Trump Foreign Policy

[knapplc]

The thing is, with NATO as well as with TPP, NAFTA, his border wall, etc, Trump makes unrealistic demands without any pretense of reality.  To wit:

 

 

 

And we know this is BS because...

 

 

 

There can be no pretense that NATO member nations "owe" the United States 4% of their GDP for defense spending when we don't spend that much ourselves. 

 

Trump is either showing off for his buddy Putin or acting directly at Putin's request to drive a wedge between the allies. 

 

 

But there was "no collusion."
 

[commando]

Russian state tv.   

 

 

[knapplc]

2 minutes ago, commando said:

Russian state tv.   

 

 

 

A patriot, upon seeing the glee this gives our enemies, would immediately check his behavior and - at the very least - keep inflammatory comments like this private.

 

So let's see how publicly Trump comes out against NATO over the next several days after his aides inform him how his actions are being received in Russia.

[knapplc]

 

 

Here's Tapper's thread condensed by a bot. 

 

 

Quote

 

1/ Some NATO facts:

In 2006, the NATO spox announced "Allies through the comprehensive political guidance have committed to endeavour, to meet the 2% target of GDP devoted to defense spending. Let me be clear, this is not a hard commitment..."

nato.int/docu/speech/20…

2/ In 2014, NATO members committed to "aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade..." so by 2024

nato.int/cps/ic/natohq/…

3/ As of now, only 5 countries of the 29 NATO members -- US, UK, Greece, Estonia, & Latvia -- have met or are expected to meet that threshold, per NATO.

Poland, Lithuania, Romania, France, & Turkey are at 1.6% of GDP or higher.

nato.int/nato_static_fl…

4/ So that's the 2% of GDP issue. There is also the issue of the NATO budget -- including direct funding and indirect funding.

nato.int/cps/en/natohq/…

5/ INDIRECT funding has to do with individual operations -- voluntary contributions for specific efforts. Per NATO: "Today, the volume of the US defence expenditure effectively represents some 67 per cent of the defence spending of the Alliance as a whole in real terms..."

 

6/ NATO notes this does not mean the US "covers 67 per cent of the costs involved in the operational running of NATO as an organisation...but it does mean that there is an over-reliance by the Alliance as a whole" on US for essential capabilities such as intel or missile defense.

 

7/ In terms of the DIRECT funding, the US per an agreed-upon formula, shoulders 22% of the budget, with Germany handling 14%, the UK handling 10%, etc.

 

8/ POTUS today said the following: “Many countries are not paying what they should, and, frankly, many countries owe us a tremendous amount of money from many years back. They’re delinquent, as far as I’m concerned, because the United States has had to pay for them.”

 

9/ The president's statement about other countries owing the U.S. money from years back doesn't fit with these established facts.

###

 

 

[commando]

so....trumpy bear doesn't get his peace prize.   putin will make it right

 

[schriznoeder]

 

[TGHusker]

1 hour ago, funhusker said:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/07/trump-putin-russia-collusion.html

This is a pretty 'damming article'.  The evidence 'is hiding in plain sight'.   Sometimes the answer is the obvious that we refuse to believe because it is totally set against our expectations, experience, or imagination.  Flying airplanes into the Twin Towers was a shock primarily because it was outside the whelm of what we thought humans would consider or imagine in a way of terror.  A car bomb -yes.  We understood that as an act of terrorism and a possible on going activity of a terror group.  In the same way, we would never in our imagination believe a presidential candidate to be so thoroughly compromised that he could and would become the Manchurian President.  If this article is proves to be true, that is exactly what has happened.  There are too many 'coincidences' for this to be a wild conspiracy theory.  Trump's own actions in office and even actions today alone give this article strong credibility.  Time will tell.  I'm book marking this article and see where we are in 2 years.  In the meantime, I hope Mueller has body guards.   Who knows what Trump's friends may do to keep him in power.

 

This is a very long article but worth the read.  Below are just a few quotes of interest:

 

From your posted article comes this section:  The event this quote speak of is from 1987 - yet it sounds like literally today- Trump at NATO.  It sure seems like he is the Manchurian candidate (President) doing the Russian bidding of driving a wedge between the USA and its allies.

 

Quote

 

Trump returned (1987) from Moscow fired up with political ambition. He began the first of a long series of presidential flirtations, which included a flashy trip to New Hampshire. Two months after his Moscow visit, Trump spent almost $100,000 on a series of full-page newspaper ads that published a political manifesto. “An open letter from Donald J. Trump on why America should stop paying to defend countries that can afford to defend themselves,” as Trump labeled it, launched angry populist charges against the allies that benefited from the umbrella of American military protection. “Why are these nations not paying the United States for the human lives and billions of dollars we are losing to protect their interests?”

Trump’s letter avoided the question of whom the U.S. was protecting those countries from. The primary answer, of course, was the Soviet Union. After World War II, the U.S. had created a liberal international order and underwritten its safety by maintaining the world’s strongest military. A central goal of Soviet, and later Russian, foreign policy was to split the U.S. from its allies. 

The safest assumption is that it’s entirely coincidental that Trump launched a national campaign, with himself as spokesman, built around themes that dovetailed closely with Soviet foreign-policy goals shortly after his Moscow stay. Indeed, it seems slightly insane to contemplate the possibility that a secret relationship between Trump and Russia dates back this far. But it can’t be dismissed completely. How do you even think about the small but real chance — 10 percent? 20 percent? — that the president of the United States has been covertly influenced or personally compromised by a hostile foreign power for decades?

 

This section is particularly damming and increases the likelihood that Trump is a puppet on a string.  His actions in office makes sense if this is true:

 

Quote

 

Russian intelligence gains influence in foreign countries by operating subtly and patiently. It exerts different gradations of leverage over different kinds of people, and uses a basic tool kit of blackmail that involves the exploitation of greed, stupidity, ego, and sexual appetite. All of which are traits Trump has in abundance.

Throughout his career, Trump has always felt comfortable operating at or beyond the ethical boundaries that constrain typical businesses. In the 1980s, he worked with La Cosa Nostra, which controlled the New York cement trade, and later employed Michael Cohen and Felix Sater, both of whom have links to the Russian Mafia. Trump habitually refused to pay his counterparties, and if the people he burned (or any journalists) got in his way, he bullied them with threats. Trump also reportedly circulated at parties for wealthy men featuring cocaine and underage girls.

One might think this notoriety immunizes Trump from blackmail. Curiously, however, Trump’s tolerance for risk has always been matched by careful control over information. He maintains a fanatical secrecy about his finances and has paid out numerous settlements to silence women. The combination of a penchant for compromising behavior, a willingness to work closely with criminals, and a desire to protect aspects of his privacy makes him the ideal blackmail target.

It is not difficult to imagine that Russia quickly had something on Trump, from either exploits during his 1987 visit or any subsequent embarrassing behavior KGB assets might have uncovered. But the other leverage Russia enjoyed over Trump for at least 15 years is indisputable — in fact, his family has admitted to it multiple times. After a series of financial reversals and his brazen abuse of bankruptcy laws, Trump found it impossible to borrow from American banks and grew heavily reliant on unconventional sources of capital. Russian cash proved his salvation. From 2003 to 2017, people from the former USSR made 86 all-cash purchases — a red flag of potential money laundering — of Trump properties, totaling $109 million. In 2010, the private-wealth division of Deutsche Bank also loaned him hundreds of millions of dollars during the same period it was laundering billions in Russian money. “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets,” said Donald Jr. in 2008. “We don’t rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia,” boasted Eric Trump in 2014.

 

Republican party isn't innocent either.  More interested in winning than cooperation wt Obama against Russian hacking.  The bold below is particularly enlightening and alarming.

 

 

Quote

 

“After” could be optimistic. The logic of Russia’s role in helping Trump has not changed since the election. If Trump’s campaign hired hackers to penetrate his opponent’s communications or voting machines, they would risk arrest. But Putin can hire hackers with impunity. Mueller can indict Russians, and he has, but he can’t arrest them unless they decide to leave Russia. Outsourcing Trump’s hacking work to Putin made perfect sense for both men in 2016, and still does.

And if you’re Putin, embarking upon a coveted summit with the most Russophilic president since World War II, who is taking a crowbar to the alliance of your enemies, why wouldn’t you help him in 2018 and 2020? Ever since the fall of 2016, when Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell privately turned down an Obama-administration proposal for a bipartisan warning to Russia not to interfere in the election, the underlying dynamic has been set: Most Republicans would rather win an election with Putin’s help than lose one without it. The Democrats, brimming with rage, threaten to investigate Russian activity if they win a chamber of Congress this November. For Putin to redouble his attack — by hacking into voting machines or some other method — would be both strategic and in keeping with his personality. Why stop now?

Meanwhile, the White House has eliminated its top cybersecurity position. That might simply reflect a Republican bias against bureaucratic expertise. But it might also be just what it looks like: The cop on the beat is being fired because his boss is in cahoots with the crooks.

 

 

Quote

Shortly before Trump’s inauguration, according to Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman, Israeli intelligence officials gathered at CIA headquarters, where they were told something astonishing: Russia, the agency believed, had “leverages of pressure” over the incoming president. Therefore, the agency advised the Israelis to consider the possibility that Trump might pass their secrets on to Russia. The Israelis dismissed the warning as outlandish. Who could believe that the world’s most powerful country was about to hand its presidency to a Russian dupe? That the United States government had, essentially, fallen?

A few months later, Trump invited Russian diplomats into the Oval Office. He boasted to them that he had fired “nut job” James Comey. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.” At the same meeting, Trump passed on to the Russians a highly sensitive intelligence secret Israel had captured from a valuable source inside ISIS. It was the precise danger Israel had been cautioned about.

Like many of the suspicious facts surrounding Trump’s relations with Russia, it was possible to construct a semi-innocent defense. Maybe he just likes to brag about what he knows. Maybe he’s just too doddering to remember what’s a secret. And as often happens, these unwieldy explanations gained general acceptance. It seemed just too crazy to consider the alternative: It was all exactly what it appeared to be.

 

 

[knapplc]

Welcome to (perhaps) fractured relations within the NATO alliance.

 

God bless the Trump supporters who would rather have a little more cash than staunch allies.  Who needs allies, amirite?

 

 

[Moiraine]

20 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Welcome to (perhaps) fractured relations within the NATO alliance.

 

God bless the Trump supporters who would rather have a little more cash than staunch allies.  Who needs allies, amirite?

 

 

 

 

 

His meeting with Putin will be the best meeting of all the meetings. Who would think?

[VectorVictor]

22 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Here's the big question.  Right now, consumer confidence and manufacturing confidence is way up.  That's keeping the economy going along pretty well.  How long until those start to dive?

 

The tariffs are already hitting folks hard, and the only reason the economy is doing well at the Wall Street level is primarily because of all of the companies buying back their stock...kind of like they know something we don't about what's going to happen in the near future, fiscally-speaking. 

 

In short, I would be shocked if we don't see a significant dive by this September or October (2018). 

[knapplc]

14 minutes ago, VectorVictor said:

In short, I would be shocked if we don't see a significant dive by this September or October (2018). 

 

They're going to prop up the farmers with subsidies.  Anything to keep the masses from rioting before the mid-terms.

 

 

[HuskerNBigD]

24 minutes ago, VectorVictor said:

 

The tariffs are already hitting folks hard, and the only reason the economy is doing well at the Wall Street level is primarily because of all of the companies buying back their stock...kind of like they know something we don't about what's going to happen in the near future, fiscally-speaking. 

 

In short, I would be shocked if we don't see a significant dive by this September or October (2018). 

 

Why would a company buy back stock if those shares were just going to nose-dive in September or October? Why wouldn't they just wait till then to buy back stock and reduce the price paid for the outstanding shares? Companies are buying back stock if they think it is undervalued.... or if they don't have any projects with positive NAV to put cash to use.

 

I don't necessarily disagree that the tariffs are already hit folks, I think it is absolutely ridiculous that Trump is getting us into this mess, but I don't think you fully understand how share buy-backs work. Not to mention, top and bottom line earnings were record setting in Q1 and there have been several revisions upward for Q2 earnings to be just as strong. Some of this was due to the tax overhaul, but companies are still doing well "at the Wall Street level" regardless of their share buybacks. If anything, buybacks are a hit on the financial statements.

[Moiraine]

13 minutes ago, knapplc said:

They're going to prop up the farmers with subsidies.  Anything to keep the masses from rioting before the mid-terms.

 

i.e. we're all going to pay for it. Not just his precious supporters.

[BigRedBuster]

30 minutes ago, VectorVictor said:

 

The tariffs are already hitting folks hard, and the only reason the economy is doing well at the Wall Street level is primarily because of all of the companies buying back their stock...kind of like they know something we don't about what's going to happen in the near future, fiscally-speaking. 

 

In short, I would be shocked if we don't see a significant dive by this September or October (2018). 

 

The tariffs are hitting some people hard.  Examples are the ones that need to buy imported aluminum and steel.  Farmers aren't being hit hard yet with the nose dive of commodity prices because the crops are still in the field.  Some have already forward sold their crops before the nose dive.  The rest won't feel the pain till they actually sell their crops this winter.

 

The economy actually is doing very well and it's not just at the Wall Street level.  This good economy started building about 8-9 years ago.  We have seen it continue over 18 months of the Trump administration.  The fear is that what he is doing with tariffs and trade will eventually destroy what has been building.

 

9 minutes ago, HuskerNBigD said:

 

I don't think you quite understand the rationale around stock buy-backs.

 

Why would a company buy back stock if those shares were just going to nose-dive in September or October? Why wouldn't they just wait till then to buy back stock? Companies are buying back stock if they think it is undervalued.... or if they don't have any projects with positive NAV to put cash to use.

 

Companies buy back stock for a few different reasons.  You bring up some good points in that they usually do it when they feel the stock is undervalued and have extra cash.  

 

Consider it like paying down a line of credit.  If they have a big project in the future or need to raise capital because of hard times, they need to have stock to sell.  So, many companies will buy back stocks in times like this so they have the reserve of stocks to sell in the future.  Hopefully, they buy them back at a relatively cheap price.

 

I'm not as outraged about the stock buybacks as some because I look at it as a normal financial transaction companies use to secure their ability to raise capital when needed.  We are also seeing wages rise due to the tight labor market.

19 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

They're going to prop up the farmers with subsidies.  Anything to keep the masses from rioting before the mid-terms.

 

 

You gotta love Republican's fiscal conservatism....don't ya???

[BigRedBuster]

FYI....I really hate the programing on this site that automatically lumps posts together when sometimes you don't want them to be.