Merged 2024 Election Thread

[Hercules56]

I didn’t say it was. I said he didn’t come up with it. Which is true.



You can’t change what he actually said into something else, and then claim it’s a lie on the basis that what you changed it into isn’t correct. And you lied about what he said, so you aren’t in a position to complain about dishonesty.

Trump described it as if there is a specific amount of money required from each NATO members and they are refusing to pay what's required of them:

No, I would not protect you,” Trump recalled telling that president. “In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You got to pay. You got to pay your bills.”

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/10/politics/trump-russia-nato/index.html

https://apnews.com/article/trump-nato-foreign-aid-russia-2b8054a9fe185eec34c2c541cece655d

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/12/factchecking-trumps-nato-remarks/

Why are you defending his dishonest bull ******?

 

[Hercules56]

Wrong again. Trump didn't come up with that funding target.

Trump calls it an obligation, a bill. Not simply a target.

And those who fail to meet the target are "delinquent", according to his lies.

That's why he is a liar.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Trump is a liar, because lying is part of his MO that he learned since he was a child.
He will always exaggerate and confabulate, even when the unvarnished truth would serve him better.

 

[Hercules56]

Trump is a liar, because lying is part of his MO that he learned since he was a child.
He will always exaggerate and confabulate, even when the unvarnished truth would serve him better.

Its not just lies, its propaganda. Soviet/Nazi style.

Why would anyone defend that?

His propaganda will be used to justify leaving NATO and possibly also encouraging Russia to complete their destruction of Ukraine and invade more nations. Why would anyone defend this?

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

This Israel-Gaza thing is sure taking time. It does not need to be a huge win, but Biden must get something out of this soon. Otherwise it will just be hanging there for more months. "Ineffective old man fiddles with Israel peace."

The only way he's going to get Netenyahu to listen, and that's not guaranteed, is to immediately stop all military aid* to Israel and to inform the US' allies there'll be a blockade of military equipment imposed on the country.

*Including pulling the kill switches on all equipment in the country.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The only way he's going to get Netenyahu to listen, and that's not guaranteed, is to immediately stop all military aid* to Israel and to inform the US' allies there'll be a blockade of military equipment imposed on the country.

*Including pulling the kill switches on all equipment in the country.

The only way is to get rid of Netanyahu.

the reception of Benny Gantz in the White House with as much fanfare as is appropriate for a not-head of state is a clear signal that Biden would much rather have him run Israel than the person who got Israel, and now Gaza, in this mess in the first place.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Somehow I doubt Trump has the ability, or would have as President, to derail the entire military staff officer pipeline, just to get his own people on the Joint Chiefs.

The members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and their deputies are appointed to 4-year terms, so a president who serves a full 4-year term will get to appoint all the members and their deputies. The president also appoints the commanders of the 11 unified combatant commands and nominates all officers promoted to 3- and 4-star ranks. Those appointed to 3- and 4-star ranks can be promoted from as low as a 1-star rank, so it is possible to leapfrog less senior generals/admirals into leadership positions. In addition, the president gets to select all officers appointed to a 2-star rank.

A president, at least one whose party has a majority in the Senate, therefore does have a considerable capacity to "get his own people" into all the important leadership positions in the military.

 

[theprestige]

the pentagon is ran by a bunch civilians appointed by the president

The Joint Chiefs are military officers. The commanders in each military branch are military officers. If the President tells the Secretary of Defense to tell the commander of the US Northern Command to send troops to Washington, D.C. to lock down Capitol Hill and prevent Congress from impeaching him...

... He still has to get General Guillot and General Roper on his side first. Or get them replaced with generals who will do what he wants. And probably the same for all the colonels, lieutenant colonels, majors, and captains. And most of the NCOs, too.

And the same principle holds for every department and agency of the civil and military services. The president can't just install a yes-man at the top of every department and expect that department and everyone in it to mindlessly fall in line. That's not how any of that works.

 

[dirtywick]

The Joint Chiefs are military officers. The commanders in each military branch are military officers. If the President tells the Secretary of Defense to tell the commander of the US Northern Command to send troops to Washington, D.C. to lock down Capitol Hill and prevent Congress from impeaching him...

... He still has to get General Guillot and General Roper on his side first. Or get them replaced with generals who will do what he wants. And probably the same for all the colonels, lieutenant colonels, majors, and captains. And most of the NCOs, too.

And the same principle holds for every department and agency of the civil and military services. The president can't just install a yes-man at the top of every department and expect that department and everyone in it to mindlessly fall in line. That's not how any of that works.

yeah i remember how they all stood up to him last time

 

[johnny karate]

The Joint Chiefs are military officers. The commanders in each military branch are military officers. If the President tells the Secretary of Defense to tell the commander of the US Northern Command to send troops to Washington, D.C. to lock down Capitol Hill and prevent Congress from impeaching him...

... He still has to get General Guillot and General Roper on his side first. Or get them replaced with generals who will do what he wants. And probably the same for all the colonels, lieutenant colonels, majors, and captains. And most of the NCOs, too.

And the same principle holds for every department and agency of the civil and military services. The president can't just install a yes-man at the top of every department and expect that department and everyone in it to mindlessly fall in line. That's not how any of that works.

You outline a rational reason why it wouldn’t work and then try to apply it to a dangerously irrational man. I’m not sure why you think that tracks.

 

[Ziggurat]

The members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and their deputies are appointed to 4-year terms, so a president who serves a full 4-year term will get to appoint all the members and their deputies.

Sure. But what's the pool for those potential appointees? Is it anyone Trump wants? No. It's people who have already spent a career in the military and have risen up through the ranks. Trump didn't plant them there 20 years ago so that they could become generals today. That's not how any of this works.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

The Joint Chiefs are military officers. The commanders in each military branch are military officers. If the President tells the Secretary of Defense to tell the commander of the US Northern Command to send troops to Washington, D.C. to lock down Capitol Hill and prevent Congress from impeaching him...

... He still has to get General Guillot and General Roper on his side first. Or get them replaced with generals who will do what he wants. And probably the same for all the colonels, lieutenant colonels, majors, and captains. And most of the NCOs, too.

You seem to be implying that it would take a large military force to shut down Congress. Why wouldn't a token force be sufficient? Who would resist? Certainly, the Capitol Police wouldn't engage in combat against military troops.

 

[Ziggurat]

Trump absolutely talks about NATO as though they are supposed to be paying the US to defend them.

That doesn't make any sense, given that the spending he's asking them for doesn't have to go to the US, and he's not asking for it to go to the US. In fact, it's rather the other way around: he wants the US to stop paying for the defense of everyone else, and he wants them to be able to defend themselves. Increased defense spending by other NATO countries means that they become LESS reliant upon the US and more able to defend themselves.

He may not mean that but that is sure as hell what it sounds like what he means.

Only if you don't know how defense spending works.

 

[Hercules56]

That doesn't make any sense, given that the spending he's asking them for doesn't have to go to the US, and he's not asking for it to go to the US. In fact, it's rather the other way around: he wants the US to stop paying for the defense of everyone else, and he wants them to be able to defend themselves. Increased defense spending by other NATO countries means that they become LESS reliant upon the US and more able to defend themselves.



Only if you don't know how defense spending works.

Yes but Trump is framing this all in a way that makes it look like these NATO members are actually not paying their bills and not paying what they are required to pay. And Trump is framing it in a way that makes it look like if they don't pay what they are required to pay NATO members are no longer obligated to defend them.


It is a disgusting treasonous lie, and pure propaganda from a man who wants to pull America out of their obligations to defend our allies from evil tyrants like Vladimir Putin.

 

[Ziggurat]

You seem to be implying that it would take a large military force to shut down Congress. Why wouldn't a token force be sufficient? Who would resist? Certainly, the Capitol Police wouldn't engage in combat against military troops.

You seem to be implying that a small group of the US military can seize the capitol without the rest of the military noticing what's going on and taking action against it. How exactly do you envision this playing out? Is this operation going to be planned in advance? Are all the soldiers involved, not just the leadership, going to be onboard with a coup? How are they going to maintain operational security during this planning? How will they know beforehand which soldiers are going to be up for a coup and which ones won't be? Or will troops just find out the day of? They'll be given an assignment to seize the capitol, with no prior notice that they're going to be the tip of the spear of a coup? And none of them are going to balk at killing fellow Americans on American soil unprovoked?

It's not gonna happen.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Sure. But what's the pool for those potential appointees? Is it anyone Trump wants? No. It's people who have already spent a career in the military and have risen up through the ranks. Trump didn't plant them there 20 years ago so that they could become generals today. That's not how any of this works.

Legally, a president can appoint any officer who is currently any rank of general or admiral to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and promote them to 4-star general or admiral (as long as the Senate approves). Do you think that Trump would not be able to find a loyal general from among, for instance, the 200+ generals in the Army, e.g., another Michael Flynn?

 

[theprestige]

The members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and their deputies are appointed to 4-year terms, so a president who serves a full 4-year term will get to appoint all the members and their deputies. The president also appoints the commanders of the 11 unified combatant commands and nominates all officers promoted to 3- and 4-star ranks. Those appointed to 3- and 4-star ranks can be promoted from as low as a 1-star rank, so it is possible to leapfrog less senior generals/admirals into leadership positions. In addition, the president gets to select all officers appointed to a 2-star rank.

A president, at least one whose party has a majority in the Senate, therefore does have a considerable capacity to "get his own people" into all the important leadership positions in the military.

Practically speaking, in four years he has to replace hundreds of generals, colonels, admirals, and (naval) captains, across all branches of service. And he has to replace them with educated men and women who made the military their career.

That's simply not practical. The armed forces would notice an attempted wholesale purge of their flag ranks and senior field ranks. And that's just not how the US military works.

And that's just the military. There's also the civil services, the Secret Service, the Capitol Police, etc. I think you're vastly underestimating the scope of what Trump would have to replace, just to get things to a point where he could actually unmake the US the way you fear.

 

[ahhell]

That doesn't make any sense, given that the spending he's asking them for doesn't have to go to the US, and he's not asking for it to go to the US. In fact, it's rather the other way around: he wants the US to stop paying for the defense of everyone else, and he wants them to be able to defend themselves. Increased defense spending by other NATO countries means that they become LESS reliant upon the US and more able to defend themselves.



Only if you don't know how defense spending works.

And you are right it doesn't make sense, but not much of what Trump says makes sense.

I agree, it absolutely sounds like Trump doesn't know how defense spending works, at least in relation to NATO.

“NATO was busted until I came along,” Trump said. “I said everybody’s going to pay. They said, ‘Well, if we don’t pay, are you still going to protect us?’ I said, ‘Absolutely not.’ They couldn’t believe the answer. And everybody, you never saw more money pour in.”

“One of the presidents of a big country stood up said, ‘Well, sir, if we don’t pay and we’re attacked by Russia will you protect us?'” Trump said. “I said, ‘You didn’t pay, you’re delinquent?’ He said, ‘Yes. Let’s say that happened.’ ‘No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You got to pay. You got to pay your bills. And the money came flowing in.”

“And that’s why they have money today because of what I did,” Trump said. “And then I hear that they like Obama better. They should like Obama better. You know why? Because he didn’t ask for anything. We were like the stupid country of the world and we’re not going to be the stupid country of the world any longer.”

I wasn't quite right, he seems to think that 2% spending requirement goes to NATO.

 

[Aridas]

Only if you don't know how defense spending works.

That many Americans don't understand a lot of things about government, including that, is sadly a safe bet. Hence, Trump talking about NATO like they're not paying their bills to us and a bunch of Americans misunderstanding because of that is a problem even if Trump understood.

That said, the bigger problem is that Trump's rhetoric, especially lately, is sorta obviously not about the spending in the first place. Trump is on Russia's side. He's made that plenty clear over and over and over. The spending thing is just a cheap excuse.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes but Trump is framing this all in a way that makes it look like these NATO members are actually not paying their bills and not paying what they are required to pay.

They aren't paying what they've promised to pay, they aren't carrying their weight in terms of capability. There's no enforcement mechanism within the alliance, but if that's the only thing you're hanging your hat on as criticism, well, he's not as wrong as you want to pretend. In fact, it's precisely because there's no enforcement mechanism within the alliance (which is a genuine weakness of the alliance, BTW) that Trump is trying to apply pressure this way. If there was an enforcement mechanism, we would already be using that instead.

It is a disgusting treasonous lie, and pure propaganda from a man who wants to pull America out of their obligations to defend our allies from evil tyrants like Vladimir Putin.

Here's the funny thing. The last thing Putin wants is for all the NATO members to meet those spending goals, because if they do, that means NATO is stronger and can more easily stand up to PUTIN. You don't like how Trump is trying to reach that goal, and it's not unreasonable to object to that. I'm definitely not arguing that this is the optimal approach. But the goal he's pushing really is to the alliance's benefit, and it's silly to call that treasonous. That's no less hyperbolic than Trump himself.