Trump/Putin disaster summit. And also overseas visit w/ NATO & UK.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Trump is 100% right on the fact that all NATO countries must pay 2% of gdp on defense.

2% was a ten-year target agreed to in 2014.


Maybe NATO members should conspire with Russia against American interests? Then Trump would be all in favor of paying their defense costs.

It was a recommendation set in 2002, not 2014, in response to deep cuts in defense spending by European countries in the 90s after the Cold War. (not that some cutting wasn't justified, but the depth of the cuts led to legitimate concerns that NATO could not continue as a serious military alliance if some members basically abandoned their defense capabilities)

The recommendation may stem from 2002, but the 10-year pledge to work toward it was made at the NATO summit at Newport, Wales, in September 2014.

[GeorgiaModerate]

The recommendation may stem from 2002, but the 10-year pledge to work toward it was made at the NATO summit at Newport, Wales, in September 2014.

That only happened because European countries dragged their feet after the "recommendation" (let's be serious, a "recommendation" when it comes to defense is not really optional - you either have to do it or openly decline and face the consequences) and many countries actually lowered defense spending since 2002.

"Recommendation" was your wording in the post I quoted.  I don't have a problem with all NATO countries spending 2% of their GDP on defense (although this may be difficult to implement and/or an inefficient use of resources; see for example http://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/59173).  But given that there was a pledge in 2014 to work toward it over 10 years, calling for it to happen immediately is moving the goalposts. 

[GeorgiaModerate]

At this point I consider many EU countries to be acting like freeloaders .

Im so confused, what threat is there to the NATO nations that they have to spend so much?
There is no military threat to the EU/NATO nations. Russia is not stupid enough to invade a NATO nation, and China is more of a partner than an enemy. Even if there was some enemy that they were facing, the military of the European NATO nations is more powerful than any other nation. The problem is that 2% is not a good standard, as nations have different needs and desires. Can Germany afford it? Yes. Can Greece afford it? No.

Its also important to note that many of these nations have other problems facing them. The West has high unemployment, the East is dealing with reactionary problems and is still effected by the refugee crisis. Why would these nations spend money on building some extra fighter jets and bloating their military complex(ahem, USA), when they can fix their domestic issues?

The reason for a large military budget back in the 70s and 80s was to combat an actual enemy, the USSR. With it gone, what threat is there?

Don't confuse cause and effect.  Russia has historically been unlikely to attack any NATO country precisely because NATO has been a solid alliance firmly supported by the U.S.  If the alliance is weakened, that deterrent will be lessened, and it is quite plausible that Russia could try to make moves against the Baltic countries, for example.  Russia is indeed a strong power and a potential threat.  (Disclaimer: as a child of the Cold War, I grew up highly suspicious of the USSR and post-Soviet Russia, except perhaps for a brief period under Yeltsin.  But I still don't trust them.)

[GeorgiaModerate]

Destroying century long alliances.

Good job Republicans.

I wonder what Ronald Reagan would do if he were back from the dead, and he found out that the Republican party were a puppet of Russia and working to destroy NATO and the liberal democratic international order? He would be enraged to say the least.

Reagan is probably turning over in his grave over what the Republican party has turned into.

[GeorgiaModerate]

I was at the protest in London, it was awesome and lovely. Trump has actually united Remainers & Brexiteers in their hatred of him. Amazing. I still can't believe the President of the United States was triggered by a small balloon.

They're saying 250,000 were there, I have no idea where that came from, it seemed more like 60k-100k. The placards were epic.

On behalf of the United States of America, thank you for participating in the protest against trump. 60k-100k people, in a foreign country (outside the US) is a huge number.
The Orange Slug deserved "the welcome" that you and London gave him.

Real nice. Maybe the next time they need help we'll sit back and watch them do it alone.

Do remember that the only time NATO collective defense was after 9/11.

Don't confuse him with facts.

[GeorgiaModerate]

He is staying literally 150 meters from where I live.

What's the general attitude in Helsinki about this meeting?

[GeorgiaModerate]

Good grief, what an embarrassment.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Whether one believes in the collusion theory or not, it’s utterly unconscionable for the Commander in Chief to elevate the words of a former KGB goon and autocrat to an equal footing with our intelligence agencies who defend this country.

It's not even an equal footing.  He's taking Putin's word ahead of that of the U.S. intel agencies, and also the Senate Intel committee.

[GeorgiaModerate]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Flake and Corker could shutdown the entire senate if they wanted to. Hell, they can even derail Trump's SC nominee if they wanted to.

Spoiler: they won't.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Another one from Joe Walsh:

https://twitter.com/WalshFreedom/status/1018891221425704960

[GeorgiaModerate]

Former RNC chairman:

https://twitter.com/MichaelSteele/status/1018889857337307138

[GeorgiaModerate]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I hope we find out the details of what exactly was said in their one-on-one, private meeting between Traitor-In-Chief and his boss Putin.

https://twitter.com/matthewamiller/status/1018821584319066112

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/1018905502795878401

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1018889984667889664

[GeorgiaModerate]

Republicans in Congress and their voters alike now have to make a choice.

They either stand with someone now evidenced to have interests which are not at all in line with our republic but are instead in line with Vladimir Putin.  Or they denounce Trump as powerfully as they can.

There is no middle ground anymore.  That you dislike him personally but like his policies is no longer relevant.  To continue to support this man is to actively and knowingly work against the United States.

They dont care. They want that SCOTUS

Pence would nominate judges that were just as conservative, if not more so.

I've held off on the question of impeachment pending the results of Mueller's investigations, but now I think we've reached a tipping point.  Trump needs to go.  Pence has plenty of bad qualities, but he's not a traitor.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Drudge Report: 'Putin dominates' Trump in Helsinki

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/397257-drudge-report-putin-dominates-trump-in-helsinki

[GeorgiaModerate]

Wow...Hurd is basically calling Trump a Russian asset here:

https://twitter.com/HurdOnTheHill/status/1018931248457306115

[GeorgiaModerate]

Every person who voted for Trump in 2016 and still supports him today despite this event is now a traitor to the country.

lol

Yeah, that's quite hyperbolic. The truth is that the blue avatars are vapid, useful idiots... but not traitors.

Agreed. Honestly even though I’m as outraged as he is I’m close to putting Special k on ignore

I'm dismayed by Trump's performance today, and Trump isn't being as firm towards Russia as he should be, but accusing him (and tens of millions of Americans) of treason over this is ridiculous. We are not at war with Russia.

You don't have to be officially "at war" with another nation (like Russia) in order to commit treason.

Treason as defined by the Constitution:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

There's a conjunction "or" in the first sentence.  This would fall under the second part, if Russia is an enemy of the United States.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Newt!

https://twitter.com/newtgingrich/status/1018967261418344450

[GeorgiaModerate]

The summit prompted an Ohio GOP county chairman to resign:

https://twitter.com/cgagin/status/1018965201364901899

[GeorgiaModerate]

All of this putting people on ignore is pretty silly.  Man up, people!

“Man up” is a sexist expression and you should be ashamed of yourself. On my ignore list you go, patriarchal pig.

"Pig" is a demeaning insult.  I'll ignore you too.

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/amandacarpenter/status/1018999837046525953

[GeorgiaModerate]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Colbert: “We know where the server is. He’s standing right next to the master"

Now that's a burn.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Never trump means NEVER.

Not in my view it doesn't. Only hard-line ideological extremists (such as many of the users on this website) would adhere to such a stance.

I'm sorry, but how is that? If you support the president 50% of the time, you are not a "Never Trump" voter, because you sometimes vote for him. "Never Trump" implies total opposition. That's not extremism; that's what the word "never" means.

#NeverTrump referred to the Republicans who refused to vote for Trump in the 2016 general election.  It didn't imply that the voters in question weren't going to vote GOP for other offices that same year, or that they'd abandon various GOP platform planks simply because Trump agreed with them on this or that issue.

Whether the hashtag in question still has meaning now that the election is over is something that I guess one could debate.  But it was never intended to imply that the user of the hashtag was going to disagree with Trump on every issue, just that they would never vote for him for president.

Fair enough, I guess. I do wonder how someone could feel that strongly that Trump should never be president (or that they couldn't in good conscience vote to make him president), and not feel similarly bound to oppose him after the inauguration—but perhaps that's because I'm not a Republican.

Mainly cause we believe that someone with Trump’s behavior and temperament should not be President.



Also The 2 issues we mainly disagree with Trump on (Tarrifs and Russia) is something most Republicans in Congress oppose him but really can’t do much to stop him due to how powerful the modern presidency has become . The third issue we disagree on him (Immigration) the Republicans in Congress did stop him as they didn’t fund the Wall or pass his immigration plan and really limited Trump to overturning executive orders on that issue.

This, I believe, is a key to the problem.  The Presidency has become increasingly powerful in recent decades.  It's been a worrying trend long before Trump, but at least with previous Presidents you could count on them being reasonable men with the country's best interests at heart (although their view of what was in the country's interests might be quite different than yours).  With Trump, the too-powerful Presidency is in the hands of an ill-informed and irresponsible egomaniac who's only out for himself.  Max Boot, the conservative columnist, summed this up well:

https://twitter.com/MaxBoot/status/1020375736736247808

We can only hope that one result of the wreckage of Trump's Presidency will be Congress finally starting to rein in the powers of the Executive Branch.