President Donald J. Trump

[Teh PeNgu1n oF dOOm]

...The fuck is all this?

Blacks gonna black.

Punish success and creating a crime free environment now filled with Obammy's urban children.

[VtaGeezer]

...The fuck is all this?

The prelude to the Reparation Tax to come if HMH wins and the Congress is taken by the Dems. 

[136 or 142]

"Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh or duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"

What the...? You know, you should try to be more decisive. You can`t even decide whether it`s 136 or 142! Just pick one, for sky god`s sake.

It's the fault of the music reporter who wasn't sure if there were 136 or 142 protest folk singers.

[136 or 142]

...The fuck is all this?

[Value Of Pi]

1.The E.U's economy is as large as the U.S economy.  Why does the E.U need 'significant' U.S help to defend its borders?  In contrast, the Russian economy is a basket-case.  If Russia can finance what you say is a powerful military with its present economy, then the E.U should easily be able to.  Of course, if the Europeans feel the need to increase the size of their military, it would take some time, but in the meantime, I fail to see why they shouldn't pay the full cost of the protection they receive from the U.S.

2.While I'm aware of the argument expressed in the program Yes, Minister wherein Sir Humphrey Appleby kept asking Prime Minister Hacker "if the Soviet Union invaded Poland would you attack them with nuclear weapons..." and worked his way down until the Soviet Union had taken over France and was preparing to invade the U.K, I think that Mutual Assured Destruction is what prevented World War III and was the only thing that prevented World War III.  The amount of proxy wars elsewhere shows that where it would the powers believed that it would not lead to a nuclear attack they were perfectly willing to indirectly fight each other.  To say that the U.S bases in Europe had anything to do with preventing a Soviet invasion of Western Europe absolutely sounds like propaganda to me. 

Similarly, the Soviet Union hasn't retaken, for instance, the Balkan countries, in part because there U.S troops there, but primarily because they are members of NATO. The U.S troops just are there to send a message to Putin that the U.S will defend its NATO allies.  The U.S military presence in the Balkan nations are just a token force and my guess would be that by the time the American troops in Germany could get to those countries, the Russian military would have overrun their capitals.

Are you a member of the U.S military or a U.S defense contractor?

First problem is that you're thinking of the EU as a single country with control of all its resources and its own military. That's not the case. The EU is a collection of separate, sovereign countries each with their own economies, leadership, agendas and militaries. The EU can barely agree on the issues confronting them now, and often can't even do that, which is why the UK is threatening to leave. They are incapable of defending themselves, separately or together, against the former Soviet Union, currently a corrupt dictatorship still capable of marshaling the resources needed to fight aggressive wars.

Again, if you want Europeans or anyone else to pay their fair share of the defense help we give them, fine. I want to see the details of how you make that determination and how you would make the case to them. Pure bluster and threats, which is all that Trump has, won't work.

Next, the notion that all the U.S. really needed to stop the Soviets and every other expansionist threat was a nuclear arsenal is dangerously simplistic. If your first and only possible military response to aggression is nukes because you don't have sufficient conventional forces to respond, you are greatly increasing the risk of nuclear war. And if you're thinking that nobody would be crazy or desperate enough to use nukes when confronted with superior forces, think again. We would do so in extreme circumstances and others would do the same in less extreme circumstances.

Feel free to respond if you like but frankly, I'm tired of this conversation. You make some valid points on some subjects in the course of your voluminous posts, but military matters is not your forté. I'm fine with discussing policy with people who share a knowledge of basic facts, but that's not the case here from what I can see.

[chefist]

President Trump...get used to it...

[GuerrillaUnReal]

The prelude to the Reparation Tax to come if HMH wins and the Congress is taken by the Dems.

I would have found that funny a few months ago...

[136 or 142]

First problem is that you're thinking of the EU as a single country with control of all its resources and its own military. That's not the case. The EU is a collection of separate, sovereign countries each with their own economies, leadership, agendas and militaries. The EU can barely agree on the issues confronting them now, and often can't even do that, which is why the UK is threatening to leave. They are incapable of defending themselves, separately or together, against the former Soviet Union, currently a corrupt dictatorship still capable of marshaling the resources needed to fight aggressive wars.

Again, if you want Europeans or anyone else to pay their fair share of the defense help we give them, fine. I want to see the details of how you make that determination and how you would make the case to them. Pure bluster and threats, which is all that Trump has, won't work.

Next, the notion that all the U.S. really needed to stop the Soviets and every other expansionist threat was a nuclear arsenal is dangerously simplistic. If your first and only possible military response to aggression is nukes because you don't have sufficient conventional forces to respond, you are greatly increasing the risk of nuclear war. And if you're thinking that nobody would be crazy or desperate enough to use nukes when confronted with superior forces, think again. We would do so in extreme circumstances and others would do the same in less extreme circumstances.

Feel free to respond if you like but frankly, I'm tired of this conversation. You make some valid points on some subjects in the course of your voluminous posts, but military matters is not your forté. I'm fine with discussing policy with people who share a knowledge of basic facts, but that's not the case here from what I can see.

1.The major nations in the E.U are Germany, France and the U.K.  France and the U.K presently have large militaries and Germany can afford one.  You haven't presented a single piece of evidence why the U.S needs to be there or why, if Europe would prefer to have a U.S military presence rather than their own militaries, why they shouldn't pay the full cost.  The full cost of the U.S military is simple accounting, and there's nothing complicated about it.

2.In regards to your concept that the U.S also benefits from having bases overseas.  This is known in economics as a positive externality.  In these cases nobody expects third party beneficiaries to pay for any of the costs between the two parties, and I see no reason why this should be any different.  I've already said that military matters aren't my area of expertise but it's also evident that economics isn't your area of expertise.  So, you're also in no position to make the comment that U.S 'can't afford not to spend on the military' more than all the other things than the U.S can't afford to not do.

3.As to the Cold War.  I never said that conventional forces weren't needed. I can understand the point that an obviously weak conventional force may have caused the other side to try a surprise attack, however this was never the case, and were the Americans not there, had the European nations felt a need to do so, they could have increased their own conventional militaries. Also, I've never read any scenario that showed how a conventional war between NATO and the Soviet Union (or the Warsaw Pact) would not end up with nuclear weapons being used. 

4.It's also highly debatable, despite what you write, that any leaders of the Soviet Union (at last after Stalin) had any intention of trying to take over Western Europe.  They wanted Eastern Europe as a buffer against another German attack, but there is scant evidence beyond that that suggests what you claim.

Stating as a fact that the Soviets leaders wanted to rule the world suggests to me you are an old line Cold Warrior hawk if not a neo-con which leads me to place a great deal of skepticism on everything you wrote. 

You can respond to this or not.  That's up to you.   I'm actually not interested in any response from you unless you disclose if you have any direct personal benefit in seeing the bloated U.S military budget maintained which includes the overseas military bases.

[136 or 142]

President Trump...get used to it...

When that doesn't happen, will you need to be placed on suicide watch?

[136 or 142]

I would have found that funny a few months ago...

[norland2424]

1.The major nations in the E.U are Germany, France and the U.K.  France and the U.K presently have large militaries and Germany can afford one.  You haven't presented a single piece of evidence why the U.S needs to be there or why, if Europe would prefer to have a U.S military presence rather than their own militaries, why they shouldn't pay the full cost.  The full cost of the U.S military is simple accounting, and there's nothing complicated about it.

In regards to your concept that the U.S also benefits from having bases overseas.  This is known in economics as a positive externality.  In these cases nobody expects third party beneficiaries to pay for any of the costs between the two parties, and I see no reason why this should be any different.  I've already said that military matters aren't my area of expertise but it's also evident that economics isn't your area of expertise.  So, you're also in no position to make the comment that U.S 'can't afford not to spend on the military' more than all the other things than the U.S can't afford to not do.

As to the Cold War.  I never said that conventional forces weren't needed. I can understand the point that an obviously weak conventional force may have caused the other side to try a surprise attack, however this was never the case, and were the Americans not there, had the European nations felt a need to do so, they could have increased their own conventional militaries. Also, I've never read any scenario that showed how a conventional war between NATO and the Soviet Union (or the Warsaw Pact) would not end up with nuclear weapons being used. 

Finally, it's also highly debatable, despite what you write, that any leaders of the Soviet Union (at last after Stalin) had any intention of trying to take over Western Europe.  They wanted Eastern Europe as a buffer against another German attack, but there is scant evidence beyond that that suggests what you claim.

Stating as a fact that the Soviets leaders wanted to rule the world suggests to me you are an old line Cold Warrior hawk if not a neo-con which leads me to place a great deal of skepticism on everything you write. 

You can respond to this or not.  That's up to you.   I'm actually not interested in any response from you unless you disclose if you have any personal benefit in seeing the bloated U.S military budget maintained which includes the overseas military bases.

The simple answer to this is strategic force projection, we benefit by having standing forces all over the planet to be able to respond to well any conflict we get into, and yes most of these countries do use our forces as a safeguard from neighboring countries, it does make everyone play nice with eachother when you know if you attack one country you be attacking the USA also.

[GuerrillaUnReal]

You're not even using that properly.

[chefist]

When that doesn't happen, will you need to be placed on suicide watch?

Embrace your new President...

[136 or 142]

You're not even using that properly.

[21st Century Man]

Embrace your new President...

Trump needs to repair the damage within the Republican Party before that happens. Many conservatives have been fractured from the party and have no intention of coming back.  That could change if Trump picks a genuine conservative as VP. 

If he fails to unite the party then he will lose to Hillary Clinton.  Georgia, a solid red state and my home, is in play now with Trump and Hillary in a dead heat.  Same can be said for Mississippi, Utah and Arizona.  Virginia and NC are purple states that would turn solid blue if Trump is the nominee and he has not repaired the damage within the party.

[starrmtn001]

Trump needs to repair the damage within the Republican Party before that happens. Many conservatives have been fractured from the party and have no intention of coming back.  That could change if Trump picks a genuine conservative as VP. 

If he fails to unite the party then he will lose to Hillary Clinton.  Georgia, a solid red state and my home, is in play now with Trump and Hillary in a dead heat.  Same can be said for Mississippi, Utah and Arizona.  Virginia and NC are purple states that would turn solid blue if Trump is the nominee and he has not repaired the damage within the party.

I'm afraid the worst damage will come from the Bushs.  They got the biggest of the butt hurts and (may be) willing to sacrifice the party to appease their spite.  Ya think they're gonna 'bush whack' Trump?   I hope I'm just over thinking this.

[ItsOver]

...You make some valid points on some subjects in the course of your VOLUMINOUS posts, but military matters is not your forté. I'm fine with discussing policy with people who share a knowledge of basic facts, but that's not the case here from what I can see.

Yes, but he's fun at parties.

[GuerrillaUnReal]

I'm afraid the worst damage will come from the Bushs.  They got the biggest of the butt hurts and (may be) willing to sacrifice the party to appease their spite.  Ya think they're gonna 'bush whack' Trump?   I hope I'm just over thinking this.

How do you foresee that happening?

[GravitySucks]

It's the fault of the music reporter who wasn't sure if there were 136 or 142 protest folk singers.

You can't even get that right.

It was a quote from Bob Dylan answering a reporter's questions.

http://www.alternet.org/story/26035/how_bob_dylan_beat_the_press

[norland2424]

I'm afraid the worst damage will come from the Bushs.  They got the biggest of the butt hurts and (may be) willing to sacrifice the party to appease their spite.  Ya think they're gonna 'bush whack' Trump?   I hope I'm just over thinking this.

by bush wack you mean what happened to JFK in dallas right?

[chefist]

Trump needs to repair the damage within the Republican Party before that happens. Many conservatives have been fractured from the party and have no intention of coming back.  That could change if Trump picks a genuine conservative as VP. 

If he fails to unite the party then he will lose to Hillary Clinton.  Georgia, a solid red state and my home, is in play now with Trump and Hillary in a dead heat.  Same can be said for Mississippi, Utah and Arizona.  Virginia and NC are purple states that would turn solid blue if Trump is the nominee and he has not repaired the damage within the party.

On one point...no...I'm in Arizona...the people are completely pissed at the party for letting Cruz try and steel the delegates...I have already talked to the staff at both McCain and Flakes offices...McCain came around almost immediately...Flake will soon...they are running scared with the number of voters Trump brought out...AZ is still and will continue to be RED...

[GuerrillaUnReal]

On one point...no...I'm in Arizona...the people are completely pissed at the party for letting Cruz try and steel the delegates...I have already talked to the staff at both McCain and Flakes offices...McCain came around almost immediately...Flake will soon...they are running scared with the number of voters Trump brought out...AZ is still and will continue to be RED...

Speaking of which, my entire family including a couple people who are just left of Lenin registered Republican for the first time ever this year for the primaries.

[chefist]

I'm afraid the worst damage will come from the Bushs.  They got the biggest of the butt hurts and (may be) willing to sacrifice the party to appease their spite.  Ya think they're gonna 'bush whack' Trump?   I hope I'm just over thinking this.

The Bush brand is completely tarnished...no one wants to use them as a reference...Romney the same way...having them denounce Trump drives more independents and on the fence Dems to Trump...WINNING!

[136 or 142]

You can't even get that right.

It was a quote from Bob Dylan answering a reporter's questions.

http://www.alternet.org/story/26035/how_bob_dylan_beat_the_press

Yes, I'm well aware of that. When asked about what my nickname refers to, I've given the correct response a few times already.  I was just making fun of your comment by giving a false reply.

[aldousburbank]

Speaking of which, my entire family including a couple people who are just left of Lenin Lennon registered Republican for the first time ever this year for the primaries.

[chefist]

Speaking of which, my entire family including a couple people who are just left of Lenin registered Republican for the first time ever this year for the primaries.

Good point...all the Republicans had to do for many years was switch on a couple of issues and they would have peeled off more than enough votes from the independents and Dems...Trump figured that out...if any old guard runs independent, they will be at the level of Anderson in 1980...

[starrmtn001]

How do you foresee that happening?

I don't.  Was just having a mild panic attack while 'what if'n'.   I'm not nearly as good as most folks here at political banter.

I'm going back to my blanket fort now.

[starrmtn001]

by bush wack you mean what happened to JFK in dallas right?

Yes.

[starrmtn001]

The Bush brand is completely tarnished...no one wants to use them as a reference...Romney the same way...having them denounce Trump drives more independents and on the fence Dems to Trump...WINNING!

I'm glad you brought that up, Chefist.

[popple]

President Trump...get used to it...

Followed by 1st Madam POTUS Ivanka?