Trump - 4 more years of this at least...

[sugilite:Me]

The orange cockwomble is also saying zelenski is a dictator, while he himself is faithfully following the Hungarian model pathway to dictatorship.
Saw a moment of fox's hanity interview with cockwomble trump and cockwomble musk and the first words out of musks mouth was an abject lie saying the two astronauts were stranded on the space station for political reasons - no matter an interview with the astronauts in question both saying that was not the case. musk proves over, and over again why he is the last person that should be running doge. I'm all for governments cutting out fraud and wasteful spending, but musk is just looking after his own interests as he lies, and lies and lies again to the amercican idiots that voted for trump.

Anyone who cannot clearly see trump is a russian asset and has been since 2016 is truly deluding themselves, one might say they are the heathen lords of delusional thinking.

[Pursang]

[nerrrd]

The orange cockwomble is also saying zelenski is a dictator, while he himself is faithfully following the Hungarian model pathway to dictatorship.
Saw a moment of fox's hanity interview with cockwomble trump and cockwomble musk and the first words out of musks mouth was an abject lie saying the two astronauts were stranded on the space station for political reasons - no matter an interview with the astronauts in question both saying that was not the case. musk proves over, and over again why he is the last person that should be running doge. I'm all for governments cutting out fraud and wasteful spending, but musk is just looking after his own interests as he lies, and lies and lies again to the amercican idiots that voted for trump.

Anyone who cannot clearly see trump is a russian asset and has been since 2016 is truly deluding themselves, one might say they are the heathen lords of delusional thinking.

He may be an asset to Russia, but that doesn't necessarily make him a Russian asset. Also not sure how the US abandoning Ukraine and leaving NATO is a good thing for Putin, in the long run he's going to have to deal with European states building their own deterrents as quickly as they can right on his doorstep. And the best deterrent (given the Ukraine experience) will be nuclear weapons.

So in the long run the US will have less global influence and Putin will potentially have more nukes on his borders. Meanwhile having the US dollar as the world's reserve currency is going to look less and less desirable.

[sugilite:Me]

He may be an asset to Russia, but that doesn't necessarily make him a Russian asset.

I mean it in the broad sense that his actions help russia more often than not. putin will be creaming his pants that the orange buffoon is parroting his assertions that the Ukraine started the war and Zelenski is a dictator.

Also not sure how the US abandoning Ukraine and leaving NATO is a good thing for Putin, in the long run he's going to have to deal with European states building their own deterrents as quickly as they can right on his doorstep. And the best deterrent (given the Ukraine experience) will be nuclear weapons.

Not sure that it is cut and dried as that. I feel Russia would always welcome the most powerful partner to leave the alliance. The euro countries are from from united and as yet have not really offered up anything to concern putin, and there is musk doing his best to get the far right elected in Germany which would also throw a spanner in the works of a unified European response.

So in the long run the US will have less global influence and Putin will potentially have more nukes on his borders. Meanwhile having the US dollar as the world's reserve currency is going to look less and less desirable.

Definitely agree Russia may well end up with more nukes on it's doorstep, and trump is certainly determined to piss away the hard earned us soft power and will likely kill the us economy - inflation is already on the rise there. Bricks is only gathering pace so we will see where that ends up I guess.

[sugilite:Me]

While you are at it please point out similar actions that Harris took

I'm doing a great job of no peeking, but on occasion see his responses in quotes. I would bet the bank he conveniently did not respond to this part of the request from you.

[nerrrd]

Not sure that it is cut and dried as that. I feel Russia would always welcome the most powerful partner to leave the alliance. The euro countries are from from united and as yet have not really offered up anything to concern putin, and there is musk doing his best to get the far right elected in Germany which would also throw a spanner in the works of a unified European response.

If the EU breaks up and there's a return to European nationalism, that's going to be an even bigger can of worms for Putin, he's proved that the contemporary Red Army is less than effective except when fighting an opponent with one hand (and possibly one foot) tied behind their back.

[sugilite:Me]

If the EU breaks up and there's a return to European nationalism, that's going to be an even bigger can of worms for Putin, he's proved that the contemporary Red Army is less than effective except when fighting an opponent with one hand (and possibly one foot) tied behind their back.

100% agree

[TheDemonLord]

Where's the resident Trump apologist to tell us he's correct ?

It is funny how almost all the news outlets cut the speech at the exact same point and omit the following statements.

I disagree with Trump on his phrasing of this aspect.

However - one look at European history will show many times there have been buffer states between 2 great powers. Whilst people say that it is a Russian narrative - The expansion of NATO is something that Russia has a right to have legitimate concern over.

To say unilaterally that there is no Russian perspective on this issue or to disregard it entirely is folly.

The cut part of the speech though is what I find more interesting - What is Trumps concern: The loss of Human Life.

It seems to me that Trump is setting the stage to allow Putin to save face.

[TheDemonLord]

I mean it in the broad sense that his actions help russia more often than not.

Do you remember the time that Trump warned European countries repeatedly that they are not spending the mandatory minimums on their defense budgets

Or the Time that he was laughed at by the EU for warning them against their reliance on Russian Gas.

Or the Time that he said that they should invest in Nuclear Energy.

I suspect that Trump wants Russia to be successful, so that it does not feel insecure and intimidated and prone to lashing out.

In the same breath - his warnings to the European countries fell on deaf ears, which set the stage for Russia to do exactly what they did.

[pritch]

He may be an asset to Russia, but that doesn't necessarily make him a Russian asset.

Trump was basically broke then made a miraculous recovery financed by Russian money. Eric said it out loud, we get all the money we need out of Russia. Even the most generous interpretation makes him indebted to Russia. My interpretation is not so generous. I believe it quite possible that he's basically the front man for a Russian money laundering operation. He absolutely is a Russian asset.

[pritch]

Americans like to throw the term 'constitutional crisis' around quite freely. Currently it seems they have a full blown constitutional crisis in progress but nobody much is talking about it.

The American system of government consists of three co equal branches each providing checks and balances to the others. Congress alone has the power over the money. If Congress has approved expenditure the president does not have the authority to interfere with it. What Trump is doing cancelling funding to departments, to research universtties, to USAID programmes, and whatever else is completely illegal. The recourse is to take him to court. That has been done and the courts have ordered him stop what he's doing and to reinstate funding. He is ignoring the court orders.

And that right there is a constitutional crisis.

[TheDemonLord]

Americans like to throw the term 'constitutional crisis' around quite freely. Currently it seems they have a full blown constitutional crisis in progress but nobody much is talking about it.

The American system of government consists of three co equal branches each providing checks and balances to the others. Congress alone has the power over the money. If Congress has approved expenditure the president does not have the authority to interfere with it. What Trump is doing cancelling funding to departments, to research universtties, to USAID programmes, and whatever else is completely illegal. The recourse is to take him to court. That has been done and the courts have ordered him stop what he's doing and to reinstate funding. He is ignoring the court orders.

And that right there is a constitutional crisis.

This is not true:

From the US Constitution:

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

The Constitution says that the no money can be spent, without it being approved by Law. Note that this is under the section of Federal Powers, which means as head of the Executive Branch - The President cant spend money not approved by Congress.

However - some people (Democrats) have interpreted that this is true in the opposite direction, that funds approved by Congress have to be spent. A quick review of US history would show that numerous times this has not been the case.

There are some Mandatory expenditure that the President cannot interfere with (Social Security, for example) - but what is being targetted does not fall under that scope.

Congress approved a budget for a branch of the Executive, Trump, as the head of the Executive has choosen not to spend it.

I would also add that given the USA is spending more than it earns in tax revenue, the President has an obligation to cut spending as much as possible.

[pritch]

This is not true:

Apart from that quote you posted everything else was nonsense. Congress approves expenditure, the next bill is due to be approved in March. The president has no authority to interfere with Congressionally approved expenditure other than presumably refusing to sign the bill into law.

You say Trump can interfere with a Congressionally approved budget. The courts say he can't. Who to believe? Hmmmm.

[TheDemonLord]

Apart from that quote you posted everything else was nonsense. Congress approves expenditure, the next bill is due to be approved in March. The president has no authority to interfere with Congressionally approved expenditure other than presumably refusing to sign the bill into law.

You say Trump can interfere with a Congressionally approved budget. The courts say he can't. Who to believe? Hmmmm.

The Constitution.

President cant spend money not approved by Congress. Doesnt say that the President has to spend money approved by Congress.

With the sole exception of Mandatory Spending - which, thus far, Trump hasnt touched.

The existence of which proves my (and Trumps) view to be the correct one. If there is expenditure that is required by law to be spent, then any expenditure not considered Mandatory spending is not required to be spent and can be cut.

If it was protected by Law (as the Courts and Democrats claim) - it would be considered Mandatory spending - like Social Security, Medicare, Executive Salaries etc.

[nerrrd]

Do you remember the time that Trump warned European countries repeatedly that they are not spending the mandatory minimums on their defense budgets

Or the Time that he was laughed at by the EU for warning them against their reliance on Russian Gas.

Or the Time that he said that they should invest in Nuclear Energy.

I suspect that Trump wants Russia to be successful, so that it does not feel insecure and intimidated and prone to lashing out.

In the same breath - his warnings to the European countries fell on deaf ears, which set the stage for Russia to do exactly what they did.

Ironically a weakened Europe (militarily) is the direct result of US foreign policy (particularly in the case of the then West Germany) – the US security guarantee was part of the reconstruction plan for Europe after WWII and had the added bonus of providing the US with a buffer against the growing influence of the Soviet Union and a whole bunch of ready-made allies to legitimise its other military excursions.

That the US didn't alter the terms of that deal after the fall of the Soviet Union isn't the Europeans' fault. President Trump blaming them for not spending enough on defence when not re-arming Europe and projecting US power was the original idea of NATO is a bit rich, he should be blaming all the other Presidents from the 1990s onwards (including himself).

Next step will be the US withdrawing its troops, closing its bases and repatriating its nuclear ordinance, while Putin watches on from Kyiv. What a strange world we now live in.