korea is a bulwark against Chinese expansion. South Korea fears China as much if not more than North Korea. It wants the U.S. there. But if the U.S. is not going to be there, it will embrace China instead, because it still needs protection.

Maybe Friedman addresses this but here's my counter. There's little evidence IMO that South Korea in recent years has stopped China's "ability to grow outward".

Militarily in the Spratley's? Zilch that I know of. In Taiwan? SK doesn't get credit for that. In Hong Kong? the inevitable will happen over time.

Economically in SEA, Africa, South & Latin America? Zilch.

Technologically? Zilch

The only thing I can see South Korea stopping is North Korea and I'm all for that. South Korea is 11th largest economy and ranked 7th in military power and they can/should take care of their own over time (e.g. train up, buy more equipment etc.). Admittedly they will still need some nuke deterrence which we should provide.

Incidentally, Friedman believes China will eventually collapse under the weight of multiple tensions in its society, including that between an authoritarian government and a population that increasingly wants more personal freedom, government control of economy versus the expansion of capitalism already well under way, and the regional tension between a rich and urban east coast and a poorer and more eclectic group in rhe west.

I do agree that China has become more capitalistic and but I don't see it collapsing from within anytime soon unless there is a "trigger" (e.g. stock market crash). Unfortunately, the government effectively controls the Chinese media & propaganda, has the Great (fire)Wall, manipulates economic numbers etc. and can probably control the rate and impact of a stock market crash also.

That said, if we allow South Korea to fall more under China's sphere of influence than our own, we give China a pathway to get past these tensions, to extend its power into the Pacific Ocean (currently almost completely dominated by the U.S. Navy, pretty much the most poweful military force in history), and establish a regional foothold which will be a lot more difficult to loosen it from.

Its hard for me to believe this one incident will make South Korea pivot more to China than they already were doing because of economic interests. Yes, if the relationship continues to be strained and contentious, it may come to that but not anytime soon (and by then we'll have a new administration who will negotiate in a better way).

Re: extending its power into the Pacific Ocean through South Korea, I don't see it. Japan is much more strategic there and re: South China Sea, they will effectively share-ownership of it with US because of the Spratleys.

Btw, not so coincidentally, why do you think Ukraine is so important. Eerie parallel there...

I can see some parallels but as mentioned above, China economic activities transcends borders and is welcomed (so far) by nations wanting that money. I don't think that is the same for Russia, its more of a military buffer.

I think in the long run, the Dumbass in Office will be removed (probably by 2020 election) and the U.S. will revert to its normal.policies of the past 25-30 years, and this will be a blip.

I agree. I would want the next administration to ask for much more money but in a more diplomatic, constructive, less face-loss way.

But this is much more important paying $4 B versus an ally's $1 B to protect that ally.

South Korea is an established ally. Its not going anywhere soon (and the next admin will return it back to somewhat normal).

Yes, the $4B is not relevant in the big scheme of things (Samsung made $6B in profits last quarter) but

(1) I'm not sure when the imbalanced happened but lets say 20 years ago. $80B is a nice chunk of money, time-value to money, opportunity costs etc.
(2) Was it asking South Korea to pay for it or was it how it was asked/threatened, I think the latter was the mistake
(3) We should be investing money and military in other places in Asia. Let's redirect those funds into making new/reinforcing new friends. Not sure I would pick Taiwan but Philippines and Thailand I think are the 2 possible choices (Malaysia, Indonesia are predominantly Muslim countries and don't see them welcoming China that much; Australia probably not an issue anytime soon. Its Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar and possibly Philippines that I would be very concerned about.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Edward, this has nothing to do with who pays for what military services. This is about global hegenony.

I have been reading a fascinating book called The Nect 100 Years by George Friedman, and he talks about what American aims to do to keep at the top of the heap. The U.S. in the post-cold war era is about making sure another country doesn't rise up to overtake it in overall global influence and supremacy. The reason why the U.S. has continued to maintain a presence in South Korea (and Japan and the Phillipines) is because by being present it limits China's ability to grow outward. Right now, South Korea is a bulwark against Chinese expansion. South Korea fears China as much if not more than North Korea. It wants the U.S. there. But if the U.S. is not going to be there, it will embrace China instead, because it still needs protection.

Incidentally, Friedman believes China will eventually collapse under the weight of multiple tensions in its society, including that between an authoritarian government and a population that increasingly wants more personal freedom, government control of economy versus the expansion of capitalism already well under way, and the regional tension between a rich and urban east coast and a poorer and more eclectic group in rhe west.

That said, if we allow South Korea to fall more under China's sphere of influence than our own, we give China a pathway to get past these tensions, to extend its power into the Pacific Ocean (currently almost completely dominated by the U.S. Navy, pretty much the most poweful military force in history), and establish a regional foothold which will be a lot more difficult to loosen it from.

Btw, not so coincidentally, why do you think Ukraine is so important. Eerie parallel there...

I think in the long run, the Dumbass in Office will be removed (probably by 2020 election) and the U.S. will revert to its normal.policies of the past 25-30 years, and this will be a blip.

But this is much more important paying $4 B versus an ally's $1 B to protect that ally.

This is exactly the point that I was trying to make. Well stated.

[PilotMan]

I still get the regular official WH emails and I find it amusing that they send so many that over half of them find their way into my spam folder. I also find it amusing to see just what the angle is that comes out directly from the WH. For example, yesterday, the headline was about how the left is trashing the constitution. The only supporting point was Barr's speech at the Federalist Society where he stated that over last several decades the power of the executive has been eroded by the other branches. {no other commentary; personally I'd argue that it's gone the opposite way}




After that they go to an editorial from the NYPost about Vindman's audacity to know what US foreign policy should look like, and editorial from The Federalist, a report from National Review about Ivanka, and one from Fox Business about the Stock Market.



Shocked there was no Washington Examiner, Brietbart. Yet.



Today, the mailer is basically the answer to yesterday's testimony. The overall feeling was this. trump was elected by the people, therefore he is the only person who can say what the people want, and since he is the president he is allowed to set any sort of foreign policy that he wants, and those who work for him must do it, because he's the boss. Vindman doesn't personally know trump and has never met him, therefore his insight is completely invalidated. NEW TRANSCRIPT! SWAMP!



That's basically it. That's the whole thing. It looks like the prevailing official defense is going to be, I'm the president and I was elected, therefore I can do it, and nobody can disagree with me and I cannot legally do anything wrong....at all...and there is nobody that can argue with that and if they do then they are in the service of the enemy seeking to nullify the 'voice of the people'.

[JPhillips]

SK has one of the largest militaries in the world, millions larger than the Philippines. You can't just swap SK out for someone else just as good.

Again, if the troops in SK are vital to our national interests, arguing over less than one percent of the defense budget is moronic. If troops in SK are not vital to our national interests using a major portion of our resources to be rental mercenaries is moronic.

[Flasch186]

Sondland gets set on fire today


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

May have to watch CNN while working to hear this ... but I do want him to be more direct and say quid pro quo for Biden investigation (not for 2016 election investigation).

'The answer is yes': Sondland affirms 'quid pro quo' in Ukraine dealings - POLITICO

"Was there a “quid pro quo?" Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union — a close Trump ally and GOP donor — plans to say in his opening remarks to impeachment investigators. "The answer is yes."

Sondland also intends to frame the matter as widely understood across the Trump administration, indicating that senior officials and even cabinet secretaries were aware of the arrangement.

"Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret," he intends to say, according to his prepared remarks. And he directly delivered the message of that quid pro quo was to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Sondland will say. He specifically cites a July 19 email copied to Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and "a lot of senior officials." In that email, he reveals that he "just talked to Zelensky" and secured a commitment for a "fully transparent investigation."

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Sondland gets set on fire today

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Darn, I think I missed it.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

It looks like the prevailing official defense is going to be, I'm the president and I was elected, therefore I can do it, and nobody can disagree with me and I cannot legally do anything wrong....at all...and there is nobody that can argue with that and if they do then they are in the service of the enemy seeking to nullify the 'voice of the people'.

It's equal parts papal infallibility and Louis XIV's L'etat c'est moi.

I won the election, therefore I am the United States, and if I care about it, it is by definition "the American interest" therefore, suggesting I did (or even could do) something wrong is treasonous. It's airtight.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Sondland gets set on fire today


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He's decided to throw everyone else under the bus.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Darn, I think I missed it.

No I didn't! Seems a major part of Sondland's defense re: perjury is he didn't have access to all his notes, emails etc. to do an accurate reconstruction for his first testimony. I get some mis-recollections here but com'on.

He did say quid pro quo for 2016 election and Burisma.

I do think Congress should pursue perjury against him. No pardon for him.

[spleen1015]

Sometimes that happens with you tell the truth.

Edit - that was in response to him throwing everyone else under the bus.

He should go down for perjury.

Doesn't change any of the rest though.

[kingfc22]

Sondland has basically said they ordered the code red.

[JPhillips]

Sondland has become the impeachment Santa Claus, he made a list and checked it twice and now everybody on it gets implicated in the crimes.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I do think Congress should pursue perjury against him. No pardon for him.

There was some discussion as to whether or not he would take the 5th under oath today. The argument then was that he was far more valuable to trump than he was to the house and to just take away trump's ability to hold the pardon in front of him. Therefore, give him complete immunity and let him go to town. With no fear of punishment he would be free to testify however and trump loses any advantage by being able to pardon him.

[kingfc22]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Sondland has become the impeachment Santa Claus, he made a list and checked it twice and now everybody on it gets implicated in the crimes.

Can't wait to hear how the Republicans try to tear this apart. HAHAHAHHAH

[Flasch186]

The best part is the GOP game is to plow headlong to the end with the same talking points and pray that the base doesn't care and that'll be enough.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by kingfc22

Can't wait to hear how the Republicans try to tear this apart. HAHAHAHHAH

They won't address it. They'll just keep playing the fruit of the poisoned tree charade. BTW this charade will continue for the next 20 years no matter the official outcomes.

[kingfc22]

And some R's have left the chamber to go run and find a new strategy.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by kingfc22

And some R's have left the chamber to go run and find a new strategy.

At this point what do they have left? The Chewbacca defense?

[Edward64]

Sondland says he didn't know Burisma meant Bidens at that time.

Good defense for him (if true and no contradictory evidence that he did know it meant the Bidens' back then).

[Ben E Lou]

Ambassador Nino Brown ftw!

Ambassador Nino Brown is leaving no doubts. pic.twitter.com/qNECVHLqIC

— Abe Froman (@kingkielbasa22) November 20, 2019

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by kingfc22

Can't wait to hear how the Republicans try to tear this apart. HAHAHAHHAH

See, you're thinking they will feel duty bound to come up with a "coherent" approach. Nah...

Listen to Sondland and you'll understand why America elected Donald Trump president to get rid of people like Sondland.

— Brent Bozell (@BrentBozell) November 20, 2019

[Bee]

Obviously he’s just another Never Trumper....who donated a million dollars to Trump’s campaign.

[QuikSand]

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

See, you're thinking they will feel duty bound to come up with a "coherent" approach. Nah...

Listen to Sondland and you'll understand why America elected Donald Trump president to get rid of people like Sondland.

— Brent Bozell (@BrentBozell) November 20, 2019

They'll leave that to Rush Limbaugh

[Edward64]

Sondland sure is taking a lot of sips of water.

[Lathum]

I’m just listening to opening statement now, but I wonder how Trump feels being the one thrown under the bus so someone else can save their ass.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I’m just listening to opening statement now, but I wonder how Trump feels being the one thrown under the bus so someone else can save their ass.

Do we need to wonder? I'm sure we"ll see a tweet soon, since he's "not watching" in the Oval Office right now.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I’m just listening to opening statement now, but I wonder how Trump feels being the one thrown under the bus so someone else can save their ass.

How my ass taste, President Trump?

[JediKooter]

Piece of shit nunes face after realizing they will now need another new strategy to try to protect the criminal organization in the white house:

Face of a loser realizing they are losing...

[Jas_lov]

My guess is it's now Rudy's turn to be thrown under the bus. Not sure what other argument they can make. And Bolton needs to testify.

[JediKooter]

If nunes was my public defender, I would just plead guilty in hopes I would get a less harsh sentence.